Posted by Dee Norris
skep·tic
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine.
I have been reading a lot of the debates that inevitably follow any MSM story on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). In this story at the NewScientist, one of the comments stood out as a vivid example of the polarization that has developed between the those of us who are skeptical of AGW and those of us who believe in AGW.
By Luke
Fri Sep 12 19:15:22 BST 2008
The difference in response between skeptics and scientists is easily explained as the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. Skeptics look for evidence to prove their conclusion and ignore any that does not fit what they believe. This makes it possible for them to believe in revealed religion and ignore anything that disputes it. I guess inductive reasoning can best be classified as deliberate ignorance. My condolences to practitioners of inductive thinking for your lack of logical ability. You don’t know what a pleasure it is to be able to think things through.
I was trained as a scientist from childhood. My parents recognized that I had a proclivity for the sciences from early childhood and encouraged me to explore the natural world. From this early start, I eventually went on to study Atmospheric Science back when global cooling was considered the big threat (actually the PDO had entered the warm phase several years earlier, but the scientific consensus had not caught up yet). One thing I learned along the way is that a good scientist is a skeptic. Good scientists examines things, they observe the world, then they try to explain why things behave as they do. Sometimes they get it right, somethings they don’t. Sometimes they get it as close as they can using the best available technologies.
I have been examining the drive to paint skeptics of AGW as non-scientists, as conservatives, as creationists and therefore as ignorant of the real science supporting AGW – ad hominem argument (against the man, rather than against his opinion or idea). Honestly, I have to admit that some skeptics are conservative, some do believe in creation and some lack the skills to fully appreciate the science behind AGW, then again I know agnostic liberals with a couple of college degrees who fully accept the theory of evolution and because they understand the science are skeptics of AGW. On the other hand, I have met a lot of AGW adherents who fully accept evolution, but have never read On The Origin of Species. Many of the outspoken believers in AGW are also dedicated foes of genetically modified organisms such as Golden Rice (which could prevent thousands of deaths due to Vitamin A deficiency in developing countries), yet they are unable to explain the significance of Gregor Mendel and the hybridization of the pea plant,
In his comment, Luke (the name has been changed to protect the innocent) attributes inductive reasoning to skeptics and deductive to scientists. Unfortunately, he has used inductive reasoning to draw general conclusions about skeptics based on his knowledge of a few individuals (or perhaps even none at all).
Skeptics are a necessary part of scientific discovery. We challenge the scientific consensus to create change. We examine the beliefs held by the consensus and express our doubts and questions. Skepticism prevents science from becoming morbid and frozen. Here are just a few of the more recent advances in science which initially challenged the consensus:
- The theory of continental drift was soundly rejected by most geologists until indisputable evidence and an acceptable mechanism was presented after 50 years of rejection.
- The theory of symbiogenesis was initially rejected by biologists but now generally accepted.
- the theory of punctuated equilibria is still debated but becoming more accepted in evolutionary theory.
- The theory of prions – the proteinaceous particles causing transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases such as Mad Cow Disease – was rejected because pathogenicity was believed to depend on nucleic acids now widely accepted due to accumulating evidence.
- The theory of Helicobacter pylori as the cause of stomach ulcers and was widely rejected by the medical community believing that no bacterium could survive for long in the acidic environment of the stomach.
As of today, the Global Warming Petition Project has collected over 31,000 signatures on paper from individuals with science-related college or advanced degrees who are skeptical of AGW. Someone needs to tell the AGW world that’s thirty-one thousand science-trained individuals who thought things through and became skeptics.
It was Cassandra who foretold the fall of mighty Troy using a gift of prophecy bestowed upon her by Apollo, Greek god of the Sun. So it would seem fitting that I assume her demeanor for just one brief moment –
- The theory of anthropogenic carbon dioxide as the cause of the latter 20th century warm period was widely accepted by the scientific consensus until it was falsified by protracted global cooling due to reductions in total solar irradiance and the solar magnetic field.
I am a skeptic and I am damn proud of it.
[The opinions expressed in this post are that of the author, Dee Norris, and not necessarily those of the owner of Watts Up With That?, Anthony Watts, who graciously allows me to pontificate here.]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Falsify this….
I will posit that “The universe was created 5 minutes ago, with histories and memories in place to create the illusion of a past…”
The key thing wrong with this idea is that it explains everything and can’t be disproven.
The problem for AGW Proponents is that “if your AGW theory is able to explain everything” – i.e warming and cooling, how do we distinguish it from a statement like the above.
As a contrast, the 2nd law of thermodynamics implies that no physical process can be 100% heat efficient – build me a genuine perpetual motion machine in a closed system and I will believe that the 2nd law has a serious problem….
The character of “being falsifiable” is a key difference between science and pseudo-science.
The good thing about James Hanson – is that he makes concrete statements that can be tested against the evidence – 2015 will be an interesting year.
The Clock is Ticking… again…
“According to a July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a 10-year window of opportunity to solve global warming. According to the 1989 article, A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco-refugees, threatening political chaos, ”
What about this? Is this falsifiable or not?
It’s all the same old soup warmed over.
Only seven years left for global warming target: UN panel chief
http://www.physorg.com/news134398515.html
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), delivered the bleak warning at a gathering of European Union ministers where he pleaded with the EU to take the lead in global talks on tackling climate change. The UN negotiations “must progress rapidly, otherwise I am afraid that not only future generations but even this generation will treat us as having been irresponsible,” said Pachauri.
Pachauri did NOT say, “Hey, if you can’t make it by 2015, we”ll talk… maybe we can give you an extension ’til 2025 or 2030.”
Looks like the UN Official got his prediction spot on. Global warming trend has apparently stopped at approx year 2000 (UAH, RSS, etc…) – the world is saved, and disaster has been averted.
Thank goodness for that – it was looking like we might actually have to do something….
The EU seems to be struggling to make a euro these days. In times of economic distress, I wonder how popular Pachauri’s message of the EU leading the way will be.
As I implied earlier, carbon constraints in the west will be overwhelmed by the economic aspirations of 2.5 Billion people in India and China who have woken up to the fact that wealth and prosperity is there for the taking – all you have to do is burn some Coal, Oil and Gas…
EU leadership in carbon reduction, like Australian leadeership in carbonm reduction will do nothing but hurt the local economies and competitiveness of the societies involved.
Here is an AGW Catastrophy Prediction.
1. Yr 2048. A statue of Al Gore is raised in memorium, and constructed in fashionable and carbon free stone.
2. Yr 2054. James Hanson’s living brain is preserved for posterity in a solar powered “life-crib”. He provides a weekly talk back show on US radio discussing the many benefits of a carbon free society.
3. Yr 2056. The American constitution is re-written (and re-factored) in Chinese by the new chinafederation after the financial takeover and absorption of the US by a conglomeration of East and South Asian commercial interests…
The interesting aspect of these events is whether they have much to do with the aggregate increase/decrease of energy within the climate system, or whether they mainly redistribute the existing energy within the system.
Quite. The energy exchange being between circulating ocean layers and circulating tropospheric levels.
Global warming, as measured since 1979, is measured by land surface, sea surface and lower troposphere. (Questions of accuracy aside.)
There also seem to be underlying fluctuating factors as well (such as which caused the LIA and Roman, Medieval, and, Modern Warm periods which may be more than just turnover.
It is quite possible that much of what we measure as GW is mere turnover.
Don’t know much about the Aqua satellite data, but I’m sure the climate scientists are on to it.
Spencer is all over it. He concludes that instead of cirrus clouds and ambient vapor (positive feedback), there is low level cloud cover resulting in increased albedo (negative feedback). NASA simply won’t say. This could turn out to be the critical measurement.
Richard:
But measured on an annual basis, CO2 (as measured at Hawaii) goes up steadily. Yes, there is the usual seasonal up-and-down wiggle in the graph. We’ve all seen that. A set up wiggles headed northward at a c. half-percent a year.
Here is the exchange rate as expostulated by the DoE and the IPPC, year 2007:
Vegetation/Soils:
Natural:
119.6 BMTC emitted to Atmosphere
120.2 BMTC absorbed from atmosphere
Human Land Use:
1.6 BMTC emitted to Atmosphere
2.6 BMTC absorbed from atmosphere
Total Amt. in sink: 2300 BMTC
Ocean:
90.6 BMTC emitted to Atmosphere
92.2 BMTC absorbed from Atmosphere
Total Amt. in sink: 38,000 BMTC
Fossil Fuel Combustion & Industry:
7.2 BMTC emitted to Atmosphere
Atmosphere:
215.0 emitted to all other sources
219.0 Absorbed from Veg., Soils + Ocean + Fuel, Industry
Total Amt. in sink: 760 BMTC
(BMTC = Bil. Metric Tons Carbon,
Vegetation/Soils would include volcanic activity and animal breathing.)
So the Atmospheric sink of 760 BMTC (in 2007) is increasing at a rate of 4 BMTC (in 2007). That’s a half a percent gain of carbon.
Man’s contribution of overall atmospheric carbon (7.2 BMTC) is 3.3% of total emissions (219.0 BMTC).
Now, these figures may be wrong, but what I see is a (big) bathtub with 760 gallons in it, with 219.0 gallons of water coming in for every 215.0 gallons going out.
Sure, input and outflow vary a bit. Sure, an increase in inflow causes a bit of an increase in outflow. But those differences are small and in roughly the same proportions.
2006 figures show a slightly smaller inflow and a slightly smaller outflow, and a slightly smaller atmospheric sink. But around a half-percent increase in the atmospheric sink carbon. No doubt 2008 will show a similar rise in these variables.
And I don’t see what the seasonal variation-to-human emissions ratio has to do with it.
I am not saying you are wrong, mind, but:
To falsify, one must show either that those figures are just plain wrong (they may be) or else show me where the extra carbon is coming from other than from industry. (Such as an increase in volcanic activity or something.)
And to add insult to injury, Boris still disapproves of me. (And well he might!)
Stefan: “If CO2 is assumed to be responsible for the further warming in the ice record, does this then mean that the ice record gives us a directly known value for the warming resulting from a doubling of CO2?”
I’m not sure. It may be that the value is calculated from laboratory studies. Google may provide some answers.
Kohl Pierson: “Surely you’re don’t think that this is the same thing as “most scientists” (they were your words not mine).”
For obvious reasons a scientific organisation is not “the same thing” as the scientists who comprise it, but the organisations I referenced represent majority scientific opinion, so in that sense “The world’s major scientific organisations have endorsed AGW” means the same as “most scientists” or at least most physical scientists.
evanjones:
You present a set of estimates for global emissions and global absorbtions of carbon by
Vegetation/Soils:
Human Land Use:
Ocean:
Fossil Fuel Combustion & Industry: and
Atmosphere
Then say to me:
“To falsify, one must show either that those figures are just plain wrong (they may be) or else show me where the extra carbon is coming from other than from industry. (Such as an increase in volcanic activity or something.)”
No! Absolutely not!
Those who make an assertion need to provide supporting evidence and – in science – others only have a duty to demand that evidence. I do not need to “falsify” an assertion.
The errors in those estimates are greater than the total change in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. And you presented those estimates, so it is up to you to demonstrate that all those errors cancel to near zero.
And you say;
” Sure, input and outflow vary a bit. Sure, an increase in inflow causes a bit of an increase in outflow. But those differences are small and in roughly the same proportions.”
Really? How do you know they are “small” and “roughly the same proportions”?
As I previously said:
“In other words, the annual flow of carbon into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels is less than 0.02% of the carbon flowing around the carbon cycle.
It is not obvious that so small an addition to the carbon cycle is certain to disrupt the system because no other activity in nature is so constant that it only varies by less than +/- 0.02% per year.”
You say;
“And I don’t see what the seasonal variation-to-human emissions ratio has to do with it.”
The problem seems to be that you are thinking in terms of an erroneous analogy: i.e. you say;
“what I see is a (big) bathtub with 760 gallons in it, with 219.0 gallons of water coming in for every 215.0 gallons going out.”
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is not a balance of nearly constant flows in and out of a fixed container. The carbon cycle is a complex system. Carbon dioxide is a trace component of a small part of that complex system, and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is the amount of carbon dioxide in one part of the system.
Try applying your bathtub analogy to the urea content of a human kidney.
(The human body is a complex system. Urea is a trace component of a small part of that complex system, and the concentration of urea in the kidney is the amount urea in one part of the system).
Until the variation of the urea content goes beyond known natural limits there is no reason to suppose that anything unusual has happened.
Only the extremely dubious ice core data suggests that recent variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are unusual, and this suggestion is denied by the stomata data and by direct historical measurements.
I again repeat that the important point is that anybody is mistaken when claiming to know that the anthropogenic emission is or is not the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. But some claim such knowledge, and I fail to understand why they claim to know the unknowable. And it is unknowable because we lack adequate understanding and quantification of the carbon cycle.
In light of the importance some ascribe to the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, I want to find out the cause of that rise.
Richard
An interesting take on CO2 and the Arctic.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm
Unless you have accurate polling numbers, this is a gratuitous statement. Those organizations’ mission statements and press releases reflect the opinions of those in charge of those organizations, nothing more.
Jeff Alberts: “Those organizations’ mission statements and press releases reflect the opinions of those in charge of those organizations, nothing more.”
The officers of the organisation represent the members. If there were a sufficient groundswell of dissent in the ranks, that would presumably be reflected in the composition of the executive.
Brendan H
Nevertheless I think that there is a very long way to go before it can be said that ‘most’ scientists accept ……etc
I myself believe in global warming. But I’ll bet London to a brick that what I take as ‘global warming’ is not the same thing that alarmists, scientists with a barrow to push and opportunistic politicians are so heavily involved in promoting.
This ‘consensus’ thing is falling apart at the seams at least partly because the precise thing upon which there is supposed to be consensus is something of a movable feast.
But in any case that is irrelevant.
A small number of scientists who think something different could be proven right in the end. It has happened before and it will happen again.
Notwithstanding the principles of democracy, majority rule and all that, science is not about numbers, it is about what is true.
Regardless of whom the burden of falsification is on, the factors I stated are the ones that need examining.
Global CO2 seems to be going up, and at a rate that exceeds that which comes out of the oceans. Ice ages vary by c. 10 degrees C, and the fluctuation (so far as we can tell) is only c. 100 ppmv.
We (supposedly) have that much increase with under a 1 degree C increase in temperature.
It can be accounted for by the 7.2 BMTC of industry.
Other thing may account for it, but what?
And, yes, I think it has done the biosphere more good than harm, regardless of the source.
It is not obvious that so small an addition to the carbon cycle is certain to disrupt the system because no other activity in nature is so constant that it only varies by less than +/- 0.02% per year.”
I am not saying it disrupts it. I am only saying that about half of what we input remains in the atmospheric sink (the other half winds up in the other sinks.
The indications are that 7.2 BMTC of the 219 BMTC exuded each year are non-natural (i.e., c. 3%), and that this inceases the atmospheric sink of c. 760 BMTC by c. 4 BMTC/year or by roughly 0.5% per year.
Yes, the measurements may be wrong. But it explains how only 3% of total cartbon emissions can cause a slow, steady increase in atmospheric carbon.
Proxies prior to c. 1950 indicate a steady level.
I consider this to be uncertain. I question those proxies and wonder about WWII emissions (100 cities aflame, mad-paced allout production, etc.). Wafare is a smoky sort of thing.
Really? How do you know they are “small” and “roughly the same proportions”?
I base it only on the fact that the 2006 stats tell the same story and that overall measurements have indicated a roughly half a % increase per year for the last few decades. I do not “know” it for a fact, nor do I know the MoE. But it’s what the standard graphs indicate.
I’m perfectly open to a competing set of stats and theories. But said set should include what’s going in, what’s coming out, and what the sink contains.
In light of the importance some ascribe to the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, I want to find out the cause of that rise.
So do I. (But I don’t attach much importance to the rise.)
In the meantime, FWIW, I side with the slow accumulation via cycle theory. I am perfectly open to competing theories.
evanjones:
Claims concerning the cause of the recent rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are a clear example of why everybody should be sceptical of AGW and the assertions of AGW advocates.
AGW advocates say that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide should be reduced because the emitted carbon dioxide is accumulating in the air.
But if the anthropogenic emissions are not accumulating in the air then effects of reducing the emissions cannot be known. And, therefore, we need to know what effect the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are having on the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
You say:
“I’m perfectly open to a competing set of stats and theories. But said set should include what’s going in, what’s coming out, and what the sink contains.”
OK. But nobody knows those things and nobody knows how to determine them.
So, in effect, you are saying
(a) we should do nothing to determine the cause of the recent rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration,
Or
(b) we should invent numbers and pretend the invention has pertinence to the cause of the recent rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (as e.g. IPCC and DoE do).
Personally, I prefer to assess the information we do have and to try to find out more.
And you say;
“I side with the slow accumulation via cycle theory. I am perfectly open to competing theories.”
But there is not sufficient evidence to support any “theory”: there are only hypotheses. And the accumulation hypothesis is denied by all – yes, ALL – the available information.
The annual emission of anthropogenic carbon dioxide should relate to the annual increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide if accumulation of the anthropogenic emission is directly responsible for the increase. But they greatly differ from year to year: some years almost all of the anthropogenic emission seems to be absorbed by the ‘sinks’ and in other years almost none seems to be absorbed. Those who claim the increase is caused by such accumulation overcome this problem by conducting a 5-year running mean on the data and comparing the smoothed data sets. But that smoothing cannot be justified because there is no known physical effect that would have such an effect on the real emissions or the real atmospheric increase.
And the “slow accumulation” hypothesis is denied by the isotope data (as I explained above).
However, the anthropogenic emission could be responsible for the rise. The emission may be disrupting the system such that the equilibrium state of the system is changing. This hypothesis fits all the data (it even explains why the atmospheric CO2 concentration continued to rise when in subsequent years the anthropogenic emission decreased). However, in this case the eventual equilibrium will depend on the dominant mechanism of the system. Each of several mechanisms could be dominant and nobody knows which does dominate (we have modelled three of them).
But it should be constantly remembered that the anthropogenic addition is a miniscule addition to the carbon cycle. Therefore, the anthropogenic addition is very unlikely to be disrupting the system. So, the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration most probably is natural (and insignificantly affected by the anthropogenic emission).
Richard
I thought a skeptic is someone who does not consider popularity or support from important people to be sufficient to establish truth.
Here are a few copy-edits:
sleight of hand.
provenance of the quote. [Not “providence.”]
the scientists who constitute it. [Not “comprise it.” The whole comprises the parts; the parts constitute the whole.]