A few months back, I posted a critique titled: Gavin Schmidt’s new climate picture book: Anti-Science?
I found it ironic that Dr. Schmidt used photos to depict climate change, while at the same time promoting open criticism of my surfacestations.org project on realclimate.org. That project also uses photography, combined with measurements and a NOAA sanctioned rating system, to gauge thermometer siting issues. Oddly, there seems to be no complaints from the usual suspects when Dr. Schmidt uses artistic composition photography to illustrate climate change issues.
It is only fair then that since Dr. Schmidt has responded to the original author of that critical piece, Harold Ambler, that I repost Dr. Schmidt’s response here. Harold has invited me to republish that piece here.
A note to readers, Harold is going through a rough patch financially while waiting for his new book, Don’t Sell Your Coat, is to be published in November 2009. Royalties from it won’t come in until mid-2010. So if anyone is so inclined, please visit his web page and give him a boost in the tip jar. – Anthony
Guest post by Harold Ambler
As most of my readers know, I posted a critique of Gavin Schmidt’s book, Climate Change: Picturing the Science, not quite three months ago. Dr. Schmidt has responded in the last few days:
The point of a photo is always the context in which it’s seen. Lake Powell is a long way below it’s 1990’s peak, and that is due to a combination of reductions in rainfall upstream and additional demands on it’s water downstream. The last two years have seen a small rise in water level, and as you state correctly, it is important not to read too much into a short term record.
However, the real point of the photo (and as we discuss in the chapter that uses it), is that climate change is really only an issue because of the impacts – whether on human society or ecosystems. Areas that are already under water stress, such as the American South West are very vulnerable to changes in rainfall regime. And in fact, there is some evidence that long-term trends in precipitation in this region are already being affected by ongoing changes.
We have a long discussion in the book about being careful with the problem of attribution in imagery and we try to make that clear in the captions.”
The science concurs:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0213/p25s05-usgn.html
“Last week, Dr. Barnett published additional work in the journal Science attributing 60 percent of the reduction in snowpack, rising temperatures, and reduced river flows over the past 50 years to global warming.
The latest work “not only shows that climate change is a real problem. It also shows it has direct implications for humans – and not just in the third world,” says Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, Calif.”
So yes, it’s a combination of things, as stated in the book (if you bother to read past the cover photo) and in the scientific literature.
My Response to Dr. Schmidt (Plus a Note to Readers):
I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and lived through a few droughts, including the very serious one of 1976 to 1978. Again and again, my family and I saw water levels in the local reservoirs (and others in the state) decline to worrisome levels before they were, thankfully, replenished. One perspective on the phenomenon of alternating drought and wet in the West is that it is terrifying, and should be brought to as many people’s consciousness as possible as a new menace, part of global warming, etc. Another, more like my own, would point out that the astonishing agricultural productivity and explosion of population throughout the Southwest are proofs of humanity’s ability to adapt to its natural surroundings in very effective ways.
=====
Please read the remainder of the story at Talking About the Weather and don’t forget the tip jar 😉 – Anthony
@Jeff
What seems to “allude” (“make a more or less disguised reference to”) (did you mean “elude” ? “escape mentally or physically”) some people is that its(sic, probably mean “it’s”, the contraction of it is) just plain old physics being applied to the climate. GHG’s (should be GHGs) are “a” (GHGs is a plural form standing for several or many gases, so “a” is not appropriate) well proven component(after dropping the previous “a”, put an “s” on component) of the climate that effect all of life on earth. Gavin Schmidt is a well thought out(from context, I believe you mean “fully informed”) person that(“who”, not “that”) sits in the middle of data coming in from our instruments around the world. Co2 will be our undoing over time.
Other than that and a couple of other small errors, (the usual “effect”-“affect” thing) this submission is as cogent and coherent as anything ever seen from a warmer. The imagery evoked by “sits in the middle of data” is powerful indeed.
Nasif Nahle (10:01:56) :
Just to be clear, the book is not my work. google “Bern Bray”.
I use the superDBA moniker so my boss doesn’t find out what I do at work 😉
What, didn’t the esteemed Dr have anything to say about his picture of the house falling down in Alaska? You know, the one falling down from an earthquake, not melting permafrost as he claims?
So much for “being careful with the problem of attribution in imagery.”
I am not comforted by the statement, The response of CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic. This posits no upper limit so continually increasing CO2 must lead to continually rising temperature.
However, I recall an explanation somewhere (I think it was on Realclimate a long time ago) that since there is only a finite number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, once all incoming IR has been absorbed, no further absorption can occur. So you’d expect an asymptotic curve approaching a fixed limit. The graph linked above does look more like that to me than logarithmic but I’ve no idea if this true. But if true, it would make a big difference to the argument, surely.
Kevin Kilty (07:22:27) :
Miles (15:49:24) :
Gavin Schmidt is in a new class of people who practice science in that they are 1/2 scientists, 1/2 politicians – I call them poly-scientists.
How about “scienticians?”
Reply: Good idea to have a name for this new breed of idiots, but perhaps Scilititions would better sum up thier abilities.
———————————————————————
Jeff (19:04:37) :
What seems to allude some people is that its just plain old physics being applied to the climate. GHG’s are a well proven component of the climate that effect all of life on earth. Gavin Schmidt is a well thought out person that sits in the middle of data coming in from our instruments around the world. Co2 will be our undoing over time.
Reply: Surprisingly few of the laws of ‘plain old physics’ work exactly as predicated out in the real world and as CO2 has been at much higher levels in the past without ‘run away global warming’ occuring then I’m certain we have nothing to worry about for the future. In the words of the great bard, ‘Much ado about nothing’.
“I am not comforted by the statement, The response of CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic. This posits no upper limit so continually increasing CO2 must lead to continually rising temperature.”
I’m not sure that is IS logarithmic through its entire range. From the graphs of temperature vs CO2 concentration, it appears to begin as an exponential relationship, passing through linear, then logarithmic. Further out, at higher concentrations, it appears to be flattening out even more – as you pointed out, asymptotic.
Interestingly, I read that astronomers once thought Venus should be cooler than earth because its 80% albedo outweighs its proximity to the sun. The two facts that a) its temperature is nearly 500C and b) its atmosphere is entirely CO2 was a fundamental pivot point for Hansen. However, I remain skeptical that CO2 alone is responsible for all of Venus’s warming.
I found it not ironic how stupid you are. Maybe should spend less time with screwing your cat.
[Reply: identifying who you are responding to would be helpful. ~dbs, mod.]
I found this sentence to contain no useful meaning at all.
Your would read better with a subject.
Overall: communications epic fail.