Ben Santer
From Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Ben Santer is a man with a lot of accolades under his belt: A recipient of the MacArthur “genius” grant; an E.O.Lawrence Award; a Department of Energy Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER) Distinguished Scientist Fellowship; contributor to all four assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore; and now an American Geophysical Union fellowship.
But he’d give all the awards up if it meant he could present his research on human-induced climate change to a patient audience — an audience that would listen to all the facts before making judgments about reality of a “discernible human influence” on climate.
Human-induced climate change is likely to be one of the major environmental problems of the 21st century, and effective policies to mitigate human effects on climate will require sound scientific information.
Providing that information is what climate scientist Santer continues doing as the Laboratory’s winner of the AGU fellowship.
Santer, an expert in the climate change research community, has worked in the Laboratory’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) for nearly 20 years, and is a frequent contributor to congressional hearings on the science of climate change. He credits his success to the exceptional scientists he collaborated with at LLNL. “The best reward (award) is working together with great colleagues.”
In 1996, his chapter of the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report came to the cautious but then-controversial conclusion that the “balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
From that point on, it has been an uphill battle for Santer to show that climate models do, in fact, replicate many different observations of climate change, and that models can serve as a valuable tool for understanding the climate changes likely to occur over the 21st century. “Ideally, governments will use the best-available scientific information to make rational decisions on appropriate policy responses to the climate change problem,” Santer said.” My colleagues and I have the job of providing that information. The AGU fellowship gives me encouragement to continue PCMDI’s research into the nature and causes of climate change, and to continue explaining what we do, what we’ve learned and why our work matters.”
Only one in a thousand members is elected to AGU fellowship each year. Santer is one of six LLNL employees who have been elected an AGU fellow. Rick Ryerson, Bill Durham, Al Duba, Joyce Penner and Hugh Heard are the others.
Santer will receive his award at the December 2011 Fall AGU Meeting in San Francisco.
Santer’s achievements include:
- Pioneering use of novel pattern-based statistical techniques, called “fingerprint” methods, to identify the effects of human-caused changes in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles in observational surface temperature records.
- Analysis of atmospheric temperatures, water vapor, and the height of the stratosphere-troposphere boundary, showing that accurate model simulations of climate change require inclusion of radiative forcing from human activities.
- Contributions to the Scientific Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
================================================================
UPDATE: Steve McIntyre passes on this video link, featuring Dr. Ben Santer, to us in comments. Surely this must have been the work that wowed the AGU?
BTW if you want some real science, rather than “Santer Cartoon Science” regarding the snowpack loss on Kilimanjaro, try these:
Kilimanjaro regaining its snow cap
More proof that Kilimanjaro’s problems are man-made; but not what some think it is
‘But he’d give all the awards up if it meant he could present his research on human-induced climate change to a patient audience — an audience that would listen to all the facts before making judgments about reality of a “discernible human influence” on climate.’
Here is a guy that might sit patiently and listen to all the facts:
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/10k-for-the-first-person-to-prove-weve-caused-climate-change/
berniel:
With respect, I think you miss a critically important point in your post at April 27, 2011 at 6:13 am .
Ben Santer was lead Author of Chapter 8 of the TAR and, therefore, he must take most responsibility for the infamous insertion into that Chapter of the statement saying
“the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”.
But, importantly, that statement was based on his analysis that utilised a short sequence selected from a data set and he failed to report the rest of the data set. This analysis was then published shortly before publication of the TAR and before it was possible to publish any revelation of the scandal of that analysis.
The scandalous nature of that analysis is fully explained in the letter published in Nature from Knappeneberger and Michaels and I link to it from my above post at April 26, 2011 at 2:02 am.
But, as I point out in that post, Santer is being awarded his Fellowship of the AGU specifically because he conducted that analysis! So, Santer is being rewarded for the pseudoscience he conducted to enable him to make the changes to the TAR which you do not like.
Richard
Steve McIntyre watched the entire video I’m sure. He has amazing powers of concentration and focus. He has been wading through this stuff for many more years than most of us. There is absolutely no way that I could have waded through all of the baloney and nonsense that he has seen and then analyzed it and critiqued it for the rest of us. Totally amazing feat.
Richard S Courtney says:
April 27, 2011 at 7:16 am
Thanks.
(I think you mean SAR not TAR.)
So, let me see if I have this right…
The published IPCC 2nd report Chapter 8 cites 2 papers by Santer to support ‘fingerprinting’, one peer reviewed and published in Climate Dynamics #12 (Dec?) 1995 , and the other a PCMDI report (not peer reviewed?). While reservation about attribution continue to be expressed in the body of Chapter 8, in the published version of SAR there is nonetheless the conclusion that “the body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points towards a discernible human influence on global climate.” This stands in support of the SAR WGpI Summary for Policy Makers “balance of evidence” statement (and the press release and the page 1 headlines etc.)
So, the support for this conclusion that was given by Santer’s fingerprinting work (as published) not only had not benefited from full exposure to peer review (pre- and post- publication) but was not reviewed in the IPCC scientific review process (because it was inserted after that had ended).
What the Knappeneberger and Michaels correspondence in Nature does is show that a proper review of this ‘fingerprinting work (as published in i>Nature 1996) reveals that it does not support these conclusions of the IPCC report. (No wonder Santer had strong negative feeling’s towards Michaels, as expressed in the 2009 email!)
Now, what you point out is that today in 2011 Santer’s work on fingerprinting is being cited as a reason for granting him an awarded — an award for work that has brought into question for its scientific credibility.
I would add that Santer is being given this award not only on the supposed merit of this ‘fingerprinting’ work, but also for the supposed merit of its public and political impact through its support for the IPCC conclusions and so forth (headlines, Kyoto etc).
This suggest that by making this award the AGU is (knowingly?) supporting corrupted processes in science, and in this way contributing to the corruption of science.
Ben Santer was named as one of the newly elected members of the US National Academy of Sciences yesterday (May 3).
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=News_May_3_2011_member_election