Guest essay by Barry Brill
I’ve had it with tax-funded over-educated fools like Lewanadowsky presuming to categorize me on the basis of his own delusions. And I don’t appreciate Cook & co locating people in a 3% minority on the basis of infantile spin-driven surveys.
The debate over climate change is not, and never has been, divided into two monochromatic tribes who have been brainwashed into unanimity . There are as many different opinions are there are participants in the discussion. (“quot homines tot sententiae” as Christopher Monckton might say).
For those who insist upon a tidy taxonomy, I offer the following first draft:
[Note: this table was updated at request of the author on 10/9/13 to correct decimal point placements in the first three rows]
Whilst there are quite large numbers of people who are unconvinced that human activities can have any material effect on global average temperatures, the “Principia Scientific International” consortium, aka “Slayers of the Sky Dragon” strongly reject the enhanced greenhouse effect theory (AGW) which underpins mainstream climate science.
I’ve appropriated the term “Skeptics” to cover the broad tent of opinion which accepts that there has been some global warming since the LIA, to which human activities would have made some (probably trivial) contribution, through increased GHG emissions.
There is a collective view that average temperatures would increase by about 1°C if atmospheric CO2 concentration were to double from 280ppm (pre-1950), but a wide disparity of views regarding the sign and amplitude of net feedbacks. Most believe warming will be beneficial in the foreseeable future and none believes it poses a significant threat.
Lukewarmers are a subset of skeptics, who believe net feedbacks from warming to be slightly positive.
The ‘Breakthrough’ label is borrowed from the “Breakthrough Institute” but covers all who favour (limited) Government action other than emission-mitigation. This grouping broadly accepts IPCC temperature projections but believes the impacts have been exaggerated. They consider that an element of future threat arises and would combat this by promoting Government-sponsored breakthroughs in energy technology.
The IPCC, which presents “official” or “governmental” views, covers the broad tent which believes AGW is dangerous and should be combated by expensive emission-reduction programs. Its main controversial drivers are a belief in large net feedbacks (high ECS) and the use of unlikely scenarios to supply worst-case impacts.
Alarmists believe that irreversible and abrupt climate change is much more likely than indicated by Table 12.4 of AR5WG1, re-interpret the SREX report, and blame AGW for numerous other current or potential ills. They see climate change as a great moral challenge and believe decarbonization of the global economy is inevitable. This group (along with activists) controls a host of spin levers and secures a hugely disproportionate share of mainstream media attention.
Activists are usually members of groups which make a living from public donations and whose success depends upon maximising public fears. A sizeable proportion are malthusians or doomsayers who are philosophically opposed to economic growth/capitalism. Other members are lobbyists for commercial interests such as suppliers of renewables, carbon traders, consultants, gas producers, re-insurers, foresters and (until recently) bankers. They ignore all scenarios except the most extreme and are now adherents of the new RCP8.5.
The futility of consensus-seekers such as Cook and Oreskes is clear from the fact that the majority of almost all groups accept some 20th century warming (although now aware of “the pause”) as well as AGW theory. The dividing lines lie elsewhere.
The most visible division between climate opinion groups is the value they ascribe to equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). This, along with the associated transient climate response (TCR), is the key determinant of future temperatures and the extent of future threats, if any.
For 20 years or more, there has been a clear gap between the ‘most likely’ positions held by mainstream (3°C) and skeptic (1°C) groups. But the WG1 report of AR5 largely bridges that gap, and there is widespread expectation that the gap will close further when post-cut-off papers are brought into account.
AR5 recognises that those who calculate ECS at 1.5°C and/or TCR at 1°C are now mainstream scientists. An IPCC scientist modeling RPC2.6 and applying the lower end of the IPCC’s TCR will project warming of 1°C to be reached by about 2083 – of which about 0.8°C has already occurred. That result would not differ from the expectations of Skeptics. With warming much lower than last century, this science, now mainstream, clearly doesn’t justify anxiety or precipitate action.
We are now all part of the orthodoxy, separated only by a tendency to prefer higher or lower segments within the IPCC’s accommodating ranges.
At the Stockholm 4-day meeting of politicians/bureacrats, the AR5 scientists were directed that no ‘likely’ value for ECS/TCR was to be disclosed to the public. But everybody already knows the answer and the Stockholm ‘finger in the dyke’ manoevre will buy very little extra time.
The cut-off date for the 2013 WG1 was in February. A few weeks later[1], The Economist reported two peer-reviewed Norwegian papers, one finding a most likely ECS of 1.9°C and the other a 90% likelihood of a 1.2-3.5°C range. It declared there was “much less controversy about the TCR. Most estimates put it at 1.5°C with a range of 1–2°C”.
In August, the Otto et al paper (whose author list includes several IPCC notables) found that TCR was 1.3°C and ECS was most likely 2°C but the 90% range should should extend down to 1°C. Pat Michaels has listed[2] a raft of other authoritative papers which agree.
It is only a matter of time (and not much time) before the ECS is repositioned to 1-3°C and the TCR to1-2°C. At that point, many more people who are near the upper end of the ‘Sceptics’ grouping with join with those multitudes who are at the lower end of the ‘Mainstream’ grouping to form a new “Orthodox” group.
This merging could be an uncomfortable time for both parties. Kuhn argues in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” that rival paradigms are incommensurable—that is, it is not possible to understand one paradigm through the conceptual framework and terminology of another rival paradigm. Will that remain the case when views of TCR are only a fraction of a degree apart?
If further science grants are extended to Lewandowsky and his voyeuristic ilk, they should analyse the new minority groups – the alarmists and activists – not those who are now barely distinguishable from the mainstream.
[1] http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions
[2] http://www.cato.org/blog/still-another-low-climate-sensitivity-estimate-0
Steven Mosher says:
October 8, 2013 at 8:02 am
There is zero actual physical evidence that ECS, if such a thing exist, is higher than 1.5 K, & all the evidence in the world against 2 or 3 K, let alone the pie in the sky 4.5 K & above predicted by the mendacious, rent-seeking, ideology-driven liars who commit the crime against humanity of IPCC.
The earth being homeostatic, the default assumption should be no net positive or negative feedback, but rather roughly countervailing feedbacks, or net negative, to offset over time any warming. No scientific evidence supports the GIGO assumptions made for the GCMs, which have in any case been shown false.
If you know of evidence supporting 2, 3 or 4.5 K, please trot it out. IPCC hasn’t.
Naming groups is not as relevant as knowing what proportions of scientists and the public are in each group but it would also be useful to know what overall proportion of each group (scientists and the public) believe that human activities have any significant impact upon climate. I’d be happy to design the study if someone will find me a grant or just do the number crunching and we could farm out the actual sampling and questionaire execution, if we had the money. I’ll work for free. I have designed and executed many such quantitative surveys in the corporate world, telephone, mail, and structured panels. Not so much focus groups as they are not projectable to major populations though useful in questionaire design. Such a study could be repeated to determine the direction in which opinions are headed.
Anyone know a research house that might be willing to donate some resources to find out what’s going on in the minds of people regarding climate change ( I use this term in the sense that we all know that climate has always and will continue to change.).
Jim G BS, MBA
milodonharlani says: October 8, 2013 at 8:30 am
Good post milon.
An ECS greater than ~1 requires positive feedbacks, and there is NO credible evidence that such positive feedbacks exist,
I await Mr. Mosher’s evidence.
I suggest that belief in a high ECS is a religious, rather than a scientific conviction.
While I normally avoid questioning the religious beliefs of others, the CAGW religion (Church Agnostic of Global Warming) has their eyes to the heavens, but their hands in our wallets.
In the past I have termed CAGW a “Cargo Cult” religion, but one has to give them due credit.
Scamming more than a trillion dollars out of peoples’ wallets is a very effective Cargo Cult.
DirkH
OK try these:
Scientific journal:
http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/73/8/2483.full.pdf
Warmist journalist
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html
Scottish government
http://www.sruc.ac.uk/downloads/file/1242/mitigating_emissions_from_livestock
and don’t tell me that methane is not a greenhouse gas just because it is not CO2.
I think you might be missing a column for people’s views on climate models, ranging between fabulous and fubar.
RC Saumarez says: @ur momisugly October 8, 2013 at 4:19 am
….new methods of energy production, efficient energy use, efficient agriculture, energy delivery to the third world, avoidance of pollution, letting forest be forests rather than potential biofuel plantations…………..
I suppose that makes me a tree hugger.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I prefer the term Conservationist to distinguish myself from the professional activists.
Most who post on this site are Conservationists who genuinely care about our planet and about the people who live on it. To me that is the distinguishing characteristic of commenters ar WUWT even when we don’t necessarily agree on other things.
This is the point that completely escapes people like Lewanadowsky and Cook.
Mostly nonsense. ECS is non-linear for temperature, altitude and surface conditions, and therefore can’t be averaged into one number.
Net CO2 increase is mostly natural, about 80 ppm out of the 100 ppm increase.
Of the current 395 ppm, only about 20 ppm is due to human activity. Trivial.
Anthropogenic CO2 is only 3 percent of the natural global carbon cycle.
Any amount of added CO2 will be entirely beneficial. Attempts to mitigate the increase are insane.
Jquip says:
October 8, 2013 at 4:24 am
Nice go at it. Only thing I’d suggest is adding the grouping ‘Engineers.’ Where the rest of the columns can be merged for a single entry “Put up or shut up.”
Jquip,
Count me IN!
MtK
A category is wanted for the Heretics, those who reject the AGW thesis.
(ie, the unbelievers, not necessarily of the Principia camp)
Lukewarmers are a new breed of fence sitter, a partially pregnant model fence sitter.
HarryDHuffman deserves his own category.
Dave says:
October 8, 2013 at 7:01 am
As I’m sure others have mentioned, there doesn’t seem to be a category for what Willis calls ‘climate heretics’. Since we believe that the system is inherently stable….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually I like Dr. Brown’s chaotic theory with two Strange Attractors giving the earth a cold phase and a warm phase. It also seems to explain the Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations and the more muted Bond events, not to mention the remarkably stable Holocene.
The table of this post illustrates the problems with single metrics and to a certain extent with labels.
“Skeptics” describes a much broader group than simply people who think there might be a small, positive amount of warming. Most skeptics I know are skeptical either of the concept of catastrophic AGW (which is different than small ECS) or are skeptical of the efficacy of proposed remediations. You could say 2.5°C/doubling and no net harm from warming and be a “skeptic” in my book.
Eventually, the actual numerical value of ECS is much less important than the net impacts of this warming, whatever it is. And truthfully, 99% of the people with an opinion on the value of ECS aren’t basing that value on anything approaching rigorous empirical science, so really their stated value of ECS can probably be better viewed as a proxy for their belief system, rather than a meaningful estimate of ECS.
Also, I’d put “lukewarmers” in the range 1-2 °C/doubling. Many of these people have developed objective estimates of ECS. E.g., SteveF, Nic Lewis, Paul_K and others. Most favored number of these objective studies seems to be around 1.6°C/doubling.
In my opinion, the median of 3 that Steve Mosher lists for “lukewarmers” is really “orthodoxy”. Recent studies are pushing this down to 2.5°C/doubling, and the recent slowdown in warming is making 3°C/doubling less tenable.
wws says: @ur momisugly October 8, 2013 at 7:15 am
You also left off “The Ice Age is Coming!!!” group.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is a given with the current configuration of the continents. The only question is WHEN? Is the Holocene a half a precession cycle interglacial or a double precession cycle interglacial? WUWT link
The other question is what exactly kicks the earth from one ‘Strange Attractor’ to the other. Determining that make a lot more sense as a waster of research dollars than demonizing CO2 does.
bw:
Excuse the drive-by (I have to get back to work), but ECS relates to the increase in global mean temperature from a sustained doubling of CO2. Since global mean temperature is a defined quantity, as is mean atmospheric CO2 concentration, then yes, yes you can describe the outcome from this particular scenario with a single number.
I’d recommend reading the precise definitions from the WG1 AR4 report, which I presume your google skills will allow you to uncover on your own.
Also we know that the majority of the CO2 is from anthropogenic sources due the differences between isotopic ratios of CO2 coming from fossil fuels and CO2 that is trapped in the surface layers of the Earth. This is a pretty decent review.
Carrick says:
October 8, 2013 at 10:40 am
The majority of atmospheric CO2 is not from human sources. The alleged “pre-industrial” level was around 285 ppm. Since then it has supposedly risen to about 400 ppm. Of this ~115 ppm increase, some is man-made. How much cannot be determined precisely. But let’s be generous to the CACA faithful & say that 100 or those 115 ppm are anthropogenic. That means that roughly 25% of CO2 in the air, not over 50%, would be “unnatural” (although people are part of nature).
With recovery from the LIA, CO2 would have risen regardless of human activities.
Carrick says: @ur momisugly October 8, 2013 at 10:40 am
….Also we know that the majority of the CO2 is from anthropogenic sources due the differences between isotopic ratios of CO2 coming from fossil fuels and CO2 that is trapped in the surface layers of the Earth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
E. M. Smith debunked that bit of crap about the isotope ratio: The Trouble With C12 C13 Ratios
No mention of humans in those changes of isotope ratio.
As far as the statement “CO2 that is trapped in the surface layers of the Earth.’ goes, plants are so CO2 starved they gobble-up any CO2 that comes near as fast as they can. Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California
The key piece of evidence that we’re living on a planet with CO2 levels currently at the very bottom of the normal range is that a whole new group of plants evolved several million years ago specifically to cope with it. They developed a new method of photosynthesis called C4 which permits greater water efficiency and the ability to photosynthesise at greatly reduced CO2 levels.
FIELD WHEAT
CO2 DEPLETION Green House
Hydroponic Shop
And then there’s me. I believe the warmest year and decade of the 20th century were 1934 and the 1930’s. I learned in high school physics that if you have two clocks which disagree, you find a third clock to resolve the discrepancy. The two clocks which agree most closely should be trusted. Atomic clocks agree with each other to tiny fractions of a second per year, and are therefore the standard.
While the HADCrut data showed fearsome warming in the late 20th century, there was a puzzle: satellite data showed essentially no warming at all. Here the “third clock” would be the radiosonde (weather balloon) and RSS data, which agreed with the satellite data–essentially no warming at all for late 20th century. The scientific conclusion would be that warming has not even been occurring.
And this was very much underscored by a graph WUWT published a couple years ago showing the number of weather stations versus claimed temperatures. There were a few step-changes in the number of weather stations, removing the “unreliable” ones. With each decrease in number of weather stations, average temperatures rose. They finished this in the 90’s–and that would cause a pause. So global warming is anthropogenic all right. This is explained either by tax-funded people wanting more money from a tapped-out public, and thinking they could get it with a carbon tax–or merely by the human tendency to believe data that is in harmony with what you already believe.
So you will be surprised to learn that I now believe in dangerous climate change caused by man. I do believe we will avert disaster. The real cause is agriculture–and fossil fuel release of carbon dioxide is a healing mechanism to reduce the effects. I am probably the only person on this website with a degree in agriculture (including an advanced degree in animal physiology), and I read farming books for pleasure. Recently I was reading one advocating more natural farming and gardening methods to sequester that bad horrible plant nutrient, CO2, into the soil. And I had a sudden wrenching, realization–20th century farming methods are known to all of us to “reduce the topsoil.” This means that we have been UN-sequestering soil carbon dioxide around the world on farms everywhere.
Dr Keeling’s lab in Mauna Loa produces the most certain element in this entire debate–the rising graph of carbon dioxide. Such a graph could be explained by instrumental drift or other systematic error, but Dr. Keeling takes great care to prevent such things and nobody believes that explanation. Fossil fuels are an obvious explanation, and certainly must have something to do with it. But these can account for only a fraction of the increase in carbon dioxide. There is a theory that the seas are releasing CO2 in response to rising temperatures. Temperatures globally cannot account for it–although maybe rising Arctic temperatures could. But the fact is, more than half of the landmass of Earth has been subjected to practices that “reduce topsoil,” which means carbon has been removed from that soil. This has not stopped due to global economic woes, and is therefore a better fit with Keeling’s Mauna Loa graph than fossil fuel use or temperature.
An indication of how drastic the results of current farming practices can be, read the 7th Catastrophe in “The Really Inconvenient Truths,” by Iain Murray (which aren’t really caused by liberals). This describes Russia’s Sea of Azov, the third-largest freshwater body in the world. Once. It has been heavily drained by irrigation for cotton farming and less than half of it is left. Summertime temperatures thirty years ago were moderated by trees and might be in the 90’s Fahrenheit. Today, there are no trees for shade, and temperatures reach the 140’s. Around the world, irrigation practices like this are mining above ground or below-ground aquifers and the water is not being replenished. Obviously, this is unsustainable. The most serious risk is war caused by hunger-crazed mobs. That could prove truly catastrophic.
Fortunately, solutions to these things have already been found. The marvelous website http://www.originalsonicbloom.com describes how farmers can use an organic foliar feeding technology to get the bumper crop of their lives in drought conditions, and with sharply increased nutrient content. Joel Salatin’s parents bought a worn-out Virgina farm in the 1960’s and their practices have increased the productivity of their land manifold. Those practices are based on observations of nature. Salatin has written some books for the general public, but the best intro is probably Michael Pollan’s bestseller, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma.” Permaculture techniques grew trees in Jordan with no irrigation (impossible according to locals) and have produced year-around streams where before there were only flash floods.
The world is capable of feeding at least twice its present population sustainably (forever). It requires not trashing our economy, but learning what really works long-term in farming.
Fascinating! Ever heard about “summer”? You are the first person I have come across who actually takes as factual the IPCC diagram showing the atmosphere warms the earth more than the Sun.
michael hart says:
October 8, 2013 at 8:20 am
ECS is an abstraction from the models, not measurable. What the modelers put in, and get out of, their models, is entirely up to them.
#####################
No, ECS is determined primarly by observational and paleo studies. read AR5.
Model answers fall within the range established by observations.
you can also calculate a first order estimate from ordinary physics
Lady Life Grows says: @ur momisugly October 8, 2013 at 11:16 am ….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I had really wanted Michael Pollan as sec. of Ag. I may not agree with him on everything but at least I know he is not a parasitic bureaucrat and has a good understanding of farming.
Steven Mosher says:
October 8, 2013 at 11:49 am
If ECS be determined primarily by observational & paleo studies, please state what it was during the Cretaceous Period. Thanks.
The range is widening & lowering, so clearly prior ECS estimates were worse than worthless, & still are, except when made by real scientists, not corrupt, ideologically-motivated, pal-reviewing, grey literature spewing IPCC rent-seekers. Genuine scientists using actual observational data find the range from 1-2 K, most likely at the lower end of that range, not 1.5 to 4.5 K, down from 3 to 7 K or higher previously peddled by CACA touts.
Steven Mosher says:
“Model answers fall within the range established by observations.”
What happens when the global temperature record falls below all the modeled ranges?
At what point do you admit that the models are wrong?
I’m not being snarky. But really, when all the models are wrong, isn’t it time to re-assess?
All religions require a ‘evil opposite ‘ to function and grow , the desperate need of alarmists to label sceptics as not just wrong but somehow bad or mad . Merely reflects this need , for there is no scientific approach that has such a requirement.
Steven Mosher says:
October 8, 2013 at 11:49 am
In case you’re not familiar with the Cretaceous problem for even the latest GCMs:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018211005359
Hilariously & predictably, the paper’s authors don’t entertain the possibility that the models are simply worthless, but instead conclude that their “cold bias” must mean that, you guessed it, “It could be worse than we expected” in future!
In 2008, a study made a good case for lack of cloudiness to explain Cretaceous heat. Despite CACA spewers’ aversion to clouds, which the models can’t handle & don’t want to consider, for fear of invoking the dreaded Svensmark hypothesis, some of the Team latched onto this unpalatable option as less distasteful than admitting ECS is meaninglessly vague.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18403703
@ur momisugly Barry Brill
I appreciate your first draft attempt at a taxonomical system for classification of the various opinions within the climate debate.
I find it a little odd that I most comfortably fit with the orthodox.
It would seem as though “remedy” is a function of “ECS” in the system as is. I think there should be more categories that reflect it isn’t necessarily ones estimation of ECS that determines ones willingness to commit to particular remedies. I would favor adaption including geo-engineering, technological advancement, and infrastructure changes over mitigation even if I were convinced ECS is 10 degrees Celsius. There just isn’t any reason NYC (for example) NEEDS to be where it is and how it is for centuries and this goes for anything else you can imagine including polar bears and my beach house. Over the course of Earths 4.5 billion year history the one thing that has always lurked around every corner was change. Adapt or die. Endeavor to persevere.
Love this approach and considered creating a Perceptual Map of the same list using two dimensions: (1) ECS and (2) Percentage of Past Warmth Human Caused (starting at 0). You could probably locate each of your groups along those dimensions, and include a 3rd dimension if you wish using Bubble size. That may be even more powerful than the table view – allowing people to take it and ask others “Where are you on this chart?” as a starting point for discussions.