Feeling unsettled? Try new Climate Science™, now with extra certainty!
![HistoryOfSettledScience-big1[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/historyofsettledscience-big11.jpg?quality=83)
Climate Science Is Not Settled
We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy, writes leading scientist Steven E. Koonin
The idea that “Climate science is settled” runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.
My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don’t know, about climate. I have come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.
The crucial scientific question for policy isn’t whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth’s global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.
Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, “How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?” Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.
But—here’s the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.
Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.
A second challenge to “knowing” future climate is today’s poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate’s heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.
A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate’s response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature.
…
We often hear that there is a “scientific consensus” about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences. Since 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has periodically surveyed the state of climate science. Each successive report from that endeavor, with contributions from thousands of scientists around the world, has come to be seen as the definitive assessment of climate science at the time of its issue.
For the latest IPCC report (September 2013), its Working Group I, which focuses on physical science, uses an ensemble of some 55 different models. Although most of these models are tuned to reproduce the gross features of the Earth’s climate, the marked differences in their details and projections reflect all of the limitations that I have described. For example:
• The models differ in their descriptions of the past century’s global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time. Such mismatches are also present in many other basic climate factors, including rainfall, which is fundamental to the atmosphere’s energy balance. As a result, the models give widely varying descriptions of the climate’s inner workings. Since they disagree so markedly, no more than one of them can be right.
• Although the Earth’s average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.
Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise. Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling.
• The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high.
• The models predict that the lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere. But that “hot spot” has not been confidently observed, casting doubt on our understanding of the crucial feedback of water vapor on temperature.
• Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century.
• A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today’s best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.
Read the entire essay here: http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565
– – – – – – – –
I disagree with that bold part of Steven E. Koonin’s above quote.
I say instead that the “scientific community” of which Koonin speaks has not emphasized the need to show all research / data, both pro or con, involving the central question of what is the observation based importance in the real climate of AGW theory and hypothesis. Because the “scientific community” he speaks of has not been inclusive of the significant body of critical scientist’s research then claims of AGW theory and hypothesizes as being important are biased. The broader view if all science is included is AGW theory or hypotheses importance has not been unambiguously observed in the real climate.
John
“It has been said before. It will be said again. The adjustments always seem to add to global warming.”
Anthony Watt.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/15/nasa-giss-tweaks-the-short-term-global-temperature-trend-upwards/
I have to wonder if Koonin does not care if he sounds misinformed. His statement about CO2 remaining in the atmosphere for centuries is alarmist and untrue. If all anthropogenic emissions of CO2 were stopped the CO2 would achieve natural levels in a decade or so.
It’s best not to get too excited about this guy’s Damascene moment. He’s just moving into the bargaining phase. We’ll be seeing a lot more like him.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/the-death-of-the-agw-belief-system/
Pointman
I really liked this part:
—–
If you’re a climate scientist, look away now. It came from something called the scientific method. A phenomenon was observed several times. Certain recurring patterns were noticed. A hypothesis was put forward. It was checked against the previous studies to see if it accurately reflected the results already known. In the main it did but where it diverged, amendments were made to the hypothesis so it would reflect the real world. Note, the hypothesis was changed not the data.
The next step was to see if it could accurately describe what would happen when the phenomenon next occurred. When this was done, where it diverged, the hypothesis was amended and again rechecked against the historical data. It went around this loop until it was thought robust enough to be advanced as a theory. This was done by submitting it for peer review and publication. The peer reviewers (are you climate guys still looking away?) were not cronies of the authors. After some debate, it got through and a theory was born. But it would never and could never be anything more than a theory.
A theory stays a theory until ONE person proves it wrong or it is supplanted by a better one. The Ptolemaic theory was used for 1500 years to accurately predict the moon, seasons and planetary movements, among many things, but it had a central flaw. The Earth moved around the Sun, not the other way round. And that’s why, when it comes to theories, the science is never “settled”.
—
A well done post worth everyone’s time to read or re-read.
~ Mark
You are perceptive. IMO it is the temp. record of this century that has prompted this statement. As this trend continues we will see more and more of your scheme of reaction.
I upvoted this only because of who the author is. With anyone else, I would have argued with several of his statements.
But a guy like Koonin needs all the encouragement we can give him. Can you imagine the hatred and discontent his comments are causing within the climate alarmist crowd? No doubt he will be ostracized for this, like Dr. Tol and others.
A guy like Koonin? Could you elaborate?
A former top official on warming and an APS position-statement bigshot.
Essay published in the WSJ entitled ‘Science Is Not Settled – We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy’ by scientist Steven E. Koonin
– – – – – – –
Koonin’s essay is, even with some of his points having quite arguable formulations, a seriously critical statement. A critical statement against all claims by alarming activists of CAGW who are supportive of the IPCC exaggerations made possible by its ideologically adjusted assessment processes.
Thanks to Koonin for his outreach to critical intellectuals.
John
Well said.
eyesonu on September 21, 2014 at 9:15 am
– – – – – –
eyesonu
Thanks.
John
I gave up at the early point that CO2 may last for years in the atmosphere. Koonin should stich with his IT.
Average atmospheric CO2 content over the past 500Ga is 2500ppmv. CO2 is vital for life on the planet. It does NOT drive climate, never has, never will.
Human output of CO2 is 3% of the total annual CO2 budget, dwarfed by the oceans, volcanoes and insects.
We certainly have a lot to learn about climate.
Well stated, Steven.
Meet the real consensus. Those who support that other ‘settled’ one are on the side of ignorance and fear. Far better to be on the enlightenment side where seeking new knowledge is the paramount goal, in any subject.
How many times must we watch and listen to the unfounded worries of unscientific types who feel there is a problem? The lack of science-based education lies at the heart of our countries’ difficulties. Climate alarmism is the result!
The last two examples on the top row are not good examples of settled science that was wrong. The Earth is not the center of the universe, this is an assumption made in many current cosmological models but is not a result of them. Many believe these models accurately describe the state of the universe and thus the earth is not in the center but they have not been proven. There are cosmological models that have the earth at or near the center of the universe, although the consensus of modern cosmologist is that these are wrong, but not settle science yet. Heavier objects have slightly higher acceleration than light objects so would fall slightly faster in vacuum. In air the drag and ballistic properties play a bigger role than mass.
As the AGW hoax unravels, the enormous cost of misguided policies and regulations over the past 30 years is dawning on the public. Politicians must hold public hearings to understand how they have been mislead by false science and try to establish procedural safeguards against it ever happening again.
Surely it is the CAGW hoax that is unravelling not the AGW hypothesis. Is it not possible that man is contributing, even in such a manner that it is not measurable, to global warming – if it really is warming? Why, with so many other possible man-made influences, does it have to be assumed that it is the burning of fossil fuels that is responsible. AGW does not depend upon CAGW.
I agree that politicians should try and learn how they have been fooled but I don’t hold my breath. Ever heard of a politician confessing to having followed a false religion?
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Pointman nails it.
I would like to note, the Earth is at the center of the visible universe.
I think you just might have understated the reality. If the big bang theory is correct, then any point would be at the center of the entire universe, including the earth. Actually, it was a little bang. At the start there was nothing big.
And I used the word universe, just as you did.
I’m not into multiverse nonsense. If it exists, it’s part of the universe; if not, it’s not a part of science.
That is a very good point, though I’d note that they would be at the center of their visible Universe. At this point we know the Universe is much larger than our visible Universe. Since we don’t yet know the shape and topology of the entire Universe, we can’t say where this holds overall or not.
I’m not sure about MultiVerses, while there are some theories that predict various sorts, they are still only hypotheses, and may remain so.
From the post:
• The models predict that the lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere. But that “hot spot” has not been confidently observed, casting doubt on our understanding of the crucial feedback of water vapor on temperature.
• Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century.
• A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today’s best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.
If you cannot observe the distinctive footprint of fossil fuel sourced additions to CO2 driving warming, why continue to spend billions of dollars to study it? The only possible reason I can fathom is that the billions being spent is a cash investment hoping for greater dollar returns. And the only way that can happen is if the world is induced to pay taxes for producing CO2 beyond what nature without the presence of humans produces.
To indebt, tax, direct, control, and force servitude upon the people is what caused past revolutions, in spite of government assurances dressed as the false shroud of benevolent care taking. How much longer will we suffer this serfdom before enough voters wake up and end this spiral back into the dark ages? I am inclined to resurrect the Declaration of Independence, changing the wording to reflect grievance against our own government. All races, colors, and kinds of people surely can find common ground against such overlords as outlined in our Declaration.
Well said Pamela.
In fact there is no empirical evidence showing CO2 drives climate or temperature. In fact the reverse is true.
The Earth is at the center of the visible universe.
And according to the actual measured surface temps, it doesn’t appear that any of the warming if from CO2. Follow the url in my name to see unmolested temperature series.
Sorry if this is a repost.
“Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole.”
“Serious consequences” that are “physically small”? Huh?
Also, while it may be true that “human influences” could have an effect on the climate, it has not been shown that human CO2 emissions are and this is the real crux of the discussion. No one has shown, conclusively, that human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere are having an observable, measureable warming effect. There’s a likelihood that it may – CO2 being one of the “green house” gasses – but as the Koonin article points out, we haven’t been able to show it as a certainty.
One thing about the article: it would lead one to believe that the “science” is not settled and that also upsets the “the debate is over” idea as well.
Thanks, Dr. Koonin, for writing this WSJ article.
Even though I disagree with many points you make, I agree with your main point that “Climate Science Is Not Settled”. Nor should it be; we know too little.
Konrad
The atmosphere in turn needs radiative gases to cool itself.
CAGW argues that the trace gas CO2 dominates atmosphere thermodynamics due to IR properties.
You argue that the atmosphere cannot cool without radiative gasses such as CO2 – if anything an even grander role for the trace gas.
I don’t believe there are any nonradiative gasses. A hot gas will radiate. I also suspect convection is more important than radiation in atmosphere thermodynamics – and that chaotic turbulent mixing is an important part of the mix.
I agree. The climate models assign a role to water vapor that does not reflect reality. But without this misattribution of role, there is no AGW theory because CO2 makes an insignificant contribution to the GHE.
A slight correction. Koonin was not a “WH Science Advisor.” He was Undersecretary for Science in the DOE. He was indeed a very significant figure in the executive’s since establishment, perhaps second in status to John Holdren, the Presidential Science Adviser. Unlike the loony Holdren, Koonin is a real scientist, an accomplished physicist.
Question for you, Steven Koonin:
How long have you held the views expressed in the WSJ article?
Durango12: you are correct w.r.t. his position during the first Obama Administration. He reported to DOE Secretary Steven Chu. Together they wasted billions of dollars trying to “transform” the energy system. Now it appears he’s second-guessing himself.
He still jumps on the Carbon emissions boat- of course, that should be no surprise. He says it all , “the Scientific Community”, where settled science is alive and well.
Reblogged this on makeaneffort and commented:
Hogwash! We Know ALL there is Know about Everything that matters. The Age of Questioning is Over… now is the time to ‘Nudge’ the ignorant Masses into Our Enlightened Future. Sorry… An Enlightened Future… The (?) Enlightened Future… whatever. It won’t Hurt as Much if you just Stop Arguing and do what we say!
As usual, a directly funny and informative post from WUWT. Are you following him? Why Not?
“There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate”
There is indeed great doubt about this as there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, and, if it functions the way they claim, then it serves to cool the nightside of the planet quite effectively. The dayside effect is a wash because the CO2 and water vapor would be equally absorbing and emitting IR radiation. Only at night it would be a direct conversion of heat energy to IR radiation and losses to space. THE DOUBT OF WHAT THEY SAY IS HUGE.
“There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries.”
HUGE DOUBT AGAIN HERE, as numerous studies have shown that the half0life of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 5 years, not the completely unfounded, but politically motivated 500 or 1000 years claimed by the IPCC and NASA, respectively. These long half-lives were simply fabricated through political need.
55 years ago I was asked to be an opponent of a “very promising scientist”. It was an honor and I asked to send me his dissertation. The topic of it was: “Influence of the spots on the Sun on productivity in cotton spinning”. As I did not know how to regulate spots on the Sun I returned the dissertation. However, the guy got his PhD and then became a scientific adviser to the USSR’s government.
Conclusion: “There are real and fake scientists in every country!”
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
Its very easy to make a model — its not so easy to make one that works! Since the current model did not predict the current cooling period that would seem to indicate that there is a flaw in the model. So far now all I can say is come back when you have something that works.
I think this article is about as critical of mainstream climate science as is possible at the current time. Some may not like it, but think what would have happened had he been super critical. He would simply have been dismissed as a kook, one of the 3%. It’s happened many times already. Think about Ivar Giaever, a Nobel laureate who called climate science “pseudo-science”. He was easily dismissed. As it is some will still try to dismiss Koonin.
What we need to do is repeat the parts of the article that highlight the doubts, that the science is not settled, that future predictions are questionable. Skeptics can completely refute the catastrophic arguments of the alarmists and isn’t winning this battle a major win?
“I think this article is about as critical of mainstream climate science as is possible at the current time.”
The reputations of far too many politicians, government funded “scientists”, organizations and media outlets are at stake with this issue. We are never going to see apologies from most of these characters. It is a nearly complete lack of historical perspective that is largely responsible for so many jumping on this band wagon. A warming trend was identified and as long as it continued it seemed to confirm the predictions of the self proclaimed “experts” and countless computer models that would predict warming no matter what data was input.
At this point identifying the “pause” that started nearly 20 years ago does not qualify any of us as geniuses. It has already become a historical fact. The valiant efforts that are being made to fudge the data is nothing more than a stall tactic with hopes that the current trend will reverse itself or some catastrophic event will occur which can be used to explain away why the predictions were so far off. In the mean time the best way the charlatans can hedge their bets is to slowly change their position by pretending not to be pretentious frauds living off billions of dollars of government largess. I would expect to see more and more essays such as this one. I would also expect to hear of more and more meetings such as the one which Anthony attended recently in the UK.
While millions of people suffer in abject poverty all over the world billions of dollars are currently being squandered on unproductive efforts to “save the world” from climate change. When a burglar robs your house they generally get pennies on the dollar for your stuff it is the same with those perpetrating this fraud for government grants. If it weren’t for the unimaginable suffering taking place I would say give no aid to those “scientists” who have been criminally negligent in their work. But if helping give cover to those who have been enabling politicians to continue this massive waste of resources helps to change this infuriating madness sooner then I do not think that we have much choice. For most of history there has been little justice in the real world.
“The reputations of far too many politicians, government funded “scientists”, organizations and media outlets are at stake with this issue.” ? Given the reputations of these entities are so low, why do you state that they care about their reputations??????
It’s the unshielded fusion reactor one trillion times the size of the earth 8 light minutes away. The correlation is almost 1. However, the totalitarians can’t tax and control the sun so….
Why cite the scientific commmunity’s consensus, which he disparages for it’s eroneously “settled views” elswhere in his essay? I’m sorry, but even if Dr. Koonin is edging toward a more skeptical (and thus scientific) view of the climate in his conclusion, he starts in the same self-defined realm of dogma. There’s a reason why he does not identify a single study which irrefutably proves anthropogenic effects on temperature from greenhouse – there isn’t one. So, once again, we start with: “My dogma is better than your dogma.” The rest of Dr. Koonin’s arguments are easier to swallow because they have the caveats of uncertainty, which, in my opinion, should be inherent in any discussion of climate science.
Very good point. Koonin opens very reasonably on the note that “the science is not settled” but then recites the consensus dogma as fact. His criticism of the GCM’s seems to be a prelude to suggesting that these could be remedied which of course means more billions. My first impression of this remains: he is slick.
This statement: For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. is one of the best elevator pitch statements I have come across that encapsulates the scale issue of CO2.
I will definitely use it.