Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Former NASA Chief Scientist Ellen Stofan is worried some media outlets do not provide sufficiently apocalyptic climate views.
Americans ‘under siege’ from climate disinformation – former Nasa chief scientist
Fake news spread by those with a profit motive is leaving many people oblivious to the threat of climate change, says former head of US space agency.
Hannah Devlin Science correspondent
Friday 9 June 2017 00.15 AEST
Americans are “under siege” from disinformation designed to confuse the public about the threat of climate change, Nasa’s former chief scientist has said.
Speaking to the Guardian, Ellen Stofan, who left the US space agency in December, said that a constant barrage of half-truths had left many Americans oblivious to the potentially dire consequences of continued carbon emissions, despite the science being unequivocal.
“We are under siege by fake information that’s being put forward by people who have a profit motive,” she said, citing oil and coal companies as culprits. “Fake news is so harmful because once people take on a concept it’s very hard to dislodge it.”
During the past six months, the US science community has woken up to this threat, according to Stofan, and responded by ratcheting up efforts to communicate with the public at the grassroots level as well as in the mainstream press.
“The harder part is this active disinformation campaign,” she said before her appearance at Cheltenham Science Festival this week. “I’m always wondering if these people honestly believe the nonsense they put forward. When they say ‘It could be volcanoes’ or ‘the climate always changes’… to obfuscate and to confuse people, it frankly makes me angry.”
Stofan added that while “fake news” is frequently characterised as a problem in the right-leaning media, she saw evidence of an “erosion of people’s ability to scrutinise information” across the political spectrum. “All of us have a responsibility,” she said. “There’s this attitude of ‘I read it on the internet therefore it must be true’.”
…
Even using IPCC estimates, there is a real possibility we do not face a climate emergency. From IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 page 871;
… Estimates of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) based on multiple and partly independent lines of evidence from observed climate change indicate that there is high con dence that ECS is extremely unlikely to be less than 1°C and medium con dence that the ECS is likely to be between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C. These assessments are consistent with the overall assessment in Chapter 12, where the inclusion of additional lines of evidence increases con dence in the assessed likely range for ECS. …
Read more: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
The lower IPCC estimate for a plausible equilibrium climate sensitivity is an unexciting 1.5C per doubling of CO2. Even 1C per doubling is considered possible.
CO2 is currently growing at around 3ppm / year, according to observations from Mauna Loa.
Starting from 2016 / 404ppm, project the CO2 level by 2100;
404ppm + 3ppm * (2100 – 2016) = 656ppm
Calibrating for 1.5C / doubling (CO2 forcing is logarithmic) – determine the value of k;
1.5C = k log10(2)
k = 1.5C / log10(2) = 4.98
Determine the equilibrium temperature anomaly for 656ppm;
T = k log10(656ppm / 280ppm) = 1.8C temperature rise above pre-industrial temperatures.
Note this is the equilibrium sensitivity calculation – the transient climate sensitivity is likely to be even less.
Since we have already experienced around 1C of temperature rise without any noticeable ill effects, an additional 0.8C by the year 2100 is a big nothing burger.
Obviously everyone can debate the likelihood of various climate sensitivity estimates, or the possibility that the rise in atmospheric CO2 level will accelerate as China complies with their Paris agreement commitments, by building hundreds of new coal plants, but my point stands;
The science is NOT unequivocal that we face a climate emergency. Using the IPCC’s own climate figures, there is a real possibility anthropogenic CO2 is not a big deal.
Calling people who point this out purveyors of “fake news” is pure climate alarmism.
As for what happens after the year 2100, frankly that is their problem. By the year 2100 humanity will know whether CO2 is causing climate problems – and will have the energy supply options and advanced engineering capabilities to deal with any eventuality.
I suspect Ellen Stofan hasn’t watched (what used to be) “The Weather Channel” lately.
(Or maybe she has?)
What a load of suite you trolls spout.
So Ellen – everyone who disagrees with you is spreading disinformation with a profit motive? How blissful it must be to live in such a simple world!
Ellen Stofan is yet one more Ph.D.-level scientist who does not understand the distinction between accuracy and precision.
Climate model validation is all about precision, not about accuracy. Their projections have no physical meaning.
Americans are indeed “‘under siege’ from climate disinformation,” but the disinformation is purveyed by incompetent scientists whose number apparently includes Ellen Stofan, who can’t tell accuracy from precision.
Earth to Ellen: the annual average greenhouse perturbation is 0.035 W/m^2/year. The lower limit of model resolution for the tropospheric thermal energy flux is ±4 W/m^2/year; 114x larger.
Ellen’s science can resolve a perturbation 114x smaller than the lower limit of model resolution. How about it, Ellen: is it equivocal, or not, to claim certainty about something you can’t detect?
“The science being unequivocal,” is that there is unequivocally no scientific case at all for CO2-induced warming.
Let Ellen Stofan debate Sallie Baliunas. We’ll see where the unequivocal falls.
Despite what they may print in the headlines, the diversity of opinions within NASA about the science of climate change generally mirrors the population as a whole. Views diverging from the politically approved narrative are often publicly suppressed to create the illusion of a single “NASA” position on the subject. One item of note that may not be generally understood by the public is that in NASA, the word ‘Chief’ is used to denote a position that in practice is typically more managerial than technical in nature.
A couple of quotes concerning Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris deal:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/28/world/europe/angela-merkel-trump-alliances-g7-leaders.html?_r=0
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
Those two quotes tell us all we need to know.
Standard tactic nowadays to characterize opposing views as “disinformation”, the word being marshalled to affirm the correctness of your own stance even though it doesn’t actually do that.
What job is she aiming for with this?
Or should we say, which French Riviera “research” bungalow is she aiming for?
Can someone please point out the powerful and incredibly effective disinformation campaigns that oil and coal companies have been accused of producing for the last several decades. Warmests keep referring to them, but I can’t find any evidence of them. They are harder to find than evidence that CO2 has a powerful impact on atmospheric temperature!
I became a skeptic by reading the papers published by the warmests! Their science was weak and their arguments appeared to be practices of hyperbole. I don’t need any outside source to convince me that the AGW crisis folks are somewhat delusional. I just needed a little knowledge in atmospheric science, some rational thinking and the patience to actually read what they were publishing.
“…CO2 is currently growing at around 3ppm / year,…”, …that is only due to the recent El Nino. What a stupid assumption to think that CO2 will increase 3 ppm every year from now. The year 2014 was only a 2 ppm increase. Prior to that you have to look back to 1998 (super El Nino) to find a 2.8 ppm increase. So by what magic will CO2 now increase by 3 ppm/yr?
If I had used less than 3ppm / year someone would have popped up and complained my CO2 estimate was unrealistically low. By going with 3ppm / year and 1.5C (rather than 1C, which I also considered), I demonstrate that even with a few home field advantages, CO2 is a big nothing burger.
This is a symptom of the reckless approach taken by the alarmists.
Instead of taking a cautious approach, they launched directly into insisting that co2 was causing catastrophic global warming. The ideology quickly outpaced the evidence but they chose to purge dissent rather than tolerate contrary views.
Now they are stuck trying to sell the general public on their claims, without solid proof to support many of their major assertions. It ends up sounding like a wild conspiracy theory, where they jump from A to B to Z and you just have to take their word that all the dots connect in the way they describe.
The problem is that they can’t purge dissent in the general public to make it go away like they did in their own circles. As time passes and the world doesn’t collapse into the rising sea and polar bears don’t go extinct and the natural variability of the climate and weather defy simple explanations, their window of opportunity is closing. They are clearly getting more shrill over time, which i think is due to nervousness that their house of cards could collapse.
Alright i will contribute a dumb blonde joke.
Question — What does a dumb blonde see when she looks out her window?
Answer — Climate change
Eugene WR Gallun
Question — Why did the dumb blonde believe in space aliens?
Answer — The science is settled
Eugene WR Gallun
Question — What does a dumb blonde think when faced with data?
Answer — Thinking is not an option
Eugene WR Gallun
Question — What does a dumb blonde think recycling is?
Answer — Wind powered electricity running her blow dryer.
Eugene WR Gallun
Answer — Wind generated electricity powering her blow dryer.
Wish I could get these things right the first time.
Eugene WR Gallun
[The mods merely point out that is far more likely her air dryer was blowing the windmills…. .mod]
I get a real kick out of this huge amount of debating about whether there is global warming and whether it is man-made. The back and forth must really be fun, since there is so much of it. But nearly all miss the 8 million pound gorilla sitting right next to them in the room. The Liberals have absolutely no solutions that have any more than a minuscule impact on CO2, and yet they have gargantuan costs in terms of increased taxes, choking regulations, and negative impact on the economy. If you go through the real math, it will verify my contention.
For example, Obama’s attack on coal will have at best a 1% or 2% impact on worldwide greenhouse gases by 2030, if it goes perfectly, which it most probably will not. And other developing countries will negate that small gain in just a few years. Yet it cost tens of thousands of jobs, and put a bunch of people on welfare. For another example, wind and solar in the US were at around 2% of our total energy needs when Obama took over, and after hundreds of billions of dollars thrown at it, they now are a little over 4%. What about the other 96%? Hello! Can any of you so called scientists out there count above 10 without taking off your shoes!?
I can show you the same sort of math with just about any proposed Liberal “solution”. Apparently Liberals have absolutely no appreciation for the concept of Return on Investment. And, the only real clean energy source, nuclear energy, is loathed by the warmed over 60’s hippie Liberals. Obama said he supported it, and then shut down Yucca mountain.
But, the Liberals say, “We have got to do something, don’t we?” The answer is NO, if the something has huge costs and near-zero impact on global greenhouse gases.
I often tell my Liberal friends that, if they have an irresistible urge to do something, go mow their lawn. They respond that I must be crazy. I then tell them that mowing their lawn will have about the same impact on global greenhouse gases as their so-called solutions, but it will cost far less. Who, then is crazy?
If CO2 is the huge problem for the world that the alarmists say, then the whole world should get together and develop giant CO2 capture machines, and then find a way to store the CO2 they capture. From a realistic viewpoint, that will happen just after the UN finds a way to prevent any future wars!
I am not opposed to finding and implementing clean energy sources. I AM opposed to blindly pursuing “solutions” that have near-zero impact and yet have gargantuan costs. And, I am opposed to solutions where the US and a few European countries bear most of the financial burden, even making reparations payments to developing countries, while the rest of the world is let off the hook. If you think about this last statement, there may be a clue about what is really going on with the Liberals. The word “Globalism” comes to mind!
Mitigation would be a whole lot cheaper, no matter what..We have 83 years to figure it out !
NASA, Since Apollo is nothing more than another corrupt bureaucracy populated by people who couldn’t get a job in the private sector.
“We are under siege by fake information that’s being put forward by people who have a profit motive,” says former NAS chief scientist.
Obviously did the job for a meagre honorarium then maam?
If one looks to Canada, one may wonder if there really is a “climate issue”, or is this all just a huge scam to redistribute the wealth in an upwards direction. The PM of Canada and Premier of Ontario are both all about “saving the environment” with carbon taxes, carbon pricing and cap and trade. Let’s look at cap and trade first. In Ontario, the 100 largest emitters will get a free pass while the average hydro rate payer gets their bills doubled, tripled and in some cases quadrupled because of environmental taxes and fees. The Premier is also bull dogging through a project called the “Ring of Fire”. This will be a MASSIVE mining project and highly carbon intensive as almost all mining is. But apparently with all kinds of carbon taxes, pricing and fees, those emissions will become inert. The Premier has also decided to take advantage of global warming by approving the destruction of thousands of hectares of northern forest for farmland for cattle to continue feeding the incredibly wasteful fast food industry.
Then there’s the Prime Minister, Justin “super Dupe” Trudeau. He’s so concerned about global warming that he approved two pipelines. In BC, there’s a fight over a hydroelectric project called the Site C dam. Since this is a new project the destruction of more forest and farmland is inevitable. But here’s the kicker, 60% of the power generated by Site C if/when it gets built, will be going to supply the gas fields in northern BC which helps supply the oil fields in Alberta with both energy and a means to retrieve the oil from the oil sands.
Doesn’t really sound like a govt that’s all that serious about climate change and reducing CO2. And that’s where the last problem comes in. Again, back in Ontario, we are phasing out carbon emissions created by power generation and replacing it with wind power. The problem here is wind power requires MW for MW back up generation. If you don’t have the geography for decent hydroelectric generation and wet your panties over nuclear power, then your only other option is fossil fuels. In Ontario, the fossil fuel of choice is natgas. The irony is, Ontario’s hydroelectric and nuclear power generation make up the bulk of Ontario’s generating capacity yet most of that is being exported while Ontarians get to pay for the far more expensive “green” energy from wind and solar, two power sources that are utterly needless in Ontario. As a result, what Ontario has essentially done is eliminate coal fired power plants and replaced all those nasty CO2 emissions with natags which is almost pure methane, a GHG 20x more potent than CO2. If you look deep enough, you’ll find that the big push for renewables is coming from the oil and gas industry. If that sounds a little counter-intuitive to you, leave a response and I’ll happily explain why it isn’t.
Despite the very obvious “dumb blonde” inspirations in the article, in my advancing years I’m finding such to be as offensive as racist jokes. The term “climatologist” captures the essence and context quite nicely, though…..
“Fake news is so harmful because once people take on a concept it’s very hard to dislodge it.” The problem is, Ms. Stofan, no REAL science to support AGW. You have a bunch of theories that are feed into a computer which spits out draconian consequences. That is NOT SCIENCE? That is harmful to the truth and to the integrity of science. Stop pretending you have proved your case.
I really enjoyed this lecture from Eric Worral. Of course, he must be right because, as Ellen Stofen points out ”it is written on the Internet, so it must be true”. So, if i summarize:
– Eric is right when he states that, I quote, ”The science is NOT unequivocal that we face a climate emergency”. Indeed 97% of the scientist (not all of them writing on the internet) assessing that human-generated CO2 will have an impact on our planet are either wrong (they can’t do decent calculation) or they have other reasons to be exceedingly alarmist. Thank you Eric for having enlightened me on this.
– We can fearlessly go ahead to open new fossil-fuel based power plants in US (and in the rest of the world) because anyway we will get 0.8 degrees by 2100.
– In 2100, I quote from Eric, ” ..humanity will know whether CO2 is causing climate problems..”. So, if for any reason Eric is wrong today, I will be long dead by that time and if my children and grand-children will have problems, I quote again, ”frankly that is their problem”.
The only thing I miss to understand from this nice article is that, by keeping on building coal plants up to Dec 31st 2100, where Eric is sourcis all this confidence that we will surely get, I quote again, ”the energy supply options and advanced engineering capabilities to deal with any eventuality” on Jan 1st 2101? If they will discover that we were wrong, I can only see two possibilities:
1 – US will have to import clean energy from other countries that decided to continue such research, so US will lose energy independence
2 – the world will be at such an irreversible point that we might prefer to emigrate on Venus that, as I discover from other illuminated posts, at that time someone will be surely considering as a viable plan B for Earth. After all, it written on the Internet
No reason to be alarmed, then. Thank you Eric.
And yet another spewer of the lies of the religion of Human Caused Globall Warmining toddles through, filled with the glow of Self Righteous Sanctimony. Show us how great your concern for Mother Gaia is! Stop benefiting from Evil coal and gas and hydro and nuclear generated electricity. Refuse to eat the food grown with Evil chemicals and transported with Evil gasoline and diesel. Be a man, show us the courage of your convictions.
“I can see only two possibilities”
Well personally I can imagine lots of possibilities with lots of ‘ifs’ but I usually retire to bed if the thought processes are running amok like that occasionally. You don’t want to overdo these things at my age and staying off psychotropic drugs is a handy tip too, having been a child of the sixties and early seventies.
Well you should thank Eric for not being alarmed as it seems the womenfolk under seige at NASA have plenty more up their sleeves for you to keep worrying about-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-13/backing-up-life-on-earth-preparing-for-a-doomsday-event/8612956
PS: Remember LBringer to mark June 30 down in your calendar so you can stay in bed and pull the covers over your head-
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/1000-foot-wide-asteroids-that-could-hit-earth-discovered-by-astronomers/ar-BBCjR9c
as that’s real science and scientists they’re talking about and not just stuff you read on the internet.
One of those making a water strike would certainly take care of the Globall Warmining problem for a while.
She wins the George Gaylord Simpson award for getting her so-called scientific criticism wrong. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gaylord_Simpson]
If the science was so unequivocal the alarmist scientists would have the answer. Any scientist to be alarmist has alarm bells ringing with such uncertainty relying only on models. The whole practice stinks and questions their professional competence of being an actual scientist in the first place.
The science that is supposed to be unequivocal is never mentioned by the persons claiming it to be so because they are avoiding science and ranting instead. I have never read so many half-truths from alarmist scientists in recent decades than anybody else in science. What is it with these alarmists people claiming others do what they actually do, but thinking they actually don’t? This is why you are losing the scientific debate because you won’t debate it and can’t defend your alarmist nonsense.