Guest essay by Robert Bradley Jr.
“This warming [of 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit this century] is as certain as death and taxes.” (Professor Andrew Dessler, below)
Andrew Dessler is one of the leading climate scientists/alarmists of his generation. And he is a master at presenting his case, not unlike a highly skilled lawyer. He knows the answers–and counter-arguments are just noise.
His textbook, Introduction to Modern Climate Change (2nd edition: 2016), does not seriously engage a range of opinions in its 250 pages. A review of the text/index confirms that many key controversies and open questions are either downplayed or absent, thereby creating–in his world–settled alarmist science.
I will later write an in-depth review of this textbook, which not only covers physical science but also related issues in political economy, energy economics, and history. Suffice it to say that Dessler dodges numerous germane issues in his primer. Here is a list of the wholly missing areas, presented alphabetically, that the author needs to address in a 3rd revised edition:
- Argument from authority
- Climategate
- Climate-change exaggeration
- CO2 forcing: logarithmic, not linear
- Confirmation bias
- Deep ecology
- Deep-ocean mixing (re “missing heat”)
- Energy density
- “Fudge factors” (re climate models)
- Government failure (vs. “market failure”)
- Iris Effect (re “missing heat”)
Dessler’s latest op-ed (he is a favorite in the Houston Chronicle), “Why the Green New Deal Makes Me Hopeful About Climate Change,” demonstrates these character traits/opinions.
He is the smartest guy in the room and argues from authority.
“As a climate scientist, I have studied the impacts of human emissions of carbon dioxide on the climate system for nearly 20 years. Over this time, my research, as well as research by my colleagues, has made me increasingly worried abut the impacts of climate change on human society.”
He is certain that the current climate-model predictions are correct.
“If we don’t take action, unchecked greenhouse-gas emissions would lead to global-average warming over this century of 5 degrees Fahrenheit to 9 degrees Fahrenheit…. This warming is as certain as death and taxes.”
He is a deep ecologist, fearing that the optimal, fragile climate will be torn asunder to remake human civilization in a very bad way.
“With continued fossil fuel use, we might see warming over the current century sufficient to literally remake the Earth’s environment and our place within it.”
He sees wind and solar as the savior (quite unlike his mentor/hero James Hansen, who understands the fundamental concept of energy density).
” … there is hope. The cost of wind and solar energy, which do not emit dangerous greenhouse gases, has dropped rapidly in the past decade and is now competitive with coal energy in many places.”
I am not a climate scientist. But I can follow the bottom lines of the argument pretty well–as have hundreds of other “skeptics” of climate alarmism, thanks to the Internet and open publishing. (Regular reading of Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. can go a long way in this regard.)
Gerald North: A Second Opinion
But my distrust of climate Malthusianism also relies on the views of Professor Dessler’s senior colleague in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M, Gerald North.
Back in the corporate world working for a company (Enron Corp.) that was very active on the climate issue (alarmist, with six profit centers at stake), I hired Professor North as a consultant to give me the inside scoop on climate science. What he told me was very interesting, including that climate models were unreliable. (It is models that generate scary warming scenarios.)
North via email said these things about climate models in 1998/99:
“We do not know much about modeling climate. It is as though we are modeling a human being. Models are in position at last to tell us the creature has two arms and two legs, but we are being asked to cure cancer.”
“There is a good reason for a lack of consensus on the science. It is simply too early. The problem is difficult, and there are pitifully few ways to test climate models.”
“The different models couple to the oceans differently. There is quite a bit of slack here (undetermined fudge factors). If a model is too sensitive, one can just couple in a little more ocean to make it agree with the record. This is why models with different sensitivities all seem to mock the record about equally well. (Modelers would be insulted by my explanation, but I think it is correct.)”
“[Model results] could also be sociological: getting the socially acceptable answer.”
Professor North’s opinion of speculative, not settled science (contra-Dessler) was reconfirmed with a 2010 email from North to Sheldon Graham Jr (dated January 6, 2010):
“In another decade of research we will have squared away a lot of our uncertainties about forced climate change. As this approaches we can be thinking about what to do if the warming does indeed appear to be caused by humans and to what extent things are changing as result.”
North told me the same thing twenty years ago. The year 2020 is just ahead for another ten-year increment, but I imagine the mirage will remain. (Professor Dessler, please call your office ….)
Conclusion
Andrew Dessler is a very serious, able climate scientist. His books and tweets need to be read and understood by his critics. It is a rare window in the mentality of a true believer, a Malthusian deep ecologist who is sure he is right about both the alarm and the need and ability of government intervention to save us from certain peril.
Let the debate continue. Contrary to Dessler’s view, there are two sides to the climate debate, and one of them offers the hope and expectation that the other does not.
Originally posted at Master Resource, reposted here at the request of the author.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From the article: “Dessler’s latest op-ed (he is a favorite in the Houston Chronicle), “Why the Green New Deal Makes Me Hopeful About Climate Change,” demonstrates these character traits/opinions.”
What it demonstrates to me is Mr. Dessler appears to be clueless if he thinks the Green New Deal is a good thing, or even possible. This doesn’t give me much confidence in his judgement.
Mr. Dessler needs to concentrate on getting those new nuclear reactors up and running. You know, the ones that are going to replace all that windmill foolishness.
I think everybody agrees that with 7.5 billion people on the planet, and with an explosive spread of technology, we are truly in uncharted waters. There is just no historical data to allow any confident prediction to be made about future climate. To be so certain, we would have to have data from a time when the Earth contained 7.5 billion people more or less doing stuff that we are doing today.
Who knows? Maybe it is really methane from rice paddies messing with the climate. Or, cow farts. Or nothing. The climate maybe is just doing what it has always done: Change. And, do we really know if is changing? Is our definition of “climate” arbitrary and of no real scientific use?
Anybody who says otherwise is just saying stuff he has no business saying.
Funny that the author cherry picked a quote from a North mail
jeez how would know this?
Appealing to North?
On Jan 6, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Gerald North wrote:
Hi Mr. Graham,
One last time. From your letter to the editor.
The question for scientists is whether CO2 increases cause a global warming and if so
how much. The climate science community has settled on the answer that it does cause
warming and by a range of from about 1.5 C to 4.5 C for CO2 doubling. Is this bad?
Well it is if the top of the range is true, not so bad if the bottom holds. If the average
over the range happens, there will be winners and losers. Anyone deciding on how to
handle this will be making choices that affect people differently. These last are not
scientific questions. They are moral choices. My opinion on the subject is no better
than anyone else’s since how do we really decide on one person’s loss over another’s
gain?
But if you want my opinion it is that the likelihood of serious negative consequences
for most humans is large enough that perhaps we should take some precautionary
measures seriously. For example, conservation, cutting on imported energy sources that
could compromise our national security to name a few. Since at least some of these
measures are likely to be adopted, why not get the jump on our foreign competitors
and move on some of the technologies that have been discussed. Texas is likely to be a
big winner if we do, since we are loaded with opportunities here (wind, sun, etc).
In another decade of research we will have squared away a lot of our uncertainties
about forced climate change. As this approaches we can be thinking about what to do
if the warming does indeed appear to be caused by humans and to what extent things
are changing as result.
I hope this answers your question. If you have further questions I suggest that you
phone Professor Andrew Dessler. He has volunteered to continue the conversation via
phone: [REDACTED. You should know better, Mosh].
Jerry North
Steven,
The quintessential embarrassment for climate science is the oft repeated fact that the official uncertainty range of 1.5 C to 4.5 C has not budged in 40 years. The embarrasment is because this is after many, many billions of research dollars spent. But in fact the high end (above 3.5 C) has almost certainly been refuted by observation, and there are beginning to be peer-reviewed published papers that say that. Yet the official 1.5 to 4.5 C schtick persists … because they need it to exist. And the supercomputer modellers oblige, reducing themselves to nothing more than useful idiots.
That strongly suggests climate science is nothing more than a pseudoscience self-licking ice cream cone. (it exists for its own benefit.)
Professor North’s professional judgement (he is skeptical of formal models) has been, ever since I have known him, 2C for 2x, some 50% below the IPCC’s midpoint. This is a significant departure from Dessler that I have also emphasized in my emails that have become public at the above site.
In another decade of research
It’s always a some distant time in the future. When that decade passes (next year), wanna bet it’ll still require another decade of research?
he has the classic vanity beard too!
only down a bit up and running now.
http://realclimatescience.com
Enjoy
My personally most admired scientific mind has always been Richard Feynman. One of the notions he put forth with a great deal of vigor, that inspired that admiration was that for someone to call themselves a scientist they must be willing to argue the data and arguments that oppose their conclusions with equal rigor to that they must invest in arguing in support of them. Since it is patently obvious that Dr. Dessler never comes close to that benchmark, it is equally obvious that neither does he in any way deserve to be described as an “able scientist” of any sort. An “able propagandist” for he shares much more in common with Goebbels than he does with Feynman
An “able propagandist” perhaps, for he shares much more in common with Goebbels than he does with Feynman
“Andrew Dessler is a very serious, able climate scientist.” How about very serious, able climate propagandist?
The human models also tell us the creature has one breast and one testicle. Thus, like climate models, make predictions of future performance of the human race quite problematic.
Anybody else get disturbing vibs from just looking at the guy? Is he Mann’s clone?
Yes. And from the comment below, I agree with that too.
He is not any of those things, and reading his books is listening to the ravings of a lunatic or liar or fool.
Nothing new there. Countering his crap will not spring from studying what he thinks.
Andrew Dessler is a very serious, able climate scientist. His books and tweets need to be read and understood by his critics.
Uh, no, no and no. Reading anything from this creep could only make someone less sane.
“I will later write an in-depth review of this textbook, which not only covers physical science but also related issues in political economy, energy economics, and history. ”
I will look forward to your review.
“And he is a master at presenting his case, not unlike a highly skilled lawyer. He knows the answers–and counter-arguments are just noise.”
This strategy is effective propaganda. And it is employed more and more among the alarmists. It is not about supporting scientific arguments. They know those are far too arcane for the casual observer. It is fundamentally dishonest, but they don’t care.
Except for one thing: It is lies and people are onto it. They have to fool everyone or eliminate those that they cannot. Or it all comes down in their heads before they can seize power.
Andrew Dessler is a very serious, able climate scientist. His books and tweets need to be read and understood by his critics.
I understand Andrew Dessler. He’s ignorant, and he’s dishonest. See this post on my blog for some more details:
https://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2006/02/fabulous_free_m.html
Specifically, there is this section:
I wrote, “3) A preponderance of evidence suggests that CO2 emissions will peak circa mid-century, or earlier, and will decline by the end of the century to a value that causes atmospheric concentrations to plateau at a value below 560 ppm (i.e., double pre-industrial concentration). This will happen through normal technological evolution…”
He responded, “Some of your points are scientific, but they have no merit. I was especially amused by number 3, that CO2 will peak mid-century w/o any policy to reduce GHGs. You say the “preponderance” of evidence supports you, when I think “no evidence” would be more appropriate.”
No one who knows anything about the history of global CO2 emissions and likely future CO2 global emissions would say there is “no evidence” that global CO2 emissions will peak “circa mid-century or earlier.”
We would be far along towards that if not for decades and decades of opposition to anything that would really help conserve fossil fuels.
Nuclear could have easily have replaced a large percentage of power generated by FFs.
Opposition to fracking for nat gas has hindered the move to that cleaner fuel wherever it can be substituted.
Right now there could be a program to replace every lightbulb in the country with the most efficient ones available. This simple step could save a huge amount of energy, and also a lot of money. LEDs are still not universally used. Huge amounts of our lighting, which uses(the last time I checked which was a few years ago) as much as 10% of total power in the US, is older types that waste power.
And another thing the US could do is build out a natural gas delivery infrastructure, with goal of getting gas service to every house in the country.
For things like heating water, drying clothes, home heating, and cooking, using gas directly instead of burning it to make electricity, and using the electricity to heat and cook and dry, would save a huge amount of energy. One of our engineers could probably figure out the savings rather easily, at least in regard to the ball park amount. At each step, burning the gas to run a turbine to make power and then transmit and distribute it, has losses of energy that are saved by burning the gas at the destination device. It would take a long time, but by building out the infrastructure jobs would be created, and people could switch over as appliances needed to be replaced.
We are the Saudi Arabia of nat gas, but the vast majority of Americans have no access to it.
These two things alone could take a huge bite out of everyone’s energy cost, at least those who do not have gas and still use inefficient bulbs. Both save by being more efficient, with no loss of performance. In fact, gas for heating has several advantages besides saving money and cutting energy use: It comes into building via underground pipes, and will not be interrupted by such things as ice storms and hurricanes or anything else that cuts electric power.
Wow If Pam Anderson is so anti fossil fuels why use plastic and fossil fuel to build her spice rack ?
8-or 9 degree increase in temperature … bring it on .