Bishop Hill A letter to Paul Nurse
Feb 12, 2012 Royal Society I am reproducing this letter with the permission of Professor Brice Bosnich, a retired chemist and a fellow of the Royal Society. He sent it to Paul Nurse on his election as president of the society in 2010. Nurse did not reply.
Dear Professor Nurse
I am a retired professor of chemistry in The University of Chicago. I also am a Fellow of the Royal Society. First, allow me to congratulate you on becoming president of the Society. You are about to live in interesting times, I am sure.
Whereas I am reluctant to intrude on your time, I feel compelled to draw your attention to a very serious matter related to the Royal Society's position on man-made global warming (AGW). Beginning with the presidency of Bob May and continuing during the tenure of Martin Rees the Society has put forward a scientific case for (catastrophic) AGW, has joined with other academies in urging governments to take drastic action to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and, on occasions, has behaved as if it were a propaganda arm for the alarmist cause, [1]. No one objects to individual Fellows having any view they wish on this matter, political or scientific, but I believe the Society should exercise great care in its public pronouncements. It should, I believe, resist taking overtly political or advocacy positions. Cautious, balanced and informed scientific arguments should be presented, the political implications of which should be left to the politicians.
If one goes to the Royal Society Web site one finds an especially poor, in places inaccurate, case made for catastrophic AGW, [2]. There is also a highly speculative report on ocean acidification by CO2, [3], which seems to be based on a single paper, [4], that purports to calculate the change in ocean pH from 1750 to present! A change of 0.1 pH change was calculated! On this basis the report goes on to describe all imaginable catastrophes. At about the same time the Society's web page highlighted a paper about AGW and the shrinking sheep of St Kilda [5]! Then there was Bob May presenting an AGW lecture with the comprehensively discredited, [6], “hockey stick” graph as backdrop. I could go on.
How this state of affairs came about is a matter of speculation on my part. It is probable, however, that a group of committed Fellows persuaded the Society to take a position on AGW while the less conversant majority remained uncomfortably silent. Further, I fear the Society may have decided it was advantageous to blend its position with that of the existing government. I hope this is not the case.
Although I am not a climate scientist, I am sufficiently conversant with the climate science literature to be able to assess the issues accurately. My conclusion is that the case for catastrophic warming induced by man-made CO2 emissions is extremely weak (see for example, [7]). Allow me to encapsulate the issue, and forgive me if you are already familiar with the material that follows.
- Following the (global) Medieval Warm Period where the temperatures were similar to those presently recorded, the earth entered the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the Little Ice Age (about 1850) the earth has warmed intermittently. The actual amount of warming is controversial for technical and possibly other reasons. For surface temperatures recorded by thermometer measurements, the amount of warming is probably less than reported [8]. There is, however, no dispute that some near surface atmospheric warming has occurred, [9] [12].
- Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2, which is projected to occur by the end of this century, will lead to an increase in temperature of about 1 degree C from the CO2 greenhouse effect. There is no dispute here. No one has suggested that a 1 degree C of "forcing" would be catastrophic.
- In order to get to the 2 to 4 or more degrees C increase by 2100 as claimed by the IPCC, one has to invoke large positive feedbacks. For the case of the feedback by water vapor, as an example, the initial(CO2 induced) warming would generate an increase in atmospheric water vapor, a greenhouse gas, which itself will increase the temperature which, in turn, would generate more water vapor and so on. There are other feedbacks, most notably clouds, which combined with water vapor represent about 90% of the greenhouse effect. Contrary to what the Society’s Web site asserts, there was no (predicted) upper atmosphere signature found for water vapor feedback during the recent warming. The feedback from clouds is poorly understood as acknowledged by the IPCC. There is, however, accumulating evidence which suggests that the total feedback from all sources is zero or possibly negative (see for example, [10]). The evidence for the negative feedback case is substantially more persuasive than the IPCC assertion that it should be large and positive.
- The only case that the IPPC makes for AGW is that they can't think of anything else that could have caused the recent warming and that models can reproduce the warming. This reproduction is achieved by introducing arbitrary amounts of aerosols. These same models did not predict the recent 12 years of constant temperatures.
- Finally, there is an excellent correlation between the US postal rates since 1900 and global temperatures, [11]. Thus the assertions that AGW is responsible for the shrinking sheep of St Kilda or the vanishing snows of Kilimanjaro or any other alarmist pronouncements do not establish that the warming is man-made. This should be obvious to Fellows of the Royal Society, many of whom have used such correlations to support the existence of catastrophic AGW.
The case for catastrophic warming rests solely on the sign and magnitude of the feedbacks. As has been often said, “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence”. The potential of catastrophic AGW is an extraordinary claim, but is without compelling supporting evidence. Because of the way that the AGW issue has been politicized together with the behavior of certain climate scientists, the reputation of science and the institutions that support it have suffered. Further, were catastrophic AGW to join the dreary parade of alarms that have punctuated the recent history of affluent societies, the consequences to science and the Society could be severe. It may take a long time before reputations are restored. It is, therefore, imperative for the Society to stay away from politics and advocacy of AGW or any other science based issue, no matter how beguiling the prospect may seem.
Below is the opening paragraph of a joint statement (2005) by several academies including RS and NAS. This statement urges governments to take action on AGW. I have reviewed it for accuracy and balance, see round bracketed highlighted comments. This has been done in order to illustrate the unease and frustration that I am sure many Fellows feel when they read these official pronouncements.
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate (Correct, climate science is in its infancy). However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring (Is about 0.7 degrees C increase in 150 years evidence?). The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures (No warming has occurred for the last 12 years and the recent rate of warming is about the same as the rate of rise for the period 1920 to 1940 when greenhouse gases were increasing more slowly, [12]), and subsurface ocean temperatures(No warming has occurred for 8 years, at least, [13], and sea temperatures have been varying up and down for at least 50 years, [14]), and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels(No significant change in the rate of rise of sea levels has occurred for at least 100 years, [15] ), glaciers retreating (Glaciers have been retreating and some reforming since the Little Ice Age, at least, [16], and there is no persuasive evidence to suggest that the retreat is accelerating), and changes to many physical and biological systems(Which ones, the sheep of St Kilda?). It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities [IPCC 2001] (See above for this "evidence"). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate (Climate is defined as more than 30 years of weather, so what are they trying to say? That 0.7 degree C or so rise in temperature is an indication of climate change?).
Similarly, the most recent Royal Society statement, issued jointly with the Met Office and NERC, is replete with misleading and inaccurate assertions, [17].
Finally, I note that the Society has enthusiastically endorsed the central recommendations of the Stern Review, [18]. As noted by William Nordhaus, "the (Stern) Review should be read primarily as a document that is political in nature and has advocacy as its purpose". Moreover, Nordhaus makes a persuasive case that Stern has not got the economic assumptions right, especially on the crucial question of economic "discounting", [19]. The Nordhaus argument, placed in a wider context, is given in, [20], where it is noted that when “Prudential Handicapping” is abandoned for the “Precautionary Principle” there are no guiding criteria for an impossibly expensive journey in the endless pursuit of a zero risk world. A recent assessment of these issues offers a prescription for dealing with climate change, from whatever source, that drastically differs from that advocated by the IPCC, Stern and by the Royal Society, [21]. These and other social science studies indicate that it would be wise for statements from the Society to stay strictly within the bounds of (physical) science.
I end with a quotation from Atte Korhola, a Professor of Environmental Change at the University of Helsinki:
When later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of the twenty-first century as an embarrassing chapter in the history of science. They will wonder about our time and use it as a warning of how core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten, as the actual research topic of climate change turned into a political and social playground.
This letter is being sent to Martin Rees and to John Pethica. I should be grateful if you were to pass it on to members of Council.
Sincerely,
Brice Bosnich
Citations:
[1] http://royalsociety.org/News.aspx?id=1331&terms=global+warming
, http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf
[2] http://royalsociety.org/Report_WF.aspx?pageid=8030&terms=global+warming
[3]http://royalsociety.org/Report_WF.aspx?pageid=9633&terms=ocean+acidification
[4] http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/Caldeira_Science_Anthropogenic%20Carbon%20and%20ocean%20pH.pdf
[5] http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5939/464
[6] http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
[7] http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42
[8] http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGR07-background.pdf
[9]http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Apr_10.gif
[10] http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
[11] http://joannenova.com.au//globalwarming/graphs/us_post_causes_global_warming.jpg
[12] http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
[13] http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/figure.jpg?w=450&h=357
[14] http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
[15] http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg , http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038720.shtml
[16]
http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discussion%20Paper%20_him.pdf
[17] http://royalsociety.org/Report_WF.aspx?pageid=4294969087&terms=climate+change
[18] http://royalsociety.org/News.aspx?id=1471&terms=stern+review
[19] http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:CAgjOZmU0QIJ:flash.lakeheadu.ca/~mshannon/Nordhaus_on_Stern_050307.pdf+william+nordhaus+climate+change&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShsKm9xHKKkcHvZTsk9qiZQ1Ar6YTm4UWAmsiRLV2rwDQN7KCHW04MgfZ26SB_XK9p7RHHepmscunFWnkEQuyy2RkM96Wk3TI4uW16Ibzu_FX-ob0uOX7JL39u5ZTsz-V_a9fXT&sig=AHIEtbQBsNMlkFV-9RPtSHYhwWhzE5Vq7g
[20] http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/article_detail.asp?id=436&css=print
[21] http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/1/HartwellPaper_English_version.pdf
[22] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1612851
Reader Comments (75)
To Peter Walsh: Certainly An nescis quantilla prudentia mundus regatur, but also, Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius
To jb: I didn't know Nurse was a football fan, but you provide a plausible explanation, at least as good as AGW!
Cheers, Brice
GrantB: "I was nine at the time so my father could have been having a lend of me, but he took me outside at the appropriate time [...] so it couldn't have been the launcher unless it was also orbiting... "
At the time we all believed it was Sputnik, Grant. It was only in a recent documentary that I saw it stated that in fact it was the casing in following orbit that we saw, and that it was "highly polished" by the Russians so that it could be seen by the naked eye for promotional (propaganda?) purposes.
But this thread is far too important for such side issues to intrude, so I will not pursue it here.
Mike Jackson: "Nurse's chasing of sputnik across the night sky could be an example of post-normal pseudo-proletarianism — also known as "anything to be seen as one of the people", occasionally known as "engaging in terminological inexactitude" (though it could just be that he was mistaken, of course)"
Fascinating, Mike!
Sputnik was not just a diversion here then. It has added another dimension to consideration of Nurse's discourtesy and fitness to hold the post he now does.
Not to favour the writer with acknowledgement or reply is nothing other than breathtakingly rude.
"Contrary to what the Society’s Web site asserts, there was no (predicted) upper atmosphere signature found for water vapor feedback during the recent warming." What a damning statement. As we know, this particular aspect has been pointed out by many scientists for years. Yet all we have ever received from the AGW establishment has been hand waving. I really despair of the Society's leadership that not only allows, but encourages such disgraceful behaviour..
Professor Bosnich
I wonder if you have any evidence that the letter was actually received (e.g., that you delivered it yourself; gossip from a fellow FRS as to the internal reaction; an item in an RS ledger of 'letters received'; etc.). It isn't common for UK letter mail to go missing (we are not yet Italy) but it does occasionally happen.
Thinking about how one might establish that Nurse received the letter, led me to another thought: is the RS subject to FOIA? If it is, then that might provide a route (i) to establish that the letter had indeed been received, and (ii) to disinter the internal communications within RS about how/whether to respond. If such exist, they might well provide interesting reading.
I am ashamed of you all for pillorying Sir Paul Nurse as President of the Royal Society. It is a hallowed institution steeped in the scientific tradition without comparison. His pronouncements should be accepted without question as gospel, he IS the PRESIDENT of the ROYAL SOCIETY, after all!
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible!" Lord Kelvin, PRESIDENT of the ROYAL SOCIETY, 1895! Yar boo sucks! :-)
Jane Coles
The Royal Society does not appear on the list on the Whatdotheyknow website of public authorities that are FOIable.
The lack of a reply to Professor Bosnich's detailed letter was certainly discourteous but I'm surprised by claims that Sir Paul Nurse could not have seen Sputnik 2. It was certainly visible in South Wales; I saw it myself and there were reports in local newspapers of other sightings. Therefore it would be surprising if Sputnik 2 had not also been visible in parts of southern England on at least some of its orbits.
Brice Bosnich neatly riposted: "Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius"
My Latin is very rusty (goes back to the late 50s, early 1960s with no usage made of it since then so if I may...
No doubt you all know the saying that "insanity is hereditary, we get it from our children" but I wonder, going forward say 60 years, what version of this saying will our grandchildren quip about us when they review the papers, documentation etc on AGW.
Hopefully this blog and many others like it will be preserved so they can see that some defenders of the Real Truth were fighting rear guard actions and never gave up this fight.
Extract from citation 21 of Professor Brice Bosnich's letter:
'The second watershed is to be found within the science of climate change. It was crossed on 17th November. The climate science community has experienced an accelerated erosion of public trust following the posting on that date of more than a 1,000 emails from the University of East Anglia
Climatic Research Unit.2
These emails, whose authenticity is not denied, suggested that scientists may have been acting outside publicly understood norms of science in their efforts to bolster their own views and to discredit the views of those with whom they disagreed.3 Not long after this, and partly as a consequence of the questions of trust thus raised, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which many governments had represented to their subjects or citizens as an impeccable “Gold Standard” validating their policies, also came under increased (and continuing) scrutiny as a consequence of errors and sloppiness, many of longer standing, but highlighted specifically in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. Universities, governments and the United Nations are all now conducting inquiries into many aspects of climate science and the conduct of climate scientists and science bureaucrats.
In short, the legitimacy of the institutions of climate policy and science are no longer assured.
Extract from THE HARTWELL PAPER 22th April 2010 : FINAL TEXT EMBARGOED UNTIL 11 MAY 2010 0600 BST
'In short, the legitimacy of the institutions of climate
policy and science are no longer assured.'
And that really says it all.
Roy
Went right over Dublin for sure: Sputnik 2.
And given that it was up for nearly a half year, sooner or later the night sky would have been clear.
The letter is rubbish and hypocritical. Eg:
"For surface temperatures recorded by thermometer measurements, the amount of warming is probably less than reported [8]"
Does he really think the cited reference [8] justifies his bold assertion there? I say hypocritical because his entire letter centers around bemoaning others for not providing sufficient evidence for their claims.
And just look at this part where he dismisses the dangers of ocean acidification without providing anywhere near good enough justification (more like none): "There is also a highly speculative report on ocean acidification by CO2, [3], which seems to be based on a single paper, [4], that purports to calculate the change in ocean pH from 1750 to present! A change of 0.1 pH change was calculated! On this basis the report goes on to describe all imaginable catastrophes."
He also only selectively applies skepticism:
"There is no dispute here. No one has suggested that a 1 degree C of "forcing" would be catastrophic."
A true skeptic wouldn't just dismiss a possibility because "no one has suggested that"
Sid
His comments about ocean acidification are good enough for me.
The vague idea that the oceans are becoming acid is based on one paper that "suggests" that the ph has changed by about one point in 250 years. Are you saying that is not the case? Have you got better evidence?
Would you like to point to any other parts of his letter where he is wrong?
Since you criticise him for criticising other people for not providing "sufficient" evidence you could at least try to avoid PotKettle Syndrome. No?
Bravo ! Nicely done.
I know who Professor Bosnich is, but who is Sid? Something to do with British Gas?
Does he have a post-graduate background in mathematical statistics?
For those interested in the ocean pH question, you may want to read, http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/the-chemistry-of-ocean-ph-and-acidification/ , a short piece I wrote recently. Citation 3 of this piece gives the equation(s) for calculating the pH of water at a given partial pressure of carbon dioxide on page 3. For those sufficiently proficient to manipulate these equations there is an opportunity to become an expert on the consequences of ocean acidification induced by carbon dioxide; to wit, pick a carbon dioxide concentration, calculate the pH, and then speculate on what terrible things might happen.
Can we please avoid the loaded term of ocean 'acidification'. As any fule no, a ph over 7 is ALKALINE or Basic. Therefore moving from an assumed pre-industrial 8.25 to a modern-day 8.1 or so is a move towards neutral ph balance.
"The oceans are becoming less alkaline!"..."The oceans are becoming more neutral!"..."Ocean ph levels now kinder to your skin!!"..."Oceans becoming less like bleach!!"
Not so good at scaring the kiddies.
In the first letter, a reference is made to 1850 as an approximation for the end of the Little Ice Age.
In fact, the current warming (such as it is) began at the bottom of the LIA, around 1680. That's about two centuries before the beginnings of our industrial revolution and about two centuries before any increase in CO2.
The Medieval Warming Period has been intensely studied. There are some 900+ peer-reviewed studies involving researchers from 40+ different countries. It was as warm, likely warmer, than now, global (not just "regional") and for as long a duration as our current warming.
Our current warming stalled out in 1998. Even some of the staunchest proponents of warming now admit this. Yet co2 is at its highest level, and paleo studies show that only correlation between co2 and temperature to be the carbon cycle, where temperature variations are followed (some 800+ years later) by very similar variations in co2.
"I'm afraid that may result in only a short term fix because you know what's going to happen when Queen Charles inherits!
Feb 12, 2012 at 2:07 PM | Peter Walsh "
The Queen has a plan: Outlive him.
Gixxerboy said:
Can we please avoid the loaded term of ocean 'acidification'. As any fule no, a ph over 7 is ALKALINE or Basic. Therefore moving from an assumed pre-industrial 8.25 to a modern-day 8.1 or so is a move towards neutral ph balance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very good point. People think that acid = corrosive. Apart from the fact that the term is wrongly used in relation to the ocean - as you point out - to the general public, the fact that the opposite is 'caustic' is not well understood.
Reminds me of the 'acid rain' bogey, which was a complete crock. Same misleading terminology underpinning dodgy 'science'.
Thanks for the link, Dr Bosnich. Very informative. Have you retired back here in Australia?
Climate Change related research funding is now running at £300 million p.a. in the UK. Who's going to give that up?
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/uk-universities-receive-72-million-p-a-for-climate-research/
Sid is probably Z
What has always intrigued me was that "global warming" was always assumed in many science fiction novels going back to the 1970's. In practically every movie that showed the future, it was always "hot". One that comes immediately to mind is Soylent Green but I seem to remember reading others at about that time, though I can't recall exactly which ones. I do remember that it seemed to be a common theme that climate after 2000 would be "hot".
My old mate Bos (not Boz!) died early April this year *(2015), sorry to say. His lovely wife Jane some 5 months earlier. We have inherited their Basset hound Nichole, who, as Bos would say, smells like an Afghan's armpit.
Bos was all class, rising above his talent to be abusive. One just ignored that.
[*corrected BH]