Bishop Hill Ted Nield gets it wrong
Nov 19, 2013 BBC Climate: IPCC 
I think the big talking point this morning is going to be Ted Nield's article in the Telegraph. Nield is the editor of Geoscientist magazine and is very green, so it's no surprise to see that his article this morning, bemoaning Bob Carter's appearance on the BBC a few weeks ago and trying to dissociate the geological profession from this upstart dissenter, gets pretty much everything wrong.
We learn for example that the ice caps are melting (both of them?) and that the IPCC is 95% certain that the science is right (what, all of it?). We are told that the BBC couldn't find a British scientist to challenge the IPCC's conclusions, when of course we know that the actual criterion the BBC applied was "actively publishing climatologist working in the UK university sector". So a statistician saying that the studies cited by the IPCC are statistical junk (which in places they are) would not have been considered acceptable. We know for a fact that they spurned the chance to talk to Nic Lewis, who has published in the key area of climate sensitivity and who had expressed a willingness to explain his concerns to the BBC. So Nield's statement is not true.
Nield then descends into name-calling (deniers!) and smears (tobacco!), before an extended riff about how geology is right behind the IPCC.
Readers will no doubt draw their own conclusions.
Reader Comments (58)
The Telegraph's editorial standards and quality of journalism have both deteriorated significantly in recent years. It is no surprise that the newspaper industry is in terminal decline.
How do these charlatans get to become professors and editors of magazines? How come the Telegraph publishes such nonsense? Those are rhetorical questions.
I'm never sure which way the Telegraph leans these days. I think they're trying to appeal to all men and print views every which way to keep up their sales, but just end up confusing the readership. I'll read the article later when the paper arrives - yes, I subscribe and haven't got round to cancelling my subscription, but perhaps I can write an "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" letter later.
We are told that the BBC couldn't find a British scientist to challenge the IPCC's conclusions, when of course we know that the actual criterion the BBC applied was "actively publishing climatologist working in the UK university sector".
What used to be called a 'closed shop' - which everyone (at least everyone who wasn't benefitting from them) fought vigorously against in industry during the 1960s and 70s.
Am I alone in not seeing any comments to the Telegraph article? Thinking about it, recently comments for Delingpole's blog have also disappeared...
Michael Larkin: Well I can see 32 comments at the moment, and all but one commenter are scathing of the article (as is usual for such articles).
C'mon guys... the Telegraph is the present home of the world's greatest living environmental journalist.
They also employ Dan Hodges......
I thought I was reading the grauniad!!
He opens with - "Geologists are the only scientists who can look back to the last time greenhouse gases warmed the Earth – and it wasn’t pretty "
Strange I was under the impression that greenhouse gases have continuously warmed the Earth over most of its history (particularly water vapour). What happened to the argument of "snowball" Earth if there were no greenhouse gases.
What a preposterous article. Ah the delusion of the Green Taliban!
"Readers will no doubt draw their own conclusions."
No, sod it...life is too short. I have read it all before. Well done all those who have the patience to read it and leave a rude comment.
When I walk around the geology dept at Uo Aberdeen its not hard to find a sceptic. And what do they mean by "the ice caps"? Global sea ice anomaly has been +ve for most of this year. How do we turn this BS off?
Draw my own conclusions - yep;
"His next book, 'Underlands – a Journey Through Britain’s Lost Landscape’, will be published by Granta in May"
he's got a book coming out and the Telegraph gave him free publicity in return for some column inches.
My conclusion? Doesn't check stuff before writing and therefore not worth buying.
He is either lying or very ignorant. Apparently he thinks that the PETM, 55 million years ago was "the last time greenhouse gases warmed the Earth". Interesting, because it implies that something else caused Eocene warmth and the Miocene and Pliocene warm periods. And by the way, we don't know how large the change in CO2 during the PETM really was. The only thing we can measure is the change in D13C, and since we don't know the origin of the carbon (there are at least six different hypotheses) we can't estimate the quantity, even if we knew exactly how the carbon cycle worked then, which we don't. Also in the best profiles the temperature starts rising a couple of thousand years before the change in carbon isotope ratios. Sounds familiar?
Also what was so terrible about the PETM? Yes, it is the largest sudden temperature spike we are sure of (there may have been larger ones during the Cretaceous), but it had hardly any noticeable detrimental effects on the biosphere. There was no mass (or even major) extinctions. There was some extinctions among benthic foraminfera (bottom living microorganisms) and there is evidence from one area in North America that mammals grew smaller in size during the warm interval (Bergmanns Rule!). There is also some evidence for aridification in Spain and more uncertainly in Wyoming. Except for that plants and animals seem to have evolved and flourished as never before or since. For example most important mammal groups (including Euprimates = us) suddenly show up during the PETM. Probably this was at least partly because the warm climates opened up high latitude dispersal routes that have never been viable since.
So Nield trashes Bob Carter to stake his claim as the voice of Geologists.
OK, this isn't very scientific, but:
Google Scholar, "ted nield geology" - 259 results
Google Scholar, "rober m carter geology" - 35,900 results
I think it is worth pointing out that this in just one reason why the Telegraph is a far better source of information on climate change than the Grauniad.
You can read views and input such as Nield's in the Telegraph, be it right or wrong.
Would a Grauniad reader even know who Bob Carter is?
Gecko - good point. Non-alarmist comments at the Guardian's are also severely moderated, unlike the Telegraph.
If anyone has not seen it, Carter's 2011 presentation for some climate context and summary of what's wrong with climate science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TQ3W45Cq18 - .
So an editor who makes money off of alarmism is unhappy to see his gravy train leaving the station without him on board.
Frankly anyone who claims the icecaps are melting is so factually wrong as to raise questions about their intelligence, integrity or both.
Why listen to anything else they have to say, if they are so counter factual on such a basic point?
So it is no surprise that a faux climate warrior who does not even know about the ice caps relies on name calling and false comparisons. Promoting the CO2 obsession is a major lucrative industry. A beneficiary of this parasitic enterprise has already sold out their scruples to get so far. Banging the drum more loudly instead of discussing the issue is really their only tactic left.
Here is his own summary of himself from linkedin:
It looks to me that his main area of expertise is PR about science and not science itself.
I'd never heard of "Geoscientist", so had to search to find out it is the house mag of the Geological Society. That never existed when I was a fellow. It's not a journal.
PhD in Geology. That doesn't help much. I have one of those too, but I'm a sedimentologist and a sceptic. Sedimentologists do the palaeoclimate stuff, not structural geologists or igneous petrologists. He could be one of them.
Biography.
So he's a journalist and politician with a geology degree. He doesn't speak for me.
"We learn for example that the ice caps are melting (both of them?)"
I think that is right (or at least defensible)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183
@Pete B.
A case of misleadng by ommission.
Firstly, satellite based estimates of the Antarctic ice cap (not sea ice) are based no a couple of years' data.
Secondly, ice cap melt in the Western Antarctic is known to be at least in part due to geological not climatic factors. In fact you might have seen in reports over the last couple of days that yet anoter active volcano was discovered under the ice cap in the Western Antarctic.
Thirdly, and this is the killer for Nield, according to the Alarmist theory and all the previous predicitons, the Antarctic Ice cap is supposed to be INCREASING in mass, with Antarctic sea ice DECREASING (the predictino was that sea ice would melt as sea warmed, creating more precipitation - snow - on the land mass). Guess what, now sea ice is indisputably higher and Nield claims ice cap mass is decreasing. That is an admission of failure.
I wonder about his description of Carter as a "retired" geologist.
It seems to open up something of a can of worms, that concept.
PeteB you're right but note it's the same old RHETORICAL trick the alarmists use
- the sea is rising, the temperature is rising, etc.
.. what counts is it rising alarmingly outside the trend that we'd expect as we come out of an ice age or outside the range of short term (1 to 100-200 years) natural variability ?
Michael Larkin
If you can't already see the comments, you have to click on the word "comments" at the top of the article in order to open them.
I know an awful lot of professional geologists who are Fellows of the Geological Society (for which this is their in-house magazine). I don't know many (any?) global warming supporters amongst the FGS members I know. Most professional geologists I know are pretty sceptical about AGW, mainly because they are aware of the significance and scale of natural climate change.
I'm a professional geologist and I know that CAGW is - and always was - a scam and I've been saying it for at least 25 years.
Philip Bratby and Messenger, thanks for your replies. Upon investigation, it turns out that Discus comments are unavailable when Firefox is in safe mode, and that some add-ons can fool Discus into thinking you're in safe mode. I eventually discovered that the culprit was an avast! online security add-on. Having disabled it, I can now see Discus comments at the Telegraph. Thought I'd post the solution in case anyone else is having problems.
"I am an experienced populariser of science and reporter on science (especially Earth science and biological sciences)."
So what?
Should have read: "Up and round about a green cul-de-sac"
"The adventures of Ted Nield - fantasist and rock racconteur."
Nov 19, 2013 at 11:27 AM | tty
What a very unfortunate classification term ‘Euprimates’ is. I absolutely, categorically and unequivocally deny that I am a Euprimate in any shape or form. Please be more sensitive in your comments.
I guess Nield didn't dare go for the "fossil-fuel-denial-machine" meme, given the number of FGS members who work for evil fossil fuel companies, pay their dues and support the Geol Soc.
I just went to check out the Geol. Soc corporate sponsors but their website appears to be down....
Quite frankly, a chap who poses for a photograph wearing a jacket, open-neck shirt *and* a vest makes me wonder ..... or is it me who is strange?
I was going to take issue with the Bishop taking issue with the statement about both polar icecaps melting, but I see that PeteB has beaten me to the punch. Geckko, I agree with you that AR4's predictions about Antarctica were not correct, but this particular statement of Nield's is accurate. I'm not sure why this is considered significant; according to Shepherd et al. (link above by PeteB), the polar mass balance has produced about 0.6 millimeter per year of sea level rise since 1992. Two inches per century. Other studies (e.g. Rignot et al. 2011) have concluded an acceleration to 1.3 mm/yr, but even doubling it results in minimal effect. Only if one makes a considerable extrapolation of an accelerating trend, can this be considered problematic.
The siren call for carbon storage multi million $ might motivate some geologists to play their part in the IPCC/UN concert...
Alternative headline:
Andrew Montford gets it wrong
Ice caps are melting (both of them?) - yes they are. Look at them in their hemisphere summer and they are indeed both melting.
The IPCC is 95% certain that the science is right (what, all of it?). No he didn't say "all of it", but was referring to the bit he just talked about, namely, "The world is warming, sea levels are rising, ice caps are shrinking, there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 800,000 years..."
the BBC couldn't find a British scientist to challenge the IPCC's conclusions, ...Lewis, ... So Nield's statement is not true. - Lewis is a retired city type with an interest in climate science, not a scientist.
a statistician saying that the studies cited by the IPCC are statistical junk (which in places they are) - Your statistician apparently says without qualifying (ie. implying all) that the studies are junk. AM, an accountant, using his own presumably greater knowledge, says that in places they are. So who is right the accountant or the statistician? And which ones are junk? There are many hundreds of studies cited. How many are "junk".
Nield then descends into name-calling (deniers!) - he needs a name for you lot and "sceptics" doesn't come within a mile (I have seen little real scepticism here). He could perhaps choose ostriches or contrarians, but deniers hits the spot as far as I can see.
... and smears (tobacco!) - there are clear connections between climate science denial and the methods used by the tobacco lobby to deny links between smoking and cancer. Mentioning that is not a smear it is a fact of the company you like to keep and the experts you like to employ.
extended riff about how geology is right behind the IPCC. - that bit is true.
DNFTFDT
Melting? Or subliming? That is the question. Sublimation is independant of temperature.
As a Chartered Geologist, and regular reader of Geoscientist, I don't believe that the geologists who have actually thought about it would support Ted Nield's views - so he's spouting his own opinions, and certainly not mine! We can elect our Council members (the Geological Society of London) but I don't recall being able to elect the editor of Geoscientist (otherwise a much improved communication).
Can't have everything I suppose.
Geoscientist published a favourable review of the Hockey Stick Illusion. Look here, 2nd review down:
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscientist/Archive/August-2010/August-2010
"Andrew Montford tells this detective story in exhilarating style. He has assembled an impressive case that the consensus view on recent climate history started as poor science and was corrupted when climate scientists became embroiled in IPCC politics."
Can we believe this was published under Ted Nield's editorship? It was. However, (as a fellow myself) I am convinced this was accepted while he was on holiday. I also believe that Nield then contrived with Bob Ward to get Ward accepted as a fellow in rapid time, and to then give Ward a 'Soapbox' article to condemn the review and ad home its author (a 'Soapbox' is a regular feature giving an opportunity for a fellow to spout off on a pet concern). Ward's article is dated Oct 2010 ,although his membership started officially on 1/1/2011 (ie. dated the next 'round-off date' for new members. So Nield gave Ward a prime 'Soapbox' article although he had only just joined. Very unusual. Given the author of the review was a fellow since 1993, who should better reflect members' views?
Ward writes: "It was somewhat startling to see in August’s Geoscientist a glowing review of The Hockey Stick Illusion" by xxx (an oil industry geologist)".
So what is the relevance that a long time Fellow is 'an oil industry geologist', other than to question his motives? One of the main sponsors is Shell, who sponsor a regular series of the public 'Shell London Lectures'. http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/events
Its easy to search the interests of the membership. 28% have an interest in oil, gas or coal. If you include mining with those, its 38%. Those with an interest in climate change are 4.5%.
Here is Ward's article, in his classic, now well known style: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscientist/Archive/October-2010/Climate-scientists-are-innocent--OK/Not-so-jolly-hockey-stick
As member, I am quite happy with Nield's capability as a general editor. Geoscientist is a good read. Its just that on CC, he seems completely lost. Like other commenters here, I have found most other Society members I have discussed the subject with to be either AGW-sceptic or at least agnostic. The current president, Colin Summerhayes, is very much pro-AGW, but like Paul Nurse, I think he handles it much more as a political role (dependent on grants and political support) than as defender of the integrity of science.
Notably, the Geological Society's position on climate change was not openly debated amongst members and was chaired by Summerhayes. It is in fact not that forthright. It reads more as 'if CO2 emissions are a problem, then we need to be worried'. Its final sentence is rather soft: " In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be." For most of us, we could accept that as a a 'necessary' politically correct statement.
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/climatechange
@Mushroom
My experience with the GSA (Geological Society of Australia) is somewhat similar in that the Executive of the GSA issued a pro-AGW "Statement" without polling their Members. When challenged on this, the Exec replied along the line that it was within the legal competence of the Exec to issue such a Statement without a membership poll. This caused me to resign from the GSA after over 30 years of continuous membership
Did the UK Geological Society poll its' membership prior to publicizing its' support for AGW ?
Mushroom: Being as you're in the circle (geoscientist and all), have you been reading the comments over at the DT? There is one very self-regarding guy (Sceptical Sceptic) who says he is a 5-year qualified geologist with two degrees and everyone who challenges him he asks them to name their degree and who they work for. He is a great advert for the Grantham lot.
PeteB (Nov 19, 2013 at 12:12 PM) is correct in pointing readers to evidence of melting ice caps at
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183
The full citation is
Shepard et al. 2012. A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance, Science 338, 1183 (2012); DOI: 10.1126/science.1228102
This is, to my knowledge, the most recent and the most thorough review of the polar ice melt, using 20 years of data, including 8 or 9 years of GRACE satellite data. It includes amongst the 40+ authors many of the leading experts in the field. From the abstract
That is less than 20% of the average 3.2 mm p.a. sea level rise recorded by the satellites. Those who manage to obtain access to the paper, will note on table 1 that nearly all the acceleration in sea ice melt is in Greenland, (and 75% of recent ice melt) whereas 85%+ of the polar ice caps reside down under.
Conclusion I draw is that the polar ice caps are melting, but at a very trivial rate.
@andytheflyer Surveys 36% of geoscientists & engineers believe : Rebutall "oh well they are oil engineers"
- of course Wikipedia is 1984 about "surveys of Scientists" ..travesty.
- My guess they are afraid to do proper honest surveys cos they are afraid what the result will be.
"We learn for example that the ice caps are melting (both of them?)". No there are a lot more than two. How about Quelccaya Ice Cap for example - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quelccaya_Ice_Cap . One of the melting ones.
@ianI8888
"Did the UK Geological Society poll its' membership prior to publicizing its' support for AGW ?"
Not openly. When they announced they were to write an official position, they invited members to email in their views, (as I did) but there was no open publication of these. So we have no idea of knowing to what degree the official Society position reflects the views of its members.
@ Graeme McIver
You are quite right there are more than two ice caps. The Quelccaya ice cap no doubt looks vast close up, being about 44 km2. But the Greenland ice cap is more than 40,000 times that area and Antarctica more than 250,000 times. If the ice cap is on average 100 metres deep, the Quelccaya ice cap will contain enough water to raise global sea levels by around 0.011mm.
Kevin Marshall
For other readers, a 1mm sea level rise requires the addition of 360 cubic kilometres of water.
My own calculations suggest that melting ice sheets are contributing 1.4mm/year to sea level rise and the rise in ocean heat content is contributing 1.7mm/year due to thermal expansion.
That corresponds to ~500 cubic kilometres of melt and ~610 cubic kilometres of thermal expansion. There's also a small contribution from other sources.
I ran the calculation the other way and found that the sum of the annual uptake of latent heat of fusion and the annual increase in ocean heat content nearly matched the energy input from the incoming/outgoing radiation imbalance. The latent heat of fusion absorbs about 5% of the total, with ocean heat uptake accounting for most of the rest.
What really interests me in Ted Neild's article is his discussion of the Paleocene-Eocene Temperature Maximum.
We've been here before. There was a CO2 increase of comparable size to our own contribution, caused by the release of fossil carbon, as we are doing. The equilibrium result was a 4C temperature rise and a 5 metre sea level rise.
This fits the upper end of the IPCC predictions.
Entropic man, they argue about the detail of temperatures measured by thermometer mere months ago. I'm not sure I put much store by CO2 levels and temperatures estimated for millions of years ago. They certainly don't know what all the contributing factors were to any of the events they think they can see.
To Ted Nield and all of the convinced climate scientist.
I recommend you all to sit down and watch Jacob Bronowski seminal work from 1973-74 'The Ascent of Man'. If you see no other part of it I would strongly recommend them to watch this episode.
The Ascent of Man (3 of 6) Knowledge or Certainty http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU0pgKx9i_Q
I'm retired geoscientist (geochemistry). Over the years I have noted that there are hard science types and soft science types.
Hard geoscience people are handsome if male or beautiful if female. They have sparkling personalities, a joyful outlook on life. They are successful in all walks of life, wealthy with V8 cars & big turbos or superchargers - and they shout you a beer at the pub.
The soft science types are pimply and ugly, quite dull party people who slink into corners and drink bottled mineral water. They don't know any good jokes and they are very PC, even to owning the perversely engineered Prius when bicycles are unfit for purpose, like when it's raining on the way to the organic vegetable co-op.
The hard types think many aspects of AGW are pure crap, while the soft types endorse it, hoping that as usual, nobody will notice them. They have not cottoned on to what causes babies so they have bred up a lot in the last couple of decades, but Nature will get their numbers down through inbreeding weaknesses.
The hard types actually discover new deposits, more science, more enlightenment.
The soft types try to nobble the hard types, but lack the skill. They do admin things like running a journal, a girlie sort of job that's incommensurate with being a Mile High club member, or a member of the Carton Club (24 beer cans in 24 hours).
In the longer term, natural selection will get the softies. Here's to hair on your balls!
...................
All clear now?