Thursday
Dec262013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill No challenge
Dec 26, 2013 BBC Climate: Sceptics Even in the season of goodwill to all men, the mispresentation of the climate debate continues apace. This morning we had Professor Steve Jones interviewed yet again on the subject of BBC coverage of science, with the great man once again given the opportunity to portray the climate debate as being between "science" and "deniers".
Once again I wonder whether the BBC has ever interviewed a denier, in the sense of someone who disputes the existence of the greenhouse effect. Once again I wonder why the BBC feels that we need to have this false representation of the debate put forward. And once again I wonder at the failure of the BBC's interviewers to challenge it.
The audio is below.
Reader Comments (310)
I take a slightly different view, Alan. Not least because the above seems like using an argument-from-authority approach. Nurse and Jones, just like other competent and sceptical scientists, are quite capable of understanding the salient issues. They could do it in their spare time. If I thought otherwise, I would have to shut up myself. I accuse them of laziness.
What I do not recognise is any argument from them that other scientists who, similarly, choose not to call themselves "climate scientists", should be disregarded. If Nurse, Jones, Walport, etc can have an educated opinion on the matter, then so can anyone else who takes the trouble to educate themselves.
Yet we see this all the time in the MSM: People who voluntarily admit they know 'almost nothing' about science, but still think they can identify one scientist as having a superior/inferior technical argument to another scientist. Either these talking heads do science, or they don't. They can't claim both.
Tim Berners-Lee, really? Richard Drake, I'm thrilled to be talking with someone who is only one step from greatness! You must be so proud! What was it like, go on, tell us.
Sorry Chandra you've just proved you have the intellect of a 10 year old and not a 12 year old at all.
Dec 27, 2013 at 12:12 PM | Cheshirered
ROTFLOL
Matthu
If humanity did not exist, the " natural" temperature would be expected to be around 13.6C. The measured current average is around 14.6C.
For convenience recent trends tend to be compared with the thirty years post WW2, for which the average was 14.0C
Dec 27, 2013 at 2:15 PM | Entropic man
Presumably the output of a model rather than a number plucked from the Ether?
sandyS
No, I think his intellect is fine; it's his manners and egotism that suggest he hasn't yet reached puberty.
@EM: If humanity did not exist, the " natural" temperature would be expected to be around 13.6C. The measured current average is around 14.6C.
As a physicist I'd prefer to see it stated as "around 286.75K" and "around 287.75K"... Doesn't look quite as alarming if you don't use arbitrarily-based units. :-)
@michaelhart: 'People who voluntarily admit they know 'almost nothing' about science, but still think they can identify one scientist as having a superior/inferior technical argument to another scientist. Either these talking heads do science, or they don't. They can't claim both.'
As I have a PhD in Applied Physics off which Climate Science is a subset, I too have a Climate Science qualification.
"off which"
But according to the guiding grammatical principle tenets of the climatological school, esteemed and storied tributary to the great philosophical cannon of physics that it is, should that phrase not be:
"off of which"
?
An ordinary guy, SandyS, like every other human being I've met. I've now listened to all 'Tim's bits' from yesterday and there is some important debate in there. Connie is much more interesting though in the case of the Steve Jones segment - her distaste for uncritical cheerleading from the BBC and others for the latest effusions from science is I think spot on. And she specifically mentioned climate as having problems that need a more critical approach, albeit without going into any detail. This is very welcome.
Richard Drake
I think you meant to address Chandra, which was more than he deserved. Thank you for the brief summary, once I've more time on my hands I'll listen to an read more of the links here.
Sandy
Richard Drake
Just noticed on my post I didn't attribute the comment to its author on the previous comments page, my apologies for that.
Sandy: Many apologies - didn't realise you were quoting Chandra. The emphasis on open government and open data from Tim and others in the UK - and we are seen as a world leader in the subject - is of course incredibly relevant to energy policy and everywhere up-sewer from there (upstream just didn't seem adequate). Many of the people at the forefront of this movement - like Glyn Moody and his friends at the Open Knowledge Foundation - are totally convinced of the need for action on emissions to save the planet and the critical role of Big Oil to prevent this. All the same, Glyn had the guts to meet with Steve McIntyre when he was over in 2010 and the chat was friendly. At some point the lack of transparency in energy policy (such as the multiple misdirections on what really goes on to make up people's energy bills) will be seen as the anomaly it is. In line with the teachings of Robin Guenier (!) I think we should focus on energy policy openness first, as Andrew has done more than most on this excellent blog (apart from some of the comments!) But Connie's critique of the supine attitude of broadcasters resonates at every level of the debate and, I repeat, is very welcome.
EM,
Here is a question regarding your taxonomy of climate belief:
Your taxonomy relegates the denialist denizen to those who deny climate is changing.
Who are these who are denying that climate change occurs?
Are there those who deny that there was an MWP or LIA or RWP?
Are there those who deny that Arctic sea ice has been historically very dynamic?
Or that Greenland was once greener than it is now?
I do wish to understand you taxonomical work better.
Thanks,
EM - "If humanity did not exist, the "natural" temperature would be expected to be around 13.6C. The measured current average is around 14.6C."
Just so we all understand where you are coming from ... what natural factors have you taken into account when you determine what the "natural" temperature should be ... and if the measured current average actually dropped to 13.6 at any time between now and the end of the century, would that finally put the lid on the coffin of AGW?
SandyS
14.0C is the baseline figure on which the anomaly figures are counted. If memory serves, it is the HAdCrut 1961-1990 global average.
The figure for "natural" temperate was calculated from the physics of the atmosphere and orbital changes. It can be crosschecked against the latter 1880s temperatures, when CO2 was still 280ppm.
Using Centigrade units is a compromise between the physical calculations, which always use Kelvin units, and public awareness which would go "duh" unless you used Centigrade. If you were American you would have to use Fahrenheit.
In terms of effect the units don't matter.
Hunter
Your first two positions would definitely be denial.
The "dynamic Arctic" would need more detail on timescales and a better definition of dynamic. Over a 100,000 year glacial cycle the change in extent is enormous. Over a year it changes threefold. Then there's the decline since the 1970s and the short term variation from one year to another. The only real denial I've seen is of the post 1970s decline. There's general agreement on the others.
There's also general agreement that Greenland was warmer 1000 years ago. "Green deniers". That'a fun concept :-).
@Entropic man: you have proved nothing because the calculation you use assumes the 1880s temperature was lower because of CO2-AGW and that is certainly not the case, as shown by the recent hiatus in cooling.
In reality, the subsequent warming of the atmosphere (and the oceans) was mostly solar and you can explain the end-of-ice age amplification of delta tsi, and all subsequent temperature rise to the pre-industrial age by the reduction of cloud albedo from biofeedback. However, you have to correct Sagan's faulty aerosol optical physics first.
Matthu
The natural level of CO2 during an interstadial is 280ppm. The three orbital variables, eccentricity, precession of equinoxes and tilt angle have been fairly constant this past century, so that trend is flat.
Assume average solar input and radiation output, and average levels of vulcanism. You would also need to assume average ENSO effects.
Overall, leave out the CO2 we've produced and keep everything else as is.
The temperature drop you suggest would definately falsify AGW if it occurred under unchanged natural conditions and persisted long enough to be recognised as a climate change. If it occurred due to a large decrease in solar radiation, massive vulcanism or a large meteor impact, the answer would be more difficult.
Mydogsgotnonose
You oversimplify the hiatus. CO2 is not the only factor.
Changes in insolation, ocean heat uptake, aerosols and albedo are working to cancel out some of the effect of increasing CO2.
Hard to argue that the 100 year warming was due to the Sun when the evidence suggests that insolation has been steady. I don't recognise your other terms. More detail please. Sagan was working 30 years ago. I would imagine that any significant errors have been corrected by now.
"Changes in insolation, ocean heat uptake, aerosols and albedo are working to cancel out some of the effect of increasing CO2"
a bit like...........negative feedback. What a strange concept, I wonder if there are others.
Jaffa
Negative feedbacks stabilise a system; positive feedbacks drive change. What you get depends on the interaction between them all.
I recently listed some thirty interacting and changing variables. I'm sure the list is incomplete.
So... changes in insolation and ocean heat uptake. Are these evidential or only hypothesised?
And how does heat uptake in the ocean compare to, say, 30 or 50 years ago? And how do we know whether there has been any change with the paucity of historical measurements?
And what do we attribute changes in insolation to, if this has been hitherto steady for 100 years?
Just interested.
I know how you feel. I've taken more IR-spectra of compounds containing undesired carbon dioxide than I enjoyed. My formal discipline of Organic Chemistry traces its roots back 200 years to the experiment demonstrating that urea made in a reaction flask is chemically equivalent to that made in the biosphere. I started the public defense of my Ph.D. with reference to the experiment involving this simple derivative of carbon dioxide.
I have met more than one sociologist who thought my then industrial job synthesising carbon compounds might mean I spent my working day squirting nasty things into rabbit's eyes. But the newspaper where they saw all their jobs advertised (The Guardian), along with the BBC, now gives a super-sized soapbox to A-holes telling me about the evils of carbon dioxide.
The climate-gate emails reveal that Phil Jones at UEA/CRU is sad that the internet allows people like you, me, and others who disagree with him, to even communicate with each other. I feel I've been persevering longer than he has, if less publicly.
You're at it again on this thread. Almost everything you say is assertion and almost all of it is in the process of being challenged by reputable scientists in reputable papers. I'm not saying they are all necessarily right or that you are necessarily wrong but, like Jones, you have picked your side and will not admit of any contradiction.
Our friend Mydogspartalec (I do wish you'd pick a name and stick with it, mate!) may be off his chump but he makes a case that deserves better than to be dismissed because there is a "consensus" about climate and nothing that challenges your (and their) belief in what the basic physics really is is permitted.
The true denialists are the ones who aim to shut down debate because they are scared that alternative hypotheses might just turn out to be more plausible and more likely than theirs. And wouldn't that leave them with egg on their face and empty coffers!
Use a portable infrared spectrometer.
The radiation from H2O is from a number of frequencies and is smeared across a lot of the IR spectrum.
The emission from CO2 is mostly around 15micrometres. The DWIR in this band matches the reduction in OLR seen at the same frequency in satellite observations.
Dec 27, 2013 at 11:37 AM | Entropic man
EM - thank you for that. I had imagined there would be interaction that would mix it all up. Could you point to a explanatory article?
Martin A
Ira GLickstein did four very good posts on WUWT on this topic under the general title "Visualising the Greenhouse Effect".
Try this one first and work outwards.
Http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualising-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
Oops . There's a capital H in there .
Try http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualising-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
The true denialists are the ones who aim to shut down debate because they are scared that alternative hypotheses might just turn out to be more plausible and more likely than theirs. And wouldn't that leave them with egg on their face and empty coffers!
Dec 27, 2013 at 7:32 PM | Mike Jackson
I dont like anthropogenic climate change, with its probable consequences. Unfortunately I have found nothing more convincing. I'm here in hope of finding plausible alternative hypotheses. Alas, no one has been able to supply anything which fits the data better than cAGW.
If you have something, I would welcome proper references. As I've said repeatedly, "Dont tell me I'm wrong. Show me I'm wrong!"
Martin A
Sometimes I hate computers. I tried that web address and it failed. I found an alternative route via a Google search
" WUWT visualising the greenhouse effect "
EM - thanks. I'll perusal it.
Brendan H said:
I think this summarizes the distinction well.
Like Ruth I think that Brendan H is getting close to something important. I have long wondered what it is that makes so many people "deniers" in the eyes of those who use the term: what do the noseless dog, our gracious host, and Roger Pielke Jr all have in common with little old me, which makes them so angry with the lot of us? We disagree on almost everything!
The answer seems to be that we think the current mitigation schemes are either unnecessary or ineffective. Some think that AGW is basically nonsense. Some accept the basic idea but doubt the feedbacks, and so are lukewarmers. Some accept the sensitivity but doubt the predicted negative effects. Some accept it all, but think the proposed solutions (windfarms etc.) can't possibly help, being little more than an expensive distraction. Some belive that they would help but that the cost means that people will choose not to implement the solution. Still others think that it doesn't matter what we do because China isn't going to follow. The only thing all such people have in common is to doubt the "solutions".
Thinking in those terms has made sense of a lot of things for me. But some things still remain a mystery. What do those who call us deniers actually want? What would they consider victory? And why do they think it is "deniers" who stand in their way?
EM - well I took a quick look and could not see where it answers my question "please explain how downwelling radiation from CO2 is measured and monitored (separately from the total downwelling radiation, primarily from H2O...)" .
The article itself makes the point that radiation is exchanged between molecules of different species on its way down (or up). This is the same reason why I can't see how they can be separately measured.
I'll re-read it later slowly and carefully to see if I have missed where it explains (or implies) how radiation from CO2 can be separated from radiation from other stuff.
However, perhaps, I misinterpreted you. Maybe, when you said "...would say that the downwelling long wave radiation from CO2 does not exist,despite the fact that it can be measured and monitored" you meant only that the form of the spectrum of downwelling radiation shows that some of the detected radiation was radiated at some point by CO2 molecules, and it's my misinterpretation that you meant the radiation from CO2 alone could be isolated and meaningfully measured with enough precision to make sense...?
matthu
There's evidence for increased albedo from satellite measurement.
The measurement of ocean temperatures, from which ocean heat content is calculated, go back to the 19th century, as scattered spot temperature readings. This gives them a large uncetrainty range. In the 21st century the ARGO network is taking temperature measurements between the surface and 2000m on a ten day cycle from a drifting network of 3500 floats. Even allowing for the earlier uncertainties, there is a pattern of warming down to 700m until 1970. There is then a change in pattern with accelerating warming between 700m and 2000m. Over the last decade heat has ben channelled into deep water fast enough to reduce the rate of atmospheric warming. This is one possible cause of the recent hiatus and correspomds with the run of La Ninas seen over the last decade.
Solar insolation changes slightly over an 11 year cycle, made visible by variation in sunspots. Very roughly, the more sunspots, the more insolation. There is also a longer, less defined pattern of change. For example, the Maunder minimum was a long period of low sunspot activity which roughly matches the Little Ice Age. The causal relationship is much discussed and there is recent speculation that the most recent weak solar cycle is a harbinger of another Little Ice Age.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Reflecting_on_Earth_s_albedo
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html
ET - "Negative feedbacks stabilise a system; positive feedbacks drive change"
Yes, I think everyone understands this, except for alarmists who seem to be oblivious to the fact that the earth didn't encounter a 'tipping point' when CO2 concentration was much higher than today.
@Martin A.: one of the biggest mistakes in Climate Alchemy is to imagine that the output of a 'pyrgeometer', an inferior optical pyrometer developed for Meteorology, is a real energy flux. It is from the measured atmospheric 'temperature' with reference to a black body, put into the S-B equation.
Not only is the temperature wrong because the atmosphere is semi-transparent to IR, what the S-B equation gives is the Radiation Field. Its units for a collimated beam are W/m^2 but this is the Potential Energy Flux to a sink at 0 deg K. Only the vector sum of RFs is correct. 'Back radiation'' does not exist even though the instrument cliaims it does. So there is no DWLWIR, no 'positive feedback'.
In reality, an increase in pGHG gives increased RF atmosphere to surface and this switches off more net surface IR. To get rid of the solar heat, the surface temperature rises, increasing convection and evapo-transpiration. However, other atmospheric processes intervene and there is near zero CO2 climate sensitivity.
Meteorology is to blame for this mistake but Sagan and Houghton were at fault for claiming the net surface IR flux is at the black body level and the atmosphere is a grey body. I have seen recent papers from high grade and status physicists making this grey body mistake - it simplifies the equations.
The net result, with the mistaken application of Kirchhoff's law of Radiation to ToA is vastly to exaggerate IR warming of the atmosphere so they have to cheat elsewhere in the hind-casting. It's a Big Mess.
JJ (9:49pm) - It's an evangelical belief system. An element of such belief systems involves hatred of those who point out their inconsistencies and contradictions.
Martin A, you may be right, but I'm still hoping for something better. And I think it would be a useful questions for "anti-deniers" to ask themselves: what would it take to make them happy? And why would that make such a difference to them?
I'm suddenly interested in this page again, because of the phrase "anti-deniers" and the question of what would make them happy. I'm happy and I want anti-deniers to be happy. :)
Martin A
You really need a physicist for this, but here goes. Perhaps Mydogsgotnonose can help.
Emission of IR radiation takes two main forms.
One is the general thermal radiation due to temperature, which follows a bell curve wavelength distribution and is called black body radiation.
Some molecules also absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths.
Satellites measure the outward black body radiation (OLR) from the atmosphere using an infra-red spectrometer and detect the presence and effect of particular molecules such as CO2 by the troughs, the reduction in radiation at their absorbtion/emission wavelength as some of the black body radiation is absorbed.
The downwelling infra-red radiation (DWIR) is measured by an upward pointing spectrometer. There is a weak signal from black body radiation and a peak at each greenhouse gas's main absorbtion/emission wavelengths as radiation is reemitted.
The DWIR and OLR are mirror images, with troughs in the OLR corresponding to peaks in the DWIR
The peak at 15 micrometres in the DWIR and its corresponding trough in the OLR are probably due to CO2 because nothing else absorbs or emits much radiation at that wavelength.
Water produces a small amount of absorbtion/emission over many wavelengths and shows more as an overall reduction in intensity of the OLR, rather than as specific peaks or troughs..
@Richard Drake: Teletubbies love each other very much and share Big Hugs.
EM - judging by your answer, we simply don't know how fast heat was being transferred into deep water prior to the 21st C because our measurements weren't adequate. So this is very much hypothetical?
And variations in insolation are as yet inadequate to explain any perceived lack of warming?
Cheers.
Jonathan Jones, it comes down to perceptions of honesty and motivation. Simple mistaken beliefs are universal and can be easily corrected. Denial is motivated dishonesty that bears no correction. Because of this it can be distinguished from foolishness - except on blogs where "winning the argument against the troll" is paramount.
Just realised why the name Connie St. Louis rang a bell - here she is, in one of my transcripts from 2011, on the Today programme talking about the same subject, the BBC's reporting of science, with Lord May:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20110721_r4
What would make many anti-deniers happy would be for global temperatures to start increasing again at pre-"pause" rates (or faster), for the arctic to be ice-free by 2015, and for climate change denial to be made a crime.
«Denial is motivated dishonesty that bears no correction»
I can think of several Climate Scientists that fit that definition which is why I trust very few people in this area.
Re: EM
> The measurement of ocean temperatures, from which ocean heat content is calculated, go back to the 19th century, as scattered spot temperature readings. This gives them a large uncetrainty range.
This gives an uncertainty range a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the anomaly itself.
There are little to no measurements of the Southern Hemisphere prior to Argo and even in the Northern Hemisphere you will have trouble finding temperature data for depths below 700m. It is, at best, sparse.
The Argo data itself shows little to no trend since deployment, but give it time and I'm sure somebody will find an appropriate adjustment.
"What would make many anti-deniers happy would be for global temperatures to start increasing again at pre-"pause" rates (or faster), for the arctic to be ice-free by 2015, and for climate change denial to be made a crime."
I've always thought it interesting that the alarmists desperately WANT their prophecy to be true, they WANT the catastrophe, they WANT millions to be displaced, they WANT fire and brimstone, they WANT famine and they WANT death.
They ignore or fight anything that might come between them and their rapture. There's a name for it and it's not science.
Chunder is lying, as usual.
The "science" around passive smoking is at least as dodgy as that of the the CO2 control knob knobs:
http://junkscience.com/?s=passive+smoking
As usual, the agenda is quite separate from the science. People like Lindzen who call them on it get accused of corruption or worse.
I don't remember mentioning passive smoking.