Climate Climate & Energy

‘Climate models are unproven’–Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: Why should we trust a bunch of contrived computer models that have never had a prediction confirmed? Talk to me in 100 years.

Answer: Given the absence of a few duplicate planets and some large time machines, we can't test a 100-year temperature projection. Does that mean the models can't be validated without waiting 100 years? No.

‘Models don’t account for clouds’–Clouds are complex and uncertain, but unlikely to stop warming

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: Clouds are a large negative feedback that will stop any drastic warming. The climate models don't even take cloud effects into account.

Answer: All of the atmospheric global climate models used for the kind of climate projections synthesized by the IPCC take the effects of clouds into account. You can read a discussion about cloud processes and feedbacks in the IPCC TAR.

The Royal Whee

U.K. greens grin as climate bill unveiled in annual “queen’s speech” We thought wigs and rowdiness were the most delightful customs in the British Parliament, but it turns out there’s another: the annual “queen’s speech.” This opening-day tradition offers a chance to boast about the things Parliament will accomplish in the coming session. And this […]

‘Peiser refuted Oreskes’–In a poor piece of work that has been retracted by its author

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: Sure, Oreskes found no one bucking the consensus, but her paper was refuted by Benny Peiser, who did the exact same survey and found very different results.

Answer: True, Benny Peiser did attempt a similar study and submitted it as a letter to Science responding to the Oreskes study. But for very good reasons, it was not published.

Peiser claimed to find 34 articles in his "reject or doubt the consensus view" category. That's 3 percent of the total, so even taken at face value it doesn't cast much doubt on the consensus. But it is greater than the 0 percent Oreskes found, and serves as ammunition for the "there is no consensus" crowd.

Taking It From All Sides

Bush faces climate criticism from greens, U.S. mayors, entire world You know how, when you’re making a bad choice, your friends try to tell you, but you can’t see it? Listen up, Bush administration. In a speech yesterday, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan cited a “frightening lack of leadership” on climate change. He later said […]

‘Consensus is collusion’–Is climate science maturing, or should we reach for our tinfoil hats?

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: More and more, climate models share all the same assumptions -- so of course they all agree! And every year, fewer scientists dare speak out against the findings of the IPCC, thanks to the pressure to conform.

33 writers. 5 designers. 6-word science fiction

I was reading the November issue of Wired this morning on the bus and read this clever series of 6-word science fiction stories. I thought you'd enjoy these:

Rank and Vile

U.S. ranks low on climate-change list topped by European countries Two groups have ranked the climate-change successes of the 56 countries responsible for 90 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, and concluded that they all suck. “We don’t have any winners, we only have countries that are better compared to others,” says Matthias Duwe of […]

Here’s why the scientific community thinks so

This is a "greatest hit" from my previous blog. It's a topic that comes up all the time, so I think it's worth a reprise.

-----

As George Bush said at a recent press conference: "the globe is warming. The fundamental debate: Is it manmade or natural?"

Why does the scientific community think humans are significantly contributing to today's warming?

To understand why, first recognize that whenever the climate shifts, there's a reason for it. It does not wander around like a drunken sailor.

Based on decades of research, we can identify the factors that have influenced climate in the past:

‘Position statements hide debate’–True enough, but that is not the whole picture

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: All those institutional position statements are fine, but by their very nature they paper over debate and obscure the variety of individual positions. The real debate is in the scientific journals.

Answer: This is a fair point. Group position statements are designed to present a united front. The best indicator of what individual scientists think is in the current scientific literature, where new and different is the paramount value and scientists are free to express their own ideas, as long as they're supported by data and logic. What does the literature look like in terms of the climate debate? Sounds like a good topic for research.