A quote from an old poem you may have learned as a child:

The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes–and ships–and sealing-wax–
Of cabbages–and kings–
And why the sea is boiling hot–
And whether pigs have wings.”

I was lured into the fray, into the climate wars, over the hockey stick debate, and it is to that I hope to return one day in more detail. I am trying to arrange a directed reading course on the politics of climate policy in which I hope to focus on scientific uncertainty and how it affects the policy process, specifically, how uncertainty has been used by the “contrarians” to cast doubt on the concept of anthropogenic global warming. I will use paleoclimate reconstructions as a case study. So I have been building up a bibliography of readings I hope to review and a list of arguments I hope to address.

Recently, there has been a back-and-forth of sorts between Hansen’s Bulldog and C A. What is at issue is the MBH98 and MBH99 paleoclimate reconstructions and the M M critique. As I understand it, the main issues raised at C A are that Mann et al used a non-centred PCA methodology which gave pride of place in the PC stratum to BCPs, which are poor temperature proxies. This made for a faulty reconstruction that missed the MWP and LIA, two periods of climate variation that had been taken for granted prior to MBH and the use of it in the IPCC 2001 report.

Much text has been expended going over these issues, with HB reviewing centred and non-centred PCA and C A responding with its view of the flaws and misrepresentations of MBH. I am not qualified to offer a position on whether C A has it right or whether HB has it right as I am not up to speed on the statistical arguments. I hope, over the next few months, to spend some quality time reviewing the papers and arguments in closer detail and will post my musings as I do. The Hockey Stick Debate is important as an historical and theoretical example of what happens when politics and science collide. I’m surprised that this is still being debated but am glad it is in one sense as this is the area I want to focus on for my course. However, it has an unreal feel to it, as if we are back debating some historical issue that has little relevance to reality today — especially after reading this report on warming in the Western US.

Where I live is just north of the warmest bit on the map in the north-western states of North Dakota/Montana. We’re waming very rapidly and experiencing a drought on top of it.

Why are we still debating the hockey stick and BCPs?

Politics, my dear friends. Politics, and hence my directed reading course.

Over at Watts Up With That, a paper claiming to show that there is some spooky relationship between accumulated departure from average number of sunspots and solar irradiance and climate change is presented.

Sunspot numbers since 1700 were plotted as accumulated departure from average in order to compare them with weather variables. The sunspot number index indicates a declining trend for the 1700 to 1935 period and an increase from 1935 to 2008. The eleven-year cycle is clearly visible.

Here is the table:

Looks pretty convincing to the uneduated or layperson, right? Look how that graph declines until it reaches a low, then it rises and rises — in synch with the recent increase in global temperature.

But wait — look a little closer. It’s currently as high as it was during — the Little Ice Age! The LIA started in 1650, and at that time, the graph shows that the ADA was the same as it was in the period when the LIA was taking place. According to what I’ve read, glaciers started to expand in 1550, and the first minimum of the LIA took place in 1650.

How could that graph be linked in any logical way to global warming if it was as high during the period when the globe experienced a general cooling?

Enquiring minds, you know, can detect BS when they see it.

Speaking of detecting BS, you should watch Hansen’s Bulldog demolish the paper.

One of the denialist talking points is that there is no consensus among scientists that whatever warming is occurring is primarily or even remotely the result of human activities.  Go anywhere in the denialosphere and you will come across this over and over. 

So what exactly is a consensus? Does it mean that everyone agrees on some point? Does it mean that the majority (simple or otherwise) agree on the point in question? How many qualifies as a “consensus”?

The simple dictionary definition of consensus:

con·sen·sus /kənˈsɛnsəs/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-sen-suhs]

–noun, plural -sus·es.

1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

——————————————————————————-

[Origin: 1850–55; < L, equiv. to consent(īre) to be in agreement, harmony (con- con- + sentīre to feel; cf. sense) + -tus suffix of v. action]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

So, it could mean “majority opinion” in which case it would be possible to contrive some poll or survey to see exactly what the “majority” believed on topic A. Of course, as with any survey or poll, the results are only as good as the methodology and research question.

If consensus means general agreement or concordance; harmony, if there is discord over an issue, such as whether global warming is real or if real, caused primarily by humans, there is no consensus according to definition 2. If there is discord, but it is on the part of a numerical minority, then the consensus can be said to exist as long as there is a majority in agreement.

When Schulte and others claim that there is no consensus among peer reviewed papers on AGW because a majority of research papers did not contain explicit statements in support of AGW, he is muddying the water, so to speak. A refusal to make an explicit statement — how does Schulte know that the authors refused to make such a statement? Perhaps none was warranted in the minds of the authors. The problem with all this counting of published peer reviewed papers on climate or global warming is this: a paper may not make an explicit statement about the cause of global warming, but its authors might still be in agreement with the statement that global warming is largely anthropogenic.

For example, many papers are published on the evolution of various species and traits, yet few if any would make an explicit statement endorsing evolutionary theory. There is no need, since there is a consensus on the matter.

This counting up of overt statements in the peer-reviewed literature is logically flawed. If one is really intent on confirming or denying the existence of a consensus, one should instead contact the authors of the papers and ask them directly.

A link from Rabett Run of Mashey’s paper posted on DeSmogBlog.

Here’s the abstract, but make sure to read the comments section on DeSmogBlog where one Vicount Moncton pops in to respond.

ABSTRACT
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) – the idea that recent temperature rises are substantially caused by humans – is supported by a very strong scientific consensus. But for ideological or economic reasons some people are absolutely sure that it cannot be true, frequently attack it. They are often called contrarians or denialists as a result. They try to manufacture doubt on the consensus among the public, not by doing good science, but by applying PR techniques well-honed in fights over tobacco-disease linkage. These are amplified by widespread use of the Internet, which can quickly propagating nonsense faster than truth.
A recent, well-coordinated transatlantic attempt to attack the consensus included:
-
A not-very-good anti-consensus paper written in the UK by an NHS King’s College endocrinologist, Mr Klaus-Martin Schulte, not obviously qualified for this task,
-
of which much was posted by Viscount Christopher Monckton at a Washington, DC denialist website of Robert Ferguson, and publicized by Marc Morano of Senator James Inhofe’s staff.
-
The non-story then propagated rapidly and pervasively through the blogosphere.
-
This expanded further into personal harassment of a US researcher, Dr. Naomi Oreskes.
All this generated misleading publicity for a non-story that would astonish most climate scientists:
Google: less than half published scientists endorse global warming
􀃎 ~200,000 hits (as of 03/23/08), most created within a few days (at one point, was 1 million hits)
It added personal harassment of UCSD Professor Naomi Oreskes by Schulte, Monckton and Ferguson via intimidating demands, threats of lawsuits, and attack-by-press-release:
Google: researcher demands apology professional discourtesy essayist claimed climate consensus
􀃎 ~300 hits (at one point, was ~400 hits, not so many, but plenty for an even absurder non-story)

Another one bites the dust.

One of the hottest topics among “skeptics” concerned about the momentum that exists towards controlling AGHGs is how to convince the world that AGW is a dangerous hoax. One of the ways not to succeed is to rely on front groups, discredited scientists, bogus theories and publish work in non-science journals like Energy and Environment. To turn things around, skeptics have to publish credible science papers providing convincing alternative explanatons for warming in credible peer-reviewed science journals.

Credible is the operative concept. It’s a concept skeptics deniers don’t seem to understand. Correct that — they do understand it. The more cynical ones understand it all too well, and thus post their dreck in non-science journals or on blogs or websites, or hold bogus conferences, because they know credible journals and science bodies won’t put up with their fraud.

What this points to is a cynical attempt to manipulate the public, who have a drastically inadequate education in science, and who is unable to judge whether a paper is credible or whether a claim has any basis in fact. It’s shameful.

Deltoid outlines an interesting attempt to fool the public over at Energy and Environment. Apparently, the journal published yet another poor paper on CO2 concentrations that no reputable science journal editor would touch. Luckily, over at Rabett Run, there are links to the comments of real experts that trash the paper and E&E for publishing it.

From Rabett Run, some choice quotes:

It is shocking that this paper has been able to pass the journal’s referee system. “Energy and Environment” apparently has been unable to organise a proper peer review process for this paper, thereby discrediting the journal.

and:

The Beck article provides an interesting test case for E&E’s recently advertised willingness to serve as a forum for “skeptical analyses of global warming” (E&E mission statement, Dec. 2006). The result was the publication of a paper with serious conceptual oversights that would have been spotted by any reasonably qualified reviewer. Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science? I suggest that some clarification or review of the practice is appropriate

I love it. Not only do we get a bad paper published in an obviously biased journal by obviously inept editors, we get the real experts to completely discredit it and the journal!

My cup runneth over this morning.

After that depressing video, I thought it was time for a little global warming humour.

That’s a link to Nexus 6’s blog at blogspot.com. A nod to Deltoid for the link.

You can watch the original documentary on YouTube.

If you can keep your supper down, you can then watch the debate.

One of the chief complaints lodged by various “skeptics” is that the IPCC summaries are not advanced enough to explain the science to the average person.  A post over at the “audit” blog is an example of this complaint and is dealth with quite effectively by Atmoz:

By examination of the document, I would argue that this was it’s purpose. The answers provided in this document are presented in a way that the average adult citizen of the World with a secondary-level education would understand. Those expecting to find a more detailed examination of the greenhouse effect should look elsewhere. In my view this brochure is not intended for readers with more than a cursory interest in climate change.

This is not to say that the greenhouse effect FAQ answer is perfect even for it’s target audience. For instance, “[t]hus, Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible.” This just isn’t true. Most of the lifeforms that we are familiar with may have adapted so that the natural greenhouse effect is now a necessity. But that doesn’t mean that all life on Earth is dependent upon the natural greenhouse effect. We have known since 1977 that there is “abundant and unusual sea life — giant tube worms, huge clams, and mussels — that thrived around the hot springs [thermal vents at the spreading centers of mid-oceanic ridges].”

At the end of the post, McIntyre writes, “[t]he general public should not be required to wade through Goody and Yung at a university library to get an explanation.” I don’t think the general public would be able to understand Goody and Yung, but they don’t have to trudge over to the good-old university library to wade through it. Relevent portions of it are online.

I might add that it was the summary for “policymakers”, most of whom have little or no science education — they are politicians. I work in policy and have to continually edit down my work so that it is simple enough for policy makers to comprehend. If the summary for policy makers included all the relevant science and equations, etc. the policy makers would throw it on the table and demand to be told what it mean “in plain English” (or their preferred language.)

This criticism is therefore petty and meaningless and just another excuse to attack the IPCC. It is also more proof that the audit is more a tactic in a larger strategy rather than a serious interest in facts and proofs.

A great post about the pesky “global cooling” mole over at RealClimate, who respond to the issue far better than I ever could. 

This is #29 of the top 35 Denialist lies Claims about Global Warming. Apparently, between 1965 and 1979, the majority (44/73) of peer-reviewed papers published in appropriate journals predicted warming, 22 were neutral and only 7 predicted cooling.

It was the media that jumped on the idea of global cooling, not climate scientists.  

Just another bit of denialist subterfuge and disinformation.