All scientists are, by definition, skeptics. Hence the motto of the Royal Society of London, one of the world's oldest scientific academies (founded in 1660), Nullius in verba: "Take nobody's word." Skeptics and good scientists question and change their minds when presented with competing and convincing evidence. Indeed, scientific reputations are made by identifying flaws in current thinking, developing and testing new hypotheses, and by being right, not wrong. And while all scientists (and all people) make mistakes, good ones acknowledge their mistakes, correct them, and refine our knowledge. Bad ones dig in their heels, defending a faulty paradigm to the bitter end.
While a huge amount of effort is put into debunking the bad science promoted by climate deniers, scientists work to correct errors in understanding about climate on all sides. Here is a good example of honest climate science at work, in this case to correct a technical error in a report from an Argentinean food security NGO overstating some climate risks.
Earlier this week a small Argentinean non-governmental organization (FEU) released an embargoed copy of a new report on the food implications of climate change. It is well understood that climate changes will have very significant and varying impacts on the agricultural sector and the ability of different regions and the world to produce food. This new report makes a simple, but important error about climate science, which led to an exaggeration of the severity (and especially the timing) of agricultural impacts. Very simply, the authors confused the "equilibrium" and the "transient" temperature increases associated with future concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As a result, they argued that temperature increases in the coming years will be far higher than they are expected to be by climate scientists. This "transient versus equilibrium" problem is well understood and discussed (see here for a fine summary by Scott Mandia, and another nice review and comment by Steve Easterbrook). It's like turning up the thermostat in your house: the temperature doesn't increase instantly - it takes some time. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere does the same thing: a certain concentration in the atmosphere implies a commitment of a certain temperature, but the change isn't instantaneous: it takes time to reach that temperature because of lags in the system. The FEU report didn't understand the idea of "lag."
When the embargoed report was made available to the climate science community, the error was seen, identified, and called to the attention of the authors of the study. FEU chose not to fix the error and went ahead and released the report (to the detriment of their own credibility - while I doubt their error was intentional, they had the opportunity to correct it when scientists pointed it out to them and they chose not to do so). The climate science community has responded quickly with an explicit criticism of the science error - an excellent example of how climate scientists work to correct errors, no matter the direction. [Indeed, there is a new group dedicated to rapidly responding to mistakes and misunderstandings in the press and other forums about climate.] Gavin Schmidt, for example, a NASA climatologist, quickly wrote: "2.4C by 2020 (which is 1.4C in the next 10 years - something like six to seven times the projected rate of warming) has no basis in fact."
Unfortunately, I'm sure we'll see some media stories simply parroting the report's conclusions, without bothering to check with climate scientists. Whatever happened to fact-checking, especially unusual claims?
Climate deniers, who promulgate error after error (from misreporting satellite data, to misrepresenting historical temperature records, to misinterpreting paleoclimatic data, to much more) do not do the same - they simply deny the evidence (hence the term). And they will never admit their mistakes, despite the fact that their arguments are repeatedly, soundly, proven wrong. Nothing can convince them that climate change is real because they are not real skeptics. Their minds are not open to new information or evidence. [Here is a fine summary that debunks each of the various repeated and incorrect arguments of climate deniers.] Even worse, the least ethical of them will probably claim this example to be an error of climate science when it is the exact opposite: climate scientists got it right but an NGO got it wrong, even after being called on their error by scientists.
Do real scientists sometimes make mistakes? Sure. But it is precisely their willingness to identify, acknowledge, and correct mistakes when they are found that sets them apart from climate deniers. Science moves forward, in fits and starts and sometimes significant jumps. But the willingness to be simply wrong, and to acknowledge and correct mistakes (with the understanding that being wrong sometimes is the price for being right in the long run), is what makes science such a powerful and invaluable tool.
Peter Gleick
Follow Peter H. Gleick on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PeterGleick
An Argentina-based activist group called the Universal Ecological Fund released a report predicting improbably rapid climate change. The media, taking the accompanying press release at face value, told us the report had the blessing of “Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist Osvaldo Canziani.”
An Argentinian meteorologist, Canziani was one of two co-chairs for the Working Group 2 section of the 2007 IPCC report. When the IPCC was awarded the 2007 Peace Prize (along with Al Gore) for helping raise awareness about global warming Canziani was one of the many scientists who shared in the Nobel glory.
Even though the Peace Prize is not a science award, there’s nothing stopping an activist group from employing a little sleight-of-hand, from implying that anyone connected to the IPCC is ipso facto a “Nobel laureate.” In this case, the gullible media fell for it.
Since everyone involved with the IPCC (except the expert reviewers) is now technically a “Nobel laureate” – and may well get described as such by journalists – just how awkward could this matter become? Actually, rather awkward indeed." Donna La Framboise
Sounds like desperation. I remember when the hard core believers declared you cannot point to weather events and proclaim they prove or disprove global warming.
Now every single day every bit of weather on the planet is apparently because of "global warming".
I don't want socialism. And even if we are having global warming I still reject socialism.
Can you provide some citations, please?
New England flooding, the worst in 200 years:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_severe_weather
Washington D.C. snowfall breaks all time record previously set in 1898: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/02/winter_2009-2010_likely_snowie.html
China experiences worst drought in a century:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36034168/ns/weather/
Record Rainfalls in Rio cause mudslides that kill 350 people: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100408/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_brazil_flooding
More victims feared as Tenn. floodwaters recede
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100504/ap_on_re_us/us_tennessee_floods
Russian Heat Wave – worst in over 1000 years
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100809/160128496.html
Pakistan Flooding hits 14 million people
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10896849
Once in a century downpour kills 20 in Turkey
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32752666/ns/weather/
California rain shatters records, and more is coming
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_california_storm
Christmas chaos as snow snarls European Travel
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20101221-310114/Christmas-chaos-as-snow-snarls-European-travel
Australia floods cause “catastrophic” damage
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_australia_floods
Has it begun to dawn on you at man-made CO2 wasn't a problem during the 18th, 19th, or early 20th centuries? Yet somehow these events have occurred over and over in human history. A classic example of this are the Australian floods, where the two most severe historical events in the past couple of centuries actually occurred prior to the 20th century. And the pattern of draughts and heavy rains has remained roughly the same over the past 200 years.
If nothing "unprecedented" is happening, why isn't our attention on preparing for, adapting to, and buffering our society from the impacts of these unusual weather events?
Regarding projected global warming, the IPCC AR4 projected 0.2c/decade warming from 2001. They used the Hadcrut dataset.
I wonder if any media will report yesterday's news of Hadcruut global temp for the decade 2001-2010?
The trend is NEGATIVE 0.032/decade
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/trend
Will any AGW scientist admit this?
For your AR4 claim, could you provide a citation? What is their projection based on as far as CO2 emissions? Is their projection based on an average decadal rise, or does it project a linear rise in temps?
What is the significance, as it relates to global warming, of a short term negative trend in one data set? Does this agree with other data sets? If it does not, why is there disagreement? Have you plotted this and done the analysis to determine what the statistical significance is? So many questions. As a skeptic I would love to see your work and have you explain the relevance of your findings. I'm sure I'm not alone. Thanks!
IPCC SPM "For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios,"
Figure SPM5 shows it is constant warming to 2030 under all emmission scenarios and models.
Hadcrut is recognised by IPCC as the official dataset. The others are only nominally positive.
As I understand it, a negative trend is statistically significant.
It means that the data is not meeting model projections.
It means the past decade the earth experienced a cooling trend.
When the only evidence for AGW is these models, their failure is significant.
No matter what you believe, AGW is definately not getting worse.
This talking point seems to have surfaced with one Anthony Watts, Fox radio weatherman and professional denier. He has repeatedly been debunked peddling various denial lines:
Here Watts is debunked as the climate crock of the week. He tried unsuccessfully to block this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM
About five minutes in the really fun part begins. Of course the info about the Heartland Institute just before that is also very illuminating... But the best is at 7:00 to 7:35 or so:
"Of the 29,500 data sets, 90% showed changes 'in the direction expected as a response to warming.'" And "The lesson here is that birds, lakes, rivers, fish and glaciers have no political agenda, but climate deniers, and their wealthy sponsors, do."
For a look at that political agenda and who is paying for it: "Members of the 111th U.S. Congress have reported taking over $14.8 million from the oil, gas and
coal industries through June 22, 2010." http://dirtyenergymoney.com/
Also an honest and quick perusal of several prominent blogs, such as JamesandJules, RealClimate, Stoat, etc will show you that scientists have no problem whatsoever taking poor and shoddy science to task no matter where it comes from.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/gallon/hottest-year-on-record-_n_808109_74484235.html
Can't say much here.
There is the problem. Climate scientists believe that they have to simply correct the mistakes and misunderstandings in the press. These are not mistakes and misunderstandings. They are willful disinformation directly intended to mislead, misdirect, and fool people into believing lies. The general term is propaganda. And it is working.
You cannot win a war when you think the other side is "accidentally" shooting at you.
all right wing ideologies start with the premise of making life better for SOME people.
there it starts.
Do some 'scientists' falsify data and stiffle opposing views? Of course they do.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/
While this link deals specifically with medical science, such biases seem to common in all branches of science because scientists are people too. That said, I'm all for reducing man-made CO2 emissions. Whether or not this is contributing to climate change is moot in my opinion. There are other reasons for cutting back on fossil fuels.
Is economic success contingent on evidence-based or faith-based policies?
Does believing very fervently in something impossible make it true?
Do organizations dependent for funding from pumping and burning oil want to continue doing so?
Rising temperatures may slash yields for rice, wheat and corn throughout the developing world, according to a new report
By Dina Fine Maron and ClimateWire | January 19, 2011 | 16
Earth may be 2.4 degrees Celsius warmer by 2020, potentially triggering global scrambles for food supplies, according to a new analysis
From the Scientific American website, 1/19/11.
Work from the Universal Ecological Fund, the U.S. branch of Argentina-based nonprofit Fundación Ecológica Universal (FEU), sketches a somber portrait for world hunger by the end of the decade.
Climate change is bad enough. No need to make simple errors. The science community has it right here, but the media just publishes what is put in front of them.
However, Scientific American is not simply the average "media." It was once a respected science oriented publication. More recently, it has drifted into being been a strong supporter of man-made global warming theory, and has attacked critics with the same low rhetoric as politicians use.
Now it "just publishes what is put in front" of it, like the Guardian or the BBC. It would be interesting to find out how carefully the Scientific American screens it articles, and who was contacted for feedback on this particular study from Argentina, and what their thoughts were.
"Unfortunately, the timeline for this report is all wrong. They have made a mistake in assessing net forcing and then assumed that the instantaneous response is the same as the equilibrium response. The '2.4 deg C by 2020' is nonsense, I'm afraid. The authors were notified of this error a couple of days ago but have chosen not to change anything. Not a great way to earn credibility points."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/unforced-variations-jan-2011/comment-page-6/#comment-197986
Thanks for providing an opportunity to add evidence to Dr. Gleick's point.