BPSDB
.
Time and again climate Deniers parade how little they understand climate science when they claim that some “new study has proven climate change theory is wrong”. Two reasons for this, both relating to the scale and scope of climate science.
The Deniers seem to think that climate science is a three legged stool, and if they could only knock out one leg it will fall over. Wrong metaphor; it is more like an 18 wheeler. Even if they managed to puncture one tire (which they have yet to do) it would make no noticeable difference. Two, even three wouldn’t change much.
To understand why let’s have a look at part of of Buchdahl’s excellent Global Warming Student Guide. As you will see the evidence for climate change comes from thousands of studies across many disciplines. Below is the table of contents for Section 3 of the Guide.
3. Empirical Study of the Climate 3.1. Introduction
3.2. Climate Construction from Instrumental Data
3.2.1. Measurement of Climate Elements
3.2.1.1. Measurement of Temperature
3.2.1.2. Measurement of Rainfall
3.2.1.3. Measurement of Humidity
3.2.1.4. Measurement of Wind
3.2.2. Homogeneity
3.2.3. Statistical Analysis of Instrumental Records
3.3. Palaeoclimate Reconstruction from Proxy Data
3.3.1. Historical Records
3.3.2. Ice Cores
3.3.2.1. Stable Isotope Analysis
3.3.2.2. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Ice Cores
3.3.2.3. Dating Ice Cores
3.3.3. Dendroclimatology
3.3.4. Ocean Sediments
3.3.4.1. Palaeoclimatic Reconstruction from Biogenic Material
3.3.4.2. Palaeoclimatic Reconstruction from Terrigenous Material
3.3.5. Terrestrial Sediments
3.3.5.1. Periglacial Features
3.3.5.2. Glacier Fluctuations
3.3.5.3. Lake-Level Fluctuations
3.3.6. Pollen Analysis
3.3.7. Sedimentary Rocks
To get a sense of the diversity of data, consider how we know the earth is warming. There are direct temperature measurements of course. There is also secondary evidence such as melting glaciers and ice sheets, thermal expansion of water, impacts on and changes in natural systems, long term changes in weather, and so on (see also here for examples).
For temperature measurements there are land based monitoring stations, ship based temperature monitoring, ocean bouy temperature stations, weather balloons and aircraft based measurements, and satellites of course.
These are spread across many nations all over the world, use slightly different technologies and methodologies, and monitored by hundreds of different research institutions.
Now have a look at just some of the different sources for the data. Remember that even when we are talking about exactly the same type of data it is coming from many different studies by many different scientists and research institutions. At the link given you get 5 different sources for each of land based and satellite based temperatures.
Just for fun let’s pretend that one of the less silly Denier Myths were true, that urban heat islands have made many of the land based surface temperature records useless (they haven’t). Ok, we throw those out.
Climate change science down the drain? Hardly. We still have all of the rural land based records, plus all of the other temperature records, and all of the secondary evidence.
What if another of their myths were true, that the satellite data shows cooling (it doesn’t)? Two wheels down, climate science out the window? No! There is still a lot more data supporting climate change than not.
Of course scientists would want to understand why the satellites showed this (if they did), and they would be looking at it very hard until they came up with a rational answer, but it doesn’t affect all of the other evidence, both direct and indirect.
And of course this all shows just what nonsense the Denier claim that “climate change is just based on computer models that are flawed” is. A claim that is nonsense for other reasons as well (see here and here).
What if there was a study that really undermined climate science? Something that just blew out a bunch of our metaphorical tires all at once.
In the first place it would take something pretty significant to do that, as I have discussed before. For the exercise let’s say a study that shows conclusively that temperatures over the past century correlate perfectly with changes in solar irradiance (after factoring out other influences).
No matter how reputable the researchers and how good the science may seem, this would still not result in immediately declaring climate change disproved. Even if there were only one other study from before, this would still leave us with one for, one against. “New” does not necessarily mean “better” or “more correct.”
Of course there is not just one previous study, there are many. As such scientists would look at the new study very closely and try to see if it’s findings could be repeated. If, and only if, they could find nothing wrong with the study and they were able to repeat the findings would they try to discover how all of the previous studies of solar irradiance could be wrong.
Only then might we consider tossing out the idea of anthropogenic climate change, and even so we would still be stuck trying to understand why CO2 was not having a warming effect. The impact on all of science would be huge.
The point is that any claim that “a new study” has undermined climate science is 99.9% certain to be nonsense. You don’t even have to look at it to know that.
Even if the study turns out to be flawless (extremely unlikely given the scale and scope of climate science) it will be quite a while before science confirms it’s validity.
As long as it is “one new study” you can be certain it hasn’t undermined anything. It may have raised some questions, it may have cause some doubts, and although improbable in the extreme it may even lead to toppling the current understandings of climate change entirely … but that would be in the future when the “one study” has become “many studies” confirming the new understandings.
So when you see that Denier headline “new study proves climate change theory is wrong” you know the claim is bunk. You also know just how well the person making the claim understands climate science.
UPDATE: Nov 10 2009 see also
—-
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 52 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS:
Sun in X-Ray by NASA Goddard Laboratory for Atmospheres from Wikimedia Commons
*
Very nice compilation and summary, Greenfyre.
—-
At this point it should be doubly clear that climate inactivism isn’t about facts, but emotions. Sure, maybe it’s just “one new study” which in the end turns out to be a dud anyway, but they just need to harp on this “one new study” for 1,000 times, and then suddenly it looks like there are 1,000 new studies disputing AGW.
Step 1: “Global cooling since 1998!” “Global cooling since 1998!” “Global cooling since 1998!” “Global cooling since 1998!” “Global cooling since 1998!” “Global cooling since 1998!” “Global cooling since 1998!” “Global cooling since 1998!” ad infinitum.
Step 2: “[…] a growing accumulation of global cooling science […]”
It’s a growing accumulation, not of science, but of noise. And the Heartland Institute wants more (noise).
—-
Greenfyre,
excellent article once again. Your articles always stimulate discussion in our household and this morning it was the catalyst to speak to my inlaws about the issue.
Frankbi, well said.
—-
[…] read more | digg story No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> […]
““new study has proven climate change theory is wrong”.
I notice you have this in quotes. Who are you quoting? Personally, I don’t know anyone that doesn’t think the climate changes.
Herein lies the problem. To quote you:
“You don’t even have to look at it to know that.”
I don’t see how putting one’s head in the sand helps. [2]
Have you ever heard of Newton? One man destroyed the thinking of many.
“So when you see that Denier headline “new study proves climate change theory is wrong” you know the claim is bunk.”
You keep quoting this person. Who is making this claim?
You want some education? I dare you to read this blog, by noted meteoroligist Anthony Watts.
http://wattsupwiththat.com [3]
’m a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.
Weather measurement and weather presentation technology is my specialty. I also provide weather stations and custom weather monitoring solutions via http://www.weathershop.com (if you like my work, please consider buying a weather gadget there, StormPredator for example) and http://www.tempelert.com, and turn key weather channels with advertising at http://www.viziframe.com
The weather graphics you see in the lower right corner of the blog are produced by my company, IntelliWeather. [4]
—-
I wholeheartly agree with everything in your post save the comparison to an 18 wheeler.
This is perhaps a nit pick, but unless the tires are filled with foam, a blown tire on an 18 wheeler will put you out of service. A front tire will certainly stop the truck, but even a single rear tire on a loaded unit will eventually park the truck.
It’s a cascade effect. A blown tire on a set of duals transfers the weight to it’s running mate which will cause it to eventually blow out, then the weight is transferred to tires on other axles and so on…..
A better comparison would a bulldozer or a tank.
Lose a pad on a track and it means next to nothing. Can you say coming through?? Heh,heh.
By the way, I’ve driven a GMC like the truck pictured. It’s been a very long time ago but I still can remember my ears ringing for hours after listening to that 2 stroke Detroit V8 screaming through those twin stacks! Not a good thing!
—-
Still waiting moderation… afraid of a little dissent?
—-
Let’s see if this post makes it through moderation…
“So when you see that Denier headline “new study proves climate change theory is wrong” you know the claim is bunk. You also know just how well the person making the claim understands climate science.”
You use the quote ““new study proves climate change theory is wrong” twice.
Please specify who made the comment you are quoting. I don’t know any climate change expert that doesn’t believe in climate change. I suspect you are taking a headline and trying to make it into something it wasn’t intended to be.[1]
Also many aspects of climate change theory are being proven wrong. Even the IPCC has updated thier own projections. In the last IPCC report the projected temperature increase were adjusted downward by 30% based on improving their models. In other words, they were “wrong”. [2]
Just recently it was discovered that the climate models do not properly account for black soot. Again theory was adjusted to meet reality. They were wrong!
Please be specific with regards to what you mean by “climate change”. Are you referring to man-made global warming?[3]
As I said above, I don’t know anyone who is really arguing against the fact that climate changes.
—-
Even in your own google at the very top of the page he specifies man-made global warming… not arguing against climate change.
“Denialosphere”
I find your terminology interesting. I don’t deny climate change has occured at all. As matter of fact, I feel confident the climate does change.
What I doubt is the validity of Mann’s hockey stick.
NASA’s ability to use the right data for the right month.
Our own temperature measuring techniques.
Our own understanding of our climate.
Check out Watts surfacestations.org site.
—-
Ody:
What I doubt is the validity of Mann’s hockey stick.
Mann’s 2008 paper analyzes this both with and without tree rings, and finds the same hockey stick that 11 other studies have found. Why is it that Deniers never mention those other studies, and ignore that the most recent hockey stick gets around the tree ring argument?
(A related sub-meme is that the IPCC dropped the hockey stick from AR4, when in truth it’s still featured prominently, along with the corroborative studies.)
NASA’s ability to use the right data for the right month.
The problem was with NOAA, not NASA (or GISS, the actual group responsible for temperature analyses). The error was promptly found and corrected, and — in spite of what the Deniers like to scream — no ‘press release’ of any sort was released with the uncorrected data.
Somehow “scientists correct error exactly as expected” isn’t as conspiratorial, is it?
Our own temperature measuring techniques.
Which of thermometers, MSU satellites, radiosondes, or ocean buoys do you have issue with? They all corroborate (and also corroborate with proxy data such as glacial melt, borehole analysis, sea level rise, and declining arctic sea ice), so if you dispute one, you dispute them all, at which point I ask how you’d measure temperature at all.
Unless you’re like Ross McKitrick, who believes (believed? It’s hard to pin him down) that ‘average temperature’ has no meaning, regardless of what introductory thermodynamics says.
Our own understanding of our climate.
A legitimate complaint, as scientists will never be absolutely sure about anything, and research cna always be improved. However, this is a fairly broad topic — care to narrow it down? And, on a related note, claims of “wait and see” have been tossed around for over 20 years now. When will we have waited long enough for you to say “we know enough”? (Hint.)
(Side note: Several Deniers play this card, and then also follow suit by calling the scientists actually trying to do further research greedy for grant money. Does Not Compute.)
Check out Watts surfacestations.org site.
A) A single picture now doesn’t tell you how the station was run in the past, nor how it will be run in the future.
B) The stations are adjusted for anomalies, including siting anomalies, by public methods published by GISS.
If you dispute B, consider John V on ClimateAudit, who looked at the GISS algorithm, wrote some code, downloaded the source data pre-adjustment, and ran the adjustments himself (science is public and repeatable, recall). His result was that for the lower 48 (the area watchdogged by SurfaceStations), the published GISTEMP (using every station) correlated almost perfectly with the data from only the ones Watts rated “best” (CRN=1,2, or 3). In other words, the GISS adjustments used in official analyses compensate for the problems shown in CRN45 stations, effectively removing the siting problems that caused Watts to rate those stations too low. (The rest of the world follows the same procedure as the lower 48, but Watts doesn’t have minions with cameras watchdogging there.)
If this doesn’t exonerate the GISTEMP measurements in your eyes, please explain what would. (If you cannot explain what would exonerate them, then your claim is likely unfalsifiable, which means it isn’t rational. For me, discovery of a systemic bias that wasn’t adjusted for by the public procedure would likely convince me to disregard GISTEMP; more details would stem from the nature of this hypothetical bias.)
Trucks can indeed be finicky critters. Been there….
I do consider a truck a good example, but in a different way.
We’ve got a off route truck with 50 grand of AGW in the wagon going down a narrow mountain road with no guard rail. The brakes are already hot, there’s no jake and the driver isn’t too good at grabbing lower gears. The bottom line is we’re going too fast and gaining speed. For extra fun it’s dark and he can’t see the sharp little surprises on the pavement called tipping points. Unless our intrepid driver gains some smarts real quick…this is a misload that is going to be delivered way ahead of schedule to a lot of people who didn’t know they had freight coming their way…’nough said.
Before my soap box collapses…you have a great site Mike, and please keep up the good work.
BTW I love your numerical answering system.
—-
(Please delete the prior accidental post.) [1]
Mike, I often find it useful to describe how the solar irradiance argument collapses (relative to other candidate forcings) when paleoclimate is taken into account.
I frame the discussion this way: Among other things, the glacial cycles aren’t affected in any noticeable way. That leaves open the possibilty that there are smaller irradiance changes that play a major role in shorter-term climate fluctuations, and indeed this was assumed to be the case until quite recently (as reflected in the first IPCC report e.g.).
Then I note the vast amount of scientific work that went into changing this assumption, but the typical denialist response is to say that this proves some sort of scientific conspiracy even though all else being equal a larger irradiance effect would mean increased climate sensitivity to all forcings, CO2 included. The response after that is usually a refusal to consider any more facts. [2] IMHO the paleo argument is effective with bystanders, though. [3]
While I’m on the subject, it seems to not be well-known that there was a paper in the early ’90s by Sallie Baliunas that suggested the sun is a variable star, amd that this kept the “it’s the sun” argument going strong into this decade until other astrophysicists proved it to be in error. Interestingly, Sallie was a protege of Bob Jastrow (of GISS but later Marshall Institute fame), who by that time had quite thoroughly gone over to the dark side. [4] It’s a small world after all.
—-
I heard there was no credible scientists (or at least very few) who say man isn’t the major cause of global warming, but I ran into this and I just wanted your response to it because I have found many credible scientists who are skeptical. [1] It appears to me that there is a real debate and that debate is centralized on the justification and proposed implimentation of CO2 taxes as well as methane (livestock flatulence).[2]
http://thenewpundit.com/2007/12/20/over-400-prominent-scientists-disputed-man-made-global-warming-claims-in-2007/
—-
Lews Therin: That’s the Inhofe 400. It’s fairly easy to debunk; just google “Inhofe 400” and look for anything looking in depth at the names. Very, very few actually study climate, several support climate research (i.e. Ray Kurzweil, who believes climate change is real but hopes that technology will save us, is on the list as a “doubter”), and some remain on the list despite demanding their removal.
It’s similar to the Heartland 500 in that regard, except that one tended to cite more actual scientists. (That one claimed that anyone that Singer & Avery cited had to dispute climate science, including Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt!)
Look at it this way. Inhofe is very opposed to any measure of taxation or big government, much like the Heartland Institute. They attempt to dispute the science by using rhetoric rather than embrace the science and come up with a small-government solution. This is not the tactic of honest debate (denying observation), but rather that of Deniers trying to preserve corporate interests — remember Phillip Morris?
I looked at the 2nd link in the list: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101
It’s not the greatest debunking job I’ve ever seen. Out of 413 people, they claim to debunk 84 for having a connection to fossil fuel industries, 44 who are TV weathermen, 20 economists, and 70 who they say have no apparent background in climate science. This leaves apparently 146 legit scientists who disagree. Still not a bad number, but also, why does being retired make a scientist uncredible? That takes us to 195. Out of the 70 who were deemed to not have a climate science background I still found Phds in oceanography, physics, chemistry, engineering, & environmental science. Those are still good examples of proffesionals who don’t buy the U.Ns CO2 global warming assessment. They can’t all be conspiracy theorist. They’re probably normal human beings who did some research on global warming, but who knows.
One more thing, and I will check this later since I’m in a hurry right now, but I found economists listed in the group of 70 who have no climate science expertise, which is true, but, wern’t these same people included in the list of 20 who were economist? If these exclusion lists are double dipping, then it is misleading because you can’t add up the exclusions and be confident that you aren’t counting people more than once.
This means that the 44 weathermen and the 20 economists are probably also written in the list of 70 with no expertise. If this is the case, then counting retired scientists and only extracting the 70 + the 84 suppossed special interest allied individuals, leaves 259 of the 413 which are credible. But, I still have to look at the specifics of why the 84 with fossil fuel insustry ties were excluded. It could be something big or it might be that they worked for Exxon once upon a time for 3 months. This is important in diserning these debunk lists because it looks to me that there is a lot more to this whole topic than many people think.
Anyway, I will have to examine it further later. I don’t know if double-dipping is going on concerning those exclusion lists, but I will find out soon.
—-
You cannot discredit a scientist simply on the grounds of a link to an oil company. What is the role? [1]
Oil companies that are in fact developing more friendly types of energy may need to employ those who understand climate science. Working with oil companies to develop alternative power does not mean they can’t express their opinion on global warming.
They certainly have more credibility that Al Gore’s butterfly scientists. [2]
And what about the credibility of those who are trying to discredit the people on this list? Have you ever watched to scientist argue global warming on television? The first thing the alarmist will do is tell a list of lies to discredit the denier. I have seen it happen more than once, and I have seen the denier slap down the remarks of the alarmist by using facts. [3]
—-
1) You’re assumption that they do no research and give speeches filled with nonsense has no ground.
2) I am talking about his movie.
3) CNBC, and since I didn’t record it, I don’t know the names.
Your “accurate” science spits in the face of history. Climate change has always happened. It happened long before SUVs and coal plants.
—-
Doug Ragan: Care to point to any scientist who suggests climate didn’t change in the past but is now?
You won’t find any. If you think that “alarmist” scientists aren’t aware of past changes, you’re tossing around a straw man. The modern science doesn’t suggest that the current climate change is completely unheard of (well, “unprecedented” or “unique” in character, yes, but that’s due to its *rate*, not its existence) — rather, it states that the causes aren’t natural this time.
Frank’s put it best:
Judge: You stand accused of the crime of murder.
Defendant: But, your honor, people have died in the past!
Can you spot the strawman?
Gonna give you some advice.
Nothing I say is hearsay that is not relevant. I have seen these attacks, that means they have happened. I win. [1]
The first two links you provided in fact do not document what you are trying to prove. I only have so much time on my hands. [2]
History tells us that the climate has always changed and in fact has had much more drastic changes in the past. Little thing we call cycles. Get used to it. [3]
And just so you know, the current cooling cycle started 10 years ago. [4]
—-
Brian, at the end of what is known as the mini ice age, the planet warmed 6 degrees in ten years.
Doug Ragan:
And what were the forcings driving that change? Are those forcings present now?
Mike, the fact that they say things that you agree with does not make them more credible than those who say things you disagree with.[1]
And I will point out something to you while answering Brian’s question.
The Sun.
Without question, there is a coorelation between climate change and activity from the sun. [2] Look it up, pretend that it isn’t real science and tell me that everyone who talks about solar activity works for the oil companies.
—-
One more point Mike, you make your point with a chart showing 150 years of activity. That proves my point that the shift have always happened.
Thanks.
Where you live was once covered with ice.
—-
I did take a look at what you posted. You have made a decision that what they say is invalid because it goes against your belief system. That is all. Anything that anyone says that invalidates your belief system is simply written off. You will claim that it is against science, despite the science used by those who wrote it. [1]
The history of climate change is not incorporated in a logical manner. Those who claim that climate change is man made also claim that the planet is millions of years old and that it was once largely covered in ice. They talk about the slow changes over the years and that the ice started to melt. While that change was not man made, the current change is, according to these brilliant scientists. The 6 degree shift in less than one decade was not man made, but the .6 degree shift in the past century was man made. [2]
All the college degrees in the world can’t replace simple logic.
—-
[1] So demonstrate that you are right by providing credible science based refutations of the material I provided instead of these vacuous rants.
[2] In other words you still have not had the simple decency or sense to look at the science before making absurd claims.
—-
That last one was an attempt to get you to follow you own advise.
I do have some more good news for you
http://thenewpundit.com – /2008/12/10/more-than-650-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/
http://www. thenewpundit.com
—-
A single instance?
You have made the decision that every single reputable scientist who disagrees with you is a fraud. [1] You have not shown proof, you simply claim that their science is illegitimate. [2]
http://www. thenewpundit.com
—-
I do get a kick out of your links by the way. It took me less than five minutes to knock out another one. Thedailygreen attempts to discredit many by saying that they have no climate science background, yet many of those listed do in fact have a background in environment and atmospheric sciences.
http://www. thenewpundit.com
—-
Why this web site do not have other languages support?
http://www. yesil-kart.com
—-