BPSDB NB: Nov 10, World Science Day for Peace and Development
Rachel Pike: The science behind a climate headline
In 4 minutes, atmospheric chemist Rachel Pike provides a glimpse of the massive scientific effort behind the bold headlines on climate change, with her team — one of thousands who contributed.
Many of the more idiotic climate change Denier Fables grossly misrepresent the vast scale and scope of the science and scientific evidence underlying what we know about climate change. Let’s have a look at some of those fables and how they compare to reality.
“The IPCC scientists blah blah …”
If ever there were a confession that the person making this claim knows absolutely nothing about climate science:
“The IPCC does not itself commission or conduct research, but analyzes and weighs findings by scientists in many nations.
…Doh!
IPCC report has only blah blah authors
-
- 450 lead authors from 130 countries
- 800 contributing authors (links to their work)
- 2500 expert reviewers
Scientists blah blah FUNDING blah blah
This claim is idiotic in so many ways that it will take multiple posts to expose all of the false assumptions and ignorance that would allow someone to believe it, but some of them include:
- There are relatively few scientists involved;
- The scientists are from the US or only a few agencies/countries;
- The science is new (since climate change started getting funding as a field);
Of course reality is somewhat different. Thanks to Jim Prall we have is a list of the 2907 most frequently cited authors of climate research with links to their work (10s of thousands of papers). That’s just the work with direct relevance to climate change.
Grumbine describes 6 tiers of scientific endeavour that support climate reserch
from What fields are relevant?
Brave New Climate also discusses the breadth of climate studies; here is a partial list which Barry gives:
Atmospheric and Physical Sciences: Climatology, Meteorology, Atmospheric dynamics, Atmospheric physics, Atmospheric chemistry, Solar physics, Historical climatology
Earth Sciences: Geophysics, Geochemistry, Geology, Soil Science, Oceanography, Glaciology, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction
Biological Sciences: Ecology, Synthetic biology, Biochemistry, Global change biology, Biogeography, Ecophysiology, Ecological genetics
Mathematics, Statistics and Computational analysis: Applied mathematics, Mathematical modelling, Computer science, Numerical modelling, Bayesian inference, Mathematical statistics, Time series analysis
Quite a diverse field and I’ve not listed many sub-disciplines …
To get a sense of the scope, have a look at part of of Buchdahl’s excellent Global Warming Student Guide. Below is the table of contents for just 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 Rock
Global warming blah blah just based on computer models
I think that one’s been dealt with, no?
Global warming blah blah in the ’70s blah blah
The basic global warming science is almost 200 yrs old. The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, CO2 identified as one of the gases causing it by John Tyndall in 1859, and it was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
See also these timelines for other notable discoveries and events in the long history of climate change science:
and this wonderful series from Doc Snow
or some popular press stories about the evolving science:
-
- Time Magazine 1953 “Science: Invisible Blanket“
- and 1953 Popular Mechanics article about global warming
- July 1959 Carbon Dioxide and Climate in Scientific American
Related, see Google Timeline reveals triumph of denialism for analysis of climate in the popular press over the decades.
New study blah blah
As discussed before, one of the favourite recurring Denier memes is that ‘New Study disproves/overturns/undermines global warming / climate change science/models/theory!“ (New study, climate Deniers are “fundamentally wrong”)
Never mind that:
- they repeat this meme every few weeks with a completely different study;
- none of the Deniers seem to even remotely understand the study they refer to;
- none of the studies ever turn out to say what the Deniers believe/claim;
- the fact that it is “new” means it should be treated with caution since review by the entire scientific community can lead to:
- discovery of subtle errors that the authors and reviewers missed;
- a way of understanding the data different from how the authors had;
- the probability that a single study could overturn the thousands upon thousands of studies that support our understanding of climate change is remote in the extreme
This one has been discussed in more detail:
The idea that this incredible mass of scientific evidence would be somehow overthrown by a single study, much less the Three Stooges misunderstanding their own work, a Potty Peer ranting about delusional conspiracies, or Anthony Watts doodling on a climate plot, simply defies belief.
“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.” Earth Gauge
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
“John Tyndall in 1959” ?
A papers simmilar to what the scientist was talking about.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/2855/2007/acp-7-2855-2007.html
Click to access JulietteLathiere_iLEAPS08.pdf
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=224541
Fascinating.
—-
Good post, but I think you missed the mark with Tyndall by 100 years. Should be 1859 not 1959. [1]
I would also add the wonderful paper “The myth of the 1970 global cooling consensus” By Peterson Connolley and Fleck to any discussion of “Global warming blah blah in the 70s blah blah”. That myth has to die, it is so easily shown to be completely wrong. [2]
—-
Hey Scruffy Dan,
Thanks for the info about the 70s ice age myth.
I know some people (including me) that have been looking for a good report debunking that ‘theory’.
Correction:
“The IPCC scientists blah blah …”
If ever there were a confession that the person making this claim knows absolutely nothing about climate science:
—-
Why is it that the blindingly obvious can be so hard to see?
Your typo was so easy to spot, but having a second look at my post. Such is life.
Why can’t the deniers see the problem given the mass of papers and data the have obviously trawled through. One suspects that they don’t actually read the papers they quote.
Everyone knows that preventing climate change, or at least the worst consequences of it, is not going to be easy. While the task required is large and difficult, there are some simple, quick, and easy fixes that can make a real difference, and perhaps even buy us more time. But they are being ignored.
http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/11/low-hanging-fruit.html
Click to access 0908738106.full.pdf
Even more simple actions to reduce CO2 emissions. Look at the list, and you’ll find quite a few that would actually save people money.
—-
Apologies, Greenfyre. Forgot to look at the thread topic…
Setting up your argument with “Blah Blah Blah” does not inspire confidence in your position. Can you not actually deal with the real issues? If someone came to your article for the answers that it promised they would be sadly disappointed. You give no science whatsoever. [1] Lots of consensus. No science. The polls now show that the public is losing confidence is that tactic. It’s time to engage the skeptic’s real points or go home. [2] Making up straw men “blah blah blah” points and then voting them down through appeals to consensus will not cut it. When you say Blah blah blah to anyone it means [3] you are not listening. It’s almost stunning to read of someone who so gleefully admits to such closed mindedness.
—-
1. Making an appeal to authority and giving a bunch of hyperlinks is not science. It’s not even argument. There may be some science out there, as you suggest, but you don’t explain any of it. [1]The headline of the article ought to have been: “Links to scientific papers that discuss Climate Change” I came to the sight looking for an intelligent exposition of the “myths” of the deniers and the science that exposed them. [2] Instead I got blah blah blah look at these thousands of links. That didn’t even pretend to be what was advertised. [3]
2. and 3. I hope you are happy in your own little universe that so neatly marginalizes all points of view that you don’t agree with by giving them a nasty label. Name calling is not persuasive, honest or helpful. [4]
Actually, keep up the good work. It was sites like yours that first turned me skeptical of the AGW meme. I went to the Internet looking for answers to honest questions and naturally when I found a site that said it would dispel all the nagging myths about AGW I was drawn to it. Invariably I found poor or dishonest statements of the question, dismissive and incomplete answers, unbelievable connections of natural processes to AGW, and often derisive (like yours) attitudes and hubris. You do your argument no favour whatsoever. [5]
—-
[…] tip to Greenfyre, who provides a range of worthwhile links in The science behind a climate change headline. Share and […]
[…] Read the original: The science behind a climate change headline « Greenfyre's […]
[…] far actually says anything at all, but the Deniers swear this topples climate science (as mentioned, it couldn’t no matter what they […]
I skimmed one of the links to find very little pertaining to global warming. Then that had further links to more explanation of a simple analysis of details of how CO2 works and a brief history. As interesting as it is, it’s also a lot of very opinionated writing. Turns me off when they say CO2 is pollution that we’re dumping in gigatons and forrests have decreased by 20% in the US in the last 200 years. For every single one of the points they don’t stand well alone and never get their rightful adjustment to being interesting but irrelevant. The reason there’s no clear cut answers is because the models fathom a feedback loop and the evidence is ‘seen everywhere’. If AGW ends up being true, Occams razor has been entirely defeated.
Shorter Marvin:
The theory of man-made global warming is false. Why? Because it turns me off, and besides it’s not simple enough for me to understand.
— bi
Nice way to make sure the subtle points in good writing are never addressed. Make sure you simplify everyone that way you can remain blinkered. Defeat those strawmen bi!
Thanks for the scientific contribution. By the way you mixed bits and pieces of the post together and created a strawman out of the hay you found here and there. You should go to a literary class or something.
Thanks for the warm words about my series!
As an update, there are now two more articles:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Global-warming-science-press-and-storms
(On Nils Ekholm, a colleague and friend of Svante Arrhenius who did important work in meteorology & climatology–and has a colorful story.)
http://hubpages.com/hub/Global-Warming-Science-And-The-Wars
(On Guy Callendar, the man who brought CO2 theory into the 20th century.)
[…] far actually says anything at all, but the Deniers swear this topples climate science (as mentioned, it couldn’t no matter what they […]