by Judith Curry
One of the most important issues raised by the Heartland affair is what should be taught to students in K-12. On the one hand, we have the efforts of the NCSE (where Peter Gleick was a board member). On the other hand, Heartland is funding David Wojick to develop curricula that teaches the controversy.
So, should we teach the consensus, the controversy, or none of the above?
A strong argument for teaching the controversy was made by Nullius in Verba on a thread at Collide-a-Scape:
“Let’s be clear about something. The Heartland Institute, based on the legitimate document, wants to teach the controversy.”
Good! All science education should be about teaching the controversy. That’s what science is.
This is only a workable strategy on the part of the Creationists because the mainstream hasn’t taught the evidence, they’ve used authority and consensus instead. Showing controversy breaks the consensus argument.
Keeping controversy out of schools does a severe disservice to children, because the moment they leave school they will be faced with the controversies full force, and they won’t have the mental tools or experience with which to decide. Do you think they won’t be taught the controversy at home? Or with their friends? Or watching TV? And if they believe from school that real science is all neat and uncontroversial, and then somebody shows some issue is controversial in the extreme, won’t they be inclined to believe it’s therefore not settled science? Isn’t that why ‘teaching the controversy’ works?
Whereas if they’re very familiar with controversies from having been introduced to them in school, and have been taught the research methods needed to find more information, test claims, construct counter-examples and so on, they’ll be better able to resist.
‘Teaching the controversy’ is only to be feared by those who rely on holding a monopoly over education to keep alternative viewpoints out, rather than teaching good quality science.
I certainly agree with NiV here, although I personally have no idea what would make sense in this regard in the K-12 classroom (it will be interesting to see what David Wojick comes up with in this regard).
However, I do have some insights and experience with regards to teaching the controversy at the college level. Let me share some of the things that we have been doing at Georgia Tech in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences (EAS).
Climate and Global Change
Peter Webster teaches a course on Climate and Global Change, that is taken by senior undergraduate students and also graduate students. More than half of the students from the class come from other fields (mostly engineering and biology). The course is primarily the science of climate dynamics.
The last two weeks are devoted to the climate change problem as framed by the IPCC. The students were shown 6 online (youtube) presentations: 3 from the consensus perspective, and 3 from the skeptic side: Pat Michaels, Bob Carter, Vincent Courtillot. I led a discussion on the movies. The general opinion of the students was that none of the presentations were wholly convincing, and that each had at least some good points. I asked which “side” did you find more convincing, the consensus or the skeptics? Most said “somewhere in the middle.”
Balance of Power
Kim Cobb teaches an innovative course called A Balance of Power: Energy, the Environment, and Society. The web page for the course is here. In addition to being taken by undergrad students in EAS, this course is also a course for the Honors Program and Energy Certificate, so a majority of the students are outside of EAS, from a range of different majors.
The outline of the course is here. The course has numerous guest lectures. Early in the semester, they hear from an exec at The Southern Company, whose main message is that coal is king in the Southeast U.S. and the key to regional prosperity. Two weeks are spent giving them the basics of climate science, in the context of the IPCC WG1 reports. Energy and climate policy is discussed from a range of perspectives, and then experts on various energy technologies give lectures. They also do a carbon reduction challenge project.
I lectured in the class yesterday, giving my perspectives on uncertainties in the climate debate, the dynamics of the public debate on this issue, and decision making under uncertainty. My ppt slides can be found [akim cobb class 12]. We had a lively discussion. The students don’t seem to spend much time on the blogs (the were unaware of the Heartland affair). They seemed particularly interested in how to identify no-regrets strategies and the ideas of motivating energy policy in the context of clean air and energy security in combination with climate change. I talked about some of the issues facing scientists who engage in public debate, we talked about the role of think tanks and advocacy groups. We talked about teaching the controversy (or not), and how you would get different perspectives on the climate change issue at different universities. I emphasized that my goal was to teach students to think critically rather than just give them facts, since the “facts” can change, and they need to know how to evaluate future controversies. So the class was lively. Kim Cobb will do a debrief in the next class to see how they reacted to my guest slot in the class.
Sizzle
Last week, Randy Olson, scientist turned film maker, visited Georgia Tech for a series of workshops, a lecture, and screening of his movie Sizzle: A Global Warming Comedy.
This is the most balanced treatment of the global warming debate that I’ve seen. Its done in ‘mockumentary’ style, its funny yet insightful. It has a number of features that would appeal to high school and college audiences, including the hip-hop photographers and the flaky producers. It has a number of important, yet subtly made points: that there is a scientific debate, it is very easy to get distracted from the global warming issue to deal with more immediately relevant issues, and finally that the U.S. doesn’t know how to deal with such challenges (as exemplified by continuing problems in New Orleans).
People interviewed from the ‘warm side’:
- Dr Jerry Meehl, NCAR climate scientist
- Dr. Richard Somerville, Sripps climate scientist
- Dr. Naomi Oreskes, History of Science Professor
- Dr. Megan Owen, San Diego Zoo Research Dept
- Julia Bovey, Natural Resource Defense Council
People interviewed from the ‘cool side:’
- Dr. George Chillingarian, Professor of Petroleum Eng.
- Dr. Bill Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
- Dr. Steve Hayward, American Enterprise Institute
- Dr. Pat Michaels, CATO Institute
- Marc Morano, former staff member of Senator Inhofe
- Dr. Fred Singer, Science and Environmental Policy Project
There are two different Trailers, see here and here. The Pat Michaels scene is here. The Marc Morano scene is here.
UNFORTUNATELY, the movie is not available on DVD or in movie theaters, apparently it is shown in special screenings. But this is an excellent example of teaching the controversy.
JC comments: I think the most important thing to impart to college students is motivation to learn and to give them the tools with which to evaluate scientific and other controversies. Whether or not we call this critical thinking (which was debated on the climate classroom thread) or something else, doesn’t matter. I also think that high school students should be exposed to this kind of approach to learning (whether or not in the context of the climate debate).
In any event, I think that this whole issue of if/how to teach climate science and the broader issues surrounding climate change, is going to be deservedly receiving increased attention.
I’m interested in critiques of what we are doing at Georgia Tech, but I would be particularly interested in hearing about approaches being used at other universities and in high schools.
I’ve made this point several times on this blog so excuse me for making it again. Controversial subjects, where the outcome is not known, are interesting. Settled subjects are often boring. Climate science is VERY interesting.
Good point.
Good point. But scientists are like rats in a maze, trying to decipher the motives of politicians that feed our appetites (grant funds, tenure and awards). Sometimes the politicians do not want the controversy known.
AGU and the Geophysics Section of the US National Academy of Sciences have a long history of acting on behalf of politicians. Their motives, like the actions of bureaucrats, are usually remarkably simple: E.g., to survive and remain in control (power).
The recent action of Dr. Peter Gleick is an intriguing piece of this puzzle for us rats to analyze, especially if Peter is a member of the Geophysics Section of the US National Academy of Sciences,
I tentatively concluded in 2011 that the global climate scandal (1971-2011) grew from fear in political leaders of mutual nuclear annihilation and the 1971 decision between Henry Kissinger and leaders of the Communist nations to adopt “global climate change” as a “common enemy” to unite all nations under a one-world government – where world leaders could live in safety.
Another former student of the late Dr. Kuroda, Dr. Larry A. Burchfield, published a book, “Nuclear Fear – The Godzilla of All Fears” that shows examples of science that politicians do not want discussed.
http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/37/04717933/0471793337.pdf
The US Military moved Kuroda to this country after WWII, a priest gave him the Christian name “Paul” on the ride across the ocean, but politicians probably did not want the public to know how close Japan came to developing the first A-bomb and winning WWII.
According to another former student of Professor Kuroda, a member of the Geophysics Division of NAS chaired the session of the AGU meeting and publicly scolded Kuroda for reporting in April 1956 that self-sustaining nuclear fission occurred naturally when uranium ores formed in Earth’s early history [The U-235/U-238 ratio was much higher then].
Kuroda had in fact done the calculations and understood nuclear pile theory as well as anyone, but Kuroda’s former student said the chair of the AGU session declared that Fermi had examined issue and found it was impossible.
Kuroda’s paper was rejected for publication. He published the information later as two, single page articles in the Journal of Chemical Physics 25 (1956) pages 781 and 1295. His report was confirmed on 25 Sept 1972 when the French Atomic Energy Commission reported a natural nuclear reactor had occurred at Oklo in the Republic of Gabon, Africa.
Judith
Strongly support your efforts to teach the “controversy” with the full range of facts to see how the actually support the different hypotheses/theories, (vs the political alarmism). Controversy is one of the best ways to get and keep attention and to learn (in contrast to rote memorization).
Particularly important is your effort to get students to think critically – not just regurgitate press releases.
Showing what would happen to Canadian agriculture for a 2 degree COOLING and that Europe has been getting less gas because of a colder winter in Russia is far more important than thinking I might have to pay a little more for air conditioning. The fact that Finland lost a third of its population to cold/famine has a far greater impact than Al Gore buying ocean front property and claiming very high ocean expansion.
General Winter played a far greater role in Napoleon’s defeat in Russia than all the French war strategies.
Keep up the good work.
I agree, David. I too applaud Professor Curry for using “controversy” and the full range of facts to develop critical think skills.
However one lesson from the global climate scandal is abundantly clear:
AGW supporters still have all the political power, although AGW skeptics have better science, because . . .
a.) Politicians are stupid or
b.) Politicians prefer AGW.
Many scientists prefer (a), but the evidence for (b) is overwhelming.
I encourage Professor Curry to continue using “controversy” and the full range of facts to develop critical think skills, but perhaps we need to ask why politicians prefer to fund scientifically weaker models of climatology, solar physics, self-sustaining nuclear fission, etc., etc.
At 10:03 pm I posted (below) what seems a viable explanation for political support of scientifically weak models:
“Creeping international(ist) socialism that is steadily eroding our right to self-determination, both as individuals and as a sovereign nation.”
If true, AGW and poor classroom teaching may only be visible parts of a cancerous invasion of our society.
When they are as incompetent as climate science is now, they should not be taught as science. And when you don’t know, you should stick to teaching the most definitive facts you can find, and feign no hypotheses.
Here in the university town of Uppsala, Sweden (just north of Stockholm) I teach lower high school students (13-15 year olds) science at an international bi-lingual Swedish-English school.
As Judith does, I concentrate on Critical Thinking skills and use current scientific controversies to illustrate the basic rules of logical thought. The students should be able to show, through these exercises, that they can choose/balance facts and put them together in a basic logical argument, no matter what opinion they end up supporting. Many fun filled debates usually ensue :-)
You can see some of my CT presentations and exercises at the bottom of this page:
http://skepticalswedishscientists.wordpress.com/critical-thinking/
CT has just become mandatory teaching in the new 2011 school curriculum, though most teachers just go as far as “interests behind sources”, and the new textbooks are still terribly biased about science controversies.
PS sorry that some parts of some slides are in Swedish, but I think you can probaly get the guist of the level and type of arguments I present. Sweden is still much a very closed shop with regards to alternative viewpoints about environmental issues, but maybe this will slowly change with this new Lgr11 curriculum :-)
There is no controversy. You will be assimilated.
-Climate Borg
P.S. Judith, don’t women always agree with each other 85-90% ?
The best class I took in college (as an economics major) was History of Economic Thought. Learning how theory has evolved over the years and the arguments involved was a tremendous way to put the then current doctrine into perspective. I know others say the same thing about a History of Science course.
Teach the arguments and disputes. It’s the way science evolves and it helps focus the mind on the reality that the ‘facts’ change.
Stan, you beat me to it. I had the same thought, except my class was on the evolution of the Earth. It really changed my perspective on the scientific process.
stan –
Ditto. My History of Science course was fascinating as a study in the changing beliefs about science quite apart from the science itself (even though the two go hand in hand).
The best classes I took at graduate school (Uni in Australia) were always based on the quality of teaching rather than on subject-matter.
People like Fred and David W should do the teaching of climate concepts very well, based on their enthusiasm for the subject, but feel that a more balanced viewpoint would be made by our hostess.
Judith
In the US what age is K12?
tonyb
5 years to 18 years old
wow that’s quite a range
Confusion over K-12? Kindergarden through 12th Grade (senior in high school).
tonyb,
5-18
I fear that post-normal science is rearing its ugly head again.
The notion that students who are not inculcated with the pros and cons of this year’s high profile controversy will stumble out into the world in a bewildered state is a load of bollocks.
I mean, what about GM food, or dark matter, or genetic engineering of human embryos? Then there are all the competing theories about why people get fat – hugely controversial, and in the media every day.
Call me old fashioned, but what is wrong with teaching physics, chemistry and biology minus the social engineering. Once a year – let ’em rip with whatever fad they want to do a project on.
David Wojik shouldn’t be doing his exercise, because the science curriculum shouldn’t be wasting time on ‘pop-sci’ in the first place. What students need to learn are the principles of the scientific method, and the basic tools required to utilise it. Critical thinking is possibly the most important of those.
Science is fascinating – and the real challenge is how to translate that into the schoolroom without preaching or proselytizing. Much easier to burden teachers with more and more cant about ‘relevance’.
There is the way it should be, and there is the way it is. K through 12 should not be a period of indoctrination in pop science. But my children were bringing home weekly readers and text books filled with CAGW hype presented as facts years ago. I got to the point where I thought if I saw one more picture of some poor, lost (?) polar bear, devastated by global warming, I would scream.
In the world we really live in, there has to be push back against the indoctrination of our children by the left. Conservatives for decades have been getting on with their lives rather than fight back against the unending cultural and ideological war the progressives have taken to our schools. Good for Heartland and David Wojick for making some small start in response.
Teaching the controversy at the university level should be the norm. Elementary and high school children should be off limits. But tell that to the unionized public school teachers and administrators who vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
Best post on the thread.
Dr. Curry will look the other way. This meme can’t be addressed here is the protocal.
I’m pretty sure we covered various ‘half-baked alternative energy’ proposals in High School physics. The teacher called it ‘putting on our BS protectors’, except he used the actual word.
Critical reading was fun too…we would just take a marker and cross out every sentence in the newspaper that had a ‘weasel word’ like ‘may have’ or ‘could have’ or ‘alleged’. About the only thing that was left was the sport scores and the obituaries.
It’s never too early to start teaching ‘critical thought processes’.
But what would you do on Earth Day????
Hi Gary,
I ran across the interactive Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice graph that shows the complete satellite record (1979-present). I thought you might be able to use it help explain the sea ice issue to the children.
Cryosphere Today uses a lower limit of 30% concentration as opposed to NSIDC which uses 15% which accounts for differences between the record sets.
The important thing for the kids to understand, the satellite record (1979-present) only represents about 50% of the current natural cycle. The next 25-30 years will complete a typical cycle.
I thought it would be easier to explain if they can see the deviations occurring within an annual context.
Cryosphere Today
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
This link offers a more complete look at Sea Ice:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
John from CA,
Thanks for the link. I’ve seen the WUWT page before, but not the Cryosphere Today graph.
Unfortunately my kids are older now, in their 20s, and don’t seem to be as impressed with their father’s “brilliance” as when they were younger. (I’m also often told I am not nearly as funny as I think I am, though I can still crack their friends up.) But they have grown to be independent thinkers, so that’s fine by me.
I wish I had had access to sites like WUWT and Climate Etc. when they still listened to me. :-)
johanna –
I agree. But even a slight introduction to the topic from a sane and neutral point of view may be quite an antidote to whatever they’re likely to pick up from other sources.
“Call me old fashioned, but what is wrong with teaching physics, chemistry and biology minus the social engineering”
Because associated with science is technology, and technology has a huge impact on people. From the chemistry of nitrogen mustards came chemical warfare and chemotherapy, we have rejected one and embraced another.
“Whoever makes two ears of corn, or two blades of grass to grow where only one grew before, deserves better of mankind, and does more essential service to his country than the whole race of politicians put together”
Jonathan Swift
Scientists want to understand ‘stuff’. In my view, human beings have a moral obligation to make the world a better place. The problem comes when scientists believe that their obligations as moral people are greater than the dispassionate science can support.
People who would be up in arms if a drug company had fudged the results of a drug trial for the sake of money are quite relaxed if a climate scientists overplays the potential consequences of a rise in atmospheric CO2.
Evangelical preachers used to warn of the dangers of an eternity in hell-fire and that earthquakes and floods were a sign of Gods displeasure; modern day ones threaten you decedents to a lifetime of raging storms, floods, fields turning to dust and eternal heat waves.
The call is the same, only the deity has changed.
I think I come down on your side.
Although I do agree with Dr Curry about teaching critical thinking and the scientific process over just providing facts.
so K12 equals 5 TO 18?
Is it seriously being suggested that those at the lower end of this age range should be deliberately indoctrinated? Sounds like the Agenda 21 programme for schools
tonyb
Well, ‘it’s for the kids’.
At least it is not as bad as in the 50s and 60s when I was taught to calmly crawl under my desk and place my head between my knees should the loud siren sound.
That one really griped me, Cap’n; couldn’t I at least stand and scream?
===================
They are being deliberately indoctrinated, in the sense of reading one sided material. I merely want to present both sides. I did not create this situation, the CAGW movement created it.
Go look at the attachments folder of climategate mails..
Lots of “win young minds” stuff. standard
Agree. The amount of one-sided teaching in our schools is high. The things our girls came home and told us they were “taught” in school are horrifying.
capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2 | February 22, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
“At least it is not as bad as in the 50s and 60s when I was taught to calmly crawl under my desk and place my head between my knees should the loud siren sound.”
capt.,
Sounds like how I remember it except you left out the final step. After placing your head between your knees you were to kiss your a$$ goodbye!
Great statement Johanna! Three cheers and all that. I agree 99%! Real ability to read, listen and think critically is the most important thing that can be taught a student (in school, at least….there are more important things in life.)
However, our beleaguered K-12 teachers may need some guidance on how to answer students’ questions at various levels — 3rd graders don’t get theoretical quantum physics, they get atoms-electrons-protons or maybe even just marble-like atoms that stick together to form other things.
By high school, kids should be learning how to read the newspaper and dissect TV newscasts with viciously incisive critical thinking skills — separating the facts from the spin.
Personal opinion – can and should be taught in high schools, at least to classes such as SOAR or Honors. Would be nice to teach to all, but given constraints/requirements on K-12 education, might be hard to fit in. Most difficult part is getting teachers ready to teach it.
I really like the GaTech approach. We must teach enough of the science which provide the bases of the controversy so that some understanding is achieved. After all, in the early Renaissance, the “consensus” was that Ptolemaic epicycles were the “right” description of the planets’ paths. In fact, my understanding is that the question was not so much decided by greater accuracy but by Occam’s razor. In the talks I have given on GW, I have stressed the facts, the uncertainties, and the absolute necessity for each to make up his or her own mind. Whether we like it or not, the fruits of science will be politicized; anything we can do to help the polity learn to think, we should.
Alex Rawls calls the efforts of the AR5 leaders to exclude solar effects, Omitted Variable Fraud. Discussion of this article ought to be interesting.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/
It’s complete bollocks. Just another example of morons at WUWT given space to dribble their stupidity.
I haven’t read it, but could you provide a few specific examples of errors in data, fallacies in logic, or whatever it is that you claim to be “complete bollocks.” Then we would have some basis on which to evaluate your claim.
Otherwise, your comment is just another exercise in argumentum ad hominem, or name-calling.
Please could you just clarify your position a little? Thanks.
“For the 1750-2010 period examined, two variables correlate strongly with the observed warming (and hence with each other). Solar magnetic activity and atmospheric CO2 were both trending upwards over the period, and both stepped up to much higher levels over the second half of the 20th century”
B.S.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/solar/overview/image
Iolwot
What year are you going up to in your chart from the OSS Foundation?(5.08pm)
Also it would be interesting to see your graph redrawn to take into account the warmer period immediately prior to the start of your record
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/18/new-version-of-the-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-data-set/
tonyb
Did you even bother to read the article? If you did, that wouldn’t be a graph that you would use to try to argue against it. A couple of points from the article:
1) Using a single variable (TSI, sunspots…) to qualify the entirety of the Sun’s effect on the earth is silly. Not mentioning that there is ample evidence to suggest that there is /some/ sort of relationship (which we currently don’t fully understand) amounts to “omitted variable fraud.”
2) Effects are take time (decades/centuries), and it certainly isn’t instantaneous. The analogy he makes is like heating water. If I set the burner to high, then lower the burner to Med, using the logic you are pushing with that graph, I would expect the temperature to go down. Anyone who as done any amount of cooking would know about “carry over” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry_over_cooking ), or that the temps can go up even at the lower level of energy input (using the burner analogy, if your burner can bring water to a boil set at MED, it doesn’t matter if you reduce it from HIGH to MED – the water is still going to go to 100degC (at sea level) ).
That article is a very interesting read – highly recommended. More abrasive than one would like, but given the filtering/censoring that is going on, not unjustified.
“1) Using a single variable (TSI, sunspots…) to qualify the entirety of the Sun’s effect on the earth is silly. Not mentioning that there is ample evidence to suggest that there is /some/ sort of relationship (which we currently don’t fully understand) amounts to “omitted variable fraud.””
Look, I’ll give one clear example of why I get so annoyed at WUWT.
Part of the “ample evidence” you mention provided by Alex Rawl is the following paper: “Solar Activity Over the Last 1150 years: does it Correlate with Climate?”. He even provides an excerpt. So supposedly he read the paper.
The excerpt he gives is: “The long term trends in solar data and in northern hemisphere temperatures have a correlation coefficient of about 0.7 — .8 at a 94% — 98% confidence level.”
The paper is here: http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf
here’s the rub: The Northern Hemisphere temperatures in question is the Hockey Stick. Yes that dreaded Michael Mann thing that no-one over at WUWT accepts. Alex Rawl clearly either hasn’t read the paper, or he doesn’t think this matters.
You see the irony/hypocrisy/whatever that drives me mad? He’s there accusing scientists of “fraud” when he’s made such a sloppy mistake himself.
In case the implications aren’t clear: if he doesn’t accept the hockey stick (and I am quite confident he doesn’t) then we have a case where a false temperature record has a good correlation with solar data. If good correlation statistics can be derived by fluke like that from false data then such statistics are not as great evidence as he has made out.
lolwot writes:
Look, I’ll give one clear example of why I get so annoyed at WUWT.
[snip]
You see the irony/hypocrisy/whatever that drives me mad?
This is my take away: MBH99 can only have 2 states: It can either be right or it is wrong. If you believe it is right, AND there’s no mistakes in the solar paper (if there is something wrong with it, please point it out), then there appears to be correlation between solar and climate (a case you left out). If MBH99 is wrong, then BOTH papers are useless (though there are /still/ remains the LIA / sunspot anecdotal relationship that is in the historical record), while the AGW side of the ledger would lose the claim that the recent heating is unprecedented, and would have an even harder time showing that CO2 is the primary driver of the heating. Just a guess, but I think any of these outcomes would be fine to Mr. Rawls. Are these implications fine with you too?
I will point out that our gracious host has said to that the solar issue is being debated in the solar community ( http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/22/teaching-the-controversy-2/#comment-174277 )
“If MBH99 is wrong, then BOTH papers are useless (though there are /still/ remains the LIA / sunspot anecdotal relationship that is in the historical record)…I think any of these outcomes would be fine to Mr. Rawls”
Rawl pushed a result premised on data that skeptics don’t accept. He didn’t notice and none of the commenter’s did too. It’s either sloppy research or a complete disregard for consistency.
By pointing this out I was hoping to demonstrate something I know is true:
The disconnect between WUWT and the IPCC over the role of the Sun in climate is because the IPCC is reviewing the science and weighing up the evidence properly and WUWT is not.
I didn’t cover all the problems in this specific case. Here’s another one though. The paper ends with:
“Note that the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations. During these last 30 years the total solar irradiance, UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source”
Where did Rawl factor that part of the paper in? That’s right he didn’t, it was completely ignored.
“This is my take away: MBH99 can only have 2 states: It can either be right or it is wrong. If you believe it is right, AND there’s no mistakes in the solar paper (if there is something wrong with it, please point it out), then there appears to be correlation between solar and climate (a case you left out).”
I don’t believe MBH99 is right. Nor do I put much weight on correlations between longterm trends. The problem is these correlations being reported are not all what they are cracked up to be. Rawl is reporting them as if they are some powerful evidence when really they are not. Another WUWT gaff.
MBH99 can only have 2 states: It can either be right or it is wrong.
Why? Temperature reconstructions based on proxies are only ever going to give an approximation of “real” temperatures and that can range from a good approximation to a very poor one with plenty of possibilities inbetween depending on a number of factors – the quality of the proxies, their coverage, statistical methods used etc.
I’m sorry, but your example is all wet. Just because you believe Mann’s papers are complete bollocks, to borrow a phrase, doesn’t mean that all the studies he uses are also wrong. For instance, I don’t know that anyone has disputed the findings of the Tiljander paper, simply Mann’s (upside down) use of it. The weights assigned and obvious cherry picking are also major strikes against his work.
Just because a study happens to find a hockey stick shape doesn’t automatically indicate that it is wrong, and as far as I am aware no one has ever suggested such a thing. Well, except for warmists creating strawmen at least.
andrew adams:
> > MBH99 can only have 2 states: It can either be right or it is wrong.
> Why? Temperature reconstructions based on proxies are only ever going to give an approximation of “real” temperatures…
Because, as noted by lolwot, MBH99 is one of the hockey stick graphs. As one, one implication is that the MWP wasn’t warmer than today. Google mbh99 and “hockey stick”. The basic take-away is that the temp was decreasing (slightly) for ~1900 years and then abruptly shot up. Right/Wrong, Usable/Useless, Stable/Chaotic, use whatever exclusionary words you want, but this really doesn’t have a middle ground. A analogy of this in a different field is the sunspot count. You either believe the Chinese astronomers were counting relatively consistently/accurately or not. Otherwise, you can only use modern data which doesn’t help too much with the time ranges climate works in.
lotwot:
> The disconnect between WUWT and the IPCC over the role of the Sun in climate is because the IPCC is reviewing the science and weighing up the evidence properly and WUWT is not.
I believe the point of the post was that the IPCC is suppressing evidence of the role of the Sun. If you mean by “weighing up the evidence”, you mean “not mention”, then your statement is factually correct. I will point out again that Rawls is not the only one pointing this out:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/22/teaching-the-controversy-2/#comment-174209
Jim T: The issue here is a paper that is based on Manns hockey stick, not a paper which Mann’s hockey stick is based on.
Roger Fujii: “I believe the point of the post was that the IPCC is suppressing evidence of the role of the Sun.”
The post is incompetent. It’s point is lost.
For the IPCC to be accused of suppressing evidence requires that evidence actually be presented that the IPCC has ignored. The WUWT post fails to do so.
If the IPCC had infinite space and the authors infinite time I am sure they could mention every single speculatory unsubstantiated idea about the Suns role on climate and explain just why each one is lacking or irrelevant to the global picture. But the IPCC has limited space so they report on the stuff which has substance and actual evidence behind it. The burden is on scientists with speculatory ideas to back them up with substantial evidence. Then the IPCC will report on them.
As it stands the weight of evidence points at the Sun playing a minimal role in recent warming. WUWT just cannot admit that though, it’s a kind of dogma for them that the Sun drives everything. Hence posts such as Rawl’s that resort to quote-mining papers. It’s all they’ve got.
lotwot writes: Then the IPCC will report on them.
As I have pointed out previously, even our host has gotten a complaint that they are not doing so. We won’t know until the report comes out (obviously), but I am not hopeful that “Himalayan Glaciers” isn’t going to have a sequel.
lotwot writes: As it stands the weight of evidence points at the Sun playing a minimal role in recent warming.
Our host points out that Judith Lean reported:
“Irradiance increase from 1986-1996 solar minimum claimed to produce 20-30% of recent global warming . . but increase in ACRIM composite could be instrumental.”
(note she doesn’t take sides, only that it is being debated, so now it’s up to you to say where you get your “weight of evidence”). I suppose you could say that “30% is minimal”, but that would be using the term “minimal” in a way I’m not used to.
You realize that were it not for “climategate” this discussion would not be taking place :)
I don’t know why the science of climate needs to be taught in K through 10 at all. As a former teacher of general science in 7-9, the basic principles of science and math escape most students so that a special cirriculum would just crowd out what needs to be taught. Students in chemistry and physics could be exposed to the climate science to understand how the planet heats up from the sun without delving into the principles of cliamte forcing and such. My concern is that this effort is an attempt to counter the information available outside the classroom that seems to be propaganda on AGW. This will not help the students in those courses when they are striving to get the fundamentals of chemistry and physics under their belts.
Correct Jon. My stuff is planned to be Web based and is merely designed to counter the parallel array of Web based CAGW stuff. I would prefer that neither were used, but given the CAGW stuff mine is necessary. Google on climate education and you will see what I mean. Much of it is Federally funded by the with more coming all the time.
My children were taught history in middle school by the brother of one of the major Whitewater scandal people, who went to jail over her refusal to give testimony. He certainly had some strong opinions, and ones that I disagreed with. But he was willing to teach both sides of issues, and did so as a professional. I disagreed with him strongly on politics, but he was a good teacher. AGW believers seem to need a great deal of control in communications (look at the large number of climate communication events) and a desire to micromanage- look at the hysterical reaction over a planned curriculum by HI. It does not even exist, but it is already condemned and led to a disastrous decision by Peter Gleick.
While I think the behavior of AGW believers is actually helping the skeptical case, i still believe that the AGW community would be better off if they looked at Faegate as a teachable moment and stopped doubling down.
Hunter,
They always double down. Consider Paul Krugman or most of the comments on Gleick’s of Revkin’s blogs the past few days.
cwon14,
It is amazing to watch the AGW true believers give away the high ground over such a cause as Gleick’s fraud.
And the faithful are rebelling against Revkin and other journalists I follow. Check out Collide-a-scape, or the sciguyblog. The AGW faithful think Gleick, in a sadly large number, was at the least justified in what he did, if not down right heroic.
It’s really what many have been saying for a long-time. It’s confirmed in a huge way;
Believers are morally bankrupt and AGW is a religious sect.
It’s another symptom of a larger culture war. These are the same people supporting government inspections of school lunches to meet government standards with a the same failed results already demonstrated or any other aspect of a growing nanny state. In a society with 40% illegitimacy rate coming apart at the seems, huge parts of the population without any defined family based religion or atheistic in nature it’s no surprise secular religions such as Gaia develop. That it is so angry and hostile is also being demonstrated in this event. I can’t believe the display on the Revkin site and board for example. Have you seen the comments under the handle at dotearth? Steven Earl Salmony? We’re talking the deepend here, then consider the number of “recommends”. I googled him by the way, here are some titles of other essays found under that name, give them a view if you have time. Not a pretty picture;
In Copenhagen, a Reminder that We’re Fighting for Humanity
Are Banks Responsible for Animals Caught in Foreclosures? (It gets related to Gaia principles)
There is a lot of mocking of guns and ammo sales reaching record levels in the U.S.. Reading the Revkin site we are watching the other side of those forming militias in the wilderness waiting for the Marxist revolt to begin. As I follow this issue you realize how many are in the fringe and what they think is “normal” and that AGW at a certain level is a front line symptom of social insanity.
Just be thankful the NY Times subscription numbers have declined 40% from peak and might be a declining fringe. I’m not so sure, it (the angry AGW mob) might emerge on other issues. As I thought often during the Bush II years these are no longer people who are going to respect being voted out of power.
It’s a sad state of affairs. Can you imagine what you would find contact tracing “ThinkProgress” subset views? Even sadder.
Hilarious stuff guys.
The glee over Gleick is a dead-giveaway that for all the ‘skeptics’ purported concern over science, what they really are interested in is ‘winning’ an argument. And this has been a great point-scorer for those so concerned. Those concerned about science continue to focus on getting closer to the truth in our understanding.
Meanwhile, the great scientific endeavor rolls on, not the least bit perturbed by the momentary excitement in a dim recess of the intertubes.
Dr. Curry perhaps you have mentioned it before, what are you teaching with respect to risk management with your classes?
The reason I ask comes from the involvement of confidence, uncertaintity, and no regrets that are part of risk assessment and its management. It also brings into the discussion of the tell paradigm versus the ask paradigm. I think this is important along the lines that Nullius in Verba had for controversy, which is how to we teach risk perspective, or more importantly, IMO, how do we accomodate different risk perspectives in communication.
One of the problems as studied by one of the threads you had from an expert on this subject, is that the Tell paradigm is often ineffective, yet much of our education up to and past a college degree are often this paradigm. I think understanding the role of risk perspective is essential for going from a Tell to an Ask. And as NiV pointed out, I would point it out that upon graduating, the students will be presented with or make their own risk assessments. IMO, a more reasonable approach include what has been learned from risk management and uncertaintity to better frame what constiiutes a no regrets policy, but it would also prepare or should help the students to understand different perspectives does not make that person an enemy.
Seems to me the only exposure to science and math for large numbers of college students are “stars” and “rocks”. Not exactly good preparation for critical thinking, particularly when complicated technical issues are involved. However, does allow for easy emotional manipulation by professors with political agendas (which pretty much describes large swaths of academia).
I’ve had some recent experience talking about climate change to high school students as a guest speaker. The curriculum doesn’t allow time for a course, and so 50 minutes was all they got to gain some perspective on the subject. In that sense, college or graduate level courses are irrelevant.
In 50 minutes, I don’t think you can teach either controversy or consensus, but you can begin to lay out some basic principles, describe some of the evidence, and note the existence of uncertainties that are greater or lesser depending on which conclusions are involved.
This is not “teaching the controversy”, and in my view, “teaching the controversy” as an overall approach to climate change rather than an approach to specific items is an ideological tool borrowed from the creationists and designed to create the impression that no firm conclusions with societal implications are justified. On the other hand, acknowledging that we are uncertain about the pace and magnitude of certain climate changes, and the level of their potential human impact is a necessary step in creating accurate impressions.
To say that it’s hard to do this well in 50 minutes is an understatement, but I think it can be done reasonably under two circumstances – first, the teacher must know the subject thoroughly, and second, he or she must feel obligated to convey an accurate overall impression of what we know well, less well, and not at all. Even then, the results won’t be greeted with the same approbation on all sides, because what is one person’s objectivity is another’s spin. My own philosophy is to emulate Ricky Nelson, and conclude that You can’t please everyone, so you got to please yourself.
Is it possible that Heartland can contribute positively to climate science teaching? I judge it to be unlikely. I don’t think they got off to a good start, but we should all wait to see what develops.
Heartland has already demonstrated over the last few years that it has a commitment to honest science that is far greater than that of Algore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf and Phil Jones. If their views get taught, how could it be wrong to teach Heartland’s views?
Fred: We are not talking about Heartland’s views, but my views. I agree that each lesson has to be one class long or less, a fascinating challenge. My plan is simply to identify those AGW and CAGW overly strong claims now being made and explain how they are in fact debatable. For example, your unsupportable claim about firm conclusions with societal implications is an obvious target. Many of your claims are a model of what I am fighting. That knowledgeable people like you and I disagree is what I plan to teach, with specifics. The green line is not hard to follow.
Teaching climate science, as in teaching the establishment opinion on global warming is essentially a exercise in imparting “facts.” Teaching about a controversy, assuming that controversy is related in a fair and objective fashion, teaches kids how to think.
Do we want a generation of factoid drones, or do we want a generation of analytic thinkers?
Seems pretty obvious to me.,
pokerguy,
It depends on what the definition of ‘we” is. Now who can we think of who would want a generation of factoid drones who accept whatever the “authority” says, and does what they are told accordingly?
>sigh< Teaching the constroversy was not invented by creationists. And implying that to use the technique means one is a creationist or operates on that level is disengenuous at best.
Fred writes of HI…”I don’t think they got off to a good start, but we should all wait to see what develops.”
Fred, not sure what you mean here. IN what way have they gotten off to a poor start?
pokerguy – Heartland is associated with a number of individuals who are competent to understand the complexities of climate science. One can disagree with their interpretations, but not their scientific qualifications. They have apparently decided instead to award substantial grant funding for curriculum development to someone without those qualifications, based as far as i can tell on his political philosophy regarding climate change. That’s one reason I’m dubious. Nevertheless, I still think a wait and see attitude is reasonable.
Wojick is not Heartland’s first venture into K-12 ‘education’. Fred, here’s another reason to be dubious about Heartland’s interest in contributing anything positive.
pat,
I can understand why a true beleiver would never want Jo Nova’s “The Skeptics handbook” to see the light of day.
It might get people thinking too much.
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/
Nothing demonstrates the evasiveness and cosardice of true believers like suppressing books they do not agree with.
One thing I learnt at that JoNova link was:
“Heartland takes a lot of flack for a non-profit group. Note that 84% of their funding come from individuals and foundations and that no donor gives more than 5% of their total budget.”
hunter – We all believe in free speech, nobody’s talking suppression. But we no doubt disagree on the role of the SH as a teaching tool.
I’ve seen the Skeptic’s Handbook. I am eagerly awaiting a point-by-point refutation of its contents. Until then …
John Kannarr, here you go, be sure to check the links as well:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-Scientific-Guide-to-the-Skeptics-Handbook.html
wow heartland are pushing that skeptic handbook pile of dross?
cwon14,
I would suggest you go to Jo Nova’s site. Perhaps you are talking about the failed attempts to shut down Dr. Nova’s book?
Fred, K-12 instruction is not about the advanced complexities of climate science. It is about essential principles, which I understand very well and am very good at expressing. Most importantly, my field is the logic of complex issues, where I have developed some powerful tools. That is what I bring to the table. I do not expect you or the rest of your CAGW colleagues to like my results, in fact it is inconceivable, so there is nothing to wait and see. This is a fight.
“This is a fight.”
David Wojick – Did you mean that seriously or is it just metaphor for a disagreement? At this point, I might be inclined to see your use of the word “fight” as an extravagant metaphor, but I’m willing to be convinced you see it as a true battle if you can be specific.
Which individuals or groups who engage in science education, by name do you see as ones you most hope to defeat? Can you cite specifically, with exact quotations, any assertions from these groups or individuals that you believe are scientifically unjustifiable to the point you must seriously call them into question and must do battle against these claims (again, please be specific, with exact quotations to make your point)?
Otherwise, I suspect much of what you say will simply be considered bluster without substance, based on vague generalizations, and not relevant to anything prominent in current teaching materials. Note that if something or someone you disagree with is not part of the educational scene, using them as a foil will come across as simply a propaganda effort rather than a true conflict within education. I say that because I have some familiarity with educational content on climate change (I don’t think Al Gore teaches high school), and I’m quite curious as to why you see a need to go to war against it.
(To others – I realize there are many opinions on this, but David Wojick is the one developing the “battle plan”, if there really is one, and so I hope specifically to get his views on the subject).
Pat, my oldest son took geography in grade 12. One section was on GW. He knew I was a lukewarmer, and asked if I had any links to “the other side of the debate”. I sent him to JN’s blog and her handbook. He was the only one in his class to write an opposing piece, and ended up getting an A.
His teacher was not a skeptic.
DeNihilist – I’m pleased that your son got an A; I’m sure he deserved it. I suspect that he is smart enough to now go on to the professional literature and draw his own conclusions.
Heh Pat, he’s now taking philosophy at university and yes he’s very able to make up his own mind.
Sorry, but my point wasn’t really about him, but about his teacher, who though is a pro AGW, had the ability to see past his own creed and mark my sons’ paper on its’ content. A real professional!
“A real professional!”
Agreed.
Holly,
The skeptical guide is rubbish in any of the lauguage translations;
2. “Nature produces 97% of all CO2 emissions and humans produces 3%. ”
Now, you can argue that’s not a lie, but it is certainly disingenuous, as it is completely irrelevant. That 97% is just the fast carbon cycle, whereby carbon constantly moves between atmosphere, oceans, and organisms. No-one is saying that’s a problem. The 3% is what humans are adding to the total in that cycle, and once there it takes tens of thousands of years to get reabsorbed into geological formations. The more appropriate statistic is that before the industrial revolution the CO2 in the air was 280 ppm and now it’s 390 ppm, a 38% increase (despite nearly half of industrial CO2 emissions having been absorbed by the oceans).
There is no evidence to support “fast vs. slow” carbon cycles. An essential warmist fantasy. “Human Carbon compounding”.
Just one of the many shams found in the guide. Climate porn.
“The 3% is what humans are adding to the total in that cycle, and once there it takes tens of thousands of years to get reabsorbed into geological formations”
Postulate; based on equilibrium box models. Unproven and thus an arrogant assertion.
Actually Cwon, nature produces 100% of all carbon emmisions.
:)
Is some of that meant to be in quotes or italicized? As written, it’s incoherent.
Since you had the common educational decency to allow both sides you should be commended. The real issue is that the core of the AGW advocate community working in educational areas is that they don’t think there are two sides at all. There is only their truth, the IPCC/Al Gore/Greenpeace/Sierra Club/MSM/DNC/Teachers Union/Greenspeak truth. It’s a pretty angry truth when you get down to it.
I’ll leave it to others to discuss HS and College issues. The bug I have on the educational front is Grade and Middle school where the worst abuses are located.
If you like I will locate and fax my 3rd graders reading assignment from a Time/Life source on “Saving the Polar Bear”. It doesn’t mention that the polar bear populations are near record modern levels having doubled in the last 50 years or that we have no adequate census in particular from the Russian sphere of influence. It doesn’t mention that we shoot 300+ (likely far more as each killing is a paperwork/government nightmare for those involve) polar bears a year. There is only one correct answer on the quiz to save the polar bear;
Reduce co2 emmissions due to climate change impact and warming the earth.
This is only a fraction of it. There are the mandatory views of Al Gore’s propaganda film “”An Inconvenient Truth.” to look forward to. This is only a fraction of leftist leaning issues to deal with. It isn’t even the most upsetting by a long shot. Would you like to know what 20-something “educator” thinks in a public school setting and would tell my 12 year old daughter about Catholic views on abortion and birth control considering we happen to be Catholic and teacher is not as if that should matter??
You don’t want to know.
The school produces very high test scores by the way up to the HS level when it goes regional and we move them to private school. Each even on any topic and the dogma that gets associated is a “teaching moment” at home. So AGW is only a tiny piece of the overall leftist dogma experience at the grade and middle school levels. Words can’t even describe what goes on in “Social Studies” or “History” topics at these levels. The Founding Fathers are described as war criminals in a genocide event as the primary context.
AGW dogma in school is currently small change but that’s why it should be crushed at once. You give them a little rope and they will lynch their opponents in no time being the lesson of “multiculturalism” as one word that has lost all innocence in a school setting. It’s all political all the time.
And here we see the reality of, “All that’s necessary …”.
In a way, my hope is generational: the tendency of youth to reject triumphantly and vociferously whatever they see as “the errors and biases” of the preceding generation. Destructive and ill-informed as that often is, it at least puts some limits on the effectiveness of the pervasive indoctrination.
Judith,
It is misleading to discuss the situation as either teaching ‘consensus’ science or ‘controversial’ science in K1-12. That dichotomous view is part of the problem, n’est ce pas?
Better to approach it as teaching the skeptical scientific process in K1-12 with the climate science dispute as an example of what a real world example looks like wrt the skeptical scientific process. Many more K1-12 student who can critically think for themselves can be the goal.
John
John,
Teaching the idea of a “hypothesis” with a “proof or test” leading to a “theory” has been deeply corrupted already in schools. I think we know why in the context of AGW.
This is a society hanging on be its fingernails.
Again, it would be off topic to consider what has happened in the humanity areas, AGW is just a front in science to promote the same agenda. If you want to weep, go review what happens in “Health Related Classes” and the value structures taught there in the name of fighting AIDS or teen pregnancy. AGW teaching at grade and middle school is pathetic but only a fraction of leftist cultural indoctrination at the moment. It should be crushed of course as related results in other topics is plain to see.
I live in a affluent community by the way. Many of secular, pro-Evolution, pro-Warming, athiest factions are split on the levels of extremes produced. It’s that heavy handed at times. It’s what is often left out of the story when you hear the attacks on Intelligent Design supporter for example. The other side that teaching evolution is used by radical secularists and people who hate religion isn’t mentioned in the commom debate narrative. It’s not that I’m an ID supporter, I’m not but the issues get the doctored treatment and framing that is offensive. People on the ground know these issues while the media and related blog supporters for obvious reasons plays it another way.
First, thanks for coming to my class and for posting, Judy. I know the students appreciated hearing your perspective.
Just a clarification: I told you that I agree with 80-90% of your slides from your presentation yesterday. I appreciate your perspectives on the policy challenge and your emphasis on discussing uncertainties. However, I do not agree with your portrayal of the solar forcing as potentially larger than anthropogenic greenhouse forcing over the 20th and 21st centuries. You would have my students believe that there is a reasonable chance that anthropogenic climate change is not real (the first entry on your IPCC/UNFCCC Ideology slide). I would be willing to have an honest debate about the other four points to your IPCC/UNFCCC Ideology slide, but as a scientist, I find it disturbing that you actively and repeatedly call into question the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Ironically, we cannot begin to have the kind of debates that you call for (is it “dangerous”? how much can we really say about regional impacts? how much should we invest in mitigation?) until we can all agree that anthropogenic CO2 is (very likely, to borrow a problematic phrase) warming the planet.
While you may not believe solar forcings can be as large as anthropogenic forcings, presumably as a professional you teach that others hold different views than yours.
Kim,
Surely Judith will respond but it is worth clarifying that even if solar forcing turns out to have been largely responsible for the 20th century increase, as unlikely as that may seem, does not imply that AGW is a real and growing effect (and potential problem) for the future. Very few people, even on a blog like this where most of the commenters are more skeptical than the proprietor, will disagree that ACO2 is warming the planet.
correction:
even if solar forcing turns out to have been largely responsible for the 20th century increase, as unlikely as that may seem, THAT does not imply that AGW is NOT a real and growing effect (and potential problem) for the future.
Dr. Curry can (and hopefully will) speak for herself as to the content of her position and presentation, but I must say I find this comment lacking in…what is the word I am looking for? Class? Someone has clearly not read any of the writings of Dr. Curry on this blog, and elsewhere.
I find it disturbing that someone would write such a dismissive, uninformed comment regarding a colleague who gave a guest lecture for her class (presumably by invitation?).
Hi GaryM,
I appreciate your view, really. You cannot know that Judy and I have had numerous conversations about the science and uncertainties – and as scientists I do not think we are too far from each other’s viewpoint, in terms of stressing large uncertainties. It is truly alarming the amount of things that are poorly constrained.
I guess I have the strong impression that my students themselves, based on the content of her presentation, will think that she questions the existence of anthropogenic climate change itself, because of her strong and blanket critique on the IPCC “ideology”, the first point of which states “anthropogenic climate change is real”. I will ask them point blank on Thursday, and will pass on their comments on her presentation to this thread.
So it’s probably less about what she actually thinks personally, as a scientist, than as how she presents her arguments and main messages (I have said this exact thing to her many times, so she will not be surprised), and I know she will see that I mean no disrespect here.
Kim Cobb,
“So it’s probably less about what she actually thinks personally, as a scientist, than as how she presents her arguments and main messages….”
This would carry more weight if you hadn’t misrepresented her arguments and main message. I suspect you agree with Dr. Curry far more than I do, and on more than just climate science. But I do not misrepresent her positions in order to score points.
You misinterpret the slide, using your own peculiar definition of “anthropogenic climate change” (which apparently substitutes the UNIPCC consensus as to degree of causation for “any”) so that you can then accuse her of denying its existence. A typical grade school debating tactic, often used in the climate debate. And had you posted that comment in any other context, it would have been one of hundreds of similar examples of straw man arguments and of no real consequence.
It was your choosing to do so as a thank you for Dr. Curry’s participating in your class that I found off putting. You comment was rude and dismissive, regardless of whether Dr, Curry finds it disrespectful. (Though from her comment below, she at least sees it as inaccurate.)
further, Judith’s 14th slide shows an uncertainty of 0-0.8 W/m2 in the solar forcing trend from 1980 to present, corresponding to a 0 to 30% attribution of the net trend to solar forcing. How is that “call(ing) into question the existence of anthropogenic climate change?
Kim Cobb: Ironically, we cannot begin to have the kind of debates that you call for (is it “dangerous”? how much can we really say about regional impacts? how much should we invest in mitigation?) until we can all agree that anthropogenic CO2 is (very likely, to borrow a problematic phrase) warming the planet.
You seem to have written that we can not debate the evidence regarding the relative strengths of the solar forcings (and roles of clouds, etc) and the Anthropogenic CO2 until after we have agreed that the anthropogenic CO2 is dominant.
Clearly, you have not examined the uncertainty of the claim that human CO2 emission is the primary forcing that has caused the warming that has been going on since the end of the little ice age. Yet, you offer no uncertainty in your position whatsoever and with all due respect – as an educator you err in that regard. Thus, your eloquent post only provides a direct insight into the reason why outfits like the Heartland Institute feel the pressing need to educate our young children on this uncertainty. And also you offer me yet another direct reason why my wife and I chose to educate our own children at home rather than subject them to the orthodoxy of the American classroom. PS: I am NOT a creationist and not even religious either. But I would be willing to bet that was who you imagined I was immediately after I said “home schooled” – right?
Kim Cobb: You would have my students believe that there is a reasonable chance that anthropogenic climate change is not real
A thorough review of the limitations and inaccuracies in the published literature leaves that possibility open, in my opinion (or judgment, as I prefer to call it.)
Consider for example these simulations presented at Isaac Held’s blog, and some of the cited references:http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2011/10/26/19-radiative-convective-equilibrium/
It is not known how an increase in CO2 concentration will change the transport of energy from the lower troposphere to the upper troposphere. A prima facie case, based on published science, can be made that increased CO2 will increase the rate at which energy is transported from lower to upper, with a net cooling effect at lower and a net warming effect in the upper. Whether it will increase cloudiness and result in net cooling of upper and lower is also an open question, with a recent publication suggesting a net reduction in lower troposphere insolation by moving the clouds slightly lower.
Occasionally on Dr. Curry’s blog there are discussions of technical issues like that. If an increased number of your students believe that there is a reasonable chance that anthropogenic climate change is not real, I consider that a pedagogical success for Dr. Curry.
Credentials don’t matter much here — nevertheless: you might guess from my e-name that I am a statistician. PhD, with experience in modeling and statistical inference for non-stationary multivariate times series.
Credentials don’t matter here? Well, I won’t show you mine, then.
========================
Credentials don’t matter, but presumption of lack of credentials is still annoying. I’m not accusing either of you.
Gavin is being perfectly reasonble. Even Chris Colose is being nice today, he’s much more interesting to read than when he dons his other personna and comes in all guns blazing. Nice one Chris.
tonyb
Whenever I read Chris Colose’s comments, I can’t help thinking of the frat guy in the bar scene in Good Will Hunting.
Yes, it’s a nice little irony; they both speak as if they are just conversing, with out pointing out the obvious authority they carry. Credentials don’t count, it’s the content of the conversation.
Now, we can all strut around naked.
=============
tony B,
They are only being civil today because of Gleickgate. Gavin has been through this before, with climategate v1.0, when he opened up and allowed skeptics to post for a few days.
If some AGW promoter comes up with a nice rationalization to ‘splain away Glecikgate, I wonder how quick the snarky claws get deployed?
Kim Cobb
It looks like your students captured the key “take homes” from Dr. Curry’s lecture.
I personally think that’s what “teaching the controversy” is all about.
Ideally it would be to give them enough information on all possibilities with a discussion of the many uncertainties that still exist and let them draw their own conclusions.
Then check to see whether have grasped how it all hangs together, NOT whether they came up with the “orthodox” conclusion.
Max
Judy,
You probably didn’t see my response to GaryM above, about distinguishing between the substance of what you believe and how you present your beliefs. It will be interesting to poll the students Thursday to see if they, like so many of my colleagues, were also confused as to your assessments of the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
And there is no doubt that the solar uncertainties are large, and that it is critical to resolve them going forward, but your presentation gave the distinct impression that you attribute 20th century warming to solar forcing – a conclusion that I do not scientifically agree with, based on the weight of available evidence.
You indirectly asked what the 10-20% of my disagreements with you stemmed from, so I felt it appropriate to respond. I think it’s best to dwell on those aspects that we agree on, and respectfully agree to disagree about those elements on which we do not. I respectfully disagree with so many of my colleagues, about any number of aspects of climate science, so this is a familiar and comfortable stance for me.
Kim, I never stated that I attributed 20th century global warming to solar. The slide clearly states that the attribution of warming from solar since 1980 is 0-30%. I look forward to hearing about what the students perspective on my presentation was. I note that none of the questions asked in the class were about science, but rather about the politics, how other fields deal with scientific uncertainties, and for clarification about no-regrets decision making strategies – JC
“I think it’s best to dwell on those aspects that we agree on, and respectfully agree to disagree about those elements on which we do not.”
this blog is about ANYTHING BUT that. It is much more fruitful to talk about the disagreements in this context.
But it would be very interesting, to see the results of the poll. If that is the students’ takeaway, it should be cause for further thought along multiple avenues.
It’s not the TSI alone, Kim, but it’s the sun. And the clouds.
=============
I am commenting way too much today. But this is very interesting.
Having only seen the slides (I skimmed them all) and not listened to the presentation, I do not get the impression that the students should be confused as to the existence of AGW.
That is why it would be really interesting if you would share the poll results after Thursday, and we can discuss what they mean.
Kim Cobb,
Why not formulate the questions for your student poll with Dr. Curry. The danger is conducting what will effectively be a push poll, with the phrasing of the questions predetermining the answers. I would be very interested in the results of a fair, objective poll of your students. Not at all interested in a poll based on questions formulated by an advocate seeking to prove a debating point.
Any chance of discussing your proposed questions here in advance?
GaryM,
This is a great idea and I will definitely discuss an informal poll of sorts with Judy. Perhaps there are certain questions she’d like them to answer/discuss.
A place to start (of interest here, I believe) would be:
“Do you think that Dr. Curry believes that anthropogenic CO2 is warming the planet?”
Other ideas?
Here is a better question IMO
What do you best characterizes Dr. Curry’s opinion on what has caused the planetary warming in the latter half of the 20th century?
a) CO2
b) solar variability
c) a combination of both natural (including solar) and anthropogenic (mostly CO2) variability
d) she seemed really uncertain, I couldn’t tell
Kim,
My suggestion would be first to come to an agreed definition of “anthropogenic global warming.” A great deal of the heat in the debate comers from people talking at cross purposes, using the same terminology, but with different definitions.
Some possible suggestions:
Do you think that Dr. Curry believes that human activity is contributing to an increase in global average temperature.
Do you think that Dr. Curry believes that human activity is the primary cause of the recent increase in global average temperature.
Do you think that Dr. Curry believes that the increase in global average temperature being cause by human activity is creating a serious risk of dangerous environmental consequences.
Kim Cobb
Thanks for exposing your students to the foundational scientific issue of uncertainty.
Re: “You would have my students believe that there is a reasonable chance that anthropogenic climate change is not real”
You are metabolizing, thus heating your microclimate and influencing the global climate. Anthropogenic impact is “real” in essence. The issues are its magnitude and the probabilities of “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”.
The larger issue is over the uncertainties of clouds. Nigel Fox of the UK National Physics Laboratory observes that cloud uncertainties alone are ~ Feedback Factor Uncertainty (2 sigma) 0.24 out of 0.26 total uncertainties (~93%) in IPCC’s models. From Roe & Baker 2007. See bottom right of slide 13 of 55 in his presentation:
Accurate radiometry from space: An essential tool for climate studies Dr Nigel Fox2 5 Jan 2011
http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/RoySoc/Nigel_Fox.pdf
(Video Seeking the TRUTHS about climate change)
Note cloud radiative forcing (CRF) uncertainty in Nigel’s slide 14/55
i.e. IF improve uncertainty 10x, then
Testing 50% cloud feedback – need 20 years.
Testing 100% cloud feedback – still need 12 years for proposed TRUTHS vs 40 years for MODIS.
From Wielicki et al 2010.
That indicates a very large uncertainty in clouds.
Have you examined with your students the Copenhagen Consensus 2008 results of ranking the top 30 global humanitarian projects? (PS Global warming mitigation comes in dead last!)
We have a social responsibility to first care for the poor, the widow and the orphan – NOT bury our resources in the ground, no matter how politically correct.
(PS I find your use of ““climate change” to be a politically correct equivocation for “global warming”.)
Dr. Cobb,Why don’t you hire Peter Gleick to swipe Dr. Curry’s docs, fabricate a few more, and then have her shut down completely?
On a serious note, how can you be so easily put off by tough questions? Yes, CO2 will, all things being equal, act to warm the planet. But it is clear that natural variations can overwhelm the CO2 signal to the point where it is indistinguishable from unforced climate? Or do you assert that we are even now facing unprecedented changes in weather/climate.
hunter,
the point that natural variations can overwhelm the CO2 signal over shorter time scales has been made over and over and over again…..like when people jump up and down about ‘no warming in the last 10 yrs’ etc.
Your snarky comments in response to the polite presence of people like kim and gavin suggest you have little interest in learning about science and a major one in ‘defending your side’.
Michael,
If you have had a humorectomy, I am sorry.
It was an obvious bit basedon current events.
My question is very straightforward:
Since there is no appreciable CO2 signal coming through, and since manifestaions of climate are not making any statistically significant changes, why not confront that instead of dismiss it?
Dr. Cobb is someone, for instance, who is allegedly claiming that coral is suffering from AGW already. That happens to be very much an open question, and I would like to hear more on that.
Chris Colose, our resident catcher in the rye, sort of admitted just today that AGW is basically a subjective call. I htink that has been obvious for years.
As a skeptic I have been cursed out, been accused of being paid (me, lol), have lost business, accused of being a ‘denialist’, being a creationist, being congenitally stupid, genetically deficient, etc. etc. etc. Now for people who are attacking Judith and castigating her for even raising points they might disagree with, I am not to say anything that might be direct?
and especially from people like you, who sought to minimize or explain away glecik? lol.
Kim,
A question I would like you to answer is what do you think caused the warming from 1910 to 1940?
Dr. Cobb,
With all due respect your criticism of Dr. Curry seems rather ciricular.
Kim Cobb,
How about two questions, such as
1. Has the earth warmed since the 1800s? Since you answered “yes”,
2. Have mankind’s activities significantly contributed to that warming?
If 97% of the students answer “yes” to both, they are climate scientists. :)
I am a little puzzled as to the basis of Judith’s attribution claim based on a potential 0.8 W/m2 forcing from solar since 1980, and up to 5 W//m2 forcing from ~1900. I presume she is referring to the Shapiro et al reconstruction, but accepting for the moment that this is valid, the calculation of the forcing cannot be correct. Recall that a 1 W/m2 TSI change is only 1*0.7/4 =0.175 W/m2 radiative forcing because of the albedo and geometric difference between the area on a sphere and the area of the disk.
The data from Shapiro and the other reconstructions are available as supplemental data to Schmidt et al (2012):
http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/5/185/2012/gmd-5-185-2012.html
and they show a maximum of ~4 W/m2 change in the Shapiro reconstruction of TSI from ~1900 – which would be a 0.6 W/m2 radiative forcing, and I see no basis for assigning anything significant to the changes since 1980 (where Shapiro is very close to the Wang Lean and Sheehy reconstruction and, of course, the PMOD data), much less than 0.8 W/m2. Indeed depending on the issue of the 2008-2009 minimum, the solar forcing may well have been slightly negative over this time.
Thus the attribution of up to “30%” solar forcing from 1980 cannot be supported by this argument.
Readers interested in whether the Shapiro reconstruction is a valid approach might be interested in the above linked paper, or the discussion here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/how-large-were-the-past-changes-in-the-sun/
Gavin, thanks for your comment. I make no personal assessment of Shapiro’s reconstruction. I cite Judith Lean and Leif Svalgaard, who are the experts. The point is that there is substantial disagreement among the solar experts. And climate scientists would do well to heed this disagreement. I just received an email today from a reviewer of the paleo chapter of the IPCC, and he was most disturbed by the way solar variability was treated in this chapter. And then in the attribution chapter (which I haven’t read, but can only surmise based upon the design of CMIP5 experiments) is that only one solar forcing data set is used (both in 20th century and 21st century simulations).
This is a great point by Gavin, one that I made in this comment on the previous thread (that went unanswered or uncorrected):
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/09/aq/#comment-167382
This is the type of thing that needs to be understood by instructors when students are “judging for themselves.”
Gavin,
Great to see you here, Isn’t it great that yo uare free to post criticisms here?
Too bad places like RC are run by such….Ooops! sorry about that.
I am very confident that Lean and Svalgaard know the difference between TSI and radiative forcing. Your slide #14 incorrectly conflates the two, and the 30% attribution comes from that incorrect assumption, not from Judith Lean or other solar experts.
If you are interested in what people are using for many of the Last millennium CMIP5 simulations, please read our papers: Schmidt et al, 2011; 2012.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sc07400c.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sc08400z.html
But note that most of these have not yet been thoroughly analysed, nor published (though much data is now available via PCMDI/ESG), so the FOD did not have much to work with. That will improve in the coming months.
Actually the 20-30% comes from Judith Lean’s slide Three Different Total. . .
“Irradiance increase from 1986-1996 solar minimum claimed to produce 20-30% of recent global warming . . but increase in ACRIM composite could be instrumental.”
The inference from this statement is that if ACRIM is correct, then the irradiance increase could produce 20-30% of the recent warming. From what I can tell, Judith Lean does not think that ACRIM is correct. The source of the “claim” is not referenced in her slide, and it is not clear whether the “claim” is associated with direct and/or indirect solar effects.
Again, I am making no judgment on what is correct, but this seems to be what is being debated in the solar community. On the subject of longer term solar variations, Leif Svalgaard made the statement in his Nagoya presentation:
• Experts cannot agree on the long-term variation of solar activity
• Solar influence on climate on shaky ground if we don’t even know solar input
I hope that AR5 has something sensible and defensible to say about solar impacts on climate, and acknowledges the debate and uncertainty surrounding solar impacts on climate.
Here is a figure showing the radiative forcing from Shaprio (SEA) and WLS (Lean et al) and PMOD since 1880:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/rf_20C.jpg
Hunter, But this is not RC.
Gavin is using a conciliatory tone and has not come in here all guns ablaze, so let’s give credit where it’s due.
It’s not the TSI alone, Gavin, but it’s the sun. And the clouds.
================
Kim Cobb,
There seems to be a contradiction in what you say.
You seem eager to move forward to a discussion about the societal response to climate change. While at the same time you are prepared to acknowledge it’s truly alarming the amount of things that are poorly constrained.
The uncertainties must be trivial if they shouldn’t hold back discussion of huge societal changes or large uncertainties should be resolved before we move forward. A rush for change while large uncertainties exist seem rash.
How do you resolve these?
Judging from this exchange, it seems there is a thin line between teaching uncertainty and teaching doubt, and maybe judging from Kim Cobb’s reaction here, Judith crossed the line into doubt, while on this blog being an advocate for just uncertainty.
Do the error bars extend beyond the IPCC range on both sides, or do they hardly overlap the IPCC range? This is the difference between uncertainty and doubt.
Jim D
What a marvelous idea – testing IPCC vs subsequent data!
For the last decade, nature does not appear to be cooperative with global alarmism advocacy. See Lucia’s
GISTemp Anomaly: January lower than December.
It appears global models do not account for decadal temperature trends.
Even a 30 year trend shows only 0.14C/decade. Does the IPCC’s 90% confidence provide any criteria for distinguishing if models ever “fail”?
If we are allowed to objectively evaluate the “difference between uncertainty and doubt”, I vote for doubt and GSM model validity.
Or have we entered a post scientific era?
Some people watch every sub-decadal wiggle in global temperature records that they don’t trust anyway and extrapolate those into the future. I hope you are not one of those. It doesn’t seem to relate to the point I made unless you think Judith’s position has also changed based on these short-term natural variations alone. Most skeptics used to accept natural variations when they had a positive sign. Doesn’t the long solar minimum affect things like this. Again, skeptics used to like the idea that the sun explains everything, but not now. Selectivity like this is a sign of a deeper bias, not real skepticism.
Jim – you are as thick as 2 short planks – I have tried to explain this.
Here is the ocean heat content – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=vonSchuckmann-OHC.gif
You can see it warmed right?
Here is the SORCE TSI – http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
You can see it cooled in the same period right? What is wrong with this picture? Nothing – it just shows that greenhouse gases are working more than twice as well as anticipated. Yeah right.
Here is the CERES data – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=CERES-BAMS-2008-with-trend-lines1.gif
You can see what in the period? I’ll give you a clue – it all happened in the SW. There is no doubt at all – it is one of the greatest stuff ups in human history.
THE ROLE OF DOUBT IN SCIENCE
http://laserstars.org/bio/Feynman.html
CH, presumably you have looked at the BEST land temperature too, or would you prefer not to talk about that? These are actual thermometers where people live.
Science – The Doubt Factory
http://www.arachnoid.com/doubt/index.html
You mean this one Jim – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=Best.gif
Help me out here – what point is it you are struggling to make? You go from ‘sceptics’ either ignoring the sun or not ignoring it as the case might be. So I explain to you using ARGO data that the world actually did warm in the period despite the decrease in TSI – which I linked to from SORCE. The most accurate instrument yet deployed. Then I walked you through CERES – clouds and Earth’s radiant energy system and showed you how as it was clouds wot dun it.
And you refer me to a temperature plot showing pretty much wot nearly everyone was thunkin’ already and suggest I don’t want to talk about it?
Jim – I wan’t you to tell me what this is really about – and I wan’t you to be honest. Don’t hold back – tell me what’s really on your mind.
CH, yes, BEST is shown here
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1970/mean:12/plot/best/from:1970/trend
You say this is clouds. Interesting theory. Could the clouds just be responding to the CO2 increase or are you thinking they have a spontaneous way of globally organizing even without the skeptic’s favored GCR effect acting in the same direction (as it isn’t)?
Edim, my post referred to doubt. If you want to define doubt in your way, you are taking AGW as the null hypothesis. I don’t want to get into that debate, but I think many here disagree with that idea.
Jim D
Regarding clouds, another Judy (Collins) sang “I really don’t know clouds at all” – and this could well have been the theme song for climate science today.
The Chief has given you some thoughts on the impact of changes in SW reaching the surface due to clouds when he wrote: “I’ll give you a clue – it all happened in the SW” (and he most likely knows much more about this subject than you or I do)
You certainly must know that it is estimated that the reflection of incoming SW radiation represents around -79 W/m^2 in the so-called “global energy balance”. A 5% change in reflected incoming SW radiation (-4.0 W/m^2) would have a slightly greater impact than a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (+3.7 W/m^2).
IPCC concedes in AR4, “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty” but, based on model simulations, concludes nevertheless that the net feedback from all clouds is strongly positive.
Spencer + Braswell have shown us subsequently, based on CERES satellite observations that, over the tropics, the net overall feedback from all clouds is strongly negative with warming.
http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
S+B conclude that this is because the added reflection of incoming SW radiation from lower altitude clouds with warming is greater than the added absorption of outgoing LW radiation from high altitude clouds (IPCC models had previously estimated just the opposite net effect).
We do not know from this study whether or not this net negative feedback also occurs over regions outside the tropics (which only cover around 40% of Earth’s surface, but account for most of the incoming solar warming), nor do we know whether or not this negative feedback will operate over multi-decadal and longer time periods.
So is this simply a negative feedback or a separate forcing?
We know from ISCCP observations (Pallé et al.) that the global monthly mean cloud cover decreased by around 4.5% between 1985 and 2000. As a result the Earth’s global albedo decreased by the equivalent of around –5 W/m^2, i.e. decrease of reflected SW radiation (= heating of our planet). Over the period after 2000 the cloud cover recovered by around 2.5%, with an increase in reflected SW radiation of around +3 W/m^2 (= cooling).
http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2006_EOS.pdf
Interestingly, these periods coincide well with a period of rapid global atmospheric warming followed by a period of no warming, as measured both at the surface and in the troposphere.
Spencer has since written a paper showing a correlation between cloud cover and the PDO, and the Chief has written here on apparent correlation with ENSO. This work would indicate that clouds do not only act as a feedback (to warming from human GHGs, for example) but represent an independent forcing factor in themselves, possibly driven by ocean current oscillations or whatever has caused these oscillations.
And then there is the observed long-term correlation between global temperature and solar activity/cosmic rays reported by Henrik Svensmark et al. This has led to the CLOUD experiment work at CERN, which has recently reported an experimentally observed link between cosmic rays and cloud nucleation in a controlled experiment, but more work is still required know to what extent this will play out in our atmosphere, IOW to validate this mechanism experimentally.
So I’d say it’s an exciting time.
We may soon know more about clouds than we do today.
But to me it appears likely that there is a connection between clouds and cyclical ocean currents as well as the sun – but we still do not know for sure how this works.
It seems less likely to me that clouds only act as a positive feedback to GHG warming, as was assumed by IPCC.
Max
Clouds can’t be a long-term forcing as they have no memory of their previous state. They are therefore a response to forcing or to natural variation (such as from the ocean). If low-cloud cover is decreasing during a time of warming, it could easily be seen as a positive feedback whether the forcing is from AGW or the oceans. Spencer has hinted that ENSO may be caused by clouds, but few would agree, and I believe he himself has been trying to “clarify” that perceived position.
Jim D
You appear to be quite certain that Spencer is wrong in suggesting that clouds may be an independent forcing or driven by ocean current oscillations or whatever drives these oscillations, but your argument is weak.
I would respectfully submit to you that you (like Judy Collins back in the late 1960s) “really don’t know clouds at all”.
Listen to the Chief – he’s trying to give you some valuable information.
Max
To be in doubt means to lack confidence, to consider unlikely or to be uncertain. Doubt = uncertainty.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doubt
The first key to wisdom is assiduous and frequent questioning … For by doubting we come to inquiry, and by inquiry we arrive at truth.
– Perter Abelard, Yes and No, c. 1120.
http://laserstars.org/bio/Feynman.html
Doubt is one of the sharpest tools in the shed of science.
Air flows through clouds. They are the result of the air flow which has caused them and are not permanently made up of the same air but persist in an illusory sense. As such, they are not a forcing of any kind, but a response to what the atmosphere is doing that may or may not feed back to it.
Edim, semantics, yes. If someone says they doubt AGW it is a lot different from saying they are uncertain about it. Doubt carries a negative connotation in normal language and implies almost certain of the opposite. Uncertain means not certain which means you allow for the possibility but remain to be convinced.
Judy – The ACRIM composite values have been questioned as an overestimate in part because of the 1989-1991 “ACRIM gap” without measurements between the instrumentation changes, and I’m assuming that is what Judith Lean is referring to. However, even if they are assumed correct (which Lean doubts, as you mention), the observed warming after 1986 is only about half the warming since 1950, and so a 20-30% solar contribution would add only a 10-15% contribution for the entire warming interval. Most estimates are lower
Fred, I am not trying to identify the “right” answer from our available knowledge, I think there is too much that we don’t know to sensibly do this. The point I am trying to make is that there is disagreement, and provide a range. In normal science this would be a sensible thing to do; in “consensus” science, there is a need to overplay certainty for papers that support the consensus.
Judith, long ago I used to sign my comments by repeating my belief that GHGs warm the planet. I had to because in the heat of argument some people will naturally assume that if I oppose them on topic X ( Mann was wrong) that I naturally opposed them on everything.
So, if you say climategate was wrong some shallow thinkers will assume that you dont believe in GHGs. They will assume you are a creationist, etc etc.
Your slide #14 is still wrong – there is no way there was a radiative forcing of 5 W/m2 from 1900 or 0.8 W/m2 from 1980.
If you were referring to Lean’s statement rather than your own Energy Balance accounting, then you should probably know where that comes from. It is a vague reference to one of Scafetta and West’s papers which have been heavily criticised (in papers by Lean and others (including me)) – basically because their methods are not robust to non-solar effects (including volcanoes and GHG forcing). Even Scafetta seems to have given up this line of argument in favour of astrology.
Oh, and the ACRIM composite is very likely not correct in any case (see Krivova et al, 2009: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040707.shtml ).
As for the longer term, no one is claiming that it is well known. But no-one (else) is claiming that it is 6 times larger than even Shapiro et al state. Instead people are exploring the full range of reconstructions in running the models, and in doing the data analysis.
Gavin, my slide is not intended to be a climate model, it is intended to provide some context for the magnitudes.
The issue of who is right and wrong in the solar debate is pointless at this stage of the debate, there is too much uncertainty about the measurements and more importantly about solar indirect effects.
The existence of uncertainty is not a license to get things that are simple wrong by an order of magnitude.
And as for indirect effects, you should have come to my AGU talk.
Judith,
But it doesn’t provide any context for magnitudes because the two numbers aren’t even talking about the same thing! Just because two numbers have the same units does not mean they can be applied in a similar context. I pointed this out in a previous thread, and Gavin showed you how to make a back-of-envelope calculation to convert from TSI to forcing. Now you are moving the goalposts again to the uncertainty monster being too large. That is not a compelling way to justify teaching things wrong.
This is precisely why, in my original statements about education, I mentioned that uncertainties needs to be placed in a proper context and that the instructor needs to be responsible in guiding students into a reasonable realm of just how far they “judge for themselves.” This does not extend to just making things up. If the student naively compares “5 W/m2” to “1.6 W/m2” they might think that the solar changes can overwhelm the CO2 changes in the 20th century, and even that there is a good probability of net negative forcing (which would even contradict the max 30% attribution, which itself is not credible).
Well, if I had 3-4 lectures (rather than 3-4 minutes on this whole solar argument), I could have educated the students in some detail on all this. The point I wanted to make for this class was to give a simple argument to show that there are scientific uncertainties. I chose solar since I thought that was the simplest argument to make (personally i think the natural internal variability is a bigger issue), and I wanted to convey disagreement among scientists and that role of the sun in climate change is uncertain. I think that message came across. Looking in detail at the inferences that might be drawn from my slide 14 (which i doubt anyone in the class was doing; they did not know about energy balance climate models and had not seen the 1.7 or 3.7 W m-2 numbers before), yes incorrect and unintended inferences could have been drawn from that.
If Gavin can be civil here, perhaps he can practice the same at his place.
It is long past time for the promoters to stop simply shouting down or censoring the skeptics.
Dr. Schmidt, how about it? Are you ready to let RC be a real forum?
Gavin
Speaking of orders of magnitude attribution on temperature versus solar, I would welcome your perspective on:
Changes in atmospheric circulation and the Arctic Oscillation preserved within a millennial length reconstruction of summer cloud cover from northern Fennoscandia Giles H. F. Young, Danny McCarroll, Neil J. Loader, Mary H. Gagen, Andreas J. Kirchhefer and Joanne C. Demmler, Climate Dynamics DOI: 10.1007/s00382-011-1246-3
Gavin
Re: “Scafetta seems to have given up this line of argument in favour of astrology.”
Please lay off your abusive ad hominem attacks, and rise to the level of a scientist.
Please address the physics involved. (I presume you have had enough physics and math to understand Newton’s law of gravitation and viscous damping.)
E.g., Please provide some rational and hopefully constructive comments on Ed Fix’s model of solar cycles based on a damped solar motion around the barycenter due to the gravitational forces imparted by the Jovian planets.
Ed Fix, The Relationship of Sunspot Cycles to Gravitational Stresses on the Sun: Results of a Proof-of-concept Simulation. Ch 14. pp 335-353 of Evidence-Based Climate Science, 2011 Don Easterbrook Ed. Elsevier, 416 pages ISBN 978-0-12-385956-3
How would you prove/disprove it?
Do you know of any better model / prediction of solar cycles?
OMG, once again Saint Judith is accused of straying. Nothing could be fuather from the truth. Saint Judith’s writings, including her blog comments, are entirely within the assumptions of mainstream climate science. One cannot actually read her an conclude that she has strayed. She has authored “The Uncertainty Monster” but it was given birth and has grown entirely within the fold.
What a pathetic response.
It is of the essence to know if there is any rigourously plausible and persuasive case to be made for significant (and very destructive) AGW before getting into mitigation discussions. It’s a question of scale; global mitigations are humungously costly and disruptive, and should be undertaken only with the very strongest of justifications. The real “Precautionary Principle” mitigates strongly against committing to a virtual certainty of vast economic disruption for anything less
All this picking at the accuracy of the extent of a hypothetical range of values seems quite bizarre. If the primary picker wasn’t such a notorious promoter of open debate then one might hypothesize that he conspired with the disturbed professor to denigrate Judith Curry’s presentation and hijack the discussion.
Dear all,
As promised, I polled my students about their reactions to Judy’s lecture on Tuesday.
Before uttering a single word, I put up the following question (answers by a show of hands reported in parentheses:
What do you think best characterizes Dr. Curry’s opinion on what has
caused the majority of planetary warming in the late 20th century?
a) CO2 (0)
b) solar variability (1-2)
c) a combination of solar and CO2 forcing (5-7)
d) she seemed really uncertain, I couldn’t tell (10+)
And my next question, presented on the following slide so as not to bias the answers to question #1:
Do you think that Dr. Curry believes that CO2 is warming the planet?
a) yes (1-2)
b) no (1-2)
c) the uncertainties are too large to answer yes or no (15+)
So we talked about the exchanges here on her blog, including the error in her solar forcing magnitudes pointed out by Gavin, and as I feared, the students were very shaken by the idea that solar forcing could be larger than CO2 forcing over the 20th and 21st century. They were eager to discuss the implications of the corrected solar forcing numbers, even while they appreciated that there are still large uncertainties in the magnitude of solar forcing. This led to a long, wonderfully rich, and in-depth discussion that I wish I could have taped and posted here. They wanted to know about cloud direct and indirect effects (which is arguably the largest uncertainty in terms of radiative forcing), they wanted to know about how climate “science” got to be this way, they asked me about my personal ideology and how it impacts my actions in the broader climate science arena (a tough one, admittedly), etc etc. Tough questions, smart questions, and such important questions from students who care deeply about the answers. They reinforced my belief that the way forward is through accurate depictions of climate science, its greatest accomplishments and its warts, along with full disclosure as to ones personal views and biases, so that they can judge the entire package appropriately.
Kim, this is interesting. I am glad the class is continuing to discuss uncertainties in climate science. i do take issue with the oversimplification of the solar effect on climate into the planetary averaged ‘solar forcing’ (as per Gavin’s argument). If you look at the arctic during summer, you get a much larger ratio for TOA to surface forcing. And there are solar indirect effects that are not accounted for. So is it possible that natural variability has dominated AGW in the latter half of the 20th century? Yes. Is it possible that natural variability will dominate in the first half of the 20th century? yes. I tried to introduce the students to some of these controversies, which I would have hoped they would have been aware of. Dismissing natural variability as a contribution to climate change based upon a simple introductory example used in the class (which I alotted about 3 minutes of time to), which was not intended to be an energy balance climate model, is not a useful message to the students IMO. I’m glad that you mentioned cloud forcing and feedback, but climate is way more complex than a 0D or 1D energy balance model. So I hope that you will point the way to the students to explore these issues and uncertainties on their own, since there doesn’t seem to be much time alotted in the class.
I would be happy to answer any questions the students have of me, either via email or in a meeting.
1-2 hands? 5-7 hands? Does this mean that some students were showing their hand cyclically or that some appendages could not be positively identified?
“…as I feared, the students were very shaken by the idea that solar forcing could be larger than CO2 forcing…”
This is very disturbing. Were the poor things offered counseling?
(I was going to ask if this class touched at all on the effects of land use changes, but I don’t want to be responsible for any more shaking of students.)
This is a great example of everything that is wrong with the ‘teach the controversy’ position.
Even with a college audience, they were unable to pick up on the solar error and where left with a mistaken impression about the role of CO2 in climate change.
While the goal is laudable, it’s a mistake to think that ‘critical thinking’ is a replacement for knowledge asquisition. They need to develop together, but at certain stages of learning, acquisition takes priority.
Presenting a TTC approach to climate at high school level would be as nutty as a TTC approach to physics or biology.
You have to learn to walk before you can run.
Judith Curry
Amen!
The goal is NOT to indoctrinate the students with the orthodox “consensus” view (i.e. brainwash them) but do exactly as you wrote: get them to think critically (and, in the process, move towards becoming “scientists”).
Max
A big help for the classroom would be a simple experiment that the students could perform in a laboratory that would demonstrate accurately and faithfully to the Physics of the “CO2 caused global warming greenhouse effect” the result of doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Harold – Lab experiments demonstrating the IR absorbing and warming properties of CO2 have been developed for high school classrooms, but in terms of demonstrating the atmospheric greenhouse effect, it’s difficult to find a classroom equipped to build an air-containing column 15 kilometers high.
oh you don’t have to. you just need a meter or so. heat to 45C and saturate with water vaper. CO2? what control knob?
Photonic recycling by CO2 in the gas phase has never been unambiguously demonstrated. Moreover, the ability of CO2 to act as a classical ‘green house gas’ has never been used in any device. So the space between the two glass panels in a double glazing unit is filled with Argon, Xenon or Krypton or evacuated. CO2 has slightly better thermal conductivity properties than Argon, is cheaper than Argon, but is not used by the double/triple glazing industry.
dude, that’s because in that application its GHG properties are a drawback. think stratosphere.
Dr. Doiron: “CO2 caused global warming greenhouse effect” Necessary, but not sufficient. And too easy to extrapolate.
Much of the controversy lies in feedback(s), which I understand to rest upon hindcasts and concensus. Other issues include integrity of data, uncertainty and incomplete models.
If advocacy groups are to be allowed to teach in K-12, I suspect Greenpeace would jump on board, and they have the potential to put up some interesting modules about future climate calamities, flooding, extinctions, etc. You have to accept this as a possibility, and then this Heartland module would look relatively dull, even if it focused on academics behaving badly as its best attention grabber.
Jim D –
The advocacy groups are already there. As an example, check out the WWF’s ‘Schools for a Living Planet”.
http://schools.wwf.ca/school_learn_more.cfm
I don’t know if this has this already made it into any classrooms in Canada, but given the range of opinions of the teachers I’ve dealt with, I certainly would expect that in some places it is being taken as gospel truth.
Take a look at the “science” curriculum across America today and the sections on pollution, urban development, endangered species and global warming are all right in there already. Teachers guides recommend emphasizing the calamity of human influence over the Earth. No debate is ever acknowledged. The children a fine little lemmings that are being indoctrinated before they even have any critical thinking ability. Their parents are absent in the process or are apathetic about it.
So, what will the Heartland-sponsored message be in the face of this? Can they make an impression at all with just some words about doubt and their perceptions of deceit? Do they even acknowledge that major climate change could be correct? I expect they would have preferred this course to be anonymously sponsored, but given this leak, it may have ended its viability as concerned parents could object to such obvious and paid-for advocacy.
Jim D,
At least half the parents would be clamoring for science teachers to leave behind CAGW dogma. If there had been something like what David Wojick proposes in my kids’ classes, I would have had to spend a lot less time on re-education.
Judith
I read the presentation “Climate Change & Energy Policy: The Controversy” and noted that you have not included comments or slides on one of the largest areas of controversy – the reliability of the GCMs in forecasting future conditions/harms. Please comment on why this key issue was not addressed.
Judith –
I was quite surprised that your approach with college students is to present a dichotomy – two sides to the debate, and see how the students react to the extremes. If they come down somewhere in the middle I guess it has a reasonable outcome, but does the subject have to be polarised right from the start (just because that is how it appears in the public domain)?
Perhaps I’m being idealistic, but it would be nice to think of students coming to the subject and seeing it fresh – without the jaundiced spin from two extreme perspectives.
I don’t know – I think if it was me, I’d have pretty much automatically rejected both views, which might have been a healthy thing to do..
Anteros – if the IPCC perspective is what you consider one of the 2 extremes, and it is the “orthodox” view, then how the hell do you teach it “fresh?” Seems like it’s either teach the orthodoxy or teach the controversy. Sure you could cherry pick all the lukewarmer scientific papers but what good would that be?
billc –
Fair point.
I suppose from my point of view the IPCC is a political body. You can could teach climate science without even mentioning it. You don’t need to say “these are the extremities” [although I accept that the IPCC isn’t the extreme]. I know Judith mentioned the consensus, but of course in the public arena, those using the authority of the IPCC are leveraging for something often much more extreme.
Consider how Gavin Schmidt bemoans Peter Gleick’s demise of reputation because –
Now consider the mission statement for Peter Gleick’s institute –
I think there is a controversy in the climate debate even though [and perhaps because.] there is an orthodoxy. Teaching climate science and teaching the orthodoxy are two slightly different things.
OK – I confess. Gleick’s stuff was faked :)
Anteros, your fake fooled me – I thought it was completely credible.
:)
nice plagiarism Anteros ;). SteveF will be along to collect his quatloo royalties + damages.
“of course in the public arena, those using the authority of the IPCC are leveraging for something often much more extreme” – nice quote, I’ll have to use it, I often agree.
however, teaching climate science you are still going to run into the polarization, and very fast, if you elect to teach anything but “orthodoxy”. It’s a bimodal distribution (I heard that somewhere). I guess the intro lecture on the first day would not have to mention the word “controversy” :).
Consider David Archer’s Climate Change 101 course.
I should have ‘fessed up that I pretty much fell for the Gleick-fake. Perhaps should be instructive..
Billc – it is indeed a bimodal distibution. It’s like my answer to Mike Hulme’s question ‘Why we disagree about climate change?” – “because we’re dichotomous creatures!”
I’m amused, a, at how quaintly we were trying to make sense of the memo; I don’t think I entertained the thought of a fake until moshe started rustling around in the underbrush.
=================
My wife’s taught in elementary school and worked in administration and we’ve raised 3 kids to adulthood with the traditional complement of wailing and gnashing of teeth…oh…and joy. Here’s some indirect insight: The big job in the first month/6 wees of any school year in Kindergarten is teaching the kids how lines/queues work and getting to and from lunch, recess, start of school, end of school, etc. A lot of them have been exposed to the concept of lines in pre-school but it is in part a developmental skill (some people get it sooner, some later). Therefore it’s a major part of the early weeks’ class time budget. In general, I’d venture that the response to Climate Change, Controversy or like would be met with generous amounts of leg kicking, nodding off and perhaps nose picking. They do really like tactile math toys though. Climate education at any level here would either be indoctrination akin to “Mr. Fireman and Mr. Policeman are nice. Strangers are not nice.” Otherwise, it’s pointless…Which of course, given educational fashionistas does not preclude inclusion in curriculum.
Middle school: All our children did science projects in middle school. We facilitated some but we did not do the projects for our kids. At this level, they’re definitely ready for CO2 experiments, or at least their parents are. CO2 is fun for kids to work with because in short, it’s cheap, abundant and as a product of some compound reactions can make things ooze or even explode (never underestimate the value of safety glasses at a science fair). I’ve judged a few of these and some are quite good. (I was always VERY partial to the ones actually done by the students. Still, there was a volcano that I suspect the child had little or nothing to do with that was pretty awesome.)
High school: Some exploration, departure from mom & dad, etc. happens here. Scientific controversies of all types are fair game. However, these should rightly come (gratuitous personal parental opinion happening now) as the result of the child being introduced to how things work rather than of focused curriculum. As my child is welcomed into adulthood, I hope they form their opinions based on facts they understand AND have sufficient humility and critical skills to identify things they don’t understand. This will be difficult for them if the discussions have been at a high level. This in turn, encourages them to accept arguments from authority in lieu of thinking critically about fact based debate. And with still more personal opinion, I believe that is a core problem in Climate Science politics and really with discussion of many societal issues.
Absolutely teach the controversy. The history of science is full of controversies, and its what makes it fascinating. Also, it allows for people to understand how real science works – by different scientists offering competing theories and passionately disagreeing with each other.
I note the ridiculous comment of Kim Cobb. What a bunch of anti-scientific authoritarian non-sense!
You would have my students believe that there is a reasonable chance that anthropogenic climate change is not real
Sorry kiddo, there is a reasonable chance whether you like it or not. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests negative feedbacks and much more important solar forcings than CO2 forcings. But go ahead, keep your poor students in the dark, well insulated from facts in your greepeace bubble and call it science. (Puke)
I also note this gem:
Ironically, we cannot begin to have the kind of debates that you call for (is it “dangerous”? how much can we really say about regional impacts?
how much should we invest in mitigation?) until we can all agree that anthropogenic CO2 is (very likely, to borrow a problematic phrase) warming the planet.
So in other words, we cant debate until you agree with my position? Wow, that’s going to be a fun debate. You must be very confident of your position if that is how you set the terms for debate. (more puke)
calling a university professor “kiddo” is demeaning.
Uh, yeah, but why should a professor be immune to ridicule or criticism in response to their (IMO) arrogant display of hubris and intolerance?
Mark and alfa,
The professor should not be immune. In this case I think she was wrong and I said as much upthread. Although I don’t like name-calling generally, there’s a certain additional negative implication to a term like “kiddo” in this context.
Well, ‘kiddo’ can be more companionable than diminuating. Let me consult Joshua for some critical thinking into the matter, and settle it with moshe’s textual analysis.
==============
Well, it seems pretty matey until the sound of distant chunder.
====================
no – just a nice reminder that maybe Pop has more intellectual and possibly real firepower than she does.
A lot of teachers abuse their power in the classroom so need reminding who is boss.
Kim:
I put “kiddo” at about 6.3 on the tribalism scale.
/Josh (fake but accurate)
In fact, the evidence strongly suggests negative feedbacks and much more important solar forcings than CO2 forcings.
What evidence?
The ERBE satellite readings (Lindzen and Choi), the very strong correlation between GCR and climate on pretty much all time scales, the 800 year lag between temp and CO2 in ice core data, the absence of a tropospheric hotspot, the plateaued temps of the last 15 years, …
and pretending the “science is settled” is insulting. and wanting to regulate the lives of everybody on the planet based on faulty science is criminal and authoritarian. refusing to debate the faulty science which is the basis for your desire to regulate the lives of everybody is dishonest.
“but does the subject have to be polarised right from the start (just because that is how it appears in the public domain)?”
Yes, it does. It’s the imagined “consensus” that tries to copywrite the words “science” and “anti-science” that made it so. It’s agw advocates and weak (corrupted) science leadership in the field that created this culture, learn to live with it.
The level of background science needed to understand climate science is very high, a bar not reached by many adult blog commenters or even some climate scientists. What is the point of teaching K-12 students except indoctrination? At best, they will “understand” as politicians do, very shallowly, taking much more as settled than warranted.
“The level of background science needed to understand climate science is very high, a bar not reached by many adult blog commenters or even some climate scientists”
How unlike oncology, particle physics and software engineering. So of all the science Climate science is among the most complex and so we should leave it to the handful of investigators who ‘really’ understand it to pontificate on high; unquestioned and regal in their learning.
Bollocks.
‘You are effectively saying that the atmosphere or the Earth system is flawed as it doesn’t follow a simple theory.’
What? I’m not saying that at all.
What I am saying is Co2 cools not warms. The Oceans warm the atmosphere, they are 2C warmer. Hot goes to cold in reality. Complex it is not. Hansen made it complex for you.
His convective lapse rate is wacky and fudged. Have a critical look at it Pekka. He guessed the lapse rate so it complied with surface temp of 275.5K
The climate system is not complex unless the theory makes it so. Your argument is fundamentally wrong and without value.
oops.
287.5 K
So what, exactly, is it about ‘climate science’ that makes it super difficult? The maths doesn’t seem especially hard, the basic concepts aren’t difficult, there are no experimental skills required. So compared with ‘hard science’ like , for example physics or chemistry, it seems pretty straightforward.
A bit of computer programming and a facility to write ‘consistent with the IPCC predictions’ on a regular basis seem to be the only skills needed beyond A level science.
Please explain why you believe differently
One answer would be that ‘climate science’ involves so many different sciences. Maths, Statistics, Computing, Physics, Chemistry, for the fundamentals, extending to Biology and Economics and Politics when you get into the implications. So it’s impossible for anyone to be an expert in all aspects of the subject.
Additional points:
– it’s not possible to make full scale experiments
– there’s a huge amount of data on atmosphere and the Earth system more generally, but the data provides largely more indirect than direct knowledge about longer term phenomena, i.e. climate.
– the atmosphere as well as the rest of the Earth system is very complex. Comparisons with theory have shown good agreement on many details but many gaps remain.
From these points the first is an argument against the reliability of climate science, the second and third contain arguments to both directions.
Climate science is, indeed, complex and judging its validity is also complex. It’s not surprising that the honest judgments vary even among people who have spent a lot of effort in being able to make personal judgments and who have a strong background to start. I have little doubt on where the balance is for the basics of climate science and AGW, but at the same time I don’t believe that the balance of well justified personal judgments is nearly the same on the stronger claims that are used to justify some policy initiatives.
Pekka you say,
the atmosphere as well as the rest of the Earth system is very complex. Comparisons with theory have shown good agreement on many details but many gaps remain.’
Good theory without controversy doesn’t have gaps, good theory is easily understood. Haven’t you every wondered why the science was so difficult with climate? Do you think the difficulty might be that the theory is invalid? Have you ever critically thought about the inability of GCM’s to predict?
The theory is flawed.
You are effectively saying that the atmosphere or the Earth system is flawed as it doesn’t follow a simple theory.
If the reality is complex the good theory is also complex. That may be unfortunate, but it’s still true.
Many of the most successful theories of physics are also complex and difficult. Very few people can follow the calculations of quantum electrodynamics that lead to the most accurately tested results of physics.
Your argument is fundamentally wrong and without value.
Incredible. Is this comment tongue in cheek? All the Real Climate scientist needs is the ability to fake data, to snow others with high sounding but wrong arguments, and be an mean bully. Is that what you are saying?
This field went from being a Grand Challenge to being so easy a cave man could do it amazingly quickly.
What is the controversy that should be taught? Before any controversy concerning the climate science proper can be taught, the students should understand quite a lot of background material. Telling that there are people who have differing views doesn’t tell anything about the climate science, it may tell more about the society.
I do certainly dislike scary stories about a catastrophe that’s looming because of the warming, but it’s not any better to claim that the whole influence of CO2 is not true. If there’s something to discuss it is the fact that people do evaluate uncertainties differently and that they react to incomplete scientific knowledge differently. There’s real controversy on the right reaction and on the severity of the issue, while there is no legitimate controversy on the basic phenomenon.
At high enough level it might be very good to discuss, how science does and should contribute to the decision making process. To what extent that fits into K-12 is less obvious.
The controversy that needs to be taught relates to feedbacks. The basic phenomenon of CO2 absorbing infrared is not controversial. Problem is, that’s not what the IPCC position relies on, as this effect is too weak to create a catastrophe. For the catastrophe they need to invoke hypothetical positive feedbacks for which there is no evidence.
The controversy in a general sense is that science is a process, and when we are talking about a topic like the environment or public health, there is a great deal of complexity and uncertainty and ignorance, and that these topics are debated within the scientific community and by the public. Teaching students that all science is like pV=nRT is not teaching them to cope with the complexity and controversies on topics that have actual social relevance.
The climate issue is perhaps not a good subject for teaching understanding of science and scientific knowledge. That can be taught better selecting a subject, where the controversy is more purely scientific. One might discuss e.g. cosmology, which is interesting and involves many uncertainties, but is not directly important for decision making. In contrast the climate science is a perfect example of difficulties in using incomplete scientific knowledge in decision making.
Separating the two sources of controversy would make the issue more understandable for the students – and would better avoid part of the problems created by teachers who have their own strong political (or ecological) views.
I agree that for K-12 this topic probably shouldn’t be taught; it may be possible to do this well, but the chances seem small of systematic implementation of something that doesn’t do more harm than good. If you look at my presentation for Kim Cobb’s class, the emphasis is on exactly the decision making piece, focused on decision making under deep uncertainty
Pekka, dark energy is a progressive conspiracy. Why do you think it’s called “dark”?
“Teaching students that all science is like pV=nRT is not teaching them to cope with the complexity and controversies on topics that have actual social relevance.”
Teaching students, especially young students, that climate science is essentially “non-political” in the current society is child abuse and deception.
Don’t shoot the messenger.
What can be taught and isn’t controversial is the current methodology. The ARGO system and the GRACE system come to mind as topics students may find interesting. I know when I was in highschool my science teacher showed a film on tree ring analysis which I found facinating at the time. I don’t recall any discussion of if we were heading towards an ice age or not although that was the worry de jour.
I agree with Pekka.
Students should be taught the basic ideas in science and learn to think critically. This is a framework for adult decisions.
Regretably in the UK post normal science has been ascendent for years so ,while students may not be able to do multiplication, they can at least understand the victims’ feelings when faced by a catastrophe.
“in the UK post normal science has been ascendent for years so ”
This is surely the real problem Judith faced (whether she cares to say so or not), when addressing the students, It’s not that they weren’t taught any science as kids – it’s that they were taught bad science at school and, so far as we can tell, are still being taught bad science at university.
Teaching Controversey, 101: Gore snares a Nobel for deceiving people as Bush earns the Left’s lifetime hatred award for believing in America with his whole heart.
Wag,
The issue I with Dr. Curry, as always, is that she is discussing “teaching the controversey” here while her own statement protocal is to never discuss the political underpinnings directly or by named party!! Are we kidding?!
Therefore it could never be mentioned the the TEAM, IPCC, GREENPEACE, WWF, AL GORE, EVERY INFILTRATED ACADEMIC SOCIETY you can think of are largely left of center if not more accurately described as RADICAL LEFTIST enclaves supporting climate change “Theory”.
How exactly does this work? Is that “fair” to try another copywritten word of the secular left?
Part of the problem is this artificial creation of the dichotomy between “consensus” vs “controversy,” or “warmist” vs. “skeptic.” These distinctions usually have well-understood meanings in blogs, but they aren’t meaningful amongst scientists and may not be obvious to students who aren’t engaged in blog wars.
In particular, it makes no distinction between well-understood concepts (such as CO2 is a greenhouse gas and absorbs IR) and very fine details (such as the relative contribution of various ice sheets or glaciers to 21st century sea level rise). The degree of confidence that the scientific community places in various claims varies depending on what specific conclusion you are talking about. It follows from this that the extent to which you teach a specific subtopic as “controversial” varies in appropriateness.
For example, the “consensus position” is that the precise way in which hurricanes evolve as a function of climate is uncertain, and embedded within that are various controversies regarding the details of strength vs. intensity, how to best correct for missing hurricane counts in the pre-satellite era, etc. It is also appropriate to discuss the large uncertainties in aerosol forcing over the 20th century, as is done in any climate change education setting I have been in. Pretending that this sort of “controversy” is as legitimate as Bob Carter’s diatribe’s about all of anthropogenic climate change does an injustice to the students teaching.
Chris
Imo what you seem to minimize is that there are significant areas of controversy over issues that impact the implementation of governmental policy formulation. The issues over things like how much will it warm in the next 25 years, how much will sea level rise in the next 50 years, what parts of the planet will get less rainfall vs. more rainfall and how much less or more. Imo, you seem to try to minimize the importance of these VERY key issues where the science if not definitive.
Rob,
I think you have to distinguish between “controversies” and “uncertainties”. All of the things you mention are uncertain (in both directions) and this uncertainty should be made clear in the classroom, but portraying it as “controverst” injects unnecessary heat into the subject.
Andrew
I disagree that the issues I highlight are only uncertainties and not controversies.
When GCMs do not match observed results and it is learned how they have been developed and validated, the entire process for their use is a great controversy. It is not just the margin of error, but whether these models should be used for policy making purposes at all.
When models forecasted that there would be over a meter of sea level rise by 2100 and the observed trend is nowhere near that level of rise and has shown no deviation in the trend it is a great controversy and not just an uncertainty.
Rob,
I have been a student in multiple classes that teach climate change at the upper undergrad or grad level. I have been exposed, formally, to discussions of future precipitation trends or sea level rise on multiple occasions (aside from my own reading). In no case, did the professor ever come off as saying that these issues have no uncertainty or that there was one universal consensus on how the future of sea level rise will play out.
The discussion of those uncertainties has generally been weighted appropriately to the topic- i.e., there are greater uncertainties in regional precipitation trends than there are the temperature response to Mt. Pinatubo.
There are also needs to be constraints on those discussed uncertainties, something which I have criticized Judith Curry for exaggerating on numerous occasions. For example, it would be irresponsible to teach people that sea level declines are a reasonable expectation for a business-as-usual emissions future. Moreover, it is irresponsible to make things up about models vs. observations, as you have done here, since observations have typically tracked along the high end of the AR4 projections and post-AR4 literature suggests the projections of sea level have been too conservative. I discussed this in the last thread but you evidently thought that repeating a false claim would make it right the n’th time around (just another lesson for students?).
Funny in a way neither haha nor peculiar, that you want to talk about sea level and aerosols, Chris. Glad ya mention ’em, and let’s keep talking about ’em, and keep observing.
==============
You wrote:
“I for one have little confidence on the observational record to constrain climate sensitivity.”
My response is that the observational record is the most important thing to consider. The issue is to understand what climate sensitivity is, not constrain the estimate. You seem to, Imo, accept the outputs of models in spite of their outputs being in contrast to the observational record. I have nothing against the use of models. The key to trusting models is ensuring that they match observed results. You make assumptions or excuses as to why the models have not been accurate, but that is all you have-stop being untruthful.
You wrote: “You especially cannot use timeframes of a decade or so where the internal variability is competitive with anthropogenic forcing (in addition to other forcings like slight changes in stratospheric water vapor, or progression toward solar minimum)”
My response: No you can’t rely upon the current models for timeframes of a decade or so- because they are bad models! If a model really represented they actual system you would expect it to have better accuracy in the nearer term. You claiming otherwise is just making excuses for a poorly designed model. You never addressed why it makes sense technically to average the results of multiple models. The answer is it doesn’t. It simply shows that you and the IPCC have no confidence in the outputs of any specific model in being accurate. If you and the IPCC don’t trust any models to be accurate, why should the public make huge changes in policy as a result of their outputs?
Regarding sea level rise- Well you continue to reference a bunch of papers that predict a sea level rise of up to 2 meters by 2100. I guess it is good that your faith does not rely upon observations since the trend is for less than 1 foot of rise by that time. Perhaps that trend will change, but there is ZERO observational evidence to suggest that is happening. The prior models on sea level rise were wrong, but in your view we should trust you and a new model that has not demonstrated it can accurately forecast anything. You write about the recent changes that may make the trend change and sea level to rise more rapidly, but there is no evidence to support your claim. The 20 year trend is pretty steady and the most recent trend is actually downward. Did you have a model predict that?
So it would be better just to teach a manufactured consensus, and label anyone who disagrees as a ‘denier’ that is probably funded by an oil company? How are we going to protect people from genuinely erroneous scientific ‘information’? In the U.S. anyways, censorship is not an option. Isn’t it better to give the students tools so that they can judge for themselves?
Almost there Dr. Curry.
Now if you could only cross the Rubicon as to what all the “manufactured consensus” players have in common with those on a mission to use education to teach secular authority and deprogram any views that oppose their world view along very understandable political divides the conversation might evolve to meaningful status.
If they were just talking spagetti charts and abstract climate theory this wouldn’t be as much of a problem. It’s exactly what you refuse to talk about that is the core of the issue. You’re heart seem in the right place, why not follow it with deeds? What do you think they are really teaching in “Climate Studies”?
Yeah, cuz that’s what he said all right! unreal.
Judith,
We clearly have different ideas on what constitutes an appropriate form of critical thinking development.
Showing students videos of Bob Carter is, at best, a useful “spot the error” exercise. It is not an honest portrayal of the controversies in climate science. If I was a student in that class, it would only come off to me as evidence that my instructor did not have the background to evaluate the legitimacy of his claims, and that they are not qualified to instruct on that topic.
As I highlighted in my post, there are more than enough legitimate debates embedded within the climate science literature to provide fodder for good classroom discussions. The structure of these uncertainties varies wildly across topics, as does the relevance of these uncertainties to questions of radiative transfer physics, attribution, or climate sensitivity.
But before all of this, there are more than enough well-understood concepts in the form of applied physics (e.g., how the greenhouse effect works) that could take up a substantial fraction of classroom time. These should be taught first in order to equip the student with the tools to “judge for themselves.” And for upper undergrads or graduate students, various viewpoints can be presented in the form of opposing peer-reviewed articles, and a discussion of follow-up articles to those papers, not youtube videos.
Chris, perhaps you missed the part about Peter Webster’s course being a course in climate dynamics, that teaches the underlying physics at a fairly high level (advanced undergrad/beginning grad). In the last few weeks of the class, the students are introduced to the IPCC and the public debate. Looking at the youtube clips is exactly an exercise in spotting the errors, assessing the arguments, etc. And they concluded that some of the arguments in each of the presentations had validity and none of the presentations were wholly convincing.
IMO, open minds and critical thinking are more important to cultivate than trying to cram in a few more lectures on science as the consensus views it.
That is the interesting thing about universities, different universities can try different things, and even within a particular academic department, professors have the academic freedom to teach what/how they want, and Kim Cobb or anyone else can disagree with me as much as they want. This is not necessarily true at other universities that teach atmospheric sciences (I have a few anecdotes that I will not relate here).
Too much teaching of a lab result, the radiative properties of CO2, and not enough teaching of observing and wondering about the actual climate.
It is absurd to extrapolate a lab result into such a complex manifestation of nature such as climate, in the way it has been done. It’s cucaracha physica.
============
I would hope that whatever the students’ conclusions were as to the 3 youtube clips from each side the questions would be why did you come to the conclusion and how would you evaluate whether your conclusion is a good one. The whole idea that a presentation should be judged on its plausibility in absence of supporting information is surely anathema in science.
well each of these presentations was all about presenting evidence in support of their arguments.
But in a controversial subject the obvious point is that the students should be discouraged from making snap judgements. The truth is not some wishy washy position somewhere in the middle based on a qualitative analysis of plausible but biased presentations. The truth is fixed and there to be found and probably entirely different from all six presentations.
Chris Colose: In particular, it makes no distinction between well-understood concepts (such as CO2 is a greenhouse gas and absorbs IR) and very fine details (such as the relative contribution of various ice sheets or glaciers to 21st century sea level rise).
Another example: it is well-known and accepted by everyone that CO2 absorbs and emits radiation in a particular IR band, and that the earth radiates in that band; what is not known is how a doubling of the CO2 concentration from the present concentration will affect the transport of energy from the lower troposphere to the upper troposphere. I cite again the simulations and discussion at Isaac Held’s blog:http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2011/10/26/19-radiative-convective-equilibrium/
The laboratory science is “settled”, but much of the climate science is incomplete or imprecise, and the liabilities are sufficient that the total knowledge is insufficient to support a policy recommendation.
I actually like what you’ve written here, and it seems sensible.
It is important to teach uncertainties. Not only does this spark creativity and curiosity in minds–as the mind always looks to have a concrete answer–and thus builds a greater desire for students to want to become scientists; but teaching uncertainties as absolute truths lead to immense disillusionment as soon as a person discovers the uncertainties that are out there. And this leads the person, in turn, to question -even more- of what he/she has been told by a source that presented uncertainties untruthfully as fact.
It is a matter of honesty and integrity in teaching. But we do not want to create false dichotomies, or false dilemmas, on the other hand.
My son is learning about the precautionary principle in Grade 10 science. He asks me what the precautionary principle has to do with science because he sees that it self-contradictory. I see his text book also explains the Gaia hypothesis and a bunch of other pseudoscience. Its too bad so much of their time will be wasted on climate and not enough on physics, chemistry, and biology.
The net effect, no climate science need come to class k-12 in the present frame of the debate. Green soft-soap should be purged.
I grew up in a working class school system filled with liberal dogma but the science areas took pride in being beyond political. All of that is now gone.
What they did to “History” to make it “Social Studies” has followed suit in every subject. Climate Science is a door opener for the real “cause”. There isn’t enough science competence let alone educational to attempt this topic in practice. Dr. Curry is in denial.
“He asks me what the precautionary principle has to do with science because he sees that it self-contradictory”
Tell him that the precautionary principle should have be applied to slavery, the legalization of homosexuality, Roe vs. Wade and Nixon setting up the EPA. The precautionary principle is only used in some specific arguments.
Chris,
What you offer is the opposite of education. You push indoctrination.
No wonder you are so ambigous about gleick and issues like freedom.
Please do stay out of the classroom. You are anathema to education.
CO2 absorbs IR, but increasing CO2 does not increase temperature. Obviously, you have not read my “Venus: No Greenhouse Effect”, article, you probably heard that I don’t believe CO2 absorbs IR and dismissed my claimed disproof of the greenhouse effect (which is that increasing CO2 increases the temperature, despite what radiative transfer theorists keep trying to misdirect everyone with). You, and every other defender of the greenhouse effect including Judith Curry, are stuck in the past, spouting meaningless dogma, and not engaging with the definitive facts of my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison. It is quite pathetic.
It is inappropriate Imo to teach unapproved material to students in publically funded schools. Approval should not be given unless the materials are factually correct and approved by the local school board. The materials can highlight what needs to still be learned on an issue before a definitive conclusion can be reached.
I see this as true whether it is Wojick or Molton that is teaching the students. Imo, both have shown a strong bias at this site and their opinions do not seem fully supported by the available data.
I can’t criticize what David plans to teach since he says the materials are not put together yet and he has said it will only teach where he views areas of controversy. His material should go through a review process before they are allowed to be taught in a publicly funded institution.
I do think it is inappropriate to let Molton teach what he describes as “his view on the topic of climate change”. If we allow people to randomly teach “their views on topics where is the line to be drawn? There are racists who would like to teach their view- why would that be any different?
Teaching Controversey, 101: Has the Left become pessimism of all humanity where there no longer is any care about the human condition? Compare and contrast fear of AGW and the return to peasantry under Mao Zedong.
Good thing green advocacy groups are staying out of primary and secondary education unlike that evil Heartland.
“Oxfam and Think Global* submitted our views to this process. We see it as a great opportunity to strengthen the role of active global citizenship within schools, by enabling teachers to use their professional autonomy to teach in creative and critical ways, embed learning about sustainability and interdependence within and across subjects, and strengthening the role of citizenship to support young people engaging in civic participation locally and globally.
You can download our full submission below. We recommended that:
The National Curriculum should incorporate learning about interdependence and sustainability into its core aims, reflecting the desire or pupils, teachers, parents and wider society
….”
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/gc/curriculum_review/
For detail, see:
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/gc/links/
I like these in particular:
“Global Education Derby – aims to help schools in Derby and Derbyshrie to integrate global perspectives and education for sustainable development into their policy and practice.”
“Reading International Solidarity Centre (RISC) – aims to raise the profile of international issues and promote action for sustainable development, equality and social justice throughout the world. The site includes information on educational resources available to buy or hire, and a list of their events.”
“The UN Works – The UN Works website puts a human face on serious issues(Business, Children, Development, Education, Emergencies, Environment,Health, HIV/AIDS, Human Rights Labour, Peace and Women) by telling stories about real people.
These stories are filled with resource links for teachers and students who want to learn more about the issues and get involved. ”
“World Bank’s Development Education Programme – includes sustainable development learning resources.”
From the RISC website:
“Global Citizenship means taking action for social justice and sustainability, locally and globally
RISC’s Education Team promotes Global Citizenship in schools and ITE through:
• Tailor made training at your school or at RISC
• Global Citizenship Advocates training courses for teachers and educators
• Training for ITE institutions across the region
• Global Schools, RISC’s Global Citizenship partnership with local schools
• Innovative work with schools measuring attitudinal change
…”
http://www.risc.org.uk/education/
From the World Bank site:
“Overview and Objectives: Severn Suzuki is an environmental youth activist from Canada who delivered a powerful and passionate speech before delegates at the UN Earth Summit in Rio at the age of 12. Students will view an eight minute video of this speech, made before delegates at the UN Earth Summit, in order to gain a greater understanding of the central and crucial role young people can play and are playing in the fight to prevent climate disaster. Students will develop their writing, public speaking, and advocacy skills by drafting and presenting a speech, similar in purpose, organization, and length to Severn’s, intended for delivery at the upcoming UNFCCC COP meeting in Copenhagen or a subsequent UNFCCC COP meeting. ”
http://youthink.worldbank.org/4teachers/learning-module/meet-severn-suzuki
David Wojick and heartland are pikers.
Gary, exactly.
Meanwhile they lose sleep over Heartland.
Reactionaries are dangerous to the current paradigm of the state, so they must be corrected and watched constantly as we all march forward to Ecopoopia.
With regard to Intelligent Design, I would be very happy for it to be taught as an example of a non-falsifiable hypothesis in science classes.
If you want to teach how one arrives at a scientific conclusion then the important thing to teach is the journey and the selection of route. As a postulate, evolution outguns ID at all levels, when tested using scientific methodologies. ID could indeed be real, but only in the same way that “The Matrix” can actually explain our existence.
It is a plausible that we are all really in the vats controlled by aliens who are feeding us simulated live experiences as it is for some supernatural entity to have conjured up the biosphere.
Biologists, and all scientists, should have no fear of non-scientific arguments which oppose scientifically proven/likely views.
The real problem comes when scientists overplay a weak hand.
If you think, based on science, that a ‘SOMETHING’ may be an extinction level event, one can try to stop ‘SOMETHING’.
Indeed, this happen at the genesis of molecular biology with the moratorium, instigated by the leaders in the fields. A fringe want to stop high energy physics as they suspect we are going to destroy the Earth/Solar System/Universe.
As scientist we should be able to defend our work, and that of our colleagues, against all comers. We should be able to explain to a hairdresser or to a classicist what we do, how we do it, what we can say is statistically significant and what isn’t.
Most of all, we should have overlapping evidence that is both hard and unambiguous, to support any conclusion.
However, if you don’t have unambiguous data, then you should not scream that you have unambiguous conclusions.
Here is the major problem with AGW/Termogeddon. They do not have unambiguous data, and so many downplay the significance of contradictory data, overplay the supporting data, then wear the cloths of Saints and condemn those who question their methodologies and conclusions as ‘deniers’.
I am a biological scientist and for me evolution is not a question of belief, but of fact. However, something like half the human beings on the planet prefer to believe in some supernatural agency.
I do not treat theses people with contempt.
I do not despise Jews, Muslims or Christian literalists.
I do not think that they are frauds.
I do not refuse to interact with them.
I do not call them ‘deniers’.
+10
Well said
The globe is cooling, folks, but only my hairdresser knows for sure.
====================
DocMartyn: With regard to Intelligent Design, I would be very happy for it to be taught as an example of a non-falsifiable hypothesis in science classes.
In fact, that is approximately where Darwin began his intellectual Oddysey, impressed as he was with the Rev. William Paley’s argument from design. That makes a very good place to begin a course on evolution. The hypothesis might be non-falsifiable because it is repeatedly reformulated, but it certainly does not make much sense after you have studied a lot of biology.
Well said, Doc. Your suggestion of teaching ID as a ‘non-falsifiable hypothesis’ is excellent, as is your refusal to denigrate people for arbitrary reasons.
However, as PPs have pointed out, children all over the world (I write from Australia) are being sent home with absurd assignments like what they can do to save the polar bears, or how to improve the world through organic gardening. This stuff is frequently peddled under the heading of ‘science’.
The real problem is reclaiming the science curriculum from ideologues of all stripes. K-12 should surely be about learning the basics, plus having some fun with it. No wonder non-Western countries are catching up in leaps and bounds despite spending much less than we do on education. They do not waste time on trying to adjudicate current scientific brouhahas, or teaching students how to grow organic tomatoes.
…or preaching that sustainability and biodiversity are Universally Important Goals to which science must bend its will and which themselves are proven important by science and ‘scientific’ thinking…
Biodiversity increases in a warmer world, and there is enough energy, terrestrially and extraterrestrially, available to sustain several multiples of our present earth’s human population in a style to which we would all like to become accustomed.
=============
I hear Nietzsche weeping. Are you prepared to face Darwin’s dilemma. in the classroom? First, let’s begin with abandoning 1,000s of years of human experience as irrelevant.
Let’s then see what science has proven? The lessons of the past are no longer needed. All questions about life must be aske and answered anew in light of this new finding that all existence is inevitable existence and merely the result of an amoral preference without consequence, And after accepting that, let us then ask if such an existence can provide a sound basis from which any rational, predictable, moral response from the individual can or must be or even should be expected.
‘I hear Nietzsche weeping’. Dementia and depression are typical in cases of end-term cerebral syphilis. You will note that the cure for syphilis was not found by proto-Nazi’s like Nietzsche thinking hard about a solution, but from decades of studying biochemistry, microbiology and chemistry.
Nor was America founded on the principles of proto-liberal utopianism.
More Public Health Service stuff, as they save lives by killing poor people for a good cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment
they had ‘know’ idea…
Right Doc, like you could be trusted? Your fellow peer secular zealots? In a better world you shouldn’t be allowed near a classroom.
DocMartyn, you said:
As scientist we should be able to defend our work, and that of our colleagues, against all comers. We should be able to explain to a hairdresser or to a classicist what we do, how we do it, what we can say is statistically significant and what isn’t.
Most of all, we should have overlapping evidence that is both hard and unambiguous, to support any conclusion.
However, if you don’t have unambiguous data, then you should not scream that you have unambiguous conclusions.
Here is the major problem with AGW/Termogeddon. They do not have unambiguous data, and so many downplay the significance of contradictory data, overplay the supporting data, then wear the cloths of Saints and condemn those who question their methodologies and conclusions as ‘deniers’.
THAT WAS EXTREMELY WELL SAID!
After I said that. I had another thought. The data is unambiguous.
There is plenty of valid data. The data is not where the problem is.
Well, maybe in a few cases involving people who have cooked the data, but that data is no longer data, but for the most part we have good data.
The problem is with the Theories and how the data is being forecast in Models. Oops, forecasts are not data either are they?
We do need to look at the extremely stable temperature cycles that we have had for ten thousand years and look at the extremely small level of CO2 that is supposed to change that in the future and realize how stupid that is.
+10
I know of well respected researchers, physicians, surgeons, geologists and engineers who are devout Christians and widely respected as comptetent and even excellent in their respective fields. And i know of many climate skeptics who are experts in their fields of geology, geophysics and other science disciplines.
One of the most annoying things about the extremists in climate is their need to enforce a thought police regime on those around them. Especailly since AGW- the idea of catastrophic climate change, is so lacking in supprt other than emotional.
“Intelligent design” isn’t non-falsifiable. It is the theory that, based on the information we presently have, random mutation and selection cannot explain the origin of species, and, ergo, there must be something else going on which is, by definition, not random (or at least less than entirely random). That is an entirely falsifiable theory.
The problem is that the defenders of evolution have managed to persuade too many people that the theory of intelligent design is just a trojan horse for creationism. Of course, intelligent design is consisten with creationism, but it is most certainly not the same thing. It is consistent with any number of other (more plausible, in my opinion) theories, as well.
“It is the theory that, based on the information we presently have, random mutation and selection cannot explain the origin of species, and, ergo, there must be something else going on which is, by definition, not random (or at least less than entirely random)”
However, evolution does not depend on ‘random mutation’ and you should also know that the works of Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace predate the discovery of the nature of inheritance.
We know many of the mechanisms by which we evolve, gene duplication followed by specialization, intronic dicing and splicing and small changes in promoter regions of ‘mixing desk’ genes.
Going from an animal like a fish to a mouse is hard, but from a mouse to any other mammal like an elephant or whale is trivial. They all have the same pretty much the genes, only they are activated in different levels and at different times.
The whole ‘random mutation’ argument is scientifically bollocks and should be shown to be scientifically bollocks.
“Going from an animal like a fish to a mouse is hard, but from a mouse to any other mammal like an elephant or whale is trivial”
Is this something you have witnessed Doc? And are thus able to make declarations about what is “trivial” and what is “hard”? I think not. In fact, I’d venture to say you are just repeating a personal belief of yours.
Andrew
Random mutation does happen, but which one works depends on the conditions at the time. Mutation is random, but the successful results are not random.
HAP;
mutation is non-random; various portions of the genome are strongly conserved, others less so. This is modulated by metacoding in the “silent DNA”, much of it strongly conserved itself (incompatible with “random” mutation.)
The genomes of the world guide and bias and shape their own mutation. I call it Intelligent Self-Design.
Teaching Controversy, 101: Is the Medium the Message? As America prospered have Leftists became more hysterical about imagined problems and less concerned about real problems? We will discuss if using the IPCC to solving real problems makes sense or is like believing a British daytime soap opera about doctors’ wives will help solve problems in the healthcare industry.
I love this blog, and the Internet that makes it possible. The free flow of ideas and opinions is sometimes beautiful to behold. it’s really a kind of democratization of the old “salon” idea. To be sure I was thinking of the right term, I did a quick search and found this definition: “A salon is a gathering of people under the roof of an inspiring host, held partly to amuse one another and partly to refine taste and increase the knowledge of the participants through conversation.”
That a relatively uneducated sap like myself can get a seat at the table…mostly to listen but even occasionally to contribute…is something for which I have much gratitude and humility…
pokerguy —
I agree with you. Even the food fights and the occasional broken bottles don’t really detract from what a wonderful thing it is.
Always something new to learn, open 24 hours a day, and no entry fee!
What’s not to like?
Ah, productivity…
Ninety-nine bottles of Gleick on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of Gleick. One failed clown, he passed it around, ninety-eight more memorandums to fake.
===============
Consensus and peer review is clearly of little use. If they are right, they stay right and who cares. If they are wrong, they stay wrong and we don’t care if the EPA is not using the wrong stuff to ruin us. Problem is, that is what is happening.
The Blogs have problems, but they allow for different opinions.
This is way ahead of Consensus and Peer Review.
Another great thing about the internet is that you can always turn it off and have a life outside it ;)
Dr. Curry says:”…I’m interested in critiques of what we are doing at Georgia Tech,…”
Dr. Curry why don’t you go the engineering department and ask them to make you a product that uses 15 mirco IR to raise the temperature of a solid object 33 K. Make your dicision on what product they bring back.
Teaching Controversy, 101: With fears of AGW has Western civilization created an army of government-funded ideologues who glorify producing nothing of value to society?
1++
May I ask people on all side this:
What experimental method shows unambiguously that CO2 is a ‘green house gas’ that slows the rate of IR transmission from a warm body to a cold sink, thus slowing the rate of cooling of the warm body?
I am curious as to the precise details of such an experiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
The science is settled…by Mythbusters. Nuff said.
Can we get the billions back from U.N./IPCC funding over the past 25 years if this “settles the science”?
I didn’t think so.
One day it’s “about science”, another “it’s complicated you don’t understand” (which is social code that conservative skeptics must be assumed more stupid on any issue) and another we have little boxes with ice statues and a 12 year old explaining how he’s convinced.
Pity that more than half the output of the lamps is in the IR spectrum:
http://zeiss-campus.magnet.fsu.edu/articles/lightsources/tungstenhalogen.html
which means that any IR absorbing species is going to absorb more of the lamps output.
Human impacts on warming demonstrated;
Gary M,
I wonder why, with the melting ice increasing the feedback the boxes of ghg’s did not melt or catch on fire? (lol)
Also, what was the ppm/ppb’s of the experiment. The more I think about it, it was not well documented at all. which is very unlike the typical Mythbusters program.
More information should have been in the episode. Perhaps it was left on the cutting room floor?
OK, I’m off theobromine ’til Easter.
====================
Did the lamp get hotter? That is what the base question is: does back radiation heat the earth surface? So did the back radiation heat the lamp?
There is another experiment here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8394168.stm
Of course you’ll object that the bottles are much too small to!
Dr Curry,
You should expose them to some Ewing and Donn Climate Theory.
I think this is included in Peter Webster’s class
I would like to look at that. Is there information I can link to?
Bing! Ewing and Donn are discussed here:
Simple Models of Climate
Thanks for your question. This article is the best intro to climate science I’ve found.
BTW, has anyone seen the film ‘Sizzle’?
http://www.sizzlethemovie.com/
Judith,
I think it might be beneficial to have a fully available course on climate change online to serve as a starting point for what is done right and where things can be improved. The only one I know of is David Archer’s undergraduate “Global Warming” course at the University of Chicago, which has fully accessible lectures and online supplements. I would be interested in your thought on the course structure.
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html
Peter Webster’s course is fantastic, but the materials are not publicly available. He is thinking of writing a book on his course (but it will have to be after he completes his book on the dynamics of tropical atmosphere and oceans).
Re Archer’s course, i don’t have the book and have only looked at the syllabus (and one chapter on greenhouse effect which was good), but it teaches climate as if the whole story is carbon and AGW. So I personally wouldn’t recommend this course because it is a very limited selection of topics and assumes dangerous anthropogenic climate change.
Judith,
Archer devotes time to orbital variations (glacial-interglacial), discussion of some dynamics (wind, etc), silicate weathering feedbacks (millions of years) and carbon cycle. What would represent a healthy diversity of topics?
For starters: natural climate variations during the Holocene, El Nino, solar physics and variability
Chris,
As I recall, David says that we could be looking at a 30 meter rise in sea level. If one’s aim is to become a science fiction writer, Dr Archer’s course might be a gold mine.
Archer is argumentatively and dogmatically and almost sneeringly certain that CO2 and AGW rule. As a “horrible example”, he’s pretty good.
Thankfully we have Brian’s sneering certainty to tell us this.
Kim Cobb???
Judith, every time I think you have your head on straight, you do something like laud Kim Cobb, who famously said (emphasis mine):
That is her “professional opinion” … and you describe that point of view as “open minded and broadly informed”??? Really? She blames the actions of Phil Jones on me, because of my “unrelenting attacks” in brazenly and publicly asking him for his data, and you agree with that crock of baloney? In her view, Climategate is the fault of those attacking the noble scientists … in other words, I’m to blame for Climategate, and you buy that? OK, who are you and what have you done with the real Judith Curry? The real Judith wouldn’t believe that “blame the victim” BS for a minute.
Egads, Judith, she is so blinkered she can’t see her own nose. That is closed minded and totally uninformed cheerleading of the most reprehensible and anti-scientific variety. That’s way out in the “None so blind as those who refuse to see” turf. Her statement is against all logic and against all evidence,
For her to blithely toss aside the reprehensible and even occasionally criminal malfeasance revealed in the Climategate emails as “brief, emotion-fueled remarks”, that is a sick joke. You have spoken out strongly against that very view in the past, what has changed? You supporting her in that is very depressing.
Put your damn reading glasses on, Judith, you’re missing important stuff here, and it is costing you credibility. Kim Cobb is a bare-faced apologist who blames me for the actions of self-confessed scientific miscreants and criminals. As such she should be at the bottom of your list of people to “teach the controversy”, not the top.
w.
Ah, give the Capital Kim a break; everyone can change their minds, and it doesn’t all have to happen at a gallop.
===============
I got a special place in my heart for Kim Cobb; we’ve been confused for each other on the blogs in the past. What a hoot that was.
===============
Willis, maybe that would be because I know Kim Cobb very well, and among many other things I have discussed climate gate with her at length. So maybe my basis for saying something about Kim Cobb is much deeper than the basis of your opinion, which seems to be one blog quote.
Kim and I disagree on a number of things (my previous estimate that this is 10-15% is too low based on Kim’s comment elsewhere in the thread). My evaluation of someone is not based on whether or not the agree with me.
Thank you for your reply, Judith. If you have discussed Climategate at length with her, is what she said in her blog post a true statement of her views or not?
If it is a true statement of her views, which from the blog post are basically “move along, nothing to see here”, then my point stands. That is a willfully blind, reprehensible and totally anti-scientific stance.
If it is not a true statement of her views, then please point me to where she has repudiated those claims … because they’re still up there, RealClimate is still using her views as a stick with which to beat non-believers. If those are not her views, it is unethical for her to leave them without any notice that she has since changed her mind.
So which is it, Judith? What am I not understanding about the subtler parts of her views? What am I missing here?
I note that Kim says above …
As a scientist she finds it strange that people question a poorly supported scientific claim? Say what? THAT’S THE LEADING FEATURE OF SCIENCE, it’s what makes science different from advocacy. That’s the “Nullius in Verba” thing that the Royal Society and Kim seem to have either forgotten or never learned.
Again, this claim is not science, it is the usual “I can’t debate with you until you first agree with me” kind of nonsense that the AGW side is constantly flogging.
I think you have been deluded by your friendship, Judith. Kim is not a scientist, she is an advocate. No real scientist says stuff like that. No real scientist is surprised when her conclusions are questioned. I’m sure you don’t “find it disturbing” when someone questions your conclusions. That’s the nature of science. And no real scientist says we can’t debate until you agree with me. That’s advocacy again, not any form of science.
But heck, prove me wrong, tell me her true views on Climategate, show me where my misunderstanding lies. Because to date, the more I find out about Ms. Cobb, the more I read of her words, the less she looks like any kind of scientist at all. What am I missing here?
w.
I do not speak for Kim Cobb. I am entitled to my own opinion of Kim Cobb, and to state it publicly on my own blog.
curryja | February 22, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
Of course you are entitled to your opinion of her, and you’ve stated it in your head post. I’m just asking you to explain that opinion.
If you are unwilling to do that, while at the same time lauding her in your head post, that’s fine … just don’t expect to win respect with that “don’t ask me to explain my own statements in the head post” kind of tack. It makes you look like you are running away instead of answering …
w.
Willis, I do not want to derail the productive discussion on this thread into a rehash of who thinks what about climategate.
Judy,
I appreciate your clear defense of me as a reasonable human being.
And Willis, I have been quite critical of climate science messaging and missteps (publicly, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfWgbHb4HjU and more to the point http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_G-4Kb5keA), and would like to think that I’m in a long-term process of reflection about how best to increase the public’s understanding of climate science.
Willis;
+1 +1 +1 +1 ….
Cobb’s statements are stuffed with “begging the question” verbiage. All intended to make her postulates the basis of discussion.
Kim Cobb, in the videos, says that CO2 warming is settled science. A small amount of greenhouse warming is accepted by many skeptics I know. I accept a trace amount of additional warming due to an additional trace amount of CO2. Significant warming due to CO2 is not settled science. I do object to the reference to computer model output as data. Data is something that is measured. You can do calculations to analyze and understand and even adjust it, but it is measured. The measured temperature of earth has not followed the alarmist forecasts and that does unsettle the science. Computer model forecasts project well outside the temperature bounds of the past ten thousand years. That cannot happen. There is an upper bound on temperature. When the oceans get warm and the Arctic Sea ice melts, the Arctic Ocean Effect Snow Machine turns on and puts a lid on temperature. Earth is at or near that lid. The lack of warming during the past 10 to 15 years is because the Arctic get open and the fierce snow does fall. Look at the Low Arctic Sea Ice Events and High Snow Extent Events that follow and look at the lack of warming. If I am very wrong and CO2 along with Carbon Feedbacks do cause more heat to be trapped, it will not matter much. Extra heat will melt more Arctic Sea Ice and cause more snow to keep a lid on temperature.
Kim, I watched the “more to the point” video you linked above. I’m shocked that you think that puts you in a positive light. I heard a politician talking, not a scientist. The “messaging” and “missteps” you referred to were indistinguishable from, pardon the harsh language, an activist political hack. The reference to Republican politicans was wholely inappropriate in that context. Again, my head is spinning that you you think this supports the idea that you’re sincerely “in a process of reflection” about the public’s understanding of climate science.
They really shouldn’t be in classrooms on average. Sad but true.
We can’t even talk about what’s really going on in these efforts here;
http://www.amazon.com/Watermelons-Green-Movements-True-Colors/dp/0983347409
You think I want them near my children??
Unity would understand…
Kim Cobb
I am sure you are a warm and wonderful human being and I would love to have you as a friend, but you link to a couple of videos that show beyond any reasonable doubt that you are an advocate not a scientist. The fact that you cannot see this is the really sad part of this. More reflection required I am afraid
A critical feature of teaching anything about climate change is teaching the teachers, particularly at the high school level, where in today’s classroom enough scientific sophistication exists to require more than a few sentences on important concepts. I’ve become interested in resource development in this area, as well as the identification of existing resources. One useful example of the latter is Dave Archer’s Open Climate Science 101, a free resource available on the Internet, but requiring considerable time investment on the part of learners (e.g., more than 20 hours). A multitude of other resources are available from the National Science Teachers Association. If one goes to their Publications and Products link and clicks on “Freebies for Science Teachers”, and then searches for Climate Change, an extensive list is displayed from a variety of expert sources.
In the better schools, high school students today are capable of assimilating a good deal of material on climate change that goes beyond a recital of “facts”, and it will be important to recognize this capability when presenting climate change as an example of an evolving science. In reviewing the existing resources, I have found enough variety and certainly enough excellence to obviate the need for advocacy groups to weigh in on the grounds that most of the existing material is biased.
Regardless, it’s my sense that there need be less concern about advocacy in teaching than about pressures on school boards and state legislatures to mandate teaching content in a way that interferes with the ability of teachers to make rational choices. It’s likely in fact that more advocacy dollars are being invested in creating these pressures than in developing biased curricula.
I actually serve on a local school board.
Frankly I would be thrilled if our system could reliably convey the intricacies of manual long division. Sucessful instruction in algebra would be miraculous.
I yearn and burn for the prospect of teaching “science” as a systemic process of recognizing the pertinent factors, setting up a model, and iteration of guess, record, check and correct.
Sadly the overall culture of education is more about the cause of the day. This is regardless of subject. Thomas Jefferson, champion of human rights or slave abusing bastard-siring hypocrite? Phonics or whole language? Team sport or individual conditioning? Too much attention to the boys, or not enough respect for the girls? Are we protecting our teens from adult sexual predators? Are our young teachers protected from lecherous students? Is the network firewall sufficient to keep the kids’ iPods from surfing pr0n via our school WiFi? What’s the black stuff growing on the cardboard boxes stacked at the back of the lunchroom?
Saving the planet, reducing our carbon footprint, standing up for free speech or restoring the constitutional balance of powers? Sure, write me a check and I’ll take your money.
Actually inculcating some particular notions, or habits of thought, in the heads of the local kids?
If I had the ability to do that, would I be wasting my time with YOUR agenda?
In this perfecting world, we’ll rear kids able to talk about the weather with each other. Now, that’s progress.
I love this comment, J_M. Your board must have a blue ribbon committee exploring school boundary issues.
=====================
My sense is that your students who watch three movies from each side and then tell you that they think the truth is in the middle somewhere are just telling you what you want to hear, or not bothering to think carefully and just giving you what seems like a safe answer.
I don’t know which six movies you chose (and I’d be interested in watching them myself), but, at least as I think of the “sides,” one side is saying “we know everything we need to in order to know there’s a problem,” and the other is saying “here’s a list of things we would need to know that we don’t.” That’s not a close case.
As I think about it, I realize that the real question to “teaching the debate” is “what debate”? I told you what I thought were the two sides, but the truth is there are more than two teams defending more than two goal lines. “Teaching the debate” is going to be politically explosive, because it requires some value judgments about what the range of acceptable positions is.
In our gatherings, we find Many different views.
The issue of “sides” arises from the consensus building activities of the IPCC, which has framed both the scientific and public debate on this topic. Opposing the consensus makes you a skeptic (or worse). In an alternate (more desirable IMO) universe, the concept of a consensus on climate change wouldn’t exist, and we would have a normal debate across the range of scientific issues, with a diversity of perspectives and viewpoints not being regarded as a “bad” thing.
Perspectives that don’t agree with the IPCC consensus are “bad” only if you are concerned about building political will for a particular policy decision (this is the ideology part). They are not “bad” in the context of science, but rather are the sign of a healthy scientific process.
Well I certainly agree with you, but, as much as I dislike them, the IPCC is only one of the factions out there that will call you a bad person for trying to teach their kids something different from what they believe. The unfortunate fact is that climate change is not just a scientific battle, it is political one. It doesn’t matter that some of us are interested in teaching what is scientifically defensible, because, at this point, those groups aren’t listening to the science–they don’t care about the science. And the consequence of government control of schooling is that the schools ought to stay away from politically charged issues.
Not that they do. But I don’t have to bore you with my opinions about the leftism of the teachers’ unions to show that you’ll be running into a buzz saw if you try to bring your teaching of the controversy to K-12 education. It’s God’s work (if you’ll pardon the phrase), but will require a pretty radical change of more than just public perception of the truth about climate science to pull it off.
It’s not just the perversion of climate science, it’s the perversion of public communication and public education.
========================
“In an alternate (more desirable IMO) universe, the concept of a consensus on climate change wouldn’t exist, and we would have a normal debate across the range of scientific issues, with a diversity of perspectives and viewpoints not being regarded as a “bad” thing.”
In that “alternate universe”, where unicorns are free to graze in peace and everyone has good and nobel intentions is very far from the world you or I live in. It has nothing to do with this topic or climate science as a whole. Nothing to do with public education in America on average.
No Dr. Curry, there really is something “bad” in the climate agenda setting and AGW promotion. Especially near children. There is really something “bad” in the Time/Life “Saving the Polar Bear” (Reduce co2 only correct answer) reader targeting 3rd graders. The issue of “sides” is much deeper than IPCC affiliations, opinions and actions.
Do you think I would let you or Qbeamus frame the “debate” without objection?’ Qbeamus writes;
“at least as I think of the “sides,” one side is saying “we know everything we need to in order to know there’s a problem,” and the other is saying “here’s a list of things we would need to know that we don’t.” That’s not a close case.”
It’s not a close case at all, warming advocates have very little. They should keep it away from children. What you’re missing of course, willfully, is that AGW “Education” is a tail of dog a hundred times more vicious but related to the general culture war of right vs. left. Regardless, without addressing the culture war it’s impossible to take any suggestions you might have on the topic.
Climate Education propaganda, that’s the net impact being suggested, is a further provocation and esculation since the main front of AGW regulatory expansion is in the ditch at the moment. I take it as “wait to the adults die and the kids will be ours”. Expect the usual backlash.
You can’t even acknowledge key political issues of particular parties on a blog without an elaborate politically correct blog protocal. You expect approval to sponsor an educational regime for children??
Judith,
I am impressed.
Who said there is no such thing as objectivity (other that the subjectivists of course)? You are asymptotically approaching it!
I suggest you be given an honorary degree in the Philosophy of Science and the Science of Philosophy. Seriously.
John
Judith
You have hit the nail on the head.
“Sides” do not exist in science.
Neither does “political correctness”
In climate science these are products of a corrupt IPCC “consensus process”, which was politically (not scientifically) motivated from the start.
Max
The more is the pity that the whole shebang has become politicized, and financed, beyond all sense or reason. It’s about as tragic as can be, and about to get worse.
==========
Max,
Life is water not stone. Once again, you look at the superficial of her statement which is positive but ignore the contridiction in her actions and logic. It’s one thing to espouse an idea but to ignore all reality about AGW advocacy and the social results?
Pretending there are no “sides” or failing to identify them when they are right before you is about as dangerous a principle as I can think of in the debate.
qbeamus:
The consequence of government control of schools is … political powers will use the schools to promote whatever the political powers want, especially to push particular political issues and views. Some people, though certainly nowhere near a majority, see that as an argument against government control of schools.
Judith;
At a rough estimate, what % of the IPCC’s efforts would you say are directed at furthering research, and what % at disparaging and sidelining dissenters from (C)AGW?
Teaching Controversy, 101: Viewed through prism of reality, after Al Gore lost his bid to become the President of the U.S.—and proceeded to embark instead on a campaign AGW alarmist propaganda—was it realistic for most rational people who knew or should have known better to believe that academia would be far more critical and skeptical than it was? In the future will it ever again be realistic to expect that academia will probe much more deeply than it did for an understanding not just of the world around us but also of the cultural hegemony that dominates society?
Kim Cobb: It isn’t so much a belief that the planet is warming, but by how much for what reasons, and in what proportion for each? Your mind is made up, mine isn’t, nor can you assign your “absolute” frame of reference to Dr. Curry or anyone else. You wouldn’t be “debating” like this if the debate were truly over. Debatable, controversial, uncertain, nebulous and, still, arrogance-based for you.
The legacy of Gleickgate is that the framing may well have shifted. The new, improved mantra (as articulated by the president of the Union of Concerned Scientists – which will even accept a (presumably verifiably) domiciled canine as a member is:
Source
I’m eagerly awaiting an explanation as to how:
o a subject so clouded miraculously became “clear”; and
o a debate the activists and advocates been doing their very best to avoid – if not declare “over” – can be “broken”.
But I’m not holding my CO2 in anticipation of a response;-)
In the meantime ,,, it’s good to know that (according to the UCS, and given their connections to the approved climatalogical luminaries, they should know), those who do dare to differ – or Gaia forbid, dissent – are no longer funded by Big Oil, but by a cartel of heretofore unknown Big Business lobby.
Also, evidently, the d-word has lost its efficacy. Henceforth, dissenters (and probably those who dare to question the clarity) are deemed to be “anti-science”.
Clearly, as a teachable moment, Gleickgate – not unlike Climategate – did not make the cut for those on the warm-side.
Such is progress, eh?!
My two cents: let me suggest a more durable, less political response, for which the means are already in place:
a) Teach how to read critically (analytically).
b) Teach the importance of digging deeply and broadly into a subject or issue.
c) Teach how to write a readable analysis.
d) Repeat a) though d).
Teaching Controversy, 101: Does it violate the principles of the scientific method if the work of Dr. Mann (i.e., MBH98/99/08, aka the ‘Hockey Stick’ graph) can neither be replicated nor verified? Compare and contrast principles of accountability as practiced inside versus outside academia.
A student debate on the issue worked well at my son’s high school and avoided a confrontation on the issue. The debate was combined with an already scheduled exercise in learning how to use the library. The class was divided into two teams with the teacher coaching one team and the librarian coaching the other.
People on both sides of the issue seemed pleased with the results. The librarian changed his position on the issue. A climate change blog was started on the high school website and quickly became the most active page.
One thing that made the debate particularly popular with the students was that it took the place of their having to watch Al Gore’s film… AGAIN.
Have to ask: what was the librarian’s before/after?
I ran into him a couple of days later at a junior varsity game. He told me that before the debate he was set to buy a new hybride car, which was going to be a bit of a stretch on his salary, but had changed his mind. “What a scam,” he said, shaking his head.
I gathered the change was more a result of his own research done while helping the students prepare for the debate than the debate itself.
Teaching controversial subjects is hard work. Most students (other than the lazy ones) easily can handle it, though. It’s not like they don’t debate with each other anyway (team allegiances, campus issues, etc.). I think it’s more likely to be a problem for most faculty for any of several reasons: 1) balance takes broad knowledge of the subject, 2) bias is too easily overlooked, 3) pressure comes from other faculty members and/or administration, 4) teaching often is of lower priority than scholarship and not worth the effort, 5) most people like their work tidy and controversy is messy. There may be more reasons than these.
To learn about climate, one has to teach the science. Now, children are developmentally at different so the content, methods and science need to be appropriate: 5 years to 7; 8 to 12; 13 to 18. In each group, the observation can be connected to the specifics. Stand outside in the rain: where does rain come from? stand outside in the sun; do you feel warm? how does the sun warm you? look up in the sky, do you see clouds? how do clouds get made? when a cloud passes over, do you feel coolness? are you being shaded from the sun by the cloud? stand under a tree; do you feel cooler than when standing under a tree
?….
We can teach how trees are made; the building blocks of CO2 & Water. We can teach about sun and warmth in the shallow end of the pool. We can teach observing, wondering, finding out if there is an answer, how to find an answer, is the answer believable; photons and droplet nuclei? The carbon cycle, the water cycle, the various layer of the atmosphere & how each is different; day time and night time. I can think through a curriculum as I taught my children and now grandchildren. What I teach most is the wonderment, the mystery, the many unknowns, what is yet to be discovered.
Conservation, environment, the connectivity we as a species have with the living and non-living; Bryce Canyon wind swept spires, layers in the rock, oil oozing from the river cut face of shale, fossils in the rocks of shorelines.
My goodness, the wonderment. The trace gas radiative transfer model is just as wonderful to describe as the warmth one feels in a sleeping bag, sleeping on the ground without a pad; what happens when your sleeping bag get wet? I can think of a myriad of ways to connect observation to questions of “why?” I think the best way to teach the science of climate is to start with an observation and ask, why. The only other facet in my mind that is relevant, how comfortable is the teacher with “uncertainty.” I would choose science teachers who can say: “I don’t know, but I know how to find an answer.” Kids will ask enough “why” questions to get to the point that there are really several answers, each incomplete, and that there is a lot more to learn.
Teach climate change through observation: teach climate change through geography; teach climate change through feeling the wind; from looking down from an airplane at the clouds; from space looking at blue marble earth; the moon phases.
One can teach climate change through literature, history, social movements; we are impacted by the weather and our ancestors were impacted by their climate, and the fossils of creatures were impacted by their climate. Whatever you particular discipline you can teach climate change. The controversy to me is a red herring. The current answers are incomplete, much much more to be learned.
Compare and contrast:
Kim Cobb | February 22, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
Kim Cobb | February 22, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Reply
Dr. Cobb is happy to “respectfully disagree” with others, but she finds it “disturbing” that Judith disagrees with her, and she says she can’t have debates with Judith until Judith agrees with her.
Post-normal science, I guess …
w.
She’s really only willing to discuss the fine points of “mitigation”, and is utterly disoriented by the proposal that it’s unjustified and likely unnecessary, even to a high probability a drastically depopulating strategy.
So it’s indeed “dangerous” for her to broach that subject.
To me it is very simple, real world observation without adjustments VS computer programs. Have any predicted calamities over the last 20 years come true yet, any? Take that information to the classroom.
Teaching Controversy, 101:
For those who are depressed about AGW is it better to offer sympathy or empathy? How might those who are skeptical of a coming climate apocalypse best offer solace to those who feed endangered by others who use energy to live?
For example, would it help the AGW True Believer to hear me say—e.g., I’m sorry I enjoy driving my SUV to work?
Or, would it be more helpful if I offered to pay a psychologist to treat their Hot World Syndrome instead of continuing to pay climatologists to spread fears about global warming?
Anteros wrote:
“pokerguy –I agree with you. Even the food fights and the occasional broken bottles don’t really detract from what a wonderful thing it is.
Always something new to learn, open 24 hours a day, and no entry fee!
What’s not to like?”
Thanks, Anteros. For all the inevitable sturm und drang (I try to use that term at least once a week), this is the most civl blog I know despite its loose moderation, while the level of discourse is often remarkably high. All that of course is a testament to our host.
If one has the stomach, it’s a useful exercise to compare the proceedings here with what passes for free and open discussion at the propaganda sites. That was actually an important factor in my journey from true believer to skeptic. The establishment climate posters struck me as so contemptuously certain of themselves, and the comments from the true believers often so vapid, that it started me wondering what the hell was going on. Something was….and something remains….seriously amiss.
For a New York Times subscribing, (ex) Greenpeace and WWF donating liberal democrat, it’s been quite a trip.
When the brainiacs here have resolved how to teach about climate science, please inform the educators how to teach about nuclear power. For something much more well understood and characterized, it suffers from exactly the same problems. For that reason, I hold out little hope of any closure on the topic at hand, and entropy will continue.
How about teaching the proper ways to resolve controversies, you know, logic, avoiding fallacious arguments, experimentation, correction of errors, reproducibility of results, all the stuff of science classes when I was growing up?
Foolish, archaic, incantations from dead Europeans.
==================
Kim
Or they will all be dead within another generation
tonyb
Kim
Phew, I am glad the dead ancient Greek philosophers escaped your intellectual eraser. Otherwise we would need to void most of Western Civilization’s basis.
John
Hah, that barefoot stalker, gazing at the clouds.
====================
Concerning the presentation “Climate Change & Energy Policy: The Controversy”, page 16 (Solutions; Unintended Consequences), there is another that might be added. It is
Bureaucratic control of the economy and the populace, under direction of elected and appointed officials.
Why? Approximately 70% of the U.S. energy supply, and close to 100% of our mobile energy supply, comes from fossil fuels. There is very little that one can do without energy.
That is an excellent presentation, by the way. Kudos!
I have read through the message and comments from
“Kim Cobb | February 22, 2012 at 12:14 pm |”
and I may say I agree completly with Willis. I find Kim Cobb’s attitude to be absolutely frightening. Specifically, I find, as others have quoted,
“until we can all agree that anthropogenic CO2 is (very likely, to borrow a problematic phrase) warming the planet.`
I know of few skeptics who would disagree that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels warms the planet. I certainly do not. The issue was, is and always will be HOW MUCH does the additional CO2 warm the planet. And that is the issue that Kim Cobb REFUSES to discuss. She goes from adding CO2 warms the planet, to AGW is catastrophic; i.e. we have CAGW.
Until Kim Cobb is prepared to discuss the proper science behind the claims that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes catastrophic warming, she will be presenting a non-scientific point of view. And if her pupiîs believe her, she is a very dangerous teacher.
The fact of the matter is that hypothetical, meaningless estimations, as presented by the IPCC, show that CAGW exists. While the hard, measured observed data, shows that the effect of adding CO2 is absolutely negligible.
Jim,
There’s all sorts of “frightening” involved here. Dr. Curry can’t even relate the commonality of Green AGW interests to any other collectivst educational interests. You think you would want to leave her alone in room with the teachers union to plan a cirriculum?
I gets much worse from her on the food chain in practice.
I don’t want climate pornography in the classroom.
corrected;
Jim,
There’s all sorts of “frightening” involved here. Dr. Curry can’t even relate the commonality of Green AGW interests to any other collectivst educational interests. You think you would want to leave her alone in room with the teachers union to plan a cirriculum?
It gets much worse from her on the food chain in practice.
I don’t want climate pornography in the classroom.
cwon;
I see nothing corrected in your correction, but it’s grammatically and syntactically a mess, so here’s my partial effort:
There’s all sorts of “frightening” involved here. Dr. Curry can’t even relate the commonality of Green AGW interests to any other collectivist educational interests. You think you would want to leave her alone in aroom with the teachers’ union to plan a curriculum?
It gets much worse from here on upthe food chain in practice. [Just my best guess at what that sentence might be; it’s still confused and confusing.]
I don’t want climate pornography in the classroom.
Jim Cripwell
This is the Achilles heel of the CAGW premise, as you point out:
the “gigantic leap of faith” from accepting
a) that CO2 is a GHG, that GHGs can cause warming of our atmosphere and that humans emit GHGs and
b) that our planet has warmed since modern global temperature measurements were installed in 1850, to
c) that warming from human GHGs (primarily CO2) represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment unless we dramatically cut back CO2 emissions.
a) and b) can be tested experimentally (the GH effect of CO2) or measured based on actual physical observations (human CO2 emissions, increased atmospheric CO2 levels, increased global temperatures)
c) is not supported by any empirical evidence, however – only by model simulations based on hypothetical input assumptions, which provide no scientific validation whatsoever
A “leap of faith” is not part of the scientific method; it is the diametric antithesis to scientific inquiry based upon rational (or scientific) skepticism.
In other words it is Bad Science = B.S.
The whole debate is about this “gigantic leap of faith” in the CAGW premise.
Max.
“How many people remember the peril of nuclear winter? Crichton shows how the entire concept was ‘from the outset the subject of a well-orchestrated media campaign’ conducted for political ends. A Washington DC public-relations firm was paid $80,000 to publicize the research. The first appearance of the work in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature was in the December 23, 1983, issue of Science (Turco et al., 1983). But the dangers of nuclear winter had been heralded nearly two months earlier by Carl Sagan in the October 30, 1983, issue of Parade magazine, a supplement to Sunday newspapers (Seitz, 1986). By 1986, it was apparent that the conclusions of Turco et al. (1983) were suspect, and that the entire field of research was highly politicized. Writing in the January 23, 1986, issue of Nature, K. A. Emanuel (1986, p. 259) noted that ‘nuclear winter research…has become notorious for its lack of scientific integrity.'” (David Deming. Global warming, the politicization of science, and michael crichton’s “state of fear,” JSE. 2005 Jun;19(2).
Actually the original nuclear winter research was conducted by Crutzen et al. (Germans). Knowing somewhat a few of the authors on the Turco et al. paper, I don’t think they were politically motivated. Although Sagan was the last (fifth) author on the paper, and he is arguably responsible for kicking off the politicization of this.
Specifically on the implication of nuclear winter Judy. Don’t you think it odd that while the RAF/USAAF were burning German and Japanese cities (and their inhabitants), that there was not a massive crash in temperature?
TTAPS was wrong, way wrong in the magnitude of the effect. That is different from saying that particular paper was politically motivated from its inception.
DocMartyn | February 22, 2012 at 8:00 pm |
“Specifically on the implication of nuclear winter Judy. Don’t you think it odd that while the RAF/USAAF were burning German and Japanese cities (and their inhabitants), that there was not a massive crash in temperature?”
Whether you can call it “massive” or not is arguable but the northern hemisphere experienced a period of cooling from 1940-1980 which is rather well known. Climate boffins, at least at one point, attributed it to airborne particulates and they’re probably at least somewhat correct.
How about teaching that if the Scientific Method is not followed, it’s not science?
Of course, that would leave the catastrophe-mongers with nothing to say, would it?
Judith Curry
You have posed an excellent question.
But the answer is really quite simple.
Teaching the scientific method and the principles of scientific inquiry (including the role that rational, or scientific, skepticism plays in this process) in K-12 at an appropriate level makes good sense, if we want to develop pupils who will eventually go into science or engineering fields. This includes exposing them to all viewpoints on our planet’s climate.
Teaching them a “politically correct” consensus position on climate science as the only scientific truth in this field does not make any sense at all – this is simply brainwashing. This is especially bad if it is accompanied by fear mongering (as is often the case).
Consensus – NO
Controversy – YES
Hats off to David Wojick.
“Political correctness” has no place in science.
Max
Same for physcis?? – we’ll teach the ‘controversies’ in physics, so students can learn about physics?
What utter nonsense.
Same for physics.
Can someone clarify what is meant by “no-regrets strategy? Surely any action has an opportunity cost? Even a measured reduction on CO2 (which I support) will take attention away from other possible concerns which may turn out to be more significant in the long run. For instance we may discover in 20 years that over-fishing was a bigger problem than CO2
Andy – I don’t usually weigh in on policy questions, because I feel more comfortable and qualified when discussing scientific content alone. In this case, however, the two directly intersect. Based on the extraordinarily long atmospheric lifetime of excess CO2, there is no such thing as a “no-regrets” strategy, A decision to forgo prompt CO2 mitigation in favor of alternative measures may be argued for on various grounds, but whether or not it is a defensible strategy, it is not a “no regrets” one. Once the excess CO2 is in the atmosphere, we can’t get it back, and it will exert effects for centuries that we might later regret. It’s not my purpose to argue whether that will happen, but there is no doubt that the potential is real and non-negligible.
Some of this was discussed recently in the Climate Fast Attack Plan thread, and a separate perspective has been expressed by Raymond Pierrehumbert in Losing Time.
In my view, the notion of a “no regrets” strategy is based on fallacious reasoning, and dodges the question of which policy to choose in a situation where we are faced with a “forced choice” in which whatever is chosen will have consequences.
“Can someone clarify what is meant by “no-regrets strategy?”
It means the speaker has never heard of an ‘opportunity cost’ nor has studied Frédéric Bastiat’s parable, the broken window fallacy (glazier’s fallacy).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
The more I have read this thread the more clear it becomes that “teaching the controversy” is not a good approach for teaching what science is.
It’s true that science depends on creation and ultimate resolution of controversies, but that’s only part of what science is and that part may easily get overemphasized.
Science is a progressive process that has produced a huge amount of valuable results and is essential for our present well-being. As a progressive process it advances through small steps based on innovative discoveries and collection of evidence to judge, which ideas are more likely to be correct and which wrong. Such a process makes often wrong steps but is dominated by correct ones as evidenced by the overall success.
The nature of science should be taught and the repeated occurrence of controversies should be discussed as one of the essential factors but not as more than that.
What’s also essential is that the correct arguments are not always those that appear at first most appealing. They are often complex and difficult to appreciate. That makes it difficult to provide students a balanced set of arguments that would supposedly allow them to judge, which side of a controversy is more right than the other. it’s actually dishonest to lead them to think that they may know enough for making the judgment on any issue that remains genuinely controversial. They should learn that reaching the capability to judge on such issues requires a lot of work. (The science is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration).
Pekka
What do you understand under “teaching the controversy”?
What do you understand under “teaching the consensus”?
I’m sure, from your post, that it is something quite different than I would understand.
To me it is clear that pupils of all ages should be made aware of the scientific method and scientific inquiry, including the key role that rational (or scientific) skepticism plays in this process. “Controversy” is the driving force of this process and seeking empirical evidence it’s goal.
Teaching a politically correct “consensus” viewpoint as the “scientific truth” on something as completely controversial as our planet’s climate is the wrong approach IMO – it relegates science under politics. Combining this with fear mongering, as is often done today, is downright reprehensible.
Do you disagree?
Max
Pekka, I am not sure exactly what you are saying because its vague. But I think I disagree and it goes back to the Sir Francis Bacon flawed idea about science. Accumulation of observations is by itself rather useless. Big advances come from mathematical theories about how things behave. If students are to grasp science they need to understand the critical role of theory and the controversy surrounding it. One of my professors pointed out that if in fact we had to go through all the specific instances of a theory that preceeded the development of the theory, we would never get to the frontier of knowledge. So while general theory sometimes lacks motivation, it is essential to education and progress itself. One should motivate the theory, but its the critical element I think in any educational enterprise.
David,
I was obviously too vague as my purpose was to imply all what you write. All that was hidden in the two words “innovative discoveries”. The formulation was by purpose not specific as the ideas are not always predominantly mathematical. In physical sciences mathematics is often the best language for expressing the ideas precisely, but that’s not fundamental and not always true even in physics and certainly less in other sciences like biological sciences as an example.
Can the schoolteachers of global warming alarmism handle the truth? The real eye-opener has been that it is not just Al Gore: the teachers in the public just don’t care about truth.
“… McIntyre & McKitrick (2003, 2005a,b,c,d), the NAS report (2006) and the Wegman report (Wegman et al., 2006) have all independently ascertained that Mann’s PC method produces spurious hockey-stick shapes from a combination of (i) inappropriate centering of the data series, (ii) non-random or biased selection of small data samples, and (iii) inclusion in the calculation of proxies that are known not to reflect a reliable temperature signal (notably, bristle cone pine datasets) …”
[Excerpt, The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, 11 August 2006: Response to comments by Dr. David Wratt – Letter (Chair, New Zealand Climate Committee, Royal Society of New Zealand)]
The schoolteachers will catch on. Kids will be trudging a mile to school through a foot of snow, uphill both ways.
==============
Yeah, kim.
And when the teachers try to frighten them with warnings of a burning GHG-heated planet, the shivering kids will only laugh.
Max
No Wag, they can’t;
Why frame it as teaching the consensus or the controversy.
The science is that GHGs warm the planet. Teach that.
How much? that’s an open question: teach that.
What should we do? Should belongs in ethics.
steven mosher
You have summarized it very succinctly.
Max
SM;
The highly charged political culture of most school systems can’t be trusted to handle and botch another sensitive topic. AGW is the same sort of distracting issue they use to cover the general failure to maintain basic educational standards and use in practice as a weapon to portray themselves as victims.
Go read the snivelry at RC for an example;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/so-whats-a-teacher-to-do/
Those poor oppressed champions of science education (Green Propagandists). Those anti-science deniers making their lives a living hell!
This is just another escalation of a culture war, we should note who is causing it again.
cwon. you dissed the cubs. There is no reasoning with you.
I’m not as worried about the crap that scares you. Sorry.
Fear isn’t needed Steve, eventually my side wins.
steven mosher,
I am sure you meant to imply teaching all the Earth-atmospheric system behavior that influence the continuum of the dynamics and physical processes involved; not just a small GHG dynamic out of proportion to the rest.
Cheers to objectivity.
For an appreciation of the Earth-atmospheric system I highly recommend the following book I have been spending a lot of time on recently; “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate” by Murry L. Salby published Jan 2012 by Cambridge University Press.
John
Mosher kung fu very strong.
Mosher can crack walnuts with his eyelids and has more kudos than a pregnant Dweller.
After answering the how much question, I suggest the next question is “how will the warming impact me/us?” Then you can answer what should we do.
steven mosher | February 22, 2012 at 6:12 pm | Reply
“The science is that GHGs warm the planet. Teach that.”
Hypothetically. Also hypothetically the warmer surface evaporates more water which causes more clouds which cool the surface making the net result no warming and no cooling. Should we teach that too?
The problem here is that while we believe you are entitled to your opinions, Steven, you are not entitled to your own facts. That fact is we can demonstrate that when everything else is equal a greenhouse gas will warm an artificial surface in a laboratory. Heck we even use that as the operating theory for instruments which electronically measure CO2 concentrations in high occupancy buildings and turn on ventilation fans to keep CO2 down to acceptable levels. The problem arises when people like you take those facts and pretend they are facts on a planetary scale with many confounding factors outside of our control. Just teach the facts.
How much? that’s an open question: teach that.
What should we do? Should belongs in ethics.
steven mosher: The science is that GHGs warm the planet.
The science is that GHGs have warmed the planet, but exactly how much is disputed.
What will happen next is not known, as negative feedbacks may impede or halt future warming even if GHG concentrations double.
Mattstat;
The Oceans warm the atmosphere. Atmospheric gases cool as they radiate to space. How do atmospheric gases warm Earth?
And before you tell me about ‘backradiation’, make sure you know what is the exact convective lapse rate and what altitude is the ‘mean’ atmospheric radiation surface.
Hint! You can’t tell me with accuracy what is the mean altitude of radiation nor with accuracy the ‘mean’ surface temperature under the current (can’t say it) paradigm. Climate scientists have been working flat out for 30 years following a fudged radiation equation.
steven mosher | February 22, 2012 at 6:12 pm
So near, yet so far …
The science is that GHGs increase the downwelling forcing.
The very open question is whether that tiny change in forcing (~ 1% from a CO2 doubling) is offset by thermostatic mechanism (e.g. a ~ 1% change in albedo or a ~ 1 hour change in the time of tropical cloud formation or a ~ 1% change in cloud height or a ~ 1% change in El Nino/La Nina frequency or …).
Teach that.
w.
Not. Increasing GHGs increases the effective radiating height.
Willis, On CA you yourself attributed 30% of the warming to human causes.
On the very first thread were lukewarmerism was born
So I put up four things as examples, you think you have countered one of them, and that makes it “Not”?? You think somehow that falsifies my claim? Sorry, my friend, you want to say “Not”, you gotta counter all four. In any case …
Gosh, Mosh, the world doesn’t work like a climate model … who knew?
I think that some of the warming over the last 100 years has been from land use / land cover changes. When you cut down the forests, you cut down the clouds, and you also generally increase the albedo (see Kilimanjaro).
I also think that black carbon on snow or ice has a warming effect.
In both cases, note that what changes is albedo …
But a 1% change in total downwelling radiation from a doubling of CO2?
Lost in the noise …
That makes me a “lukewarmer” in your universe? Who knew? I think a CO2 doubling is meaningless, and yet you think I’m a “lukewarmer”?
I’m not a “lukewarmer” in any sense. I’m a heretic. I think the current central paradigm of mainstream climatology, the unsubstantiated idea that changes in surface temperature are a linear function of changes in TOA forcing, is childish nonsense.
I say the correct paradigm is that the surface temperature is a function of multiple interlocking thermostatic and homeostatic mechanisms operating at a host of spatial and temporal scales. I say climate is a flow system ruled by the Constructal Law, and as such is constantly evolving to maximize the sum of work and turbulence.
I fear that puts me totally outside the normal Skeptic / Lukewarmer / AGW Supporter continuum, which is why I say I’m a Heretic.
All the best,
w.
Dr. Curry
TSI effect is limited.
In the long term sun doesn’t input extra energy required, but it does have critical effect on the distribution of the energy already absorbed by the world oceans.
Evidence:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SpecComp.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETjun.htm
Gavin
If you are Gavin of the Real Climate blog
Neither Dr. Curry or Anthony Watts ban posters providing they maintain certain standards.
Am I banned from the Real Climate as a result of a certain light hearted cartoon?
Old boys from Exhibition Road always welcomed the Gower Street crowd, and one would think that the opposite was true.
with regards.
vuk, if you stick to the science gavin will let you post. Thats his choice.
His time, his effort, his choice.
An odd claim given the levels of social and political propaganda found embedded in almost any topic at RC.
We (the self-selected among our peers, all of whom must support the consensus) of science (as we define it) are the authority (non members must listen not speak). It’s a very easy site to understand but it isn’t “science” by a long stretch.
“His time, his effort, his choice.”
While he’s on the salary of NASA a taxpayer based government entity, on a site linked to George Soros funding and creation. It’s Green-left front site. Not whisper of concern from those in a tizzie fit over Heartland. Not much disclosure either from Real Climate while they drone on about “Kock Brothers”, “Big Oil” or “Heartland” etc over there.
steven mosher | February 22, 2012 at 7:29 pm | Reply
Unless he has changed his tune recently, that is totally untrue, Steven. RC historically has censored piles and piles of on-topic scientific comments. That’s his choice and his right, but you claiming it’s all based on science and nothing else?
BWA-HA-HA-HA. See here for a fully documented example. Nor have they made any bones about that fact.
If that has changed, I’ll wait for Gavin to verify it, and I’d loved to know when the policy was altered. I’m not holding my breath, however.
w.
Must agree with the others responding to you here Mosh; RC cuts or distorts scientific arguments that don’t match the moderators prejudices.
Willis,
Thank you for presenting that example. It is a truly revealing example of the mindset of the sur realclimate crew. Anyone who might inconveniently expose substantial deficiencies in their presentations are summarily cast into outer darkness lest their followers become disillusioned.
I doubt things have changed much recently.
Steve Mosher, I must agree with Willis. The general tone on Real Climate is condescending, sarcastic, and unhelpful. I posted something on this on the Gleick’s integrity thread. I’ve gotten to the point where I wince every time I read anything by Schmidt just because I’m wondering how he can tolerate the searing brightness of his own intellect. We know from the emails that in private things are a lot different. There is real disagreement about substance, for example about paleoclimate. And that’s the other thing. RC seems to be in the business of covering up these things and certainly keeping them out of the literature. It is just so counter to the way Judith runs this site and is a symptom of the problem climate science has. My personal opinion is that RC actually decreases the influence of the Team among the general public. I would advise Vuk that he shouldn’t waste his time asking Gavin for an indulgence for his sins. The Lord Gavin is a jeolous diety, visiting the sins of the fathers unto the third and forth generation of those who hate him, and will never be satisfied that Vuk is free of sin. And that’s the other thing: the total lack of a sense of humor among these people. It’s a sure sign of other “issues.”
On the credit side it appears that Gavin banned, or at least upset Tamino (Grant Foster) by deleting some of his posts too.
David,
I have to agree with both you and Willis. Some of the rot that gets printed over their in support of AGW is exactly as you describe. Much scientce gets deleted because it runs counter to their beliefs. Tamino has banned me from posting on his site, mostly due to my objections over his modified temperature graph where he adjusts all the data since 1998 to conform to the rising trend of the 1990s.
re; Anthony Watts and banning
I’m banned. Anthony doesn’t like my tone. He calls my opinions “angry”.
Really. I couldn’t find on his site policy statement where “angry” opinions, whatever those are, are cause for banishment.
So after he emailed me telling me to consider myself banned I said “Okay, no big deal.” So I started posting anonymously through a proxy server and as soon as he figured out it was me and blocked that name I’d change it.
Now he claims I’m banned because site policy disallows posting under mulitple names. What a dork.
First Gleick confesses his hoax and now David Springer confesses his hoax.
Is this hoax confessional week? Do we need a priest to sanctify the confessions?
John
David Springer | February 23, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Reply
I’m banned at Tallbloke’s Talkshop, and at Taminos. I would never stoop so low as to take up posting at either place under an assumed name. That is the deceptive and underhanded act of a belly-crawling scoundrel. I will not lie to either man and cravenly pretend to be someone else, that is a deeply dishonorable act.
I’m glad you confessed that, Dave, it lets me know that the opinion I previously held of you was, if anything, too high. You should indeed be banned for posting under multiple names—it’s a sneaky underhanded thing to do on a good day, and it is a sleazy deceptive lie if you are already banned.
I love the way you guys lie without a second’s thought, and then defend it and even boast about it when caught. The epitaph of the AGW movement has already been written by Megan McCardle:
After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.
OK, Dave … we’re convinced …
w.
Willis, see you when you get here.
David Springer says: “I’m banned.”
I’m a moderator on WUWT. I checked the private WUWT page for moderators that lists those banned for one reason or another. There is no Dave Springer listed. And there never was. I check the list often.
Science 101: The Limitations Of Science
Andrew
+1
Maybe leading on to the difference between ‘science’ and ‘scientists’
It is no longer merely ‘academic,’ as in ‘having no practical purpose or use.’ Rather, it is more like a math test: you either pass or you fail and Al Gore earned an “F” and got a Nobel. Go figure.
“Historians, long hence, will surely have a fascinating time analysing the rise and fall of the cult of catastrophic `global warming’. Even now it is possible to detect close parallels with the pattern of many traditional doomsday cults. And, it is particularly interesting to note that scientists are just as susceptible to such cults as non-scientists.
“As a mere academic, I shall observe the progress of this particular cognitive dissonance with enthusiasm.”
(Dr. Philip Stott, More On Cognitive Dissonance–“The End Of The World Is/Is Not Nigh!” –Wednesday, 20 August 2008)
The paper Gavin cited is worth a look.
http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/5/185/2012/gmd-5-185-2012.pdf
in his reconstruction solar flux varies by about 0.1% from 800-2000 AD.
However, in these paper’s;
Horiuchi, K., T. Uchida, Y. Sakamoto, A. Ohta, H. Matsuzaki,
Y. Shibata, and H. Motoyama. 2008.
Ice core record of 10Be over the past millennium from Dome Fuji,
Antarctica: A new proxy record of past solar activity and a
powerful tool for stratigraphic dating.
Quaternary Geochronology, Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 253-261,
August 2008. doi:10.1016/j.quageo.2008.01.003.
Horiuchi, K., A. Ohta, T. Uchida, H. Matsuzaki, Y. Shibata,
and H. Motoyama. 2007.
Concentration of 10Be in an ice core from the Dome Fuji station,
Eastern Antarctica: Preliminary results from 1500 to 1810 yr AD
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B:
Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, Vol. 259, Issue 1,
June 2007, pp. 584-587. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2007.01.306
this data is presented
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/domefuji/domefuji-10be2008.txt
Plot the inverse of [10Be] and compare to Gavins Figure 2.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/1over10BevsGavinTSI.jpg
Now which line-shape does the proxy of cosmic ray flux, modified by solar activity, most match?
I personally find that simulations that report +/- 0.1% somewhat suspect.
I find that figures like those presented by Gavin et al., to be unsupported by internal or external controls, totally lacking in investigative imagination and quite typical of the field.
You need to read up on this stuff – all of the reconstructions are based on cosmogenic nuclide records – either 10Be or 14C. And they all resemble each other (though not perfectly). The issue is how you scale them to solar irradiance – for instance Steinhilber et al (SBF) and Shapiro et al (SEA) use exactly the same 10Be record, but they are scaled differently – SBF uses a chain of physical mechanisms (with some uncertainty of course), while SEA simply make an assumption about the state of the sun in grand minima with no physical basis. Whether they used the dome fuji 10Be or the NGRIP 10Be is completely irrelevant – the difference in scales apparent in the figure would persist.
But if you prefer to trade insults, try this:
I find that comments like those presented by DocMartyn et al., to be unsupported by internal or external controls, totally lacking in investigative integrity and quite typical of the blogosphere.
I mean, really, what is the point?
” totally lacking in investigative integrity ”
no thats desmog bro!
Gavin, The direct effect of solar are obviously not enough to produce more than 0.1 C or so change on their own. The reality though is that the solar cycle or some natural variable close to the solar cycle in frequency has a greater impact on climate leading Lean and others to mistake the natural variability as solar impact.
Mann et al 2012 noted the volcanic signature in the tree ring reconstructions and others have noted an apparent relationship between solar cycles, geomagnetic field strength and volcanic activity. I believe Richard Muller proposed a theory of the geomagnetic field fluctuation and glacial interglacial periods. With the north magnetic pole making a mad dash for Siberia, It may be that some of the wackier theorists may have been on to something? .
In any case, there is some uncertainty in what is causing a signal that appears to follow the 11 year solar cycle, more strongly the 22 year Hale cycle and likely the 1500 year Daansgard-Oeschger- Bond cycles. Won’t it be a pip if nearly everyone was wrong?
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/papers-on-1500-year-climatic-cycle/
Seems to be a growing list of clyclomaniacs :)
The annual solar radiation maximum and minimum are 1,413 – 1,321 (W/m²) and the seasonal change in 10Be generation is about 2.
http://144.206.159.178/ft/788/29678/512471.pdf
From 700-1870 AD the maximum and minimum 10Be deposition levels are a factor of 2.
As you have time machine, and you must use proxies, you come up with a steady state value for millennial fluctuations that is 1/30th of the annual variation, rather than calibrate 10Be to a known solar intensity change.
You Gavin are a true climate scientist, the embodiment of all the qualities that the public have come to know.
Can’t read that link for some reason, but your scaling doesn’t work because the mechanisms of insolation variance over the annual cycle (distance from the sun) and over recent centuries (solar activity) are not equivalent for insolation and GCR. The latter depends on the solar magnetic field – which has a correlation, but is not tied directly to irradiance, and doesn’t necessarily have the same 1/r^2 dependence. Plus you can easily show that your scaling vastly overstates solar cycle variability for which we have abundant information.
You DocMartyn are a true anonymous blog commenter, the embodiment of all the qualities that the public have come to know.
Gavin
Science which can’t explain a major exception:
350 years long record of no warming, 350 years long record of natural oscillation at the solar magnetic (Hale) cycle.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETjun.htm
is hardly ‘settled science’.
Gavin
Re TSI vs CO2, See: Rawls on Solar-magnetic evidence omitted in AR5.
Omitted variable fraud vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5, Posted on February 22, 2012 by Alec Rawls at WUWT
Teaching the Controversy s/b Debunking the Controversy
Climate is extremely complex so only certain aspects could be covered in various grade levels. 5th and 6th include Forces in Nature which would be a logical age to introduce climate related information. However, children in this age range typically mimic what they hear a home and are subject to peer pressure.
There are fundamental problems to getting materials into the classroom. Time to market, state adoption cycles, adoption review panels, cost, and state standards are just a few. Getting supplements into the classroom is subject to teacher preferences.
Getting factually accurate information into the hands of the Editorial departments of the Textbook publishers and the news media would be a good idea. Opening a dialogue with Science teachers to determine what is currently making its way into the classroom is another. But, educating parents is probably the best approach.
Reviewing what NASA is delivering to the classroom would also be a good start.
I suppose the biggest issue, who decides what is factually accurate and the degree of confidence related to the educated guesses in Climate Science?
Perhaps a concept map of Climate Science with concept nodes aligned to the various disciplines. A user interface for teachers and students would allow for the repurposing of climate concepts at any time related to all related disciplines.
A common vocabulary of attributes could manage the various states of the concepts within the context of Climate Science.
The common vocabulary could include degree of confidence which would immediately resolve the “Controversy” in the Science as specifically applied.
IBM, Google, and Microsoft come to mind to fast track the implementation. May as well shoot for the stars ; )
Related: why are climate scientists attempting to waltz out of their discipline and proposing solutions to their own conclusions? What’s up with the psycho UN work groups — its like a bad remake of “Girls gone Bad”.
– they aren’t educated in Industrial Engineering and Industrial Design
– they aren’t educated in City and Regional Planning
– they aren’t educated in the Economics
the list of qualifications is an endless reason they should have never been allow to to this, yet its OK?
Do you mean mt?
The arguments of the AGW True Believers have come to mimic in their own way the ‘Hockey Stick’ program of their messianic leader. It took years for concerned scientists to ferret out the supposed data that underlie the ‘Hockey Stick.’ And, then there was all that effort to discern the credibility of the data that was used.
However, once the program itself was finally obtained, the joke was on everyone and real scientists had a field day proving its falsity. The best proof is to simply run the results of a random number generator through Mann’s program: you find that the program does nothing but produce hockey-stick graphs, over and over and over again.
Of course, it also means that all of the filing cabinets full of Global Warming ‘science’ that is based on Mann’s work, and the work of his retinue of incestuous associates, are completely worthless …
The word ‘teach’ is everywhere here. Teaching is just one method (out of many); learning is the desired goal. Provide resources and opportunities for learning. If we have to depend upon teachers, the outcomes will be mixed and uncertain, as teachers vary. With a good teacher, the students will learn how to do science; with a bad teacher, the students will be taught ‘the science’
curryja commented that profs have academic freedom. That would not apply to K-12, and in this case it is the students who need academic freedom. I can’t imagine skeptic students could survive a climate science course taught be a member of the team.
“I can’t imagine skeptic students could survive a climate science course taught be a member of the team.”
It would be an elective, only warmist would take the course knowing what you state and they would be “the future of climate science”. Try finding a conservative at the Columbia School of Journalism for example.
It’s just another social and political enclave and it will be refined even more before it dies a horrid but justified death of defunding. There is something desperate and perverse in all the energy trying to get this into classrooms with AGW “science” by any other brand. Next comes the Girl Scout connections and so on.
Eventually someone is offering a carton of cigarettes and a ride from the Methadone clinic to the polling booth to do the right thing “for the people” on a climate vote, I can see it coming. It’s all the same process with the same bad actors in different degrees.
Forty acres and a mule was more dignified frankly.
By the way. They already are trying to use the Girl Scouts;
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/girl-scouts-back-away-pledge-committing-scouts-lobby-global-warming-legislation
This is what comes of Climate “Education”. “The Green Pledge”
Judith, I notice that we’re back to having question marks in the middle of phrases :-) . I’m sure that can’t be good grammar.
But. anyway, if there is a controversy it has to be between those who argue that AGW is potentially dangerous and those, like, Lindzen who would claim otherwise.
You, yourself, have suggested a range of 1-6 degC for climate sensitivity at the 66% level. That means there is a 17% chance of a very modest amount of global warming and equally a 17% chance of a catastrophic temperature rise if CO2 concentrations are allowed to rise out of all control this century.
So, you’d have to count yourself among the former rather than the latter
TT, i have stated many times that the bounds 1-6C do not imply anything about the shape of the distribution or how much can be put on each tail. The magnitude of equilibrium sensitivity (whatever that really is) is substantially larger than what would translate into warming for the 21st century. The actual state of the climate over next century then depends what natural variability does (solar, volcanoes, ocean oscillations), and whether or not this is greater than the anthropogenic effects. And whether any of this change is “dangerous” has not been established in any convincing way.
Just putting your statement into perspective.
‘Understanding the limits of predictability is the key challenge. The arrogant species is fooling itself if we think we can ‘project’ the state of the climate in 50 years or 100 years, even if we somehow knew what the anthropogenic forcing would be. Yes, it seems that all other things being equal, the climate would be warmer with more CO2, but there is no reason at all to expect all other factors to remain the same.’ Op. Cit.
I would put it more bluntly – you are a simple minded twit with delusions of profundity.
Judith,
The last time we discussed this I did make the point that, regardless of the shape of the distribution, the actual sensitivity (whatever that really is) is equally likely to be higher or lower than any estimated range. You didn’t argue with that statement.
Furthermore, the effect of AGW isn’t just a 21st century issue. We’ll all be just as dead in the year 2099 as 2199 and beyond. So why should this century be the only one considered? You’ll have read John Archers book “The Long Thaw”. There he make the point that AGW will be an irreversible process which will last for thousands of years.
Perhaps students should be taught the history of science.
A perspective on the search for truth and how this has faired in the light of dogmatism and predjudice might give a better framework for understanding current problems than oversimplified, as possibly incorrect, climate science.
The misery and suffreing that has been endured in the history of Medicine is a good starting point.
“The misery and suffreing that has been endured in the history of Medicine is a good starting point”
That is somewhat unfair, medicine has probably has a slightly lower levels of misguided dogma, charlatans, crackpots and empire builders than any other area of science. However, the results of poor medical performance are much more visible than alchemy/chemistry or the principles of metallurgy.
Poppers principles, although normally unattainable, are a very good starting point.
“Teach the controversy” – why? It’s important to us, but we are few. Children are supposed to be taught things that will be useful to them in future years. How does it help them to be taught what a few folk were nattering about in 2012?
I hope David Wojick will post a list of proposed examination questions.
Seems pretty obvious why you teach the controversy. First, it is true that there is a controversy. Second, showing the opposing points is a great way to explain the principles involved. Third, as mentioned frequently here, it trains the mind in making judgements.
Else what will we do when we try to tell them why we sent Americans of Japanese origin to internment camps, or practiced eugenics?
Given that we don’t know the sensitivity of the atmosphere to a doubling of concentrations of CO2, the most we will be teaching is an unfinished story. If I were in a classroom that would be my starting point–we haven’t written the end to the story yet.
Hi Judith, you had me agreeing with you till you mentioned the name Randy Olson. A little background on Randy:
Flock of Dodos Filmmaker Claims Haeckel’s Embryo Drawings Weren’t in Modern Textbooks–But They Really Are
Were Ernst Haeckel’s bogus embryo diagrams ever used in modern textbooks to prove evolution? Not according to filmmaker Olson, who in the film portrays biologist Jonathan Wells as a fraud for claiming in his book Icons of Evolution (2000) that modern biology textbooks continue to reprint Haeckel-based drawings.
But it turns out that Olson is the one who is promoting a fraud. The diagrams in question were unquestionably used in modern textbooks.
Ignorance is no excuse. At a pre-release screening of Olson’s film at the Scripps Institution for Oceanography in San Diego in April, 2006, Discovery Institute’s Casey Luskin confronted Olson with copies of recent textbooks that reused Haeckel’s drawings.
My approach to teaching would be that the ends justify the means. The details of embryo drawings are irrelevant. If false embryo drawings make kids go away understanding the theory better then use the drawings.
It’s like the peppered moth example of natural selection. I hear that the simple version kids are taught in schools is actually wrong – in fact I hear that about a lot of stuff taught in schools.
But who cares? Natural selection exists and if a peppered moth example, whether or not it’s true, is effective at conveying to kids what natural selection is then use it.
If the absolute truth in all it’s complex detail would lead to only 10% of the class understanding the concept, but using a simple “lie” leads to 90% of the class to understanding the concept, I would always teach the “lie”.
I know some people will say good job I am not a teacher.
lolwot –
“I know some people will say good job I am not a teacher.”
Sadly, too many teachers are like you.
The important question, though, is how would you react to a student who pointed out the lie and was able to capably back up her position? Would you double down and censure the student to maintain authority, or would you admit you had told a lie to simplify an explanation?
lolwot, you’re not even a good person from all that I can see. “I would always teach the lie”? Do you work at the NY Times or for the TEAM??
I am actually from the area that the original study was done, just outside Birmingham.
In light of criticism of the original Kettlewell experiments in 1953 and 1955, the levels of predation of differently melanic forms of Peppered Moths experiment was repeated annually from 2001 to 2007, with feedback from critics by one of the worlds finest evolutionary biologists, Mike Majerus.
BEHIND PAY WALL
Non-morph specific predation of peppered moths (Biston betularia) by bats
MICHAEL E. N. MAJERUS Ecological Entomology, Volume 33, Issue 5, pages 679–683, 2008
open access lecture
http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/research/personal/majerus/SwedenPepperedmoth2007Ppt.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._N._Majerus
He died of cancer at a young age and as well as being smart was loved by all who worked with him.
“how would you react to a student who pointed out the lie and was able to capably back up her position?”
I would say “well done” and explain that the thing was used as a teaching device.
lolwot –
Really, the only acceptable answer, isn’t it? Probably another reason it’s best you don’t teach.
I asked because my children were taught (when we homeschooled) that anything could be challenged, but that they had to be able to back up their position. When we (reluctantly) put them in public school we discovered that far too many teachers had the opposite reaction – it seemed that a challenge of their material was a challenge to their authority. The kids have learned to parrot in public, think in private. Really quite sad.
Based on this experience, I’ve come to the conclusion that the curriculum matters far less than the teacher: the few good teachers will encourage and develop independent thought, while the rest will turn out unthinking drones. This will happen regardless of what the teacher is told to teach.
Some things shouldn’t have to be taught. Some things are just common sense.
“Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments….
“Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of ‘stopping climate change.'”
–R. Timothy Patterson (professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University)
Hey, kids, take a walk on the cool side.
John Whitman @12.14.
Yep!
A sure sign of moral decline is the example of the Left that smeared job takers as “hamburger flippers” and demonizes Wal-Mart for employing the unemployed during the Bush administration while it now glorifies those who take government money to do little more than wave a thermometer in the air and cry “fire” in crowded theaters.
moral decline! is that due to the sun as well?
The poor AGW True Believer. He seays, “I ground my teeth in despair, and with sobs and oaths I went on and roared wildly, paying no attention to the people going by. I started once more to punish my flesh, ran my forehead deliberately against lampposts, drove my fingernails deep into the backs of my hands, bit my tongue madly every time it failed to pronounce clearly and then laughed wildly whenever I caused a fairly good pain.” (Hunger)
Such is the life of a Hot World Syndrome sufferer. Won’t you give so these poor unfortunates can find peace.
Just a small donation will help us help these simple folk. For just a few pennies a day, these simple folks can be resettled into a virgin area where there are no distractions like light, heat, clean water, food or transportation. …
I find a lot of this deeply serious debate quite amusing and this is why. I spent over twenty years in instrumentation and control, so I have a pretty good idea about how physical and chemical variables are measured. I then spent the next twelve years teaching 5-11 year olds as a Primary school teacher. I now teach student teachers general science as well as other subjects in a major teaching university.
The reason I find most of the debate here rather over serious, is because it is enough as it is to get kids to understand basic science, such as the concept of heat as energy. Many of them think we let the cold in when you open the window rather than the heat out (in chilly England) Sadly that is also often the case with many of the students as well, as many of them have not majored in any of the sciences. Yet folk seem to think it apt and proper to ask them to debate a topic in a subject area that they know so little about!
I think there are too many carts appearing before too many horses in science education. To be honest the TV series The Big Bang Theory has done more to advance the standing of science in the eyes of the younger generations than nearly all of the climate scientists and speculators/bloggers put together.
Maybe, just maybe we should go back to teaching basic science to K-12, after all there is plenty of it, and leave the controversy for the degree courses? Just a thought from the front lines of science teaching.
“I spent over twenty years in instrumentation and control”
Take 100 $5.00 thermocouples and have they recording temperature for 365 days in a box outside. How many of them will be off spec in day 366?
What we should teach at school regarding AGW should include the following:
Global warming has produced several ways of looking at the world. Here’s one:
If you take the highest temperature of a day (Tmax) and add the lowest temperature of that day (Tmin), you get a number. Divide that number by two and you get an average for the day. If you add up the numbers for a month and plot them on a chart and compare it to the previous year, you get a better idea. If you add up all the numbers for a year and compare it to previous years, you get the chart below:
http://bit.ly/wQpl9k
Or do you? What if the temperatures are taken with different thermometers and thermocouples, and some of them are near a hot piece of asphalt and others have been moved to a busy airport? What if the first part of your series isn’t thermometers at all, but from estimates of temperature derived from analysis of the thickness of tree rings? And what if those estimates are suspect, declining during a period when we know temperatures rose?
The chart above was used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their 3rd report on the state of the Earth’s climate, called TAR and published in 2001. Its dramatic shape and view—that temperatures were rising faster than they ever had—that we were moving into uncharted and dangerous territory. That we needed to act now…
Here is another way of looking at the world (http://bit.ly/5pcHs6)—and it’s the way we looked at temperatures for close on to 40 years, before worries about global warming made the previous chart popular.
CLIMATEGATE
THE CRUTAPE LETTERS
Page 11-12
Steven Mosher
Thomas W. Fuller
Really? is that an extract from the actual book?
“Here is another way of looking at the world http://bit.ly/5pcHs6”
You’ve got to be kidding me. Why is this “way of looking at the world” immune to hot pieces of asphalt and busy airports? Why isn’t it mentioned that this series also doesn’t start with thermometer data.
It’s funny how the actual post-Mann millennial reconstructions at picked to pieces by skeptics, but that olde Lamb schematic is flagged through as some kind of ancient “truth”. Part of the old “if it’s not IPCC I have no reason to deny it” syndrome?
most of us suspect that Lamb wasn’t trying to ‘prove’ anything.
lolwot, the point we were making in the book was that Lamb’s chart was adequate for the purposes of the time. We know it wasn’t based on thermometer readings. But the general shape was commonly accepted, as were phenomena such as the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age. It was good enough for guidance until somebody started saying the MWP didn’t happen…
Yes, Initially I was going to tie the lamb chart into the discussion about how the Lamb chart made its way into the IPCC reports.
The error was covered in One of Jones mails. Folland put the chart in.
Jones explained that they had corrected Lambs mistake in the literature, BUT to preserve his reputation they published the correction in an obscure journal.
Care to discuss that?
bascially, I was going to argue how things like british pride drove Jones.
But I had nothing other than my gut feel to go on.. and the mail about Lamb
“the point we were making in the book was that Lamb’s chart was adequate for the purposes of the time. We know it wasn’t based on thermometer readings. But the general shape was commonly accepted”
Is “commonly accepted” shorthand for “it was the consensus”?
Three cheers for Judith Curry in starting this thread! I’ve just come across it, and look forward to coming back later to study her post and the comments with more care. And also for her Climate Classroom thread which I also want to get back to.
I do believe the deliberate scaremongering in some climate materials aimed at children must be very harmful. Since my view is that there is no sufficient justification for it, I see it as one of the most pernicious of the harms that are being caused by intemperate and irresponsible promotion of CO2 as a major, even dominant driver of climate (recently being tempered somewhat since Mother Nature keeps refusing to play along with it). I see it as a basic adult responsibility to protect children from ill-founded fears, and from having their outlook on their future clouded by negative thinking and vivid imagery of melting icecaps, flooded cities, deadly technology, and so on. That has been reprehensible.
The tricky task of clearing up the educational mess made by the very successful promotion of alarm about CO2 and global warming, and the deliberate efforts to recruit children, often through fear, as activists for ‘the cause’ is going to call for a great deal of thought and compassion. Although, from time to time, one comes across reports that some children have been bored by relentless alarmism, and regard it, and the teachers who push it, with contempt and derision. Perhaps that is an example of the negative feedback mechanisms that so abound in our world, and help keep it on a reasonably even keel.
‘Although, from time to time, one comes across reports that some children have been bored by relentless alarmism, and regard it, and the teachers who push it, with contempt and derision. Perhaps that is an example of the negative feedback mechanisms that so abound in our world, and help keep it on a reasonably even keel.’
Another big feedback is insurrection, a really great leveler.
As I posted elsewhere:
“In a way, my hope is generational: the tendency of youth to reject triumphantly and vociferously whatever they see as “the errors and biases” of the preceding generation. Destructive and ill-informed as that often is, it at least puts some limits on the effectiveness of the pervasive indoctrination.”
Kim @4.45pm
‘….Credentials don’t count, it’s the content of the conversation.
Now, we can all strut around naked.’
LOL, better not, Kim.
‘ It’s cooling folks how much…..’
The public is wising up. The public is way out front of what is being taught in schools. The public doesn’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Joe the Plumber is on to Climatology dodge. The public knows the models of the AGW witchdoctors are bogus and that politicians lie.
Unfortunately, we have come to learn that Western scientists have become experts only in self deception and mass delusion. While the AGW faithful are free to light candles and ask their sainted Al Gore for His divine guidance, the public has put the babble of prophets like Michael Mann on ignore.
Real people prefer to live in reality. Real people look for real solutions to real problems. AGW True Believers offer nothing to society but phony solutions to imagined problems.
So when do you teach them how thermometers work or the difference between a thermocouple and a thermistor and where errors in measurements using them occur? If they do not understand that, then how can they build any useful sets of data let alone argue about them?
But then we do seem to have a lot of clever climate scientists who can stitch together trees, thermometers, thermocouples, thermistors and microwaves all into one smooth curve on a graph all without error bars! Amazing…..(sarc for sure)
What should be taught to students is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect is fallacious because it is based on false assumptions about absorptivity.
When scientists try to explain why the Second Law of Thermodynamics is valid for radiation (as well as conduction) they consider two parallel plates at different temperatures radiating at each other. In such a case it is easy to say, “Net radiation is clearly from hot to cold, so heat transfers from hot to cold, so all is in agreement with the Second Law which states that’s what should happen.”
They are, in effect, calculating the difference between the radiation in each direction as if that in each direction were having an effect in transferring some amount of thermal energy between the plates.
So, in this particular case, the net radiative flux also happens to be in the same direction as the net transfer of thermal energy.
But what happens if you can somehow filter out the radiation from the hotter body, so only the radiation from the cooler body reaches the hotter one? Or, what happens if you concentrate more radiation from the cooler body onto the hotter one using a concentrator such as a reflective funnel – like the funnels used to cook food with sunlight? Then, if you do your calculations based on two-way radiation concepts, you can get the wrong answer, now can’t you?
So the Second Law of Thermodynamics for radiation can only be valid in all circumstances if your calculations only include the component of radiation from hot to cold. This invalidates the atmospheric radiative greenhouse conjecture which assumes “backradiation” can further warm a warmer surface, even when it is getting hotter every sunny morning.
The way it must work is in fact the way Prof Claes Johnson has explained in his Computational Blackbody Radiation.. Radiation from the cooler body merely resonates and is rejected (or scattered) by the hotter one without its radiated energy being converted to thermal energy.
So, you cannot always apply mean absorptivity factors which were originally calculated empirically from radiation from a hotter source. The effective absorptivity when radiation from a cooler source strikes a warmer target must be zero.
Addendum: This* indicates that absorptivity is actually determined, not by any warming effect, but by measuring reflected radiation in the visible spectrum.
I am saying that absorptivity cuts out (ie goes to zero) when the source becomes cooler that the target, which of course is not the case by a long shot when making these measurements using much higher frequency radiation than that contained in all spontaneous radiation from the atmosphere.
Hence, for proponents of the radiative greenhouse conjecture to use such measures of absorptivity of light (which are close to unity) and thus to assume the surface absorbs “backradiation” is a complete abuse of physics.
* http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/cp/0601.pdf
* http://naca.central.cranKfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/cp/0601.pdf
fixed that for ya
David – I couldn’t open your link. What did it say about absorptivity measurements done with far-IR as the source?
Er, cold is a lack of heat, not a lot of cold, simples!
‘Er, cold is a lack of heat, not a lot of cold, simples!’
Er, cold (other than in a vacuum) is a effect from the force of pressure on isolation or lack of, as is heat. More dense, more cold, less dense more heat. simples!
“Training classes will be held to teach the older girls about this issue and then they will teach younger children through seminars and lectures about global warming.”
The face of Climate “education” in the Girl Scouts;
http://augustafreepress.com/2008/03/13/fight-global-warming-with-girl-scouts/
Then there are many Climate “Camps” for young people to get the “right” values at a young age;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9183672/4181502842/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_for_Climate_Action
“Coinciding with the United Nations Climate Change Conference held last Dec. 7-Dec. 18 in Copenhagen, Denmark, we focused this year’s ICARE theme on climate change. Throughout the week, the young people discussed different climate issues as seen from their point of view and how they are related to children’s rights. The young people delved into various creative activities and produced striking works of art and videos that related to climate change issues. Despite the differences in socioeconomic backgrounds, language and culture, the young people found a common ground and managed to create bridges of understanding and respect and forged unique bonds of friendship.”
http://stairwayfoundation.org/stairway/component/content/article/1-whats-going-on/100-our-climate-our-children-our-choice
“The three-day camp is part of a national program created by the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition, which teaches kids how to develop campaigns to fight global warming.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/07/17/edm-climate-camp.html
Of course, if warming nutters want to send their kids to these camps it’s their right. Having them get into a general science class at school? That’s another can of worms. In short, over my cold dead body. I find it somewhat laughable that Dr. Curry thinks she would be impacting actual content beyond her own sphere in her advocacy of Climate education. It will be a unique but rhyming freak show where ever it is rolled out. A FUBAR of national scaling.
The environment has been a pain-in-the-ass ever since it was discovered in 1975.
Why not just keep it out of schools ?
From my school:
Plant a tree in 73 (I did)
Need some more in 74 (again).
The results of this school based attempt to make Britain an arboreal paradise were sadly disappointing; that’s Birmingham for you (for Americans, imagine Detroit but without the glamor).
Doc, I was in Birmingham a couple of years back and it was actually quite nice. They spruced it up a bit for the EU Cultural City thing. (And I didn’t get far from the city centre–might be hell outside of it, don’t know.) But I had a nice time there.
“imagine Detroit but without the glamor”
That’s cold, Doc.
Why was my comment removed? I suspect it may have been because my given name is Doug. lol
Science confronts controversy and eventually resolves it. Admit controversy and follow the science. Deny controversy and science is irrelevant.
Climate change or global warming is already being taught in school, and it’s already being taught from only one side, using materials by advocacy groups such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the WWF.
My 7 year old godson was bringing home papers and learning songs about how he needed to ‘save the earth’ from global warming when he was in Headstart at the age of 4.
Consider this teacher’s guide for K-12 educators to use in public schools when they teach about Global Warming:
http://hdgc.epp.cmu.edu/teachersguide/teachersguide.htm
Connecticut has this website for teachers of all ages to use:
http://ctclimatechange.com/index.php/act/teachers-schools/
In fact, I bet if you check your state’s educational standards, which you can easily find online, you will find similar materials recommended in every state..
DHM,
It’s even more terrible when you realize a palm is greased on every link you read while the brainwashing agenda is validating the troll warming culture at the same time. Climate porn should be a crime.
From the Ct. link above;
http://ctclimatechange.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/COEEA_CaseSupport-Final-031209.pdf
Another horrible idea merged into another, matching “No-Child” funding with climate educational abuse.
Why do children need to know about ‘global warming’?
How will they utilize this information at such a young age?
How will this information promote intellectual development at such a young age?
It is pure propaganda and political indoctrination – or worse religious instruction.
When I think about my youth, how many scientific speculations have subsequently been proved to be wrong?
Why not focus on the basics? Or better yet, critical thinking?
Al Gore wants to teach doomsday? The Heartland Institute wants to teach something else. I say neither.
Total idiocy in my opinion.
Old Navy,
You make a point wort highlighting:
Critical thinking is the number one skill, whether one is in art, science or letters. And it is easily the least taught skill in education at all levels.
Can we all agree that one thing for sure should in K1-12 science? The Gleick Hoax of the early 21st Century should be mandatory subject matter.
John
Another blog offers a reasonable explanation for the erosion of classroom teaching skills in Australia:
http://barnabyisright.com/2012/02/23/drip-dri-drip-eroding-your-right-to-choose/
“Creeping international(ist) socialism that is steadily eroding our right to self-determination, both as individuals and as a sovereign nation.”
Do other readers also see “creeping international socialism” as a common thread in many of society’s problems today, including the continuing AGW debate?
Yes.
Which of the following ad hoc list is /is not a science?
1) Physics
2) Solid state physics
3) Semiconductor physics
4) Transistor physics
5) Atmospheric science
6) Meteorology
7) Climate science
8) Climate change science
9) Anthropogenic climate change science
10) Mathematics
11) Statistics
12) Political science
13) Conflict resolution science
A. 9 – 12 – 13
Score = 100%
Dr. Curry, I cannot fathom why you would wait until the “last two weeks” of the class to devote to the “climate change problem.”
It’s not like the Problem is a final exam. The Answers are not in the back of any book to be believed. The “Problem” is one of the most important reasons for taking the course. As such it should be presented early on. The “Answers” will be slow in coming, but your students might be better off evaluating answers during class.
Stephen, I agree that it doesn’t fit the title “Climate and Global Change” very well (perhaps there needs to be separate courses), but keep in mind that what degree-seeking students need to learn about climate isn’t usually associated with stuff you’d find, for example, in an IPCC report (which is not textbook, although any atmospheric science student should have some acquaintance with that before they graduate) or that is discussed in blogs.
Instead, learning the physics of the atmosphere requires learning a lot of concepts or terminology like “potential temperature,” geostrophic wind, Bjerkness feedbacks, atmospheric stability, or the dynamics of phenomenon like monsoons, African easterly waves, tropical cyclogenesis, or the factors that control the width of the Hadley Circulation. Very often, little of it has to do with understanding the broader “climate change” issues, but many are concepts that any educated student must understand before they have the tools to assess the literature.
Chris Colose says;
Instead, learning the physics of the atmosphere requires learning a lot of concepts.”
You’re right then they could discuss something like this concept.
P * V = n * R * T
P * V / R / n = T
n = (1.225 kg/m^3) / (0.02896 kg/mol) = 42.30 mol/kg
now, P being average of 101325 Pa so:
101325[P] * 1[V] / 8.31451[R] / 42.30[n] = 288.10 K mean surface temperature.
Since ‘P’, ‘V’, ‘R’, and ‘n’ are averaged constants here on Earth; therefore, the mean temperature is also constant on the average at the surface.
Now the only change I see possible is CO2 moves from 0.000398 fraction of the air to a 0.000598 fraction that will affect the ‘n’ and the ‘P’ very slightly. The pressure (P) would increase to 101345 and the ‘n’ number of moles per kg should decrease to 42.29.
Rerun the calc:
101345[P] * 1[V] / 8.31451[R] / 42.29[n] = 288.22 K mean surface temperature.
Bazinga.
No Markus, it’s not as simple as that. When you add that 200 ppm and raise the temperature at the base of the atmosphere by 0.12K due to changes in the adiabatic lapse rate, itself being a function of the mass of the atmosphere and the acceleration due to gravity, you then have also to raise the surface end of the core to surface temperature plot – so that plot is raised a little all the way from the core. Hence this requires a very significant input of thermal energy, or blocking of the flow for perhaps a few thousand years.
It is far more probable that the atmospheric temperature plot will lower, but only at the tropopause end. After all, far lower temperatures are seen in Antarctica, yet we have similar lapse rates I presume.
So, at least within a few thousands years you would not achieve that 0.12K just by adding 200 ppm of CO2.
Mind you, natural cycles with periodicity of about 1,000 years will continue, producing anomalies of about 2 K above and below the level trend, similar to MWP and LIA. Just add the 60 year superimposed cycle with maximum nodes around 1998, 2058 … and plug in a maximum in the 1,000 year cycle in about 50 to 200 years – and there you have it.
Sorry Co2, you missed out on the action.
It’s all in http://climate-change-theory.com
This might be a good time for a ‘spot the error’ exercise :-)
Chris, by your logic I must teach you quantumchromodynamics and Feynman diagrams before I let you evaluate why and when quantum theory is important and better than Newtonian Physics. I reject that notion.
Do you prefer to indoctrinate the student in details and red herrings before allowing them to think about the broad problem? I prefer the more scientific approach of observation, hypothesis, testing and evaluation. Start with the big questions and find the pieces of the answers and identify the blind alleys as you learn.
Chris Colose | February 22, 2012 at 11:17 pm |
This might be a good time for a ‘spot the error’ exercise :-)”
I found one Chris. You say Co2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries, I agree, only my future atmospheric Co2 particles won’t be centuries old.
“Weather and Climate by the University at Albany’s Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences Dept.
Recent CO2 emissions and a long-term perspective
November 8, 2011 at 11:20 pm by Chris Colose
It also follows from this that any attempt for a “fast action” solution to cool global temperature would need to be sustained for centuries (some ideas, such as pumping reflective particles in the air to block sunlight, no longer work when the project is terminated, even though CO2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries).”
I seriously hope the students out there in Alabama are being taught the controversy. Going by the contents of your article, they really need it.
Markus;
0.12K per 200 ppm? A gross exaggeration! At least a magnitude too high. Or maybe the wrong sign.
:)
;)
;p
Stephen,
While the romantic versions of science are nice to hear, the fact is that most K-12 students learn science or mathematics by being told something and memorizing it. It might not be ideal, but with few exceptions it’s very hard to get the student constructing their own thoughts about why electron clouds work how they do, why quantum theory is needed to describe the spectral radiance from a blackbody, etc. There are some good, basic experiments that can supplement chemistry or physics labs but they are rather limited in what the student can understand or what is within the scope of the course. And very little of it gives the student the tools to read a publication in a physics journal and valuate its merit. Not much changes at the lower, undergraduate level where people need basic courses or need to fill electives. If you need proof of this, next time you go to a physics class, put this in front of the students:
“The authors present a theoretical study of the transient electron transport in the multiple quantum dots (QDs) systems forced by the suddenly applied bias voltage. The authors argue that a careful inspection of the transient current beat patterns can provide information about the inter-dot hopping amplitudes, quantum dots energy levels and their occupancies before the abrupt change of the bias voltage is made.” (this is just the first result when I went to the Applied Physics section of http://journals.aip.org/)
Then, tell the students to gather their thoughts, judge for themselves, and submit their opinions within the hour.
Now you might think climate is different, because we have some connection to climate, and people know what the word ‘oceans’ mean more than they know what ‘quantum dots’ means. And of course youtube and WUWT exist, which means everyone is an expert on climate.
But I’ll tell you that it ain’t so. If you’re going to actually *learn* what you’re being told, to the point beyond memorization and where you can critically assess what other authors are doing, then you need a solid initiation into the subject at a degree-seeking level. For climate, you can’t do this without some quantitative background in thermodynamics, dynamics, and radiation. That doesn’t mean you need to know all the textbook material, but if you’re going to go to seminars, read journals, etc, then you just have to develop that background. Or we can just do this approach:
Stick to the subject, Chris. It was about a Georgia Tech class taught to seniors and graduate students.
Pathetic – how you suddenly tried to change the subject to K-12.
No “Reply” button on the post: Oliver K. Manuel | February 22, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
I am sure there is a reason but I wish to reply anyway.
Your comments always provide food for thought, Oliver. Thank you for making them.
curryja | February 22, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
Hey, I tend to take it personally when Dr. Kim says “unrelenting and often disingenuous attacks” from folke like me the reason the climategate folks did all the bad things they did. And I can understand that you don’t want to discuss that, here or anywhere else.
Kim Cobb | February 22, 2012 at 9:34 pm |
Thanks, Dr. Kim. Call me crazy, but when you say:
that is not being “critical” of anything. It is being supportive of a lie, the lie that there was nothing sinister or underhanded revealed by the climategate emails.
However, since Judith doesn’t want this discussed, I’ll let you go back to telling each other how reasonable the other one is, and pretending that the real problem is not the rampant corruption and scientific malfeasance in the field, but, how did you put it … “how best to increase the public’s understanding of climate science” … yeah, that’s the ticket …
I’ve got bad news, Dr. Cobb. That’s not an issue in any form at this point. That issue died in late 2009. As Megan McCardle recently pointed out,
That is the position you are in now, that is the problem you face, and discussing how to “increase the public’s understanding” is just rearranging the deck chairs. I leave you both to it.
w.
“rampant corruption and scientific malfeasance” – and that is the real problem that “climate scientists” like Cobb and Dr. Curry REFUSE to face.
Or, as someone said here a few months ago, “The problem is not bad communication. The problem is bad actions by bad actors. It is compounded by the fact that you, Judith, and the overwhelming majority of AGW climate scientists, refuse to name names.
As a result, the bad actors suffer no loss for lying, cheating, and stealing. Not only that, but they continue with their scientific malfeasance and NOBODY SAYS A WORD.”
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/25/a-scientists-manifesto/#comment-90161
Gee, I wonder who said that?
Hi Willis,
Did you get banned at WUWT like I did or are you just slumming?
For people who are supposed to be smart it always amazes me that people like Kim Cobb do not see that when scientists act like advocates it undermines the science and actually creates scepticism. People who have any experience of life know a scam when they see one. That is what you are up against Kim Cobb, Chris Colose and friends. The educated public may not understand the science but they know a scam when they see one. And every time you act as an advocate not a scientist you are simply confirming what we already know.
here’s my quick idea.
keep present programs – cagw curricula.
apply a scientific social and ethical (AGU?) analysis to it.
establish another faculty, collect agw material in one spot e.g. a resource centre.
ask questions like ‘so how are the polar bears ?’
invite a polar bear to give a guest lecture
Eezy-Peezy, send all Federal climate research funding through the Georgia Tech Dept. of Meteorology for its imprimature. If Judy says it’s climate science, I say it’s climate science.
======================
Poor Judy, the washerwoman. ‘It’s not climate science until I say it’s climate science’. At least the prototype had clean underwear to deal with.
====================
war of kimbots
Where’s the BeefBot?
=============
Here’s my two cents.
I do not remember ANY current controversies taught in my high school biology, chemistry or physics classes. The focus was entirely on teaching the (very–this is high school) elementary principles of (for instance) genetics, valence and bonding, and classical mechanics (with a itty bitty taste of special relativity at the end). There were labs–mostly giving us an appreciation of how difficult it really is to run a good experiment. Our data was all over the effing place. Our styrofoam calorimeters were shit. The strobe polaroids were difficult to read. The fetal pig was incomprehensibly messy. And so it goes. I do not remember any of my science teachers trying to explicitly inculcate anything like (something called) critical thinking. Rather, they taught us a lot of taxonomy, definitions and a little bit of theory… And dumped us into the deep end of dissection and experiments, which bewildered us.
The lesson was clear: The data is unruly and doing real empirical science must be very hard.
What’s wrong with that? Why do high school students need much else?
When I teach undergraduates, my fervent hope is that they know their addition and multiplication tables. That is all I ask. Is that so much for an old man to ask?
apologies, your multiple attempts got caught in spam
“I do not remember ANY current controversies taught in my high school biology, chemistry or physics classes”
Didn’t you get the Darwin vs. religious views? The Monkey Trial?
In chemistry, didn’t you have the history of the discovery of oxygen? Rutherford and the cannon-ball against tissue paper? The dew-drop model?
In physics didn’t they at least mention Watt and the industrial revolution and the reason for the development of thermodynamics (to make better steam engines)?
Do you have no history of science?
Doc,
Zero history of science. No social or political history of science. At least, not in science classes.
Might as well admit, ‘I was a *teacher* and proud of it.’ H/T “The Mummy’s Curse.” Yeah, I know the teaching profession is in thrall to green ideology but my curriculum was strong on critical thinking.’Let’s just have a look at Western Life expectancy figures pre/post Industrial Revolution.’
We wrote and performed our own history dramas. A couple of times did an impromtu performance of Pink Floyd’s ‘ Teacher, leave them kids alone.’ Could you do that now?
Tonyb, – wrote a 4 page history of the western world world, ‘a millenia guilt trip,’ had fun with the Dark Ages and Greek chorus tableaux and a collapsing Fellini ending.
Hi Beth, I flipped down to the bottom of this thread to say something about another lady teacher and saw this delightful contribution. How much we rely on the inspiration on real teachers to protect against raw propaganda and how grateful we should always be for them. Anything David Wojick produces – and all strength to his elbow – cannot replace that.
What I originally wanted to say here is that I don’t have time to read the comments but I’ve skimmed what Judith Curry said and all I could think was in this area, of all areas, I have nothing to add. I am convinced this lady is a truly great teacher. It’s not just about teaching the controversy, it’s the way you do it. I pray she becomes a model for teachers everywhere.
Beth, I love you and want to have your children.
Seriously, though, when/where was this?
Hm, I think you want her to have your children. Different thing, sort of!
;)
We can but hope that such subversive teachers are still out there. Judging from student feedback currently, it seems a faint hope. The teaching profession seems to have undertaken/undergone several successful ideological pogroms.
BrianH – thanks, but I know what I said. :-)
BrianH if I’d wanted her to have my children, I would have told her where she could pick them up. (h/y Groucho Marx)
Beth
If you have the document in a digital form I would very much like to read it
tonyb
Before I went to university, I was taught at Roman Catholic schools by staff who included nuns and priests. No controversy about Catholicism was ever taught there. So: today I’m a robotic, indoctrinated Catholic, yes?
Nah. Fact is, many of us, particularly in the last few years at school, had figured out for ourselves that much of RC doctrine was BS. For a while, I even became an atheist. Today, I have my own views on spirituality, and those are very important to me, but I’m sure many of my erstwhile classmates are atheists, though a few may still be committed Catholics.
The point is, school kids don’t live in a vacuum. They can be pounded every day at school with doctrine, but they’re also exposed to opinion/behaviour coming from other sources, and not insubstantial ones – family and friends, television, the Internet, you name it. All that nonsense about capturing a child by the age of seven meaning you’ll have it for life is precisely that – nonsense. RCs got me at age 4 and lost me by age 16, not least because I was exposed to contrary views, and my mind began to mature.
I don’t think it’s any different with global warming. Whether or not one “teaches the controversy” (peculiarly American phraseology probably fuelled by the evolution debate), at least some kids will eventually mature and start taking up their own positions. One of the surest ways of losing grip on their minds is to try to create an atmosphere of fear. The more dire you make the threats and outcomes, the more despair you create.
My escape from Catholicism was fuelled by despair. I was plainly imperfect, and might well go to hell. I used to fret over that night and day, and at some point, I wanted only to escape the fear. So I actively started to concoct reasons why it was mostly BS. Okay, that was an existential imperative, but in time I became more familiar with substantive objections and my critical faculties improved; I could really see it was BS.
I believe many kids will rebel against fear, not necessarily only that inculcated by religion. Sadly, many seem to need fear, feeling that there must be something external to keep their intrinsically “sinful” selves in check. I see much in common with that in the alarmist viewpoint. There is a perceived threat, and it must come from equally sinful others who aren’t constrained by the same external influence. I see a parallel situation in those dissenters who frame the debate in terms of the consensualist position being sinful or evil. At a deep level, the dynamic is identical.
It’s true that education is the key to producing sane individuals. But I think we rarely educate in the true sense of the word, which involves inculcating the ability to think for oneself in a dispassionate way, which in turn involves being able to identify and distance oneself from one’s own emotional and psychological desires. We might be fortunate to have encountered a teacher who exemplified this ability, and picked up the capacity through observation and osmosis. My sixth form (17-18yrs) chemistry teacher (a priest as it happened) was one such; much better than any university teacher I encountered. As one gets older, one’s true teachers can be anyone one meets, or whose work one reads, or indeed, chance experiences.
Do current education systems in the West actually educate? I have my doubts. Where they do, it’s often serendipitous rather than methodical. I think it’s despite and not because of them that people manage to educate themselves. I think most true education comes from within, and that essential to it is the ability to turn dogma into questions.
Dogma 1: Human production of CO2 is unbalancing the climate system and, if unchecked, will lead to catastrophic consequences.
Question 1: Is human production of CO2 unbalancing the climate system and, if it’s unchecked, will it lead to catastrophic consequences?
Dogma 2: Human production of CO2 is not a big problem and will not lead to catastrophic consequences; in fact, it is probably beneficial.
Question 2: Is human production of CO2 not a big problem, in fact probably beneficial?
Go on: take any dogma you like, turn it into a question, and then go off and try to answer it regardless of what you think you already know. If you do that, I think you will be experiencing what education is.
Nearly always, when I’ve asked myself a question like this, I’ve come up with an unexpected answer: most often, that I don’t know. At the same time, I may lean towards a particular view, but I am not committed heart and soul to it. I can maintain a distance from it, and am open to change. True education never provides definitive answers. A truly educated person is in a permanent state of uncertainty. Our host, with whom I do not agree on everything, strikes me as being a truly educated person. Someone I have added to my (short) list of those I recognise as competent teachers.
Your experience reminds me of an observation from my high school time.
Some of our teachers were not as good as others, but that didn’t always result in less learning for all the students. The reason was in the fact that some of the smarter students wanted to outsmart the teacher and spent a lot of time in going through all kind of extra material and collaborated in analyzing that material.
Similar observations have been common also at the university both from my years as a student and later years as teacher. Very much is learned when active students fill gaps left by the teaching either alone or as a group. That appears to have very much value at least in engineering education as that prepares students to that kind of readiness for independent and collaborative work that they must be able to do after graduation. It’s often difficult to create as educative situations by purpose as have been created by negligence. I have often wondered, how the purposeful actions could best mimic the favorable results of negligence without the unfavorable ones that are likely to dominate the outcome of negligence.
Looking again at the material of the original post and at the syllabus of the course of Kim Cobb, I realized that the course has much in common with an introductory course on energy that I gave annually during my years (1999-2010) as a professor of Energy Economics at the Helsinki University of Technology (now part of Aalto University).
The principal audience of the course was formed by students of Energy Engineering but it was attended also by many students of other fields. My view was (and still is) that it’s important for the beginning students to have a better context for their later more specialized studies. Unfortunately the course was in Finnish and furthermore created originally, when slides were on transparencies for overhead projector. Much of the material was also taken from sources that could certainly be used in the auditorium, but not distributed openly on net. For part of the course I could also use a Finnish language book produced by my previous employer with my contribution in writing several chapters. Based on this background I cannot give any relevant links to the course material.
I can only list briefly that the course covered the structure of energy use in Finland and more briefly elsewhere, energy resources (fossil, nuclear and renewable), environmental issues including climate change, and economic issues including in particular energy markets.
Oil resources and climate change received a little more attention than many other themes partly, because there’s more material that I felt to be appropriate and interesting on them than on some other issues, which may otherwise be as important.
Still a comment on teaching on controversies.
I have found the best choice to be that I tell clearly my own views trying to explain also where others disagree and why I have the views that I have. That approach means that I tell also how certain I’m on my own views.
Explaining where the views of others disagree and why can certainly be misused by presenting their arguments erroneously. I haven’t seen any reason to do that consciously but it’s unavoidable that I haven’t always understood their arguments correctly and have misrepresented them for that purpose.
Judith,
The last time we discussed this I did make the point that, regardless of the shape of the distribution, the actual sensitivity (whatever that really is) is equally likely to be higher or lower than any estimated range. You didn’t argue with that statement.
Furthermore, the effect of AGW isn’t just a 21st century issue. We’ll all be just as dead in the year 2099 as 2199 and beyond. So why should this century be the only one considered? You’ll have read John Archers book “The Long Thaw”. There he make the point that AGW will be an irreversible process which will last for thousands of years.
“The Long Thaw”? We can but hope it continues. CO2 has had and will have nothing to do with that, of course.
…says Brian with 100% certainty for this fact-free assertion.
I tot I thaw a thaw, but tweety birds freeze clawed to twigs.
==============
Michael;
Outside of the video-game worlds of the GCMs, all the facts are aligned with my statement. Deal.
The Long Turgid Thaw
tempterrain
Tony B has also written a very informative post on “the long slow thaw”, which I’m sure you will recall. His study shows that we’ve had warming/cooling cycles back to the 16th century (which don’t appear to have had much to do with human GHG emissions).
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/#more-6022
Max
Assignment to students to verify the following hole in Man Made Global Warming.
a) Global Mean temperature (GMT) => http://bit.ly/zISeEo
For the period from 1880 to 1940, GMT increased by about 0.35 deg C.
For the period from 1940 to 2000, GMT increased by about nearly the same 0.35 deg C.
b) Human CO2 emission => http://bit.ly/wD1SZj
For the period from 1880 to 1940, CO2 emission increased by about 150 G-ton.
For the period from 1940 to 2000, CO2 emission increased by about 840 G-ton.
How come the increase in CO2 emission by 460% has not caused any change in the increase in the GMT?
Whenever I am exploring a arguments for a particular position on a topic I spend a bit of time reading the writings of the its best proponents. Once I feel I have a basic understanding of the position, I will spend a more time reading the best critics.
I have always found that I can gain a better sense of the strength of an argument by reading its critics rather than its proponents. Lots of proponents can dress up an argument that sounds convincing upon first exposure, but that quickly falls apart when scrutinized by the opposition. On the other hand, if the critics argument is weak and unconvincing, then the proponents argument becomes that much more convincing.
Somewhat similarly I find that I learn much more about the quality of a book on Amazon by reading the negative reviews than the positive reviews. If the book is really good, the negative reviews will be lame. On the other hand, I frequently find books with many positive reviews that have a relatively high overall positive rating, but which have some convincing,well thought out negative reviews. I generally avoid such books.
If the consensus scientists are really convinced of the strength of their position, they are definitely pursuing a poor strategy. Instead of trying to mute their critics, they should be highlighting their work. I become very suspicious of any position, when its proponents think their best strategy is to ignore critics.
The climate issue is difficult to handle in argumentation, because the evidence is sparse. There’s a lot of evidence, but it doesn’t have the structure that would allow for straightforward logical arguments to prove very much. When the evidence if of such nature it’s easy to find weaknesses in any single piece of evidence, but the proponents may still have good reasons to believe that the balance of all evidence is strong.
That situation leads to the problem that even specialists form their overall judgment based to a large extent of evidence that they understand only superficially and on the trust on the specialists of the other subfields. Everybody outside of the field climate science is forced to trust the subjective judgments of the scientists on most important issues.
That no more directly understandable evidence is available is a fact that doesn’t prove that the main stream view is not correct, but it leaves valid reasons for distrust. Every time any of the well known scientists is caught of claiming more than he can justify, trust of the main stream scientists will be decreased. Many of them have chosen the approach of trying to convince the public by simplifying the issues and presenting them as more certain than they really are. Non-scientist activists have done the same on much larger scale and making stronger overstatements. That approach worked for a while, but that approach has certainly had many negative influences in the credibility of the scientists and thus an opposite effect in longer term.
But where are we now? It’s still true that there’s a lot of evidence, but it has become only more difficult to judge, what to conclude of that. The scientists cannot present really convincing arguments, but that doesn’t by itself prove anything in either direction.
How to make all this clear to students at any level of education giving the right balance on the overall picture?
Pekka, excellent comment. Its the complex system problem.
Well said, Pekka. Basically I hope to teach the concept of the debatability of science at the frontier of knowledge. The problem is that in K-12 we are teaching stuff that is from 50 to 400 years old, so there is nothing debatable about it any more, not at the level we are teaching it.
Pekka,
You said “There’s a lot of evidence, but it doesn’t have the structure that would allow for straightforward logical arguments to prove very much. When the evidence if of such nature it’s easy to find weaknesses in any single piece of evidence, but the proponents may still have good reasons to believe that the balance of all evidence is strong.”
My reading of this is you are saying when you have a lot of weak evidence this results in strong evidence i.e. weak evidence is additive. I have a problem with this. Am I interpreting your position correctly? If so, how would you justify this?
Just curious …
(Second attempt at posting – it looks like the first one didn’t work.)
Hugh,
Additive may be a bit strong word, but putting together multiple weak evidence does indeed create stronger overall evidence than any of the parts can provide. That is true in case that opposite evidence is also taken properly into account and found to be significantly less. When each piece of evidence is rather weak by itself it is essential that the same criteria of acceptance to the process are applied to all evidence and that no preselection is applied to the process of collecting evidence. Cherry picking will destroy the value of conclusions based on variety of weak evidence.
David’s comment made me think that the following text that I just wrote in another thread is relevant here as well (perhaps a bit sarcastic, but true in my experience):
It is a general truth that a major fraction of all scientific papers are of little real value except that they are needed to keep the scientists working. Valuable results are often created, when a seemingly less important research leads the scientist to an unexpected observation. If they wouldn’t be doing that other and apparently less important research they wouldn’t have had the change of hitting the important one either. Many papers are written also by young scientists, who are still learning the craft.
My view is that this state of matter is unavoidable, but that means also that nobody should put very much value on any single paper (or any single author) before it’s value has been confirmed by further development.
Much of the discussion about controversies is based on unrealistic expectations on, what science can be in practice. The best journals with tightest requirements in peer review fare better in keeping up the quality, but they have their lapses as well.
Pekka says:
“Much of the discussion about controversies is based on unrealistic expectations on, what science can be in practice.”
I strongly disagree that the expectations are unrealistic. Science can be much better in practice, without the suppression and dogma. Much, much better.
If you really want to teach about the “debatability of science at the frontier of knowledge” then stay away from anything strongly linked to politics and choose something where the dust has settled at least a bit.
A good example, because it is relatively recent (so is well-documented), would be theories on the origin of the universe. The steady staters are very much on the back foot now, but they continue to press the big bangers with challenges, even if we are at the stage where most of the steady staters are emeritus.
It teaches students that strong and differing opinions can be held, maintained and supported without any really big financial incentives or political aims. And the teacher cannot be accused of any sort of political bias by parents (as long as you rule out discussion of creationism – darn I forgot that bit!)
(as long as you rule out discussion of creationism – darn I forgot that bit!)
So did I (is there anything not affected by that?):
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/22/teaching-the-controversy-2/#comment-174085
Pekka,
Well, I sort of agree. A lot of weak evidence is stronger than a small amount of weak evidence. However, I don’t think that a lot of weak evidence amounts to *strong* evidence … it’s just not as weak
:)
Perhaps it’s just a matter of semantics …
Hugh Whalen – Multiple pieces of “weak evidence” can be additive, sub-additive, or even synergistic, depending on their independence from each other, their degree of interaction, and the strength or weakness of contradictory evidence. This is well known to trial prosecuters, who can sometimes build a convincing case from a combination of separate pieces of circumstantial evidence, each of which has a significant probability of an alternative, innocent explanation, but where the combined probability that all pieces are evidence are innocent is very low.
Of course, independent pieces of evidence can be antagonistic at times, as in the story of the woman indignant because her neighbor had accused her of cracking the vase the neighbor had lent her.
“In the first place”, she said, “You never lent me any vase.”
” Second, I returned it in perfect condition.”
” And in the third place, it was already cracked when I got it!”
Lawyers of course sometimes get by with conflicting alternative explanations, but it’s less convincing in science.
“weak evidence”
Think of it this way: Is a chain of many weak links stronger than a chain with a few weak links?
Is a logical progession better because it has more fallacies in it?
Pekka is arguing nonsense.
Andrew
But, it’s weak nonsense.
With such opposition I cannot be wrong ;-)
The analogy of the “chain” of evidence is not a bad one.
We all know that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
The “weak link” of the IPCC’s CAGW hypothesis today is that it is not supported by empirical scientific evidence (based on reproducible experimentation or real-time physical observations).
This “weak link” is critical to the whole chain and is the basis for the “controversy”
As long as this “weak link” is emphasized when teaching the IPCC “consensus” CAGW premise, teachers are presenting a balanced viewpoint.
If this is omitted in the teaching, they are simply brainwashing their pupils with a one-sided position.
Max
Wojick talking “debatability” of science is nonsense.
Missed in all this was John Mashey’s compilation of fake science released last week.
“With such opposition I cannot be wrong”
Pekka, since you are a Warmer, why don’t you go forge some documents that support your claims? ;)
Andrew
Lawyers would argue it’s not a chain but a rope. While each strand (piece of evidence) may be weak, it adds to the strength of the rope.
I don’t agree fully but that is the argument.
Fred, look up the Prosecutor’s Fallacy … it may have some relevance here. I mean, really, do you want science to closely associated with lawyers? :)
Hugh – Thanks for the rope analogy, which is better for climate evidence than the chain link analogy. The latter works well when a single piece of contradictory evidence can largely refute a proposition, but climate evidence is characterized by the inconclusiveness of all its individual elements, which is why the multiple strands of rope works better as a metaphor.
I’m familiar with the prosecutor’s fallacy. Regarding lawyers, I would prefer climate science to be characterized by less advocacy and more objectivity, but in fact that is largely true in the literature, and unfortunately much less so in blogs and popular media.
“climate evidence is characterized by the inconclusiveness of ALL its individual elements”
I love it when Warmers say stuff like this. Especially the ALL. lol
Andrew
Fred,
I would characterize myself as somewhere between neutral and a mild skeptic. I think both sides have a case but neither is as strong as they think it is.
I have changed my mind in the past. I started out as a strong warmest – the first book I read about this was (I believe) Hothouse Earth. The more I read, the less convinced I became. I was at one time a strong skeptic. Now, I’m just not sure…
Just my take on the evidence.
BTW: God, I love this blog. Lots of insanity but lots of thought provoking posts. One can’t ask for more than that…
Fred Moolten: climate evidence is characterized by the inconclusiveness of all its individual elements, which is why the multiple strands of rope works better as a metaphor.
All? That is a pretty skeptical point of view toward anthropogenic greenhouse gas induced global warming.
Pekka Pirila: The climate issue is difficult to handle in argumentation, because the evidence is sparse.
I think that’s a fair summary, and the rest of the post is well-written also.
I would agree, wouldn’t I? because I have written that the science has omissions, approximations of unknown (probably high but not high enough) accuracy, and all the parameters are estimated with non-ignorable random variation (including random instrumentation errors, but not limited to those.)
MattStat – The antonym of inconclusive is conclusive. If any one piece of evidence on controversial elements of climate change were conclusive, there would be no need for multiple lines of evidence. However, inconclusive doesn’t mean inconsequential. If we add enough highly consequential and independent pieces of evidence together, we can often derive conclusions that are very likely to be true even if no one of those pieces taken individually were capable of doing that.
That’s not an atypical situation in science, and in fact was true of the evidence linking cigarette smoking causally to human cancer. There is not any single piece of evidence that settles that question conclusively, but the total weight of evidence is overwhelming.
“There is not any single piece of evidence that settles that question conclusively, but the total weight of evidence is overwhelming.”
But you are a fervent believer that there is overwhelming evidence to support conclusive with regards to AGW. Astonishing.
Likewise, it’s true that I can have a high degree of confidence that a number of claims are true, I can have a simultaneously high degree of confidence that at least one of them will be wrong.
But Michael,
Your confidence comes from a belief in unobserved facts.
My confidence comes from observational facts, not a belief.
Big difference.
The rope is a poor analogy. Too much of the rope’s strength is hidden from view.
The chain of weak and strong links is a better visual, but one must map the network of links. A chain of serial links is indeed only as strong as its weakest link. Links in parallel potentially add strength. But a map of the links is vital to know whether a seemingly strong assembly of 100 parallel chains all depend upon a few common weak links stressed to their yield points.
Markus,
So you believe.
Markus, cold is a comparative term not a measurement, whereas heat is the amount of energy present, temperature is the measurement of a particular form of that energy. So in layman’s terms one could say it’s colder but in science one would identify, via measurement, an actual amount of energy.
Cold energy does not exist, except in the minds of those who study acidtripology (Urban Dictionary).
Ah Mr Beesaman, please try and be critical, potential energy does not hold heat, therefor is cold. Care to tell me what that measurement is?
Ah Mr Beeasman, please try and be critical.
The Earth is in equilibrium temperature, flux absorbed is precisely equal to flux emitted.
The S-B calculations for the temp of the earth putting it at 279 K is correct. The measured surface temps of 288K are correct and the atmospheric gases account for the 9˚ difference, not the 33˚ difference claimed by the IPCC.
My climate sensitivity claim has colder energy of 366%. no matter what dictionary I f’ing use.
steven mosher | February 23, 2012 at 12:50 am |
Jones explained that they had corrected Lambs mistake in the literature, BUT to preserve his reputation they published the correction in an obscure journal.
Care to discuss that?
It is simple and ironic at the same time, Lamb established CRU.
Climatic Research Unit is housed in the Hubert Lamb Building, and is part of the School of Environmental Sciences, in the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Mosh and Vuk
I have read most of Lambs work and commented on the graph in my article
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
He was more right than wrong in his interpretations of the past climate whereas Dr Mann was more wrong than he was right.
The graph can be no more than broadly representative although I think the warming around the 1500’s was slighty underdone.
Can you provide the article from the obscure journal please?
tonyb
Lamb’s graph since 1600 is verified by an unexpected proxy – change in the Earth’s magnetic field.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETlmt.htm
OT
Relativity rules. OK!
It appears that the faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was due to a mistake after all. A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html
Good grief, I thought I’d take a quick look at CE before heading to bed, it’s now 12.30 a.m. and I’m usually awake by 5! A very enjoyable thread, but I’ll pay for it tomorrow! Hasta la vista.
Dr. Curry,
Came across David W’s comment at HuffPo, four days ago, as follows:
‘DavidWojick
Commented 4 days ago in Education
‘It is true that DOE has not funded me to do climate research, but they have funded me to do science education research. Under a DOE SBIR grant my team of teachers developed a model of the concept structure of K-16 science education. The result for DOE was a search algorithm that sees the grade level of science education writing. The prototype is running on http://www.scienceeducation.gov. They also fund me to study the cognitive structure of science itself, in order to improve their science communication database systems.
My expertise in the climate science debate comes from 20 years of study. My Ph.D. is in the philosophy of science, especially the logic of complex issues. My funding comes from free lance writing and policy analysis. While climate scientists study climate, I study their reasoning.
These two research thrusts came together when I noticed that almost all of the Web-based educational resources on climate change merely parrot the company line about dangerous human induced warming. There is very little on the scientific debate, which I see as one of the great scientific debates in history. So I have set out to fill this void. The debate is now so widespread that any science teacher who cannot demonstrate knowledge of it will quickly lose credibility. But the grand challenge is that scientific controversy is not typically taught in K-12, even though it is the heart of the scientific frontier. This is the fun part.’
original here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/DavidWojick/heartland-institute-leak_b_1282906_135941145.html
Kip, thanks for this link, i hadn’t seen it
“not quite sure about the content of the 10-15%”
I think you have a good idea, Judith. Why do you so often pretend you don’t know things?
Kim says unequivocally that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning is warming the planet globally and describes this as “settled science”; Kim says that AGW is seriously threatening coral reefs; Kim attends clean diesel conferences; Kim openly praises and supports Al Gore’s activities and overall contribution to education on climate change; and Kim teaches a course that actively engages students in emissions reductions.
Etc.
what’s clean diesel got to do with climate change?
It ain’t what ya know, it’s what ya know that ain’t so.
=================
Yes, Mothra, we know you vouch for Kim’s piety.
Martha,
You just damaged Kim Cobb’s credibility rather badly.
Martha, what you write reads as if it might be logical, but it is not. It contains a fatal and fundamental flaw. You write
“Kim says unequivocally that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning is warming the planet globally and describes this as “settled science”;”
I am not sure I like the “settled science”, but, basically this statement is correct. You then go on to say
“Kim says that AGW is seriously threatening coral reefs; …….Kim openly praises and supports Al Gore’s activities and overall contribution to education on climate change; and Kim teaches a course that actively engages students in emissions reductions. ”
as if this follows logically from the first sentence. It does not. And this is what you, Kim Cobb, and the rest of the proponents of CAGW refuse to discuss. The point is, not that CO2 causes global temperatures to rise; the issue is how much does CO2 cause global temperatures to rise. The proponents of CAGW claim that this rise is “catastrophic”. Dr. Curry thinks the uncertainties are so large that we cannot be sure. The opponents of CAGW claim that the numbers are scientific nonsense; they are based on highly dubius science, and the output of non-validated modlels.
This issue needs to be discussed, but on a sound scientific basis; namely the hard, measured, observed data. The fact of the matter is that the global temperature/time graph demonstrates clearly that the CO2 added to the atmosphere in recent years has absolutely no discernable effect on temperatures.
But until you are prepared to discuss this issue, it will be a dialogue of the deaf between the two sides.
Jim,
As Gleick shows, and Martha demonstrates contantly, the deafness and boorishness is really coming from one side- the believers.
The coral reef-damage-by-CO2 is at best a weak claim. There is no direct evidence at all that increased CO2 has caused anything close to the sort of changes in ocean chemistry or temperatures to harm reefs at all.
There are assertions and arrogant dismissals and ignoring of questions, but no evidence.
Martha asks Dr Curry:
”
Why do you so often pretend you don’t know things?
”
Because it fits the narrative that the dear ‘denizens’ crave.
Because an open-ended policy question is a far less boring topic for debate than a quantifiable scientific answer.
Because parenthetical question-marks are more exciting reading with coffee and cake than confidence intervals.
See:
Teaching (?) the Controversy
Consensus or not (?)
Climate and Energy Policies: Two Sides of the Same Coin (?)
Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all
Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach
Not 100% sure?
False(?) Positives
Too big to know
The new climate dice
And – uncertainty monsters are everywhere.
It is almost enough to make one wonder if there could possibly be vested interests in actively fostering uncertainty in the public’s understanding of climate science…
Oh, the complexity!
CNP
You start off with a good observation on the use of question marks in headlines, but then blow it all with a silly conclusion of why our host here frequently does this..
A question mark denotes “uncertainty”.
There is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the quantifiable science supporting the IPCC “mainstrean consensus” CAGW claim, and the various related topics, which our host has brought up here.
And, yes, the question mark gets everyone’s attention.
A question for you: Why are there no question marks in IPCC AR4 ?
(Is it because “the science is settled?”)
Max
”
A question for you: Why are there no question marks in IPCC AR4 ?
”
Good question. :-)
Maybe it’s because the AR4 isn’t a daily blog post full of leading questions and conjectures.
BTW – When people say “the” science is settled, they reveal a charmingly simple world where “science” has produced only one all-encompassing result.
Really, though, things are just a bit more subtle:
Some science is settled, some isn’t.
Better to pretend you don’t know that you do than to pretend to know things that you don’t.
Since I’m an empathic psychic, it’s clear to me What Kim would say she disagrees with.
Martha
You gave me quite a turn there as the world turned briefly upside down. You presumably mean Kim Cotton rather than our own and much more famous KIm of the slick one liners :)
tonyb
er, she’s Cobb, as in Genghis, er Angus, oh, yes, Titus Cobb, the Geowja Peach. Movin’ to the country.
==============
I meant Cobb not Cotton-I had just read a post by Doug Cotton. I suspect they are both a tiny little bit apart with their thinking.
tonyb
It has not been legal to teach faith-based material in the US for years. That being the case, we should not be teaching the consensus not the skeptic view of climate. We should teach what we can observe and leave our speculations out of the classroom. It is not difficult – climate change is a reality. Global warming is a belief. The record of climate change is all around us while global warming as a danger has yet to be observed or proved. It really is ok to say “I don’t know” regarding the likelihood of future detrimental global warming. It is not ok to observe that the evidence necessary for that to be a reality does not show up in the data but to then go on as if it did.
Before controversial science can be understood the uncontroversial basics must be understood. In regard to K-12 there is far more of uncontroversial science to learn than there is time to learn it. Leave the ginned up culture war crap out the classroom.
That said, my opinion and yours should only count in the public school in your community. If people would mind their own business and stay out of everyone elses a lot of problems would go away.
Let us not forget the well known AGW scientist ‘Tiny Tim’, who led the way in training children K-12 in 1968, all about the melting ice caps and the new world that awaited mankind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DEoOdcYKbc
But we still don’t understand how he knew…
Did Tiny Tim get a Nobel Peace Prize, too?
(He at least deserved an Oscar.)
Max
In 1968 the ‘consensus science’ was the next Ice Age is nigh, but ‘the flower generation’ did and thought opposite to everything ‘consensus’.
Indoctrinate them young and they are yours for life.
Did you recognised any of now familiar AGW faces among those kids ?
OK.
Let’s look at this 1960s video clip more closely.
Is the serious-looking long-haired little girl on the left Martha?
And the cute little girl with the pig-tails on the far right, could it be…?
The mind boggles.
Max
Girma | February 23, 2012 at 5:15 am | Reply
“How come the increase in CO2 emission by 460% has not caused any change in the increase in the GMT?”
CO2’s effectiveness, per molecule, at absorbing/re-radiating thermal energy decreases with an increasing number of molecules.
I use an analogy of apple pickers in an orchard. The apples are units of thermal energy and the pickers are CO2. If you have few pickers compared to the number of apple trees the pickers don’t compete with each other and each individual has available to him enough low hanging to pick as fast as he can possibly go. Increasing the number of pickers will always increase the harvest speed but once you reach a point where the pickers are competing with each other than producitivity per picker goes down. This is commonly called a case of diminishing returns.
CO2 concentration and ability to raise equilibrium temperature of solid surfaces which can absorb thermal radiation is a case of diminishing returns.
Coincidentally anthropogenic production of CO2 since about 1750 (shortly after the invention of the steam engine) has risen at a pace that closely matches the rate of diminishing returns of CO2. John Tyndall circa 1859 discovered the diminishing returns of what were then called calorific gases. Infrared radiation back in those days were called calorific rays.
So in reality you’ve just made an argument that supports anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming by noting that temperature has been rising steadily while anthropogenic CO2 emission has grown exponentially.
David Springer
Not really.
This logic ONLY works if there were no other factors that influence our planet’s climate.
As we know all too well from the past 11 (or 15) years, this is NOT so.
CO2 (the principal anthropogenic GHG) has continued to rise exponentially (at a rate of between 0.4 and 0.5% per year compounded), but temperature has actually cooled slightly.
So it’s “back to the drawing board” for your premise.
Max
Is the subject of global warming really as complicated as some have made it here and other places. Consider these two articles from the 1970`s. From Science News March 1, 1975..”Most climate scientists now expect a full-blown 10,000 year ice age”….or this one from Science Magazine on Dec. 10th 1976…”Climate Scientists are united in their prediction of extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”
These were just two of the many similar stories and articles written in this period. Now the global warming advocates expect people of common sense to believe that a little bit of warming from 1980 to 1995 seals the deal and the debate is over.
I suspect that you are misinterpreting both quotes (if they are correct quotes). One relevant paper from your latter reference states:
“A model of future climate based on the observed orbital-climate relationships, but ignoring anthropogenic effects, predicts that the long-term trend over the next sevem thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”
So as you can see they are looking at orbital forcings and *specifically* ignoring impact of anthropogenic forcings.
@Girma (con’t)
The case above for AGW, while supporting the overall case, undermines the case for catastrophic AGW. You see, GMT has only risen about 0.7C since 1750. That’s only 0.03C per decade. CAGW requires warming about 5 times faster. So what the climate boffins have done is told everyone to ignore what happened before 1950 and focus on what happened from 1950 – 2000 which, as luck and natural cycles would have it, warmed about 0.07C. Now the calculation becomes 0.14C per decade which is bordering on alarming were it to continue unabated. Then they go further off the reservation and claim the rate will accelerate lest CO2 production stops growing.
So you see, in reality AGW is quite small per decade and to keep it going at the historic pace since 1750 actually requires a constantly increasing annual anthropogenic emission of CO2.
When you add in the numerous benefits of higher CO2 concentration and slightly higher land temperatures at higher northern hemisphere locations the alarmism should really be a celebration of our good fortune and long term planning should be around of how do we keep the wonderful benefits of CO2 going beyond the point where there is cheap abundant fossil fuel to produce it.
In the above to Girma warming from 1950-2000 should read 0.7C not 0.07C although it should have been clear from the surrounding context the decimal point was in the wrong place.
You are completely ignoring the stated purpose of the “teaching the controversy” ruse:
[quote]Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools…His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – [b]two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.[/b] – January 2012 Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy.[/quote]
Discouraging the teaching of science is Heartland’s goal. Promoting science denial via propaganda authored by a non-scientist with an avowed hatred of what he calls “the great green menace” is not about advancing alternate perspectives — it’s about trying to convince teachers to steer clear of the whole issue.
Science denial should be taught in history and sociology classes as an interesting and important phenomenon. Real science should be taught in science classes, not fake science.
Robert –
Unwittingly the funniest thing you’ve ever said. You say fake science shouldn’t be taught in schools, yet in the same comment quote from a fake document fabrigated by Peter Gleick, he of the ‘alarmist’ ethics and CAGW lies.
Don’t you get it?
Robert -” Real science should be taught in science classes, not fake science.”
That is precisely why the climate establishment should never be allowed around our children.
Robert
You left out a word.
Let me correct your text.
Should read:
Makes good sense to me.
Max
“Don’t you get it?”
Fab, c’mon… it’s Roberta. ;)
Andrew
It is very clear from many posts on this blog that the US education system has not succeeded in teaching the basic very well established physics of radiative transfer through the atmosphere to many adults who are interested in the subject. It seems to me that this should be the focus before any discussion of controversies in the subject
***BREAKING NEWS ****
Gleick, Mandia, Curry to be interviewed on NPR 2 pm EST
Is there an agenda for the interview?
Who will be asking the questions?
i think the moderater’s name is Larry? didn’t catch the last name. should be 30 min segment, starting with gleick interview
Have fun! I am skeptical of the reasons why it is you and those two.
Moderator is “Larry”?
Will “Moe” and “Curly” also be there?
Judith
Thanks for heads up.
Max
Will a recording be available? If so, might I ask where? TIA
Nobody from Heartland !
I’m delighted they’d go so far as to invite you Judith. I doubt they’d have done this a year ago. I see this as a positive development. Heretofore, it’s been wall to wall hockey team members on NPR. Slowly, surely, the idea that there is an actual debate going on seems to be sinking in.
Not finding it. Boston area…WBUR and WGBH…Assumed it would be on Talk of the Nation on WBUR
No joy on the left coast either, San Francisco KQED has Talk of the Nation but no Judith … dang.
We’d be doing well by teaching K-12 students basic reasoning skills instead of scientific controversies for which they don’t have the tools to make reasoned decisions. Perhaps non-U.S. posters here are unaware of how badly our K-12 students perform in math and science relative to other countries? We’re currently duking it out with Mexico—I expect that we’ll lose that one, too, and sink even lower. And teachers of these subjects are not much better. We have smart scientists, but over a long period of time the myriad reasons to avoid teaching careers (low pay, running the gauntlet of useless administrators, dealing with helicopter parents, etc.) have driven all but the most dedicated of the bright ones away. So how will students be taught about global warming that won’t amount to teachers who are barely scientifically literate opening a holy book and reciting scripture?
Presumably someone will ask Gleick directly if he faked the document..
And why.
ie the one with the clues that led Mosher, et all to Gleick.. These clues were ONLY in the document that Heartland state is a fake…
Whether any particular event drove him to it (moment madness) or was it a planed calculated action on his part.
This is serious – DeSmogblog claim ‘authenticated’… by themselves
Dr Curry,
Teaching (?) the controversy is very likely one of your most important threads.
There is a lot of disagreement on what should be taught. I hope we get this right.
NPR debrief: Peter Gleick was not on the show (the staffer I talked with said he would be; maybe they were just trying to get him to be on the show). About 20 mins, JC and Scott Mandia. They were interested in climate scientists’ perspective on this. Mandia and I gave starkly different responses, pretty predictable from our previous public statements on this.
So overall, not a big event.
Gleick has already fallen on the sword for the cause. I wouldn’t expect anything more from him at all. Having done his duty for the movement, he will now be trying to minimize his exposure.
The reluctance of believers to confront this problem realistically is increasing the “yuck” factor of the AGW community as a whole.
We’re not going to take any lectures from people who pretend to be awfully shocked by possible unlawful behaviour by some people after they have applauded it when done by others.
We shouldn’t be shocked by unethical behaviour from the Chair of the AGU’s Committee on Scientific Ethics? Should we expect more of this?
Andrew adams
Long gone are the days when the AGW crowd gets any say in the manner which sceptics demand moral behavior be corrected. You may not be in the mood for being lectured so what you’ll end up taking is being told in no uncertain circumstances, by sceptics, that you and your ilk are to cease & desist.
Markus,
You can tell us to do whatever you like. It doesn’t mean we are going to give a sh*t.
kch,
I said in a previous thread that Gleick was wrong to do what he did given the position he is in. What I object to is people feigning outrage at supposed unlawful behaviour when they have applauded such behaviour by others.
Either we are prepared to sometimes condone unlawful actions which result in the release of information which is in the public interest or we are not. Personaly I am prepared to do so, it would seem from their reaction to “climategate” that most skeptics are as well. So I’m not buying any claims that the skeptics have any kind of moral high ground here.
Andrew Adams –
You spread the tar with too broad a brush. Much of the outrage – mine included – is not feigned. It’s real, and is based on *who* committed the unethical/illegal acts: a man who used his prominence and authority to hector his opponents about ethics. I would have the same outraged reaction if McIntyre was to reveal himself as the originator of the climategate emails. I would not be outraged if the HI documents or the climategate emails came from some low rent hacker who was just trying to help the cause – that kind of thing I expect.
Unlike you, I am not prepared to condone illegal actions, even when conducted in support of my beliefs. If Gleick committed illegal actions, prosecute him. If FOIA committed illegal actions, prosecute him. To believe otherwise, to believe ‘the ends justify the means’, can have no good outcome for us as free individuals. I won’t claim any general moral high ground for skeptics over believers (I won’t speak for the one side any more than you speak for the other), but on this specific issue *I’ll* be more than happy to claim the moral high ground over *you*.
kch,
I said myself that Gleick’s position does put his actions in a different light than if it had been, say, one of the Desmog guys who duped Heartland into handing over the documents.
And I never said that people who break the law shouldn’t be prosecuted. The belief that it can be morally justified to break the law in order to bring information to he attention of the public does not mean that people should be above the law. If Gleick’s actions were unlawful he has to take the consequences.
If you think it is never acceptable to break the law for such a purpose then that’s fine, it’s a perfectly defensible ethical position, but then you can’t defend the release of the “climategate” emails regardless of who was responsible.
Andrew Adams –
“And I never said that people who break the law shouldn’t be prosecuted. The belief that it can be morally justified to break the law in order to bring information to he attention of the public does not mean that people should be above the law.”
Thanks for clarifying – we probably aren’t all that far apart, after all.
As for the climategate emails, *I* have never defended the actions of a hacker breaking in. If it was an internal whistleblower, otoh, he would seem to have some protection under British law. Not enough information as yet to make a blanket statement on condemnation/indifference/approval. When we know, I’ll be happy to tell you what we all should think (*grin*).
kch
OK, fair enough.
My reading of British whistleblower legislation suggests it would not cover the circumstances of climategate but I’ve no great desire to play the armchair lawyer. Maybe one day we’ll find out for sure.
Judith Curry
Too bad Gleick was not there (NPR).
You mention that you and Scott Mandia “gave starkly different responses, pretty predictable from our previous public statements on this”.
Care to elaborate?
(Know you’r busy, but I’m sure the “denizens” would be interested).
Thanks,
Max
Judith,
Brief appreciated.
I was at a Starbucks across the street from KQED getting my daily triple venti cappuccino fix during your interview. No one I asked knew anything about your interview. So, it must have not been, as you said, a big event. : )
There was no word to you about possible airing times?
John
It was a live interview, aired in real time.
“AirTalk with Larry Mantle”
89.3 KPCC 89.1 KUOR 90.3 KPCV
A Southern California Public Radio station
here is the link
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2012/02/23/22646/heartland-leak
It was an interesting dialog between Drs. Mandia and Curry, and maybe they didn’t disagree as much as first seems. Dr. Mandia said it was a noble and heroic thing to use a false name and subterfuge to sneak into the private files of an organization dedicated to undermining the public good, and Dr. Curry said scientists shouldn’t lie.
It seems clear that Peter Gleick was the wrong man for the job.
Dr. Curry, I caught the last ten minutes while driving this morning. My thought was how unequivocal Mandia sounded in comparison to you. Good show anyway. Larry is one of the fairest point-counterpoint talk radio hosts around.
I listened to the podcast and I must say Mandia sounded pretty unconvincing. He was asked some tough questions and had to admit that he had to apologize to journalists for his ignorance of journalistic ethics. Judith should have thought about her statements before the broadcast as she did come off as unprepared and somewhat equivical. She could have easily challenged Mandia on his obviously unethical stance and his sunny view that somehow this was no big deal.
Sorry I didn’t see earlier that Professor Curry, Dr. Peter Gleick and Mandia (?) were to be interviewed on NPR.
Thanks for being there, Professor Curry.
How did it go? Was the NPR spokesperson concerned that the public received misinformation? Or was he more concerned for the tarnished images of environmentalism, AGW, AGU and Dr. Gleick?
After the response of NPR to Climategate emails and documents (Nov 2009), I concluded that NPR – like BBC – was an instrument of propaganda instead of operating in the public interest.
As far as I can tell, it did not air live. Can you tell us what show it is?
Much to my utter amazement, for the first time in recent memory, NPR aired a reasonably balanced story on the subject. Christopher Joyce’s piece on “Gleickgate” can be found here: http://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147263862/climate-scientist-admits-to-lying-leaking-documents?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:0910eb98-1322-4e4a-b68a-758edcdadc6f
That article all but ignored the faked “strategy” document, except for a quote from Heartland’s president Joseph Bast.
“Bast says one of the documents that Gleick circulated, a two-page ‘strategy’ that casts Heartland in the worst light, is a forgery. He says an internal investigation shows that ‘that document did not originate in this organization. There’s no trace of that document anywhere in a Heartland office computer.'”
No follow up, no analysis of the statements that were faked, or their explosion in the CAGW blogoshpere until Heartland denied its authenticity.
Believe me, it’s a miracle when NPR even breathes a word suggesting dissent from the CAGW gospel.
You just got linked by Instapundit. Prepare for traffic.
Thx for the heads up. I just checked, i’m getting a lot of hits from pjmedia today. overall traffic today is about half what it was on Tues (all time record for climate etc).
I hope some young person is approaching their thesis adviser and wants to do their PhD on: “The Intersection of Science and Politics at Internet speed” with this topic central to the research.
The Navier Stokes differential equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density. They are non-linear, chaotic, and show sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Errors in initial measurements double quickly over time so that distant predictions based on any finite set of past states are of no value. This has been known since the 1963 paper “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow” by Edward Lorenz. Predictions of distant future states based on past measurements are not valid. Policies based on the pretense that future states can be predicted are not justified by science.
Oh, I read Randy’s book “Don’t be Such a Scientist”. It was rather sad. I felt like another potentially good Jedi had been seduced by the dark side.
What should be taught in schools? (K-12???)
I think my own interest in weather started in primary when I was moved to the front to become weather monitor. I think it was a punishment, but I found it great fun taking the measurements each day.
But these days, it would be impossible. For a start kids wouldn’t be allowed past the door in Scotland. It would be assumed the water was contaminated, and the thermometer had mercury.
I thin the other area where I learned much of my science was sticking bits of paper and toilet rolls together. Looking back, it was always a challenge getting the toilet roll to stick. Great thing for learning about materials, about shapes, how e.g. cylinders look when cut at an angle.
It really comes down to being able to interact with the world in a creative way. to investigate, discover, etc.
Problem these days, is that my children aren’t allowed toilet rolls, and I suspect they get their “creativity” in a pack with a set of intructions which teach them how to be a assembly line worker and not a scientist.
As for climate …. I learnt a lot through geography. In my day it meant the kind of weather you could expect on a foreign trip. Then there was all the weather maps we used to have (before nanny BBC decided they were too difficult for the poor audience … i.e arts graduates in the BBC didn’t understand them … whereas most other people did).
As for controversy in science. Of course there is controversy. The problem is that teachers don’t want to complicate a subject by suggesting that there is not one answer.
But the real problem is the lack of teaching of the philosophy of science. What is the basis of the scientific method … it isn’t science, it is philosophy. The problem is that modern science courses no longer teach the philosophical basis so that when e.g. you get a new area like climate, which tricky problems regarding truth which can only be determined over long times and experiments are difficult … the problem is that those forming the subject were totally clueless about what they were doing and made a complete utter botch of it.
This is just another reason schools should be privatized and not run by partisan political hacks.
Ken,
Having the experience myself and through raising a child to adulthood in both the spectrum of publlic K-12 and college and the spectrum of elite private ones, I am no fan of public education in both New York State and the State of California.
Good Future Discussion Topic => Involuntary versus voluntary in the realm of idea/concept formation (education).
.
John
What controversy?
There are two.
1. Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, J Hansen et el 1981, is false.
2. Academics were unable/unwilling to disprove it because they did not submit to the theory to the scientific method.
The Theory.
The excess, ts – te, is the greenhouse effect of gases and clouds, which cause the mean radiating level to be above the surface by,
ts –te + TH
T= temperature gradient
H = Flux altitude
It is wrong and stupid for a planet with a surface of ocean. It assumes a warmer atmosphere than Oceans. It is wrong and stupid. It assumes the average for flux mechanism causing the warming of atmosphere is at some attitude within it. What nonsense. How can the mass of atmosphere be a cause of its energy? It is stupid and wrong. Atmospheric gases cool the warmth of the Ocean as it dissipates energy back to space.
The atmosphere does not warm the oceans, insolation does, as this warmth is released from the Oceans and pressure regulates the temperature of any planet’s atmosphere, not the energy within it.
Climate Scientists and many physicists really need to wake up to themselves. The first 2 meters of Oceans contain as much heat storage capacity as total of the atmosphere above it. The energy that flows from it cannot be used twice to make it warmer from a cooler atmosphere. It is a physical impossibility. There will always be a net flow of energy from oceans to atmosphere, from hot to cold. Dynamism makes it so. Full Stop. The atmosphere has a net flow of energy to space. Full Stop. Take out energy from atmosphere, it returns to a cover over the surface and you would have a climate 2C warmer by convection. Full Stop. We are 33C+- hotter because of the energy required to cause convection remains as heat until radiated. Anybody who thinks otherwise, are likely to also think the Earth has edges.
The Psychology
Climate scientists, academics and educators did not;
a) Examine and anaylsis evidence to access its validly and worth.
b) Did not weight up alternative views or search for other explanations.
c) Were not openminded and sceptical.
What the hell happened in Climate Science?
The controversy is the inability of academics, climate scientists and educators to do their job regardless of their personal social ideology.
The Enlightenment – students will be better educated in critical thinking so they can solve the great mysteries of the universe. Someting Hansen and cohort could not achieve by their blinding ideology.
don’t pretend you are arguing with Hansen. You are arguing with just about the entire scientific world.
Hmm scientific world or Markus Fitzhenry…
You don’t even have a slither of doubt that it might be YOU who is wrong do you?
No, not the entire scientific world, just the dopey warmist scientist.
Oh, Lolwot. I have Philosophy, theory and observations on my side. And yes, I will be corrected when somebody else knows more, not less like Hansen.
Entire scientific world”?
Huh?
Sorry there was no NPR broadcast including our host and Peter Gleick.
The NPR blurb is pretty “pro-Gleick” and does not question the origin of the faked Heartland document “leaked” by Gleick.
But [Heartland President John]
So I believe that this story still has legs.
I personally believe the originator of the “leaked” fake document will be exposed and I further think it is “very likely” that this will turn out to be Gleick, himself.
But I do not believe there will be criminal action against him, even if there is a civil case and even if he does turn out to be the originator.
What do you guys think?
Max
I consider it a slam-dunk that Gleick was directly involved in the forgery, but I suspect that nothing official will happen to him, as was the case with the forged documents “60 Minutes” used against President Bush two months before the 2004 election.
Dan Rather and Mary Mapes were eventually forced from their positions, though they continue to protest their innocence, as so do many of anti-Bush progressives — pretty much the same demographic keen on climate change today.
lolwot,
In all honesty, I must say you’re one of the most annoying climate trolls it’s ever been my displeasure to encounter. And that’s saying something. Even your name is enough to make me want to pick up a drink, and it’s been over 20 years.
God grant me the serenity to accept the things….etc etc..
pokerguy, just remember that when we used to drink, we would be as stupid as he is sober.
Now that is a frightening thought Doc :-)
It’s not trolling. It serves a serious purpose.
Lets say someone claims back-radiation doesn’t exist, accuses scientists of fraud, etc etc. There are three ways of dealing with that:
1) Ignore it.
2) Debate them.
3) Say it’s nonsense, laugh at them and move on.
#2 is a very bad idea. They won’t be convinced. Often these people are too far gone. Also by debating it you are lending it undue credibility as if it’s worthy of being debated. Plus it ends up filling up the comments with a debate on such a trite subject.
#1, is fine, but it lets nonsense stand.
#3, best option. Explains your thoughts without wasting time. Conveys the point that the idea is ridiculous. Onlookers can contrast that to when I take subjects more seriously.
1) Ignore it. – Glieck didn’t
2) Debate them. – Glieck didn’t
3) Say it’s nonsense, laugh at them and move on. – Gleick is definitely not laughing,and they moved him on.
Have you been drinking again?
Max,
My eyes tend to cross when it comes to close analysis in matters of this kind. Timelines, locations, etc. etc
That said, it’s my understanding that Steve Mosher and perhaps a few others speculated many days ago (before the admission) that it might be Gleick partly based on the “memo’s” writing style (word usage, grammatical peculiarities…Also that some of the specifics in the document happened to coincide with some of Gleick’s pet issues.
Moreover, if the HI says the thing is forged I’m 99 percent sure they’re telling the truth. There’s be far too much to lose were it proved they’re lying.
Gleick has already admitted to be a thief and a liar. I’ll be very surprised if it turns out not to be him.
I have no idea if there will be a criminal indictment. But I’m willing to bet he’ll be sued, especially if they can show he forged that memo.
pokerguy
I’d agree with you that Gleick will probably be sued by Heartland and that in any civil trial he will be forced to divulge the name of the originator of the faked document (and this will probably be Gleick himself – unless he can find a fall guy).
In any case, Heartland will drag this out as long as they can and the media will not ignore it.
So, in effecrt, Gleick has exposed to public scrutiny the corrupt underbelly of the CAGW movement rather than hurting Heartland, as he originally intended.
Will the average non-involved individual conclude that Gleick is just one single “bad apple” in an otherwise “squeaky clean” CAGW movement or will this person conclude that there may be others or even that the whole movement may be suspect?
Who knows?
But the whole episode has played into the hands of Heartland, who have gotten good publicity out of it (and may get some new donors).
And I also think it will move more people to asking that their schools do indeed “teach the controversy” – rather than the “orthodoxy”.
So the story will likely have a “happy ending”.
Max
Max,
I’ve gone back and forth a few times on this, but on balance I agree that it’s a net (major) plus for the skeptics.
If you can stomach it, take a walk through the swamp of vapidity that passes for a climate discussion over at dotearth. The true believers want to canonize Gleick. No one can explain just what we know now that we didn’t know two weeks ago re heartland, though of course they’re sure the fraudulent memo isn’t fraudulent at all.
Revkin, who lays claim to a certain (in my mind faux) neutrality, dismisses the issue by calling the document a “summary” of that which is contained in the genuine docs. In other words of course, fake but real.
I swear to God, the world has gone insane.
pokerguy | February 23, 2012 at 6:49 pm | Reply
“That said, it’s my understanding that Steve Mosher and perhaps a few others speculated many days ago (before the admission) that it might be Gleick partly based on the “memo’s” writing style”
I have a dated communication to Anthony Watts at 8:44PM on February 15th fingering Gleick through his association with the National Center for
Selling EvolutionScience Education. I recognized their tactics right away and as soon as I got over my disappointment at finding out that Anthony Watts was a rent seeker no different except in level of success at milking the climate controversy I told him where to start looking for the perp who outted him.I support teaching the controversey for Global warming, but not for creationism.
richard 40
I agree with you on both points
NEITHER “creationism” NOR “CAGW orthodoxy” are supported by empirical scientific data derived from actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation.
One is supported by “holy scripture” while the other is based on model simulations based on theoretical deliberations.
So, in effect NEITHER “creationism” NOR “CAGW orthodoxy” should be taught.
In the case of “CAGW orthodoxy” (unlike “creationism”) I think it would be impossible to have it completely banned from schools (as it has now become the “politically correct” view), but it should be pointed out to pupils that
a) CO2 is a GHG
b) increased concentrations of GHGs can produce atmospheric warming, but the magnitude is unknown
c) the effect is logarithmic
d) our planet has warmed by under 1 degC over the past 250+ years
e) over the same period CO2 has risen by almost 40%
f) IPCC has suggested a premise that human GHG (mostly CO2) could cause major future warming; this premise does not at this point represent “best scientific knowledge”, but is only an “uncorroborated hypothesis”, as it has not yet been validated by empirical scientific data.
g) other hypotheses exist, which would show that most of past (or future) warming are caused by the sun; one of these (cosmic rays/clouds) shows good correlation with observed past temperature and has been confirmed as a mechanism at CERN in Geneva, but the magnitude of this effect is still being tested experimentally, so the empirical scientific data to support this hypothesis is also not yet there..
g) as a result, we do not really know how much CO2 increase would affect our future climate (if at all), but scientists are working to find answers
That would be a balanced message based on today’s knowledge. (David Wojick would certainly elaborate on this.)
Billions of dollars are being spent to increase our knowledge on climate. Our knowledge will undoubtedly improve over time with new empirical data. . The message should be modified accordingly if and when this should occur.
Just my thoughts on this.
Max
Max, you write “but is only an “uncorroborated hypothesis”, as it has not yet been validated by empirical scientific data”
I applaud what you have written, but I dont think you have got this part quite right. It is not so much that the hypothesis of CAGW has not been validated by empirical data. Rather it is that the empirical data shows that the hypothesis is wrong. We have the global temperature/time graph over many decades, and there simply is no CO2 signal at all. It is not there. The proponents of CAGW cannot show it is there. If anyone disagrees with this, would they demonstrate where the CO2 signal is.
Jim Cripwell
You make a good point, with which I cannot disagree.
The “empirical data” that have been collected so far are:
a) temperature record from 1850 to today (warts and all)
b) a ice core estimate of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 level
c) Mauna Loa measurement of today’s CO2 level
If we combine this with a hypothesis that the GHE is logarithmic, we can calculate the impact of CO2 on our temperature, PROVIDED
we know what the temperature impact of natural factors were.
Here we have a guess by IPCC (admitting a “low level of scientific understanding” in this area) of 7% of the total or the conclusion of several studies by solar scientists at around 50% of the total.
So with this data we can calculate that the 2xCO2 temperature response should lie between 0.8 and 1.5 deg C (or 1.15 +/-0.35 deg C).
This tells us that the premise of CAGW (warming of 3 deg C for 2xCO2) is not supported by the observed empirical data.
Has it been INVALIDATED or FALSIFIED by the observed data?
You say “YES” (an I cannot disagree) – but I doubt if you can get the schools to go that far YET.
And “YET” is the big word.
Max
“So, in effect NEITHER “creationism” NOR “CAGW orthodoxy” should be taught.”
On topic of “creationism” are they still teaching in school that life exists due to chance?
The million monkeys type Shakespeare.
Meaning the creation of the first living cell was chance.
And which is now known to be false, the idea that it required hundreds of millions to billions of years of time to occur.
And also that human transformation [and technological development] was also ruled by this god of Chance.
I believe the replacing God with Chance isn’t an improvement- and that in regards to human becoming the modern human it foolish to regard that as merely chance, rather the more obvious cause being the Human creature has intelligence. That more likely explanation is this technological evolution results from a creature which had intelligence- or it bootstrapped itself or it caused it’s own cultural/technological/social evolution by choices made [which should not be confused with central planning].
“YET” is not as big a word as the Mammuthus stampede that’s just about to hit the schools front gate.
“I believe the replacing God with Chance isn’t an improvement- and that in regards to human becoming the modern human it foolish to regard that as merely chance, rather the more obvious cause being the Human creature has intelligence.”
When I see that there are chances of us quantifying the creation of the universe, then and only then will I replace God with Chance.
While this seems OT one wonders whether Atheism (in a similar context to the so-called concensus on AGW) should also be taught to HS students, notwithstanding that it remains as unproven as for Creationism.
Markus
The main problem I see in replacing God with chance is that there is no longer a source for an absolute moral code. No God means everyone is free to craft their own personal moral standard and there’s no ccountability for anything except the risk of getting caught by secular authorities. Pascal’s Wager ought to be taught in public schools and that’s about as far as I’d want to go in religious instruction. Better safe than sorry.
Nietzsche was the only honest atheist. Without God all there is is the will to power.
Max, Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I am trying to get my own thoughts straight, and I need someone like yourself, who is sympathetic, to bounce ideas off.
You write “So with this data we can calculate that the 2xCO2 temperature response should lie between 0.8 and 1.5 deg C (or 1.15 +/-0.35 deg C).”
This, to me, is the key issue. Where do these calculations actually come from? Are they “calculations”, or just “estimations”; this is not semamantics.
I simply do not believe that anyone has established, using proper scientific methods, what the climate sensitivity for a doubling of Co2 is. In theory we can measure total climate sensitivity, by identifying a CO2 signal. This has not been done.
So far as I can tell, the only way anyone has tried to establish, theoretically, the climate sensitivity of CO2, is to first estimate the no-feedback climate sensitivity. I believe that this is, indeed, an absolutely essential step. But this number can NEVER be measured, and can only be estimated if we assume that “the structure of the atmosphere does not change”; or, in other words, we ONLY look at radiation effects. This neglects conduction, convection, and the latent heat of water. THIS ASSUMPTION HAS NEVER BEEN JUSTIFIED. NEVER!!! IF it is wrong, and I bleive that it is, indeed, wrong, then the whole concept of estimating climate sentitivity for a doubling od CO2, is just a load of scientific nonsense.
This is the issue that I feel needs fully airing. There is no empirical data whatsoever to support any numeric value of CO2 climate sensitivity. So we have absolutely no idea what this number is. Any numbers anyone quotes are purely hypothetical and meaningless.
richard40 | February 23, 2012 at 8:08 pm | Reply
“I support teaching the controversey for Global warming, but not for creationism.”
My position is teach both or neither. Preferably neither because there’s lot more important practical things for kids to learn. The universe is either here by chance or design and no matter how it got to be the way it is it remains the same. Evolution isn’t a required course for medical doctors precisely because it isn’t relevant to the practice of medicine and they have far more they need to learn to be the best possible doctor than have time to learn. The human body is what it is regardless of how it got that way. Evolution writ large operates too slowly to be of concern and evolution writ small is demonstrable in vivo and in vitro. Saying categorically there is no God and the universe is the purposeless result of a random dance of atoms is logically deficient. One cannot prove a negative. Science, because it must follow the dictates of logic, is agnostic. This was common knowledge when I was a youngster and it was okay for a science teacher to simply say that science cannot speak to special creation one way or another. It seems to be lost knowledge nowadays. That said, if God made the world 6,000 years ago He sure did an outstanding job of making it look like it happened billions of years ago.
amazing that this post is still going after so many days.
earlier I posted this comment;
“here’s my quick idea.
keep present programs – cagw curricula.
apply a scientific social and ethical (AGU?) analysis to it.
establish another faculty, collect agw material in one spot e.g. a resource centre.
ask questions like ‘so how are the polar bears ?’ ”
———-
to which manacker | February 23, 2012 at 2:37 am | Replied,
“invite a polar bear to give a guest lecture”
———–
thanks Max, for your suggestion, tongue in cheek though it is. possibly there are polar bears in a zoo near you that we could visit… extend the invitation, so to speak. I’ll be in america later in the year, perhaps you could vet a few candidates pursuant to my arrival. who knows, perhaps they might pursue you ?!
re today’s topic, I am a registered teacher with a dip t, b ed, dip mus, and some baccalaureate studies. I’m interested in lifelong learning, and world’s best practise. essentially I have studied, at least part time, my entire life. now my learning is self directed.
I’d like to provide some insight to education systems.
in australia, where I trained, teachers write programs from guidelines, I might have written 100 of them. guidelines are updated every 2 – 3 years. sometimes programs incorporate 3 sets of guidelines. reference materials are updated often.
my understanding is that american teachers follow a book, denoting what lesson is to be taught on which day. I’m not sure this is conducive to programing, or flexibility. the teachers on this post indicate otherwise
in scotland, teachers trained in england have to undergo an extra year’s probation to qualify for teacher’s registration. make of that what you will.
australian teachers develop bs meters, sharp tongues, problem solving skills. perhaps, Max et al, you might suggest inviting australian teachers to lecture you.
here’s a sample.
there have been interesting developments in the assessment of IQ (see ‘get IQ’).
briefly, current findings indicate that IQ is variable.
IQ tests are a measure of the accuracy and speed of problem solving skills.
I took the test and compared my rank and score with that of other countries. you may know where this is going.
comparing australian scores to american scores, my score was 8 times further up the rank (closer to the top).
any suggestions as to why ?
fortunately for americans, high intelligence is imported.
any questions ?
tia
apologies, this got caught in spam
Great job Judith, on the interview. Measured, sane, and on point. Meanwhile, Mandia took off his tinfoil hat just long enough to put on his “dad hat” as he nauseatingly called it, asserting that while Gleick might have done wrong technically, he just might also have “saved our children.”
How laughable. How insane. Really folks, how has it come to this?
Judith, I love the “it’s like taking a huge gun (Gleicks actions) to shoot a small bug (HI) and ending up shooting yourself with it…
pokerguy
Where did you get a transcript of the actual interview?
I couldn’t find it.
Thanks.
Max
Here ya go, max. enjoy.
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2012/02/23/22646/heartland-leak
Thanks, pokerguy. It’s very interesting.
Dr. Mandia came across more emotional than Dr. Curry, who seemed more factual about the whole affair.
Mandia toed the orthodox line 100% (but objected to the word “orthodoxy”). He stated that the real story here is about the Heartland Institute, not about Peter Gleick, although his actions were unacceptable. He tried to convey the “he made a mistake but is still a great man” message and almost (but not quite) fell into the trap of saying “the science is settled” And his “dad” routine was blatantly contrived.
Our host pointed out that Heartland was a small player (compared to McIntyre and Watts) and that the revelations showed that (contrary to the myth that had been out there before) Heartland was not funded by big oil or the Koch brothers. She also pointed out that the affair raises issues for the broader climate science community, especially since Peter Gleick had testified earlier before US Congress on ethics and integrity in scientific research.
And yeah, the “big gun to hit a small bug and then shooting yourself” was the defining line of the whole interview.
Max
The fifth vilest thing I have ever heard said in my life took place on the back deck of this house not twenty five feet from where I am now sitting about ten years ago – by a member of the family no less:
“WE NEED TO GET THEM WHILE THEY ARE YOUNG”
For the life of me I cannot even recall the topic of conversation, but I was at that instant so shocked and horrified, that someone so bright, so well educated, with such good intentions, and such lofty and liberal ethics could have said such a thing – IT CHANGED MY WORLD.
Maybe you have heard this too.
In case anyone needs a translation:
WE = you know “us”, some socio-politically defined group
NEED = this is the imperative that decouples the restraint of ethics, it is no longer optional it is mandatory and all means are justified
TO GET = to indoctrinate into our way of thinking or BS system
THEM = the children of our ideological opponents
WHILE THEY ARE YOUNG = while they are mentally, emotionally, and intellectually too immature to understand or resist indoctrination.
This is actually a kind of evil. I am not fond of paranoid thinking and this interpretation seems to skirt the hairy edge – you just had to be there.
What can we say about the state of the debate except that it appears almost no one can exercise the restraint not to attempt to indoctrinate our young people into what ever their particular mode of thinking is.
So, let us be very clear, particularly with our selves, which we really mean, teach or indoctrinate.
Respectfully,
W^3
The best way to get them isn’t necessarily indoctrination as youngsters. That only works so long as you can keep them isolated from outside influence which is to say it doesn’t work in a free society and it’s increasingly unsucessful in centrally controlled societies due to how easily informaiton now crosses national borders. So unless you’re talking about a professional student (university professor) who voluntarily never discovers the real world and surrounds him or herself in a perpetual group-think environment where there’s constant positive reinforcement of a weak ideology then the indoctrination eventually fails as sooner or later
it has to stand upon its own merits on a level playing field..
Most parents have no clue what their children are being taught in elementary and secondary school, let alone in universities. And where are the children to go for these other sources of information/ Television news? Newspapers? Movies? Pop culture? No indoctrination?
Indoctrination is the norm in public schools.
GaryM | February 24, 2012 at 1:02 am |
“Most parents have no clue what their children are being taught in elementary and secondary school, let alone in universities.”
Not where I’m from – middle class neighborhood with high percentage of college educated stay-at-home mothers fully engaged with local schools. As a matter of fact I homeschooled grade 12 three times, grade 11 twice, and grade 10 once. After I discovered I could purchase Texas standard textbooks and enroll my kids in correspondence courses that taught those textbooks and that when they were unfettered by the overhead of public school life they could complete a whole grade in a single semester I let each in succession enroll in remote schooling a year earlier than the last one. My youngest completed grades 10, 11, and 12 in a single calander year. All of them leveraged the extra time to their advantage. The first started a lucrative computer repair business while his peers were still in high school, the second entered college a year before her peers graduated, and the third completed a two year apprenticeship program and received her HS diploma the same time as her peers and a few months later when the bi-annual CPDT certfication exam was given became the youngest certified pet dog trainer in the United States. If I had it to do over again I’d homeschool all of them beginning at grade nine. I think they need the ealier grades for socialization and get accustomed to a 9-5 eight hour work day.
And where are the children to go for these other sources of information/ Television news? Newspapers? Movies? Pop culture? No indoctrination?
Indoctrination is the norm in public schools.
DS;
The Educationists’ Union Hit Squad is on its way to see you.
You have been warned!
>:-p
So, you don’t have Two Mommies?
Can’t wait for the next fortnight in review.
Haaaaaa……….
A Washington Post op-ed attacking what I want to do actually provides a good reason for doing it, namely that teachers need material that covers both sides:
It says “An online poll by the National Science Teachers Association in 2011 found that 54 percent of teachers had encountered climate skepticism from parents — and many teachers said they now teach climate change as a he-said, she-said issue. (“I teach that we are always evaluating and learning,” said one elementary-school educator in California. “Nothing is in stone… I teach both sides.”) In that environment, a group like the Heartland Institute, offering up its own skeptical teaching materials, could find plenty of fertile soil.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/will-your-kid-be-taught-that-climate-change-is-a-hoax/2012/02/22/gIQAp6fFVR_blog.html?wprss=rss_policy
Of course they also say I want to teach AGW as a hoax, which is false. It is a debate. It is no accident that I have run a listserv featuring both sides at http://www.climatechangedebate.org/ since 1999. But now http://judithcurry.com does a superb job of exemplifying the scientific debate by featuring both sides.
“he-said, she-said” is exactly how I want to present the science, on a topic by topic basis, or rather “some scientists say this, but others say not”. Different topics fall in different grades, based on state standards. For example, the concepts of hurricanes is taught in one grade, but floods is taught in another, usually in elementary school.
Interestingly, the concept of climate is taught last, in high school, so it cannot be used in the earlier grades. The basic rule is not to use any concept that is taught in a higher grade, as that disrupts the learning progression. Most advocacy curricula fail on this score.
.. material to cover both sides.
What both sides. As we see every day on this site, there are not two sides but a continuum of views. At one edge that separates the real alarmists from more moderate views that accept fully the main stream science and at the other end we have full denial of points that a great majority of skeptics considers more or less certainly true.
There may be well defined “both sides” on specific policy issues, but not on the climate science more generally. Choosing some particular division may be extremely one-sided and controversial by itself. It’s pretty obvious that many people expect that the outcome of your work will be one-sided in that way.
Pekka, the main stream science is flawed, get used to it.
Pekka, I agree about their being many positions and will do my best to cover them, where appropriate. But AGW versus skepticism is a genuine scientific distinction. It is perhaps analogous to trees versus bushes in its diffuseness.
Moreover, at the K-12 level many of the distinctions simply disappear. Is human activity causing an increase in hurricanes? The question is pretty simple.
David,
Where is the dividing line?
Which main stream results can be accepted while staying on the skeptic side?
I’m sure that I don’t count as a skeptic, but I’m still highly critical on many policy conclusions supported by the warmist side. I see also systematic problems in the IPCC approach, but not to the extent that i would be classified a skeptic.
From the self declared skeptics we can on the other hand find many, who accept very much of the basic main stream physics of climate and about properties of CO2.
Pekka, you missed my analogy. There is no dividing line between trees and bushes but it is clear which is which in most cases. Moreover, where there seem to be more than two primary positions I will identify all of them if space permits.
You need to understand how incredibly constrained this content is. If one is describing the hurricane debate on a single page, using only those concepts available to a fourth grader, then most of the scientific complexities and distinctions simply do not apply. They will probably be handled via a few web references to further reading.
Science education is a marathon of sprints. There are only from 60 to 100 hours of class time a year. Perhaps 100 major concepts are covered in that time, in a number of distinct disciplines. All that is possible is to insert a simple sense of the debate into this arduous schedule.
The Honorable Tony Abbot is going to be very controversial. Repeal a carbon tax he says.
I think if we look, it will be clear that nearly every AGW policy initiative has utilized fooling the voters with blatant like, as in Australia, or subtle deception about the costs and benefits of proposed ideas, like wind, solar, etc.
Gleick was not in a vacuum. Perhaps that is why the true believers are so rabid in their rationalizations.
The BBC are often criticised for only presented the mainstream scientific argument. However, they aren’t quite as closed minded as some would claim. They do report the controversy too on some issues.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7540427.stm
Good article from the energycollective:
http://theenergycollective.com/davidhone/77451/how-should-climate-change-be-taught
1. His conclusion is unrealistic — “…this line of reasoning seems to point to the need for the teaching of climate change issues at a much later point in the school curriculum and focusing more on the underlying science earlier on.”
We are not going to restructure a 12 year science curriculum that has taken 100 years to perfect in order to better teach about climate change. Or in any case I am not planning on that. The College Board has proposed teaching about the physics of climate change in middle school instead of high school, but so far that proposal has gone nowhere.
2. He seems to assume that the mere existence of abstract sensitivity means the increasing CO2 levels are warming the planet. The “other side” is that we do not know that and have reasons to doubt it. Thus when he says of his son “This has resulted in a person with a pretty balanced view of the issue and some good insight into the economic thinking that supports carbon pricing within an economy.” he demonstrates that he is an alarmist. Small wonder he does not see two sides.
He gets it, there is certainty about some basic science, but then the uncertainty takes over. “it starts from a very small fact base of core physical principles and grows almost exponentially in both complexity and uncertainty”.
Generally, I think focusing on asking the right questions is a better long term approach than teaching the right answers.
I also think that lay at the heart of Douglas Adams’ sense of humour.
There are 42 right questions for every 1 right answer.
============
and the best answers can be a single answer to a whole series of questions. That’s when you really do hear Thomas Ockham speaking.
Do try to ask the right questions. Don’t teach the right answers, at least not until we know what they are.
This blog is good pedagogy. Our host starts the discussion and it always takes off. Our host does not tell each student he is right or wrong and he does not tell us what we have learned at the end of the session. This is not the too common teacher pours facts into students approach.
We should recall that one of the hats Peter Gleick wore was to help the NCSE develop curriculum specifically designed to mislead students into thinking that climate skepticism is the equivalent of creationsim.
In the following video, the kids in a classroom are all brainwashed to believe they will all die because of global warming.
http://bit.ly/YrBo6
The huge task now is to reverse all the brainwashing and damage of the last two decades.
It was also found that demise of the polar bear story is a hoax => http://bit.ly/w0rhOe
To paraphrase Purgis: Forming the hypotheses the car’s battery is depleted, then checking this by experiment of hitting the light switch is more scientific than all the chem lab with step by step instruction, no matter how many cool beakers and bunsen burners are used.
I think the teaching of climate science shares similiar risks.
Many commenters think an experiment for checking whether CO2 absorbs IR would helpful to someone trying to understand the debate surrounding climate change.
In a similiar manner, the likes of Gavin, think all students could be walked through the algebras of forcing units, geometries of solar raidance, etc…
Yes, all these things look science-y, but are they really informative to the average student who just needs some context to evaluate the debate?
Doesn’t every scientific discovery involve “controversy” – without skeptics and believers … without one group constantly pitted against another challenging the results and conclusions – we would still think the earth was flat.
This is certainly true at the frontier, but things also have to be accepted or there would be no progress. The science taught in K-12 is almost all from 50 to 400 years old and not controversial. This is what makes the climate debate so disruptive.
You should not teach young children anything about the false physics of AGW until they have sufficient understanding of physics in upper high school levels.
Otherwise you are brainwashing them.
How could a 12 year old understand that the only way the Second Law of Thermodynamics can work in nature is if absorptivity reduces to zero when the temperature of the source is no longer warmer than than that of the target,
How does the target know how hot the source is?
Does each photon carry information about the temperature of the source?
Or is it telekinesis?
Or just plain magic?
The radiation has a frequency distribution, the peak of which is proportional to the absolute temperature. Read about Wien’s Displacement Law and learn some of this basic physics. Then read the ‘Radiation’ page on my site http:///climate-change-theory.com which now has nearly 800 visitors a day. Note also the links to other papers on this.
Sorry, here’s the link direct to the Radiation page …
http://climate-change-theory.com/RadiationAbsorption.html
Right, so answer me this: a body receives a single photon from a source which may be cooler or warmer.
How does it know whether to accept or reject it?
And what happens to that photon if it is ‘rejected’?
Does it simply wither up and die without giving up its energy, or is it somehow ejected from the body?
I would like to see students get a reasonably balanced briefing on both sides of the issue with regards to several questions, including but not limited to: 1) Is the planet warming and, if so, is there anything unusual about that warming, or does the geological record show past periods of warming that were warmer or that warmed faster? 2) Is there any clear and compelling evidence humans are playing a measurable or significant role in changing climate on a global and long term basis? 3) Is past climate any aid in predicting future climate trends and, if so, how can the significant periods of deep cold be interpreted with regards to where climate may go in the future? 4) Is it reasonable to think or say that we can “stop” climate change? 5) Is it reasonable to arbitrarily pick a given temperature and claim that it is optimum? 6) What is the track record of the predictions made by those one both sides of these issues? 7) What if any evidence of fraud and deceit is present with respect to the debates and presentations of these issues to date.
You see, part of the problem is that, from my perspective, one side feels that anything goes, as evidenced by everything from the IPCC reports (which turn out to have been full of things that could not be called science even if one granted the maximum leeway possible), published “peer reviewed” works which were given a golden pass through said review while other more honest works were sabotaged and prevented from publication, and then there’s the “climategate” e-mails which, despite obvious whitewashes, tend to rather convincingly prove one side consistently felt the need to engage in fraud which, to me, suggests they knew that real world data simply did not support what they wished they could prove. One of their chief methods was to mount vicious attacks on anyone who tried to take a reasonable and balanced approach to these issues – and in fact if I remember correctly, Ms. Curry, even though I suspect you’re more in their camp than I would think is wise, they attacked you when you decided that a fair approach that provided people with information from both sides so they could decide for themselves was the only proper way to go.
I think that, based on clear and compelling evidence that, despite dire warnings of gloom and doom, we’ve followed the “worst case” path and wound up with better than the “best case” result, it’s reasonable to say anyone who is not fed a steady stream of propaganda can only conclude that while humans certainly can influence their environment and should be mindful of the potential for both good and bad effects to occur, anthropogenic CO2 is not the pollutant claimed. In fact, according to NASA, it’s actually helping the biosphere to thrive!
Don’t take my word for it: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1804
The problem is, young chilldren don’t have the necessary background in physics to be able to form a personal opinion as to which side is right. They will end up being brainwashed according to the persuasion of the teacher.
How can they understand Stefan-Boltzmann’ Law when even most climatologists don’t? For example, have you ever considered that proper application of S-B Law would result in no radiation from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface, because you would have to subtract a larger value from a smaller one and get a negative result.
There will in fact be downward radiation, because after all you would expect radiation to go in all directions within a full spherical angle.
About half of the full amount of SBL radiation* will head towards the Earth’s surface – but it won’t have any effect and will be rejected and not warm anything that is warmer than its source was. So, after coming back up from the surface, it can only warm cooler air (usually higher up) or get through to warm some object in space one of these years.
* meaning just the first term, without deducting a term based on the temperature of the surface.
How they could learn when you haven’t learned?
You repeat the claim on the rejection of the radiation from a cooler source and don’t even understand when you are ridiculed on the total lack of logic in that.
Emission spectrum depends on the temperature of the emitting body, absorption does not depend on the temperature of the absorbing body. The concept of rejecting radiation is nonsense. The Second Law is in full agreement with these statements.
There’s your sticking point right there.
Nobody is saying that a cooler body warms a warmer one.
What we are saying is that the radiation from the cooler body slows down the rate at which the warmer body cools.
The net flow of energy is always from a warmer body to a cooler one. This is in complete compliance with the 2nd law.
Hi Pekka, an example of argument from ignorance is.”;
Nobody has ever proved to me there’s a God, so I know there is no God.
‘Back-radiation’ is a fact. It is simply a consequence of the fact that all matter in the universe is radiating energy in all directions all of the time. This implies that the Earth’s atmosphere is radiating in all directions too.
Radiation and conduction both occur from hot objects to cold and from cold objects to hot at the molecular level. It is quite easy to show that a cold molecule (low kinetic energy) can warm a hot molecule (high kinetic energy) through collision, further reducing the kinetic energy of the already cold molecule.
This does not violate thermodynamics, because thermodynamics does not apply at the molecular level. Thermodynamics is a statistical affect that operates on averages over many molecules.
Thus, while a “cold” molecule can warm a “hot” molecule. It is probably a lower occurrence than “hot” warms “cold.” Thus, thermodynamics tells us that as a result of statistical averaging that heat only flows from warm to cold objects. Thus, at the molecular level, radiation and conduction are two sides of the same coin.
Furthermore, because that part of the radiated energy intercepted by the warmer body is standing wave communicating information between the emitter/absorber states, on both bodies, it can do no thermodynamic work.
When the cooler body is at absolute zero, the exchange energy is zero. When the temperatures are equal, it is the same as the radiation emitted by either body.
However, it can still do no thermodynamic work and it can only be detected by blocking the energy from the warmer body to the colder body. By counting ‘back radiation’ with the energy emitted by the warmer body, Trenberth is increasing the S-B constant by a factor 1to2.
So for statistical and modelling purposes it is disingenuous to consider back-radiation as a climatic forcing.
Another example of the logical fallacy is; Pekka Pirilä | February 26, 2012 at 5:26 am |
How have you been since we last clashed, critical?
Pekka Pirilä | February 26, 2012 at 5:26 am |
Emission spectrum depends on the temperature of the emitting body, absorption does not depend on the temperature of the absorbing body. The concept of rejecting radiation is nonsense. The Second Law is in full agreement with these statements
___________________________________________________
There is plenty of empirical evidence that absorptivity depends on the temperature of the absorbing body, but I’ll let you do your own googling.
Yes the Second Law works for a simple two body case without concentration of radiation. If you think you can make it work for the funnel experiment I described then be the first to demonstrate how.
If a warmer body did not reject emission in the form of a ray of radiation from a cooler body and you think that ray can increase the temperature of the warmer body, then you are mistaken.
.
Hi Doug, isn’t the world of Philosophy great. Not one scientific discovery stands apart from it.
Many have mused from observation this very valid point;
Radiation (kenetic energy) cannot cause potential energy, potential energy cannot cause radiation. Kenetic energy radiates to space, potential energy is forced by gravity to remain. It must be so.
I say; Greenhouse fallacy assumes kenetic energy causes a potential energy.
Peter317: You miss my point altogether. Best if you read the Radiation page on my website or wait for my paper (already sunmitted) to become available.
I have read it – many times – and what I see is that you believe that others believe that radiation from a cooler body somehow warms a warmer body – and then you set out to ‘prove’ your assumed assumption wrong.
In effect, you’re setting up a straw man for yourself to shoot down.
Good luck with the paper.
Markus – good summary. Actually, apart from Claes Johnson, do you have other references regarding the standing wave and how it does no thermodynamic work. This is exactly the conclusion I came to, namely that all radiation under the Planck curve for the cooler body resonates each way, so the only warming is represented by the area between the curves, ie the surplus that the warmer body always has.
This gets around the problem of a target somehow reducing the radiation leaving the warmer body. I say the full amount leaves the warmer body, as well as the cooler one. The cooler one also rejects that part of the warmer one’s radiation which corresponds with its own distribution and with which it resonates forming a standing wave.
So the thermal energy transfer is represented by the area between the curves, as S-B calculations also say in simple cases, but not in my funnel experiment.
Sound OK to you?
It would be good to have extra references for my paper though, so I would appreciare any you have.
Sometimes answering to comments makes sense only for one reason. That makes the others reveal fully their “knowledge”.
‘Hi Pekka,
That makes the others reveal fully their “knowledge”.’
Er, I think you mean nomenclature, of which I have little; Equate wisdom with knowledge, I am blessed with many.
Extending this beyond teachers, how are parents supposed to react ?
As a mild skeptic I’ve been waiting for my son (10, UK Scotland) to start to be “educated” on AGW and as I expected the material provided so far is generally at the catastrophic end of the debate, a lot of it is produced by people either working for or funded by organisations people point a lot of fingers at – WWF, Greanpeace and so on. Schools are so strapped for cash these days it seems that this stuff is just accepted, even if the teachers themselves may feel it isn’t completely appropriate or even handed.
When as parents we discuss this there is a rolling of eyes and a sharp intake of breath – but we end up accepting that our kids kind of have to go through this to get a mark in the appropriate column to say its done – but thats it. It isn’t followed up by any “at home” discussion because we don’t want to “indoctrinate” our kids in either direction, and neither do we want our views to be “reported” to the school.
Maybe this last one sounds odd ? Nope. The last set of material my son had included a few questions on how the parents and the rest of the child’s family view CAGW and asked them to list the actions needed to prevent it. I could have just looked up whatever WWF or Greenpeace wanted me to say but I just decided to leave it blank. If the school marks him down because the question isn’t answered THEN I’ll object. It isn’t relevant to his understanding.
In my view as a parent I like the approach you have taken showing views from both sides and not coming to a conclusion. I’ve tried to keep this approach in my own household – I’m not aiming to make my son’s mind up for him. Age 10 though still seems early – kids are still eager to please or get good grades and at this stage the learning is still at the stage of “teach – repeat – test” phase. This works for hard subjects like maths, science or language but not something has a contraversial viewpoint.
It is that last point which seperates me from either the ardent believer or the ardent skeptic – in their minds there is no room for a grey area, only black or white. For this reason I think this debate needs to move to a later educational stage and it should be kept out of any examinations. The pro-CAGW crowd have control of education at the moment (making Heartland seem as useless as they are – I’m no fan) so of course examinations do include these questions – marks given for the “appropriate” answers or taken away for the “wrong” ones – which is not good. Like a lot of kids, who are very skeptical for the most part but keep quiet about it, my son may end up answering the questions the right way to get the mark and then forgetting about it later – in other words we are teaching our kids to lie.
Well done.
Morph | February 26, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Reply
Extending this beyond teachers, how are parents supposed to react ?
You diss Heartland, with it’s massive GLOBAL $6.4 million budget, for not impacting education in Scotland? I have words for that attitude, but they wouldn’t pass moderation.
Your rationalized timorous parental passivity is the real hurdle. Think you can get over it?
Ugh. Typo: “with its massive …”.
The IPCC models make use of absorptivity measurements for the Earth’s surface which were measured using visible light. But they apply them to far-IR radiation from the atmosphere, even though it is well known that absorptivity reduces very significantly for much lower temperature radiation. This is obviously important when determining the assumed warming effect of radiation from the atmosphere – which, by the way, is assumed to help the Sun with its warming every sunny morning – all quite against the Second Law of Thermodynamics which they think it isn’t because somewhere on the other side of the Earth at night some radiation is turning it all into totally unphysical “net” radiation which cannot be a physical entity. But, never mind, I diverge.
The question is Can someone link me to any empirical measurement of absorptivity by the surface of radiation in the IR bands emitted by the atmosphere?
You’d kinda think the IPCC would have got this part sorted out before spending all that money on the models. So show me where they did – anybody!
This poster tells about a comprehensive data base of empirically determined emissivity of land surface areas. Emissivity is equal to absorptivity making the data base also a date base of absorptivity.
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/iremis/data/seemann_borbas_agu_poster_12dec06.pdf
The main observation is that the emissivity/absorptivity is higher for IR than it is for visible light. For most areas it is over 90 %. The sand deserts are the only major exception and even they have a high emissivity at the wave length of the CO2 absortption/emission peak that influences the global warming.
The emissivity/absorptivity is close to 100% even for snow and water.
You seem to think that scientists are idiots who don’t know what to take into account, but the truth is that anything correct that you may figure out has almost certainly been thought of included in the analysis as far as it has been possible in practice, and things that you imagine erroneously to be correct have very often been proven wrong many decades ago.
The sand is far hotter than the atmosphere. So you are talking about emissivity relating to far higher temperatures than what I was talking about – namely radiation emitted by the atmosphere at much lower frequencies. Anyway, read my latest post below.
Doug
Which IPCC models are you referencing? How do you know what was programmed into the models? i am not writing that you are incorrect- just asking
The reason radiation from a cooler object slows down the radiated heat transfer to itself from a warmer body is not because there is a compensating transfer of thermal energy back to the warmer body, because such would violate the Second Law. Rather it is because a standing wave is established which is represented by all the area under the Planck curve for the cooler body. This area represents the frequencies and intensities that are common to both the warm and cool objects.
The atmosphere (with over 50 gases and water vapour) does not radiate everything that a true blackbody would, but water vapour does help fill the area under that curve. So there is a standing wave, but its total power is not as much as a true blackbody. This is why some radiation escapes directly through the atmospheric window.
The standing wave has no thermal effect because none of its energy is ever converted to thermal energy. It just sends information back to the warmer body and a part of the warmer body’s radiation goes into the standing wave. The energy radiated by the warmer body which is represented by the area between the curves does get converted to thermal energy because it cannot resonate and thus contribute to the standing wave. The calculations of course agree with accepted physics, but the mechanism is not a two-way transfer of heat, as many appear to have supposed.
But there is no build up of the effect of carbon dioxide due to multiple repetitions of the capturing and re-emitting process envisaged in the IPCC energy diagrams and models. Each carbon dioxide molecule can only play a single role in a very limited sub-section of the total standing wave. Its contribution per molecule would be no more than a molecule of water, and so its total overall effect is comparable with its relative proportion to WV and other emitters in the atmosphere – insignificant.
Furthermore, there must be a compensating effect for reduced radiation by way of additional evaporation, diffusion etc because the very stable temperatures not far underground will be reflected in the close thermal equilibrium at the surface / atmosphere interface.
Doug, there’s a simpler explanatation, which is accepted by everyone (skeptics and warmists) – only net radiation is heat (or energy) and this Qnet is the sum of all “individual” fluxes (between bodies or across the system boundaries). No need for standing waves or Prevost or whatever.
Your last point is correct.
thermophysics.ru/pdf_doc/ahttv122.pdf
http://thermophysics.ru/pdf_doc/ahttv122.pdf
The “goal” should be to teach students to be “truth-seekers” rather than to brainwash them at an early age with stuff about greenhouse conjectures or whatever, for which they do not have sufficient background in physics to decide for themselves what’s right and what’s wrong. Then (in university physics departments) they would understand that, if low frequency waves like radio waves did in fact warm the surface every time they “bounce” off it, then they would not be able to listen to radios unless they stood under the emitting tower.
Indeed nothing at all should be taught to any students except those tertiary students who have sifficient background to understand radiation, standing waves and the differences between spontaneous emission, stimulated emission and other artificially generated electromagnetic radiation, such as radio waves etc.
The greenhouse conjecture will not be debunked for a long time by actual climate data. But it can be debunked right now by new physics which is extending the work of Einstein and Planck.
Firstly we must recognise that radiation from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface is comprised only of standing (or stationary) waves which may be thought of as opposing waves along the same path between two particular points, one on the surface and one in the atmosphere. These opposing waves interfere iff they have the same frequency and amplitude.
In Wikipedia we read … It can arise in a stationary medium as a result of interference between two waves traveling in opposite directions. In the second case, for waves of equal amplitude traveling in opposing directions, there is on average no net propagation of energy.
In addition to the standing (or stationary) wave, there is also one way radiation from hot to cold and its frequencies are represented by the area between the Planck curves, which is the same as SBL effectively calculates by subtracting the area under the smaller (cooler) curve from the area under the larger (warmer) curve.
Standing waves cause resonant “vibration” between energy levels and the energy required to excite = energy emitted on relaxation for such standing waves.
So how could any extra energy appear from nowhere and get converted to thermal energy? A whole new and different process is required for that conversion. Climatologists seem to keep imagining physical vibration causing friction or something. It’s not like that. Energy cannot be created in the process of resonance associated with standing waves.
All radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface comprises standing waves transferring no net energy either way. Only the additional “top portion” of the radiation from the warmer surface is separate radiation which does cause heat transfer from warm to cool.
I warned you at the outset that Claes Johnson’s Computational Blackbody Radiation is ground breaking physics extending the work of Einstein and Planck. You are not going to find it in textbooks, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. There is far more to it than just imaging a lot of identical mass-less photon particles crashing into surfaces and transferring thermal energy.
Any textbook which tells you that radiation between two plates transfers the full SBL amount in each direction is wrong, because there simply cannot be any transfer of thermal energy along a different path from cold to hot as it violates the Second Law. “Net” radiation has no corresponding physical entity and is thus meaningless.
Only standing waves have an identical path and can thus interfere with each other if they have equal frequency and amplitude, as explained in Wikipedia.
The Second Law applies to every individual path between two particular points. Standing waves may be considered as two opposing waves, but they do of course have the same path, and that makes all the difference. It’s up to you whether you want to take an interest in these new developments in physics or stick to your old beliefs so you can feel good trying to prove the IPCC wrong using climate data and yet still agreeing with them that heat transfers from the atmosphere to a warmer surface. It doesn’t..
But young students don’t have the background in physics to be able to “think critically” about the issues and processes involved.
Try giving your students a thought experiment like that below. Nothing less than this type of “thinking critically” is going to lead to valid conclusions in the climate debate. Not even the AGW proponents have been able to think critically enough like this example which, if you do think critically, will demonstrate why the greenhouse conjecture is false ….
Consider a metal plate enclosed on one side with a “perfect” insulator. It is dangling out of a satellite and collecting the full blast of the Sun on its uninsulated side. Say it is between the Sun and Earth and its plane is perpendicular to the line between Sun and Earth. Assume it is not affected by radiation from the satellite.
Say the Sun warms it to 330K at equilibrium. Now pull it into the shade of the satellite and turn it 90 degrees so it faces space and not the Earth or satellite. It will radiate virtually all the amount represented by all the area under its Planck curve, like a blackbody. So it “wants” to do this. You time how long it takes to cool to, say, 280K then to 200K
Now repeat the experiment, but when it is in the shade of the satellite face it towards the Earth.
We know the radiation from the Earth has the same flux (close enough) to that from the Sun which it receives. So will it stay at 330K because of this? I suggest the IPCC’s energy diagram concepts might “prove” that it would in fact do so, because they imply that the temperature would be a function of the number of photons received..
No. It will cool more slowly than before, but how does it “know” to do so? It still “wants” to cool faster. The slower cooling cannot be caused by a transfer of thermal energy from the cooler Earth system. The only other way is for radiation from the Earth to interfere with the plate’s radiation, and this can only happen with a standing wave.
It will take longer to cool down to 280K and it will stop cooling when in equilibrium with the Earth.
But only some of the Earth’s radiation will have any effect. Its rate of cooling will be slowed down and gradually come to a halt at whatever is the weighted mean temperature of the Earth and atmosphere – perhaps around 255K.
So at equilibrium the Earth’s radiation is split into two “sections” – some which is below its mean temperature and thus has no effect because it forms standing waves with the plate at 255K, and some above that 255K “cut-off” which is maintaining the plate’s temperature also at 255K.
It was the UV, visible and maybe some near-IR in the Solar radiation that was able to heat it to 330K.
So heat is not automatically transferred wherever “photons” roam. Heat cannot be transferred by radiation from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. All that happens is that standing waves of radiation send a message to the warmer surface to slow down its rate of cooling each evening, so our evenings are more pleasant for our night life.
But each molecule of carbon dioxide cannot play a greater role in producing standing waves than each molecule of water vapour which outnumbers it by at least 25:1 when water vapour is 1% of the atmosphere. So doubling carbon dioxide is like increasing water vapour from 1.00% to 1.04% of the atmosphere. Given that it can already get up around 4% without too much of a problem, let’s sleep comfortably in the not-much-warmer nights. Actually, carbon dioxide cools us more anyway by sending some of the Sun’s IR back to space.
In the lad’s own way Doug is quite amusing. Let us look at where the silliness starts
——————-
No. It will cool more slowly than before, but how does it “know” to do so? It still “wants” to cool faster. The slower cooling cannot be caused by a transfer of thermal energy from the cooler Earth system. The only other way is for radiation from the Earth to interfere with the plate’s radiation, and this can only happen with a standing wave.
——————–
Great majic here. Somehow Doug has talked the demons Gerlich and Tsch into building a resonant cavity between the Earth and the plate that works at all the frequencies of the incoherent thermal spectrum. Patent that Doug!!
[for those who need to know, a cavity will be resonant at wavelengths where the separation between the two reflecting ends is an integer multiple of half the wavelength. It is impossible for this to be true of all wavelengths]
I really need to get this material into my presentation somehow. http://prezi.com/cnthcjoz0-8s/concerned-scientists-or-alarmed-motivated-debaters/
I’m half tempted, following TED-ED’s example, to lobby for a TED-CONTROVERSY channel where anyone who wants to teach things no child ought be exposed to unsupervised can post to get off their chest, paired with a sensible response from someone who knows what they’re talking about and who can be trusted to not manipulate kids for some transparent political or religious or pseudoscientific agenda.
Butt, he is an expert,…
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/jason-russell-san-diego-invisible-children-kony-2012-142970255.html
much for me & you too.
JC:
I am hesitant to post on a thread this old, since I am unsure of the normal approach to old threads. However…
This topic struck a sensitive nerve with me and caused me to (slowly) pull together much of my thinking re climate science consensus and the resulting difficulties in ‘teaching the controversy’. Along the way, it also addresses the question of whether climate science is a ‘pseudoscience’, another thread which touched a nerve (and which I haven’t read yet since I wanted to get my own thoughts straight first).
Anyway, I am sitting on a 4500-word essay and wondering if anyone wants to see it. Tough call I guess, since I’m new here.
\tom
Hi Tom, email me a copy, it may be suitable for a guest post. I also have a post on teaching coming wed.
Maybe I should do one. I am up to my nose in hurricane issues at the moment, since that is my first Heartland topic. A Google Scholar search on hurricanes and global warming brings up Curry et al in the third of 20,000 papers. How to explain all this to a 4th grader in less than 30 minutes is a fun question.
well this i want to see :)
Don’t know where to email it…
judith.curry@eas.gatech.edu