Nude Scientist (thanks Eli) has a feature on wot bits of AR4 will be controversial. Which I think is a bit premature and maybe a bit silly too, but I guess they have to write something in the absence of a quotable draft. Anyway, the bit that stuck out to me was:
Michaels has analysed publications by climate scientists in the journals Nature and Science between mid-2005 and mid-2006. He found 115 articles of which 83 said that the likely impact of the greenhouse effect was going to be worse than previously suggested, 23 saw no change and only 9 said that things were not as bad as previously thought. To most researchers this is solid evidence that the prognosis for the planet is worsening as new science comes in. Michaels rejects this interpretation. To have any faith in the forecasts of climatologists, he argues, "we should expect that new research should have an equal probability of being better or worse [for Earth's climate] than previous research"
That, apparently, is from Michaels. It was noticed over at Rabett Run, which is a pretty decent blog that deserves wider readership (wider than what? Than this?) by MH. I guess what Michaels is trying to argue that until climate science settles down to equilibrium, then the results haven't converged. But its a pretty dumb argument and I doubt it will play well, since to make it you have to point out that most seem to be going for worse-than-thought, which isn't good for Michaels side. Plus, I'm not really sure the research is heading that way anyway. Plus, Nature and Science have a bias towards sexy stuff. Plus, there is clearly something odd in Michaels categorisation: we published in Science on Antarctic trop warming. That just said: there is a warming. neither better, worse, nor the same. How has Michaels catted it?
- Log in to post comments
When I want to see which direction the climate goes, I prefer to look at thermometers instead of increasingly hysterical manuscripts of simpletons. Since 2005, the temperature has dropped and the hurricane rate decreased by 70 percent.
[Oh Lubos, you aren't silly enough to confuse weather and climate are you? -W]
From the article
"Kevin Trenberth reckons he is a marked man. He has argued that last year's devastating Atlantic hurricane season, which spawned hurricane Katrina, was linked to global warming. For the many politicians and minority of scientists who insist there is no evidence for any such link, Trenberth's views are unacceptable and some have called for him step down from an international panel studying climate change."
Is it fair to say that there is a minority of scientists who reject the link between AGW and hurricane activity? From my cursory perusing of the subject, this doesn't sit quite right.
[I would have thought that most climate scientists are non-hurricane specialists and don't know. Getting closer, some will be aware that there are various opinions and its a contentious subject. For those directly involved... I don't know them -W]
Heh. Increasingly hysterical simpletons, indeed. Noting temperature trends since way back in 2005 is one of the funniest things I've seen today.
Well Lubos, mostly the temperature depends on where you stick the thermometer. Take ~0.3 C away to get the reading if you had stuck it in you mouth.
I think you've treed that foal.
No, wait ...
Rabett Run might get a few extra readers if you correct your link to it. Though, seeing as it's easy to fix in the address bar, it might be a way of filtering out the stupid from reaching it? :)
Also, does your response to SteveF start at the beginning of that last paragraph? The [ is missing. Not trying to be picky, I'd like to know the owner of it's first sentence.
[Fixed, and fixed. Thanks - W]
Can I please edit my post for my typos now? :(
The editor of Nude Scientist, Jeremy Webb, has no qualms over pro-doomsday bias. See http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000002D081.htm
"Eco-evangelism
by Helene Guldberg
"... The headline read 'New Scientist presents: Judgement Day - the Global Environment Roadshow'. It went on: 'Find out how wholly unexpected forces, such as global warming, pollution, ozone-layer destruction, water shortages and soil degradation could combine in new and terrifying ways to produce global nightmares nobody predicted.'
"... Webb asked - after the presentations - whether there was anybody who still was not worried about the future. In a room full of several hundred people, only three of us put our hands up. We were all asked to justify ourselves (which is fair enough). But one woman, who believed that even if some of the scenarios are likely, we should be able to find solutions to cope with them, was asked by Webb whether she was related to George Bush!
"When I pointed out that none of the speakers had presented any of the scientific evidence that challenged their doomsday scenarios, Webb just threw back at me, 'But why take the risk?' What did he mean: 'Why take the risk of living?' You could equally say 'Why take the risk of not experimenting? Why take the risk of not allowing optimum economic development?' But had I been able to ask these questions, I suppose I would have been accused of being in bed with Dubya."
Stoat, the author of that slightly slanted article is Fred "doomsday" Pearce, a long-term Nude Scientist author who writes endless pro-Greenpeace copy (always skewed), he is author numerous books about climatic disasters, human-made horrors of dam building (a nicely titled book: "The Dammed"), and so on.
Other Nude Scientist writers with similar slants (always portraying straw-man arguments as the enemies of the propaganda) include Rob "anti-nuclear" Edwards and ex-editor Dr Alun "icecap meltdown" M. Anderson. I've written many times to correct factual errors, but have always been censored. Jeremy Webb, Nude Scientist's current editor, finally emailed me a long email on 30 August 2004, defending speculation to sell the magazine. See http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15886166&postID=114026442749854…
See also the Daily Telegraph article by Roger Highfield http://www.science-writer.co.uk/news_and_pr/announcements/2005a_announc… which states:
"Prof Heinz Wolff complained that cosmology is "religion, not science." Jeremy Webb of New Scientist responded that it is not religion but magic. ... "If I want to sell more copies of New Scientist, I put cosmology on the cover," said Jeremy."
So it's just about what makes the most cash, that's all! Notice http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html claims:
"Since 1982 A-level physics entries have halved. Only just over 3.8 per cent of 16-year-olds took A-level physics in 2004 compared with about 6 per cent in 1990.
"More than a quarter (from 57 to 42) of universities with significant numbers of physics undergraduates have stopped teaching the subject since 1994, while the number of home students on first-degree physics courses has decreased by more than 28 per cent. Even in the 26 elite universities with the highest ratings for research the trend in student numbers has been downwards."
[Why are you bothering to attack NS? I'm not defending it. I know full well that it over-hypes things. See Stoat passim -W]
Well, I do have a complaint about AR4. From that draft that was released in the spring (and elsewhere) we find that the SRES are not being updated until next time around.
So the whole thing is based on decade old models of the economy: for example, James Annan recently said that we appear to moving down the A1B emissions path. Would be useful to update all of that don't you think?
Tim, my impression is that fundamental changes to the ARs have to get in the queue at a much earlier stage in the six-year cycle, and I don't recall hearing much about the need to completely overhaul the scenarios until maybe two years ago. Like the length of the cycle itself, this is a reflection of the fact that most of the work is done on a volunteer basis. That said, if it's the case that some of the scenarios have become unrealistic, I would point out that if James is correct then the focus of the discussion can and ought to be on A1b. OTOH, I hope it's clear why it's a good idea to retain at least one scenario showing higher emissions than now seems likely.
Of course U.S. right-wingers will conduct a propaganda campaign against the AR4, but if it's going to depend to any substantial degree on the same old skeptics I can't imagine it's going to be very effective. Given the positioning of leading presidential candidate McCain on the issue, plus the obvious object lessons of Schwarzenegger and the British Tories, it's not at all clear to me that the Republicans will see it in their best interest to remain climate troglodytes. In that regard, from the NYT notice the fate suffered earlier today by denialist hero Joe Barton in the Republican leadership election:
"The Republicans, selecting their leaders in less dramatic fashion than Democrats picked theirs on Thursday, chose Mr. Boehner as minority leader over the conservative Representative Mike Spence of Indiana by a vote of 168 to 27. A single vote was cast for Representative Joe Barton of Texas."
Regarding Michaels, the innate silliness of his little exercise aside, I think the coverage of his funding by the coal industry has made him damaged goods from the POV of most reporters.
In that vein, I had noted in the Rabett Run comments Rick Piltz's exposure of the AEI having put up a $10K bounty for any scientist willing to openly attack the AR4. This seemingly newsworthy item doesn't appear to have been discussed anywhere else.
Re the AEI solicitation mentioned above:
I see from a fresh Gristmill post by Kit Stolz that Andrew Dessler posted on this in July and linked to a copy of the letter that was sent to Steve Schroeder. It asked that he and Jerry North co-author a suitable paper. If this letter is any indication, it looks like a bit of a retail effort.
Tim,
Can you remind me of where I made that comment please?