Nierenberg, chapter 3 and 4

So, Obama will be Prez. Congratulations to him. The last upsurge of enthusiasm like this I recall was Blur in 1997. I remember that well; we drove down to Cornwall overnight and listened to the reports and went to sleep in a gorgeous pink dawn. And look how Blur turned out. We'll have to wait and see if Obama can do more than give inspiring speeches (and occaisionally jarring ones: "disabled and... not disabled" he managed to say in his acceptance speech. Can he not say "able"? Has no-one told him about avoiding double negatives?) But is hard to see how he can't be better than Bush.

Meanwhile...

I'm getting close to the limits of my interest in the N report; its becoming more and more clear that Oreskes has simply misrepresented it, for whatever reasons of her own. Whatever N may have gone on to do with the Marshall Institute later on (see the wabid wabbit attacks), the 1983 report is just run-of-the-mill for the times.

NN has got a response to the original article, which is good.

Chapter 3 is about atmospheric CO2 and says the obvious. They didn't know what pre-industrial CO2 was, and seemed to have assumed 265 ppm in places (although aware that this was a lower bound), which made some estimates of airbourne fraction wrong and lead to extra uncertainty. There is a bit from Revelle about possible methane-from-clathrates which is, if anything, rather sensationalist and to my mind overestimates likely releases.

Chapter 4 is probably the most sensible in the book. Its by Smagorinsky, and it really says "nothing interesting has changed since the Charney report so I'm reprinting its conclusions" (so much for the N report being so substantially different). And then does so. He spoils it a bit by then having an epilogue which says a few new things, but not much.

I think the only thing to do now is go back, read Oreskes carefully, and try and see what real substance there is in there.

More like this

Really, why are you reading this? Read something of substance instead. Last time I said I ought to read Oresekes again carefully. I have.Summary: nothing has changed. She is still wrong. Note: in all the following, I abbreviate the authors of Chicken Itza as "Oreskes". Well, she is the lead author…
I decided to skip over the synthesis - how can I judge that, before reading the chapters its supposed to synthesise? I'll come back to it. Previous: Part I. Chapter 2 "Future carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels" is by Nordhaus and Yohe; and by Ausubel and Nordhaus. Eli has laid into this,…
My post on Nieremberg has generated lots of interesting comments. I still don't have the report, so for now I'll focus on on issue that came up: who commissioned the N report? Oreskes says: In 1980 Ronald Reagan was elected president... Reagan commissioned a third report about global warming from…
The BBC reports The Global Carbon Project says that emissions were rising by less than 1% annually up to the year 2000, but are now rising at 2.5% per year. And then provides various reasons why this is so, including a switch from oil to charcoal as oil prices rise (is this plausible, on the large…

I agree with the response you reference above as "NN". I first met Bill Nierenberg through Gordon MacDonald who was one of the early advocates of studying climate change and the role of CO2. I worked with both of them on putting together a proposal to the DOE for an office to study the problem. I later became involved in JASON (after the "JASON report"which was, as NN states, published). What I understood to be the source of Bill's skepticism was the ability of climate models at the time to model the future temperature impact and distribution of rising CO2. That skepticism was well founded at the time. Too much was not known about the role of clouds, the oceans, forests etc. And the physics in the models was not very sophisticated.