7 June 2009

Groundhog day

Filed under: 

• Communicating Climate

  Climate Science  gavin @ 6:21 PM

Alert readers will have noticed the fewer-than-normal postings over the last couple of weeks. This is related mostly to pressures associated with real work (remember that we do have day jobs). In my case, it is because of the preparations for the next IPCC assessment and the need for our group to have a functioning and reasonably realistic climate model with which to start the new round of simulations. These all need to be up and running very quickly if we are going to make the early 2010 deadlines.

But, to be frank, there has been another reason. When we started this blog, there was a lot of ground to cover - how climate models worked, the difference between short term noise and long term signal, how the carbon cycle worked, connections between climate change and air quality, aerosol effects, the relevance of paleo-climate, the nature of rapid climate change etc. These things were/are fun to talk about and it was/is easy for us to share our enthusiasm for the science and, more importantly, the scientific process.

However, recently there has been more of a sense that the issues being discussed (in the media or online) have a bit of a groundhog day quality to them. The same nonsense, the same logical fallacies, the same confusions - all seem to be endlessly repeated. The same strawmen are being constructed and demolished as if they were part of a make-work scheme for the building industry attached to the stimulus proposal. Indeed, the enthusiastic recycling of talking points long thought to have been dead and buried has been given a huge boost by the publication of a new book by Ian Pilmer who seems to have been collecting them for years. Given the number of simply made-up 'facts' in that tome, one soon realises that the concept of an objective reality against which one should measure claims and judge arguments is not something that is universally shared. This is troubling - and although there is certainly a role for some to point out the incoherence of such arguments (which in that case Tim Lambert and Ian Enting are doing very well), it isn't something that requires much in the way of physical understanding or scientific background. (As an aside this is a good video description of the now-classic Dunning and Kruger papers on how the people who are most wrong are the least able to perceive it).

The Onion had a great piece last week that encapsulates the trajectory of these discussions very well. This will of course be familiar to anyone who has followed a comment thread too far into the weeds, and is one of the main reasons why people with actual, constructive things to add to a discourse get discouraged from wading into wikipedia, blogs or the media. One has to hope that there is the possibility of progress before one engages.

However there is still cause to engage - not out of the hope that the people who make idiotic statements can be educated - but because bystanders deserve to know where better information can be found. Still, it can sometimes be hard to find the enthusiasm. A case in point is a 100+ comment thread criticising my recent book in which it was clear that not a single critic had read a word of it (you can find the thread easily enough if you need to - it's too stupid to link to). Not only had no-one read it, none of the commenters even seemed to think they needed to - most found it easier to imagine what was contained within and criticise that instead. It is vaguely amusing in a somewhat uncomfortable way.

Communicating with people who won't open the book, read the blog post or watch the program because they already 'know' what must be in it, is tough and probably not worth one's time. But communication in general is worthwhile and finding ways to get even a few people to turn the page and allow themselves to be engaged by what is actually a fantastic human and scientific story, is something worth a lot of our time.

Along those lines, Randy Olson (a scientist-turned-filmmaker-and-author) has a new book coming out called "Dont Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style" which could potentially be a useful addition to that discussion. There is a nice post over at Chris Mooney's blog here, though read Bob Grumbine's comments as well. (For those of you unfamiliar the Bob's name, he was one of the stalwarts of the Usenet sci.environment discussions back in the 'old' days, along with Micheal Tobis, Eli Rabett and our ownWilliam Connolley. He too has his own blog now).

All of this is really just an introduction to these questions: What is it that you feel needs more explaining? What interesting bits of the science would you like to know more about? Is there really anything new under the contrarian sun that needs addressing? Let us know in the comments and we'll take a look. Thanks.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

aw come on now lunatic fringers read the article, click the links, learn something if you can.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

J2, you probably know this answer off the top of your pointed little head, whereas it would take me some hours to research it....

I understand that there is an isotope marker that distinguishes man-made carbon emmissions from naturally occuring carbon emissions.

The question is, how do scientists distinguish between man-made, isotope-marked carbon emmisions and things lke forest fires, peat bog fires and whatever carbon emmisions are generated by volcanoes (ie Kilauea and Kilauea Iki that have been going off for 18 years now and has caused significant problems for the air quality of the entire Hwaiian chain of islands.)

And when you walk down the street tomorrow and Poetse calls upon Yahweh to ignite spontaneous combustion in your pants, does that have a particular isotope marker, as well?

*****
You learn to know a pilot in a storm.
-Seneca

Thanks, Moniker, I had never thought of that. I'll start on it the first thing in the moring.

well monikur, if you had the brains and/or the actual objective will to discern the truth in the debate, what you would find out for yourself is this:
The c02 we are concerned about is fossil carbon. It had been in the atmosphere eons ago and by natural processes sequestered and transformed into fossil fuels. Because it spent all this time in the ground it was subject to the same processes that make carbon dating possible. In other words the peat bogs, bovines, and forest fires of today contain an isotope of carbon that will decay over time, but has not yet. The carbon released in the burning of fossil fuels does not contain that isotope but the one it decays to. I could look up the numbers, this is just off the top of my head. Now try and prove me wrong. Do some research, take sometime. Separate scientific fact from political fiction

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

How do you prove Goldielocks wrong. It's entertainment and no matter how you change it, you get the same ending.

They all lived happily ever after because the big old Capitalist bears were overcome by Green Peace Soup.

Another climate impact coming faster than predicted: Glacier National Park to go glacier-free a decade early

[I welcome your ideas for a new name for the park. The pictures below are Grinnell Glacier circa 1940, top, and 2004, bottom.]



National Geographic News reports the oft-repeated statistic that the glaciers at Montanas Glacier National Park will disappear by the year 2030 is being revised:

But Daniel Fagre, a U.S. Geological Survey ecologist who works at Glacier, says the parks namesakes will be gone about ten years ahead of schedule, endangering the regions plants and animals.

The 2030 date, he said, was based on a 2003 USGS study, along with 1992 temperature predictions by the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Temperature rise in our area was twice as great as what we put into the [1992] model, Fagre said. What weve been saying now is 2020.

Yet another climate impact occurring faster than the models had projected.

As noted in my November post Himalayan glaciers decapitated, glaciers all over the world are melting faster than previously expected, such as the Naimonanyi Glacier in the Himalaya (Tibet):

If Naimonanyi is characteristic of other glaciers in the region, alpine glacier meltwater surpluses are likely to shrink much faster than currently predicted with substantial consequences for approximately half a billion people.

Significantly, the UKs Guardian reports, China plans 59 reservoirs to collect meltwater from its shrinking glaciers. The article warns, however, It is unclear, however, how long the water can be stored without replenishment.

For more on what is happening around the world, see Worlds Glaciers Shrink for 18th Year and AGU 2008: Two trillion tons of land ice lost since 2003. For some amazing pictures, see Photographing Climate Change.

The Glacier National Park story notes:

The 2020 estimate is based on aerial surveys and photography Fagre and his team have been conducting at Glacier since the early 1980s. A more standardized measure of whats happening to a glacier comes from arduous documentation of its mass, which requiresamong other techniquesmultiple core samples.

Fagre said the 2020 estimate could be slightly revised after his team conducts the mass measurementshopefully this yearand their computer models are retooled with current temperatures.

Nonpolar ice is disappearing all over the globe, Fagre said. Major glaciers have entirely disappeared from the Andes, and the Himalaya have lost a third of their snow. (See video of Alpine glaciers melting.)

It is possible, of course, a few small pockets of ice could survive longer, depending on local topology, but I doubt anybody will be calling them glaciers in 2020.

Indeed Glacier National Park will need a new name very soon (see here). Al Gore has already suggested: The Park Formerly Known as Glacier. I have a few ideas of my own:

* Its not ice to fool with Mother Nature, National Park
* Glaciers? We dont need no stinkin glaciers! National Park
* Glacier-free National Park
* Global Warming [or Greenhouse] National Park
* Hey, if you like ice so much, bring a cooler National Park
* George W. Bush National Park

Your suggestions are welcome.

Other climate impacts happening faster than the models had projected:

* The recent [Arctic] sea-ice retreat is larger than in any of the (19) IPCC [climate] models and that was a Norwegian expert in 2005. The retreat has accelerated in the past two years.
* The ice sheets appear to be shrinking 100 years ahead of schedule. That was Penn State climatologist Richard Alley in March 2006. In 2001, the IPCC thought that neither Greenland nor Antarctica would lose significant mass by 2100. They both already are.
* Sea-level rise from 1993 and 2006 3.3 millimetres per year as measured by satellites was higher than the IPCC climate models predicted.
* The ocean carbon sink is saturating sooner than expected.
* The subtropics are expanding faster than the models project.

Share

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

"...well monikur, if you had the brains and/or the actual objective will to discern the truth in the debate...

Sorry, pops, but being a conservative, my masters have not educated me, nor have they encouraged me to engage in critical thinking.

*****
You learn to know a pilot in a storm.
-Seneca

at last you speak a truth you have demonstrated in your postings.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.