Are geologists different?
The International Geological Congress (IGC) is sometimes referred to as the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games and is an extremely large gathering of geologists from all over the world, taking place at 4-year intervals. This time, the IGC took place in Lillestrøm, a small place just outside Oslo, Norway (August 6-14). The congress was opened by the Norwegian King (before he continued to the real games in Beijing), and was attended by some 6,000 scientists from 113 countries. Even the Danish Minister of Energy & Climate participated in a panel discussion on climate change. In other words, this was a serious meeting.
I didn't attend the meeting myself, but the scientific programme for the session on climate, shows that the 'climate contrarians' were quite well represented. The organizers probably wanted to give room to “other views”. Together with web cast of the panel discussion on climate change (by the way, you may need Windows to view this because of the video format…), the proportion of attendees with a skeptical attitude to the notion of anthropogenic global warming appeared to be notably higher than in other conferences, such as the European Geosciences Union or European Meteorological Society, or indeed the scientific literature. So be it.
Svensmark was there, even though he's not a geologist, and said that he didn't understand what he was doing on the panel. He didn't say much during the panel debate, apart from that clouds are not well described by GCMs (which is true and discussed in the latest IPCC report), and that the 90% confidence in the human influence on recent trends is derived only from models (not true). There is an irony in that, whereas detailed microphysics in clouds are not well understood (hence the uncertainties in the GCMs), Svensmark's own hypothesis hinges entirely on the cloud response to cosmic rays (which is even less well understood).
Robert Carter said a great deal more than Svensmark on the panel. He made a point of the last couple of years being cold. But he did not appear to understand Jansen's explanation of the difference between trends and natural variability (see here). What really struck me was not who was saying what, but the intellectual level of discussion: the debate often got stuck at misunderstood trivialities which for a long time have been regarded as solved or explained in the climate research community. When you keep starting at square one, you'll never make much progress.
Other statements did not have a scientific basis (e.g. Morner popped out from the crowd and said that the sea levels are not rising - not true - and then saluted the panel). Thus the debate seemed to be a step backwards towards confusion rather than a progress towards resolution.
What is going on? Is there a higher proportion of geologists that have a completely different view on climate change, or was this a biased representation of the community? The thought of stifling a scientific debate by insisting on outrageous or ignorant claims also has struck me.
Update: Marc Roberts sent along this mildly relevant cartoon:
19 August 2008 at 2:51
Very disturbing.
As AGW ramifications and scenarios become more severe and difficult to apprehend, it is human nature that we see stronger and more irrational denial.
Ideology trumps logic. But this polite tolerance of acts of stifling sabotage must stop.
19 August 2008 at 2:58
This seems like a rather unfortunate distortion of the views of the geological community — or at least, of the academic geological commnunity — by the organizers of the panel. While the Geological Society of America has a slight old (2006) and weaker climate change ststaement than AGU at the moment [http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm], it’s in the process of revision.
The petroleum geologists, however, may be off in their own private world. In 2006, AAPG gave a journalism award to Michael Crichton, as I believe was discussed on RealClimate at the time; and their tepid climate change statement bears the strong signature of their sponsors [http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.cfm].
19 August 2008 at 3:03
As a geologist, let me make the contentious statement that it is no coincidence that many geologists still rely on the fossil fuel industries for employment and funding. However, I do not think that is the whole story. The geologists I have met who are ’sceptical’ are not particularly well-informed about current climate science, and tend to overweight the relevance of their own knowledge and experience. In that respect, they are a bit like civil engineers, among whom there also seems to be a preponderence of ’sceptical’ views (in the UK anyway).
However, in this particular case, I think the gathering of climate change ’sceptics’ (what is the collective noun for climate change sceptics - a denial? an argument?) may be due to ratehr clumsy conference organisers who have sought to liven up an otherwise dull conference by trying to provoke a big row. Not very productive and rather clumsy, but hey, that’s geologists for you.
19 August 2008 at 3:58
I think it’s fairly simple: a large proportion of geologists, particularly those working in Norway (hence those most likely to attend the conference), work in the oil industry. It is highly uncomfortable to acknowledge to yourself that your career has, in effect although of course not in intention, been devoted to bringing about potentially disastrous anthropogenic climate change. The best way to avoid this discomfort is not to admit the facts, sometimes by outright denialism, more often probably by downplaying their importance and certainty, avoiding thinking about the subject most of the time, and/or preferring to discuss it only in “safe” company - such as other oil-industry geologists.
19 August 2008 at 4:34
Having “debated” with a number of sceptical geologists on forums, the following is a characterisation of a sceptical geologist’s view:
The climate has always changed in the past due to natural variability, and life on earth has survived very well. In fact, life proliferates more during warm spells.
Since the climate has always been variable, recent warming is not unusual and therefore probably natural. Life will benefit, as it has in the past, from the warming.
Climate scientists have their heads stuck in models and observations of the last few decades and don’t look at the bigger picture.
19 August 2008 at 5:00
Put it this way - if I wanted a complex problem involving rocks explaining, would I ask on RC or at a geological congress?
My geological speciality is mineralogy and mineral deposits by the way. Very few palaeontologists have a clue what I’m on about when I get going!
Cheers - John
19 August 2008 at 5:06
“When you keep starting at square one, you’ll never make much progress.” I suspect that is the intention.
19 August 2008 at 5:12
Very worrying but are geologists climate scientists ? Are climate scientists geologists or does climate science take knowledge from geology only. Why are geologists discussing climate science anyway ?
19 August 2008 at 6:23
In areas of research that are tangentially related to climate science, the relative number of contrarian viewpoints seems to be larger than amongst climate scientists themselves. I think this has a lot to do with professional deformation: “We are all best impressed by evidence of the type with which we are most familiar” (Charles Richter, as quoted by Oreskes in http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/Presentations/Oreskes%20Presentation%20for%20Web.pdf). It is no surprise that many of them will initially be skeptical towards claims that humans are responsible for the current changes, when they are acutely aware of the massive changes that have always taken place without humans around. (Never mind the logical fallacy that arises when using this as evidence against anthropogenic influence.)
Likewise, an astronomer or solar physicist is more likely to emphasize the role that the sun plays in climate change. And a meteorologist may focus on the (importance of the) effect of boundary layer dynamics. Acknowledging that one’s own area of expertise may not be terribly important for a high-profile theme such as climate change is psychologically not easy; emphasizing (or even exaggerating in the worst cases) its potential importance is psychologically favored.
Oreskes (in the same presentation as linked above) argues that instead of only thinking in one dimension (i.e. one’s own field) you have to look at the consilience of evidence, and the big picture, when forming an opinion about a multi-disciplinary issue such as climate change.
19 August 2008 at 7:39
Out of all my personal friends, the one that I’ve had the most trouble convincing about global warming is one whose background is in geology. As far as he was concerned, Milankovitch cycles cause climate change and nothing else and he refused to see it any other way. I guess when you occupy a world where the last few hundred years of history are nothing more than an afterthought, it gets easy to see things like that.
19 August 2008 at 7:57
In response to #8
Geologists have an appreciation of time and change over time and we don’t need to rely on computer models that change every year to accomodate previously unrecognised influences on climate. [edit]
The world changes constantly and you can’t ignore that big ball of fire in the sky or the odd volcanic eruption or meteor strike!)
[Response: Greenhouse gases are ‘previously unrecognised’? Only if you lived in the 18th Century….. - gavin]
19 August 2008 at 7:58
Adrian Midgley:
> “When you keep starting at square one, you’ll never make much
> progress.” I suspect that is the intention.
Sure, it is. But … have You ever considered how hard it is to progress from an erroneous square one. You will always find many scientists ready to repeat stubbornly:
“Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant”
You must wait for generational change in science community to silence them.
19 August 2008 at 8:20
The link to the “webcast of the panel discussion” doesn’t work.
PS Thanks for your excellent blog
John Ransley
19 August 2008 at 8:26
Re #9, Indeed who are the high oracles of earth science who put it all together into a single coherent whole? The IPCC I would imagine do this job correlerating all fo the earth science knowledge to work out what the climte is doing and going to do in regard to it being out of its energy balance/equilibrium?
Only a certain amount of Geology is relevant to the atmosphere. I mean have many ocean scientists deny warming as well or meterologists for that matter ?
19 August 2008 at 8:45
Well I’m quite new in the game but my experiences is the same as expressed above, they know that the temperature have changed in the past so why not now… and far from all geologists are paleo types.
However not all of them are very stubborn and agree that it is the published record over time that counts. (depending on if they are researchers or not)
19 August 2008 at 8:45
rasmus, or anyone, I find the difference in the observed leaning of the IGC compared to the other geophysical organizations/conferences (Two were mentioned; are there others?) quite curious. Do you have any explanation or thought why this is so? I’m not asking for the generic throw-away retort that they’re owned by the bad oil companies, but what might be characteristic of the IGC that would make them different? Might they have purposely done that to, maybe, explore the skeptic position? Might it be just an example of the rule of societies and conferences that the bigger and more popular they get the more they pursue show over substance? What? Any thoughts? It seems odd.
19 August 2008 at 9:02
I’m a computer scientist with a major in operations research (stats/logistics) and 20yrs experience talking to other experts on all sorts of esoteric fields. Some of the details in RC articles make my head hurt but that’s far outweighted by other more succint logic such as the wonderful irony you point to in the cosmic ray/cloud thing.
As for the meeting, I assume many who attended have scientific skills if not the right expertise, perhaps you could reply to the ‘debate’ in a geological publication. Sure they showed some ignorance but OTOH raising (and sustaining) the ‘debate’ amoungst scientists who are likely to be sub-consiously biased will ulimately fuel ‘cross polination’ of knowledge and a better picture for all.
On the plus side a $1 billion solar generator has been announced here in Australia, the company hopes to build another 30 similar generators in the next 15yrs.
19 August 2008 at 9:11
Having interviewed quite a few geologists over the years, my sense is that many (certainly not all) are much more attuned to the enormous natural fluctuations in both climate and atmospheric composition over the ages that they see the building anthropogenic component as minimal by comparison.
Mind you, the Geological Society of America statement on humans and climate, while more cautious than those from the AGU and AMS, does accept the basics:
Still, as was clear in a huge comment thread on Dot Earth on climate views of scientists, such statements are not always the result of broad consensus.
19 August 2008 at 9:32
I am Chair of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Rutgers, a co-author of a paper in this IGC session (Barrett, Crowley, and Miller), attended this session and attended an even more skeptical session at the 2007 Geological Society of America (GSA) meeting. The thesis of Barrett et al. is that Cenozoic climate changes suggest that even modest temperature changes can have large amplification. At GSA, I was lead author of a paper (Miller et al., in press, Global and Planetary Change) that establishes that pre-anthropogenic sea level was rising 0.75±0.25 mm/yr and thus humans are responsible for the bulk of the current 3.3 mm/yr change (Rahmstorf et al., 2007). We suggested that an 80 cm global rise was likely by 2100 (Rahmstorf et al., 2007), not the 40 cm predicted by IPCC. (I would update that today to likely over a meter by 2100). I tried to ask a question at the IGC session noting that Nick Morner was quite incorrect (and to note that it is not man causing the change but humans; women are equally to blame). It was hard to break through the fractious divide between skeptics and believers.
The GSA symposium was even more fractious, with Bill Gray leading the skeptics with his glorification of Senator Inhofe (Bill, where was the science?). This leads us back to the question posed here: are geologists skeptical?
Yes, geologists have more than their share of skeptics and many opinions offered by the audience here and at GSA were uninformed. Yet, the geological community represented by the speakers in the IGC session (Jansen, Barrett, and Haug to name three) were quite informed, balanced, and supported the IPCC. Part of the problem is one of education of our community to data sets that they are not familiar with. I think that sessions such as these, though they may be a lightning rod for skeptics, are actually quite good. We must stand up to shoddy science.
The best example of this are two of the skeptic talks in the IGC session. Willie Soon’s talk on solar variability and climate was easily seen by the audience as lacking scientific content on the subject of climate (though replete in science about galactic evolution). Svensmark’s talk was more polished and to the uninitiated, seemed like solid science. Thanks to RC, I was able to pull up numerous rebuttals to this on the wireless during his talk. One climate scientist stood up after Svensmark’s talk and called it trash. This was not helpful, but we are all human. I highly respected Terry Sloan from Lancaster for his comments on Svensmark, who in turn replied by calling Sloan’s work meaningless.
My impression is that the convenor, Jorn Thiede, simply wanted to let skeptics have their day in court.
My other impression is that geologists have more skeptics than atmospheric scientists, but probably not more than many other fields. Paleoceanographers are much more closely aligned with the IPCC results (see the section of the IPCC edited by Jansen on Paleoclimate.)
19 August 2008 at 9:37
Re 16. One of the bigger (biggest?) geochemical conferences, Goldschmidt when I attended did not have a single talk on “other warming theories” but lots on CCS, pH in oceans… corrals and other Climate related stuff… so judging from that yes, this seems different I had some colleges that haven’t got back yet I will ask them what they think later.
http://www.goldschmidt2008.org/gold2009/index
19 August 2008 at 9:56
I think Andy Revkin’s onto something there. But by the same coin, geologists might also lose sight of the fact that during most of the time-periods they study, the earth was not only uninhabited by humans, but also _uninhabitable_.
But all in all, I don’t think the opinion of geologists is very relevant. I’m a chemist, and I don’t think _my_ viewpoint is particularly relevant. However, I only know a single global-warming sceptic in my line of work. (and his speciality is NMR spectroscopy.. very unrelated)
OTOH, I can tell y’all that my boss (the department head) came in to work after having seen “An Inconvenient Truth” and practically ordered everyone in the office to go see it. He was quite shocked, he said, and had gone over to the Earth Sciences department to fact-check it. Which he summarized as: “In all, it pretty much all checks out”.
I think natural scientists in general support the theory of climate change. Not necessarily because they know more, but rather because they’re better at knowing what they _don’t know_ - and correspondingly readier to acknowledge the expertise of others.
As a chemist, all I’m prepared to say is that the bit about CO2 absorbing IR radiation (heat), is absolutely true.
19 August 2008 at 9:58
It can be pretty amazing. I recall having quite an argument with a magazine editor couple of decades ago — who had a very good general science educatinon.
He was printing a book review of a seafloor atlas, and decided to include its illustration of the mid-Atlantic ridge and the pattern of parallel magnetic lines in the seafloor.
He captioned it as illustrating the “ever-expanding Earth.”
And I could not convince him he’d gotten captured by a religious notion. He was sure he’d learned it that way in his geology class. Heck, maybe he did ….
19 August 2008 at 10:03
It’s not only the geologists: if you look at the house journal of the (British) Institute of Physics (Physics World) then it has a bit of a skeptical slant. This *may* be due to the influence of a small number of skeptics, and an editorial team who are not so on the ball or who deliberately court controversy. The same seems to happen in the American Institute of Physics
19 August 2008 at 10:10
Naomi Oreskes probably has the best insight into the attitudes of geologists. (Before she started studying the history of climate science, she worked on the history of plate tectonics and continental drift, and she has interesting things to say about the reasons why US geologists rejected continental drift in the early 1900’s. In other words, Oreskes knows her cranky geologists who turn out to be wrong.)
I’m a solid-earth geologist (structural geology, metamorphic petrology), and I agree with Steve Milesworthy (#5). I would go a bit further, though. The fundamental assumption of geology is uniformitarianism: the present is the key to the past. We’ve recently been trying to convince the world that we’re relevant to humans because the past can also say something about the future: earthquake hazards, volcanic hazards, flood hazards - geology can give a longer-term perspective than history, and tell us that a 5000-year-old volcano is potentially dangerous.
Geologists can get misled by uniformitarianism, though. The past helps us understand the future, but only if the same physical and chemical processes are operating. It’s hard for geologists to accept that humans are more than temporary, surface-scratching creatures - that we can affect the underlying physical and chemical processes that drive the geology that we study. And it’s hard to trust ideas that come out of physical and chemical models when they aren’t confirmed by something that we see in rocks. (Geologists will often dredge up the example of Lord Kelvin’s attempt to determine the age of the Earth from heat flow calculations - Kelvin was very wrong, because his model was incomplete.) And geologists have known for a long time that climate changes, so if it was natural in the past, there’s no reason to blame humans…
…except that there are good reasons to blame humans, and climate scientists have built a convincing case based on many different lines of evidence. (Geologists should respect that; it’s essentially the same way that solid earth geoscientists build big ideas.) You can’t test whether humans cause climate change by looking at a time when humans weren’t around… it’s like proving that magma doesn’t cause metamorphism by looking at metamorphic rocks that were heated by other processes. Geologists should get that, because we think that way, too.
And most geologists who have been in grad school since the late 80’s do accept and respect climate research. If we’re in the same departments, or have climate researchers coming to department seminars, then we hear and understand the arguments. But people who work in government agencies that separate geology from climate, or who work in oil & gas or mining, or who work in academic departments that are strictly solid earth - well, those people aren’t directly exposed to the current thinking of climate researchers. And they are perfectly capable of thinking about climate like geologists did in the 70’s. (Milankovitch, Milankovitch, Milankovitch.)
So geologists should accept climate change, but there are lots reasons why some don’t. The reasons are bad, but they exist.
19 August 2008 at 10:21
I would imagine the number of geologist contrarians drops off quite sharply the more related their field is to climatic change. Those who work on sedimentary or speleothem proxies or silicate weathering probably don’t count too many among them, for example.
19 August 2008 at 10:28
Perhaps geologists should return to discussing their recent adoption of the term “Anthropocene” which is, after all, a geological term. Is that widely accepted by geologists?
“…define it as the era in which humans first began to alter the earth’s climate and ecosystems.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene
( I just worry about the denyoclypse and skeptinctions. )
19 August 2008 at 11:31
Perhaps it would be beneficial to refine the geological perspective to the paleo-botanical perspective and examine the history of the plant community. When vascular plants first evolved. about 425 million years ago (Cooksonia), CO2 levels were about 3000 ppm. Gymnosperms evolved between 385 and 365 million years ago under CO2 concentration of near 4000 ppm and angiosperms evolved with CO2 levels of 2200 ppm about 165 million years ago. These earlier plant forms used C3 photosynthetic pathway better adapted to higher CO2 concentrations. However, as CO2 levels approached present day levels of 274 to 400 ppm, many of the C3 plants exhibited stress due to CO2 starvation. As a result of this environmental stress, two new photosynthetic pathways evolved; the C4 pathway and CAM. C4 plants first evolved up to 50 million years, they did not reach significant numbers until about 8 million years ago Crassulacean acid metabolism or CAM, which is typically of the cactii, evolved even more recently, apparently to counter the effect of CO2 starvation. As CO2 levels rise above recent lows, most plants grow more efficiently and harbor water resources more effectively. Hot houses typically increase CO2 levels to 1000 to 1500 to promote growth rates.
As the animal kingdom, including human beings, is entirely dependent upon a healthy plant kingdom, it might serve climate researchers well to step back and examine this issue from the geologic perspective, rather than continue the rather myoptic view that the models are right and anything counter to the models predictions must be erroneous.
Another question that comes to mind is if earth did not experience a runaway greenhouse effect when CO2 levels were 4000 ppm or higher in earlier geologic history, what has changed to create such alarm at levels ten times lower? Just some random thoughts from one whose background is in forestry and plant physiology.
[Response: No one is predicting a runaway greenhouse effect in that sense (this is one of those trivial talking points alluded to the post). However, perhaps you’d care to speculate on sea levels during the last geological period where CO2 was significantly higher than today? (try the Pliocene, or certainly the Eocene, or perhaps the Cretaceous?). As for trusting the plants over the models, what does this have to do with changes in tropical rainfall, the expansion of the Hadley Cell, ocean acidification or Arctic sea ice declines? Please be serious. - gavin]
19 August 2008 at 11:42
Re:
———
Sure, it is. But … have You ever considered how hard it is to progress from an erroneous square one. You will always find many scientists ready to repeat stubbornly:
“Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant”
You must wait for generational change in science community to silence them.
———
This is a good example of how the different interpretation of words can lead us astray. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant in the same sense as PCB’s or dioxin: no sane person advocates removing all CO2 from the atmosphere. Yet too much seems quite harmful, so we can image the argument:
person 1: CO2 is NOT a pollutant (meaning it is essential for life)
person 2: CO2 IS a pollutant (meaning too much may kill us)
Well, they are both right, but until they pick their words more carefully, we may be stuck in square one.
19 August 2008 at 12:13
I might be flamed shortly for saying it, but my impression is that geologists are more “engineers” than “scientists”. And while I’ve never gone through the earth sciences college curriculum, I suspect it is less about teaching the scientific method and more about teaching engineering and materials science. The difference in geologists who refuse to consider the data and modeling around AGW/CC and those who are willing to may be the difference between those who are strictly engineers sampling materials verses those who have done some data analysis and modeling of their own.
Just because someone is an “ologist” does mean they understand science or the fundamentals of research. Engineers in particular (and I know a few) seem woefully unaware of the difference between measuring and categorizing verses synthesis. The science behind our understanding of AGW/CC represents perhaps the most difficult and interesting act of synthesis the human mind has ever attempted, and we’re maybe 10% into the task at our present level of understanding after 50 years, with maybe just 20 years of runway left to land civilization safely.
I fear we will need the help of all the “ologists”, including the geologists, before the end.
cb
19 August 2008 at 12:23
Rasmus,
Robert Carter = Bob Carter in the post above?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/bobcarter/
[Response: Yes. - gavin]
19 August 2008 at 12:43
Geology is a long established field of science with a long history of proven techniques, debate and proven processes. Climate reconstruction has a long history as a field within geology (with ice age cycles etc. first being proven by geologists.)
Climate science, by comparison, is a relatively new field in which scientific techniques and scientific processes still need to be fully developed and proven as reliable.
In that sense, the views of geologists and geology in general should not be so summarily dismissed.
[Response: No one is dismissing the views of geologists or geology. Indeed, paleo-climate has many lessons for today’s climate issues. But that doesn’t mean any respect should be given to statements that are patently false (i.e. there is no sea level rise, CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas) just because it comes from a geologist. - gavin]
19 August 2008 at 12:59
“this polite tolerance of acts of stifling sabotage must stop.”
a pleasant thought that can’t be executed. the debate, even though it seems pointless to the initiated and the knowledgeable (neither of which I am) is necessary to persuade the interested novices that what climate scientists say is rigorous and reliable. if/when climate scientists turn to procedures characteristic of politicians to end these debates (pointless and unproductive though they probably are) before the novices (and geologists) are persuaded….well, they’re going to end up saying to everyone who isn’t a climate scientist “hey, just take our word for it.”
the trouble is, some of us have been lied to enough to know the risk involved with taking anybody’s word for it, especially when it comes time to decide how to spend the Christmas bonus or weigh out whether or not the cost of new windows and siding is really going to be worth it.
so, big props to the RC (and other) scientists who take time away from advancing their fields to make their case to the novices the hard way. and i think we can all agree that this whole climate change issue is far too serious to try to resolve by taking shortcuts.
19 August 2008 at 13:02
indeed there were thousands of geologists on the congress : how many of the participants can be regarded as “sceptics”. How much would that be in % ?
I’m a bit surprised by the high level of witchhunting this topic in my opinion has & how some people seem to be willing to create whole theories of why geologists are “incompetent” to discuss the subject; a conclusion depending on the grounds there might be a couple of them rejecting AGW.
I’m sorry guys, but the level of this post is FAR below the level i do expect to find on RC.
19 August 2008 at 13:15
Here’s one geologist who doesn’t agree with the deniers:http://www.dimensions.und.edu/February2007/HTML/bore.html
This link says in part:
“Gosnold and colleagues have detected changes in ground surface temperatures over the last 500 years by measuring the change in temperature vs. depth (T-z) in boreholes drilled in the ground, sometimes up to 700 meters deep.”
I would think that any geologist worth his salt would be aware of bore hole studies that add to the other proxy methods of studying past climate change.
Another study,this one by Pollack et al lead to similar results:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
The above study states in part:
“The geophysical methods used to generate bore hole temperature. reconstructions do not permit annual or decade resolution, but only the century-scale trend in temperatures over the last several centuries. Nonetheless, this record, totally independent of data and methods used in other studies, shows the same thing: the Earth is warming dramatically.”
Not all geologists have their heads in the sand. Some are looking into bore holes with interesting results.
19 August 2008 at 13:42
John Lang, Horse puckey! The average geologist knows no more about climate science than he does about string theory. Do you propose that Brian Greene and Ed Witten consult them before publishing their next paper. If geologists have something relevant to say about climate scienc, great. They should say it–in peer-reviewed publications. If their insights do not rise to that level, why the hell should we pay them any more attention than we do to any other ignorant food tube?
19 August 2008 at 13:48
Re #32 AC, I will stand by my words.
We all welcome novices, students and even skeptics. Denialists, ideologues, obstructionists and disruptors have no place here. And you know it.
The simple example is the classroom where no unruly student is allowed to prevent the class from getting an education. This is a class about climate change, why do you insist on injecting economics philosophy into a science discussion?
Much more significant, how much should we tolerate voices that prevent us from knowing and describing dangers to our future?
19 August 2008 at 14:02
Towards an anthropological perspective on scientific institutions…
Nature doesn’t care at all about the academic distinctions within university research departments, or the struggle for funding among the various branches, or the other more human behaviors, i.e. the struggle for one’s place in the ivory tower.
However, such things matter a lot if one wants to run a government-funded science program. The question then becomes: what controls governmental decisions to fund or not fund science? How do governments make such funding decisions?
The best way to do it is to set up independent bodies of scientists, chosen from universities, who will be given lump sums of money to distribute based on a transparent peer-review process to the most deserving research programs. That’s how the U.S. science program was structured initially - a public endeavor.
At the same time, large businesses set up private research labs (Bell Labs) - but these labs have always been focused more on engineering commercial applications from basic scientific discoveries - and thus we have the silicon-based transistor, the silicon photovoltaic cell, the integrated circuit, the light-emitting diode - quite a list.
However, when independent scientific bodies start coming up with results that are very troubling to large industry, large industry often starts pressuring politicians to cut off funding for the science. This is a well-known fact, and since we are talking about geology, the institution in question is the USGS.
In the 1990s, the USGS began funding a large amount of science related to environmental contamination and similar issues, which led to a huge backlash in the Republican Congress, which threatened to dissolve the USGS entirely. In any event, the budget was slashed and with it the focus on environmental pollution, and the USGS is now back to being a quietly obedient. Look at their news releases, for example:
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article_archive.asp?Year=2008&State=&List=all
Not much on climate or global warming - basically, the theme is “we don’t want to have our funding slashed again”. The basic theme is continue to use fossil fuels, just sequester the carbon (wave the wand), and “adapt to impacts”.
In any release on global warming, the phrase “anticipate and address the impacts of climate change” is always used - never anything like “slow the rate of global warming by ending the use of fossil fuels.”
I would say the most disingenuous press release was this one, however:
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1963
“Two 500-Year Floods Within 15 Years: What are the Odds?”
No discussion of the fact that global warming is making the atmosphere moister, or that models have been steadily predicting greater rates of precipitation for a long time now. Not even any basic discussion of how the very concept of a “500 year flood” relies entirely on the assumption that the climate is stable!
In that model, the notion is that weather events are just generated at a constant average rate, and every once in a while, several line up on top of each other to create “The Perfect Storm” - which is true in a stable climate. However, if the climate is changing, then those weather events are not constant and average over time - you see noise superimposed on an increasing trend, so you can forget about notions like “500 year floods”. A far more reasonable explanation is that the flooding is becoming more intense due to global warming.
That’s what happens when the politicians and private industry gain control of the scientific bodies. It is a little like the whole Church-State issue in previous eras.
19 August 2008 at 14:08
As a geologist, one of my biggest criticisms of the science is that a large proportion of geologists are overly focused on the descriptive and qualitative. When you lack quantitative skills and do not understand the modeling process, it is natural to mistrust results derived from computer models.
That said, my guess would be that most of the skeptics in the geology community are either older or employed in the extractive industries. Those are the same groups that resisted the plate tectonics revolution in the 20th century, so perhaps this is simply history repeating itself…
19 August 2008 at 14:31
Re 31. “But that doesn’t mean any respect should be given to statements that are patently false (i.e. there is no sea level rise, CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas) just because it comes from a geologist. - gavin]”
Please, Gavin, could you name the geologist who made the second statement, about CO2 not being a greenhouse gas? Such was not mentioned in Rasmus’ post, so one may get the impression that, you are dealing with straw men.
[Response: Conceded, it was just an example. But substitute in the almost equivalent “CO2 can’t be a climate forcing because it lags temperature in the Vostok ice core”, and there are plenty of cases. - gavin]
19 August 2008 at 14:45
I would that denialism is not the exclusive province of geologists. I work with a lot of electrical engineers, and the level of denial there is pretty amazing. We have seen that there are denialists willing to open backdoors to ignorant diatribes at the APS, and we are regularly confronted with denialists who are computer scientists, chemists and on and on. The one thing these folks have in common is that they have some expertise in a remotely “related” field to climate science. However, rather than taking the time to actually learn the science, they have assumed that their experience gives them sufficient insight to pronounce with authority on something they haven’t looked into very deeply.
Climate science is not simple. It is a multi-disciplinary endeavor, and fitting all the pieces together is a subtle endeavor. That is why I appreciate this site so much. If more “scientists” and “engineers” would have sufficient humility to take advantage of this resource, we would have a lot fewer ignorant “experts” out there
19 August 2008 at 15:06
Don Easterbrook is another geologist in this camp.
19 August 2008 at 15:16
Per ‘ignorant food tube?’ I’d advise keeping your day job and leaving the PR to the professionals. Why pay attention to the masses? Because their cooperation is required to solve the problem.
19 August 2008 at 15:56
Ray, as a multi-disciplinary field, climate science should pay attention to the responses from “related” fields, because sometimes, the people out in left field actually do know something that you, sitting at home plate, may not have noticed. If you don’t take into account the point they are trying to make, and it is actually more valid than your argument in the long run, you are the one with egg on your face, not them. Tycho Brahe was executed for the heliocentric model, Galileo was imprisoned and forced to recant, but Copernicus was lauded. When the preponderance of evidence eventually supports you, you become the hero. Prior to that, the steamroller flattens you. Don’t claim skeptics do not know anything, because if they are proved correct, then you become the new “flat earth crowd”. Be tolerate of both sides of the debate, because based upon several comments to this post, it is beginning to grow.
[Response: If I were you, I’d consult a little more with historians. Brahe died of a bladder infection (or maybe mercury poisoning), and didn’t accept heliocentricism in any case. Copernicus was lauded decades before Galileo’s trial. - gavin]
19 August 2008 at 16:12
rasmus,
I’m very scared. I have watched the hour + long video that you linked to, and I think the most intelligent comment (and one of the only ones) was from the gentleman in the audience who used the “insurance principle,” and this includes both the panel and the audience.
There was a vast degree of ignorance in the statements/questions posed by the audience, and IMO very poor answers or statements by the panel. This highlights a large problem for me– the climate science community has not communicated this issue in an accurate and convincing manner to people in other fields, or to the general public.
19 August 2008 at 16:12
Easterbrook is glaciologist, to boot. Beyond the geo’s who work in mining or oil and gas, you get a lot of quaternary geologists who are also on the skeptical side. Take Tim Patterson, for instance. He’s a paleoclimatologist who ascribes all the variation he sees to solar forcing. Not a whiff of a background in statistics, fourier series, power spectrum, atmospheric physics, etc. He makes squiggly lines and visually compares them to time series of sunspots, or solar output, or whatever. He writes op-ed’s in the Globe and Mail (Canada’s principal national newspaper) saying things like “as a paleoclimatologist, let me tell you that anthropogenic climate change is wrong because CO2 was way high in the Cretaceous”. Talk about disingenuous. But people lap it up because he has apparent credentials, and they don’t have the tools to assess the argument.
19 August 2008 at 16:23
Better speak up as a geologist/geophysicist. Close to 300 of us here and if there are any denialists, then they are pretty quiet. (and incidentally Bob C was my teacher for 4 years. Given what I gained from him, it is very disappointing to see his current stance).I also work in oil/coal (though govt moratorium on thermal power stations has seen coal work die), but it would surely be dishonest to deny AGW on basis that it may affect your job! I think we have to keep exploring for oil or we going to make transition to other energy more difficult but we certainly dont want any expansion in production - we want substantial reduction.
While life might have expanded during warm periods, my colleagues are studying the hypothesis that extinction rate is strongly affected by rate of climate change. The evidence for this should not give anyone comfort.
I salute IGC for at least putting the debate on table. If there are a lot of geologists that misunderstand trivialities, then hoping the debate would inspire some deeper reading.
19 August 2008 at 16:30
Geologists spend more time outside than your average scientist. It has been getting cooler each year now for several years, and that is obvious to anyone that spends a large portion of their time outside.
[Response: Hmmm…. - gavin]
19 August 2008 at 17:02
Re # 27 (Don Healy): Hundreds of millions of years ago the solar output was a few percent lower than it is now. With the carbon dioxide concentrations of that time and today’s solar output, mass extinction would quickly follow.
You’re talking about “the geologic perspective,” but you should be thinking in terms of evolution. If plants have evolved adaptations to lower concentrations of CO2, they won’t suddenly become the plants of 300 to 500 million years ago if CO2 concentrations grow to the levels of that time period. Most of them would in fact not survive. The plants of the distant past are extinct.
Just as the biological world of hundreds of millions of years ago is a different world than we have today, the future world under much higher levels of CO2 would also be a different world. Such radically new ecosystems might be wonderful for some future sentient beings, but I doubt that they would seem wonderful to us.
19 August 2008 at 17:41
No, geologists are no different from anyone else. They will not admit that their oil industry is destroying the world. They have worked hard to obtain their degrees and doctorates, so find it impossible to accept what they are doing can be in anyway wrong.
Not only geologist take this view. Here is an excerpt from someone posting on the uk.sci.weather newsgroup, justifying his success and dismissal of the threat from global warming:
So just like the geologists, this capitalist grabs at straws to justify himself.
But are climate modellers any better? They too refuse to accept that their industry is leading mankind to disaster. Global warming is advancing far faster than the models predict, yet they stick by them.
When told “that clouds are not well described by GCMs” Rasmus replies that it “… is true and discussed in the latest IPCC report)…” So that is all right then. We need not worrry about the clouds in the models being wrong because it says so in the IPCC report! And what about the other errors in the models like the double ITCZ, and the tropical lapse rate problem? What about the Arctic sea ice that instead of taking 100 years seems more likely to disappear in ten?
Rasmus continued his denial by writing “that the 90% confidence in the human influence on recent trends is derived only from models”. He cited Gavin’s post “The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps” In it is argued that global warming is bound to happen because climate sensitivity is “Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2″
No one knows what climate sensitivity is. 3ºC is the best estimate using models. That hardly disproves that it is derived only from models.
But here we do come to a difference between climate modelers and geologists. The modelers have all been trained in mathematics or physics. They believe that when it is proved that Pythagoras’ Theorem is true it stays proved, and when climate sensitivity is found it will be true for all eternity, but geologists are not so easily fooled.
They know for every rule they make there are exceptions. The basic law of superposition is good example. It states that “Sedimentary layers are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top.” So the deeper the fossil is in a succession of rocks the older it is. But if, as occurs, the rocks are overturned later then this no longer applies.
Similarly, it is easy to find a sensitivity by producing a relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature using the data from the ice cores in Antarctica, but that relationship does not hold for ice cores from Greenland. If it does not apply for two regions of the earth over the same time period, why should it apply over the whole earth for different time periods?
So the geologists, capitalists, and climatologists are each no different. Each live in their own idioverse where they are right, and everyone else is wrong. Sound familiar?
Cheers, Alastair.
19 August 2008 at 17:53
Interesting-a climatologist consensus is validation of AGW, while a geologist consensus must means what? Corruption, ignorance, cronyism, cranky old men following the herd? Its time to throw out the consensus argument once and for all, and turn to more legitimate means of scientific verification.
[Response: A geologists’ consensus on a kind of rock, or mountain range formation or sea floor spreading is certainly worth listening too. But an endocrinologist’s opinion on the same thing - not so much. To each field their own consensus. - gavin]
19 August 2008 at 18:01
Dear Phil Scadden,
It’s always nice to hear from old students, and especially to find out that they are gainfully employed and doing well.
You mention that “it is very disappointing to see his (i.e. my) current stance” regarding the possible danger of the human effect on global climate - which I would agree is certainly a topic that needs careful consideration.
However, my current “stance” is the same as the stance that has stood me in good stead throughout my professional career. It is that matters of science need to be determined by empirical evidence, not by computer modelling - heuristically valuable though that can sometimes be.
And as things stand at the moment, after IPCC 4AR, I am unaware of any empirical evidence that dangerous warming, or any measurable warming for that matter, can be attributed to a human causation.
This is not so much a stance as a statement of fact. What is it about it that disappoints you?
Best.
Bob Carter
[Response: Thanks for stopping by. Perhaps you’d care to enlighten us on how attribution might proceed without the recourse to models of some sort? To pick a neutral topic, how about the attribution of the cooling in 1992 and 1993 to the aerosols emitted from the Pinatubo eruption? Without any quantitative idea of what would have happened with and without the eruption (which would entail two planets in the absence of modelling), it seems to be that your ’stance’ has only one predetermined conclusion (that no attribution of anything is possible). I doubt very much whether that would stand any scientist in good stead. - gavin]
19 August 2008 at 18:11
#44: [the climate science community has not communicated this issue in an accurate and convincing manner to people in other fields, or to the general public]
Accurate? Convincing?!? FTW [head explodes]
News flash: There plenty of high profile people and institutions, and the well covered IPCC report, already getting the word out *accurately* that we are in deep deep crapola. What is happening is that these voices are pit against charismatic hucksters like Crichton and Inhofe, and then the media doesn’t help by promoting a sense of “debate” because that sells papers. The debate, if there was one, ended 20 years ago.
Scientists are largely limited to their own process for getting information and data into the hands of policy makers and the public. That process is called the scientific method, and it’s vehicle is peer-reviewed publication. It is accurate, within human limits, and convincing.
Hucksters have no such limitations, not even ethics nor morality by the looks of it. Whores and shills, anything-for-a-buck is their method and they will do and say just about anything, to anyone, to get what they want. “Dressed as a nun and selling dope to kids” is the visual I get.
So long as we are largely profit-driven in our thinking and risk averse when it comes to changes, we as a community a republic and a civilization are sleep walking into a meat grinder. If that’s what people want, then that is what they are going to get, in spades and with a twist of lemon, and it won’t be because climate scientists were inaccurate or unconvincing!
cb
– act fast decide fast –
19 August 2008 at 18:11
#47 Gee, where do you live? Not here despite the La Nina. Especially when you compare to winter field work of 20 years ago.
19 August 2008 at 18:21
#43 Keith
Any argument that denies anthropogenic global warming without a scientific case, or even well reasoned holistic argument is irrelevant for the most part.
In other words if what comes form left field has not relevant context than it is irrelevant.
The case for AGW is tremendously strong. It is quantifiable. The cloud questions aside, the paleo record indicates that further warming in the past was not reversed by some magic cloud albedo. So even the few remaining scientists claiming clouds will be our saviour don’t seem to have a decent paleo record to stand on.
There is no reason to tolerate a side of the debate that has no foundation in science or even reason for that matter. myopia is not a virtue and myopic science can not compete with holistic science as regards the aggregate of known data and substantial models as this time.
I continue to wait for wonderful science that will prove we have nothing to be concerned about but it is not only not materializing, it is being summarily beaten into the ground of unfounded reason. Until such time, the egg will continue to cook and whose face it shall be on is now reasonably known from a scientific point of view.
As to the likely hood that the skeptics shall win the argument? Well, I’m still waiting to win the lotto too, but form some magnanimous person that wins for me and then decides the money is best used by me rather than them, those are the odds as I see it at this point. Please do prove me wrong.
19 August 2008 at 18:29
#47 Russel
Wow, thanks for solving the climate puzzle for the world, We are all thankful for your insight and wisdom. Everyone can go home now, no need to research any further. It is clear that the earth is cooling now.
Gavin is better at commenting than I am of course.
Russel, I’m sorry, but please do a little research before solving all the worlds problems. Climate is long term not short term. 30 years or better with a trend analysis. Looks like you got some reading ahead of you.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso
Look into forcing levels too. That’s pretty important to understanding what is going on in the atmosphere. Also, it’s very important that you realize that the temperature where you are does not represent the temperature around the world. Climate is large scale and weather is local. That will help you get some perspective.
19 August 2008 at 18:38
I’ve noticed there is a great enthusiasm for subterranean caverns for climate mitigation purposes ranging from CO2 burial to compressed air storage. This goes all the way back to Immanuel Kant who thought that is where the tides went. Also when geologists point to earlier climate cycles they seem to blank out the issue of 6.7 bn humans with knife edge dependency on food and water.
BTW winter this year Down Under seems to be around 2C cooler than last year, albeit after an exceptionally mild autumn.
19 August 2008 at 19:03
Alastair McDonald (49) — I believe you are mistaken in writing that climate sensitivity is derived only from models.
Bob Carter (51) — [edit] The evidence that humans have added considerale excess global warming (so-called greenhouse) gases to the atmosphere in the last 250 years or so is abundantly clear. You can read about it in “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
Review of above:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E7DF153DF936A35753C1A9659C8B63
I also encourage you to read W.F. Ruddiman’s popular “Plows, Plagues and Petroleum” for his views on early anthrpogenic influences on the climate; he has a guest thread here on RealClimate.
[Captcha reminds us “plant internment”, a good way to remove excess CO2 from the active carbon cycle.]
19 August 2008 at 19:03
I often reference skeptics of human induced climate warming to this site to learn the facts but that generally is a hopeless cause. While people here are generally open to new ideas and tend to trust the ‘experts’ to sweat the details after careful peer review, this will never be the case for AGW skeptics.
That is the failing of all scientist (outside the field) that are determined to prove AGW as false. A simple fact is that most people in America are extremely superstitious (most people believe in the literal interpellation of biblical ‘facts’.) In an identical manner most of these people tend to hold onto preconceived ideas regardless of scientific facts because it threatens their other superstitions. In time, some people begin to separate their religious superstitions from scientific fact and will slowly accept AGW but this will be a very slow process. Expecting experts in other fields not to follow their superstitions is like expecting all children to be above average.
19 August 2008 at 19:15
Re 27 -
There’s an issue of combined rapidity, manitude, and unfamiliarity. A rapid temperature change of 0.1 deg generally is no big deal. A gradual change of several degrees over millions of years is something to which ecosystems can adapt. If climate has been changing within some range, then changes that remain within the same range may be less likely to cause many extinctions or economic disruptions than changes that go into relatively unfamiliar territory.
The sun has been getting brighter gradually over hundreds of millions of years. The radiative forcing of CO2 is roughly logarithmically proportional to atmospheric concentration. There is significant uncertainty in CO2 levels going that far back in time.
There were plants during the last ice age, not in the same places, but they did grow.
19 August 2008 at 19:21
Bob Carter,
I also thank you for coming here, and I hope you will continue correspondence with myself and others. I am also a student, so I’m sure it would be enlightening.
Through watching a wide variety of your lectures, you seem to have a common set of arguments, one of which is the quality of empirical evidence over computer models. Unfortunately, in any complex system (not just climate, as a geologist you can appreciate representations of the Earth’s crust, in looking at rock behavior underground, identifying fault planes, etc) computers are necessary to solve a number of complex equations. It is not the conclusion of Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations (the report from the Federal Science Program) to dismiss the models, which have proven to be remarkably useful in the attribution effort, despite the deficiencies that remains to date (e.g., regional precipitation patterns). However, there are a wide variety of observations such as the overall warming trend of the 20th century, the cooling above the tropopause, the lack of significant changes in other forcing mechanisms, and the geologic record, which affirm that a) the planet is warming b) rising greenhouse gases will cause warming (with over 100 years of physics to support this).
You continue to use the word “catastrophic” in your argument (as in, there will be no “catastrophic AGW”). Would you mind sharing with me a scientific definition (particularly in the IPCC or the scientific literature) as to what exactly this means? The usage seems to be [edit] subjective, and rather ill-defined.
19 August 2008 at 19:40
Bob, I am disappointed at statements (eg on cooling, ice core CO2), well-refuted in literature and which I find it hard to believe that you are unaware of. I agree that the role of science is always to question, always to strive for new models - but I dont see a better model than AGW, so till one comes along, risk analysis says we act on this one.
In 1978 or 1979, you made the point that solar insolation variations in a Milankovich cycle alone are insufficient to explain the observed changes in Pleistocene climate. Everything I have seen published since then says you were right - you need other feedbacks. Well GHGs are an excellent part of that feedback system. Do you have better?
19 August 2008 at 19:53
I was a gardener for thirty years before returning to school recently to get a doctorate. I spent 8+ hours a day outside over that period of time. What I saw over those thirty years was that, especially in the last 15 or so, the growing season for many herbaceous plants extended by two weeks annually over that period of time; moreover, we went from a USDA climate zone of 7B to 8A. I suspect my observations have about as much validity as yours, Russell (which is to say: not a hell of a lot in the larger scheme of things).
19 August 2008 at 20:14
One question for Dr. Carter:
If the coal and oil burned in the past century had been burned by a basalt eruption through an area of coal and petroleum — hypothetically, the same amount of fossil carbon burned in the same time, the same charts — would you have a way to address the question whether that event contributed to a change in the atmosphere and climate?
That is, if we take out the ‘anthropogenic’ question entirely but assume the exact same increase in CO2, would you think it possible to attribute the measured temperature change to the CO2 change?
19 August 2008 at 20:18
Bob Carter, Empirical evidence, huh? Well, how about the fact that the stratosphere is cooling as the troposphere warms? How about the fact we are seeing the microclimates in mountain ranges changing dramatically? How about the fact that we can actually see the energy that is being absorbed in the CO2 absorption line? How about the known physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas? Just curious, Bob, what evidence would convince you. You must have something in mind that is missing. [edit]
19 August 2008 at 20:26
The only professor I had that didn’t believe in anthropogenic global warming was a geologist. As part of our class assignments we were to read this piece of work: http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Politically-Correct-Climate/dp/0595297978
One day he also had a quote from Steve Milloy on his overhead.
19 August 2008 at 20:32
Keith, Want to contribute to climate science. Great. All are welcome. All you have to do is play by the same rules as everybody else–that is publish something that advances the science in a peer-reviewed journal and present your case therein with sufficient cogency that you convince your colleagues and rivals. Simple, huh? What’s that? You don’t know enough climate science to publish such a paper? Then why in the hell should any of the experts who do give a damn what you say about climate science? Why the hell should they care what I say–it isn’t my metier? Like it or not, that’s the way science works: You study the field for 10 years grad and undergrad. You get a postdoc for another 5 years and study it some more. You get your professional position (prof, researcher…) and study it some more. And finally, after maybe 20 years, you understand it enough that you can make your own small contribution. Yes, outsiders do very occasionally make important contributions to a scientific field–but they do so after devoting years of study to their new chosen field. To think that you can do so after a few weeks perusal is sheer arrogance.
You do have a place in this debate, but it has nothing to do with the science. Rather, it has to do with what we do to confront this threat. All you do by denying good science is leave your chair at the negotiating table vacant.
19 August 2008 at 21:18
A geology professor of mine, Eldridge Moores, certainly is concerned about anthropogenic global warming. He is a Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Geology at the University of California, Davis, and a former president of the Geological Society of America. He and his wife Judith have been extremely active locally through lectures, field trips, and legislative action.
Some some old geology profs get it. And they have become activists in their “retirement” years.
19 August 2008 at 22:09
re #52 (cb): act fast, decide fast, shoot your toes off…
19 August 2008 at 22:52
Yes, the geology profs get it. They know what’s coming down the road.
19 August 2008 at 23:07
Bob Carter, have a look at some of the data analysis displayed at this site…
http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/
http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/08/just-in-case-there-are-any-doubts-about.html
I find this very compelling and graphic evidence that demonstrates effectively what is happening.
20 August 2008 at 0:56
“A geologists’ consensus on a kind of rock, or mountain range formation or sea floor spreading is certainly worth listening too. But an endocrinologist’s opinion on the same thing - not so much. To each field their own consensus. - gavin”
Are you suggesting Gavin that a trained scientist is unable to make sense of science and comment on it? I can read papers outside my discipline (biology) and understand them. Erudition is not a degree on a wall but a commitment to learning a subject area.
[Response: Of course not. Good scientists are always capable of learning more and expanding from their original discipline. My career is completely typical in that respect (mathematics-> fluid mechanics-> oceanography->climate-> paleo-climate etc.). But getting respect in a new field is a little more complicated (and more intensive) than simply declaring that you have squared the circle, created a perpetual motion machine, or that you know that CO2 increases can’t have an effect on climate. Understanding the body of work within a field is a sine qua non of making advances, and you are wise if pay attention to what it consists of before challenging aspects of it. - gavin]
20 August 2008 at 1:27
From a geologic point of view, carbon dioxide is irrelevant to climate. This is because the CO2 will simply accelerate silicate weathering, drawing it out of the atmosphere and eventually precipitating it as carbonate.
While there may be transient effects, the timescale of those effects is too fine to resolve geologically, so they aren’t worth worrying about.
As for the effects of climate on the biota, that too is irrelevant. species go extinct all the time, and when they do, something else radiates into their niche.
So from the planetary perspective, this whole CO2 thing is just another blip like the PETM. In a few million years, it will be nothing but a curiosity. Narrow-minded activist interested in the survival of particular subgroups such as ice-dwelling pinnipeds or bipedal primates might complain, but to what end? We’re all headed for the fossil record eventually, so changing the extinction time of a particular group by a few tens of kiloyears isn’t going to be detectable in the long run.
20 August 2008 at 6:18
RE #5 & 9 “The climate has always changed in the past due to natural variability, and life on earth has survived very well.” & “It is no surprise that many of them will initially be skeptical towards claims that humans are responsible for the current changes, when they are acutely aware of the massive changes that have always taken place without humans around.”
I call it the “geological perspective.” I’ve also noted several geologists as late as 2002 (the last time I spoke with or heard about one) totally reject anthropogenic global warming. One was a retired geology prof, one a prof at a community college where the head geology prof was an adamant denialist (knowing other community colleges I suspect they got funding from a source opposed to acknowledging AGW), and the other a Univ prof– I actually heard the latter’s argument thru a student who relayed almost verbatim the argument above.
It’s sort of like when geneticists traced our mitochondrial DNA (of every living human today….except perhaps some neanderthals
) back to a single woman, an “Eve,” who lived in Africa some 200,000 years ago. Some physical anthropologists, who study the fossil remains, sort of got their noses bent out of shape, and some were skeptical.
Another thing, geologists are not biologists or social scientists; they’ll be more focused on rocks, rather than life or human life, which will be the part most harmed by GW. I imagine rocks will fair better. I even imagine biologists are quite a bit more frantic about GW than even climate scientists.
20 August 2008 at 6:36
Re Greg Smith’s post — I wonder if Mr. Smith is, indeed, a geologist, as he claims. Geologists use a LOT of computer models. To criticize computer models would be shooting themselves in the foot.
20 August 2008 at 6:41
What Geologist dream about…
http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/gallery_main.cfm
I especially like the “Dino killer”
P.S. I’m with Bob
20 August 2008 at 7:01
http://iztxdw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pGjuQqOxU3lR1f-Y4iDQvPdkcGb9BHwxAYEiWttFZUvGV4lBggPyn38VqF3FO9kGZ2kvnZ3p17Lg/IPCC%20Antartica.jpg
Looking at this chart of the history of ice sheet formation and James Hansens recent paper on the subject in order to determine overall climate sensitivity I can see (work out by eye if you like) that for every 50 ppmv global SST rises by 1C. How much does that rise atmospheric temperatures by. Can Dr Carter explain that ?
[Response: That is the combined sensitivity of climate to CO2 and CO2 to climate - you cannot use it naively to deduce the climate sensitivity without taking into account all the other things that are changing as well. - gavin]
20 August 2008 at 7:11
Re 19. Ken Miller,
please see
Carson, Mark, and D. E. Harrison, 2008. Is the Upper Ocean Warming? Comparisons of 50-Year Trends from Different Analyses. Journal of Climate Vol. 21, No 10, pp. 2259-2268, May 2008
“…these results suggest that upper ocean heat content integrals and integral trends may be substantially more uncertain than has yet been acknowledged. Further exploration of uncertainties is needed.”
[Response: They were explored in Domingues et al (2008), or didn’t that come to as convenient a conclusion? - gavin]
20 August 2008 at 7:29
Richard, there is a lightyear of difference between being able to read and comprehend research in a discipline outside your own and being able to make a meaningful contribution to that field. I can read and understand papers on climate science–after devoting a couple of years to understanding the science. I cannot compare my level of knowledge to someone who publishes regularly in the field. I find it very hard to believe that anyone could spend >20 years learning their own field and not appreciate the value of expertise and experience. Why is that so hard for some folks to understand?
20 August 2008 at 7:41
Re #76,Thanks Gavin for the reply but I am a little unsure about the answer you have given. Can I ask as to why does the chart show our emission levels in relation to historical ones if the chart is not seemingly accurate in relation to our abilty to have a ice free planet at the poles if we continue BAU for the rest of the century?
If we achieve 400 ppmv then the Arctic is in danger (Greenland to I suppose) and at 500 so is the Antarctic. I mean what was responsible for taking out the CO2 from the atmosphere, colder oceans? Larger forests, weathering of rocks (Andes example). James Hansen makes this chart even more alarming with his 016 forams evidence making the case for doubling overall climate sensitivity to 6C for a pre industrial doubling of CO2.
Maybe this explains why the Arctic sea ice is seemingly disappearing quicker than any of the IPCC models suggest ?
Thanks Gavin.
[Response: We discussed this in more detail a few months ago - gavin]
20 August 2008 at 7:53
I love the post by Lab Lemming.
I am a structural engineer, and the comment above that civil engineers are skeptics touches close to home. Of course, I have met a few who are, but the level of interest in the engineering community is very high and there are plenty like me who are active in promoting action to reduce emissions.
There will always be the nay-sayers, but the problem we have is that time is running out here. It takes many years to re-build the sort of infrastructure we need to change our dependance on fossil fuels.
It is great to hear about the proposals to build large solar and wind power stations, but it is all happening too slowly. You are the ones who have the information at your fingertips. What we need is a stronger representation of that information.
I would like to see a site where the projections are clearly presented and updated regularly. It would need to include the projected reductions in emissions that we can currently rely on (not very much at present).
I envisage it to be a bit like the ‘clock to midnight’ but with direct values for GHG concentrations and associated temperature rises, projected into the next 50 years. The Wolfram site is a good start but only goes as far as GHG concentrations
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/BestEffortGlobalWarmingTrajectories/
Its also not very user friendly for the layman (such as myself).
20 August 2008 at 8:01
Have you climate people ever thought that maybe the reason behind the sceptism might be due the lack of basic explanation how the increase of CO2 and other greenhouse gases really causes the temperatures to rise? This has been discussed here sometimes as well, and the best material provided so far has been some link to a manuscript, not yet ready for publishing.
The finnish athmosphere experts just published a book about climate change, and the whole greenhouse effect was “explained” with a sentence or two, like “CO2 works as a greenhouse ceiling preventing radiation out of athmosphere”. Can’t really the best scientists of the world provide any good, step by step introduction which someone with high school or university level education would understand, and which would testify how the so called greenhouse effect really works.
[Response: The desire to move beyond cliched metaphors is well understood, and there is plenty of introductory material. Try a couple of posts here (on simple models and on why CO2 is a problem), but for something meatier you are better off with a text book. Either David Archer’s book or Ray Pierrehumbert’s draft text should satisfy most people. And if you still want more, Houghton’s Physics of Atmospheres is the definitive work - that takes some time to work through though. - gavin]
20 August 2008 at 8:06
Re #79, OK so it is uncertain but is there any legs in regard to Arctic sea ice disappering faster than models predict in relation to overall climate sensitivity or is it just too soon to tell?
Regards
Pete
[Response: IMO, it’s a little too soon to tell. - gavin]
20 August 2008 at 10:00
I must object strongly to the article’s implication that it may be the geologists who are the ‘denialist’s’ & least informed re GW. Being a retired paleobiologist & I’ve been around long enough to have seen quite clearly that geologists & paleontologists have been at the forefront of climate science, along w/the (then few) climatologists, since the 70s.
Granted, much early debate was about coordination of Milankovitch cycles & the geologic record & just how long it might be before another glacial advance. But popular science literature unfortunately lead to public misconceptions of an impending ‘ice age’.
At the same time a coalition of paleontologists & paleoecologists, palynologists, sedimentologists, biogeochemists, marine geologists & glaciologists together w/dendrochronologists, geoarchaeologists, & climatologists called CLIMAP set about to map fine-scale global climate changes in climate over the Pleistocene.
If it weren’t for our long-term & ever-more refined & expansive knowledge of Earth history there would be little against which to compare today’s temperature & sea level & ocean acidity to test any GW hypothesis, much less the basis for an established theory. Nor would we know that future temperatures may exceed all but the Eocene Maximun. Geology is essential to the science of GW. I was fond of telling my intro students that, “they’d ‘made the wrong choice’ of required science, thinking they’d encounter no physics chemistry or biology. They’d signed themselves into all of them!”
In my own experience, it was Kelvin Rodolfo (U of I, Chicago)who’s visionary approach to geology explicated as integrated homeostatic systems over a spectrum of time frames introduced the subject of GW in intro geology as early as 75. What a shame it was the conservative publishing industry ignorned his attempt to revise perspectives long before Lovelock’s teleologically posed Gaia.
Still some where taught in ‘old school’ fashion. As late as 1993, (I’d been teaching a class in GW since 90 & following it for a decade), a former colleague who’s specialty was meteorology, insisted there was no difference between climate & weather: Until that is, he taught historical geology for the first time in a decade. He was stunned at the field’s dramatic revisions & graciously conceded my point.
Within geology there certainly are distinct, often adversarial divisions between those who’s self-interests are petoleum & mining vs that of academics. Yet the lure of money has fooled ever fewer academics who’d begun their educations during or shortly after plate tectonic theory emerged. They’ve increasingly seen through industry’s propagada campaigns since the late 80s, at which time many institutions began to switch emphasis toward the environment & an Earth systems approach.
For some reason geologists still get unfairly kicked about. I think this can be traced back to poor high school science teaching & the fact that geologists are barred from the Nobel Prize (i.e., public perception). Their minds aren’t as old & hardened as the objects they study; some were visionaries studying the future through the past & many others carry on.
20 August 2008 at 10:13
Chris (#60),
You assert that “You continue to use the word “catastrophic” in your argument (as in, there will be no “catastrophic AGW”). Would you mind sharing with me a scientific definition (particularly in the IPCC or the scientific literature) as to what exactly this means? The usage seems to be [edit] subjective, and rather ill-defined”.
I don’t think that I have ever used the word “”catastrophic” in the way that you assert.
Rather, and as in my previous post, I use the phrase “dangerous climate change”. Why? Because if human-induced change cannot be demonstrated to be, first, measurable, and, second, dangerous or potentially so, then we can all get on with our lives and stop worrying.
How do you define dangerous? Well, that’s probably the IPCC’s job not mine, and - though I stand to be corrected if there is a section buried somewhere in 4AR that I have missed - they seem to have failed to do so. Whatever: it is nonetheless widely assumed by politicians and many others, and not discouraged by the IPCC, that an increase in temperature greater than 2 deg. C should be avoided, i.e. would be dangerous.
I am unaware of any empirical (that word again) justification for the assumption that 2 deg. C of warming is ipso facto dangerous.
Rather, this number appears to have been plucked out of the air at a BMO-hosted meeting at Exeter in 2005, termed “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change”. At this meeting, the argument was put that in order to get politicians to pay attention there HAD to be an actual “number of degrees warming is dangerous” that would allow climate alarmism to be marketed in a way that the public would understand. (This was, I think, the same meeting that determined the change in media usage from “global warming” to “climate change”, which was similarly promulgated for cynical marketing-the-message reasons).
See: http://www.stabilisation2005.com/
Local geological records contain countless examples of greater increases (or decreases) in temperature than 2 deg. C. The nearby animals and plants (ecosystems, if you like) did what they always do, i.e. shifted their geographic distributions and/or adapted to the different conditions. Though usually depicted as the destroyer of biodiversity, climate change is in fact nature’s most powerful engine for increasing it.
Bob Carter
[Response: No answers to my question above? - gavin]
20 August 2008 at 10:33
re #79
That manuscript (at what stage of publication is this?) states:
“The approximate equilibrium characterizing most of Earth’s history is unlike the current situation, in which GHGs are rising at a rate much faster than the coupled climate system can respond”
This is an interesting conjecture. (For it IS a conjecture - unsupported by citation, I notice.) Is it that the coupled climate system is not capable of responding to fast-rising GHGs on a fast time scale, or are you simply failing to detect the fast response because you are focused on the wrong indicator, atmospheric temperature, as opposed to some other, possibly more relevant indicators, such as ocean convection or cloud formation?
Note the tie-in to Pete Best’s #82 question about arctic sea ice melt. Presumably SSTs (affected by deep convection) have something to do with melt rate. If it is “a little too soon” to determine what is causing faster-than-predicted melt, maybe one possibility is poorly understood & modeled ocean circulation dynamics?
[Yes, I realize it is “unscientific” to speculate on causes for model-data mismatch. I may as well be advocating flying spaghetti mosterism as a cause, right?]
20 August 2008 at 11:26
Re 77. Gavin,
interesting is only how natural variations, oscillations and cycles again and again superimpose human influences. Still waiting…
20 August 2008 at 11:31
RE: #51
Bob Carter has been vocal [edit] for a number of years. If one is interested in his point of view, go back 2006, when he testified before Inhofe’s Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on 6 December.
His presentation would appear to be serious science, which makes it difficult for the average reader to assess whether he is correct of not. In his testimony, it turns out that he relied on data from Spencer and Christy’s analysis of MSU satellite data, referencing the basic Channel 2 data, not the TLT product. The TLT product was intended to correct for the stratospheric cooling which contaminated the channel 2 data. Thus, his presentation understates the warming seen in the MSU data, a fact which has been known since Spencer & Christy first presented the TLT back in 1992. He also references Loehle’s 2004 analysis, which used deeply flawed assumptions in an attempt to project future climate.
E. S.
20 August 2008 at 11:53
David #75
Dino Killer? Que est que se?
Far far far far far far better:
run run run run away!
PS I think one of the problems is that geologists are being *asked* about climate changes. When your car is having problems, do you go to your heating system engineer for questions?
20 August 2008 at 11:53
Re: #48 Robert Reiland
Robert, it appears your assumption is that plants have evolved to the point that they would no longer thrive under the CO2 concentrations that existed closer to the time they evolved. I would like to know your sources for this position; perhaps it is just a supposition on your part. Hundreds of studies indicate that most plants will thrive under much higher CO2 concentrations than exist today. I refer you to:
http://www.purgit.com/co2ok.html
Regards,
20 August 2008 at 12:30
#36, Richard Pauli–
“We all welcome novices, students and even skeptics. Denialists, ideologues, obstructionists and disruptors have no place here. And you know it.”
If not here, where do all the liars actually belong?
(Oh, and as for injecting economic philosophy, I meant to do no such thing.)
“Much more significant, how much should we tolerate voices that prevent us from knowing and describing dangers to our future?”
As far as I can tell, scientists know and have described more than enough of the dangers to our future to convince people like me that we need to consider how best to spend our money in light of climate change. And the most persuasive thing (to me at least) is that whenever an obstructer, disruptor, denier or idealogue comes in here raising some nonsense issues, these guys deal with it politely, firmly, honestly, and as transparently as possible.
How would adopting a view of deniers such that they should be dealt with in an unnecessarily heavy-handed or murky way increase the credibility of scientists when it comes to time to persuade people like me that they (and not the obfuscators) are telling the truth?
I think it adds much credibility to RC as a source for climate news and does much to undermine the denialist position every time an outrightly false comment is both permitted to be posted and is subsequently refuted, be it by the RC contributors themselves or by the (growing?) community of like-minded and reasonable commenters.
20 August 2008 at 12:42
Richard Sycamore, you are grasping at straws. First, how are greenhouse gasses supposed to change ocena convection or cloud formation, etc. if not via changes in temperature? And your attribution of ice melting to changes in ocean circulation might be more believable if the ice melt were not occurring globally. Again, you are looking to explain the unknown in terms of the unknown–that’s not how science works, especially when you have a known mechanism that has no trouble explaining the observed effects.
20 August 2008 at 12:44
Bob Carter:
Though usually depicted as the destroyer of biodiversity, climate change is in fact nature’s most powerful engine for increasing it.
I guess that’s why with the rapid and dramatic climate changes at the Permian-Triassic and Cretaceous-Tertiary boundaries there were corresponding increases in biodiversity. Not.
20 August 2008 at 12:46
RE #27 & C3 plants doing better with CO2 rich air, and C4 doing better with CO2 meager air.
I saw a program about this years ago (based on an experiment in a greenhouse), and what you say is true — we can expect both C3 and C4 plants to do better in CO2 enriched air; however, C3 plants do a lot better, and outdo C4 plants (which only do a bit better) as the CO2 increases.
However the scientists pointed out that this is quite disturbing, since our food crops tend to be C4 plants, and the weeds that stifle and overtake C4 plants tend to be C3 plants!
Also they found (as a surprise to them) that insects did more plant damage. It seems that even though the C4 plants did do a bit better in CO2 enriched air, they were less nutritious and insects had to eat a lot more of them to get the same amount of nourishment.
So we should expect more crop loss due to weeds and insects in a CO2 enriching atmosphere.
But this says nothing about the global warming effects of increasing heat, soil desiccation, droughts, storms, wildfires, and floods on those food crops — which should have an even greater negative impact than the CO2 enriched atmosphere.
20 August 2008 at 12:54
Bob Carter:
[T]he change in media usage from “global warming” to “climate change” … was … promulgated for cynical marketing-the-message reasons
I don’t suppose one of those “cynical” reasons was that “climate change” is the more accurate description? E.g. for John Q. Public it might confusing to talk about stratospheric cooling as a part of “global warming“; the term “climate change” removes the needless cognitive dissonance.
20 August 2008 at 13:05
Don, #89.
These are plants with plenty of other stuff available. They didn’t have to put up with ANYTHING other than increased CO2. No stresses, no invading species, no new predators, fungi, diseases or parasites. No change in humidity, no change in temperatures.
Even if it were doing some good, how does it replace the land that used to support people on the borders of the sahara? Are you going to let them move from the new dessert into your area because your plants are growing better when theirs are dying? Taking your jobs, homes and land?
20 August 2008 at 13:05
Dear Gavin,
One of the reasons that RealClimate is discounted by some as a source of serious scientific comment is because of your continual allowance of unproductive ad hominem abuse.
The first part of the comment at #87 from Eric Swanson is a typical example.
It adds nothing to the debate, and in a properly invigilated site would have been edited out.
Report Card: the RealClimate pupil has promise but must learn to do better in distinguishing between emotions and science.
Bob Carter
[Response: Hmmm…. putting aside for the moment the issue of who needs lessons in manners or in scientific thinking, I’ve edited out the offending word. I would be much happier for you to comment on the serious questions I posed above rather than getting caught up in pointless rhetorical digressions. Just so that we are clear, I am not interested in your approval, just your answers. Then we can make a Report Card on something substantive. - gavin]
20 August 2008 at 13:14
Why is a geologist telling us the ecologists are all wrong about ecological consequences of warming?
Isn’t there an irony meter on this thing somewhere?
20 August 2008 at 13:43
In today’s news:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fewer-april-showers-for-southwest
McAfee, S. A., and J. L. Russell (2008), Northern Annular Mode impact on spring climate in the western United States, Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2008GL034828, in press.
(accepted 22 July 2008)
20 August 2008 at 13:50
Let’s all thank Bob Carter for having just sunk Marohasy’s blog, Climate Audit, and Watts Up With That …
20 August 2008 at 13:55
Re 8
Ice is the most common oxide mineral in the solar system, at times in the relatively recent geological past forming the bulk of the Earth’s crust, even as it does that of Europa and Enceladus today.
Given that the average temperature of the Earth is closer to the melting point of SiO2 than H20,it seems parochial climate science should obsess on a temperature regime so narrowly centered on 300K.
20 August 2008 at 14:34
Milankovitch cycles are “computer” models. (Okay, you can do the math by hand if you have enough time). If they didn’t compare successfully with empirical data, nobody would believe them. (And they weren’t established as a climate forcer until enough data piled up to support them.
It is always the combination of data and theory that makes science so powerful. Many geologists, as well as weather forecasters and experimentalists, are not comfortable with mathematics and tend to react with suspicion to theories that are heavily mathematical.(As opposed to a simple precept like uniformitarianism).
I keep thinking of the plate tectonic sessions at the American Geophysical Union in the early 1970’s, where the old geologists used to whisper to each other, “But do you believe in continental drift?” I still know a geologist who does not.
The inability of some geologists, or other scientists, to absorb the evidence for rapid climate change combined with the basic chemistry and equations behind the predictions of the models would not be significant IF there were not a massive, well-funded public relations campaign to discredit climate change.
20 August 2008 at 15:07
Bob Carter (# 84)
Thank you for the reply. Regardless of your feelings on RC or other members, I hope we can continue this exchange. I’d also like something productive so I will spend as little time as possible quibbling over definitions which we should agree are inherently subjective to some extent. If someone said that an asteroid hitting the Earth that wiped out 95% of life was not catastrophic