I’d like to call your attention to the above titled book by H. Leighton Steward, which is reviewed on my blog at
http://bricolagia.blogspot.com/2010/05/more-satisfying-view-of-anthropogenic.html. It seems that many geologists take a different view of AGW than climatologists, and their views should be taken into account.
Now about me: I’m making good progress. I am in my third cycle of chemotherapy and the bad proteins have come down by about 66%. When they get down near zero I will have a stem cell transplant at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Your prayers will be appreciated.
An interesting citation study has just been published in PNAS online:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf
<blockquote>Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC dis- cussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.</blockquote>
The PNAS citation survey I posted matched a survey of 3,146 earth scientists from the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments. The two questions were: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
When the sample was restricted to those who published peer-reviewed papers in climatology the answer to question two jumped to 97%. When you moved away from the domain experts you get a less decisive result. This was explained by the study authors this way:
“In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.
“The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists’ is very interesting,” he said. “Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon.”
He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
“They’re the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you’re likely to believe in global warming and humankind’s contribution to it.”
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.” The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.”
In 2010, the only way you can claim that AGW is not real is to be in utter denial.Here’s the latest view of record-breaking warmth in 2010 at minimum solar irradiance to boot.
If you use a 60 0r 132 month rolling mean there hasn’t even been a pause in global warming. It’s just up and to the right. See Figure 21 on page 30 here.
Finally, we are seeing a massive collapse of the ice in the Arctic not only on track to set a new minimum extent but a more troubling a total collapse in volume. What’s happening in the Arctic is arguably a larger environmental disaster than what is going on in the Gulf.
The link to the solar irradiance graph didn’t work. It’s here.
ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/DataPlots/comp06_ext_d41_62_1005.pdf
One reason why the domain experts, the climatologists, may have vastly different views than non-domain experts is the Dunning-Kruger effect. This effect is summarized by Dunning and Kruger as “unskilled [...] people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.” This effect is shown both in the skilled and unskilled. The unskilled vastly overestimate their ability and the skilled slightly underestimate theirs.
This effect is not limited to unintelligent people nor is it static. A 2008 followup study found that 94% of professors rated their own work as above average. When the “skilled” were exposed to the views of the “unskilled” they gave the unskilled less benefit of the doubt and their underestimate of their own abilities became less pronounced. When the “unskilled” were trained in a particular area both their skill and overall self-assessment improved.
Whether the domain is climatology or evolutionary biology the current hyper-politicized environment cuts off the ability of the unskilled to reduce their ignorance. The skilled who could help here are labeled as elites or in the case of church laypeople, atheists and materialists.
This is where the ASA can help the people in the pews. We can help them overcome their mistrust of the domain experts, showing that the so-called elites really are skilled in their endeavors. That way they are not permanently stuck in their ignorance. This is important not only for them but also their children. If the children discover that the “emperor wears no clothes” they might wrongly conclude that ignorance is a hallmark of Christianity rather than a politically enforced echo chamber. Thus, the issue becomes much larger than the particular topic at hand which may be in itself of little or no importance.
Good points, Rich. I think the 132 month rolling average plot is a very good way to see the data. A 12 month rolling average smooths out seasonal variation while 132 month averages smooth out the solar cycles. Yes, the increase is very clear. The 60 month rolling average does show a brief flattening over the last few years which is consistent with what is known about the influences on the system during that period.
Overall, it appears that the data continue to strengthen in credibility. Despite an incredible intensity of effort, no error in data or in interpretation has come forward that would alter the conclusions. It really is time to focus on the solutions and not on discussions of whether or not there is a problem.
I’m wondering what you all think of the various geoengineering proposals that have been raised. I’m rather skeptical of these. Do you see any that might be worth consideration with very low risk of unintended consequences?
Randy
One shortcoming of most of the geoengineering proposals is that they address the temperature issue but not the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Therefore, they do nothing about the rapid acidification of the oceans (and consequent disruption of marine ecosystems), which may be as big a threat as the temperature and sea level issues.
All of which is not to say that geoengineering isn’t worth researching, but we can’t get the false idea that if we keep the temperature down we’ll have solved the whole problem.
I’m skeptical of geo-engineering because of the whole unintended consequences issue. The BP disaster shows how things can get away from you and how we sometimes in engineering trade can think we are “masters of the Universe” when there is only One Master. It’s one giant science experiment. With respect to that we were warned in 1957 of such an experiment (and in 1903 about the effects on the ocean that Allen was discussing above).
“CALLENDAR (1938, 1940, 1949) believed that nearly all the carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuel combustion has remained in the atmosphere, and he suggested that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide may account for the observed slight rise of average temperature in northern latitudes during recent decades. He thus revived the hypothesis of T.C. CHAMBERLIN (1899) and S. ARREHENIUS (1903) that climatic changes may be related to fluctuations in the carbon dioxide content of the air. These authors supposed that an increase of carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere would lower the mean level of back radiation in the infrared and thereby increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface. [RDB note: Note how the greenhouse effect was postulated a century before An Inconvenient Truth. The skeptics show their hubris by failing to acknowledge the over a century of development of the science of global warming.]
…
Most of the excess CO2 from fuel combustion may have been transferred to the ocean, a possibility suggested by S. ARRHENIUS (1903).
…
During the next few decades the rate of combustion of fossil fuels will continue to increase, if the fuel and power requirements of our world-wide industrial civilization continue to rise exponentially … Thus human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future. ”
Suess and Revelle, 1957. Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 during the Past Decades. Tellus. 9, p. 19. [Emphasis mine]
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123310993/PDFSTART
Rich, I wonder if you think the Dunning-Kruger effect applies to theology. I get plenty of grief from certain professional theologians that I don’t know what I’m talking about because I don’t have the PhD, ThD, MDiv or whatever that “qualifies” me as a theologian. Hence I have a “Sunday school” theology. Of course, I know plenty of PhD’s in theology who agree with me rather than these certain professional theologians. I also know that the issues of debate are long-standing differences between conservative and more progressive Biblical scholars. This was part of what was behind my post about inerrancy. I also know that in the past you and I have been on the same page with respect to this theological scholarship. So my question for you is why do you think this appeal to the expert is warranted in the case of science, but not in the case of theology or Biblical scholarship. How much of a majority is a consensus? Is there a consensus among Biblical scholars toward the more progressive results of Biblical studies (various higher and lower critical views, etc)? Is the minority of conservative evangelical scholars who resist the more progressive views more or less than the minority of scientists who resist or at least question the climate change arguments?
Applying Dunning-Kruger to theology is problematic because of the different nature of what constitutes consensus and expertise in theology over and against natural science. Natural sciences — particularly the experimental ones — have a natural tie breaker between dueling experts, namely the results of the experiments. If nothing else Dunning-Kruger is a warning that even people who are “professionals” may have blind spots and need the assistance of the skillful to resolve them. Generally speaking having more voices helps because there may be someone in the larger group who is skillful and get the others out of a ditch. This is why the conservative bogeyman of diversity is a very, very good thing.
Still, applying the consensus model of science in theology mostly breaks down in my opinion because there is a tendency of just cheerleading for one’s own side. Furthermore, the theologians may simply being pooling ignorance. But, there is another aspect of science that does work and that’s what I call the scientific mindset. The scientific mindset is good here and it’s commended by Scripture, too. Namely, test the spirits. One of themes that Tim Keller stresses is important here. That is the importance of doubt in the process of faith. This is not doubt in God but doubt that we really “get it”. This is also a place where post-modernism has a structural advantage over modernism. Having a doubt in our own meta-narrative and seeking other perspectives helps us out of our own blind spots. One of the ways I do it is through the study of historical theology. As I believe C.S. Lewis put it, people in ancient and foreign cultures may not be smarter or dumber than us but they have different errors and blind spots. Finally, Dunning-Kruger tells us that the people who doubt their own position are the ones most likely to be right. If consensus is a community searching for the truth continually testing their knowledge then it’s a good thing, but if it’s an excuse for pride then it’s not.