It’s long been known by everyone involved that CO2 itself could not drive climate change; the most it could directly accomplish is a degree or so of temperature increase. Climate researchers predicting large amounts of global warming have always assumed there would be a large, positive feedback from water vapor because the relative humdity would remain constant (i.e. the absolute humidity would increase). But, as it turns out, relative humidity is declining.
Richard Lindzen reminds us today that climate science should be treated as a science, not a political issue. Unfortunately, the debate has largely been hijacked by ideologues who label their opponents “denialists” and shriek “SCIENCE!” with all the intellectual rigor of an Aztec priest ripping the heart out of a human sacrifice to appease the sun god, all while demanding trillions to address a problem that may not exist via solutions that everyone agrees will not fix the problem (because China, Russia, and India will never accept Kyoto-like agreements).
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 14 comments }
I know I’m repeating myself, but: the tendency of scientists–like all other human beings–is to be resistant to the idea that they’re wrong about something. That’s why the scientific method works so well when it’s applied.
It will always be with us that there will be establishment scientists who strongly defend propositions that turn out to be wrong, and ridicule scientists who happen to be right.
But what worsens the entire phenomenon here is that we now have literally billions, sometimes even trillions, of dollars at stake. There are many, many, many people now whose careers are completely tied into this theory. Not just their pride. Not just their reputation. Their SALARIES.
Yet somehow we are supposed to think that just because they’re scientists, they’re immune to what people in almost every other field of human endeavor know as “conflict of interest?”
Ah, never mind. Those of us who point this out are merely “conspiracy theorists.” Because you know, conflict of interest is a serious charge, so we need to change the subject to “conspiracy.” Classic logic.
Simple question: you’ve been working primarily on global warming for 20 years, receiving regular grants from the government and intergovernmental bodies and NGOs to study it. You conclude after 20 years that it probably doesn’t really exist. What happens to your salary? And how are your colleagues who also draw most of their income from the study of this possibly non-existent phenomenon likely to treat you? I mean, they have mortgages to pay and college tuition/loans and kids to worry about too, right?
I want to puke every time I hear someone retort about “conspiracy” here. What a classic, classic way to dodge a question.
Global Warming — the scientific issue — is interesting. I think I speak for many non-zealots who appreciate that free-market capitalism, flaws and all, is the best way to create wealth and improve lives, yet would like it balanced with a clean environment to the extent possible. I simply would like to know what I can do to reduce waste and pollution and live cleaner lives.
Global Warming — the political issue — is a joke. You have multi-millionaires riding around in private jets to green conferences where they chastize and moralize us about some snail darter in some pond . Then, they scare a buncha gullible people with apocalyptic visions of volcanos, and tsunamis, and hurricanes, and really hot February days in Los Angeles, if we don’t immediately drive a Prius and make a compost pile out of our dinner scraps.
I don’t listen to global warming alarmists anymore. They have cried “wolf” once too often. Dr. Lindzen is a hero, because he actually practices science, not agenda-driven politics.
HB
I never listened to Global Warming alarmists. I recognized on day 1 that Global Warming was being promoted primarily as an anti-American and anti-corporate agenda first, foremost and only. Science drives Global Warming about as much as it does Creation theory. And with just about the same amount of unsupportable faith and dogma.
Just like evolution, huh?
Oh, wait, that’s right; When it’s something YOU believe in, it’s scientifically unassailable.
LOL, Kevin, the fact that YOU believe that Creationism and Evolution have remotely comparable scientific basises is not in any way a reflection of which of the two actually has a more sound and rigorous scientific basis.
The bare fact that virtually ALL believers in “Scientific Creationism” are fundamentalist evangelical Christians is hard evidence that it isn’t science at all. But this is getting off topic, I don’t want to travel down this path with you again. It’s pointless.
OK, everyone so far is going meta baout how scientists will fight to preserve their paychecks first and foremost, how global warming is a big conspiracy theory, etc. which is all well and good but doesn’t directly address the point made in the paper to which DP alludes.
The paper makes the following claims (see the abstract reprinted at Climate Audit):
- relative humidity has been thought to be increasing with global temperature (ie, positive feedback)
- in the upper atmosphere, according to balloon data, the paper reports that relative humidity has actually been decreasing (ie, negative feedback, with the warming trend that the authors explicitly acknowledge exists)
the authors themselves do acknowledge in the abstract itself that balloon data must be “treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPa pressure level”, though Anthony Watts does not mention this admission in his summary to which Dave linked. The abstract only reports a negative feedback trend above 850 hPa for the tropics and southern midlatitudes, and above 600 hPa for the northern midlatitudes. The abstract goes on to explicitly state that the humidity trend is “significantly positive below 850 hPa in all three zones” – which is where the vast bulk of the water vapor in the atmosphere resides.
the main conclusion of the paper is not as bold as Dave implies – they merely state that the data suggests that there might need to be a review of data collection protocols using balloons, since the data is so iffy indeed and at odds with satellite measurements (which contrary to Watts’ assertion, are probably more accurate for annual average measurements than spot measurements by balloon. see notes below for an analogy as to why). Here’s the first paragraph of the conclusion proper from the article full text (courtesy of Watts):
emphasis mine. The conclusion goes on to state that “trends of water vapor shown by the NCEP data for the middle and upper troposphere should not be “written off” simply on the basis that they are not supported by climate models”. I agree, but they should heed their own advice when they state a few sentences later, “it is important that as much information as possible be retrieved from within the “noise” of the potential errors.” If the balloon data is inherently noisy (partly due to collection protocols that the authors themselves acknowledge must be refined and reviewed) then making claims about the trends of relative humidity from that data alone is essentially treating noise as data. In light of the problems with the balloon data – again, explicitly acknowledged by the authors in their own abstract and conclusion – it’s perfectly reasonable that review papers continue to assert that there is a scientific consensus that water vapor provides a positive feedback.
The authors have made a good case for a review of balloon data collection protocols, but have made no claims on whether the data we have from balloons so far is of any value. The “central pillar” (not really) of GW theory has certainly not been “collapsed” by this paper in any sense.
Incidentally there is a lot more information about humidity and water vapor effects available from other science bloggers (yes, part of that pro-GW conspiracy to pad their paychecks, admittedly). See:
As far as the meta arguments about science go, note that the paper in question was accepted but according to Watts is being “ignored”. As far as i am aware, publication is the exact opposite of being “ignored”. One of the authors of the paper in question points to a single vitriolic and political comment by a reviewer as evidence that the paper’s refusal at a more prestigious journal is evidence of a deeper agenda at work; the poor thing may not be aware that reviewers are also human, that sometimes prestigious journals refuse perfectly valid papers for trivial reasons. Since they haven’t released the full text of the reviewers’ comments, we are not able to discern whether there were perhaps more substantive reasons for the refusal of the paper at the big journal. I am heartened by the author’s claims, however – clearly the recent refusal of one of my own papers on MRI neuroimaging in Multiple Sclerosis to the prestigious journal Brain is also evidence of a secret agenda against my research. And we were refused by the smaller journals, too, unlike this humidity paper in question. Perhaps I too can get on a lecture circuit?
At any rate the simple fact of the paper being accepted (granted, by a “lesser” journal than the author’s ego would prefer) puts the truth to the lie that anti-GW skeptics are being shut out by the all-powerful, money-grubbing GW consensus conspiracy.
finally, one note regarding satellite vs balloon measurements for long term averaged regional data. Balloons provide a single spot measure whereas satellites can integrate over a far larger area. The former are very vulnerable to local variation and noise whereas the latter can average these out by simple virtue of broader field. It’s like trying to assess whether a patient has fatty infiltrating liver disease by taking a liver biopsy: you take a tissue sample over here, but what if the diseased tissue is over there? if you image the whole liver at once (analogous to satellites), then you get the broad picture and can make a global (liver) assessment more accurately and safe from measurement variation.
(I’m cross-posting this comment at Nation-Building later as a post in its own right since it took me an hour to write and research)
Aziz, you disappoint. Once again with the dreaded “c” word? Conspiracy?
Listen man, a conspiracy requires that individuals human beings intentionally perpetrate something fraudulent or criminal, for selfish or ideological motives. Conspiracies do exist, but they are rare, they are punishable by law, and they almost never involve more than a tiny handful of people. They can’t; to perpetrate an intentional fraud (you know, to perpetrate a CONSPIRACY), you need everyone involved to trust each other and stay consistently on the same page.
With every person you add to the conspiracy, you probably double the chances of getting caught. The idea that you can have a serious conspiracy that involves hundreds or thousands of people is mathematically nearly impossible. Especially if it’s on an issue that drags on for years or decades.
Listen, we recently had a lot of bankers writing a lot of bad loans. Amongst the many causes of this was bad policies which not only encouraged making bad loans, but also DISCOURAGED the people giving out the loans from worrying about default. And so you had all these people–tens of thousands of them at least–in the finance industry who made good money if they sold mortgages, and faced almost no repercussions of those mortgages went into default.
That’s not a conspiracy Aziz. Those bankers did not engage in a conpsiracy. They were in a system that created a fundamental conflict of interest–a conflict of itnerest that has affected hundreds of millions, possibly billions of people worldwide. Based on bad policies that created a huge conflict of interest for much of the financial sector.
Conflict of interest is not a difficult concept to understand. To be honest, when it comes to this, AIDS, or any other scientific issue where conflict of interest and lack of transparency are an obvious problem, and I suddenly hear those on the other side making snide remarks about “conspiracies,” I almost invariably am inclined to dismiss anything else that person has to say on the matter, because they’ve already revealed that instead of facing the real issue they’ll just change the subject instead.
“Haha, they think we’re all engaged in a conspiracy, gang! Yeah, just like Area 51! Whooh, gotta hide those alien bodies right where we moved Elvis and JFK to our secret moonbase!”
No. The accusation was “your data and sources lack transparency and sufficiently rigorous external auditing from disinterested parties, and forthright acknowledgment of issues of conflict of interest.
CC,
“The bare fact that virtually ALL believers in “Scientific Creationism” are fundamentalist evangelical Christians is hard evidence that it isn’t science at all.”
Two can play this game:
The bare fact that virtually ALL believers in “scientific evolution” are ardent atheists is hard evidence that it isn’t science at all.
If you get to use worldview to negate scientific view, so can I.
Kevin:
Your assertion is incorrect. Mine is correct. There are plenty of agnostics (like myself) and even religious folks (like Catholics) who accept evolution as the process for species differentiation.
Again you can SAY what you like, you can even BELIEVE what you like, but that doesn’t make it so.
maybe you are the only one in this thread who disbelieves in global warming, who doesn’t feel this way. but i think that accusing scientists of suppressing data, burying findings couner to “dogma”, and engaging in intimidation of those who dont toe the line (as Lindzen repetedly insists he has been) amounts to the same thing. especially if the motivation is, as you keep asserting, related to their need to jusgtify their salaries.
at any rate, i am te only one adderessing teh science in this thread. and i dont see any response.
Aziz:
You are using a casual, informal use of the word “conspiracy” which has very loose interpretations and can just mean “a lot of people doing the same thing.”
Dean is using a very precise, formal use of the word “conspiracy” which has very strict interpretations of illegal activity coordinated by a central authority and intended to provide a specific result.
Either or both, of course, could be an accurate statement of what the Global Warming Acolytes are doing, but it is not necessary for scientists to be following directions and joining some nefarious cabal for them to be falsifying data, burying findings or intimidating those who don’t toe the line. All that requires is their belief that it is in their own self interest to do so.
I personally think there’s a lot of the first (informal conspiracy) and a little of the second (specific conspiracy) going on. There’s a widespread general tendency in the scientific community to “follow the money” and right now the money is coming from Global Warming Believers. There is also a powerful desire to be seen as “doing the right thing” when the “right thing” is defined as pursuing anti-Global Warming goals. But I am sure there is indeed a group of nefarious anti-American and anti-Corporate conspirators involved in the whole scheme who could not care less about the science, all they want to do is weaken the U.S. and capitalism as much as they possibly can.
Whether people like Al Gore are part of the widespread “do the right thing” crowd, or whether they are part of the more sinister hidden conspiracy is anyone’s guess. But sometimes you can follow the money and draw your own conclusions.
Aziz, you make me laugh. For one, you “doth protest too much”. When presented with some scientific data that undermines the “consensus” of “settled science”, you post paragraph upon paragraph that simply cannot establish what you hope – that is to completely negate the data from the original post in hopes of, yet again, propping up the “man made Global Warming is settled science, there is a consensus among the world’s scientists that says so”
That statement is simply NOT TRUE. And attempting to refute empirical evidence only shows just how NOT TRUE it really is.
It seems to me from the surface, here, that whether or not water vapor would be forcing or feedback in reducing warming is a simple matter. Thinking that this giant complex planet would not have simple feedback mechanisms that would tend to cause things to be stable over long periods of time is foolish. The opposite seems merely to bean obvious expectation. Furthermore, the idea that us puny humans could be more forceful in defining the atmosphere than the giant planet itself is the height of arrogance, and that’s being generous.
The abstract goes on to explicitly state that the humidity trend is “significantly positive below 850 hPa in all three zones” – which is where the vast bulk of the water vapor in the atmosphere resides.
Right, but that’s not where CO2 causes warming. CO2 is only an insulator at high altitudes (where heat is lost to space).
Global warming theory cannot be reconciled with this data.
Comments on this entry are closed.