Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

On the subject of peer review and 'experts in the field' and 'conspiracies':

http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three...c-peer-review/

In the absence of compelling systematic studies, is there anything we can say about the reliability of peer review?

The question of reliability should, in my opinion, really be broken up into three questions.

First, does peer review help verify the validity of scientific studies; second, does peer review help us filter scientific studies, making the higher quality ones easier to find, because they get into the “best” journals, i.e., the ones with the most stringent peer review; third, to what extent does peer review suppress innovation?

As regards validity and quality, you don’t have to look far to find striking examples suggesting that peer review is at best partially reliable as a check of validity and a filter of quality.

Consider the story of the German physicist Jan Hendrik Schoen. In 2000 and 2001 Schoen made an amazing series of breakthroughs in organic superconductivity, publishing his 2001 work at a rate of one paper every 8 days, many in prestigious journals such as Nature, Science, and the Physical Review. Eventually, it all seemed a bit too good to be true, and other researchers in his community began to ask questions. His work was investigated, and much of it found to be fraudulent. Nature retracted seven papers by Schoen; Science retracted eight papers; and the Physical Review retracted six. What’s truly breathtaking about this case is the scale of it: it’s not that a few referees failed to pick up on the fraud, but rather that the refereeing system at several of the top journals systematically failed to detect the fraud. Furthermore, what ultimately brought Schoen down was not the anonymous peer review system used by journals, but rather investigation by his broader community of peers.

You might object to using this as an example on the grounds that the Schoen case involved deliberate scientific fraud, and the refereeing system isn’t intended to catch fraud so much as it is to catch mistakes. I think that’s a pretty weak objection – it can be a thin line between honest mistakes and deliberate fraud – but it’s not entirely without merit. As a second example, consider an experiment conducted by the editors of the British Medical Journal (ref). They inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper already accepted for publication, and sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers. 221 responded, catching on average only two of the errors. None of the reviewers caught more than five of the errors, and 16 percent no errors at all.

None of these examples is conclusive. But they do suggest that the refereeing system is far from perfect as a means of checking validity or filtering the quality of scientific papers.


What about the suppression of innovation? Every scientist knows of major discoveries that ran into trouble with peer review. David Horrobin has a remarkable paper (ref) where he documents some of the discoveries almost suppressed by peer review; as he points out, he can’t list the discoveries that were in fact suppressed by peer review, because we don’t know what those were. His list makes horrifying reading. Here’s just a few instances that I find striking, drawn in part from his list. Note that I’m restricting myself to suppression of papers by peer review; I believe peer review of grants and job applications probably has a much greater effect in suppressing innovation.

• George Zweig’s paper announcing the discovery of quarks, one of the fundamental building blocks of matter, was rejected by Physical Review Letters. It was eventually issued as a CERN report.
• Berson and Yalow’s work on radioimmunoassay, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by both Science and the Journal of Clinical Investigation. It was eventually published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.
• Krebs’ work on the citric acid cycle, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by Nature. It was published in Experientia.
• Wiesner’s paper introducing quantum cryptography was initially rejected, finally appearing well over a decade after it was written.

To sum up: there is very little reliable evidence about the effect of peer review available from systematic studies; peer review is at best an imperfect filter for validity and quality; and peer review sometimes has a chilling effect, suppressing important scientific discoveries.

At this point I expect most readers will have concluded that I don’t much like the current peer review system. Actually, that’s not true, a point that will become evident in my post about the future of peer review. There’s a great deal that’s good about the current peer review system, and that’s worth preserving. However, I do believe that many people, both scientists and non-scientists, have a falsely exalted view of how well the current peer review system functions. What I’m trying to do in this post is to establish a more realistic view, and that means understanding some of the faults of the current system.

From the comments:

MikeM said,

January 8, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
Economist George Akerlof wrote his most famous paper, “The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism” in 1967. The paper used the market for used cars as an example of asymmetric information – where a seller knows more about the goods he is selling than a buyer does. The first journal Akerlof tried rejected the paper on the grounds that it was trivial. The second also rejected it. The third rejection came with a referee’s comment that the paper was wrong in its reasoning – that if it were right, economics would be different.

The paper was eventually published, Akerlof shared a Nobel Prize for economics in 2001 primarily on the basis of “The Market for Lemons”, and economics is now different.

MikeM, that was a terrific link to George Akerlof. In particular, Akerlof’s describes an example peer-review failure because “The economists of the time felt that it would violate their methodology to consider a problem, such as the role of asymmetric information, that was out of its traditional focus.”

“Out of our traditional focus” is a very common reason for rejection, not only in academic publishing, but also in business, and politics (and if you think about it, even romance).

I think it was Marvin Minsky, in Society of Mind, who pointed out how very necessary it is, that human cognition has strong censorship mechanisms, operating largely on the preconscious level, that reject ideas that don’t match preconceptions.

This is no bad thing. But the paradoxical result is that it is (sometimes) more difficult for a good idea to find an audience than a mediocre one.

John Sidles said,

January 9, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
Sérgio Nunes’ post indirectly points to another unintended consequence of peer review, which comes about as follows (humor alert!).

(1) The most inexpensive kind of faculty to hire are theorem-provers. (2) The most rigorous form of peer review is theorem-checking. (3) Hence, in any academic ecosystem that regulated by peer-review, the theorem-provers eventually become the dominant species of professor.

Arguably, this trend has been wonderful news for mathematics, OK news for the physical sciences, not-so-good news for engineering … and it has been an utter disaster for economics.

Beginning in the seventeenth century (or perhaps a little earlier – I’m not positive) what would now be equivalent to publishing in a premier journal (Physical Review, Nature, JAMA, etc.), consisted of having one’s paper presented to one of the learned societies of the time. The historical ‘remnants’ of this process are still evident in the names of several of the Royal Society’s journals, notably “Proceedings of…” and “Notes and Records of…”

This process always involved some sort of peer review and often suffered from the same problems peer review still suffers from. Two of the most notable examples of this were the nearly simultaneous attempts by Abel and Galois to have their work (the origins of group theory) communicated to the French Academy of Sciences. Both were unsuccessful (at least in their short lifetimes) and, in fact, Galois received what amounted to a referee’s report dated July 4, 1831 that rejected one of the foremost papers in the history of mathematics. The referees were Poisson and Lacroix. Abel was simply ignored (again, until he was dead).

Ironically, though neither knew the other, they were working on the same problem nearly simultaneously and had trouble not just with the same society, but the same people. At one point or another both ran into the immense ego of Cauchy in their attempts to be recognized by the Academy.

Mario Livio’s book, despite its “popular” title (The Equation That Couldn’t Be Solved: How Mathematical Genius Discovered the Language of Symmetry), represents very serious scholarly research into the history of group theory and, particularly, Abel and Galois themselves. There is also a book out on the history of learned societies that I have not yet read, but, thanks to this post, will make my next read. I don’t recall the title and it is on the bookshelf in my office.

[MulaMan]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I could as easily ask the question "does anyone know a forum where I can become conversant in brain surgery, causes, interventions, outcomes, ethics, and techniques" you might find this is not your forum. However, brain surgeons have not recently been put into the political spotlight, news media don't discuss them derisively, and few vested interests purport to educate the public on the topic. As a result, you don't come here for brain surgery discussion.scussion you might hear thrown around in climatology discussions.

100% wrong. The science behind climate change is very, very simple high school level science.

The science is made complex to confuse and divide.

For example, just like the tabacco lobby did for years or the anti-evolution folks with junk, psuedo science.

Fact #1: Humans pump more CO2 into the atmosphere then is taken out through plants ect.. hence the amount of CO2 is increasing.

Fact #2: CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperatures through a greenhouse effect.

SIMPLE AS THAT. THAT IS THE SCIENCE. PERIOD.

All the psuedo science crap are just complex PROJECTIONS of how fast the globe will warm up and what the impact will be - that is like predicting the stock market and is complete junk - but it DOES NOT NEGATE the simple facts.

If you want to argue global warming you need to prove that either:

#1: Human beings are not pumping out more CO2 then is being taken out.

#2: CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT produce a greenhouse effect increasing temperatures.

GOOD LUCK. It is that simple.

[Diarmuid]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

On the subject of peer review and 'experts in the field' and 'conspiracies':

http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three...c-peer-review/



From the comments:

Speaking of which - on a subject more fimilar to most of the readers on itulip - here is an article on economics and the total dependence of using theory with devastating circular logic and computer models to try and predict a system with extreme complexity and further to enact public policy from the results with the resulting devasting effects - whether AGW proves to be analogous, I suppose time will tell, personally I believe, there is WAY too much hubris in science, what ever the field.

Modeling the Economy as a Complex System

Modeling the Economy as a Complex System


......Economics can be thought of the physics with strategic atoms, who keep trying to foil any efforts to understand them and bring them under control. Strategic agents complicate modeling enormously; they make it impossible to have a perfect model since they increase the number of calculations one would have to make in order to solve the model beyond the calculations the fastest computer one can hypothesize could process in a finite amount of time.


Put simply, the formal study of complex systems is really, really, hard. Inevitably, complex systems exhibit path dependence, nested systems, multiple speed variables, sensitive dependence on initial conditions, and other non-linear dynamical properties. This means that at any moment in time, right when you thought you had a result, all hell can break loose. Formally studying complex systems requires rigorous training in the cutting edge of mathematics and statistics. It's not for neophytes.


They carefully presented their models as aids to a broader informed common sense. They built this modesty into their policy advice and told policy makers that the most we can expect from models is half-truths.

.......


In the early 1900s that two-part division broke down, and economists became a bit less modest in their claims for models, and more aggressive in their application of models directly to policy questions. The two branches were merged, and the result was a tragedy for both the science of economics and for the applied policy branch of economics.

It was a tragedy for the science of economics because it led economists away from developing a wide variety of models that would creatively explore the extraordinarily difficult questions that the complexity of the economy raised, questions for which new analytic and computational technology opened up new avenues of investigation. Instead, the economics profession spent much of its time dotting i's and crossing t's on what was called a Walrasian general equilibrium model which was more analytically tractable. As opposed to viewing the supply/demand model and its macroeconomic counterpart, the Walrasian general equilibrium model, as interesting models relevant for a few limited phenomena, but at best a stepping stone for a formal understanding of the economy, it enshrined both models, and acted as if it explained everything. Complexities were just assumed away not because it made sense to assume them away, but for tractability reasons. The result was a set of models that would not even pass a perfunctory common sense smell test being studied ad nauseam.

...........



Initially macroeconomics stayed separate from this broader unitary approach, and relied on a set of rough and ready models that had little scientific foundation. But in the 1980s, macroeconomics and finance fell into this "single model" approach. As that happened it caused economists to lose sight of the larger lesson that complexity conveys -that models in a complex system can be expected to continually break down.

.....


Models and Macroeconomics


Let me be a bit more specific. The dominant model in macroeconomics is the dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) model. This is a model that assumes there is a single globally rational representative agent with complete knowledge who is maximizing over the infinite future. In this model, by definition, there can be no strategic coordination problem-the most likely cause of the recent crisis-such problems are simply assumed away. Yet, this model has been the central focus of macro economists' research for the last thirty years.


Had the DSGE model been seen as an aid to common sense, it could have been a useful model. When early versions of this model first developed back in the early 1980s, it served the useful purpose of getting some intertemporal issues straight that earlier macroeconomic models had screwed up. But then, for a variety of sociological reasons that I don't have time to go into here, a majority of macroeconomists started believing that the DSGE model was useful not just as an aid to our understanding, but as the model of the macroeconomy. That doesn't say much for the common sense of rocket economists. As the DSGE model became dominant, important research on broader non-linear dynamic models of the economy that would have been more helpful in understanding how an economy would be likely to crash, and what government might do when faced with a crash, was not done.

......


Similar developments occurred with efficient market finance models, which make similar assumptions to DSGE models. When efficient market models first developed, they were useful; they led to technological advances in risk management and financial markets. But, as happened with macro, the users of these financial models forgot that models provide at best half truths; they stopped using models with common sense and judgment. The modelers knew that there was uncertainty and risk in these markets that when far beyond the risk assumed in the models. Simplification is the nature of modeling. But simplification means the models cannot be used directly, but must be used judgment and common sense, with a knowledge of the limitations of use that the simplifications require. Unfortunately, the warning labels on the models that should have been there in bold print-these models are based on assumptions that do not fit the real world, and thus the models should not be relied on too heavily-were not there. They should have been, which is why in the Dahlem Report we suggested that economic researchers who develop these models be subject to a code of ethics that requires them to warn society when economic models are being used for purposes for which they were not designed.


How did something so stupid happen in economics? It did not happen because economists are stupid; they are very bright. It happened because of incentives in the academic profession to advance lead researchers to dot i's and cross t's of existing models, rather than to explore a wide range of alternative models, or to focus their research on interpreting and seeing that models are used in policy with common sense. Common sense does not advance one very far within the economics profession. The over-reliance on a single model used without judgment is a serious problem that is built into the institutional structure of academia that produces economic researchers. That system trains show dogs, when what we need are hunting dogs.




Suggestions


Let me conclude with a brief discussion of two suggestions, which relate to issues under the jurisdiction of this committee, that might decrease the probability of such events happening in the future.


Include a wider range of peers in peer review


The first is a proposal that might help add a common sense check on models. Such a check is needed because, currently, the nature of internal-to-the-subfield peer review allows for an almost incestuous mutual reinforcement of researcher's views with no common sense filter on those views. The proposal is to include a wider range of peers in the reviewing process of NSF grants in the social sciences. For example, physicists, mathematician, statisticians, and even business and governmental representatives, could serve, along with economists, on reviewing committees for economics proposals. Such a broader peer review process would likely both encourage research on much wider range of models and would also encourage more creative work.

[ggirod]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Seriously, how condescending can you be?

I did not intend to be condescending, just thorough. People who have not been exposed to scientific research need some basic orientation for further discussion. Neither of us need it, but many readers might. I guess I tried to cover the bases so that people could see what the full scope of understanding was. I have observed too many discussions in which basic tenets of science were ignored in favor of rancor.

'Black Belt Six Sigma' on this end (my parents are sooo proud), kind of know statistics and Taguchi.

Ditto here, not Six Sigma but lots of SPC and some Taguchi. I really enjoyed the philosophical discussions between Taguchi folks and classical experimental design folks. Also, of course, undergrad and Master's level stat.

The detailed questions being brought up, forgive me, deserve answers if you're trying to convince the world at large to go along with drastic action. A respectful, convincing answer to some of them would be 'We don't know yet' or 'yes but that is a small issue and here's why' (I do see that occasionally here, but it's rare), without the condescension.

This is probably not an ideal forum for many of the detailed questions because the detailed answers required demand either very in-depth climatology background or a lot of study to bound and resolve the issue. In general, when i see a detailed attack on a broad model I recognize that it is probably not valid. Instead, it is frequently an attempt to invalidate a simplified and absolutist strawman with one or a few conflicting instances. The attempt to strip science of its nuances is one means to simplify prior to invalidating it for large numbers of people.

I will pick one topic as an example ... "It's cold - the sunspots have disappeared. So, you say that people stopped the sunspots? What about the Maunder Minimum? Then, for emphasis, the author includes a temperature graph that shows a slight deceleration of warming. As a metaphorical exclamation mark, the writer even includes the detail that the temperatures on Mars and maybe a few other planets have dropped coincident with the suns output. It turns out that the issue is a bit more nuanced than that, as Scientific American shows in their article. An earlier article covers the topic with a stronger opinion. One could look at the two articles and say that there was disagreement. Or, one could also look at the extensive agreement and determine that some issues might still be open but the main thrust is not in question. In neither case, was there an assertion that AGW was invalid because the sun is the cause.

Interestingly enough, more recently, (sorry no links handy) it turns out that the solar wind, which consists of charged particles from the sun, increases the condensation of moisture in the upper atmosphere, makes clouds, and the clouds hold in some heat while reflecting some. The solar wind is stronger with sunspots so the "truth" appears to have a contribution of solar wind in addition to the raw energy output of the sun. now, that small contribution likely causes changes in the ocean temperatures and other knock-on effects too. That is the current status of but one tiny and seemingly fairly simple detail, in a huge model of the climate. Actually, I picked that one to be simple because the more basic the topic, the more resulting moving parts to be explained and evaluated.

In summary, I am very concerned with mankind's inability to deal with scientific information, public policy, and appropriate determination and balancing of risks and consequences. That holds not only for AGW, but for GM foods, various pollution problems, collapses of ecosystems, fisheries and coral reef collapses, and most anything in which political forces align themselves with their funded interests and ignore the very significant nuances of the scientific issue. As long as the loudest voice with the biggest bullhorn and the best public relations funding makes the decisions, the world is at serious risk.

[Diarmuid]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I

In summary, I am very concerned with mankind's inability to deal with scientific information, public policy, and appropriate determination and balancing of risks and consequences. That holds not only for AGW, but for GM foods, various pollution problems, collapses of ecosystems, fisheries and coral reef collapses, and most anything in which political forces align themselves with their funded interests and ignore the very significant nuances of the scientific issue. As long as the loudest voice with the biggest bullhorn and the best public relations funding makes the decisions, the world is at serious risk.

ggirod


On a serious note, this topic appears to be very devisive, but I wonder for people on either side of the debate here on Itulip, for many, are the underlying concerns they have the same? with such in mind I respect your argument, admire your motivations, but respectful disagree.

[jneal3]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

In summary, I am very concerned with mankind's inability to deal with scientific information, public policy, and appropriate determination and balancing of risks and consequences. That holds not only for AGW, but for GM foods, various pollution problems, collapses of ecosystems, fisheries and coral reef collapses, and most anything in which political forces align themselves with their funded interests and ignore the very significant nuances of the scientific issue. As long as the loudest voice with the biggest bullhorn and the best public relations funding makes the decisions, the world is at serious risk.

This is very honest, and frankly I'm in 100% agreement with this sentiment. I just think it does far more damage than good to attack questioners, even if you question the motives of the questioner. It shows fear. There's nothing more reassuring to me than a scientist who says "I don't know, yet".;)

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Fact #1: Humans pump more CO2 into the atmosphere then is taken out through plants ect.. hence the amount of CO2 is increasing.

Fact #2: CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperatures through a greenhouse effect.

SIMPLE AS THAT. THAT IS THE SCIENCE. PERIOD.

You're missing a couple of things needed to justify major action. If I piss in the ocean, that adds to the water in the ocean and adds to the polution in the ocean. Therefore the worlds nations should pay me a trillion dollars to not piss in the oceans :rolleyes:.

All the psuedo science crap are just complex PROJECTIONS of how fast the globe will warm up and what the impact will be - that is like predicting the stock market and is complete junk - but it DOES NOT NEGATE the simple facts.

You in particular, and some of your colleagues in this particular discussion, do not serve your position well with such borish insults and condescending retorts

[ggirod]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

This is very honest, and frankly I'm in 100% agreement with this sentiment. I just think it does far more damage than good to attack questioners, even if you question the motives of the questioner. It shows fear. There's nothing more reassuring to me than a scientist who says "I don't know, yet".;)

I guess my preference is not to attack the questioner in any case, and instead to deal with the sources, process, method, analysis, peer review, and study replications for the underlying documents cited. Unfortunately, survey / opinion pieces are not easy to deal with because you have to check the author's interpretation of the research articles and whether the conclusions in question came from referenced primary sources or other surveys, etc. Judging the quality of scientific literature is not easy but very important. (sorry for the continued lecture, but it for all readers, not just us)

Then, having qualified the item, it is time to add it to the mix of existing information, which includes probably hundreds of studies and replications. At that point it may not shift the balance; in fact the odds of being near enough 50/50 to shift the balance of the decision are pretty low unless there is but a very small body of information thus far available. Near 50/50 is definitely I don't know territory, though if possible the answer should bound the possibilities too.

By the way, re: peer review and its shortfalls ... the best control on peer review is supposed to be replication and people should not accept as "truth" things that have not been replicated by different scientists in different places with similar findings. In fact, replication in which you demonstrate a principle by multiple methods or measures, such as tree rings, ice cores, ocean chemistry, fossil remains, chemical erosion rates is by far the best confirmation for a model. While discrepancies are to be expected in such confirmations, the basic principle should survive. Just one study or one instance should not usually credit or discredit a model.

I must sound very much like I am a apologist for the status quo. I am not, but I do respect the results of well-conducted science in giving the best answers for the questions TODAY. Tomorrow there may be new answers; if not, it probably isn't science, if so, it is to be expected.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

#1: Human beings are not pumping out more CO2 then is being taken out.

#2: CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT produce a greenhouse effect increasing temperatures.

Again your slip is showing. You don't prove squat by proving the absence of something. Science is proving cause creates effect exclusive to or in well understood and proven proportion to other causes, not disparaging other views.

Furthermore skeptics like myself are not the ones advocating massive new taxes and bureaucracy. The ones who do advocate such are the ones with the burden of proof.

In response to the latest installment of MulaMan idiocy, I post an article which closely approximates my view on the debate over AGW, with the conclusion first for those who don't want to read several pages:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494#

The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.

Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.

Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.

------------------------------------------------------------

There is a famous graph showing the fraction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it varies month by month and year by year (see the graph). It gives us our firmest and most accurate evidence of effects of human activities on our global environment. The graph is generally known as the Keeling graph because it summarizes the lifework of Charles David Keeling, a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. Keeling measured the carbon dioxide abundance in the atmosphere for forty-seven years, from 1958 until his death in 2005. He designed and built the instruments that made accurate measurements possible. He began making his measurements near the summit of the dormant volcano Mauna Loa on the big island of Hawaii.

...

The graph has two obvious and conspicuous features. First, a steady increase of carbon dioxide with time, beginning at 315 parts per million in 1958 and reaching 385 parts per million in 2008. Second, a regular wiggle showing a yearly cycle of growth and decline of carbon dioxide levels.

...

The only plausible explanation of the annual wiggle and its variation with latitude is that it is due to the seasonal growth and decay of annual vegetation, especially deciduous forests, in temperate latitudes north and south. The asymmetry of the wiggle between north and south is caused by the fact that the Northern Hemisphere has most of the land area and most of the deciduous forests. The wiggle is giving us a direct measurement of the quantity of carbon that is absorbed from the atmosphere each summer north and south by growing vegetation, and returned each winter to the atmosphere by dying and decaying vegetation.

...

When we put together the evidence from the wiggles and the distribution of vegetation over the earth, it turns out that about 8 percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed by vegetation and returned to the atmosphere every year. This means that the average lifetime of a molecule of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, before it is captured by vegetation and afterward released, is about twelve years. This fact, that the exchange of carbon between atmosphere and vegetation is rapid, is of fundamental importance to the long-range future of global warming, as will become clear in what follows. Neither of the books under review mentions it.

...

Everything is calculated by running a single computer model which he calls DICE, an acronym for Dynamic Integrated Model of Climate and the Economy.

Each run of DICE takes as input a particular policy for allocating expenditures year by year. The allocated resources are spent on subsidizing costly technologies—for example, deep underground sequestration of carbon dioxide produced in power stations—that reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, or placing a tax on activities that produce carbon emissions. The climate model part of DICE calculates the effect of the reduced emissions in reducing damage. The output of DICE then tells us the resulting gains and losses of the world economy year by year. Each run begins at the year 2005 and ends either at 2105 or 2205, giving a picture of the effects of a particular policy over the next one or two hundred years.

The practical unit of economic resources is a trillion inflation-adjusted dollars. An inflation-adjusted dollar means a sum of money, at any future time, with the same purchasing power as a real dollar in 2005. In the following discussion, the word "dollar" will always mean an inflation-adjusted dollar, with a purchasing power that does not vary with time. The difference in outcome between one policy and another is typically several trillion dollars, comparable with the cost of the war in Iraq. This is a game played for high stakes.

...

Nordhaus examines five kinds of global-warming policy, with many runs of DICE for each kind. The first kind is business-as-usual, with no restriction of carbon dioxide emissions—in which case, he estimates damages to the environment amounting to some $23 trillion in current dollars by the year 2100. The second kind is the "optimal policy," judged by Nordhaus to be the most cost-effective, with a worldwide tax on carbon emissions adjusted each year to give the maximum aggregate economic gain as calculated by DICE. The third kind is the Kyoto Protocol, in operation since 2005 with 175 participating countries, imposing fixed limits to the emissions of economically developed countries only. Nordhaus tests various versions of the Kyoto Protocol, with or without the participation of the United States.

The fourth kind of policy is labeled "ambitious" proposals, with two versions which Nordhaus calls "Stern" and "Gore." "Stern" is the policy advocated by Sir Nicholas Stern in the Stern Review, an economic analysis of global-warming policy sponsored by the British government.^[*] "Stern" imposes draconian limits on emissions, similar to the Kyoto limits but much stronger. "Gore" is a policy advocated by Al Gore, with emissions reduced drastically but gradually, the reductions reaching 90 percent of current levels before the year 2050. The fifth and last kind is called "low-cost backstop," a policy based on a hypothetical low-cost technology for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or for producing energy without carbon dioxide emission, assuming that such a technology will become available at some specified future date. According to Nordhaus, this technology might include "low-cost solar power, geothermal energy, some nonintrusive climatic engineering, or genetically engineered carbon-eating trees."

...

Here are the net values of the various policies as calculated by the DICE model. The values are calculated as differences from the business-as-usual model, without any emission controls. A plus value means that the policy is better than business-as-usual, with the reduction of damage due to climate change exceeding the cost of controls. A minus value means that the policy is worse than business-as-usual, with costs exceeding the reduction of damage. The unit of value is $1 trillion, and the values are specified to the nearest trillion. The net value of the optimal program, a global carbon tax increasing gradually with time, is plus three—that is, a benefit of some $3 trillion. The Kyoto Protocol has a value of plus one with US participation, zero without US participation. The "Stern" policy has a value of minus fifteen, the "Gore" policy minus twenty-one, and "low-cost backstop" plus seventeen.

...

The main conclusion of the Nordhaus analysis is that the ambitious proposals, "Stern" and "Gore," are disastrously expensive, the "low-cost backstop" is enormously advantageous if it can be achieved, and the other policies including business-as-usual and Kyoto are only moderately worse than the optimal policy.

...

The Zedillo book covers a much wider range of topics and opinions than the Nordhaus book, and is addressed to a wider circle of readers. It includes "Is the Global Warming Alarm Founded on Fact?," by Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT, answering that question with a resounding no. Lindzen does not deny the existence of global warming, but considers the predictions of its harmful effects to be grossly exaggerated. He writes,

Actual observations suggest that the sensitivity of the real climate is much less than that found in computer models whose sensitivity depends on processes that are clearly misrepresented.

Answering Lindzen in the next chapter, "Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the Facts," is Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of physics of the oceans at Potsdam University in Germany. Rahmstorf sums up his opinion of Lindzen's arguments in one sentence: "All this seems completely out of touch with the world of climate science as I know it and, to be frank, simply ludicrous." These two chapters give the reader a sad picture of climate science. Rahmstorf represents the majority of scientists who believe fervently that global warming is a grave danger. Lindzen represents the small minority who are skeptical. Their conversation is a dialogue of the deaf. The majority responds to the minority with open contempt.

In the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right. It may—or may not—be that the present is such a time. The great virtue of Nordhaus's economic analysis is that it remains valid whether the majority view is right or wrong. Nordhaus's optimum policy takes both possibilities into account.

...

Howard Dalton, spokesman for the British government, is the most dogmatic. His final paragraph begins:

It is the firm view of the United Kingdom that climate change constitutes a major threat to the environment and human society, that urgent action is needed now across the world to avert that threat, and that the developed world needs to show leadership in tackling climate change.

The United Kingdom has made up its mind and takes the view that any individuals who disagree with government policy should be ignored. This dogmatic tone is also adopted by the Royal Society, the British equivalent of the US National Academy of Sciences. The Royal Society recently published a pamphlet addressed to the general public with the title "Climate Change Controversies: A Simple Guide." The pamphlet says:

This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming.

In other words, if you disagree with the majority opinion about global warming, you are an enemy of science. The authors of the pamphlet appear to have forgotten the ancient motto of the Royal Society, Nullius in Verba, which means, "Nobody's word is final."

If the solution towards purported AGW is one which can be shown to build towards the future as opposed to limit towards the past, then there can be no objection towards action now.

If on the other hand the solution is one which costs lots of money, restricts growth, and/or introduces new bureaucracy - then the questioning of the need for such a solution becomes much more important and necessary.

Either way the lack of convincing proof as well as the lack of dialogue is not indicative of scientific inquiry, but rather dogma.

[KGW]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

These folks are contributing to information about temperatures with their samples of air bubbles in ice core samples from the Northern Greenland ice sheet: http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

BTW, in case you are curious as to the details of the Nordhaus scenarios:

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/t..._03_murphy.pdf

Nordhaus DICE detail.bmp

Notice how the abatement costs for the 'Stern' and 'Gore' scenarios is over $25T in present discounted value - i.e. today's dollars today.

This is more than the estimated damages resulting from doing nothing.

The $33.9 TRILLION in abatement costs for the 'Gore' scenario includes both taxation costs and compliance costs: taxes and bureaucracy in other words.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Yes; also current monitoring stations are in settings that significantly alter the results by +/- up to 5 degrees C. Setting the stations on concrete, near buildings, etc., can drastically skew the results.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Setting climate stations in downtowns can skew temperature results upward by as much as 24 degrees C. or 40 degrees F. I found that juicy tid-bit of information when I studied temperatures in Minneapolis-St.Paul at night.

Many of the world's climate stations are in downtowns; for example, San Francisco's "official weather station" is at the Federal Building in downtown SF.

Even at airports, where many climate stations are located, temperatures are influenced by buildings and pavements. So, the bias in favour of reading temperatures too high is built-in. Also, as airports and downtowns, universities, in fact all urban settings develop, the built-in bias in favour of warming only increases.

Yes, some of NOAA's temperature readings come from satelites, but even using satelites, there are issues: for example, what infra-red radiation is the satelite measuring? --- the surface of the Earth's infra-red radiation, or the upper atmosphere's radiation, or both?

Also with NOAA's satelite data, the Southern Hemiphere of the Earth's cooling seems to nicely cancel the warming detected in the Northern Hemisphere. So, how can the Earth, as NOAA says, be warming above the 1951-1980 global mean temperature by 0.44C during 2008? The global temperature maps which Dr. Hansen at NOAA provided certainly do NOT show global warming, although they proclaim to show global warming.

Let me say this even slower: Antarctic cooling cancels Arctic warming in Hansen's maps. So too, the cooling of North America cancels the warming detected in Siberia and northern Europe. So too, the over-all cooling of the Southern Hemisphere nicely cancels the broad warming of the Northern Hemisphere.

Sorry, but I like every i-dotted and every t-crossed in a proof, before I believe anything, especially in science. Thus, "Show me." Show me the calculations of global mean temperatures that you used to determine the warming the entire Earth at 0.44C in 2008 with...... The maps Dr. Hansen's team at NOAA provided show no such warming, at least not to the naked-eye.

Steve Jacobs, climatologist, known here as, "Starving Steve" and resident of East Sooke, BC.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Could the bubble be bursting as sentiment poll moves sharply towards the Deniers position with a 25% change in opinion over three years.

It's not surprising that the public would be less concerned about global warming after the La Nina bottom and before the new El Nino takes control. We're also at a solar bottom and just beginning an upturn with regard to the sun's output. Look for a new global temperature high in 2010 or 2011. AGM is the force driving our climate change. The earth forces oscillate but we continue to force the system.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Let me say this even slower: Antarctic cooling cancels Arctic warming in Hansen's maps. So too, the cooling of North America cancels the warming detected in Siberia and northern Europe.

And you are recommending what? Release of more CFC's to off-set global warming from CO2? You do understand the issue with the ozone hole in the Antarctic? Could a denier make our case more clearly?

The right wing denier community will crack over the next few years as natural forces align with AGM and temperatures again move up.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

The $33.9 TRILLION in abatement costs for the 'Gore' scenario includes both taxation costs and compliance costs: taxes and bureaucracy in other words.

Without analyzing the numbers I'd say bravo! We come out on the other side with a new economy. Energy is simply a thing we use and not a driving force. It's unimportant, it's a tool. This is the future I work for every day of my life. You see a spreadsheet with big numbers, I see an energy efficient, and very low cost future.