Wednesday
Jan182012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Richard B at Nature
Jan 18, 2012 Climate: Sceptics Climate: other Richard Betts, writing at Nature's blog, says upholders of the climate consensus should talk to dissenters.
I think the only solution is to talk about the science as science, in the context of all its implications and also for its own academic interest – and talk about it to everyone irrespective of their position in the policy debate. This includes talking with sceptics, and not in defensive mode but as scientists willing to talk around the issue. It used to be the received wisdom that climate scientists should not engage with “sceptics” beause, it was said, it only wasted time and gave credibility to arguments that had already been countered many times before. In my view this is no longer a helpful strategy, if it ever was.
Reader Comments (231)
The last pgrase says it all "if it ever was"
In all the history of science it never was.
To Mr Betts a great article sir , I can only hope those who read it see that there will always be a debate to be had with a open mind !
Good on Richard.
Excellent: those of us who have put comments onto Curry's blog have convinced her that 'back radiation' is incorrect physics. Spencer appears to be wavering. Put the others into reception mode and we can get climate science back into the mainstream instead of being parasitic, a new Lysenkoism whose growth is fed for political not scientific reasons.
This is truly a battle for the heart and soul of science. If we fail, science will have become another relative activity like the Law, with precedence dominating verifiable fact and just as in Russia between the 1930s and the 1960s, those who dare contradict diktat will be put in jail or executed.
For those who think this OTT, a lawyer who works for a subsidiary of the Club of Rome has called [in a guardian article] for a new UN Court to try dissenters for 'Eco-crime'. The term 'denier', apparently constructed by demagogue Gore, is aimed at classifying scientific dissenters as equivalent to Holocaust deniers.
How bloody refreshing!
This, surely, is what we want. An open, informed discussion. As Richard puts it elsewhere in the article, "I think the only solution is to talk about the science as science, in the context of all its implications and also for its own academic interest – and talk about it to everyone irrespective of their position in the policy debate."
Hallelujah!
Richard Betts
Pint of Speckled Hen, is it?
My shout.
mydogsgotnonose
Here's more on the new world order from ......Germany....who'd a thought it ?
http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/13/achtung-herr-environment-minister-rottgen-declares-climate-protection-as-new-world-order/
Well said Richard
But how do you get CRU and the Team to be open, transparent and onboard? Oh and I mustn't forget, how do you get the IPCC to be open and transparent?
Well done Richard.
Though I don't share your faith in the models, you always appear a calm voice on these threads and you argue your case in a reasonable voice.
You seem to recognise (unlike some) that there may be, to quote Douglas Adams, “rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!”
Skepticism, unlike Warmism, isn't a belief in something, it's a state of mind.
Climate scientists should step out of their echo chamber you say?
it could be a boon to local business, specially this place... www.cognitivebehaviouraltherapynorwich.com/
jazznick: some Germans are going flat out for a new Nazism based on the green politics. However, this was always predictable because the green movement, which originated in Germany in the early 19th Century, merged in to Nazism in the 1930s: http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html
The high priests of our green aristocracy/screw the people by the windmills are apparently jug ears and Porritt. The latter has called for a reduction of UK population to 30 million. The means to that end would presumably be fuel starvation in the forthcoming new little ice age leading to millions of extra deaths, a return to Dickensian conditions in the cities.
PhilB,
If so called climate scientists cannot open themselves up and engage with others who don't hold the same religious beliefs as them then they will find themselves left behind. Sven though their tantrums roll become louder and louder they will find fewer and fewer people will be listening to them.
Regards
Mailman
BBD
Would you please come and rescue this thread by talking about elementary radiative physics and linking to Science of Doom before mydogsgotnonose starts talking about 1930s naturism
And posting his pics.
Ta
Very well said, Richard! I hope your article encourages others working in climate to talk openly about the scientific issues, and especially to visit here.
Gixxer: If you are coming over here to buy Richard a Speckled Hen, please be sure to invite me too. I also live nearby and would gladly raise your bid.
Don't worry Gixxerboy, no naturist pictures - promise!
MDGNN, could you point me to precisely where Judith Curry or Roy Spenser have agreed with the "back-radiation denier" camp?
Despite reading most of Judith's blog output, and all of Roy's, I've not noticied this.
I hope you don't think that the fact that Judith had posts about the "Sky Dragon" nonsense in any way means that she endorses it, do you?
I'm not too far away. I'm always receptive to an Owld Speckled 'Un.
Well said Richard Betts! From all that I've seen no one of good will should ever have any trouble having a rational and civil, informative discussion with scientists like Dr. Betts, whatever the differences in views or knowledge or experiences.
If only people like Michael Mann could take this message to heart. I doubt that Mann's interest in "science communications" can take in the ideas stated in this excellent blog article.
Philip
I'd be very happy to shout you a pint of Morlands, and the offer of same to Richard stands. Though I think Mr Betts has moved well away from Met Office Bracknell (knee-down roundabout) and The Boot Inn.
As it happens, from years back, I think I owe BBD a couple of pints for making me laugh.
How interesting it would be to arrange a blind date in an English Pub in summer...except I can see a punch up, involving BBD, in the car park at closing. Nothing changes.
>Mann's interest in "science communications"
An interest in Science would be a start...
Richard B - While I too don't share your faith in the models I do commend you for engaging here and for what you have written today. However Philip B makes a very good point - how do you get CRU and the Team and IPCC to be open, transparent and onboard? Still it is progress to see what you have written.
Frosty (11:27 AM) & Gixxerboy (11:34 AM ) - LOL.
steveta_uk
You beat me to it. I think mdgnn increasingly inhabits a world of his own.
Gixxerboy Ah, I'm talking about Exeter.
I thought that what Richard Betts said in Nature makes a lot of sense. One or two other climate researchers, notably Judith Curry, have now also come round to the view that scientific discussion with people who do not accept "the consensus" is worthwhile.
But the official pretence (whose existence was confirmed beyond all possible doubt by the Met Office petition in response to Climatgegate 1) that there is nothing wrong with the climate science, when, to anyone who cares to look, it is apparent that there is much that is very deeply wrong with it, means that discussing the science is not really going to change anything.
The Met Office's chairman, Robert Napier, pushed climate change to the fore when he ran the World Wildlife Fund. His appointment at the Met Office provided the clearest possible confirmation that it had been changed from being just a weather forecasting service, with a sideline in scientific research, into an organisation whose primary mission is the creation of climate change propaganda which has lead to legislation such as the Climate Change Act.
My own view is the RB is a pleasant and honest fellow and a good scientist judging by the clear answers he gives to technical questions and his open and enquiring attitude - I have not read any of his published work. But there are some interesting contrasts between Richard Betts' apparent views and the position of his employer.
Steveta_uk: Spencer is apparently wavering: http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/43659.html
As for Curry: http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/
'I, an amateur hack in this area with no meteorological credentials at all, say the surface warms the atmosphere, and moreover at an average power density of 66 W/m2 and sometimes hitting upwards of 200 W/m2. Who’s to be believed?......
The concept of back radiation does not enter into my projections, and I have no idea how I would use it for forecasting climate change. I’ve been unable to persuade myself that back radiation is anything more than a computationally unusable extrapolation from John Tyndall’s insightful experiments in the 1850s.'
The fall back position for the supporters of the 'back radiation' concept is to accept that the higher DLR you do get when GHG concentration rises [e.g. cf cloud free desert compared to cloud free ocean] is that you can think of it is an impedance to IR transport from the ground.
I agree but with one caveat which is that because the DLR can do no thermodynamic work so cannot heat the ground, there can be no positive feedback in the way the IPCC models claim, and which has then to be offset by entirely OTT cloud cooling.
As for the detailed physics of the extra impedance, I disagree with the IPCC's case and so do others far more expert than me in IR physics' theory. However, I have done much practical measurement of heat transfer in metallurgical plant, including building my own radiometers and pyrometers, so I can claim to be an expert.
Hang on. Philip/ Philip Bratby. Are you just angling for a double shout? You bloody poms are as bad as Aussies with the 'wallet' haka.
No worries, a £round at the pub would only be about 30 NZ cents. Or have you started double-pricing in Euros!
Martin A
I think what Richard and Judy are doing takes us back to 2005, when the Futerra "let's pretend the science is settled" thing kicked in.
Refusing to debate, particularly at the current level of understanding of the climate, was always bad science. For a brief time it the 2007-8 time frame it might have been good politics given the momentum the cause had but ever since support started waning and questions persisted about AGW theory, it became bad politics as well. The refusal to debate is interpreted by many as an admission the consensus could not carry the argument. (The few time debates were held in the past, and audiences were polled, the skeptics were more found to be more convincing.) With higher energy bills showing up in the mail and projections to go much higher, folks are getting angry and want answers. I just hope that people realize these debates need to be more of a campaign. The science really is not settled and it will likely be years or decades to resolve the magnitude of the greenhouse effect as it relates to CO2 concentration.
Excellent article by Richard. It will be interesting to see what the response is from the climate science community. Still more interesting would be a bit of objective, honest and open discussion from the likes of Jones (S), Nurse, Cox et al. I don't have a problem with their support for the general warming hypotheses as such; it's the distinct impression that they haven't at any point bothered to think it through.
As long as "talking to" means actually discussing and thiking, not sermonising.
MDGNN,
Although John O'Sullivan (not in my view a reliable source) says that Roy admitted he may be wrong, I can't locate this in Roy's words - quite the opposite in fact. Again, please try to point me to where Roy himself said this, not where someone else said he said it.
And an article by Vaughan Pratt on Judiths site is NOT a statement from Judith. Do you seriously think an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology wrote "'I, an amateur hack in this area with no meteorological credentials at all"?
As Richard's official side kick ;) I'd like to endorse his blog article. I think my colleagues and friends would vouch that I repeat these themes every time climate science communication comes up in conversation.
Jut an hour ago we had a journal club on retiring of the CLAW hypothesis (no time to expand right now) and I was saying to early career colleagues we have to be more on the lookout for errors in the literature and groupthink than most other fields due to the lack of trust in us by people like you here.
Cheers,
Tamsin (on my mobile, late for a meeting)
I followed Judith on CA from the early days and watched her gradually move towards skepticism. As Mikey, week funded, well organised denier misinformation, Mann, has said he doesn't know what Judith is doing. He says that because he can't attack her, she is a well respected Scientist who has clearly taken on board the views of the sceptics.
As for Richard's asking his fellow scientists to talk to sceptics, well that's nice, but they are unlikely to do so, except with the intention of persuading us with the error of our ways, and that's probably not a good place to start.
The first thing they'd have to do is to accept that, good as the science is in WG1, the output and conclusions of the SPM could not in any way represent the honest view of the majority of scientists in climate science. Could I suggest that they read HSI and come on this site with the criticisms of it, preferably by posting here. That would be a reasonable start to the debate. Then maybe Donna Lamframboise's delinquent child book would provide us with their views on the value of the IPCC as an assessment of the climate and as a tool for the development of policy.
Then they could explain why 1700 of them signed a letter supporting the UEA/CRU before they had read the emails, smacks of tribalism to me, bit like corruption at the Met being overlooked in times gone by.
They could then explain to us why, on there say so, we are trying to get our output of CO2 from 4 weeks of China's current output, to six days of China's current output by 2080 and what good is this going to do?
Also before debate they shoul reveal what, if any green NGOs they are affiliated with, and the purpose of their affiliations. It would be sensible to ensure that if we're going to haves debate about the existence, of God, and the forthcoming Armageddon that we make sure we're not talking to emissaries from the Vatican.
Finally could they please provide an expert to debate radiative feedback on another blog with mdgnn
"Dissenter" is a very kind term. Has its use in this application preceded Richard's? I had been uncomfortable with "skeptic" perhaps because it didn't necessarily connote understanding, but dissenter seems to do the job.
Thanks Richard
The upholders/dissenters terminology was coined by David Henderson.
I like 'dissenter' too. Though with my limited knowledge of non-established religions (catholic background), I thought dissenters were by and large not fond of bishops? The absence of wikipedia makes it harder for me to find out...
mydog, your quote from ClimateEtc (apart from it not being by Judith, merely being on her blog, authored by someone else, as steveta_uk points out) looks very clearly to me to refer to net flux, i.e. the fact that surface emission of IR is greater than the 'back-radiation' from the troposphere. Several of us have asked you over the last weeks to clarify whether you accept that back radiation exists - but not net back-radiation (my effort was here) but you don't seem to answer.
Perhaps we should adopt "dissentient" then?
Hi geronomo: 'Finally could they please provide an expert to debate radiative feedback on another blog with mdgnn'
Looking forward to it if they can find someone. The trouble is all they do is to claim scientific precedence by Arrhenius and he was wrong as can be shown by experiment, the final arbiter.
When this fails they then claim back radiation represents an impedance to IR transmission from the Earth's surface, which is partially true. But when you point out it's really 'Prevost Exchange Energy' so can't do thermodynamic work [unless there's a temperature inversion], go quiet and ask 'Where can we get an expert to debate this with mdgn...:o)
steveta_uk: mea culpa. I will look further.
Stone me - an outbreak of common sense, perhaps..?
Eventually, it would seem that the 'warmists' are coming (excrutiatingly slowly) to the view that us 'oil-funded' (got 3p off a litre of unleaded recently by turning up between 12.00 and 1.00) sceptics/dissenters MIGHT just have views which MIGHT just be worth considering.
Long way to go before we get the government to listen, though...
Long way to go before we get the government to listen, though...
speaking of which, Chris Huhne is about to appear here any minute. Not sure I can bear to watch...
URL for 'webinar' - http://www.which.co.uk/campaigns/energy-and-environment/affordable-energy-campaign/your-energy-questions-answered/#chrishuhne
Jeremy Harvey: when you point a radiometer upwards at say 6 feet above the earth's surface on a still night, it does two things: firstly it shields the detector from upward IR radiation; secondly it measures downward radiation. Reverse it so it measures upwards IR radiation and normally, that is higher.
So net IR is positive upwards as should be because in the direct Earth-source IR absorbing part of the atmosphere, there is a temperature gradient falling with height according to Beer-Lambert. Once you get sufficiently high, that gradient becomes imperceptible as is the net IR signal.
When calculating radiation problems you must always look at net radiation: the use of a single S-B equation to calculate a total emission of radiation is fundamentally wrong because the universe doesn't work like that. Thus to calculate the radiative equilibrium with space of the Earth, you have a three body problem, the Sun and the Earth with their particular view factor AND the cosmic background temperature of ~2.7 K with a view factor of unity.
The fact that climate science is happy to calculate 255 K is the equilibrium temperature of the composite emitter in equilibrium with space using the S-B equation for the Earth alone is to assume the cosmic background temperature is 0 K. That is not true but the numerical error is insignificant. However, the scientific error is immense.
Climate science's mistaken view of this physics is I believe unique. Its apparent unwillingness to consider it's wrong seems to be because to do so would be to admit the CAGW danger does not exist. So this refusal to conform to accepted science in this key area is apparently political, not scientific.
Okay, good of Richard to say his stuff but is it going to roll back the garbage we get from the BBC Harrabin, Black etc?
Richard writes, "The difficulty comes when those responsible for gathering the evidence feel under attack and respond in a defensive manner themselves".
What? As in "You just want to find something wrong with it"? I wonder what Jones thinks of your thoughts Richard? The real difficulty is the refusal of free source data and the use of NGO "Grey" material in IPCC work!
Later in the article we get, "If “sceptics” believe scientists to be motivated by political agendas or simply protecting their jobs, and scientists believe sceptics to be “anti-science” or promoted or even funded by vested interests, each side merely claiming otherwise is unlikely to make a difference."
Point taken Richard, how about a mentions of the many, many sceptical, well qualified but vilified scientists Richard?
I would suggest that the people that should really read and digest what Richard says should be the climate scientists that have led the C.A.G.W. religion and would hope that the upcoming IPCC report will be accurate, unbiased and have open data without the shenanigans of Mann, Hansen etc . I guess I am still just not ready to believe anything any of these people say! That is the truly sad state of the science! Just my two pennyworth!
mydogsgotnonose
Nikolov and Zeller, in the first part of their clarified paper, calculate 155K as the equilibrium temperature, rather than 255K. http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/utc_blog_reply_part-1.pdf
MDGNN: "secondly it measures downward radiation".
As Roy Spenser has pointed out, this would be impossible if the warmer detector could not absorb IR from a cooler source.
What A Politician Does: Introductory Seminar 101, Day One Learning Agenda:
"Tell Them What They Want To Hear."
Andrew
"Perhaps we should adopt "dissentient" then? Jan 18, 2012 at 1:48 PM | Bishop Hill"
Absolutely!
:-)
steveta_uk: a radiometer measures incoming radiation absolutely because the radiation from the other direction is shielded and there's an absolute reference.
In the case of a pyrgeometer, there is a constant temperature body to which is attached the IR receiver plate. What is measured is the temperature difference across the connecting strap. Its thermal conductivity is known and the unknown flux is calibrated against a known emitter. This is a very old bit of equipment, invented in the 19th century. Spencer is mistaken!
Richard Betts:
(My bold). Policy?? Isn't that the problem? That we think we're talking about the science and you think your defending a policy? In my book, policy is very near dogma.
My dictionary defines Policy as: 'a definite course of action adopted for the sake of expediency, facility, etc.' (my bold again)
That said, I do enjoy your posts.
Snotrocket
I think Richard is saying that policy is irrelevant to the discussion, no?