TheNextGeneration

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg
Showing posts with label Dana Nuccitelli. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dana Nuccitelli. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Dana Nuccitelli: The Pacific Ocean fills in another piece of the global warming puzzle

Posted on 8:03 AM by Unknown
Evidence continues to mount that the slowed warming of global surface temperatures is mainly due to changes in the oceans

by Dana Nuccitelli, Climate Consensus - The 97%, The Guardian, September 3, 2013

A new study published in the journal Nature incorporates temperature changes in the tropical Pacific Ocean into an advanced climate model, and finds that the model can reproduce observed global surface temperature changes remarkably well.

This graph shows the good match between model temperatures in the last few decades (in red) and measured temperatures (in black). Just accounting for radiative changes doesn't reproduce the recent surface warming slowdown (in purple).  
This graph shows the good match between temperatures in the Nature paper model (in red) and measured temperatures (in black). Just accounting for human and solar climate influences doesn't reproduce the recent surface warming slowdown (in purple). 
  Importantly, as authors Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography explain, accounting for the changes in the Pacific Ocean allows the model to reproduce the slowed global surface warming over the past 15 years. It also accurately reproduces the regional and seasonal changes in surface temperatures, which adds confidence that their results are meaningful.
Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to La-Niña-like decadal cooling … For the recent decade, the decrease in tropical Pacific sea surface temperature has lowered the global temperature by about 0.15 degrees Celsius compared to the 1990s.
Despite only covering 8.2% of the Earth's surface, these results suggest that the tropical Pacific Ocean plays a major role in short-term changes in the average global surface temperature. And over the past 15 years, it's offset most of the global surface warming from the increased greenhouse effect.

These results are broadly consistent with several other important recent papers investigating the role of the oceans in global warming. For example, the model used in this study finds that the overall heating of the planet has not slowed when the warming of the oceans are taken into account, as studies led by John Abraham, myself, and several others have also concluded.
Research led by Gerald Meehl has similarly focused on the importance of the Pacific Ocean in short-term global surface temperature changes. His climate model predicts that there will be decades when surface temperature changes are relatively flat because more heat is transferred to the deep oceans, precisely as we have observed over the past decade. Meehl discussed the Kosaka & Xie study with Carbon Brief,
This paper basically confirms, with a novel methodology, what we originally documented in our Nature Climate Change paper in 2011 and followed up with in our Journal of Climate paper ... We went beyond [the new paper] to show that when the tropical Pacific was cool for a decade ... more heat is mixed into the deeper ocean, something the new paper doesn't address.
Kevin Trenberth, who co-authored several of these important ocean studies, has likewise pointed to the important role of the Pacific Ocean in transferring more heat to the deep oceans.
The cause of the shift is a particular change in winds, especially in the Pacific Ocean where the subtropical trade winds have become noticeably stronger, changing ocean currents and providing a mechanism for heat to be carried down into the ocean. This is associated with weather patterns in the Pacific, which are in turn related to the La Niña phase of the El Niño phenomenon.
Research by Masahiro Watanabe of the Japanese Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute has also suggested that the transfer of heat to the deep oceans and corresponding slowed global surface warming is related to changes in the Pacific.
Thus the scientific picture is becoming increasingly clear that the Pacific Ocean has played a large role in the slowed surface warming in recent years, but the warming of the oceans and planet as a whole have continued unabated. Thus the slowed surface warming is very likely to be a temporary effect, similar to the flat global surface temperatures between 1940 and 1970 when the Pacific Ocean was in another cool cycle.

Although it may be a natural reaction to hope that the recent slowed surface warming suggests that climate change isn't an imminent threat, the scientific evidence simply does not support such optimism. Climate scientist Judith Curry, who I recently criticized for failing to grasp the concept of climate risk management, recently articulated this rosy view on her blog. By focusing at the model simulation data specifically from 1975 to 1998, Curry incorrectly argued that the study supports the position that global warming is mostly natural.

There are a few major problems with this argument. Between 1975 and 1998 when the Pacific Ocean was in a warm phase of its cycle, it accounted for some of the observed global surface warming (though less than Curry asserts; about 30%). But the thing about cycles – they're cyclical. Focusing on the warm cycles while ignoring the cool cycles is an example of classic cherry picking.

If we look at the full record, for both 1950–2012 and 1970–2012 (the Pacific Ocean temperature data are most reliable since 1970), according to the model used in this study, the Pacific Ocean has actually had a slight overall cooling effect on global surface temperatures. It's also important to note that this cycle is just moving heat around between oceans and air – the overall warming of the planet has remained steady and rapid.

Thus the body of scientific research consistently shows that global warming continues unabated, and is predominantly human-caused. The Pacific Ocean has likely played a significant role in the slowed global surface warming over the past 15 years by transferring more heat to the deep oceans, but that change appears to be a temporary one. When the Pacific Ocean enters its next warm cycle, we're likely to see a rapid warming of global surface temperatures. If we continue to use the temporary slowed surface warming as an excuse to delay climate action, we'll regret that decision when the surface warming kicks in with a vengeance.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/03/global-warming-pacific-ocean-puzzle-piece
Read More
Posted in Dana Nuccitelli, ENSO, Gerald Meehl, John Abraham, Judith Curry, Kevin Trenberth, ocean heat content, PDO - Pacific Decadal Oscillation | No comments

Monday, August 12, 2013

Fox News found to be a major driving force behind global warming denial

Posted on 4:26 AM by Unknown

American consumers of conservative media like Fox News distrust climate scientists and don't believe the planet is warming 
Fox News

Fox News is helping prop up conservative American global warming denial.

by John Abraham and Dana Nuccitelli, "Climate Consensus - the 97%," The Guardian, August 8, 2013
A new study published in the journal Public Understanding of Science (PDF available here) surveyed a nationally representative sample of over 1,000 Americans in 2008 and 2011 about their media consumption and beliefs about climate change.
The results suggest that conservative media consumption (specifically Fox News and Rush Limbaugh) decreases viewer trust in scientists, which in turn decreases belief that global warming is happening. In contrast, consumption of non-conservative media (specifically ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, The New York Times, and The Washington Post) increases consumer trust in scientists, and in turn belief that global warming is happening.
The study also examined previous research on this issue and concluded that the conservative media creates distrust in scientists through five main methods:
1) Presenting contrarian scientists as "objective" experts while presenting mainstream scientists as self-interested or biased.
2) Denigrating scientific institutions and peer-reviewed journals.
3) Equating peer-reviewed research with a politically liberal opinion.
4) Accusing climate scientists of manipulating data to fund research projects.
5) Characterizing climate science as a religion.
Media Matters provides examples of Fox News engaging in all five of these tactics. One prime example involves contrarian meteorologist Joe Bastardi, a frequent climate misinformation guest on Fox News who Rolling Stone awarded the #1 dumbest thing ever said about global warming for claiming that CO2 "literally" cannot cause warming because it doesn't "mix well in the atmosphere."
In reality we've known for nearly 190 years that rising CO2 causes global warming, and we know for certain it's well-mixed throughout the atmosphere, as illustrated by measurements from around the world.
The results of this study can be compared to the PhD research done by my Skeptical Science colleague John Cook, at the University of Queensland. Cook surveyed representative samples of Australians and Americans regarding their political ideologies and the effect of consensus on their acceptance of human-caused global warming. After being shown evidence of the consensus on human-caused global warming, Australian acceptance of this scientific reality grew across the political spectrum, but especially among conservatives.
In the American sample, acceptance grew for most political groups, but especially among political liberals. In the American sample, there was also a small and extremely politically conservative group who actually became more likely to reject human-caused global warming in response to evidence of the expert consensus. Cook presented his data at the American Geophysical Union Chapman Conference on Climate Science Communication, shown in the video below at the 10-minute mark.


Cook's result appears consistent with the new study published in Public Understanding of Science, which found that exposure to conservative media decreases trust in climate scientists. In short, Fox News and other conservative media outlets plant the notion that climate scientists are somehow faking evidence for human-caused global warming. This makes viewers less trusting of climate scientists and less likely to accept that global warming is happening.
With conservatives tending to get their information from conservative media sources, this is increasing the political polarization on the subject of climate change. However, with the real-world effects of climate change constantly becoming more difficult to deny, this is not a sustainable situation. Eventually reality must break in, and there are signs that this is beginning to happen.
A growing number of American conservatives are demanding that the Republican Party stop denying the problem and begin participating in crafting the solution. For example, the list of conservatives supporting a revenue-neutral carbon tax continues to grow:
51 percent of Republican voters
Art Laffer, economic advisor to Ronald Reagan
Greg Mankiw, economic advisor to George W. Bush and Mitt Romney
George Shultz, Reagan's Secretary of State
Gary Becker, Nobel Laureate in economics
Bob Inglis, former Republican Congressman from South Carolina
A staffer for a House Republican
William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator under Nixon and Reagan
Lee Thomas, EPA Administrator under Reagan
William Reilly, EPA Administrator under George H.W. Bush
Christine Todd Whitman, EPA Administrator under George W. Bush
The list goes on. Moreover, 73% of young voters under the age of 35 associate denial of global warming with words like "ignorant," "out-of-touch" or "crazy," including 53% of young Republicans. Climate solutions are also growing in popularity due to their real-world success, with British Columbia's revenue-neutral carbon tax enjoying 64% support, and California's carbon cap and trade system experiencing 67% support.
The question now is how long the Republican Party's global warming denial and obstruction of climate solutions can last in the face of these growing numbers of Americans (including Republicans) demanding climate solutions. Climate misinformation from Fox News and other conservative media outlets may be stemming the tide against climate denial, but the tide is rising, both literally and figuratively.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/08/global-warming-denial-fox-news
Read More
Posted in Climate Denial Machine, Dana Nuccitelli, John Abraham, John Cook | No comments

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Andrew Neil - these are your climate errors on BBC Sunday Politics

Posted on 9:18 AM by Unknown


Andrew Neil

Andrew Neil made several errors in discussing our 97% climate consensus paper and global warming on his show


Andrew Neil should stick to political discussions, because he got climate science all wrong. Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian
by Dana Nuccitelli, Climate Consensus–The 97%, The Guardian, July 17, 2013

On last week's BBC show "Sunday Politics," Andrew Neil hosted UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey for a discussion about climate science and policy. Neil subsequently requested that people provide him with examples of the factual errors in this interview. Given that he began the show with several errors about the paper I co-authored finding a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are causing global warming (the inspiration for the name of our blog), I would be happy to oblige.
Claims #1–4
"That [97% consensus] survey has of course been substantially discredited ... 35 percent of the abstracts were misclassified, and they were classified to the pro-global warming side. Professor Richard Tol ... has disassociated himself from that and said it's not reliable."
Verdict: False on all counts.
All of Neil's claims here refer to comments economist Richard Tol has made about our paper on his personal blog. He submitted those comments to the journal that published our paper, Environmental Research Letters, whose editor promptly rejected his submission. The editor noted that in addition to being "written in a rather opinionated style" and reading "more like a blog post than a scientific comment," most importantly,
"I do not see that the submission has identified any clear errors in the Cook et al. paper that would call its conclusions into question."
The claim that we "misclassified" 35% of abstracts is simply based on Tol's preference that our survey be less precise and make more sweeping generalizations. Our team read and categorized every abstract based on what they said about the causes of global warming, whereas Tol believes that every paper discussing the impacts of climate change should be placed in the 'no opinion' category. We classified these abstracts correctly based on the categories established in our study. Let's just take one quick example, from (Soulé 1992):
"Humans are engaged in an uncontrolled experiment in planetary heating. Each decade, the concentration of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing by about 4%. All signs point toward unprecedented rates of warming and climate change."
We categorized that as an explicit endorsement of human-caused global warming. Tol would call it "no opinion." You be the judge as to who's misclassified it.
Additionally, when we compared our abstract ratings to the authors' self-ratings based on their full papers, contrary to Neil's claim, we found that we had classified them more in the 'no opinion' category and less in the pro-human caused global warming categories than the authors themselves.
Histogram of Abstract Rating (expressed in percentages) minus Self-Rating. 1 = Explicit endorsement with quantification, 4 = No Expressed Position, 7 = Explicit rejection with quantification. Green bars are where self-ratings have a higher level of endorsement of AGW than the abstract rating. Red bars are where self-ratings have a lower level of endorsement of AGW than the abstract rating.Histogram of Abstract Rating (expressed in percentages) minus Self-Rating. 1–3 = endorsed human-caused global warming, 4 = no expressed position, 5–7 = rejected human-caused global warming. Green bars are where self-ratings have a higher level of endorsement of human-caused global warming than the abstract rating. Red bars are where self-ratings have a lower level of endorsement of human-caused global warming than the abstract rating.
Regarding Neil's claim that Tol has disassociated himself from our study: Tol has never been associated with the analysis of our study. He was one of 29,083 authors of studies that we examined, and one of 1,200 authors who participated in the self-rating phase. So the statement that he has disassociated himself is meaningless. His opinions about how his own papers should be categorized are included in the 97% consensus in self-rated papers.
Those author self-ratings are a key component of our study and conclusions. In both the abstract ratings and author self-ratings, we found the same 97 percent consensus result. Tol has only criticized the abstract ratings survey; even if you disregard those results, the 97% self-ratings consensus remains.
This is why our results remain widely accepted. Neil's assertion that they have been "widely discredited" is simply a repetition of baseless claims made on climate contrarian blogs. If Neil relies on contrarian blogs for his climate information, that may explain why he is woefully misinformed on the subject.
Graph #1
In justifying only showing global surface temperatures from 1980 to the present day, Neil showed a faulty graphic of data from the UK Met Office and Hadley Centre (HadCRUT4). It appears to be a graph of the decadally smoothed HadCRUT4 data, but smoothed out even further to eliminate all the 'plateaus' before the year 2000.
Aside from the excessive smoothing, the graph is invalid after the year 2007. Using this decadal smoothing method, each temperature data point is the average of the surrounding decade. So for example, the temperature in 2012 is the average of the temperatures in 2007 through 2017. Problem: lacking aTARDIS, we don't yet know the temperature in 2017. The Met Office explains,
"Ideally the smoothing should stop before the filter 'runs off' the end of the series, but a series that has been shortened in this way appears not to be up-to-date ... Extending the data series can be done in a number of ways, but the method used for HadCRUT4 is simply to continue the series by repeating the final value."
To sum up, the graph presented by Neil is excessively smoothed, and half of the 'plateau' that was the main focus of the show is artificial.
Verdict: Neil's graph should be totally disregarded and thrown out. Here is an accurate representation of global surface temperatures, which shows that these sorts of 'plateaus' happen frequently.
Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, and Nov '02 - Nov '12. Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes January 1970 – October 1977, April 1977 – December 1986, September 1987 – November 1996, June 1997 – December 2002, and November 2002 – November 2012.
Claim #5
When addressing his misleading 'plateau' graphic, Neil also claimed,
"The IPCC report says that the real CO2 emission rising temperatures really clicked in after 1980."
Verdict: False.
You can see from this figure in the 2001 IPCC report that human-caused global warming really kicked into gear around 1970, but rose steadily throughout the early- and mid-20th century.
Question #1
"Isn't that [global surface temperature] plateau a bit of a puzzle ... Is there at least the possibility - I put it no higher than that - that there is a disconnect now between CO2 emissions and temperatures?"
Answer: We don't yet know exactly how much each factor (e.g. low solar activity, more pollutants in the atmosphere, more ocean warming) has contributed to the slowed global surface warming, but we do know they have contributed to it. As Davey correctly noted, climate models predict that there will be decades with less surface warming and more ocean warming, which isexactly what we're currently seeing.
Davey also did a good job pointing out that Neil was focusing on air temperatures, but 90 percent of global warming goes into the oceans. When we account for all the heat the Earth is accumulating, it's warming at a rateequivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second. There is no disconnect there – the planet is continuing to accumulate heat along with the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Skeptic view of global warming, ignoring warming oceans, melting ice, etc.Source: Climate Nexus
Claim #6
"...the Arctic ice melt did not happen other than normally this year."
Verdict: Misleading
The veracity of this claim cannot be evaluated for two reasons. First, it's July. The annual Arctic sea ice melt season continues through September. There're still a good 2 months to go. Second, what exactly is "normal"? Since 1980, the Arctic has lost three quarters of its ice mass. This year's melt is consistent with that new normal of extreme summer sea ice melt, and so far it's even toward the lower end of the emaciated sea ice extent record over the past three decades.
Claim #7
"...the IPCC central forecast of almost 3% rise in temperatures. If it turned out, sometimes climate scientists are saying that it's actually going to be 1%..."
Verdict: False and confused.
It's difficult to figure out what Neil is referring to here, because he seems to have said "percent" where he meant "degrees Celsius." However, the IPCC projects a range of possible future global warming scenarios depending on the amount of greenhouse gases humans emit over the next century.
A 3 °C average global surface warming above pre-industrial levels would be a fairly middle-of-the-road scenario. However, the planet has already warmed 0.8 °C above pre-industrial levels, and we are committed to another half degree Celsius just from the greenhouse gases we have already emitted. No serious climate scientist believes we can limit warming to 1 °C by 2100 without radical greenhouse gas emissions reductions. On the contrary, Neil is suggesting we should do less to reduce emissions, which would commit us to the higher global warming scenarios. Davey again was right to say that we can only limit global surface warming to 2 °C if we aggressively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Final Verdict
Ed Davey deserves kudos for doing a very nice job explaining the science to Neil throughout the show. He also debunked Neil's exaggerations of the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. On that point it's important to note that a valid economic analysis must consider both the costs and the benefits of a given policy. According to a recent study by Chris and Mat Hope, a ton of carbon dioxide emissions today costs us over $100. We reap economic benefits by reducing those emissions and avoiding the climate damages they cause.
As Davey noted, throughout the show Neil focused only on the bits of evidence that seemed to support his position. He focused exclusively on the slowed global surface warming while ignoring the warming oceans, melting ice, and rising sea levels. He focused on and exaggerated the costs of climate policy while ignoring their benefits. And he focused on attacks on our consensus paper by climate contrarian blogs while ignoring the fact that the 97% finding was the result of two independent methods and was also consistent with several previous similar surveys.
True skepticism requires considering all the available evidence, not just that which seems to support your desired conclusion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jul/17/climate-change-scepticism-andrew-neil-ed-davey
Read More
Posted in Climate Denial Machine, Dana Nuccitelli | No comments

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy

Posted on 11:38 AM by Unknown

by Dana Nuccitelli, Skeptical Science, June 14, 2013

Update: the Chinese Academy of Sciences has released a statement about Heartland's "misleading statement."  See below for details.

As Cook et al. (2013) (also known as The Consensus Project) showed, the consensus in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that humans are causing global warming has been growing over the past two decades.  In 2011, 98% of papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

consensus growth
Percentage of "global warming" or "global climate change" papers endorsing the consensus among only papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus.  From Cook et al. (2013).

However, as Graham Readfearn recently documented, over those same two decades, fossil fuel interests have engaged in a number of campaigns to cast doubt on the existence of the consensus on human-caused global warming. Convincing the public that this settled science is still in dispute has long been a top priority for industry groups.

consensus vs. denial
The results of Cook et al. (2013) juxtaposed with some fossil fuel-funded campaigns to deny the scientific consensus.  Image by jg.

The latest such effort comes from the Heartland Institute. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report is primarily a Heartland product. Recently, a branch of the Chinese Academy of Sciences translated the NIPCC report. The Heartland Institute has trumpeted this fact far and wide, claiming for example:
"The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) will present the two books at a June 15 event in Beijing, a landmark event that puts enormous scientific heft behind the questionable notion that man is responsible for catastrophically warming the planet."
"The trend toward skepticism and away from alarmism is now unmistakable,"
"Publication of a Chinese translation of Climate Change Reconsidered by the Chinese Academy of Sciences indicates the country’s leaders believe their [failure to sign a global climate treaty] is justified by science and not just economics."
These comments sure make it sound like the Chinese Academy of Sciences has been convinced by the contrarian content of the NIPCC report!  So what did the Chinese Academy actually say?

Here are relevant comments from the translator's preface on page 8 of the PDF:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued four assessment reports synthesizing scientific findings on climate change.  The most recent report, released in 2007, was IPCC AR4, which found that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, represents the consensus scientific opinions on international climate change studies.  Yet, as with any academic topic, there are still differing viewpoints and debates on the causes, facts, impacts and trends in climate change."
"In order to help Chinese researchers to understand different opinions and positions in debates on climate change, at the end of 2011, we contact The Heartland Institute, the publisher of these two reports."
"The work of these translators, organizations and funders has been in the translation and the promotion of scientific dialogue, does not reflect that they agree with the views of NIPCC"
So basically they acknowledge the existence of the consensus, and the fact that a few contrarians have "differing viewpoints," and want to give the contrarians a chance to make their case.  Thus they translated the NIPCC report simply as a representation of "differing viewpoints," and specifically note the translation does not indicate that they agree in anyway with the views of the NIPCC.

Similarly, when asked about the NIPCC report translation and Heartland claims, the Chinese Academy of Sciences responded:
"...this is only a book cooperation between the Lanzhou Branch of the National Science Library and Heartland Institute, and is limited only to copy right trading, with no academic research work involved.
A few CAS experts participated in the translation of the book, aiming to demonstrate different voices in the global scientific field to the Chinese science community, however, that does not mean that we CAS joined the research or agree with their view point; neither does it mean that CAS will decide "promote" the climate "skeptic" view or group."
In fact, the Chinese Academy of Sciences has signed onto this joint statement, in which they endorse the IPCC consensus position on human-caused global warming and note:
"Responding to climate change requires both mitigation and adaptation to achieve a transition to a low carbon society and our global sustainability objectives."
Clearly the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the country's government have not bought into the Heartland NIPCC contrarianism.  In fact, China has recently been taking a leading role in addressing climate change.  They're testing out a carbon cap and trade system, are trying to ensure that their coal consumption has peaked, and have reached an agreement with the USA to reduce hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions, which are potent greenhouse gases. CO2 emissions per unit of electricity generation in China have been falling steadily as they diversify towards more low-carbon energy sources. Does this sound like a country that denies that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change, as Heartland's Joe Bast suggests?

As if Heartland's misrepresentation of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the nation's government weren't bad enough, they also distorted the positions of the Russian and Polish Academy of Sciences, claiming the translation "follows strong statements by the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Polish Academy of Sciences dissenting from claims that global warming is either man-made or a crisis."

If you follow those links, they lead to stories that are very different from Heartland's (mis)representations. The Russian Academy of Sciences claim is based on a statement from a single scientist from the Institute for Fundamental Problems of Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. What does the Russian Academy of Sciences actually say about global warming?  They signed the same joint statement as the Chinese Academy of Sciences, endorsing the IPCC consensus view that humans are causing global warming, and that we must "transition to a low-carbon society."

The Polish Academy of Sciences claim is based on a statement from the Academy's geologic science committee.  The statement does express some skepticism about the causes of global warming, but the committee acknowledges:
"There is no doubt that a certain part of the rise of the level of greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, is associated with human activity therefore, steps should be taken to reduce the amount on the basis of the principles of sustainable development, a cease of extensive deforestation, particularly in tropical regions."
Like its Chinese and Russian counterparts, the full Polish Academy of Sciences has signed statements endorsing the human-caused global warming consensus, for example, in 2007 (Google English translation) and in 2010:
"It is widely agreed that human activities are changing Earth’s climate beyond natural climatic fluctuations.  The emission and accumulation of greenhouse gases associated with the burning of fossil fuels, along with other activities, such as land use change, are the principal causes of climate change."
So Heartland's claim about "the trend toward skepticism" (where "skepticism" actually means contrarianism) is pure fantasy. The reality is that the Chinese, Russian and Polish Academies of Science all endorse the consensus position that humans are causing global warming, and that consensus position is growing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

As for the NIPCC report itself, it's BS (Bad Science). Just as one example, the 2009 NIPCC report has an entire sub-section devoted to global warming "fingerprints," and yet it only discusses one -- the tropical troposphere "hot spot" (a part of the atmosphere expected to warm particularly fast as a result of global warming). The NIPCC report has no mention of the many actual fingerprints of human-caused global warming which have been observed (Skeptical Science discusses 10 here).  Instead, the NIPCC focuses on the one fingerprint which may (or may not) be missing, even though it's a fingerprint of any global warming, and is not specific to human-caused warming. 

If that BS represents the "differing viewpoints" the Chinese will be exposed to, I wouldn't expect them to back off their endorsement of the human-caused global warming consensus any time soon.


Update: the Chinese Academy of Sciences has released a statement about Heartland's "misleading statement," which reads in part:
"the Heartland Institute published the news titled “Chinese Academy of Sciences publishes Heartland Institute research skeptical of Global Warming” in a strongly misleading way on its website, implying that the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) supports their views, in contrary to what is clearly stated in the Translators’ Note in the Chinese translation. The claim of the Heartland Institute about CAS’ endorsement of its report is completely false..."
"If the Heartland Institute does not withdraw its false news or refuse to apologize, all the consequences and liabilities should be borne by the Heartland Institute. We reserve the right for further actions to protect the rights of CAS and the translators group."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/heartland-cas-fantasy.html
Read More
Posted in China, Climate Change Criminals, Dana Nuccitelli, Heartland Institute | No comments

Friday, June 14, 2013

The Heartland Institute's skeptical Chinese fantasy

Posted on 8:59 AM by Unknown
The Chinese Academy of Sciences translated a Heartland report, but endorses the climate change consensus
US and Chinese flags in front of the White House
US and Chinese flags in front of the White House. The USA and China recently agreed to reduce emissions of HFCs, which are potent greenhouse gases. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP
 
by Dana Nuccitelli, Climate Consensus: The 97%, The Guardian, June 14, 2013

The Heartland Institute is a fossil fuel-funded think tank that gained notoriety in May 2012 for launching an ad campaign comparing those who agree that humans are causing global warming (that's 97% of climate scientists and the majority of the rest of us) to the Unabomber and Osama bin Laden.

Billboards in Chicago paid for by The Heartland Institute along the inbound Eisenhower Expressway in Maywood, Illinois. Photograph: The Heartland Institute 
Billboards in Chicago paid for by The Heartland Institute along the inbound Eisenhower Expressway in Maywood, Illinois. Photograph: The Heartland Institute 
  Heartland also funds a report written by a group calling themselves the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which tries to be the contrarian response to the IPCC. The NIPCC report itself is BS (Bad Science), repeating numerous long-debunked climate myths and cherry picking data.

However, a branch of the Chinese Academy of Sciences recently decided to translate the NIPCC report. The Heartland Institute has triumphantly trumpeted this as evidence that the Chinese are becoming "skeptics" and the climate consensus is crumbling, claiming for example,
"The trend toward skepticism and away from alarmism is now unmistakable,"
"Publication of a Chinese translation of Climate Change Reconsidered by the Chinese Academy of Sciences indicates the country's leaders believe their [failure to sign a global climate treaty] is justified by science and not just economics."
However, Heartland's interpretation of these events does not jibe with the statements or actions of the translators, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, or the Chinese government. Here are relevant comments from the NIPCC translator's preface [PDF]:
"The most recent [IPCC] report ... found that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, represents the consensus scientific opinions on international climate change studies. Yet, as with any academic topic, there are still differing viewpoints and debates on the causes, facts, impacts and trends in climate change."
"In order to help Chinese researchers to understand different opinions and positions in debates on climate change, at the end of 2011, we contact The Heartland Institute, the publisher of these two reports."
"The work of these translators, organizations and funders has been in the translation and the promotion of scientific dialogue, does not reflect that they agree with the views of NIPCC"
And here is the Chinese Academy of Sciences' response to inquiries about the translation and Heartland's (mis)interpretation of its meaning:
"...this is only a book cooperation between the Lanzhou Branch of the National Science Library and Heartland Institute, and is limited only to copy right trading, with no academic research work involved.
A few CAS experts participated in the translation of the book, aiming to demonstrate different voices in the global scientific field to the Chinese science community, however, that does not mean that we CAS joined the research or agree with their view point; neither does it mean that CAS will decide "promote" the climate "skeptic" view or group."
These are not quite the ringing endorsements of the NIPCC report or the climate contrarian position that the Heartland comments imply. In fact, the Chinese Academy of Sciences has signed onto this joint statement along with 12 other Academies of Science, in which they endorse the IPCC consensus position on human-caused global warming and note,
"Responding to climate change requires both mitigation and adaptation to achieve a transition to a low carbon society and our global sustainability objectives."
In short, the Chinese Academy of Sciences endorses the IPCC consensus position that humans are causing global warming. They recognize that there are dissenting views (from the 2–3% minority in the scientific literature), and they offered to translate the NIPCC report as an opportunity for climate contrarians to make their case. However, the translators and Chinese Academy of Sciences explicitly note that this translation does not mean they agree with the contrarian position or the contents of the NIPCC report.

In fact, China has recently been taking a leading role in addressing climate change. They're testing out a carbon cap and trade system, are trying to ensure that their coal consumption has peaked, and have reached an agreement with the USA to reduce hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions, which are potent greenhouse gases. China has also been diversifying towards more low-carbon energy sources.

Does this sound like a country that denies that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change, as Heartland suggests?

As if Heartland's misrepresentation of China and its Academy of Sciences weren't bad enough, they also distorted the positions of the Russian and Polish Academies of Sciences, claiming the translation "follows strong statements by the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Polish Academy of Sciences dissenting from claims that global warming is either man-made or a crisis."

The claim about the Russian Academy of Sciences is based on a statement from a single scientist affiliated with the Academy. What does the Russian Academy of Science actually say about global warming? They signed the same joint statement as the Chinese Academy of Sciences, endorsing the IPCC consensus view that humans are causing global warming, and that we must "transition to a low-carbon society."

The claim about the Polish Academy of Sciences is based on a statement from the Academy's geologic science committee. Like its Chinese and Russian counterparts, the full Polish Academy of Sciences has signed statements endorsing the human-caused global warming consensus. For example in 2007 (Google English translation) and in 2010:
"It is widely agreed that human activities are changing Earth's climate beyond natural climatic fluctuations. The emission and accumulation of greenhouse gases associated with the burning of fossil fuels, along with other activities, such as land use change, are the principal causes of climate change."
So Heartland's claim about "the trend toward skepticism" (where "skepticism" actually means contrarianism) is pure fantasy. The reality is that the Chinese, Russian, and Polish Academies of Science all endorse the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Moreover, as our recent study found, that consensus position is growing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. As Graham Readfearn recently documented, over the past two decades, fossil fuel interests have engaged in a number of campaigns to cast doubt on the existence of the consensus on human-caused global warming. Convincing the public that this settled science is still in dispute has long been a top priority for industry groups.

Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus results and notable anti-consensus campaigns.  Image by John Garrett  
Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus results and notable anti-consensus campaigns. Image by John Garrett
Heartland's misrepresentation of the positions of the Chinese, Russian and Polish Academies of Science is the latest in this long line of efforts to cast doubt on the expert consensus on climate change. However, if the Bad Science in the NIPCC report represents the "differing viewpoints" the Chinese will be exposed to, I wouldn't bet on them reversing their endorsement of the human-caused global warming consensus anytime soon. Global temperatures will continue to rise, and the expert consensus on human-caused global warming will continue to grow along with them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jun/14/climate-change-heartland-chinese-academy-sciences
Read More
Posted in China, Climate Change Criminals, Climate Denial Machine, Dana Nuccitelli, Donors Trust, Graham Readfearn, Heartland Institute, Koch Industries | No comments
Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • James Hansen: Tar Sands and Dirty Tricks
    by James Hansen, September 13, 2013 The New Yorker just published (16 September issue) an excellent article "The President and the Pip...
  • Andrew Glikson: Another link between CO2 and mass extinctions of species
    by Andrew Glikson , The Conversation , March 22, 2013 It’s long been known that massive increases in emission of CO 2 from volcanoes, assoc...
  • Bombshell: Recent Warming Is ‘Amazing And Atypical’ And Poised To Destroy Stable Climate That Enabled Civilization
    by Joe Romm , Climate Progress , March 8, 2013 New Science Study Confirms ‘Hockey Stick’: The Rate Of Warming Since 1900 Is 50 Times Greater...
  • Real Pragmatism for Real Climate Change: Interview with Dr. John Abraham
    by John Stafford, OilPrice.com, March 26, 2013 At a time when extreme weather incidents are causing billions in damages, businesses, governm...
  • Steve Horn: State Dept Keystone XL Enironmental Reviewer Claimed Delaware Tar Sands Refinery Made Air Cleaner
    by Steve Horn, DeSmogBlog, July 18, 2013 A  DeSmogBlog  investigation reveals  Environmental Resources Management, Inc. (ERM Group) , the co...
  • James Hansen interview (video) of why he retired from NASA to be more active in climate actions
    by Climate Science Watch, April 12, 2013 Sustainability Media Lab shot this video interview on April 10, 2013, with James Hansen on why he l...
  • Justin Gillis, NYT: Maverick climate scientist James Hansen retiring from NASA, can now take a more active role in lawsuits challenging states and the federal government over their failure to limit CO2 emissions
    Climate Maverick to Quit NASA by  JUSTIN GILLIS , The New York Times , April 1, 2012 James E. Hansen , the climate scientist who issued the ...
  • Exxon acting like national guard under martial law in Mayflower, Arkansas, Pegasus tar sands dilbit spill cleanup
    Arkansas town in lockdown after oil spill nightmare by  Suzi Parker , Grist, April 5, 2013 REUTERS / Jacob Slaton There’s one Exxon gas stat...
  • Steve Horn: State Department's out-sourced Keystone XL environmental impact evaluation performed without knowing pipeline's route!!!
    by Steve Horn, DeSmogBlog, July 8, 2013 The State Department's decision to hand over control to the oil industry to evaluate its own ...
  • "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years," by S. A. Marcott et al., Science, 339 (2013); doi: 10.1126/science.1228026
    Science  (8 March 2013),  Vol. 339, N o. 6124,  pp. 1198-1201  DOI:  10.1126/science.1228026 REPORT A Reconstruction of Regional and Global ...

Categories

  • 2012 temperatures (3)
  • 2013 temperatures (6)
  • acidizing (1)
  • Adam Siegel (1)
  • Adaptation (1)
  • Aerosols (7)
  • Africa (2)
  • Al Gore (1)
  • Alaska (6)
  • albedo (2)
  • albedo flip (5)
  • ALEC (8)
  • Alun Hubbard (2)
  • Amazon rainforest (1)
  • Andrew C. Revkin (2)
  • Andrew Freedman (1)
  • Andrew Glikson (1)
  • Andrew J. Weaver (1)
  • Antarctic bottom water (2)
  • Antarctic Circumpolar Winds (1)
  • Antarctic Ice Sheet -- Western (WAIS) (4)
  • Antarctic Oscillation - AAO (1)
  • Antarctic warming (1)
  • Anthony R Ingraffea (1)
  • Anthony Watts (1)
  • Arctic amplification (7)
  • Arctic melt season (1)
  • Arctic Methane Emergency Group (7)
  • Arctic Ocean (5)
  • Arctic Oscillation (5)
  • Arctic sea ice mean speed (4)
  • Arctic sea ice volume (24)
  • Argo (1)
  • Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation - AMOC (2)
  • Atmospheric CO2 (8)
  • Australia (6)
  • Barry Bickmore (1)
  • bees (9)
  • Benjamin Santer (4)
  • Bidder 70 (1)
  • Big Oil Big Coal (89)
  • Bill McKibben (11)
  • Black carbon (2)
  • BOEMRE (2)
  • Brad Johnson (1)
  • Brazil (2)
  • Brian Eister (2)
  • Canada (24)
  • Carbon sinks (2)
  • Catastrophic climate change (1)
  • Charles Monnett (3)
  • China (15)
  • Chris Mooney (1)
  • Civil resistance (33)
  • Climate Change Criminals (24)
  • Climate Denial Machine (47)
  • Climate modelling (5)
  • Climate Patriots (2)
  • Climate sensitivity (1)
  • CO2 draw-down (1)
  • Consequences to infrastructure (1)
  • contrails (1)
  • coral reefs (1)
  • Corexit (1)
  • corrupt officials (60)
  • Coupled ice-ocean model (3)
  • Coupled ocean–atmosphere model (2)
  • crop yields (9)
  • CRU e-mails (2)
  • CryoSat-2 (1)
  • cyclones (2)
  • Dana Nuccitelli (9)
  • Dansgaard–Oeschger event (1)
  • David Roberts (2)
  • David Spratt (2)
  • Deforestation (2)
  • deglaciation (1)
  • Denial psychology (9)
  • divestment (11)
  • Donors Trust (2)
  • Drought (9)
  • dust (1)
  • earthquakes (3)
  • East Siberian Arctic Shelf (1)
  • Eastern Siberian Arctic Shelf -- ESAS (2)
  • Eemian (3)
  • Eli Rabett (5)
  • Elizabeth Kolbert (1)
  • Ellesmere (1)
  • ENSO (11)
  • Eric Rignot (1)
  • Extreme weather events (15)
  • Ferrel cells (1)
  • First Nations (9)
  • Flooding (7)
  • floods (1)
  • Forest fires (3)
  • fracking (47)
  • Fred Singer (1)
  • freshwater lens (1)
  • fugitive emissions (2)
  • Gareth Renowden (2)
  • Gavin Schmidt (3)
  • Geoengineering (1)
  • George Monbiot (2)
  • Gerald Meehl (2)
  • glacial runoff (1)
  • Global dimming (1)
  • glyphosate (1)
  • Graham Readfearn (9)
  • Greenland ice melt (21)
  • Greenpeace (3)
  • Greg Laden (3)
  • GrIS (9)
  • Hadley cells (2)
  • Hadley circulation (2)
  • Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (1)
  • Harrison Loony Tool Schmitt (1)
  • Heartland Institute (14)
  • heat dome (3)
  • Heat waves (13)
  • hockey stick (10)
  • Holocene thermal maximum (2)
  • hurricanes (1)
  • IceSat (2)
  • Igor Semiletov (4)
  • Inhofe (2)
  • Insurers (2)
  • Intertropical Convergence Zone - ICZ (2)
  • Jakobshavn Isbræ (1)
  • James Hansen (15)
  • Jason Box (10)
  • Jeff Masters (6)
  • Jennifer Francis (7)
  • Jeremy Grantham (1)
  • Jet stream (4)
  • John Abraham (15)
  • John Christy (1)
  • John Cook (2)
  • John Kerry (2)
  • Joseph Romm (12)
  • Josh Willis (2)
  • Judith Curry (1)
  • Julie Brigham-Grette (1)
  • Justin Gillis (3)
  • Katharine Hayhoe (2)
  • Kerry Emanuel (2)
  • Kevin Grandia (1)
  • Kevin Trenberth (14)
  • Keystone Principle (14)
  • Keystone XL (57)
  • Koch Industries (13)
  • Konrad Steffen (2)
  • Lake El'gygytgyn (1)
  • Leo Hickman (2)
  • Marc Morano (3)
  • Mark Boslough (1)
  • Mark Hertsgaard (1)
  • Mark Serreze (1)
  • Mass extinctions (1)
  • Mauri Pelto (1)
  • Medieval Climate Anomaly (2)
  • Meridonal heat transport - MHT (1)
  • Methane (2)
  • Methane Gun hypothesis (9)
  • Methane hydrates (11)
  • Michael Mann (20)
  • Michael Oppenheimer (2)
  • Michael Tobis (2)
  • Milne Ice Shelf (1)
  • Mitigation (1)
  • Monckton (6)
  • Monsanto (3)
  • Myles Allen (1)
  • Naomi Klein (1)
  • Natalia Shakhova (4)
  • national security (3)
  • Neela Banerjee (1)
  • neonicotinoid pesticide (9)
  • Nitrous oxide (1)
  • North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (1)
  • North Atlantic Oscillation (2)
  • Obama (1)
  • OccupyWallStreet (5)
  • ocean acidification (2)
  • Ocean chemistry (1)
  • ocean heat content (15)
  • Ocean salinity (2)
  • Ocean temperatures (4)
  • ozone levels (1)
  • paleo-climate (4)
  • Paleo-CO2 (2)
  • Patrick Michaels (1)
  • Paul Douglas (1)
  • PDO - Pacific Decadal Oscillation (4)
  • Peak food (10)
  • Peak oil (1)
  • Peak Water (3)
  • Permafrost (1)
  • Permafrost - subsea (2)
  • Permian mass extinction (1)
  • Peter Gleick (3)
  • Peter Sinclair (13)
  • Peter Wadhams (4)
  • Petermann Glacier (1)
  • Phil Jones (1)
  • Pinatubo rebound effect (2)
  • pine beetles (1)
  • Pine Island Glacier (1)
  • PIOMAS (3)
  • polar bears (5)
  • Polar jet stream (8)
  • Polar vortex (2)
  • Positive feedbacks (1)
  • Precipitation extremes (4)
  • radiative forcing (2)
  • Ray Weymann (1)
  • Raypierre (1)
  • resilience (1)
  • resource scarcity (3)
  • Richard Alley (3)
  • Richard Somerville (1)
  • Rick Piltz (2)
  • Robert Corell (1)
  • Roger Pielke Jr. (1)
  • Rossby waves (2)
  • Russia (1)
  • saltwater intrusion (1)
  • Scott Mandia (1)
  • Sea level rise (13)
  • sea surface temperature anomalies (1)
  • Sediment cores (2)
  • Shell Oil (4)
  • snow cover (3)
  • Snowden (1)
  • Solar activity (1)
  • solar radiation (1)
  • Soot (3)
  • Stefan Rahmstorf (5)
  • Steve Horn (13)
  • Storm intensity (1)
  • Storm tracks diverted polewards (1)
  • Stratospheric Sudden Warmings (3)
  • sulfoxaflor (1)
  • Tamino (1)
  • tar sands (57)
  • Ted Scambos (1)
  • Terracide (1)
  • These people are completely insane (7)
  • Thomas L. Friedman (2)
  • threat multiplier (1)
  • Threat to our democracy (49)
  • Tim DeChristopher (1)
  • Tipping elements (1)
  • Tom Steyer (1)
  • Tornado statistics (2)
  • TransCanada (3)
  • trees (1)
  • tropospheric water vapor (1)
  • Typhoon Yasi (1)
  • Van Jones (2)
  • volcanism (1)
  • WAIS (1)
  • Waleed Abdalati (1)
  • Walker circulation (2)
  • Walt Meier (1)
  • Water shortage (2)
  • William Krabill (1)
  • Willie Soon (1)
  • Wind pattern changes (2)
  • Wind power (2)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (500)
    • ▼  September (27)
      • James Hansen: Tar Sands and Dirty Tricks
      • Summer 2013 weather extremes tied to extraordinari...
      • Court rulings show judges accept climate science
      • DC judge denies another effort to derail Michael M...
      • Scientist Michael Mann named in top 10 influential...
      • Justin Gillis, NYT: A Climate Alarm, Too Muted for...
      • Top Obama aide Heather Zichal worked the Pavillion...
      • Call Sacramento. Vote NO on SB4
      • Graham Readfearn: The undiscerning climate bookshelf
      • Graham Readfearn: Australia's Department of Defenc...
      • Top Occupy Wall Street Cartoons
      • URGENT: phone your CA rep to prevent industry amen...
      • Tom Steyer, NexGen: Keystone XL bad economics for ...
      • Daily Mail Lies! No 60% recovery in Arctic sea ice...
      • Steve Horn: The Flip Side of Obama’s Keystone XL D...
      • Joseph E. Stiglizt, NYT: Why Janet Yellen, Not Lar...
      • "Global crop exposure to critical high temperature...
      • Naomi Klein: Green groups may be more damaging th...
      • Margaret Heffernan: Dare to Disagree
      • "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2...
      • U.S. Becomes Largest Wood Pellet Exporter,Enviva, ...
      • Rebuttal to Michael Tobis' unsubstantiated attacks...
      • Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple ...
      • Steve Horn: "Frackademia" By Law: Section 999 of t...
      • MUST SEE, Peter Sinclair: No Slowdown in Global Wa...
      • Dana Nuccitelli: The Pacific Ocean fills in anothe...
      • Posts from August 2013
    • ►  August (78)
    • ►  July (74)
    • ►  June (56)
    • ►  May (62)
    • ►  April (105)
    • ►  March (98)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile