Is this Called Framing the Debate?
Evidently, the APS (American Physical Society) is inviting papers to debate a very specific conclusion of the IPCC:
There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion.
Interesting choice of questions to debate.
Oh… I’m sure there are some who think anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not primarily responsible for global warming since the time of the Industrial Revolution. Yes… there may be a few…
But, when I read that issue, I remembered something.
I recently ran across the term “framing”. I read it in the context of global climate change. Specifically an article in EOS that advised scientists to “reframe” questions before answering them. Evidently, “reframing” a question involves:
a) hearing the question.
b) deciding it’s one you don’t want to answer.
c) answering a different related question you’d rather answer.
We voters see this behavior all the time. There’s an election in November; I count on seeing lots of reframing when politicians debate the issues. They do it to avoid answering questions that make their position appear weak.
I’m not so used to seeing intentional “reframing” in sciences. Before I read the EOS article, I didn’t suspect this was going on. But, having read it, and now reading the APS call, I can’t help but wonder. After all, that stated debate topic would seem out of place at most blogs and forums I visit. It leaves out the luke-warmers who agree CO2 causes warming, but debate the magnitude.
Off the top of my head, it seems the real world debate about IPCC conclusions, predictions or what-not revolve around questions more like these:
- Are the central tendencies of IPCC projections or predictions of warming biased high or low? I should think whether we should expect 1 C/century or 6 C/century over the next century has immense implications for public policy?
- Are the uncertainties in our ability to predict or attribute warming fairly conveyed by IPCC documents?
- Are current temperatures the warmest in the last 1,000 years? Or 2000? Or 3000? There has been an awful lot of debate over this issue.
If the APS limits debate to the specific question in their call, I anticipate we’ll see the responses used as proof that scientists nearly universally agree with the consensus position. However, from a policy point of view, the exercise will be almost pointless. To guide policy, we need the scientists to debate magnitude of projected warming.
Let’s hope the APS expands the debate to include the aspects of the debate that spawn actual arguments at blogs and forums. Otherwise… well… sigh…
Comments
John F. Pittman (Comment#4240) July 17th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I find myself agreeing with both Raven and Lucia. But I favor Lucia. It is the “very probably likely to be primarily responsible”. I have found that each modifier can used by the “host” to reframe the question to avoid the part that makes their argument appear weak.
Vincent Guerrini Jr (Comment#4243) July 17th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
re previous what time frame at current trends falsify warming? Its seems maybe that we may not after have to do this calculation. Even mainstream Australian papers are apparently doing a major U turn
http://www.news.com.au/heralds.....17,00.html
and this major U turn from the guy who was responsible for emmission targets Kyoto for Australia!
http://www.news.com.au/heralds.....17,00.html
Vincent Guerrini Jr (Comment#4244) July 17th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
sorry second Australian link here
http://www.theaustralian.news......83,00.html
Clark (Comment#4246) July 17th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Your #3 (Are current temperatures the warmest in the last 1,000 years? Or 2000? Or 3000? There has been an awful lot of debate over this issue.) would certainly be a necessary question to address when answering the APS question. If it was warmer during the MWP than it is now, that makes it much harder to argue that 20th century warming must be anthropogenic by default.
Raphael (Comment#4247) July 17th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
When I look at the APS climate change policy, I see the debate as being consistant with a desire to convince people that their policy is correct. The idea that there would be no further debates on magnitude of the warming would seem to be inconsistant with their policy. Thus, I would be hesitant to consider this a framing issue.
stargazer (Comment#4248) July 17th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
They have already posted the first abstract on their site, and an excellent one by Christopher Monckton.
He makes a case against the IPCC conclusions. His case is based on the equations at the heart of the IPCC case and their .313°K W–1 m-2 radiative forcing assumption. He then goes on to show that the assumption is too high and leads, using their equations, to exponential warming (run away warming) as that did not occur even when the planet was 8C warmer and CO2 20 times higher.
His conclusion. Either the radiative assumption is much to high or the equations(linear) are flawed.
stargazer (Comment#4249) July 17th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I also found his following quote very interesting:
Thus the IPCC cites only two papers that cite two others in turn. None of these papers provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as the κ ≈ 0.313 °K W–1 m2 chosen by the IPCC.
Zeke (Comment#4250) July 17th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Looks like this story ended up getting Drudged and APS had to issue a clarification:
APS Climate Change Statement
APS Position Remains Unchanged
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”
An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.” This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.
Also, it seems like Monckton isn’t really the best of choices to argue about climate sensitivity, as least if they want the climate science community to take the arguement very seriously…
James (Comment#4251) July 17th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher Monckton responded with this issue’s article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue’s article in favor of the IPCC conclusion. We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community. Please contact me (jjmarque@sbcglobal.net) if you wish to jump into this fray with comments or articles that are scientific in nature. However, we will not publish articles that are political or polemical in nature. Stick to the science! (JJM)
Forum on Physics & Society
The Forum on Physics and Society (FPS) is a division of the American Physical Society, organized in 1971 to address issues related to the interface of physics and society as a whole. The support of APS members is vital to the work of the Forum, both because Forum activities are coordinated by its active members and the financial support the Forum receives from the APS depends on its membership. All APS members may join two Forums free of charge.
FPS Newsletters
Physics and Society (P&S), a quarterly newsletter is available here back to 1993. It includes original research articles, reports on Forum-sponsored APS sessions, letters and regular book reviews. It is sent free of charge to all Forum members.
TokyoTom (Comment#4254) July 17th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Lucia, interesting observations. As the climate change issue clearly involves government action, with differing groups benefitting from either inaction or action of one kind or another, each interest group has of course struggled to frame the debate in the manner it deems most advantageous to its interests and to capture politicians and bureaucrats. This is standard games theory-grounded “public choice” analysis along the lines of Gordon Tullock. It’s useful to pay attention to framing, so we can know when when side or another is trying to con us. Unfortunately, since humans don’t think clearly (though we like to think that we do), we are very susceptible to good framing.
The environmentalists are no exception, but the framing from the fossil fuel side is rather clear.
I’m not sure about how deliberate the editor of the APS newsletter was in framing the question the way he did, but I agree with you completely that it is not helpful. Whether the human influence HAS BEEN the primary climate driver isn’t the real scientific question, but rather whether it has been and is likely to be, given continued rapid growth in GHG emissions, a significant driver. Ancillary scientific questions relate to the ways in which the influence is/will be manifested and what methods may be useful to abate the consequences. Even if human influence is relatively minor to natural variation, we know that small forces consistently applied can exert significant effects, and we also know that the earth’s climate is only metastable.
Of course it may be useful for the APS to have a debate among its members on some of the scientific issues, but the APS framing has already been abused by the witting or unwitting foils for the fossil fuels industry: “50,000 physicists vs. Gore”, indeed.
The engineer (Comment#4255) July 18th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Your reaction to this statement is very weird. Surely all 3 of your questions are pointless if
the scientific community agreed that human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is of little or no consequence to changes in global temperatures ?
In theory you could stop trying to find patterns in weather data and just say its nature and its chaotic.
Dave Andrews (Comment#4256) July 18th, 2008 at 4:06 am
Lucia & Tokyo Tom,
Sorry but the debate has already been framed ,for the general public at least, by the IPCC and the likes of James Hansen precisely in the terms that warming in the latter part of the 20th C is the result of man’s actions. You can’t open a newspaper or switch on the TV without constantly encountering that mantra.
In this context the P & S initiative is, hopefully, a breath of fresh air!
fred (Comment#4257) July 18th, 2008 at 5:39 am
Monckton’s paper is about climate sensitivity - feedback, basically. The question really is how the climate responds to the amount of warming that a given rise in CO2 will deliver. Its not where it comes from but the reaction to any small warming amount. Don’t know about framing, but is this not the really critical question? If the reaction to it via feedback is low, the CO2 may not be important. If its high, we have to explain why the MWP did not deliver the feedbacks and thus the increase in warming, or if it did, why it stopped.
So at least from the evidence of this paper, and whether its right or wrong in its assertions, they are debating the issue at the heart of the matter. Your own material on how much warming there is now is also fundamental. But this is the other half of the puzzle, how much should it, however great it is, produce in the future, given a right understanding of feedbacks.
lucia (Comment#4258) July 18th, 2008 at 5:44 am
Dave–
I agree the question is framed by the IPCC. But, I think it often gets reframed more narrowly at blogs etc.
For example:
If one discusses whether or not the IPCC projections for the future are valid, some want to reframe that to a debate on whether or not the temperatures rose in the past, in particular since 1900.
Of course everyone agrees the temperature rose from 1900-now. But that doesn’t resolve the real question. During 2000-2100, will it rise at the rate we saw from 1900-2000? Or will it rise up to 6C– nearly 10 times as much?
The issue of sensitivity is very important. And, sometimes it seems to me, the dynamic is to seem to prove consensus on “not zero”, and then act as if there is consensus on 6C for 2000-2100.
So, text that sounds like it might be doing that is now making me a bit leery.
But, of course, I could be misinterpreting entirely. It’s happened before.
lucia (Comment#4259) July 18th, 2008 at 5:47 am
TokyoTom
The environmentalists are no exception, but the framing from the fossil fuel side is rather clear.
What fossil fuel framing are you talking about? I know Shell is now funding a biofuels web site, funding From, Connelley and other vocal propoenents of AGW. Is there other clear framing you are aware of? (I rarely read what energy companies have to say about global warming. Does anyone?)
Dan Hughes (Comment#4260) July 18th, 2008 at 6:02 am
The numerical value of the sensitivity has been an issue for over 50 years. Here’s a comment from a Peer-Reviewed paper from 45 years ago:
“Because of these values the entire history of climatic changes by CO2 variations is becoming questionable.”
F. Moller, “On the Influence of Changes in the CO2 Concentration in Air on the Radiation Balance of the Earth’s Surface and on the Climate”, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 68, No. 13, pp. 3877-3886, July 1, 1963.
steven mosher (Comment#4261) July 18th, 2008 at 6:44 am
Lucia,
Framing is a concept developed by Lakoff. I ran into his work long long ago when I used to study
metaphor and rhetoric and linguistics.
wiki is your friend
steven mosher (Comment#4262) July 18th, 2008 at 6:54 am
PS, his book, Metaphors we live by is a good easy read for non linguists. I havent read his recent work
on Framing political debates, however, you can see how metaphors frame the climate science debate
when you see people use terms like “denialist” or flat earther, or creationist. And on the other side
you see people using analogies to Einstein, Piltdown man, etc.
Essentially the thesis is that our conceptual framework, the way we understand things, is governed
by metaphor. and you know what Frost said about metaphor.
Boris (Comment#4263) July 18th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Lucia,
I wouldn’t say this particular editor speaks for the APS as a whole.
Now as to Monckton’s paper, I haven’t delved into his equations, but he makes a large mistake in misreading figure 9.1 from the IPCC report. I think I’ve discussed this mistake here before and at CA, and you can read my post at Watts if you want to know more.
I would imagine APS is not too happy about giving someone like Monckton a forum, especially a forum connected to them.
steven mosher (Comment#4264) July 18th, 2008 at 7:02 am
http://www.en.utexas.edu/amlit.....dbypo.html
here. education by poetry.
lucia (Comment#4265) July 18th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Steven-
That people frame doesn’t necessarily both me. But, I was a bit perplexed by an EOS article. It’s online. You’ll find the link here.
Much of the advice is useful for everyone. Use words people understand etc.
The abstract includes:
“For example, scientists can improve their effectiveness by avoiding jargon as well as words that mean different things to scientists than to non-scientists. They can use appropriate metaphors and re-frame poorly framed questions.”
The section on reframing says,
“Rather than accepting the premise of a poorly framed question, reframe it. When people ask if globla warming can be blamed for a particular hurricane, heat wave, fire, or flood, a simple “no” does not respond to the essence of the question. “
Oh? How does Susan Hassel know the essence of the question some person is asking? But evidently she knows what they want to ask, and she tells us:
What they really want to know is whether global warming is having an effect on such events, and the science suggests that it is. You can reframe such questions to explain that global warming is increasing the chances of such events occuring, and you can also explain some of the connections
This really made me wonder what was going on in EOS. First, if you think someone phrased a question poorly, the only way to know what they really want to know is to ask them. You can ask: Do you want to know whether global warming caused Katrina? Or do you want to know if it affected the probability of hurricanes?
If it turns out they reallywanted to know about Katrina, the answer is “No”. You should say that. Of course, may then elaborate. And if you don’t answer, the question they actually asked, the person who asked the question is likely to jump to the conclusion that you are acting like a used car salesman or politician.
If it turns out Susan Hassel is right, after the person clarifies the question, you can answer it. As far as I can tell, the real scientific answer is: We don’t know. Judy Curry says “A”. Roger Pielke Jr. says B. Kerry Emmanuel currently seems to agree with Roger Pielke Jr. (I’m not sure I can keep track of Kerry Emmanuel’s current position. But, given the flurry of papers on either side, saying something like “the science suggests warming is increasing hurricanes” and stopping there is clearly tendentious. )
So, in fact, when we take Susan’s example as an illustration of framing she telling scientists to:
a) assume the person asking is linguistically challenged and doesn’t ask what they mean to ask.
b) change the simple question to a more complicated question you’d prefer to answer and then
c) give a tendentious answer that distorts the balances of scientific evidence on the issue of hurricanes by failing to mention that there is violent debate on the issue of hurricanes.
Had this talk been targetted towards public relations officials for a private company, a politician, those in advertising or an action group, I wouldn’t be at all perplexed. We all expect businesses to advertise, politician’s to take lessons in spin, advertisers to promote, and action groups to push agendas.
But why was this in EOS?! It unsettled me a bit.
lucia (Comment#4267) July 18th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Haiku interlude:
I ask my question.
The politician answers
a different question.
Bill Drissel (Comment#4269) July 18th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Lucia,
Your comment about “framing” reminded me: Way back when, I took a course in Classical Mechanics from Professor “X”. If he was asked a question he couldn’t answer, he would turn the words around to “frame” the query as a question he could answer. He did it often enough that it was called the “X” Transform.
Regards,
Bill Drissel
Grand Prairie, TX
APS (Comment#4270) July 18th, 2008 at 11:17 am
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”
Read full APS Climate Change Statement ( http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm ) (http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm).
tetris (Comment#4274) July 18th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Lucia,
IMHO the important element here is not so much the “framing” itself. Rather, it is that the editor of the APS explicitly acknowledges that there are many in the scientific community who do not agree with the IPCC’s conclusions. The fact that the APS has not [yet] amended its official position matters little. Key here is that it’s the editorial board that sets editorial “dogma” and thus the “tone” of that particular publications/station. Thus the articles which appeared in the NYT and Boston Globe [both staunchly pro-AGW] in early January, 2008, explicitly voicing questions about the AGW hypothesis, the IPCC’s conclusions and the purported “consensus/the science is settled” were groundbreaking not because of their content, but because they appeared at all, something rest assured, that would never have happened without the blessings of the respective newspapers’ editorial boards. I think we should see the importance of what is happening at the APS in the same light.
You write that there may be “a few” who question whether anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of global warming since the time of the Industrial Revolution. As the editor at the APS correctly points out there are many, many out there who have serious doubts about that statement, and many more who have to date kept quite about their misgivings but who are now starting to speak up.
As I have pointed here and on other blogs, there exists no proof - either from first principles or from reliable data- for the AGW hypothesis. Interesting hypothesis, but no proof. And lest we forget, Arrhenius’ thesis, the work on which the entire CO2/AGW hypothesis rests, has been shown to be flat out wrong and it’s a mystery to me why it is still trotted out as somehow relevant other than for political convenience.
steven mosher (Comment#4279) July 18th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Lucia,
I guess my point is this. The concept of reframing through metaphor is a tactic being taught
by certain media consultants with certain political biases. Just go google reframing or framing
and lakoff. So, today’s scientists are being media trained. Funny side story ( email me for details) I had an interview with a reporter the other day and we just kept reframing each other. what a mess.
Francois O (Comment#4285) July 18th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Lucia,
Framing science is not new: it even has a blog! http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/
I also think that your question #3 is irrelevant. I know there’s a whole lot of debate about it, but it is still irrelevant. It could have been 2C warmer at the time of the Romans, and this would still mean nothing as to whether anthropogenic GHG’s disrupt climate, because it could be due to some other forcing that is not present today. Knowing the past temperatures is only relevant if you also know all the associated forcing variations. Only then can it help you determine such forcings effects, and help you disentangle the observed effect of these forcings and the recent additional anthropogenic GHG forcing. In particular, one really wants to know the climate sensitivity to solar forcing (whether direct or indirect), since that is, apart from volcanoes, almost the sole factor affecting climate. Mind you, it would also be important to know the history of the CO2 concentration, since that could also reveal some hints about its role.
So the real question is: how much does anthropogenic GHG forcing changes the mean temperature of the Earth? (Hey, I’m good at reframing too!)
Finally, if someone were to ask me: “there has been almost no hurricane last year, is that because of global warming?”, what should I answer?
James H (Comment#4295) July 18th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Francois, part of the argument that was stated above wrt temperatures being warmer in the past relates to the claimed “positive feedbacks” and the follow-on claim of “runaway warming” or “exponential temperature increase”. So the question is, if it was warmer in the past, why didn’t we cross a tipping point and have runaway warming? What could have changed to make the earth behave different now? If you say CO2 concentration, I believe that Al Gore pointed to CO2 correlating strongly to the previous temperature changes (although which came first temp change or CO2 change wasn’t discussed).
Francois O (Comment#4298) July 18th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
James,
Agree that the past demonstrates the implausibility of the “tipping point” theory. I don’t think too many scientists, apart from Hansen’s sect, believe in the tipping point.
Really what I meant is that the question of past temperatures is a “sub-question” of the main question. It is not central to the argument about whether or not more GHG’s are dangerous. The “hockey stick” has value as a promotional tool, as Steve McIntyre has demonstrated. But in terms of scientific significance in the determination of climate sensitivity, it’s pretty minor.
There have been attempts at determining the solar sensitivity using temperature and solar activity reconstructions for the past millenium, with a GCM to link the two, or just statistical analysis. But reconstructions vary a lot (the spaghetti graph), both for temperature and the Sun, so you can get almost any result you want. Not very convincing, unless you’re already convinced one side or another.
I’ve come to wonder why all those big IPCC reports, when what you want to know is really just a number, in degC/(W/m2), and a clear mathematical demonstration based on empirical measurements. The logorrhea is symptomatic of the fact that such a clear demonstration does not exist. So let’s just talk and talk and talk for 600 pages, and the reader will maybe forget what it’s all about in the end.
KuhnKat (Comment#4299) July 18th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Boris,
yes, you tried to twist out of what the IPCC clearly intended and presented with their pretty pictures. GG warming is represented by Picture C. We do not have data showing C as a possibility. CO2 is a GG. Therefor any warming of note was not caused by CO2.
Now, there is an extremely slim possibility that CO2 could still have contributed a noticeable amount to the warming from 79-98. If so, the models have falsified themselves by pointing to a non-existent fingerprint of CO2 warming.
Any more questions Boris??
Boris (Comment#4305) July 19th, 2008 at 8:44 am
yes, you tried to twist out of what the IPCC clearly intended and presented with their pretty pictures. GG warming is represented by Picture C. We do not have data showing C as a possibility. CO2 is a GG. Therefor any warming of note was not caused by CO2.
No. As the caption clearly indicates, the models were fed the forcings from 1890-1990. The forcing for GHG and solar were not equal, so the individual response in the plots was not equal. Even though solar forcing was lower, a tropical tropospheric hot spot is still visible in panel 9.1a.
tetris (Comment#4309) July 19th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Lucia,
If you want to see a truly disgusting example of “framing”, pls see what the APS did to Christopher Monckton yesterday. The APS “framed” Monckton by disavowing the very paper they invited him to submit and which was published earlier this week, claiming [N.B.] that it wasn’t “peer reviewed”. Monckton’s reaction is on Berny Peiser’s CCNet. It shows up a major internal divide in the APS and one a good flavour of the sandbagging politics that underlie the AGW “debate”. How low can the dogmatists stoop?
Raven (Comment#4310) July 19th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
tetris,
Where can I find Monckton’s comments on the latest move by APS? Google does not turn anything up.
Boris (Comment#4311) July 19th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
First off, the APS did not invite Monckton. An editor of a newsletter did, so this indignation of how they could “invite” him and then change their mind is ridiculous.
Second, Monckton’s paper contains the error I’ve already pointed out–a misreading of figure 9.1 from the IPCC report. I haven’t delved into M’s equations, but based on his sloppiness I’m confident it’s more junk.
Third, Monckton’s paper was NOT peer reviewed. The newsletter in question is not a peer reviewed publication. Monckton seems to think that if he shows his paper to a physicist who agrees with him that this is some sort of rigorous peer review.
The denialists are truly desperate: tying their hopes to Monckton, a bumbling classicist with a penchant for threatening lawsuits, claiming that an obscure newsletter publication constitutes the APS reversing their position on AGW, and now, on Anthony Watts site, linking themselves to anti-science ideologues at Uncommon Descent. It is fun to watch. 
Kudos to the APS for acting quickly to clarify their position and to point out the true nature of Monckton’s “paper.”
Dave Andrews (Comment#4313) July 19th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Boris,
The models were fed forcings and came up with the IPCC result. Wow.
It has been widely documented that the models, whilst improving, are not really very representative of the Earth’s climate system. They have multiple problems which were eloquently outlined in Stainforth et al, Phil. Trans.R Soc. (2007) 306, 2145-2161. The authors saw little prospect of models of the complexity required being “available soon” and doubted that current climate models “provide decision relevant probabilities”.
Boris (Comment#4314) July 19th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
The models were fed forcings and came up with the IPCC result. Wow.
Whether models are right or wrong is immaterial to Monckton being wrong. He is wrong in claiming that models show a tropical tropospheric hot spot ONLY for GHG warming.
K (Comment#4315) July 19th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I disagree about how “reframing” works. It certainly is used to deal with questions. But it isn’t by answering a question that wasn’t asked.
“Reframing” excludes what can be considered in such a way that one party cannot lose.
e.g.
First Party: Well, I have presented my plan; we should first focus on building nuclear plants to wean ourselves from natural gas and coal generated electricity. Would you tell us your plan?
Second Party: Since we (excluding)CANNOT build nuclear plants your plan is impossible. Therefore, as I argue, (excluding even further) ONLY solar and wind can replace coal and natural gas.
Provided the new Frame is accepted only the Second Parties ideas can be discussed.
+++++++++
The most useful course I ever took was called something like “Argument 101″. Almost sixty years ago. A very formal course based on Greek philosophy. I have since forgotten the classic name for each technique - the Greeks and/or Romans indeed had a word for it - but the techniques themselves don’t change.
Raphael (Comment#4316) July 19th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Boris,
Third, Monckton’s paper was NOT peer reviewed. The newsletter in question is not a peer reviewed publication. Monckton seems to think that if he shows his paper to a physicist who agrees with him that this is some sort of rigorous peer review.
In a scientific literature, in this case a newsletter, what is the distinction between a “reviewed article” and a “peer reviewed article”?
I draw your attention to the Physics and Society Newsletter: July 2008.
At the top of the page we have (emphasis mine):
The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters. Our newsletter publishes a combination of non- peer- reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion. All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors and the Editors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum Executive Committee nor those of the American Physical Society.
At the bottom of the page we have (emphasis mine):
Physics and Society is the quarterly of the Forum on Physics and Society, a division of the American Physical Society. It presents letters, commentary, book reviews and reviewed articles on the relations of physics and the physics community to government and society. It also carries news of the Forum and provides a medium for Forum members to exchange ideas. Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum. …
George Tobin (Comment#4317) July 19th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I think Boris has missed the point several times over. That this sponsored publication calls for a new debate is a repudiation of the myth of “settled” science. That alone is remarkable.
Monckton’s credentials are not at issue since he makes no secret about mobilizing outside talent to produce these position papers. Can we similarly dismiss AGW because it gained popular prominence from a book and movie done by a divinity school dropout politician?
The alleged “error” with respect to the tropospheric fingerprint is a red herring. The refusal of the lower troposphere to warm at all much less at a rate well ahead of rates of any surface warming is a major problem for AGW alarmists. That is Monckton’s point. Recent rather silly attempts to ignore radiosonde temperature readings in favor of wing shear modeling of temperature is the kind of desperation Boris wrongly attributes to skeptics.
We still don’t have a solid, proven numeric measure for actual CO2 forcing. It is important to revisit this important fact rather than genuflecting before the Great Consensus or papering over the issue with new assumptions and modeling that simply beg the question.
I suppose the reply to Monckton’s paper will include the usual harrumph about settled science since Arrhenius, a Tamino-style graph using Hansen’s endlessly revised data from 1970-something to very early 2000-something and a rehash using the assumed forcing quantities without ever explaining why they aren’t currently forcing much of anything. Boris will presumably be pleased with that.
Raven (Comment#4318) July 19th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
The trouble is Monckton is primarily a politician and prone to exaggeration to make a point and deserves criticism for his rhetoric. OTOH, the APS response is simply confirming everything that the skeptics have been saying about the politicization of the scientific establishment. If the APS was really interested in science they could have addressed Monckton’s claims by issuing a new release confirming their earlier statement (which they did) and placing a link to that news release at the top of the Monckton article. They could have also indicated that subsequent issues of the newsletter will include a rebuttal of the claims made by Monckton.
The pathetic appeal to authority that they ended up posting simply indicates that they don’t have much interest in science.
Boris (Comment#4321) July 19th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Come on George, a guy who is going to smash the consensus should at least be able to read a caption correctly.
As for the rest, it looks like Tim Lambert is the first to slog through the mess:
Vincent Guerrini Jr (Comment#4322) July 19th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
One point that the AGW’s may have is this: If the oceans are cooling should we not see quite soon a drop in atmospheric Anthropogenic C02, as the cooler oceans absorb C02?
tetris (Comment#4324) July 19th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Boris,
We all know you don’t like Monckton and his ilk, and are possibly even pleased to see him sandbagged this way. The APS’ behaviour is beyond the pale. Any talk of “consensus” is now mere pretense and the APS’s attempt to put a proverbial “finger in the dyke” will not stop it from washing away.
Meanwhile Tobin [# 4317] is spot on. Pls read his comments again.
And what do you do with the fact that ALL relevant temperature metrics - land surface, sea surface, deep ocean, lower tropsphere, etc., are down and have been declining for the better part of a decade [other than simply deny them..]. Not even GISS and Hadley can any longer manipulate the data to obscure this fact. Not to mention that both the PDO and AMDO are entering cold cycles? As Lindzen, Pielke Sr. and a good number of other observers have been pointing out, the Earth’s climate system is shedding joules: the “Warming” is not “hidding” anywhere and any purported causal relationship between increases in CO2 ppmv and global temperatures - never proven- is increasingly becoming a figment of the imagination. If you have hard verifiable proof -either from first principles or from reliable data sets [GISS no longer qualifies] to the contrary- I and no doubt many others would greatly appreciate being educated.
Meanwhile the divide that runs through the APS is there for all to see, and the most important self inflicted collateral damage caused by its red flagging Monckton’s paper after the fact is the organization’s scientific reputation and integrity. It does nothing to bolster the dogmatist argument.
Vincent Guerrini Jr (Comment#4325) July 20th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Maybe all the carbon( trees, volcanoes, ect) has been here all the time so “extra” release by humans = not relevant. garbage in = garbage out? = no effect. Again has anyone here considered that temps may actually fall? ( for the next 100 years)
MarkR (Comment#4326) July 20th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Tim Lambert is an idiot who censors anyone who disagrees with him. Monckton comes for a long tradition of amateur aristo scientists. Most of the early important discoveries were made by them, they have the time, money, and are beholden to no-one. Boris is using a very dirty trick of finding a small error and using it to discredit the whole thing. What does Boris say about the Hockey stick, or Wegman, or Mann and Co?
Silence……
Lucia added: Please, no calling people idiots.
Chad (Comment#4327) July 20th, 2008 at 1:57 am
Look’s like David Evans is continuing the Australian’s War on Science and Monckton’s paper isn’t even good for bathroom reading.
Boris (Comment#4329) July 20th, 2008 at 5:59 am
Tim Lambert is an idiot who censors anyone who disagrees with him.
Notice I could have merely said that Monckton was an idiot who likes to threaten lawsuits. Instead I showed a specific example of why he is an idiot. If Lambert is wrong, you should be able to show it. And BTW, Lambert doesn’t censor that I have seen. He even gave Tilo Reber his own thread at Deltoid.
When Monckton’s “tiny error” is corrected, his whole paper falls apart.
Not even GISS and Hadley can any longer manipulate the data to obscure this fact.
Thank you, tetris, for outing yourself as a conspiracy theorist.
lucia (Comment#4330) July 20th, 2008 at 6:07 am
MarkR–
No calling people idiots. If you think someone’s argument is weak, it’s more persuasive to point out the flaws.
Francois O (Comment#4332) July 20th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Lucia,
It is difficult to call Boris’ arguments weak, as he never has any argument. He himself seems to think that calling people names is a sufficient scientific argument. What about this:
“a bumbling classicist with a penchant for threatening lawsuits, claiming that an obscure newsletter publication constitutes the APS reversing their position on AGW, and now, on Anthony Watts site, linking themselves to anti-science ideologues at Uncommon Descent.”
Refuting Monckton’s rather well written paper, giving specific examples backed with data, seems too much for him. Of course, he talks about a “gross mistake”, but what exactly is that mistake. Can we have convincing data to back this up? No, we’re only told that Monckton “can’t read a caption”. Isn’t that calling him an idiot?
I strongly suspect that Mr. Boris has no scientific background, and can’t even handle college level mathematics, and he only relies on what others (ie. Lambert) say to give him arguments.
But of course, since he will never reveal his true identity, we will never know.
MarkR (Comment#4333) July 20th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Monckton (quoted) says, “On the basis of Lindzen (2007), the anthropogenic-ear radiative forcing as established in Eqn. (3) are divided by 3 to take account of the observed failure of the tropical mid-troposphere to warm as projected by the models”
Lambert says Monckton is wrong because, “…Lindzen (2007) does not say that (ALL- My emphasis) CO2 radiative forcing is too high by a factor of three. In fact, he specifically says that (ALL) ΔF2x “is about 3.5 watts per square meter”.”
Lindzen (quoted) says, “…we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed warming,”
See the problem? Lambert thinks Monckton is talking about all CO2 forcing, but he is in fact only referring to anthropogenic derived CO2 forcing.
Lindzen can’t ne clearer, specifically says, “..we can reasonably bound the ,anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed warming“.
Then Lambert goes on to say that Chylek (2008), and McKitrick on Urban Heat Islands, are wrong. Referring back to a long discredited Real Climate propaganda piece, and a piece echoing his previous failed attempt to discredit McKitrick. So presumably it’s OK to slander McKitrick, but others are protected?
lucia (Comment#4334) July 20th, 2008 at 10:15 am
FrancoisO
It is true that Boris will never convince people because he likes to do argue by telling people his real argument is buried somewhere over in comments at Anthony Watts site, yet, does not provide use the link.
Maybe Boris posted some brilliant rebuttal to Monckton over there, but no one is going to bother to hunt for Boris’s argument in some post, somewhere on the web. Since no one has a clue what Boris’s argument is, most just move on to the next argument.
I missed the “bumbling classisist” name calling. I’m clearly going to have to find a plugin that detects name calling, and add words to the list: idiot, denialists, warmer, bumbling….
I hate to do it though. What if someone uses the word bumbling in some innocent non-name calling way?
tetris (Comment#4335) July 20th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Lucia,
I wouldn’t think of calling Boris names or ad hom him. You don’t do that to one of your favourite trolls.
lucia (Comment#4336) July 20th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Tetris–
I don’t consider Boris a troll. He sometimes posts useful information. But, with regard to the flaw he perceives in Monckton’s article… I don’t know what it is because there is no way I’m assigning myself a 5 minute task of visiting Google and running an advanced search on Anthony’s site with various search terms like “Boris Monckton”.
No one is going to do that.
Jorge (Comment#4337) July 20th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Lucia,
You have to be very careful in implementing word search and destroy systems. On one site I used to frequent, they were so intent on banning a well known four letter word, that any word that started with f and ended with ck was hashed out. We were, therefore, denied the use of such rude words as frock, flock, forelock, fetlock, flapjack, or feedback. Actually, to ban the use of the feedback word would cause havoc in climate discussions.
Francois O (Comment#4338) July 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Our National Assembly (provincial parliament) has a list of insults that the MP’s cannot use within the Chamber. It turns out that the list gets longer and longer as clever MP’s keep finding new subtler and subtler ways of insulting each others, the most recent one being “wind vane”. Some odd sort of Red Queen effect, I guess.
Boris (Comment#4339) July 20th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I strongly suspect that Mr. Boris has no scientific background, and can’t even handle college level mathematics, and he only relies on what others (ie. Lambert) say to give him arguments.
I’ve repeated Monckton’s mistake ad nauseum.
Monckton uses figure 9.1 of the IPCC report to claim that a tropical tropospheric hotspot is a fingerprint of GHG warming. The figure in question is on page 675, here:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/R.....t_Ch09.pdf
(Note: Monckton does not give the number of the figure.)
Note the caption reads:
Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) wellmixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).[emphasis mine]
Here’s what Monckton says about this figure:
The signature or fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing, as predicted by the models on which the IPCC relies, is distinct from that of any other forcing, in that the models project that the rate of change in temperature in the tropical mid-troposphere – the region some 6-10 km above the surface – will be twice or thrice the rate of change at the surface (Figure 4)[note: Monckton's figure 4 is the AR4's figure 9.1 with the bottom two plots removed and with the captions edited slightly.]
The word “fingerprint” appears nowhere near this figure in the IPCC report. Nor are the resulting plots characterized as “Temperature fingerprints of five forcings” as Monckton has retitled his figure.
Now, the question becomes: is Monckton correct in calling the plots from figure 9.1 “temperature fingerprints”?
The answer is no.
1) The plots from 9.1 were created with 20th century forcings. As a result, the forcing for GHGs is much greater than solar, so any tropical tropospheric hotspot is going to be more evident in the GHG plot (panel 9.1c).
2) The solar plot (9.1a) shows a tropical tropospheric hot spot, though it is not as pronounced as the GHG plot. This is, of course, due to the unequal forcings.
3) What happens when you do a true fingerprint analysis and run a climate model with equal forcings for GHG and solar? Well, you get a tropical tropospheric hotspot for both forcings. (Note that the true fingerprint–a cooling stratosphere–only appears in the GHG plot.)
http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....re-trends/
So Francois, do you get it now? I take it you didn’t catch this rather obvious mistake in your reading of Monckton’s “rather well written” paper?
Boris (Comment#4340) July 20th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
lol at my blockquote mess again.
edit:hmmm….never noticed the edit link before. Nice.
George Tobin (Comment#4342) July 20th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I don’t get Boris’ objection regarding the term “fingerprint.”
(1) The graphs and the caption were faithfully reproduced (originals can be found in working group final numbers: http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/gr.....gure09.ppt);
(2)Monckton’s use of the term fingerprint is entirely consistent with the IPCC glossary definition:
Fingerprint The climate response pattern in space and/or time to a
specific forcing is commonly referred to as a fingerprint. Fingerprints
are used to detect the presence of this response in observations and
are typically estimated using forced climate model simulations.
(3) The issue Boris keeps ducking is why tropospheric warming in excess of surface warming has not occurred as expressly called for by the models (even if one chooses to eschew the term “fingerprint”).
And (4) Boris’ proffered refutation of the fact that the observed temperatures aren’t jibing with the models is to tell us what the fellows at Real Climate say about what the models say about forcing and that, presumably, repeated personal meditation upon that unrealized ideal comprises “true” fingerprint analysis.
I don’t think Francois or anybody else will get “it”. I know I don’t.
steven mosher (Comment#4344) July 20th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
lambert cant even get the dates of McKitricks papers right.
tetris (Comment#4345) July 20th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Lucia,
Re: 4336
Before you absolve Boris any further: In 4329, Boris ad homs me as a “conspiracy theorist”. Any better than “troll” with a ?
With all due and well deserved respect to our host, I would advise all who are reading this thread to consult the latest postings on CA. I’m afraid it’s yet another rather troubling example of the ever so “subtle” and ostensibly minute “adjustments” that Hansen, Schmidt & Co @ GISS concoct into their “data set”. In the private sector, where I come from [PhD notwithstanding], this is called “cooking the books”. For anyone in doubt as to the consequences of doing so and being found out in the real world, pls ref: ENRON.
P.S.: As readers of the Black Board know, even Lucia has enough questions marks in the margin so as to treat the GISS data as something that is increasingly outside of the data pertinent to her own analysis.
P.P.S:
Boris. Any meaningful comments?
Boris (Comment#4347) July 21st, 2008 at 6:00 am
Well, tetris, when you say that Hansen and Hadley have been manipulating data to obscure cooling then I would say you are suggesting a conspiracy theory.
And George, no you haven’t gotten it. Maybe someone who does get it can explain better.
MarkR (Comment#4348) July 21st, 2008 at 8:38 am
Boris. Why has “tropospheric warming in excess of surface warming …not occurred as expressly called for by the models”?
Douglas Hoyt (Comment#4349) July 21st, 2008 at 8:59 am
Since there is no tropical hot spot in the recent data, it suggests that the temperature variations are not being forced by any method. Rather, the temperature variations are simply unforced internal oscillations of climate.
Boris (Comment#4350) July 21st, 2008 at 11:20 am
Since there is no tropical hot spot in the recent data, it suggests that the temperature variations are not being forced by any method.
No it doesn’t. Any warming at the surface would induce a tropical tropospheric hotspot. This is due to changes in the wet adiabatic lapse rate. If unforced variability warms the tropical surface, then the troposphere will warm more.
I agree with RC in that the data for the troposphere are not good enough. Since the troposphere is more responsive to el nino events, there’s a ton more natural variability in the area under discussion. As RC rightly points out, the graphs that Monckton cites are long term responses (1890-1990) so over shorter time periods there will be a lot of noise–yes even more than in the surface temps.
If the data are right, what would it mean? Well, it would mean the models are wrong, but that’s not as big a deal as some like to make out because the models wet adiabatic response is based on observation–and there are many observations that show a change in the lapse rate with surface warming.
And remember that models predicted a cooling stratosphere and the cooling stratosphere has been observed unambiguously. A cooling stratosphere and warming surface only happen with an enhanced greenhouse effect.
lucia (Comment#4351) July 21st, 2008 at 11:37 am
And remember that models predicted a cooling stratosphere and the cooling stratosphere has been observed unambiguously. A cooling stratosphere and warming surface only happen with an enhanced greenhouse effect.
Doesn’t it also happen the initial state includes measurable amounts of stratospheric aerosols and the final state does not include them?
Douglas Hoyt (Comment#4352) July 21st, 2008 at 12:08 pm
According to Roger Pielke, Sr at http://climatesci.org/2007/05/.....re-trends/
“This data can be used to assess whether the warming trends reported in the 2007 IPCC SPM have continued in recent years. As shown clearly in Figure 7 on the RSS website>, the following conclusions can be made:
1. Since about 2002 there has been NO statistically significant global average warming in the lower and middle troposphere,
and
2. Since about 1995 there has been NO statistically significant cooling in the stratosphere.”
Pielke has also pointed out an interesting paper by Compo,G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate Dynamics, in press.
The abstract reads
“Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.”
This could be the mechanism for the unforced temperature variations, driven by ocean temperature variations which in turn are driven by unforced changes in cloud cover that modulates the solar radiation heat uptake by the oceans. Since thermal IR is absorbed in the top few microns of the oceans, I doubt it is causing ocean temperatures to change.
In the introduction to the paper they say “Indeed we find compelling evidence from several atmospheric
general circulation model simulations without prescribed GHG, aerosol, and solar forcing variations
(Table 1) that the continental warming in Fig. 1a is largely a response to the warming of the oceans rather than directly due to GHG increases over the continents (Table 2).” In other words, they simulate the observed climate changes without any changes in greenhouse gases. Sounds like unforced variability is a viable explanation for the observations. If so, then greenhouse gas forcing of climate hasn’t risen above the noise.
Raven (Comment#4353) July 21st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Boris says:
“I agree with RC in that the data for the troposphere are not good enough.”
If the data in the troposphrere is not not good enough then you cannot plausibly argue that the data for the stratosphere is any better. This means we have no idea whether stratosphere cooling is actually going on. If you are willing to accept the stratosphere measurements at face value then you have to accept the troposphrere measurements on the same basis.
Boris (Comment#4354) July 21st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Doesn’t it also happen the initial state includes measurable amounts of stratospheric aerosols and the final state does not include them?
I’ve never heard this.
1. Since about 2002 there has been NO statistically significant global average warming in the lower and middle troposphere,
and
2. Since about 1995 there has been NO statistically significant cooling in the stratosphere
We’re back to short trends again. I don’t want to go there, but why 2002 for one and 1995 for the other?
In other words, they simulate the observed climate changes without any changes in greenhouse gases.
Apparently they merely link the continental changes to the oceanic changes. Does Pielke say what has caused the ocean temp increase? I’m assuming it’s not land use changes.
largely a response to the warming of the oceans rather than directly due to GHG increases over the continents
That’s an odd sentence. Does anyone argue that land temp changes are caused directly by GHGs over land?
Boris (Comment#4355) July 21st, 2008 at 12:47 pm
If the data in the troposphrere is not not good enough then you cannot plausibly argue that the data for the stratosphere is any better.
Why can’t I? It’s true. MSU data is good at detecting trends in large sections of the atmosphere. But it cannot pinpoint the hotspot in the tropics with enough accuracy. Even the lower tropospheric channel for RSS includes values from the stratosphere.
Boris (Comment#4356) July 21st, 2008 at 12:54 pm
At any rate, we really should be looking at upper stratospheric temperatures, since that is where the GHE is dominant. Pielke is probably looking at RSS channel four which is the lower strat.
lucia (Comment#4357) July 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Doesn’t it also happen the initial state includes measurable amounts of stratospheric aerosols and the final state does not include them?I’ve never heard this
Go play with the ModelE runs at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/mode.....imsim.html
1) After volcano eruptions, the stratospheres warms dramatically. It looks like spikes– so if you averaged that into a baseline, the stratosphere looks warm during periods with volcanos erupting. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/transient/Rc_jt.1.07.html)
Then look at tropospheric aerosols, indirect:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/mode......1.10.html
So, at least according to Model E, varying the amount of aerosols, either volcanic or otherwise, seems to affect stratospheric temperatures.
tetris (Comment#4358) July 21st, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Re:4349 and 4352
Douglas Hoyt
It should be clear by now that Boris will only consider whatever data supports his views and studiously disregard anything that might cause him cognitive dissonance [such as the issue of GISS' and Hadley's manipulation of data sets which has been analyzed in great detail several times over the past couple of years on CA -as late a yesterday in John Goetz' post about GISS- and by Watts, McKintrick and others..].
Now he causally intimates not only that Christy’s and Spencer’s, et.al. work is not up to snuff [simply because Gavin and Co. at RC say so] but that it’s really no big deal that the models are wrong. This truly pushes the bounds of credulity since these various models are held up as reliable “fact” to governments and policy makers by the IPCC, GISS, NCAR, NOAA, et.al. and so are causing those folks to commit billions, nay trillions of taxpayers dollars to “combat” AGW/ACC.
Boris does make one very good point though: if the satellite data is right [and there is no compelling evidence to the contrary] then the models are wrong, quite wrong. And that is a very big deal, indeed.
Douglas Hoyt (Comment#4359) July 21st, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Boris doesn’t seem to understand what Compo and I are saying. Palle has shown that the albedo of the Earth varies over time and this time variation is caused by variations in cloud cover. The resulting variations in incident solar radiation on the oceans is huge compared to the variations due to GHGs, being 3 to 9 times larger. These variations in incident solar radiation will dominate any changes in ocean temperature. The large changes in radiation also imply a low climate sensitivity. Here is what Pielke,Sr. has to say about the Palle papers:
“A 2004 Science article by E. Pallé, P. R. Goode, P. Montañés-Rodríguez, and S. E. Koonin
entitled “Changes in Earth’s Reflectance Over the Past Two Decades” (see; subscription required) and a follow-on 2005 Geophysical Research Letters paper by Pallé E., P. Montañés-Rodriguez, P. R. Goode, S. E. Koonin, M. Wild, and S. Casadio entitled “A multi-data comparison of shortwave climate forcing changes” (see; subscription required) provide support as a reason for the recent observed upper ocean cooling that is reported in Lyman et al (see). The two Pallé et al papers are excellent scientific contributions on the monitoring of the radiative imbalance of the climate system. [and thanks to Francois Ouellette who also noticed the importance of the Pallé et al research in a Comment on the Climate Science weblog].
The abstract of the Geophysical Research Letters article reads,
“Traditionally the Earth’s reflectance has been assumed to be roughly constant, but large decadal variability, not reproduced by current climate models, has been reported lately from a variety of sources. We compare here the available data sets related to Earth’s reflectance, in order to assess the observational constraints on the models. We find a consistent picture among all data sets of an albedo decreased during 1985–2000 between 2–3 and 6–7 W/m 2, which is highly climatically significant. The largest discrepancy among the data sets occurs during 2000–2004, when some present an increasing reflectance trend, while CERES observations show a steady decrease of about 2 W/m 2.””
Vincent Guerrini Jr (Comment#4362) July 21st, 2008 at 7:47 pm
It seems like the APS is starting to prepare itself for a shift.. Just in case temps keep going down or flat for next 1000 years!
“There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution,”
That statement itself was countered by the declaration it
“does not represent the views of the Executive Committee of the Forum on Physics and Society.”
Steve, UK (Comment#4366) July 22nd, 2008 at 8:50 am
I enjoy your posts usually, Lucia, but you are off beam here and Dave Andrews is right. While you personally as a statistician are mainly concerned with the actual temperatures, and their assessment and prediction, the political question was actually ‘framed’ as such from the start by an aggressive green lobby and taken up by a strident counterculture and a quasi-hysterical media: ‘It’s our fault, so we must now pay more taxes/drive less/fly less/use eco-lightbulbs etc. If you are really concerned about dishonesty and bad faith, you might do better to examine the eagerness of so many to believe we caused it with our nasty factories and cars.
And yes, there are indeed a lot of people out there who do not accept that CO2 is causing GW, and are concerned that the cure proposed will not only be worse than the disease, but isn’t even a cure anyway. 32000 of them (9000 PhD) recently signed a petition to that effect.
lucia (Comment#4368) July 22nd, 2008 at 9:18 am
SteveUK–
What I was thinking is, the “framing” is a set up.
Let me try an analogy. Supposed I wanted to “prove” people should not be permitted to have pet dogs in the an apartment complex. There are arguments for and against. Many of the arguments bring up details like the size of the dog etc.
So, suppose I were a slick operator, and I wanted to “prove” that dogs are a bad, I set up a debate but instead of discussing dogs, I insist that we all discuss whether or not pit bulls should be permitted. Pit bulls are a subset of dogs. I know in advance that there will be many more people concerned about pit bulls than say, chihuahuas.
We have the debate. By framing on “pit bulls” get everyone to agree on an issue somewhat related the full issue– which is dogs in general. The consensus is proven.
And from now on, whenever the discussion of dogs come up, I point to the debate, show that there was a consensus, but I say “on dogs” when the consensus was on “pit bulls”.
So, what I was wondering is this: Was the APS framing by having a debate on the question more people agree on? And then later, when “consensus” is shown, the people who set up the debate would switch to insisting this means there is consensus on the more tenuous IPCC claims or findings — like the projections for the 2000-2100.
In the end, I think it’s clear the APS was not framing anything. It reads as if the APS acts like many organizations run by group of strong minded individuals. The editor has one view. Some governing board has another. Needless to say, each individual member of APS has yet another.
counters (Comment#4369) July 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 am
Lucia, I disagree. This whole debacle is meaningless; it seems to be the machinations of a single editor acting on his own impulses. While we’re imagining motives and framing, however, allow me to suggest another plausible one:
The “consensus” argument is not the proponent’s best friend, but rather the skeptics’, because it has two very strong refutations: 1) Science does not work by democracy, and 2) There are people who disagree, so there is no consensus. It dismays me whenever this “consensus” issue comes up, because what is important is not how many people support a theory, but whether or not there are valid, competing theories in the scientific canon or whether or not legitimate holes have been punched in the theory.
My theory on “APS-gate” is that this editor was himself framing the issue in the second way referenced above. By publishing Monckton’s piece, he was attempting to lure out not refutations for a legitimate debate, but rather further pieces by skeptics. Then, the second tactic referenced above would become heavily reinforced. The same thing happened with the Oregon Petition Project; although it is meaningless in terms of the first tact referenced above, it reinforces the second.
The goal would not be to lure out scientific critiques of AGW theory. It would be to compile like-minded papers under one banner to shatter the “consensus” meme. It’s politicking, plain and simple, meant to bolster an argument which is brought up time and time again.
lucia (Comment#4370) July 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 am
Counters–
At this point, I have to admit, I have no idea what the heck was going on when the editor proposed this debate!
I agree the consensus argument is a weak argument for any scientific theory. After all, science is neither a beauty contest nor a popularity contest.
I’m always surprised proponents of any theory fall back on consensus. After all, those in favor of the more-or less spherical earth don’t fall back on consensus to prove it. If the encounter a flat-earther, they can point to all sorts of evidence against the flat earth. (The fact that we can circumnavigate the earth. Boats “appearing” and “disappearing” as the go past the horizon. Pictures from space. Etc.)
I have to say that, once the editors pronouncement was a fait accompli, the APS’s decision to officially squelch the conversation was probably unwise — particularly politically.
counters (Comment#4371) July 22nd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Lucia, it was likely a knee-jerk damage control reaction. The story was spun far and wide that the APS was officially denouncing climate change, which it wasn’t. I agree that there will be political ramifications of this, particularly to strengthen distrust of the scientific establishment among skeptic circles.
As a proponent of AGW, I might be able to offer an explanation as to why we so often fall back on the consensus argument: frustration. It’s absolutely frustrating dealing with many skeptics because they are often completely ignorant of the field of atmospheric science as a whole. You often discuss issues with volcanoes and their fingerprint on datasets in your posts, so allow me to share an example you might appreciate:
Although not completely intuitive, a basic theory in atmospheric science and geology helps explain whether or not a volcanic eruption will influence the atmosphere globally. It boils down to several factors: location of the eruption, size of the eruption, and contents of the eruption. It’s the type of stuff that will come up in passing in an atmospheric science class at university, and makes a great essay question for a final exam. However, over at Watts Up With That, a commenter who was dismayed that a recent volcanic eruption in Alaska wouldn’t affect global climate had the audacity to claim that my refutation of his assertion was mere hand-waving. How am I to react in a situation when someone is too stubborn to accept a basic, textbook concept?
I try to post on skeptic blogs on occasion to correct the most ridiculous misinformation being circulated in comments. However, it often gets me nowhere, as the most recent post on the APS issue over at WUWT evidences.
The spirit of debate is high among the AGW-proponent community - clearly it is, or else Gavin Schmidt himself wouldn’t bother discussing your experiments on this very website. However, it seems to us that most skeptics aren’t interested in debate - they’re often just interested in politicking.
lucia (Comment#4372) July 22nd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
counters–
I’ve read the excuse that people fall back on the consensus argument out of frustration when they can’t convince people of things. But, the difficulty is that, quite often the inability to convince others is the frustrated person’s own fault. If a person advances poor arguments, they will generally fail to convince people.
This will happen even if the claim is correct.
Also, what makes anyone think convincing people will happen quickly? That you don’t need to repeat things? Etc.
On the volcanic eruption– you were one up on me. I didn’t even know one had erupted. I googled and found:
http://www.avo.alaska.edu/activity/Okmok.php
The eruption of Okmok Volcano continues. Seismicity remains episodic in character and well above background levels. Reports from pilots indicate a plume of ash and steam is reaching roughly 24,000 feet above sea level and moving to the southeast.
Wikipedia puts the stratosphere near the poles at 5 miles. So, 24,000ft/ 5280 ft/mi = 4 .5 miles.
So, right now, we have an eruption that is near the poles and not stratospheric. We shouldn’t expect much effect on global temperatures.
MikeN (Comment#4375) July 22nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Hi Counters, Re: “The spirit of debate is high among the AGW-proponent community - clearly it is, or else Gavin Schmidt himself wouldn’t bother discussing your experiments on this very website. However, it seems to us that most skeptics aren’t interested in debate - they’re often just interested in politicking”
I’d have to disagree with this particular example. After all, Gavin’s (and other’s) blog, Realclimate, wouldn’t publish/accept responses from Mcintyre to their early criticisms of his work. (they might have finally accepted a post or two from him sometime much later on?) It most likely wasn’t Gavin’s idea to not accept them, but that doesn’t sound like a very good debate to me. (Note, that’s a criticism of the Realclimate blog, not Gavin)
Mike
(edit: I should have also mentioned that I do see a lot of healthy debate on climate blogs in general, I guess I was mainly criticizing your example due to a Realclimate affiliation, which I suppose wasn’t very objective of me. 
George Tobin (Comment#4378) July 22nd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
counters-
I cannot say that the substantive quality of argument is any better or worse among skeptics than among alarmists visiting climate blogs. However, I do think there are three rather tedious but defining characteristics of the alarmist style:
(1) any indication of confirmation however small, short-term or tangential is or “could” be evidence of climate change. However, any contrary evidence (11 years of cooling, no tropospheric warming..) requires far more certainty and a longer time frame to support a anything (and is probably based on bad measurements).
(2)The in vitro scientific basis of AGW has not played out particularly well in nature but the fact that it exists is the basis of the “alarmist 2-step”: If we can prove any fraction of AGW as probable or well-grounded then we also must accept the 5-6 degree catastrophe scenario as proven fact. This is I think akin to what lucia identifies as the “framing” issue, a conscious refusal to separate catastrophism from the possibility of mere lukewarmism (as the evidence better suggests) much less the possibility that AGW is simply wrong.
(3) All who disagree on the whole or even in part with AGW alarmism are presumptively (a) pawns of the oil companies (b) innately malevolent and/or (c) stupid. In contrast, there are no ideological, emotional, political or financial pressures in support of AGW–it is an emanation of pure altruism.
The skeptics did not frame this debate nor did they establish its tone. The fact that some guy on a blog did not understand that a volcano in Alaska may not be a significant climate event is not particularly troubling to me. I am more concerned that the head of NASA’s weather and climate program appears to be massaging key data while calling for mass arrests. I am also “frustrated” that I see a dozen idiotic climate-change-is-scaring-the-animals-and-causing-disease stories out in the mainstream media every day during a decade when there hasn’t been any measurable climate change.
counters– though I fully credit your sincerity in this instance, I am always a tad skeptical of “frustration” about the lack of enlightened skeptic argumentation because, frankly, attacking the low-hanging fruit of speculation from amateur skeptics while circling the wagons around utterly, indefensibly lame products such as Mann’s hockey stick against highly substantive criticism is kinda the MO of alarmism. A lot of straw men have been sacrificed to preserve The Consensus.
Raven (Comment#4238) July 17th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I did not interpret it in the way that you did. We experienced a period of fairly rapid warming from 1980-2000 which has been entirely attributed to CO2 by the IPCC. Various skeptics argue that only a portion of that warming can be attributed to CO2 for different reasons (i.e. Cosmic Rays, Clouds, ENSO, etc.). In other words, it is possible to answer the questioned posed without claiming that CO2 has no effect or claiming that there will be no warming in the future due to CO2. i.e. the counter argument to ‘primarily responsible’ can be ‘partially responsible’.