The Little Skeptic: March 2009

I received a brief reply from Leigh Dayton, science writer at The Australian after sending her the link to The Prince of Precaution. Leigh didn’t seem to like the idea behind the book and promised to get bigger guns involved to "point me in a more productive direction". The resulting conversation with “working climate scientist” Dr Andy Pitman resulted.

To ensure Professor Pitman is not misquoted-the correspondance below from Professor Pitman and myself has not been edited.

We start with THE PITMAN CHALLENGE

...in the end Sir Robin ran away!

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

From: Andy Pitman
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 3:30 PM
To: mhendrickx; Dayton, Leigh
Subject: Warming discussions

Hi Marc,

I am not sure whether you want to genuinely engage on this in a scientific sense with the climate science. If you see Bob Carter as a source of science (or Al Gore, or Bjorn Lomberg) then it is hard to have a scientific discussion. Clearly, one would not decide exactly where to drill for oil based on a movie or an economist - and nor would one use a movie or an economist to resolve or communicate climate science. Similarly, while the 3rd International Geological Congress may be the best source of recent science on geology, it is no more a source on climate science than a IAMAS meeting would be a place to learn about plate tectonics.

So, questions:

1. you say "since immersing my self in the literature I have changed my mind" what literature ? I am unaware of any published literature that casts doubt (or that has not since been resolved)about global warming.

2. The predicted catastrophe is purely a consequence of computer climate models that include rudimentary models of several key physical processes.

Lets be specific here.

(a) your statement is not true. Indeed, Chapter 6 of the IPCC report, written by geologists and palaeoclimate scientists use geological evidence (in part) to demonstrate the reality of the science of glboal warming.

(b) which key physical processes **that affect climate on timescales of decades** are missing from climate models ?

(c) what is the evidence that these missing processes - assuming you can name some - would REDUCE the projected warming ? Some you might suggest like abrupt changes in ice sheets, abrupt loss of soil carbon, methane release etc that are missing would hardly reduce the projected warming ...

3. You state" I consider the output will change as these processes are better understood" Well, I fully agree - but the latest science suggests that change is actually in the wrong direction ... that the climate models under-predict the warming.

4. A rise of 1ºC as CO2 levels double from pre industrial levels to about 560 ppm early next century does not represent a cause for major concern! So here is the crux. "You consider" that 1oC is not a catastrophe. So, I agree ... but the models are not projecting 1oC ... we have already warmed 0.7oC DESPITE the last 5-6 years being dominated by La Nina. The models are projecting rather more - particularly at regional scales. While this would by no means be a catastrophe in *all* regions, is mist definitely will be in some and would be confronting in others.

If you wish to take a non-global warming stance you are perfectly welcome to do so - but please recognise that the evidence does not support this position. If you can obtain evidence that the climate scientists are wrong that would be fantastic (we WANT to be wrong !!!) but if you are going to publicize myths, that are not backed by data or scientific evidence, your position is morally reprehensible.

Last point. There is a Nobel Prize awaiting Carter, or other skeptics, for that paper that buries global warming. There is world-wide acclaim, there is that Chair at Cambridge and the thanks of governments the world over. My question is why none of them have published this evidence - but of course the question is rhetorical ... because while every decent climate scientist looks for flaws in the data, the models and the theory we have not been able to find any ...

Professor A.J Pitman: Climate Change Research Centre, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW.

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

From: Marc Hendrickx Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 9:56 PM
To: Andy Pitman Cc: 'Dayton, Leigh'; 'Bob Carter'
Subject: RE: Warming discussions-The Prince of Precaution

Hi Dr Pitman,

Thanks for taking the time to respond, my answers are in italics. Note I have taken the liberty of including Bob Carter in our discussion seeing that his credibility on these matters is seemingly the subject of some doubt from yourself and Leigh.

(Comment-Bob was not involved in preparing the response. I just thought he’d appreciate knowing he was being discussed and what Dr Pitman and Leigh Dayton thought about his credibility).

There are many aspects of this debate that interest me, how about we deal with 2 of these. One relates to the science and the degree of uncertainty and one relates to the policy response. As the IPCC is headed by an economist I take it that you would concede that discussion of a policy response should not be limited solely to those who are currently active in climate science but should also include anyone with sufficient experience from a range of backgrounds to provide constructive and meaningful debate on the issue. Climate science itself is a broad field and comprises more than computer modelers, as you allude to below it actually includes geologists so I would consider that Bob Carter has sufficient expertise and experience to meaningfully comment on the science.

So Answers:

1. Published literature that casts doubt about global warming.

Here are a few articles these are by no means all of them. These are particularly relevant to computer climate models which I see as the major area of climate science that requires further work. (note to Leigh this is required reading-I expect some articles in The Oz on these in the coming weeks-a regular visit to the climate audit website wouldn’t hurt)

D. KOUTSOYIANNIS, A. EFSTRATIADIS, N. MAMASSIS & A. CHRISTOFIDES “On the credibility of climate predictions” Hydrological Sciences–Journal–des Sciences Hydrologiques, 53 (2008).

Spencer R.W. and Brasell, W.D. Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration. Journal of climate V21, pp5624-5628.

Paltridge,G, Arking, A, Pook, M, 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology. DOi 10.1007/s00704-009-0117-x

2. The predicted catastrophe is purely a consequence of computer climate models that include rudimentary models of several key physical processes.

(a)Chapter 6 of the IPCC report includes one of the most contentious findings in climate science, namely the hockey stick graph that effectively flat lined 1000 years of temperature and gave impetus to the IPCC’s notion that current warming is unprecedented. Looking at recorded history, movement of tree lines over time it is clear it is not. Despite well publicised findings that the statistics behind this study (Hockey stick) were deeply flawed this study continues to be promoted. Perhaps as a “working climate scientist” you can explain why this is the case? What are your views of this debate? Do you regard the supporting “independent” studies that are often cited in defence of this paper as being truly independent? They appear to be anything but. How do you regard studies that show much greater climate variability over longer time periods (eg doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2007.09.039 ) . In regard to palaeoclimate studies there is no disagreement that there have been past climates that were dangerous to modern humans. As a geologist I note historical climate change every time I step onto an outcrop. Whether the current mild warming can be considered dangerous remains a matter of debate and appears to be apparent only in the models. If the predicted catastrophe is not purely a consequence of computer climate models can you explain how the current warming is dangerous without recourse to using them?

(b) which key physical processes: **that affect climate on timescales of decades** are missing from climate models ?

Your contention that climate represents average weather over decades (30 years is common) seems a little short especially given longer term natural cycles are apparent in recent and historical data. (For instance the change from the medieval warm period to the little ice age). Given recent discoveries of natural climate cycles (AMO, PDO, IODO) that operate on decadal timescales haven’t you downplayed the significance of natural variation as a factor in recent temperature rises? How are these dealt with in climate models? Given the recent recognition of long term decadal cycles in the Indian Ocean have you had a chance to update models to take this particular phenomena into account? How many other long term natural cycles have we overlooked? Do they result in net positive or negative forcing? Getting back to your question the paper cited above by Paltridge above provides an example of simplification in models that produces an exaggerated response. Here’s a quote from the abstract: “Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2.”

(c) what is the evidence that these missing processes - assuming you can name some - would REDUCE the projected warming ?

See (b).

You make the assumption that there is a “right” direction to climate change. There is simply a direction. It’s up or down! Either way we will need to learn how to live with change by adapting to prevailing conditions as we have successfully done as a species for millennia. Can you please let me know what is the “right” temperature and I’ll adjust my air conditioner.

So the predicted catastrophe is purely a consequence of the models? You seem to be contradicting yourself here as the models are main point of contention. The papers cited above indicate problems with the models that indicate that your level of confidence in them is not supported. In light of the three papers above how certain are you that the models are correct? It seems that claiming models as evidence puts you on very thin ice.

While this would by no means be a catastrophe in *all* regions, is mist definitely will be in some and would be confronting in others. If you wish to take a non-global warming stance you are perfectly welcome to do so - but please recognise that the evidence does not support this position.

Computer models and statistically flawed palaeoclimate studies do NOT constitute strong evidence. Certainly not strong enough to support introduction of the proposed ETS at this time.

If you can obtain evidence that the climate scientists are wrong (see above papers for a start) that would be fantastic (we WANT to be wrong !!!) but if you are going to publicize myths, that are not backed by data or scientific evidence, your position is morally reprehensible.

Be careful here Dr Pitman, your words may come back to haunt you “but if you are going to publicize myths, that are not backed by data or scientific evidence, your position is morally reprehensible.” As Lomborg has pointed out there actually are consequences to spending our time and money tackling climate change-the money could be spent on other worthwhile projects such as reducing habitat destruction, cures for cancer, malaria etc. Will YOU be the one to explain this to all the millions that could have been saved if we spend our resources differently?

When a blog site such as Climate Audit regularly finds tank sized (holes) in the statistics that hold many climate change papers together its time to give the owner the Nobel prize. Perhaps you could do the honours and nominate him, his name is Steve McIntyre. It is apparent that you are obviously not looking deeply enough!

Cheers

Marc Hendrickx

-----Original Message---------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Pitman

Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 10:09 PM
To: Marc Hendrickx

Cc: 'Dayton, Leigh'; 'Bob Carter'
Subject: Re: Warming discussions-The Prince of Precaution

Marc No - I will not debate Bob Carter. It is not worth my time, nor my answers being misquoted. If you wish to take Bob's view of the science there is simply nothing I can do for you. It would be like arguing with the Pope that the bible was written by Allah. It would not matter what arguments I might use, I could not get you to accept hard nosed and rigourous science. I really have better things to do with my time. I had assumed that you were actually seeking genuine evidence. My mistake.

And we will leave this discussion here.

thanks. Andy Pitman

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

Sent Tue 17/03/2009 7:04 AM

Hi Dr Pitman,

Sad that you take the time to ask the questions but don't want to hang around to answer them. What makes you think your answers would be misquoted? Bob's view of the science?

These are my opinions Dr Pitman, you were debating me!

It seems that The Prince of Precaution is not fiction after all! Perhaps it should have been Prince Andy!

Leigh this would make a great story for The Australian! Headline: Working climate scientist fails debate with working geologist.

Before you go I have one more question. You mention a figure of 0.7ºC as warming over the last 10 years or so.

What you fail to include is any indication of an error on that figure. So some simple questions: What is the error?

How much of this is natural? And how much is due to AGW?

The oft cited IPCC warming predictions that range from about 2ºC to about 6.5ºC also repeatedly fail to include an indication of errors. Is it because compounding errors in forcings over a 100 year period makes the end result effectively meaningless?

Why does climate science seem immune from the normal treatment of errors?

It seems it would not matter what arguments I might use, I could not get you to accept hard nosed and rigourous science.

Cheers

Marc Hendrickx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Pitman
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 4:06 PM
To: Marc Hendrickx
Subject: Re: FW: Prince of precaution goes to parliament

(This sent to Leigh Dayton-see emails below-Prof Pitman chose to reply)

Marc,

MH> From a policy position both Bob Carter and Lomberg have as much > credibility as anyone else in this debate. Say in comparison to an > Andy Pitman or David Karoly. Bob Carter’s extensive research record > includes peer reviewed publications on palaeoclimate that actually > indicate he is someone we should be listening to (you can see for > yourself here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm). >

AP: I would agree on Lomberg. I think many of his arguments have merit but he has misunderstood the scale of the problem I think.

MH> Climate change policy gets down to basic risk assessment principals and in my opinion a fall back on the Precautionary Principal is simply a cop out. The wider concept of Prudence or "informed Precaution" should be the major driver in responding to climate change. At present this means a wait and see approach remains valid in light of current scientific uncertainty.

> AP: Strongly disagree. Global warming science is as close to certainty as we are going to have. Seriously - there are few areas of science as certain. >

MH:> Getting back to the science perhaps you could allude to aspects of the research that you find form compelling arguments in favour of the contention that we are on the brink of climate disaster. Which of these show conclusively for instance that a doubling of CO2 is likely to result in "dangerous climate change".

> AP: I am not sure who argues we are on a brink of climate disaster - depends what "brink" means. If it means "next decade" I do not think we are. If you want evidece on the dangers of doubling read the attached. There is, of course lots and lots and lots more ... but this is a nice start.

Andy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent Tue 17/03/09 8:49 AM
Marc
"What makes you think your answers would be misquoted? Bob's view of the science?"
Experience. And your action of first copying in Bob Carter, then Andrew Bolt. This is not a "debate" this is you attempting to score points and misinform. I am not going to play this game.
Andy Pitman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND SIR ROBIN RAN AWAY...SIR ROBIN RAN AWAY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4SJ0xR2_bQ

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

Email exchange Hendrickx/Dayton

From: Marc Hendrickx

Sent: Thursday, 12 March 2009 10:25 PM

Subject: Prince of precaution goes to parliament

Dear Leigh,
The following link might be of interest.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

http://littleskepticpress.blogspot.com/2009/03/prince-of-precaution-goes-to-parliament.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dayton, Leigh

Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 1:19 PM

Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament

Hi M:
This interests me largely because it, sadly, confuses the findings from climate change science. I have no disagreement about debating what we do about climate change, but am disappointed with this sort of misinformation.
L

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

From: Marc Hendrickx

Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 2:05 PM

To: Dayton, Leigh

Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament

Hi Leigh,
Prior to a trip to Oslo last year to attend and present a paper at the 33rd International Geological Congress I may have agreed with you. However after witnessing the climate change session and the subsequent debate at the conference and speaking with a number of the attendees and since immersing my self in the literature I have changed my mind. The predicted catastrophe is purely a consequence of computer climate models that include rudimentary models of several key physical processes. I consider the output will change as these processes are better understood. A rise of 1ºC as CO2 levels double from pre industrial levels to about 560 ppm early next century does not represent a cause for major concern! The quicker we start taking policy advice from Bjorn Lomberg and Bob Carter, rather than Lovelock, Hansen and Gore the better.

Thanks for taking the time to look over it. Misinformation? What misinformation? It’s an accurate appraisal of the science of AGW and the potential policy consequences of falling back on the precautionary principal. A copy for every classroom!
Cheers
Marc

PS I have and article in the current issue of environmental geology that might be if interest-to do with asbestos.
http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/s00254-008-1370-5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dayton, Leigh

Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 2:22 PM

Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament

I’m sorry, M. I disagree profoundly with you. I’ll forward you msg on to working climate change scientists in hope that they have time to point you in a more productive direction.
Meanwhile please bear in mind that Lomborg is an economist and Carter hasn’t published any climate change research, let alone his critiques, in a peer reviewed journal. If he had something that others had missed the journals would be onto it in a nanosecond! They compete for the hottest science.
I do appreciate your correspondence and interest.

L

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc Hendrickx

Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 2:58 PM
Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament

Hi Leigh,
What an interesting response from a journalist.
The third book in this series will focus on responding to climate change. The emphasis being on adapting to change as it occurs rather than endeavouring fix the climate at a certain arbitrary point as some seem to believe is possible and indeed desirable. I have not thought of a name yet. I’ll send you a preview when it’s finished-probably not until much later in the year.
Note that I look forward to any contact from a “working climate change scientist”.

Cheers
Marc

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dayton, Leigh
Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 3:05 PM
Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament

The second order problem of adaptation to climate change ain’t a new concept, M.
By the way, why do you think Carter and Lomborg are more credible than the numerous scientists world wide who conduct climate change research and publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals.

L

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc Hendrickx

Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 3:34 PM
Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament

Hi Leigh,
You seem to have misunderstood and misrepresent Bjorn Lomberg’s position. Have you read his book (Cool it?)- he does not argue with the science as presented in the latest IPCC report, he simply points out that there are better ways to spend our limited resources. Among a range of policy measures he actually advocates increased spending on research into alternative energy sources.
From a policy position both Bob Carter and Lomberg have as much credibility as anyone else in this debate. Say in comparison to an Andy Pitman or David Karoly. Bob Carter’s extensive research record includes peer reviewed publications on palaeoclimate that actually indicate he is someone we should be listening to (you can see for yourself here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm).

Climate change policy gets down to basic risk assessment principals and in my opinion a fall back on the Precautionary Principal is simply a cop out. The wider concept of Prudence or “informed Precaution” should be the major driver in responding to climate change. At present this means a wait and see approach remains valid in light of current scientific uncertainty.

Getting back to the science perhaps you could allude to aspects of the research that you find form compelling arguments in favour of the contention that we are on the brink of climate disaster. Which of these show conclusively for instance that a doubling of CO2 is likely to result in “dangerous climate change”.

Cheers
Marc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dayton, Leigh

Sent: Monday, 16 March 2009 3:40 PM

Subject: RE: Prince of precaution goes to parliament

Sorry, godda disagree re your assessment of expertise. But let’s leave it there. We do not see eye-to-eye. I see Andy Pitman has already replied to you.
L
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Little Skeptic

Sunday, March 29, 2009

We're not scared anymore Mr Gore Special Edition

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Science not settled on Ozone

Monday, March 16, 2009

“The Geologists were right!” conversations with working climate scientist Dr Andy Pitman

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Hot off the press!

The Prince of Precaution goes to Parliament

Home of:

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me