The Great Divorce: Climate Science and Climate Policy vs Climate Politics

[gdlewen]

This is an interesting read, and sure to excite passions on both sides of the debate. I almost don't want to post this, because I am concerned that passion will cut in line ahead of policy. However, this aspect of the debate is not heard often enough:

Over 1,600 Scientists and Professionals Sign ‘No Climate Emergency’ Declaration

Over 1,600 scientists have signed a joint declaration claiming that there is no need for climate alarmism.

www.theepochtimes.com

But--please--read this from a policy perspective. Try to divorce that policy aspect from the passion of ideology. Here's a quote, from the linked report, on which I hope we can all agree:

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”

Disclaimer: The author has a bias, revealed by his occasional word choices: the use of adverbs and adjectives can be used to inject author bias into an otherwise factual statement. "Tell me your bias and I'll better understand your argument," is one of my maxims. The following quote is a good example of why you should read everything carefully: "As climate alarmists continue to spread propaganda about global warming...." Both words in bold italics demonstrate the author's bias; his word choice could be 100% more neutral.

Nevertheless, overall the article makes some good points from a policy perspective. (Or is my word choice revealing a bias?)

 

[Jeff Wright]

I have never trusted CFD…it’s why I still want hypersonic testing at large scale.

But the CO2 is going somewhere…we are seeing some greening.

As for me…I want alternative energy for a very different reason…flare mitigation:

[1709.05348] Impact and mitigation strategy for future solar flares

Dyson Harrop space solar power could be a two-fer…protecting us from another Carrington event.

Sunshades to reflect light more to Earth in case of a little ice age or vice versa.

Stratospheric injection of sulfur aerosol causes acid rain.

Ground-based Solar kills birds

California's new solar power plant is actually a death ray that's incinerating birds mid-flight

What spans 1,600 hectares, cost $2.2 billion to build, and fries up to 28,000 birds per year? The new BrightSource solar power plant in California's Mojave Dessert. The plant, which uses some 350,000 garage-door-sized mirrors to focus sunlight on three boiler towers, also acts as a death ray...

www.extremetech.com

Offshore windfarms look to kill whales.

Solar Powersats can grow us out of the current economic morass:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/10/23/how-nasa-could-help-stop-climate-change-with-solar-satellites/

China is to build a monster 200 metric ton powersat…while all Kerry does is travel the globe on taxpayer money while telling poor people in the third world they can’t have electricity:

China wants to build a space-based solar power plant that will beam energy back to Earth

China plans to launch a satellite that would convert solar energy into electricity and then convert that into microwave or lasers that can then be transmitted to various fixed targets on Earth.

indianexpress.com

Space Solar Power is the future.

 

[gdlewen]

Follow-up to OP. The Epoch Times follows the article posted above by an interview with Nobel Physics Laureate John Clauser, who made the following stunning statements:

"And so I read all of the various IPCC reports, National Academy reports on this...[and] I was appalled at how sloppy the work was. And in particular, it was very obvious, even in the earliest reports, and all carried on through to the present, that clouds were not at all understood. ... It's just simply bad science....I believe I have the missing piece of the puzzle that has been left out in virtually all of these computer programs.... And that is the effect of clouds.'"

I'll just let that settle in:

Clouds are missing from climate models.​

Now to add some editorial comments:

In addition to the political documents (e.g. IPCC Reports) I think he should have read a few papers on...let's say... "cumulus parameterization" before making these comments. For starters, at least.

I don't spend too much time with climate models--I was taught very early on to beware of extrapolating too far beyond the range of available data to ever be comfortable with climate predictions. (You probably shouldn't try to believe in the butterfly effect and climate predictions at the same time.)

The complexity of NWP models is impressive, as well as the extent to which clouds are being included . Maybe not perfectly included (thus my skepticism for their extrapolation), but I feel like some researchers make a career out of a single parameterization. That's how complex are the models. Here, Clauser seems to be saying climate modelers deleted all the cloud physics when they built their climate prediction models. Mystifying.

Here's the article if you like. I made a PDF of it in case Epoch Times wants you to subscribe. DM me and I will get it to you.

Nobel Winner Refutes Climate Change Narrative, Points Out Ignored Factor

Nobel Prize laureate John Clauser has challenged prevailing climate models, which he says have ignored a key variable.

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Jamie H]

When I'm back off vacation I'll check these links out, however the source is a known climate denying publication of which I'd be careful.

The media giant you’ve never heard of, and why you should pay attention

The Epoch Times is published in 21 languages, in 33 countries and has a huge following among anti-vaxxers and the far Right. And that’s just for starters

www.opendemocracy.net

Meanwhile John Clauser is part of the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition which claims CO2 levels should be increased to promote plant growth...

 

[gdlewen]

When I'm back off vacation I'll check these links out, however the source is a known climate denying publication of which I'd be careful.

The media giant you’ve never heard of, and why you should pay attention

The Epoch Times is published in 21 languages, in 33 countries and has a huge following among anti-vaxxers and the far Right. And that’s just for starters

www.opendemocracy.net

Meanwhile John Clauser is part of the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition which claims CO2 levels should be increased to promote plant growth...

Although they have taken a position against anthropogenic global warming, I wouldn't classify the Epoch Times as "climate-denying" (a pejorative which presumes global warming is a fact). Nothing wrong with having a position, and they do not try to hide it--you just have to filter for it no matter where you sit in the debate.

The more filtering we have to do, the less likely we should be to use them. They do source their stories very well...better than many other online news periodicals...and in the cases cited herein, they provide primary sources. Primary sources are a big deal. The Clauser interview is one example where they totally dropped the ball, however, and actually discredited themselves and their position.

 

[John Farley]

Global warming IS a fact. Nearly every month and every season is the warmest on record. You can argue about the causes (though to me, it is hard to deny some human contribution), but there is no doubt that warming is occurring.

 

[Jeff Duda]

Staff note
Climate change threads on Stormtrack rarely end well, which is one reason why you don't see them much anymore. We will allow discussion as to the scientific (read, academic) arguments for and against climate change's attributions, causes, and public policy. However, discussions must remain respectful and in good faith. Any posts that exhibit a disingenuous, snarky, or "rabble-rousing" tone will be removed without prejudice, and this thread will be locked down as soon as the academic/scientific discourse appears to have left. So far this discussion is acceptable, and the thread will be left open. But know that your responses are being carefully scrutinized for forum/discourse violations.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming!

 

[Jamie H]

A couple of things jump out at me regarding the language used in these articles:

Carbon dioxide is “essential” to all life on earth and is “favorable” for nature. Extra CO2 results in the growth of global plant biomass while also boosting the yields of crops worldwide.

CLINTEL also dismissed the narrative of global warming being linked to increased natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and droughts, stressing that there is “no statistical evidence” to support these claims.

The first sentence is the same sort of language which the CO2 Coalition uses (and indeed has posted this story on its website).

CLINTEL meanwhile, is claiming more than 1,600 scientists and professionals have signed its declaration. Some are non-climate scientists, many are just regular individuals, including those with links to the fossil fuel industry.

All these kind of 'discussions' do are muddy the waters around the debate and try to make measures to reduce fossil fuel dependence less popular. The industry has been doing this for decades, with great success. CLINTEL did one of these in 2020. The CO2 Coalition promoted something like this in 2022.

Secondly:

"Historically, for example, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, the CO2 levels were 10 times bigger than what we are experiencing right now," Mr. Clauser said. "Dinosaurs couldn't have survived on this earth with this low CO2 level [today], because you don't grow trees fast enough and foliage fast enough to feed them.

"Promoting CO2 as being actually a beneficial gas, as far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with [that]. And in particular, as I have just mentioned earlier, it is not at all significant in controlling the earth's climate."

"[It's] a total waste of money and time and effort. It is strangling industry."

John Clauser is not a climatologist, and note how quickly he reveals that it is hurting 'industry'. He gets headlines as hes a Nobel Laureate, and is no doubt an incredible scientist, but he offers no alternative modelling to back up his claims that the current ones ignore cloud and thus should be ignored.

I hope this is within the forum's policy on discussing these things!

 

[Jeff Wright]

From phys.org

Top science editor defends peer-review system in climate row

Top science journal Nature was hit with claims last week that its editors—and those of other leading titles—have a bias towards papers highlighting negative climate change effects. It denies the allegation.

phys.org

 

[gdlewen]

From phys.org

Here’s the original Op-Ed that caused all the kerfuffle:

I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published

I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.

www.thefp.com

Since it’s an opinion piece, the question of author bias is less important, as it is not strictly journalism. I’m inclined to take him at his word—he’s giving his perspective. But I highly recommend reading the Op-Ed before reading the phys.org article, else the latter lacks context.

Having said all that, I wasn’t sure what to make of all of his complaints. I am a co-author of a Science paper and a Nature paper so some of what he talks about seems somewhat normal. You really do need to get glitzy in your figures because space is at a premium, for instance.

But we never slanted or massaged our research report, as this guy claims is necessary when publishing climate science. We assumed the reviewers would see through that kind of nonsense. Luckily, we weren’t publishing on something politically charged (information processing in the brain of the blowfly is not likely to get politicians excited.)

 

[Jason N]

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”

I would agree with this statement as a whole, climate policy, which is being written on the back of the IPCC's "summary for policy makers" is where I think grey area wording issues arise, so I am glad to see that more scientists are taking steps to collectively try to navigate around this end run from governments to try and minimize the mis-wording or re-wording of the summary policy findings from the actual data itself, which appears to be at odds. Steven Koonin addressed this in an interview at the Hoover Institute recently

and highlighted this issue was a major sticking point inside the climate policy to address governments desires to radically adopt/transform human behaviors through economic means with or without the realization that materials usage in this transformed world still require significant fossil fuels to produce/maintain/replace when lifecycle limits are up or damaged.

hopefully my comment wasn't rabble rousing and inside the limits.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Sticking to facts... from Investopedia.... "China is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide gas in the world, with 10,668 million metric tons emitted in 2020.2 The primary source of CO2 emissions in China is fossil fuels, most notably those that burn coal. About 55% of the total energy generated by China in 2021 came from coal alone, and because coal is rich in carbon, burning it in China's power and industrial plants and boilers releases large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere." (4-11-23).

This is more than double what the US produces (4,713 million metric tons).

No matter what your opinions (I do believe in global warming), until the issues are decoupled from politicians making millions / billions off insider trading in green energy, the science is moot.

 

[John Farley]

A couple points in regard to the last couple of posts - ones I agree with in part, but also have some issues with other parts.

Jason mentioned "governments desires to radically adopt/transform human behaviors through economic means" - it is hard for me to find any government exhibiting such desires, since virtually every country in the world is behind being on pace to meet the greenhouse gas reduction goals they have agreed to. There might be such rhetoric from some governments, but as to actual desires, I doubt it based on their behavior.

Warren is correct in what he says about China and the U.S., but I think a little nuance is needed. On a per-capita basis, China's emissions are less than the U.S., but the total is higher because their population is much greater. Also, while China is way over-reliant on coal and continues to build new coal plants, they are building renewable power plants at a faster pace than coal plants, and the percentage of their power coming from coal is decreasing. Like many other countries, they are reducing the percentage of their power coming from fossil fuels, but not at a rate fast enough to meet the goals.

 

[Jason N]

No disrespect in this statement below, I appreciate your perspective john.

when industry and governments business models change in under 10 years as they have, in order to increase the battery output for automobiles, wind farms, power generation, tools, I see that as evidence of the government's desire, (embedded in rhetoric and policy) to rapidly shift policy/economic systems to support goals. Now, I won't argue about whether the pace is on track or not, but whether those goals are valid, achievable, acceptable, are based on at least in part on those summaries for policy makers from past/current IPCC reports, which like it or not, probably have a loose national/global agenda built in, are not really directly tethered to the science itself, at least based on what I have heard/read up to now.

I think most anyone would agree that almost all politics has agendas and interests (aligned or unaligned to science) to support national strategic initiatives, but in doing so, they also promote industry and business and let's be honest, it tends to keep people getting elected when those interests are aligned in the public/private sphere, whether we agree or not on the individuals party views. I think that applies in most Democratic forms of government, while in Autocratic ones or Communist, well, it's about power and business, the people don't really matter in the choice.

What bothers me though is that when legitimate long term peer reviewed scientists of dissenting/alternative views of climate, or covid source, or name your social appetizer, have to swim against the massive current of largely dogmatic media get pummeled to the point of being shunned and disrespected in communities or conferences because there is a political fracture inside the climate community I sense troubles, and I am not the one saying this, these are the scientists themselves of differing opinions not towing a line, and so that worries me a bit. What I hope isn't happening is that if one of those scientists puts up a paper backed with data/evidence to invalidate claims of others, that their work isn't hidden or purposely delayed reviews or somehow put into the proverbial trash bin because they aren't "welcomed". I can't for certain say that is or isn't happening, maybe others know much more than I.

I know I didn't breach Jeff's ask for civility, that's easy for me.. I do know I stretched the topic a bit outwards beyond academic/scientific, but hopefully still fits inside the discussion to a degree.