4 reasons why climate change is controversial

004_ClimateChangeControversial2

First published on LinkedIn, 28.07.2015

I am following the ongoing discussion between climate change advocates and skeptics since my studies in geophysics and meteorology at the University of Hamburg where one of the advocate group is located. I will not point fingers to one side or the other because both sides provide useful insights to solve the question whether anthropogenic climate change is real or not.

But since my study years the discussions grew from scientific disputes to religious-like beliefs and the discussions have reached a level of personal opinions rather than facts.

Let me illustrate this on a recently published dispute between Marotzke and Forster [1] as climate change advocates and Nicholas Lewis as climate change skeptic [2]. It contains three reasons for the controversy around climate change. But I start with a fundamental issue, which is only implicit part of the Dispute.

  1. Probable flaw in the main assumption

Correct modelling of the past don’t necessarily mean that the same model yields correct future predictions. Geological processes like plate tectonics, mountain building (orogeny) and meteorological processes like the water (hydrological) cycle happen in the same manner since the beginning of the earth until now and therefore we can predict future behavior by understanding the past. But the Earth‘s climate is a different category. It is known as a chaotic process which means that small changes in one parameter can cause large effects in the result (e.g. butterfly effect). In fact, some of the most popular chaotic figures, the Lorenz attractor, was discovered by Edward N. Lorenz a meteorologist by analyzing meteorological data and the underlying mathematics. He claims in his paper [3] that: “If the [weather] system is stable, its future development will then remain arbitrarily close to its past history, and will be quasi-periodic. …since the atmosphere has not been observed to be periodic…..no forecasting scheme could have given correct result…” In addition to the usual chaotic behavior one large (VEI >= 5; [6]) volcanic eruption will make all existing anthropogenic climate change forecasts obsolete for decades: And in the past 25 years there were 2 eruptions with VEI >= 5; [7].

  1. Simulation driven approach

Most of the anthropogenic climate change forecasts are model based rather than data driven and are built from a positive assumption. I will not go into the mathematics, but I have to show one equation to make my point. The following equation is the main subject of the discussion between Marotzke&Foster and Lewis where an energy balance is described as: ΔT = ΔF / (α + κ) + ε. Don’t worry, it is not necessary to understand the equation in detail. You just need to know that three of the four quantities ΔF, α, κ are parameters modelled from simulations and used to simulate ΔT due to lack of direct measurements. You can see from the quantities‘ names that they have no direct relation to known physical quantities: ΔF = change of effective radiative forcing, α = climate feedback parameter, κ = ratio of change in the heat uptake of a climate system. They are hypothetical constructs. The fourth quantity ε is a computer generated random value.

In short: they use simulation results to simulate something that cannot be measured directly. I am not saying you can’t do such thing, but it becomes more and more difficult to understand the reliability of the results, especially if at least one simulation is nonlinear or even chaotic. It doesn’t help to claim that the prediction is correct because 114 simulations based on the same model / assumptions provide the same results [1]. This is comparable to: 114 translations of Grimm’s fairy tales are similar, so the story must be true.

 

  1. Opinion and agendas before facts

Science has nothing to do with opinions and agendas. But we scientists, as social beings, have something to do with it and we have to work with that every day. Unfortunately, some scientists become believers of their own opinion instead to discuss issues in a constructive scientific way.

Marotzke is already convinced that the climate change is anthropogenic and he said [4]: “Sceptics who still doubt anthropogenic climate change have now been stripped of one of their last-ditch arguments”. This is an opinion not a fact!

Due to the nature of climate change the chosen approach is an inductive projection which means we don’t know exactly the mechanism behind climate change. We can’t even be sure that anthropogenic climate change exists. Measuring a temperature increase in the last hundred years and a change of our daily weather behavior compared to the last century hasn’t necessary something to do with an increase of CO2 or that it is manmade. There are other explanations that are equally probable. Maybe we have lived in a lucky period where the climate was quasi periodic and this starts to change now, independent of what we are doing?

  1. Missing constructive discussions

The concept of science is to find reliable and reproducible descriptions of observations we make. In other words: Is there something we don’t understand we try to find a scientific explanation. Due to our human nature we get sometimes lost in our hypothesis. Therefore we should embrace questions which contradict our hypothesis and should discuss them constructively.

Unfortunately, the opposite is quite often the case. I think Lewis provided a good mathematical explanation why the results from Marotzke and Forster don’t work. But he finished his analysis with following sentences: “The statistical methods used in the paper are so bad as to merit use in a class on how not to do applied statistics.” and “All this paper demonstrates is that climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics and Nature should get some competent referees.” Writing these statements doesn’t help to convince the other side. But this shows how overheated the discussion already is and that the sceptics feel not been taken seriously.

Unfortunately, Marotzke and Forster are not taking Lewis analysis serious. They basically repeat in their answer what they already have published in Nature [5]. And the main reason for why Lewis wrote his analysis was rejected with following statement: “It has been alleged that in [1] we applied circular logic. This allegation is incorrect.” This shows the narrow-mindedness and arrogance of the advocates of climate change. To have the majority doesn’t mean they own the truth.

In order to solve the climate change issue advocates and sceptics should work together as equal partners in the same group or directly within the IPCC. Only if both sides are satisfied with the results we might be getting closer to the truth.

[1] Jochem Marotzke & Piers M. Forster. Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends. Nature, 517, 565–570 (2015)

[2] http://climateaudit.org/2015/02/05/marotzke-and-forsters-circular-attribution-of-cmip5-intermodel-warming-differences/

[3] http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1963)020<0130:DNF>2.0.CO;2

[4] http://www.mpg.de/8925360/climate-change-global-warming-slowdown

[5] http://www.skepticalscience.com/marotzke-foster-respond-to-lewis.html

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_explosivity_index

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_of_the_20th_century

Advertisements

Is science apocalyptic?

002_ScienceApocalipticFirst published on LinkedIn, 15.06.2015

This might be a strange question, because science is rational, analytic and always objective. Isn’t it?

But if you follow the media you find articles where authors claim that scientists say the apocalypse is near if we do not act quickly.

 

Apocalyptic scenarios

In the 1950s it was the atomic bomb and the use of atomic energy which some scientists believed may cause the “Weltenbrand”, and in the 1970s and early 1980s a new ice age was thought to freeze the northern world (e.g. Sir Fred Hoyle, 1981 in his book “Ice: How the new ice age will come and how we can prevent it” and his solution was to warm the oceans) and it was important to act quickly. In the 1980s and 1990s the hole in the ozone layer was a nearly hysterically discussed topic. Some call this a successful story and that the hysteria helped to solve the problem by preventing CFC in modern products through international agreements on reducing the consumption of ozone-destroying chemicals. But the panic was greater than the actual effect on earth, and the hole in the ozone layer does still exists! In my opinion some questions were not answered, such as how long the hole in the ozone layer existed prior its discovery in the 1980s, and whether CFC was its only cause or if there was something else affecting it that we didn’t know. Didn’t matter, we had to act quickly. Right after the hole in the ozone layer the discussions about climate change started again, but this time in the opposite direction; not cooling, now warming. And before substantial facts were available the conclusion was already made: the warming is anthropogenic and the end of the world is close. We have to act quickly! In the 1990s and right now a pandemic virus outbreak is at our doorstep and we have to act quickly, yet again.

 

Always the same mechanism

There are more apocalyptic scenarios, but I think you have got my point that we had to fear a number of apocalyptic events over the last century. Nevertheless, none of this events happened yet as they were predicted. If you follow the news you will usually not get to the bottom of the real problem, the only thing you get are opinions. There is always crucial knowledge or information missing and the mechanism as how scientific research meets the public is always the same: First one scientist discovers a possible threat to the world or life on earth as we know it, then media inflates the discovery to an apocalyptic scenario and after lots of repetition we start to believe it without questioning. And we have to act quickly, of course!

 

Fear and hasty decisions

Beside the problem that science might lose their reputation, this “common knowledge” will lead to wrong decisions, because it is based on fear and opinions rather than facts. One example: In the 19th century people stripped down all rods from their houses because they believed that lightning rods cause thunderstorms. The result was as you might expect: Lots of houses burned down after thunderstorms! Another example: In the 1990s there was a forest dieback and a culprit was found in sulfur dioxide from fossil energy. So the industry started to produce motor fuel and energy without sulfur. The sulfur-dioxide in the air decreased afterwards as the forest dieback. Now, in the light of assumed global warming, some start to discuss to inject sulfur-dioxide into the air and ignore more serious problems to our environment.

 

My point is: Scientific questions should not be used for hasty decisions which may cause fatal problems to our world or life.