Climate Science Is Not Settled By Steven E. Koonin

[Demeter]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565?mod=WSJ_myyahoo_module

...The idea that "Climate science is settled" runs through today's popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future...The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.

Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, "How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?" Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure. But—here's the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole.

• For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.
  
  
• A second challenge to "knowing" future climate is today's poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate's heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.
  
  
• A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate's response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature. But feedbacks are uncertain. They depend on the details of processes such as evaporation and the flow of radiation through clouds. They cannot be determined confidently from the basic laws of physics and chemistry, so they must be verified by precise, detailed observations that are, in many cases, not yet available.
  
  
• Beyond these observational challenges are those posed by the complex computer models used to project future climate. These massive programs attempt to describe the dynamics and interactions of the various components of the Earth system—the atmosphere, the oceans, the land, the ice and the biosphere of living things. While some parts of the models rely on well-tested physical laws, other parts involve technically informed estimation. Computer modeling of complex systems is as much an art as a science...For instance, global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles. (The distance from New York City to Washington, D.C., is thus covered by only four grid cells.) But processes such as cloud formation, turbulence and rain all happen on much smaller scales. These critical processes then appear in the model only through adjustable assumptions that specify, for example, how the average cloud cover depends on a grid box's average temperature and humidity. In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted ("tuned," in the jargon of modelers) to reproduce both current observations and imperfectly known historical records.
  
  We often hear that there is a "scientific consensus" about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences. Since 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has periodically surveyed the state of climate science. Each successive report from that endeavor, with contributions from thousands of scientists around the world, has come to be seen as the definitive assessment of climate science at the time of its issue...Policy makers and the public may wish for the comfort of certainty in their climate science. But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is "settled" (or is a "hoax&quot demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences....Individuals and countries can legitimately disagree about these matters, so the discussion should not be about "believing" or "denying" the science. Despite the statements of numerous scientific societies, the scientific community cannot claim any special expertise in addressing issues related to humanity's deepest goals and values. The political and diplomatic spheres are best suited to debating and resolving such questions, and misrepresenting the current state of climate science does nothing to advance that effort. Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.
  
  
  
  Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, BP.LN +0.42% where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.

[Beakybird]

1. GREAT! CHIEF SCIENTIST FOR BRITISH PETROLEUM, A THEORETICAL PHYSICIST NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST

Not surprising for the Wall Street Journal.

[Demeter]

2. An Obama Administration Scientist, and an ACTUAL Scientist

I'm sorry if you cannot accept the limitations of the current state of what passes for climate science in this country, but the processes and the pitfalls he eloquently expresses are real and no amount of ad hominem attacks on him or me can take away the reality of what he is saying:

If you don't understand the limits of the scientific data and the models,

you are the #1 sucker for every scam, fraud, "carbon tax", etc., designed to degrade your life and that of your children and grandchildren ad infinitum for the benefit of the 1%.

[Beakybird]

9. Yes, but what kind of scientist

Yes, but he worked in the Energy Department, and he works for BP, a company devoted to climate change denial. This scientist's career has been devoted to extracting energy from natural resources and not studying the climate.

Somehow, I don't think that a carbon tax will degrade my life to the benefit of the 1%. The 1% are fighting very hard against a carbon tax.

[Demeter]

10. You are seriously misinformed

The Banksters are salivating for a carbon-tax. It's better than sub-prime mortgages for emptying pockets of anyone who can fit all their wealth in a pocket.

See the Youtube below.

[cprise]

11. You should be *tombstoned* for supporting denialism

...and the editorial misdeeds of a news oligarch (Rupert Murdoch) who used his 70% share of the Australian newspaper market in a blitz to unseat Labour over the single issue of carbon tax.

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/22/how_rupert_murdoch_created_the_worlds_newest_climate_change_villain/

Denying the severity of the problem and saying human causes are no greater than "natural variability" is flat out denial ...and a hypocritical play for 'settling' the issue to his own tastes.

[Psephos]

13. Thought monoculture, policed by people who match your opinions.

Yeah, that will improve the "discussion."

*You* are the one who sounds like a freeper here.

[cprise]

15. Taking the FOX 'Fair And Balanced' position against science

...is convenient for those who can't back up their claims. This "scientist" (not climate scientist) took the purely political route to criticism, so he is a charlatan.

[Psephos]

16. You missed the point.

It's not about the guy in the original post.

It's about you saying someone should be tomb-stoned for expressing an opinion you don't like. The poster you slandered was not being rude or disruptive. S/he was saying something you disagree with.

The fundamental trait of a liberal mindset is tolerance of differing ideas. Not endorsement, not acceptance, just tolerance. Hive-mind cries for suppression, inevitably accompanied by nasty little comments, are anti-liberal. And "proof" by assertion is weak tea indeed.

When someone tries to suppress the expression of views contrary to their own, I immediately wonder why, if their views are so self-evidently superior, they must be protected. Science, in particular, depends upon criticism, feedback, and challenges to proposed hypotheses in order to advance. Shutting off discussion is literally anti-scientific. You could ask Leonardo, Darwin, and Einstein about that.

Personally, I find the science supporting ACC to be incomplete but convincing. Convincing enough to be confident the theories can withstand discussion, and only be strengthened from the exposure.

[cprise]

19. The poster who asserts "You are seriously misinformed"

and then carries on as "a scientist" with fallacy about a subject that is outside their field of study... I see more than a hint of slander there.

DU was not intended to be a neutral forum open to right-wing talking points. The ideology behind the promotion of anti-environmentalist PR is frequently discussed on various forums here, which is a better use of DU than apeing the disastrously facile attitude at the Discussionist.

[Psephos]

20. all in your opinion

and no, you don't get to declare what DU was intended or not intended to be

the administrators already took care of that for you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus

try laying out your point of view, and adding your best positive arguments to the discussion

the "free speech for me but not for thee" instinct has no place here...it makes you sound like a reactionary

[The Stranger]

21. Oh bullshit.

Based SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY on what he admits in black and white in his "article," a good case for massive changes in climate policy can be made.

It doesn't matter how limited we supposedly are, it is right there in what he admits to be true.

And, in fact, his own argument can be used to inveigh against what he purports to represent.

If in fact WE ARE SO LIMITED in what we can truly forecast, BUT we know (according to him) that it is AT LEAST the 2% number, THEN THAT IS ALL THE MORE REASON to take action now to limit climate change.

If we don't know, then things could be better OR things could be much worse.

[JayhawkSD]

3. Statements requiring citations.

"human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%."

Says who, and based upon what studies? I say that it will shift the greenhouse effect by 15% to 20%, and my statement has as much documentation and proof as yours does. Mine is a complete lie, but there is no way to prove that yours is not also a complete lie.

"The oceans, which change over decades and centuries,"

Again, please provide the documentation of studies which show that the oceans require decades and centuries in order to change. I say that the oceans can change in as little as ten minutes. Which is correct, your unfounded assertion, or my unfounded assertion?

[fasttense]

4. He lists a few things that just might make global warming Not So Bad

if they were different. But those items listed are NOT going to reverse or stop global warming.

He says Nothing about:

All feedback loops have accelerated global warming and NOT slowed it down, despite inconsistent measurements.

The planet is steadily getting warmer, NOT getting COLDER.

Humans were NOT around when the planet's atmosphere had this much carbon dioxide. So, we are all in one vast experiment thanks to oil and gas corporations.

Species are going extinct at a faster rate than ever recorded by man.

What harm will it do our planet if we converted to solar and other non carbon energy sources? Really what's the harm to the environment if we switched? Do we really all have to come to one giant consensus to stop adding carbon into our atmosphere? Do we really have to continue this experiment with life on earth just so some very rich people can make more money?

I'm afraid Dr. Koonin is pimping for the oil and gas corporations for some unknown reason. Perhaps some money has been exchanged. He was after all Chief Scientist for BP.

[caraher]

5. What a load of crap

There are facts, and then there's spin, and this is almost pure spin. For instance, "human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%" strongly suggests that these effects are negligible. But look at the denominator here: the entire "natural greenhouse effect," which measured in degrees is over 30 Celcius... when you work through the numbers, what he's describing is essentially the same as the kinds of figures you see in the IPCC report.

Throughout, he suggests that lack of complete scientific uncertainty of the precise magnitude of every effect means "climate science is not settled." He does so deliberately ignoring the fact that teh phrase "the science is settled" is little more than shorthand for what he himself acknowledges:

That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.

To suggest, as he implicitly does, that moving the mean temperature by an amount comparable to the natural variability of climate, is not a cataclysmic change for much life on Earth, is at best ignorant and horribly irresponsible.

But I expect nothing less from an article with an extreme RW source, a Rupert Murdoch rag borrowing a mantle of "respectability" through purchase of the Wall Street Journal name.

[FBaggins]

23. Exactly right

It would be reasonable to point out that science has been settled on plenty of things in the past... and still turned out to be wrong.

But we can't pretend that "science" remains unsettled just because there isn't 100% unanimity.

[Demeter]

6. Will those with some modicum of real scientific training please identify themselves?

I have BSEE (summa cum laude) and half an MSEE, and a continuing study of solar, and family and friends in the sciences and engineering.

If you do not understand the model and its limitations, you will err. If you set policy on those errors, you will damage people's lives and futures.

If you think everything that contradicts your prejudice (non-factual opinion) is spin, you are ineducable, and no better than any of the Tea Party.

[Demeter]

7. Meet the Scientist on Youtube

[Demeter]

8. Could Fighting Global Warming Be Cheap and Free? DR. PAUL KRUGMAN, NOBEL ECONOMIST

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/opinion/paul-krugman-could-fighting-global-warming-be-cheap-and-free.html?_r=1

This just in: Saving the planet would be cheap; it might even be free. But will anyone believe the good news?

I’ve just been reading two new reports on the economics of fighting climate change: a big study by a blue-ribbon international group, the New Climate Economy Project, and a working paper from the International Monetary Fund. Both claim that strong measures to limit carbon emissions would have hardly any negative effect on economic growth, and might actually lead to faster growth. This may sound too good to be true, but it isn’t. These are serious, careful analyses.

But you know that such assessments will be met with claims that it’s impossible to break the link between economic growth and ever-rising emissions of greenhouse gases, a position I think of as “climate despair.” The most dangerous proponents of climate despair are on the anti-environmentalist right. But they receive aid and comfort from other groups, including some on the left, who have their own reasons for getting it wrong.

Where is the new optimism about climate change and growth coming from? It has long been clear that a well-thought-out strategy of emissions control, in particular one that puts a price on carbon via either an emissions tax or a cap-and-trade scheme, would cost much less than the usual suspects want you to think. But the economics of climate protection look even better now than they did a few years ago.

On one side, there has been dramatic progress in renewable energy technology, with the costs of solar power, in particular, plunging, down by half just since 2010. Renewables have their limitations — basically, the sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow — but if you think that an economy getting a lot of its power from wind farms and solar panels is a hippie fantasy, you’re the one out of touch with reality....

[caraher]

12. PhD in Physics here

Yes, there are subtleties, getting it right matters, etc. But it's pretty transparently obvious that deny/delay is winning by a country mile over serious action, so we're in little peril of overreaction. Quite the opposite

It's also worth noting that many analyses argue that the economic peril of being too aggressive is vastly overstated, and that delay in addressing the issue only increases the cost of action. Virtually all our current energy infrastructure will be replaced over the next few decades; we get to choose what to replace it with. (See Slide 12 of Ken Caldiera's talk to see what this implies for emissions.) Amory Lovins even goes so far as to argue it is inaction that is costly in economic terms. We've talked about the uncertainties in the physical modeling, how about the certainties and uncertainties in the artificial economic system driving us over the environmental cliff?

We acted to save the ozone layer in the face of far greater scientific uncertainties. Action in the real world can never wait for every last detail of the science to be "nailed down," and there is far less down side to being aggressive about carbon emissions than to taking a wait-and-see attitude.

[Thor_MN]

22. Well, you have identified yourself as an engineer, rather than a scientist.

As an electrical engineer, you should be keenly aware what happens if you take a signal that has some random waveform, and then add another signal on top of it. Say you have a voltage, oscillating between 0 and 10 volts, hooked up to a light bulb that is rated for 12 volts. Nothing too exciting, until you add another 10 volts from say, a human powered generator...

Over simplification? Perhaps. But the denialists have their heads stuck so far into the sand that one has to take a large divot to get anywhere close to thwapping them upside the head.

[Eko]

17. Yeah,

I'll think I will stick to what the vast majority of climate scientists are going with when it comes to climate, not a theoretical physicist. To do otherwise would be like asking my mechanic about my plumbing and taking his opinion seriously over the vast majority of plumbers, but that's just me.

[AverageJoe90]

18. Got mixed feelings about this.

His resume isn't exactly all that encouraging, for one.....(though, OTOH, I'm not one to buy into any conspiracy theories that this man is a propagandist for Big Oil, given his work on renewables), and I do take some issue with his phrasing about climate change not being settled: even his admission that most scientists agree that global warming IS happening, says that at least the basics are settled.

With that said, however, it is very true that the some of the specifics are indeed not exactly agreed upon, and are still being researched & debated. And there's nothing at all wrong with pointing that out. Really, much of the problem with communication has to do with the fact that ideological extremists on both sides(mainly the deniers, but doomers have contributed as well), have muddied the waters with all sorts of name-calling, craziness(e.g., Steve Goddard's various half-mad ramblings, David Wasdell's kooky earth systems theory, etc.), etc., etc.

Perhaps if we had more voices like Dr. McKinnon over at 350.org, or Andrew Revkin for the DotEarth blog, we'd have made more progress by now.....*sigh*.

[alarimer]

24. Rebuttal from ACTUAL climate scientists:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/09/20/on-eve-of-climate-march-wsj-publishes-call-to-wait-and-do-nothing/

In a new Wall Street Journal piece (Climate Science Is Not Settled, September 19) former BP scientist and DOE Undersecretary of Science Steven Koonin delivers a paradoxical case for climate change inaction. In a testament to just how strong the science is, he acknowledges the basic facts that humans are causing harmful warming, never flat-out stating that action isn’t needed. But Koonin mis-states a number of scientific details, and ultimately lures readers toward the conclusion that climate change isn’t an urgent problem. His choice of emphasis doesn’t hold up when confronted with all of the available evidence.

We know that humans have warmed the climate
Future projections run from bad to worse
Uncertainty is a central concern of climate science, far from being covered up
The IPCC is transparent and clear on uncertainty
Reducing emissions is practical, achievable, and necessary now – and the status quo poses huge risks

We know that humans have warmed the climate. Koonin is clear on this point, saying there’s “no hoax” and “little doubt” that humans are influencing the climate. But he subtly understates the amount of human influence, by saying that it is “comparable” to natural influences. This implies that human and natural influences are equal, but the IPCC states that their best estimate is that all recent warming is due to human activity. Like all of Koonin’s points here, this is a common delayer argument that simply does not stand up to even the mildest scrutiny.

There is much more at the link, including responses from climate scientists like Michael Mann. Incidentally, I would expect someone who works for BP like Koonin to be a denialist, because his paycheck no doubt depends on it.

Another take:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/09/20/bpdoes-koonin-anthropogenic-global-warming-is-real-important-and-must-be-addressed/

Another website that does a good job on rebutting the denialists in general:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/