brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
Isn't "debunking" State of Fear a little like debunking The Da Vinci Code? They're both written as works of fiction, for the purpose of entertainment.
Crichton claims that that's not the case for State of Fear (thanks for the title). He claims his points in the book are 100% factual. But perhaps in some ways you're right. Still if Crichton's points are wrong, they're worth debunking. I found his points very persuasive if true.
dangit. He should have provided a bulletin point summary of his debunking. The pdf is a barrier that I can't overcome due to my current laziness quotient. Perhaps I'll have it in me to open it up and read it later.
Failing that, would someone care to provide a summary of the substantive parts of it?
brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
Dan Browne claimed the same thing for the DVC.
To be perfectly honest I'm not too well schooled on the whole AGW debate, but if I where looking for information for or against human activity being the cause of Global Warming*, I wouldn't look to an author of science fiction, writing fiction- no matter how accurate he says his sources are.
I would look at his sources and to see what they actually say and decide on their credibility.
Furthermore even if Crichton's work appears to have been pulled out of his hat, I would not criticise him for it, any more that I criticise the Cohen brothers for Fargo.
*I don't think anyone serious contends that the world is not getting warmer, the debate seems to be around what ahs caused this warming, what (if anything) to do about this warming, and to what extent and at what rate this warming will continue in the future.
Because I was feeling too lazy to summarize it, I copied the PDF contents for your perusal. Sorry for the long post. 
1. Climate Science
Crichton makes several attempts to cast doubt on scientific evidence regarding global warming. First, he highlights the “urban heat island effect.” Crichton explains that cities are often warmer than the surrounding countryside and implies that observed temperature increases during the past century are the result of urban growth, not rising greenhouse gas concentrations. This issue has been examined extensively in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and dismissed by the vast majority of earth scientists as an inadequate explanation of observed temperature rise. Ocean temperatures have climbed steadily during the past century, for example — yet this data is not affected by “urban heat islands.” Most land glaciers around the world are melting, far away from urban centers. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, using only peer-reviewed data, concluded that urban heat islands caused “at most” 0.05°C of the increase in global average temperatures during the period 1900-1990 — roughly one-tenth of the increase during this period. In contrast, as one source reports, “there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers” to support the view that “the heat island effect accounts for much or nearly all warming recorded by land-based thermometers.”
Second, Crichton argues that global temperature declines from 1940-1970 disprove, or at least cast doubt on, scientific conclusions with respect to global warming. Since concentrations of greenhouse gases were rising during this period, says Crichton, the fact that global temperatures were falling calls into question the link between greenhouse gas concentrations and temperatures. Crichton is correct that average temperatures declined, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, from 1940-1970. Temperature is the result of many factors, including the warming effects of greenhouse gases, the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions, changes in solar radiation and more. (Think of a game of tug-of-war, in which the number of players on each team changes frequently.) The fall in Northern Hemisphere temperatures from 1940-1970 reflects the relative weight of cooling factors during that period, not the absence of a warming effect from man-made greenhouse gases. Should we at least be encouraged, recalling the decades from 1940-1970 in the hope that cooling factors will outweigh greenhouse warming in the decades ahead? Hardly. Greenhouse gas concentrations are now well outside levels previously experienced in human history and climbing sharply. Unless we change course, the relatively minor warming caused by man-made greenhouse gases in the last century will be dwarfed by much greater warming from such gases in the next century. There is no basis for believing that cooling factors such as those that dominated the temperature record from 1940-1970 will be sufficient to counteract greenhouse warming in the
decades ahead.
Third, Crichton offers graph after graph showing temperature declines during the past century in places such as Puenta Arenas (Chile), Greenville (South Carolina), Ann Arbor (Michigan), Syracuse (New York) and Navacerrada (Spain). But global warming is an increase in global average temperatures. Nothing about specific local temperature declines is inconsistent with the conclusion that the planet as a whole has warmed during the past century, or that it will warm more in the next century if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to climb.
Crichton makes other arguments, but a point-by-point rebuttal is beyond the scope of this paper. (A thoughtful rebuttal of that kind can be found at www.realclimate.org.) Climate change science is a complex topic, not easily reduced to short summaries. But a useful contrast with Crichton’s scienceargument- within-an-action-novel is the sober prose of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The opening paragraph of a 2001 National Academy report responding to a request from the Bush White House read:
“Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. Secondary effects are suggested by computer model simulations and basic physical reasoning. These include increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. The impacts of these changes will be critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs.” Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, National Academies Press (2001).
Time will tell whether this report or Crichton’s novel will have a greater impact on public understanding of global warming.
2. Climate Fad
This raises the second, more interesting argument in Crichton’s novel. Crichton argues that concern about global warming has become a fad embraced by media elites, entertainment moguls, the scientific establishment and general public. In Crichton’s view, many assertions are accepted as fact without critical analysis by the vast majority of those who have views on this issue. On the last point, fair enough. There are indeed fewer people who have sorted through the minutiae of climate change science than have opinions on the topic. In this regard, global warming is like Social Security reform, health care finance, the military budget and many other complex public policy issues. As Nelson Polsby and Aaron Wildavsky once wrote, “Most people don’t think about most issues most of the time.” When forming opinions on such matters, we all apply certain predispositions or instincts and rely on others whose judgment or expertise we trust. Of course this observation applies as well to the economics of climate change. The perception is widespread in many circles that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be ruinously expensive. How many of those who hold this view have subjected their opinions to critical analysis? Crichton never musters outrage on this topic. Crichton’s complaints are particularly striking in light of the highly successful efforts to provide policymakers and the public with analytically rigorous, non-political advice on climate science. Since 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has convened thousands of scientists, economists, engineers and other experts to review and distill the peer-reviewed literature on the science on global warming. The IPCC has produced three reports and is now at work on the fourth. In addition, the National Academy of Sciences has provided advice to the U.S. government on this topic, including the report cited above.
Crichton’s view that the American media provides a steady drumbeat of scary news on global warming is especially hard to fathom. Solid data are scarce, but one 1996 analysis found that the rock star Madonna was mentioned roughly 80 times more often than global warming in the Lexis-Nexis database. Certainly one could watch the evening news for weeks on end without ever seeing a global warming story. Furthermore, the print media’s “on the one hand, on the other hand” convention tilts many global warming stories strongly toward Crichton’s point of view. As Crichton would concede, the vast majority of the world’s scientists believe that global warming is happening as a result of human activities and that the consequences of rising greenhouse gas emissions could be very serious. Still, many news stories on global warming include not just this mainstream view but also the “contrarian” views of a very small minority of climate change skeptics, giving roughly equal weight to each. As a result, public perceptions of the controversy surrounding these issues may be greatly exaggerated.
Crichton’s most serious charge is that “open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed” in the scientific community. As “proof,” he offers the assertion that many critics of global warming are retired professors no longer seeking grants. Whether there is any basis for these assertions is unclear, but if so Crichton should back up his claims with more than mere assertions in the appendix to an action novel. Indeed Crichton should hold himself to a higher standard with regard to all the arguments in his book. He is plainly a very bright guy and, famously, a Harvard Medical School graduate. A millionaire many times over, he doesn’t need to be seeking grants. If he has something serious to say on the science of climate change, he should say so in a work of nonfiction and submit his work for peer review. The result could be instructive – for him and us all.
David B. Sandalow is an environment scholar at The Brookings Institution.
1. Climate Science
Crichton makes several attempts to cast doubt on scientific evidence regarding global warming. First, he highlights the “urban heat island effect.” Crichton explains that cities are often warmer than the surrounding countryside and implies that observed temperature increases during the past century are the result of urban growth, not rising greenhouse gas concentrations. This issue has been examined extensively in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and dismissed by the vast majority of earth scientists as an inadequate explanation of observed temperature rise. Ocean temperatures have climbed steadily during the past century, for example — yet this data is not affected by “urban heat islands.” Most land glaciers around the world are melting, far away from urban centers. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, using only peer-reviewed data, concluded that urban heat islands caused “at most” 0.05°C of the increase in global average temperatures during the period 1900-1990 — roughly one-tenth of the increase during this period. In contrast, as one source reports, “there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers” to support the view that “the heat island effect accounts for much or nearly all warming recorded by land-based thermometers.”
Second, Crichton argues that global temperature declines from 1940-1970 disprove, or at least cast doubt on, scientific conclusions with respect to global warming. Since concentrations of greenhouse gases were rising during this period, says Crichton, the fact that global temperatures were falling calls into question the link between greenhouse gas concentrations and temperatures. Crichton is correct that average temperatures declined, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, from 1940-1970. Temperature is the result of many factors, including the warming effects of greenhouse gases, the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions, changes in solar radiation and more. (Think of a game of tug-of-war, in which the number of players on each team changes frequently.) The fall in Northern Hemisphere temperatures from 1940-1970 reflects the relative weight of cooling factors during that period, not the absence of a warming effect from man-made greenhouse gases. Should we at least be encouraged, recalling the decades from 1940-1970 in the hope that cooling factors will outweigh greenhouse warming in the decades ahead? Hardly. Greenhouse gas concentrations are now well outside levels previously experienced in human history and climbing sharply. Unless we change course, the relatively minor warming caused by man-made greenhouse gases in the last century will be dwarfed by much greater warming from such gases in the next century. There is no basis for believing that cooling factors such as those that dominated the temperature record from 1940-1970 will be sufficient to counteract greenhouse warming in the
decades ahead.
Third, Crichton offers graph after graph showing temperature declines during the past century in places such as Puenta Arenas (Chile), Greenville (South Carolina), Ann Arbor (Michigan), Syracuse (New York) and Navacerrada (Spain). But global warming is an increase in global average temperatures. Nothing about specific local temperature declines is inconsistent with the conclusion that the planet as a whole has warmed during the past century, or that it will warm more in the next century if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to climb.
Crichton makes other arguments, but a point-by-point rebuttal is beyond the scope of this paper. (A thoughtful rebuttal of that kind can be found at www.realclimate.org.) Climate change science is a complex topic, not easily reduced to short summaries. But a useful contrast with Crichton’s scienceargument- within-an-action-novel is the sober prose of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The opening paragraph of a 2001 National Academy report responding to a request from the Bush White House read:
“Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. Secondary effects are suggested by computer model simulations and basic physical reasoning. These include increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. The impacts of these changes will be critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs.” Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, National Academies Press (2001).
Time will tell whether this report or Crichton’s novel will have a greater impact on public understanding of global warming.
2. Climate Fad
This raises the second, more interesting argument in Crichton’s novel. Crichton argues that concern about global warming has become a fad embraced by media elites, entertainment moguls, the scientific establishment and general public. In Crichton’s view, many assertions are accepted as fact without critical analysis by the vast majority of those who have views on this issue. On the last point, fair enough. There are indeed fewer people who have sorted through the minutiae of climate change science than have opinions on the topic. In this regard, global warming is like Social Security reform, health care finance, the military budget and many other complex public policy issues. As Nelson Polsby and Aaron Wildavsky once wrote, “Most people don’t think about most issues most of the time.” When forming opinions on such matters, we all apply certain predispositions or instincts and rely on others whose judgment or expertise we trust. Of course this observation applies as well to the economics of climate change. The perception is widespread in many circles that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be ruinously expensive. How many of those who hold this view have subjected their opinions to critical analysis? Crichton never musters outrage on this topic. Crichton’s complaints are particularly striking in light of the highly successful efforts to provide policymakers and the public with analytically rigorous, non-political advice on climate science. Since 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has convened thousands of scientists, economists, engineers and other experts to review and distill the peer-reviewed literature on the science on global warming. The IPCC has produced three reports and is now at work on the fourth. In addition, the National Academy of Sciences has provided advice to the U.S. government on this topic, including the report cited above.
Crichton’s view that the American media provides a steady drumbeat of scary news on global warming is especially hard to fathom. Solid data are scarce, but one 1996 analysis found that the rock star Madonna was mentioned roughly 80 times more often than global warming in the Lexis-Nexis database. Certainly one could watch the evening news for weeks on end without ever seeing a global warming story. Furthermore, the print media’s “on the one hand, on the other hand” convention tilts many global warming stories strongly toward Crichton’s point of view. As Crichton would concede, the vast majority of the world’s scientists believe that global warming is happening as a result of human activities and that the consequences of rising greenhouse gas emissions could be very serious. Still, many news stories on global warming include not just this mainstream view but also the “contrarian” views of a very small minority of climate change skeptics, giving roughly equal weight to each. As a result, public perceptions of the controversy surrounding these issues may be greatly exaggerated.
Crichton’s most serious charge is that “open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed” in the scientific community. As “proof,” he offers the assertion that many critics of global warming are retired professors no longer seeking grants. Whether there is any basis for these assertions is unclear, but if so Crichton should back up his claims with more than mere assertions in the appendix to an action novel. Indeed Crichton should hold himself to a higher standard with regard to all the arguments in his book. He is plainly a very bright guy and, famously, a Harvard Medical School graduate. A millionaire many times over, he doesn’t need to be seeking grants. If he has something serious to say on the science of climate change, he should say so in a work of nonfiction and submit his work for peer review. The result could be instructive – for him and us all.
David B. Sandalow is an environment scholar at The Brookings Institution.
I hope this rarified drivel will disabuse any notions that Crichton is a source that should be taken at all seriously on any topic to do with science.
Can't argue with how Sandalow ends his piece.
However, even after reading Sandalow's rebuttal, I sense that we don't have much of a clue about whether or not humans are causing global warming in a way that could be harmful or not for our existence. We don't seem to have a great sense of the complex of factors playing "tug-of-war" with world temperature. I suppose it might be wise to play it conservative and leave as small an imprint on our environment as possible. Alternatively though, we could be causing ourselves far more damage not going for all-out economic growth, considering the ubiquity of current challenges like extreme poverty, hunger, and serious and currently incurable illnesses.
RenaissanceBiker
Eats shoots and leaves.
I enjoyed State of Fear, except for the part about lightning attractors. That just reminded me that it's a science fiction book.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
"State of Fear is a really funny Book".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5
Another problem he has. When he is discussing the temperature records, he notes that the US has recorded a lower rise than other countries. He then goes on to make the anthropogenic assumption that this is because the US is just better at recording temperatures than other countries. It appears that the real reason is that the US is just much more subject to 'global dimming' caused by other pollutents, that dim the sunlight. Such a thought never occurred to him.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5
Another problem he has. When he is discussing the temperature records, he notes that the US has recorded a lower rise than other countries. He then goes on to make the anthropogenic assumption that this is because the US is just better at recording temperatures than other countries. It appears that the real reason is that the US is just much more subject to 'global dimming' caused by other pollutents, that dim the sunlight. Such a thought never occurred to him.
DeviousB
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 374
Bryan Lawrence, head of the British Atmospheric Data Centre, published several criticisms in his blog.
http://home.badc.rl.ac.uk/lawrence/crichton
http://home.badc.rl.ac.uk/lawrence/crichton
That's counterintuitive to me. My understanding from what I've read is that due in part to our abundance of lawyers, we have relatively polutant free skies relative to most other (developed?) countries. This may not be the same as 'global dimming' polutants, though I think it would be. Anyone else want to weigh in on this?
This is great interesting, rich, and detailed point by point criticism.
Does Crichton have a rebuttal that we're aware of?
Or perhaps at this stage the conversation should switch to the most informed/expert GW skeptic.
DeviousB
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 374
My secret contact in the world-wide cabal of funding-hungry evil climatologists (WWCOFHEC) don't know of one. But they'll ask Bryan when he comes back from his meeting in Germany.
Reverend Chu
New Blood
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 15
I've written to Dr. Lindzen and to Hansen (might've been an associate of his) and gotten two sides of the issue. That there's a general warming and shifting of climates doesn't seem to be in general dispute between them but more so the causes. Myself, I don't think this'll be resolved any time soon. FWIW, Lindzen is also of the position that a free discourse is being throttled with funding of research tied to a particular point of view. If anyone's interested, drop me an email and I'll send you what Lindzen sent me. Hansen's replies were confined to an email reply which I'll also post if anyone's interested.
Yes, post both emails to this thread if you can please. If not, please post whatever you can.
Crichton's other big argument is that computer models are inadaquate for temperature prediction. He says that, since we don't trust the weather reports for 12 hours from now, we shouldn't trust models for what will happen in 50 years.
Of course, the IPCC report specifically addressed the problem of inadaquate models and found that it was insignificant, but that didn't stop his theory.
Of course, the IPCC report specifically addressed the problem of inadaquate models and found that it was insignificant, but that didn't stop his theory.
Reverend Chu
New Blood
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 15
This is what Lindzen wrote in his email reply to me...
I was wrong about Hansen, the person I emailed was Casper Annan.
My email...
This is perhaps where I disagree with the brilliant James Randi in that I think there's just not enough good information and what's out there has been funded to various extents by people who have political agendas to grind. I'm not saying he has an agenda but it may be prudent to step back.
He also attached a PDF "Is There a Basis for Global Warming" hence the need for an email address if you want to read it. PM will do fine. Maybe it's on the web also. Either way.
I was wrong about Hansen, the person I emailed was Casper Annan.
My email...
His reply...
I think Lindzen's overall position is that there is too much uncertainty in both the measurements and other data to be able to draw hard conclusions. Further there seems to be a bit too much force fitting of measurements that result in good fits for the defined periods but lack the ability to extrapolate. Given enough variables, one could conceivably work alien sightings into the models.
This is perhaps where I disagree with the brilliant James Randi in that I think there's just not enough good information and what's out there has been funded to various extents by people who have political agendas to grind. I'm not saying he has an agenda but it may be prudent to step back.
I have the same sense but it is more of a gut feeling -necessarily, I don't have a full grasp on the complexities. But I do think it's non-trivial to commit a significant part of GDP to reducing CO2 emmissions. My money is currently on maintaining CO2 emmissions, even expanding them, if it means greater economic growth and wealth production. I suspect that much like a growing gdp solves national debt problems, growing gdp will allow us the capabilities to solve whatever havoc our CO2 emissions will cause down the line. Even in the worst case scenarios, what's being described is not the end of the world, but a changing of the world.
However, I remain persuadable that that this is not the best course of action.