Thursday, July 06, 2017

2 New Studies Undermine Climate Denial Arguments

They're also reminders of how the peer-review process works, and why peer-reviewed research remains the key to sound climate policies.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry has suggested a "red team" review to scrutinize climate science, but that already happens in a far more rigorous way. It's called peer review. (Credit: CSPAN) Click to Enlarge.
Two new studies published this month are helping resolve lingering differences between what climate models have predicted and what actual measurements have recorded.  In doing so, they undermine two of the timeworn arguments used by those who question the prevailing scientific consensus on global warming.

One study, released Wednesday, took a fresh look at the vexing question of how sensitive global temperatures will be to the buildup of carbon dioxide around the earth.  It reaffirmed the basic understanding that any doubling of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will result in significant planetary warming.

The other paper reexamined satellite observations of one layer of the atmosphere and showed that the space-based warming data does not collide, as dissenters frequently contend, with temperature measurements taken at the surface of the Earth.  Instead, the satellite data shows a much more intense warming than before.

Both studies address uncertainties that are raised again and again by people who seize on them to suggest that not enough is known to justify aggressive action to control emissions of greenhouse gases.

But whether the question is climate sensitivity or the data collected by satellites or some other aspect of the science, the world's governments have mostly recognized that the risks of climate change are clear enough to validate policies like those enshrined in the Paris climate agreement, which seeks to limit warming to well under 2 degrees Celsius by sharply reducing emissions.

Both studies were published in highly regarded peer-reviewed journals and have been in the works for a long time.  They aren't knee-jerk reactions to an intense political debate, but they could prove influential as the back-and-forth continues.

Above all, both studies serve as examples of how peer-reviewed research remains the key to sound climate policies.

By chance, they appeared just as two of President Trump's cabinet members, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, have been calling for a renewed debate over climate science under the guise of a red-team, blue-team adversarial showdown.

Many science and public policy experts say the proper forum for reasoned discussion is in established, authoritative institutions like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the National Academy of Sciences and in the peer-reviewed literature where the fine details of science face rigorous review from other scientists with expertise in the area.

As one scientist, Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said in explaining peer-review in an online commentary in the Washington Post:  "Your peers are your fiercest critics.  They are constantly kicking the tires. "

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) chided Perry at a hearing last week for suggesting that the consensus was somehow imbalanced and needed to be challenged all over again, regardless of the existing rigors of peer review.

"That's exactly how science works, including climate science," Franken said.  "That's the scientific process."

Read more at 2 New Studies Undermine Climate Denial Arguments

No comments:

Post a Comment