The Union of Concerned Scientists on Crichton Thriller & My Refutation of the Audio

This is my final post on Michael Crichton. I felt that it was necessary to respond to specific claims made in the audio discussion before bringing his topic to a final closure.  But first, for a brief introduction:

"The author of the controversial book, State of Fear, speaks out on the dangers of bad science."  (audio introduction).  Which is ironic, to say the least--given that this book (complete with scientific graphs and footnotes) is exposed as bad science by the Union of Concerned Scientists.  Their critique--located below my final refutation--is included since my personal critique is confined to the audio discussion between Michael Crichton and Ken Wilber.

My refutation of Crichton audio

Scientists predicted global cooling, and they were wrong.

This is wrong because the majority scientific view has always been that the climate was slowly warming since first keeping accurate records of temperatures in the late 19th century. The trend has shown a slow and steady rise in average global temperature throughout the 20th century.  Volcanic eruptions and the rise of unregulated CFCs in the the mid 20th century to the early 1970s produced a temporary cooling trend, which caused some scientists to speculate global cooling.  This was never conclusive among scientists (indeed, there were only a few peer-reviewed papers that ever made it to scientific journals on the global cooling theory throughout the 1970s).  Yet, in spite of the inconclusiveness of most scientists--who repeatedly called for more research and for more funding to determine one way or the other, or nothing at all--news of "global cooling" reached the press and became exaggerated. 

A few irresponsible scientists and journalists released this "breaking news" to the public upon becoming convinced that global cooling was actually happening in the 1970s.  They were speaking for themselves and their own conclusions; not for the scientific community which was inconclusive at the time.  These publicity stunts inspired the prophets of doom and a popular science nonfiction book written by a journalist called The Cooling, which predicted that the Earth was headed for a new ice age.  However, since "global cooling" was never the majority view held by climate scientists themselves (many who roundly criticized those "prophets of doom"), it is clear that Crichton misrepresented the facts to cast doubts on the validity of global warming. 

2.  They were wrong because they relied on computer climate models, which are notoriously fallible.

Actually, computer models during the 1970s were reporting anomolies such as global warming, which contradicted the direct observations of scientists that the Earth was cooling.   It was not until the late '70s when Clean Air regulations went into effect that this discrepancy between real world data and computer models was resolved.  These regulations reduced the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere (which have a net cooling effect), but did nothing for the continued rise of unregulated C02 and other human greenhouse emissions (which have a net warming effect).  Thus, the warming resumed with a vengeance.

In addition, Crichton, like many from older generations, believed that climatologists rely solely on computer models for their predictions while ignoring other data.  He therefore ignored the vast body of evidence provided by real world data, such as proxy data (ice core samples, tree rings, lake deposits, and coral reefs--which provide accurate records of ancient climate) and real world data (satellites, weather balloons, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, sea rise, melting Arctic ice, rising CO2, and so on--which provide accurate records for present climate trends).  By the sound of Crichton's claims, you'd think that everything revolved around a computer model..

Furthermore, these computer model predictions have been fairly accurate nonetheless, although of late the rate of climate change has exceeded these computer model predictions.  This is largely due to positive feedbacks mechanisms which were previously not accounted for in these models, but amplify heating effects from GHGs.  Thus, he's wrong again.

3.  Scientists still rely on unreliable computer climate models to predict climate, and then the narcissistic green environmentalists fall for these unreliable computer predictions (won't they ever learn?) to try to pass Kyoto and other bad policies, which could potentially devastate industries and poor people throughout the world.

The consequences of unmitigated global warming is likely to produce a tipping point, beyond which point the natural forces take over (i.e., methane release from permafrosts, decreasing albeido, water vapor from percipitation, and so on) to produce a runaway greenhouse effect and sudden and catastrophic climate change.  Since those who are closer to the equator will be the first and hardest hit, it affects the poor the most.  In addition, a catastrophic climate change is very likely to ruin the world economically, trigger climate wars, crop failures, water shortages, and result in up to several hundred million to a billion or more climate change refugees migrating to northern latitudes.  Or we could think of it in terms of cost-benefit analysis: the Stern Review, the most comprehensive and widely-known economic analysis of climate change to date, estimates that "policy action" may cost 2% of the global GDP through Kyoto cap and trade.  On the other hand, "no policy action" may cost 50% of global GDP of $54 trillion.

4.  The Bush administration was wrong most of the time, but at least their science was "right" on this one.

Wrong on that one, too.  The Bush administration suppressed climate scientists for 8 years so there was no "science."  This was by far the most embarrassing fallacy that was committed in this audio.

5.  He says it's simply the green meme apocalypse story and they and their media and institutions have whipped themselves up into what he calls "a state of fear."  

On the one hand, Crichton is confusing (either deliberately or unwittingly) green environmentalism with orange climate science.  This is horrible. 

On the other hand, he's also confusing global cooling from the '70s with global warming.

He claims that legitimate orange science was degraded and politicized into a green mean meme.  He obviously is not in touch with the science itself.  To make such a grand and sweeping statement means you do not know the science, and have some ideological issues or other concerns unrelated to the science itself.

Personally, I've never self-identified with the "green" movement at all.  In fact, I've never felt compelled to recycle, support wildlife, save the polar bears, or any other animal until very recently.  I'm not an animal lover, not a nature lover and I've certainly never experienced a mystical oneness with nature (I'm allergic to mosquitos, scared of barking dogs, and hate the outdoors).  It was not until after watching An Inconvenient Truth's Al Gore in 2007 and becoming acquainted with the actual science behind global warming and the consequences of unmitigated climate change when I finally became interested in this science.  So I resent being lumped into the same category of nature lovers.  He's from another time, obviously.  In fact, I think the Integral community has an issue with "MGM" and is lumping legitimate orange science into the category as well.

6.  Historic examples of this being the 70's fear that our soot was shading the earth and creating a man-made ice age

Please see number 1.  But in addition to those facts, every emerging scientific field goes through a maturation period lasting for several decades or more.  The role of volcanoes and CFCs were poorly understood by climate science in the from mid-century to the early 1970s, resulting in errors in interpretation of data, as would be expected in the earlier days when climate science was still an emerging science.  Nevertheless, even at the time, most climatologists maintained that more research was needed before drawing any conclusions to report to the public throughout the 1970s.  It was not until the 1980s that a consensus was reached about the existence of global warming among climate scientists.  Apparently, both Ken and Crichton are applying unreasonable standards to this field and are using ancient history to "disprove" global warming.

7.  ...and pre-green cultures with their higher birthrates causing overpopulation and looming starvation.  

When I was 10, I read in a book one time that the population explosion would result in a population density of 1 person per square foot over every land mass.  What exactly does this have to do with global warming or climate science?  Except perhaps to cast doubts on legitimate science by throwing in every debunked scientific claim, green movement, Marxism, global cooling, along with the kitchen sink from the '60s and '70s to discredit global warming?  And then blame it on green environmentalism for their narcissistic me-ism alarmism?   This is disingeuous, unless they really believe in this crap.  I think they do (or did).

8.  He says (and I agree) that we should be focusing on things like pollution and health care, which we know is a problem now and worry about climate change if it become a certainty.

As Lester Brown says in the other audio discussion, it's all a packaged deal: solving climate change is key to resolving the other issues, but resolving the other issues without solving climate change means that nothing will be done to solve anything.  This is because a healthy atmosphere is fundamental to pollution or to health care.  Without it, you can't have either. All must all be done, but highest on the list of priorities is solving the climate crisis by reducing greenhouse gases.  Without a resolution to climate change, social systems are very likely to fall apart and disintegrate, including sanitation and health care.  Nation-states will begin to fail.  Solving climate change can help to resolve the other issues by providing a crucial foundation for human life, but not vice-versa. 

As for certainty, there is never certainty in science with respect to future events: only probabilities and statistics.  In 2007, the IPCC concluded that human-caused global warming is "very likely," (meaning over 90% probability) and that this warming is likely to continue.  As for deadline to do anything about it, the IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, an engineer and economist from India, said:

"If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."

Dec 12 2012: will it be the end of times, the dawning of the age of Aquarius, will bad things happen, or will it be just another day?  According to science, it's looking increasingly pessimistic.

I would highly recommend the following essay written by Spencer Weart for overview of the history of climate change debates, which covers public and scientific debates:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Public.htm#L000

an excerpt:

The change in press coverage was not due to any obvious change in the weather — the winter of 1978-79 was the coldest on record for the United States. Nor was there any single scientific revelation, for amid the complexities of geophysics, no individual finding could ever be decisive. But several research results published in the mid 1970s (perhaps especially from computer models) swayed the opinions of scientists. In early 1978 the New York Times reported that a poll of climate scientists found them evenly divided on whether there would be warming, cooling, or no particular change. But the balance among the handful of top experts had shifted strongly toward the likelihood of warming. In the scientific journals, where articles are published only after critical review by scientist peers, a few articles had appeared in the early 1970s that projected cooling in future centuries. These papers had always been outnumbered by articles that either predicted warming or said it was premature to make any prediction. After the mid 1970s, the papers predicting global warming predominated and became increasingly numerous. The views represented in the scientific literature migrated, with the usual exaggeration and simplification, to science journalists.(72a)

Scientific Review, Crichton's State of Fear

 A public service message from The Union of Concerned Scientists

Crichton Thriller State of Fear

Michael Crichton's latest book State of Fear has characters debating data (complete with graphs and footnotes) and concepts that cast doubt on the validity of global warming evidence. This doubt is echoed in the author's message at the end of the novel and in public interviews. Readers may understandably take away some misconceptions from his book. To clear up these misconceptions, we have selected some representative cases to discuss; the list below, however, is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the errors in Crichton's book.

1. How was Michael Crichton able to take the same data that climate scientists use and come to the conclusion that global warming isn't a real threat? 
2. State of Fear uses graphs that don't show a warming trend. How can specific locations show cooling if global warming is happening?
3. What is the "urban heat island effect" and is it contributing to warming?
4. Crichton argues that C02 in the atmosphere is not closely correlated with warming trends. So why is C02 blamed as a greenhouse gas?
5. Several times Crichton notes that glaciers are expanding not retreating. Is this accurate or only part of the story?
6. Michael Crichton says we can't predict the future. Does this preclude our taking steps to reduce heat trapping gas emissions?
7. Why do we have to act now to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels?

1. How was Crichton able to take the same data that climate scientists use and come to the conclusion that global warming isn't a real threat?

Anyone can delve into the climate literature and come to a deeper understanding of global climate change evidence. Yet the literature examples Crichton picked, and the way they are presented, seem to make a case against global warming.  Scientists with climate expertise have considered not just the narrow sampling of the scientific literature that Crichton cites but many hundreds of additional papers in order to understand the full complexity of the climate system.

Climate scientists agree on the most basic key points while they continue to refine such questions as the magnitude and rate of climate change. The National Academy of Sciences, The American Geophysical Union, The American Meteorological Society, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have all issued statements affirming that climate change is underway, the impacts are significant, and humans have influenced recent climate changes.  Although Crichton likes to claim that consensus is not relevant in science, we disagree.  When scientists with climate-relevant expertise evaluate the data and the majority comes to the same basic conclusion, this is an important result.

2. State of Fear uses many graphs that don't show a warming trend. How can specific locations show cooling if global warming is happening?

Twenty of thirty-three graphs shown in the novel for various localities do not demonstrate a warming trend. The characters raise common sense reactions to these graphs.   One character illustrates how one location (West Point, NY) can show a warming, cooling, or no trend depending on how many years are shown on the graph. 

Increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) create an overall warming tendency in the atmosphere. Shifts in clouds, water vapor, and the great currents in the ocean and air, however, cause complex responses in which some regions warm more than the average while others warm less than average, or even cool. Finding a cooling trend in some region (including the Antarctic interior, which Crichton makes much of) is therefore fully compatible with the physics on which climate models are based.

Furthermore, other human-induced changes on the atmosphere can lead to regional cooling. For example, temperatures in the latter half of the last century generally cooled in the East while warming in the western United States, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. This pattern of warming and cooling in the U.S. may be part of a worldwide pattern: while most of the earth has warmed, the regions that are downwind from major sources of air pollution (specifically sulfur dioxide emissions) have generally cooled (Figure 1).   Sulfur dioxide emissions convert into sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere. The ability of sulfate aerosols to reflect the sun's radiation may be one reason that increasing heat-trapping gases have not warmed the earth as much as some climate models project.

Figure 1. Blue regions indicate significant blocking of the sun’s energy by pollution that formed atmospheric sulfates.

Solar Energy Blocked by Atmospheric Sulfates
(radiative forcing in watts per square meter)

In general, climate trends are often difficult to detect in data from individual stations because each station is subject to local effects.  These variations can be reduced by averaging together the data from many stations, which is why climate scientists rely on such averages in detecting the first signs of the effect of CO2 increases on temperature.  So far, the initial effect is still relatively small for two reasons: (i) part of that effect has been canceled temporarily by increases in sulfate aerosol, and (ii) the warming has been delayed because it takes a long time for the vast mass of the ocean to heat up.

3. What is the "urban heat island effect" and is it contributing to warming?  

State of Fear characters suggest that the "urban heat island effect" may be responsible not only for heating in cities but also for global warming. They note that many long-term temperature stations are now surrounded by larger cities and could contribute to the warming seen in urban stations.  While amplified warming does occur in cities and is an important local phenomenon, cities occupy only a small fraction of the planet compared to the vast area of oceans, ice caps, uninhabited mountains, and rural landscapes.  Scientists are well aware and take measures to adjust for this effect so that the overall temperature trend is not biased. Temperature monitoring stations exist around the globe, on both land and sea, and we see a clear warming trend from many locations. Compared to the number of temperature stations for the U.S., it is clear that urban stations are a minor component of the U.S. temperature station network (Figure 2).  The IPCC (2001) stated that urban heat island effects could contribute no more than six percent of the rising average temperature trends in 1990, and a National Academy study of the surface temperature record concluded that the global surface temperature trend accurately reflects warming.

Figure 2.  Surface temperature station locations.

Figure source: Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) of the National Climatic Data Center  (NCDC) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ghcn/ofig3a.gif

Furthermore, temperature gauges are not the only way to measure temperature changes. Satellites operating since 1979 have monitored lower atmosphere (tropopause) temperature over the land and oceans. Although early satellite analyses indicated only a small amount of warming during this period, these early results overlooked a satellite sensor feature that we now know included cooling data from higher in the atmosphere.  Corrected for this error, the satellite measurements are now in good agreement with the global average surface temperature trends.  

4. Crichton argues that C02 in the atmosphere is not closely correlated with warming trends.  So why is C02 blamed as a greenhouse gas?

Over a century ago, scientists researching CO2 discovered that the earth's temperature is very sensitive to small changes in atmospheric CO2. Crichton's novel includes a graph showing the relationship between global average temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels between 1880 and 2003.  This graph shows a broad correlation between temperature and CO2, although some time periods do not match up.  A character in the novel asks, "So, if rising carbon dioxide is the cause of rising temperatures, why didn't it cause temperatures to rise from 1940 to 1970?"

The answer is that CO2 is only one of several factors that influence temperature, such as volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sulfur dioxide emissions (see Figure 1), and small changes in the earth's orbit. The combined impact of all effects was cooling for those middle decades of the 20th century. When climate scientists look at the entire last century, however, they are unable to explain the significant temperature increases solely from natural causes. Only when the trends for human-induced heat-trapping gases, sulfur dioxide emissions, soot, ozone, and land use changes are also included do the hindcast model results (Figure 3) and the recorded reality match up. This is particularly true of the pronounced warming that has occurred since 1970.

Figure 3. Best match is when natural and human-induced factors are combined.

Figure source: IPCC (2001)

5. Several times Crichton notes that glaciers are expanding not retreating.  Is this accurate or only part of the story?

Mr. Crichton picks evidence that supports his position and then sprinkles this data throughout the novel. He discusses the advance of many glaciers in Iceland and Norway, for example, while the evidence for accelerated melting of the major Greenland ice sheet is ignored. The rapid melting of the Kilimanjaro glacier is mentioned only to be dismissed. Crichton doesn't let the reader know, however, that this ice sheet has survived the past 11,000 years, including a 300 year long African mega-drought. At present rates of melting, Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier is likely to be gone before 2020.   Most other tropical glaciers studied are also undergoing unprecedented retreat, and big changes are also underway in Antarctica.  The Larsen B ice shelf, for example, broke up in 2002 in response to coastal warming, after having survived for more than 12,000 years. The precise mechanism responsible for these massive events is a matter of lively inquiry in the scientific literature, but the fact that they are all happening now that human activities have increased the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to a level not seen over the past 400,000 years, after having survived millennia, is powerful circumstantial evidence that should not be lightly dismissed.

6. Michael Crichton says we can't predict the future.  Does this preclude our taking steps to reduce heat trapping gas emissions?

By way of analogy, the occurrence of large earthquakes is also very difficult to predict. Just because we can't predict when the next big earthquake in California will occur, should we stop building earthquake-resistant buildings?  The IPCC projects that global temperatures will increase anywhere from +2.5°F to +10.4°F (+1.4°C to +5.8°C) by century's end. Scientists show a range of temperature changes, rather than a single number, for a couple of different reasons: (i) imperfect knowledge about certain climate processes, such as cloud feedbacks  and (ii) different assumptions about how much CO2 and other pollutants people will put into the atmosphere.  These different hypotheses regarding the spread of temperature due to reason (i) are not just "guesses" as Crichton claims, but are constrained by fundamental physical principles and are tested against a challenging array of test cases drawn from the present and past climate of the Earth.  The temperature spread attributed to reason (ii) arises from suppositions regarding factors such as population growth, fossil-fuel emissions, and economic and technological developments.  The results provide a range of possible outcomes for policy makers to evaluate. For example, decision makers already have a good idea what will happen if no action to reduce CO2 emissions is taken: the "business as usual" scenario shows significant increases in temperature and changes in precipitation, leading to serious impacts over the next century. 

Since a large portion of the projected range in temperature increases are based on human actions, the good news is that the future is in our hands.  We have the opportunity right now to make choices for the future that will avoid the worst climate change impacts from occurring.

7. Why do we have to act now to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels?

Global warming from CO2 build-up in the atmosphere is different from other pollution problems society has faced. The CO2emissions we release today very literally will determine the climate we leave to our children and future generations. This is because CO2 is very long-lived in the atmosphere. You may have heard that each CO2 molecule that we emit from burning fossil fuels in our cars and power plants will remain in the atmosphere between 50 to 200 years. The more complex explanation is even more sobering — carbon cycle models indicate that ~25 percent of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years, and ~7 percent longer than one hundred thousand years. 

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are already at unprecedented levels and the consequences of a changing climate are already underway.  If we wish to prevent the most severe climate change projections from actually happening, we must reverse the heat-trapping emissions trend as quickly as possible. The progressive accumulation of atmospheric CO2, however, becomes more difficult and costly to reverse as time goes on.

Current solutions exist that can be implemented now—we don't need to wait or to rely on unknown future technological developments.  Many large corporations have already reported substantial savings after they instituted measures to reduce heat-trapping gas (greenhouse gas) emissions. Recently, DuPont reported $2 billion and IBM $791 million in savings from reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  We can harness new technology as it develops, but there is no reason to delay implementation of currently available technologies, such as producing electricity with wind and solar power, improving building energy efficiency, and getting better gas mileage in our vehicles.

References:

Archer, D., H. Kheshgi, and E. Maier-Reimer, Dynamics of fossil fuel CO2 neutralization by marine CaCO3, Global Biogeochemal Cycles, 12, 259-276, 1998.

Archer, D., H. Kheshgi, and E. Maier-Riemer, Multiple timescales for neutralization of fossil fuel CO2, Geophysical Research Letters, 24, 405-408, 1997.

EPA (2002), Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 -2000, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs, EPA 430-R-02-003, http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

EPA (2000) http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ ClimateTrendsTemperature.html

Epstein, P.R. and J.J. McCarthy, (2004).  Assessing Climate Stability, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 85, 1863-1870.

Fu, Q., C.M. Johanson, S.G. Warren, and D.J. Seidel (2004a) Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends, Nature 429, 55-58.

IPCC (2001), Climate Change 2001: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report.

Low-carbon leaders: Profiting from emission reductions, Environmental Finance, December 2004 – January 2005 issue, Fulton Publishing, London.

NAS panel (2000): Reconciling observations of global temperature change.
National Academy Press.

Oreskes, N. (2004) The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science, 306, 1686

Schiermeier, Q (2004) A rising tide. Nature 428, 114-115.

Thompson L.G., E. Mosley-Thompson, M.E. Davis, K. A. Henderson, H. H. Brecher, V.S. Zagorodnov, T. A. Mashiotta, P-N. Lin, V.N. Mikhalenko, D. R. Hardy, and J. Beer (2002)  Kilimanjaro ice core records: Evidence of Holocene climate change in tropical Africa,  Science 298, 589-593.

Zwally, H.J., W. Abdalati, T. Herring, K. Larson, J. Saba, and K. Steffen, (2002).  Surface melt-induced acceleration of Greenland ice-sheet flow. Science, 297, 218-222.

Additional resources:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/sandalow20050128.htm (Michael Crichton and Global Warming by David Sandalow, The Brookings Institution)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74 (RealClimate.org posting December 13, 2004: Michael Crichton's State of Confusion)