Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Prominent Scientist Says Climate "Forecasts Are Political, Not Scientific"

The following is an essay by a very prominent biological Professor, Scientist, and author, Dr. Daniel Botkin. Note that he is not a "climatologist", or a meteorologist, but he has studied, observed, and reported on life in many forms and how it responds to climate change. He explains how and why he is disturbed and highly skeptical of how modern computer climate models are being used for political purposes, to influence and control public behavior. He is concerned about science being mis-used, and he is worried about how this will impact society.

I wish he would express his distaste for the hype and hysteria surrounding the man-caused global warming issue more strongly, but even someone with his impeccable credentials apparently dare not rock the boat too much. Heaven forbid, he might be labelled a "denier".

Daniel Botkin has been a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara since 1979. Currently Dan is Professor Emeritus, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara. Called one of the one of the preeminent ecologists of the 20th century.” (see http://egj.lib.uidaho.edu/egj19/short1.html ). he has been on the faculty of UCSB since 1979; for six years he was chairman of the University’s Environmental Studies Program. He is also President and Founder of The Center for the Study of the Environment, A Non-Profit Research and Educational Corporation.


Science and soothsaying
Published originally in the International Herald TribuneDecember 28, 2007
by Daniel B. Botkin
Now that the Bali conference is over and climate scientists have warned us again about the dire predictions of their climate models, a question remains: Will their forecasts come true? Given the current international focus on global warming, you would think that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, many people will want to know whether today’s predictions proved accurate.

But, in fact, people rarely look back to see if their old forecasts were on the mark. Foretelling the future has always been difficult and almost always wrong. Charles Mackay, in his wonderful 1841 book “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,” observes that the so-called necromancers of earlier centuries who purported to divine the future were grouped with the worst alchemists. Today, however, computers seem to have undermined our natural skepticism. Many of us put our faith in complex software that most of us cannot understand.

My own experience makes me skeptical of how environmental forecasting is being used. In 1991, several colleagues and I drew national and international attention when we used a computer model to forecast possible effects of global warming on an endangered species. Our computer program forecast that the Kirtland’s warbler, the first songbird in America ever subjected to a complete census, would likely face extinction by 2010. Its habitat, jack pine trees, would be unable to thrive in conditions that climate computer programs forecast for southern Michigan, the only place and only trees where the bird nested.

The computer told us these declines should be measurable even in the year we made the forecast. We suggested that measurements of jack pine growth be started to verify the forecasts and to see whether the potential effects of global warming on the diversity of life were actually occurring. People could have started going to southern Michigan to check out our forecasts 16 years ago. Nobody did. I tried to get funding to do this, but no government agency or private foundation was interested.

Even today, amid the furor over global warming, no one is rushing out to verify that it does indeed threaten the Michigan jack pine. (But, happily, independent action by the government, the Audubon Society and private individuals has brought the Kirtland’s warbler back from the brink of extinction.)

What could explain the lack of interest in verifying a dated computer forecast? After all, computer forecasts are the basis for the current alarm. Did people perhaps decide that a 16-year-old forecast had to have been based on inferior methods?

But wait a minute. Given the usual progress of science, won’t forecasting methods in the future always be better than in the past? What this suggests is that today the primary uses of, and interest in, such forecasts are political, not scientific - that scientists as well as politicians are using forecasts for political and ideological purposes to influence public behavior here and now.
The question is not really whether the forecasts are scientifically valid, but how much impetus they can provide to influence society.

It wasn’t always this way. In the 1960s, when research into global warming was just beginning, it seemed impossible that people could change the global environment; the Earth was just too big. Charles Lyell, the father of modern geology, considered the possibility in detail in the mid-19th century and decided it was impossible because the mass of living things amounted to less than a drop in the bucket compared to the weight of all the materials in the oceans, atmosphere, soil and rocks.

In the 1970s, however, scientists began to realize that life had in fact greatly changed the Earth’s environment, starting more than a billion years ago. At the same time, evidence was building that burning fossil fuels was increasing the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. In 1957, Charles Keeling began the first continuous measurements to study carbon-dioxide change over time at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. By 1973, he reported at a landmark conference at Brookhaven National Laboratory on “Carbon and the Biosphere” that carbon dioxide showed a definite increase in 15 years, consistent with releases from burning fossil fuels. For those of us working on these issues, the scientific and environmental implications were vast.

Global environmental change began to become a political issue in the 1980s. Climatologists and astrophysicists showed that a nuclear war could put so much dust in the air that disastrous cooling would occur, the infamous nuclear winter. With the end of the Cold War, the focus shifted to global warming. At that time, climatologists explained that their computer models were crude approximations of the real atmosphere and pushed the limit of computer technology, requiring months of computing for a single simulation. You could accept either the results of these crude models or the less-formal projections by the most experienced meteorologists. The primary focus continued to be on the implications of what we knew.

In 1988, in a move that marked a shift to the politicization of forecasts, Congress asked the Environmental Protection Agency to report on the potential effects of global warming. Computer forecasting became much more complex; output from the huge climate models became input into ecological models. My projection for the little warbler was part of that work. The attempt was to be more realistic, but the result was that forecasts became more difficult to verify and also more alarming, thus drawing more and more public attention.

Thinking over this history, I see three primary uses of environmental computer forecasts: to understand the implications of what we know (Can living things change the global environment?); to know the future; and to influence public behavior. Only the first can be strictly scientific. The third is wandering farther and farther away from science.

Since proving the validity of long-term forecasts is difficult and the ultimate tests would take years, and since many scientists are alarmed at the dire scenarios, my colleagues are beginning to talk about whether it is O.K. to exaggerate and push forecasts that are not currently provable if the only way to get societies to act is to frighten people. I think it is not O.K. It is a short-term view, and even if it works, it will inevitably debase science and scientists.

Soothsayers have always tried to persuade people that they could predict the future. What is new today is that the incredibly powerful tools of science - nuclear weapons, flights to the moon, computers, iPods - have such huge implications for civilization that they may contain the seeds of their own destruction.

Thirty years from now, we will probably not be interested in today’s specific computer forecasts, but we may have lost our faith in science, a deeper and, to me, a more important problem.
Additional information about the Kirtland’s warbler forecast:
The scientific paper for the original forecast is:
Botkin, D. B., D. A. Woodby, and R. A. Nisbet, 1991, Kirtland’s Warbler Habitats: A Possible Early Indicator of Climatic Warming, Biological Conservation 56 (1): 63-78.
Those interested in the forecasting method can download the computer model of forest growth, JABOWA, from website www.naturestudy.org and play around with it. The software is pretty easy to use, and you can grow your own forest, log it, test it against various global warming climate regimes, etc. It isn’t as sophisticated a computer game as you can get today, but it is ecologically realistic and is used in research around the world.
And if you really want to get into the science part of this in depth, there are other scientific papers, including:
Botkin, D. B., and R. A. Nisbet, 1992, Forest response to climatic change: effects of parameter estimation and choice of weather patterns on the reliability of projections, Climatic Change 20: 87-111.
Botkin, D. B. and R. A. Nisbet, 1992, Projecting the effects of climate change on biological diversity in forests, pp. 277 - 293 in R. Peters and T. Lovejoy, (Eds.) Consequences of the Greenhouse Effect for Biological Diversity, Yale University Press, New Haven.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I like this guy a lot. He’s believable and, incredibly, he constrains his commentary and analysis to his own field of study, biology. So while I may be more inclined to listen to, say, James Hansen on the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere itself, I am very interested to read what Botkin has to say about the effects of potential global climate change on planet Earth lifeforms. Especially convincing is the fact that Botkin has worked in the past with predictive computer models and can point out the weakness of trying to predict complex systems. But what I like best about him is his levelheadedness. He sticks to biology and he maintains a very clear head (plus he did his doctoral work at your same “public ivy,” Pete). On his website he publishes a list of ideals for the climate debate.

His first dictum:
“Objective analysis of environmental issues.”

Hmmm…it’s that first word “objective” that I think carries the weight of the statement, don’t you think, Pete? “Objective.” Say it slow. “Ooooob-jec-tiiive.” Nice ring to it. No wonder you like this guy so well, Pete, he’s “objective.” That’s nice to hear in a debate where so many people are frankly and unapologetically irrational and political to the point of being sectarian.

In “Global Warming Delusions,” an article published in the Wall Street Journal, Botkin delves into the exaggerations about biodiversity – the net effect global warming (should it even happen) will have on the number of animals or flora which go extinct. Botkin points out that, despite dramatic climate changes in the past, biodiversity remains largely unchanged in these periods of swing.

Does he dismiss global warming out of hang? Nope.

In fact, he delivers a beautiful credo for all of us concerning the debate:

“Should we therefore dismiss global warming? Of course not. But we should make a realistic assessment, as rationally as possible, about its cultural, economic and environmental effects.”

That’s so nice I think I’ll write that again:

“Should we therefore dismiss global warming? Of course not. But we should make a realistic assessment, as rationally as possible, about its cultural, economic and environmental effects.”

Gosh that’s nice. Let me write that again:

“Should we therefore dismiss global warming? Of course not. But we should make a realistic assessment, as rationally as possible, about its cultural, economic and environmental effects.”

Botkin’s a good one, Pete, a keeper. You can take him home to meet mom and dad.