Comments from Arthur Rorsch and Richard Courtney

Comments from Arthur Rorsch and Richard Courtney.

From Arthur Rorsch on 11 June 2006

Dear Peter Stilbs:

It seems that few supporters of the IPCC position on Climate Change have shown interest to participate in the meeting to be held in Stockholm in September. Some have put messages on the web site (http://gamma.physchem.kth.se/~climate/) saying they think the Stockholm meeting is flawed. But their messages suggest to me that they misunderstand the basic controversies in the climate change issue.

Their messages say there is a large consensus among the majority of climate scientists, and this consensus supports the IPCC’s view that CO₂ from anthropogenic origin is affecting the climate. This may be correct, but I think we can observe a growing number of scientists (both inside and outside the field of climate science) who are not convinced of the IPCC’s conclusions and who are very critical of the scientific methods used in climate science.

A significant number of climate scientists and meteorologists are not part of the pro-IPCC consensus and they present arguments and empirical evidence that dispute the IPCC’s view. Also, scientists from related disciplines in the earth and astronomical sciences present arguments and evidence that dispute the IPCC’s view. Furthermore, the IPCC’s conclusions are disputed by a much larger group of natural scientists working in other disciplines (e.g., process engineering) who have great experience with similar methods to those used by the IPCC (e.g., application of computer modeling of complex processes for 'projections').

Supporters of the IPCC’s view (both inside and outside the field of climate science) communicate the IPCC’s conclusions to politicians, media and the public at large. Meanwhile, opponents of the IPCC’s view (both inside and outside the field of climate science) also attempt to communicate their conclusions but lack the resources of the IPCC. There are several examples to demonstrate that these groups attempt to undermine the scientific credibility of each other.

This situation threatens the respectability of science as a whole.

But who is to blame for that, the supporter or the opponents of the IPCC’s view? It seems that both are likely to continue reproaching each other.

The opponents of the IPCC’s view are not likely to cease their activities. They are driven by the 'belief' that they are acting on behalf of ‘science’ because they believe? The progress of ‘science’ is hampered when a group of scientists take refuge in a consensus culture. Therefore, the opponents of the IPCC’s view will continue their activities until supporters of the IPCC view prove their scientific arguments to be right and the scientific arguments of their opponents to be wrong.

Apparently the supporters of the IPCC view are avoiding participation in the Stockholm meeting. This suggests that they do not want to solve the problem by proving that their scientific arguments are right and the scientific arguments of their opponents are wrong. Also, their avoidance of participation in the meeting is an insult to the scientists in other disciplines and this insult could feed their disdain for supporters of the IPCC view. So, the controversies may escalate. To prevent this escalation, supporters of the IPCC view are urged not to show this disdain for the opponents of their views and to keep to the proper rules of the 'scientific method' they admire and advocate.

If few supporters of the IPCC view attend the Stockholm meeting then the result could be that opponents of the IPCC view may produce an alternative Summary for Policymakers similar to that being produced by the IPCC but which contradicts the IPCC view.

It cannot be denied that such an alternative summary may have relatively little impact because the IPCC assessment will be the official assessment and will be based on a consensus among a large number of experts. However, the opponents of the IPCC view 'believe' that numbers of supporters is not 'proof' of which assessment is better although policymakers would be influenced by the apparent degree of support for each assessment. However, policymakers are also likely to be influenced by the clarity of arguments and evidence that an alternative summary contains.

It is most unlikely that the two days of the Stockholm meeting can cover the whole range of climate issues, whereas the IPCC has been studying these during an entire year and has already produced a draft of its official summary.

The present proposal for the conference is:

1. Climate history- what do we know about climate variations and how do we know them?

2. Recent and current climate-related scientific data, their sources, accuracy and validity

3. What influences weather and climate? How feasible is climate modeling?

4. Panel discussion: What does scientific uncertainty about climate variations mean for climate policy?

One may wonder whether the three first subjects, could be dealt with in sufficient depth in two days. (Most probably the proposal for these subjects arose from the idea that it would be proper not to start from a consideration of CO₂ induced radiative forcing.)

An alternative approach for the meeting could be to focus attention in the oral presentations on only two basic subjects and to present the other subjects in poster-sessions. These poster-sessions would demonstrate that the problem of climate change can be considered with a more open mind than is presented in the current reports of IPCC working groups.

If this alternative were adopted then the two oral presentations should each be on a subject that is the basis of the scientific disagreements between supporters and opponents of the IPCC view. I suggest the subjects should be:

A.. The validity of computer modeling of climate change using the currently available empirical data and understanding of the 'first physical principles' at work.
B. The understanding of the greenhouse effect, caused by radiative forcing of CO₂ and H₂0, and its modification of it by moist adiabatic convection at the surface and clouds in the atmosphere.

It should be possible to find a climate modeler to explain the basis of the models, and an expert in modeling from another field to raises the fundamental doubts concerning the applications.

Similarly, a supporter of the IPCC view could explain the IPCC’s view on the GH-effect and e.g., Lindzen could explain his (well known) alternative view.

Four speakers, on one day would suffice to bring into the open the major difference in opinion. The second day could be devoted to the poster session and a general discussion.

Kind regards,
Arthur Rorsch, The Netherlands.

A response from Richard S Courtney on 12 Jun 2006 to Arthur Rorsch’s message of 11 June 2006

Dear Arthur and Peter:

I agree with much of Arthur Rorsch’s comments concerning the Stockholm meeting, especially his assertion that the controversies need to be resolved and not escalated. And I agree with him that two days is not sufficient time to deal with all these issues in sufficient depth. However, I am concerned that his proposals may increase the problems and not assuage them.

I have three concerns at Arthur’s suggestions. Firstly, I think Arthur’s suggestion for two ‘head-to-head’ debates could dissuade supporters of the IPCC view from attending the meeting. Secondly, the suggested ‘head-to-head’ debates could encourage confrontation instead of the needed mutual exploration of the sources of the scientific disagreements. And, thirdly, his two suggested subjects for debate do not include the subject that I think is most important to the controversy.

At present, the IPCC has resources and interaction with policymakers that are desired by opponents of the IPCC view. Therefore, supporters of the IPCC view have nothing to gain from a ‘head-to-head’ confrontation but could lose some influence as a result of such confrontation. It is not clear why they would want to accept that risk.

Also, in scientific disputes both ‘sides’ are usually right to some degree and wrong to some degree. Challenge of the other ‘side’s’ views is useful to highlight the nature of the disagreement, but once that challenge has been made then co-operation to resolve the disagreements is usually useful. The suggested ‘head-to-head’ debates would provide the highlight but discourage the needed subsequent co-operation (people could be encouraged to 'dig-their-heels-in'. This could exacerbate the difficulties between supporters and opponents of the IPCC view that Arthur accurately describes.

And the only two issues that Arthur suggests for debate are:

But all support and opposition to the IPCC’s conclusions is affected by the uncertainties of the climate ‘projections’. These uncertainties are most clearly exemplified by the issue of whether or not the recent rise in atmospheric CO₂ concentration is anthropogenic.

Hence, I want the meeting to discuss the assumption (e.g. by IPCC) that the recent rise in atmospheric CO₂ concentration is anthropogenic. The rise may be anthropogenic, but other more likely causes of the rise are also possible. And if the rise is not anthropogenic then considerations of anthropogenic global climate change induced by anthropogenic CO₂ emissions and Arthur's points A and B (above) become of little relevance to the IPCC's conclusions.

All the best

Richard

Comment by Peter Stilbs: Thanks for the wise and constructive comments above – the (compromise) meeting agenda and format were set within a bigger organizing group many months ago, however. Due to time and other constraints it seems difficult to change or adjust much at this point in time. I do not really have the mandate to do that to any great extent. Perhaps we can learn for the future from experience gained here.