Thirty eight scientists, with expertise and who actually research climate change, address the Wall Street Journal.

“Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations. ” (read the rest here.)

The Wall Street Journal published an “Opinion” on January 27, entitled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming“, with sub-title “There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.” The article has 16 signatories, claimed by the editor to be scientists. The piece itself is a whiny, soap opera-type yarn detailing the horrors supposedly faced by the “growing” number of scientists who disagree with: the overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that global warming is ongoing, and that it is primarily the result of human greenhouse gas emissions. The story rambles from that of Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics who resigned from the American Physical Society in disgust at its embrace of the global warming consensus, to the lack of warming over the past decade (never mind measurement to the contrary), to a defence of carbon dioxide as “not a pollutant” (reminds me of Arnold in that movie with the kids). One could spend some time picking at these well-worn stories for their personal myopia, abuse and distortion of empirical data, and reliance on public misunderstandings of greenhouse gases, but I don’t have time for that. Instead, what I would like to take issue with is the notion, promoted by that Wall Street Journal, that the signatories represent, in any way, an august body of sixteen. Who are these signatories anyway, and how should they be received? As expected, the qualification of the group is dubious (I’m being generous here) and most of the members are absolutely not qualified to issue a scientific opinion of any weight regarding climate change. Some, however, are quite qualified. So what I did was to devise a very crude and simple scoring system to help you to sort them out. Scores are based on whether a signatory has: (1) a Ph.D. (yes, sorry folks, but it really does help to have one), (2) a Ph.D. in a science directly related to climate change (e.g. Meteorology, Geology, Oceanography), (3) a Ph.D. indirectly related to climate change (e.g. Ecology, many areas of Physics, Mathematics), (4) holds or has held a position requiring the conduct of original research, (5) holds or has held a position requiring the conduct of original research into climate change, (6) published research on climate change in a peer-reviewed journal within the past 10 years, and (7) has published any research in the past 10 years. The maximum score possible is 8, but realistically, with most individuals earning a single Ph.D., it’s 7. Here’s how they stacked up:

• Claude Allegre – 4
• J. Scott Armstrong – 3
• Jan Breslow – 3
• Roger W. Cohen – 2 (being a big cheese in Exxon earns you no extra points)
• Edward David – 3
• William Happer – 4
• Michael Kelly – 6 (finally, someone actually qualified to say something!)
• William Kininmonth – 3
• Richard Lindzen – 7 (yes, quite qualified it seems)
• James McGrath – 4
• Rodney Nichols – 1 (and I am being very generous here)
• Burt Rutan – 0 (generosity has its limits)
• Harrison Schmitt – 3
• Nir Shaviv – 4
• Henk Tennekes – 6 (qualified)
• Antonio Zichichi – 4

What should we make of this? In my opinion, this is a list of 3 (folks ranked 6-7). I must question their judgement, however, based on the company that they have chosen to keep, but to each his/her own. (Oh wait, no women are on the list, but this is science after all). I’m not sure how to judge the significance of the rankings, since that would require a lot of random selecting and leg work on my part, and I do have a day job. But just for fun, I applied the scoring to that old lightning rod, Michael Mann, and myself (shoot away).

• Michael Mann – 7 (I would hope so!)
• Peter Roopnarine – 6 (I dabble)

NASA’s GISS has now concluded that year 2011 was the ninth warmest year on record, globally, since the modern meteorological record was started in the 1880′s. This continues a trend of the warmest years on the record accumulating in the most recent decades. I am now personally comfortable recognizing that we are well past the point of possible coincidence. You can refer to my earlier post on this. The Earth is on a definite warming trend, and it is probable, again in my opinion, that the most recent increases in weather variance are early indicators of shifting states of regional climates. Take a moment to watch NASA’s excellent video.

The following is a presentation that I gave at The GLOBAL WARNING symposium, organized by ZER01: The Art and Technology Network, the City of San Jose Public Art Program and CADRE Laboratory for New Media at San Jose State University in collaboration with LEONARDO/ISAST, with additional support from the Montalvo Arts Center in September, 2010. Full details can be found here. The presentation was motivated by the somewhat widely held opinion that uncertainty in science, and especially the issue of current global warming and climate change, is something which should not be communicated to the broader public. I do not hold that opinion, and here I try to explain why I both personally, and as a scientist, choose to embrace uncertainty in my everyday life.

Indigenous populations are especially vulnerable to the effects of global climate change. A new research project aims to help them adapt. (From The Scientist. Read more here)

TOMORROW, September 14th, a global online event to educate about the reality of climate change. Please take the time to tune in here. Read the project description below, and view the video for a preview.

24 Presenters. 24 Time Zones. 13 Languages. 1 Message. 24 Hours of Reality is a worldwide event to broadcast the reality of the climate crisis. It will consist of a new multimedia presentation created by Al Gore and delivered once per hour for 24 hours, representing every time zone around the globe. Each hour people living with the reality of climate change will connect the dots between recent extreme weather events — including floods, droughts and storms — and the manmade pollution that is changing our climate. We will offer a round-the-clock, round-the-globe snapshot of the climate crisis in real time. The deniers may have millions of dollars to spend, but we have a powerful advantage. We have reality.

Arctic sea routes open as ice melts

“Whether we reach an absolute minimum or not, this year again confirms that we are in a new regime with substantially less summer ice than before.”

When people think of batiks, many probably think of psychedelic wall hangings made in crafts class or at summer camp. They haven’t seen Mary Edna Fraser’s work. (read more…)

From Crave, the gadget blog from CNET.

The Royal Navy was taught to be very thorough during World War I. At sea, despite battles and storms, they recorded the weather every four hours dutifully into logbooks.

Posting an oldie, but it’s a good story!

The San Francisco Bay may soon feel the effects of sea level rise.