Greenhouse Computer Modelling

The general public's perception of the greenhouse debate rests upon some pretty shaky science and some fairly impressive if flawed computer modelling. The science of atmospheric temperature and the earth's climate is fairly well understood.

Dividing the discipline into theoretical and empirical divides we have a solid theoretical model of atmospheric circulation that is well understood and applied to short-term weather forecasting with increasing confidence over periods of several days. The computer models are seeded with actual measurements of surface and air temperature, pressure and moisture content with assumptions about dry and wet adiabatic lapse rates in order to model the temperature drop as air rises through the process of atmospheric circulation.

There is unjustified confidence among a circle of environmental and atmospheric scientists who are willing to extrapolate the results of such modelling to extended periods of time. This wiki page recalls the surprise of Edward Lorenz that small changes in initial conditions produced large changes in the long-term outcome of his computer simulations for weather prediction. The book Chaos: Making a New Science by James Gleick gives a wonderfully readable exposition of the history and meaning of chaos science.

When the issue of global warming is raised in the workplace I feel obliged, as an engineer and physicist, to raise the issue of proper science versus pseudo-science. As an example of the latter, the movie An Inconvenient Truth should not be screened as an education resource in schools or corporations nor should we generally encourage its viewing. (Perhaps in time it will be seen as the parody it is.)

There is much evidence to debunk the myth, if not of global warming, of An Inconvenient Truth. Two easy links from a quick Google search: The first presenting the scientific basis for atmospheric warming and mean planetary temperatures; the second a political reason for Al Gore's movie that reproduces arguments and conclusions that are contrary to scientific reasoning.

I note that the scientific method prevents us from drawing proper conclusions from limited temperature data and computer simulations of the weather. The scientific method involves fitting empirical data to a theory however a few reasonable assumptions usually apply, namely that the experiment is repeatable, that the theory both fits the data and makes testable predictions, and that a superior theory in explaining the phenomena measured will supersede its predecessor theories.

The great divide between Popper and Kuhn on the philosophical basis of contemporary science applies with a twist. The debate about the nature of the development of scientific truth is usually understood to evolve from the scientific community engaging in Popper's critical rationalism in execution of their research. Kuhn believes that scientists work in a series of paradigms rather than actually following, as espoused by Popper, a falsificationist methodology. It appears that the greenhouse debate falls squarely into this camp as being an accepted theory, a paradigm of scientists that matches the zeitgeist - the spirit of the times.

While nobody seriously denies that environment action is needed in order to make the most of our limited natural resources and to preserve these resources, and indeed the livability of our planet, for future generations it is a stretch to assume that such a belief applies to all aspects of our human interaction with the planet. The science that we know from facts that have been routinely collated for decades from studies of weather and long-term climate is extraordinary in its clarity and lack of ambiguity that there is not what is popularly known and the greenhouse effect that leads to runaway heating of the earth's atmosphere as a result of human behaviour.

As an aside, note that a while back cold fusion was a similarly controversial issue, if less enduring in the media. In summary, most of the early studies into cold fusion are widely believed to be cases of scientific fraud or just poor science; there isn't any reliable evidence for cold fusion as a viable energy source; current physics cannot explain cold fusion; funded research continues nevertheless.

Just as a liar often continues to dig a deeper hole for himself before being found out it appears that the current saga of lies and untruths about the environment are set to continue for some time yet. The case of SCO v IBM presents another case study into the sort of perverse behaviour that takes place when an aggrieved party that bases its case, in this instance formally in a court of law, on a stretch of misunderstanding (being kind) and rather than backing down continues to fight a nonsense cause that will finally cause its apocalyptic downfall.

In these cases reputations have been tarnished or destroyed but the record has largely been set straight and it is equally certain that the climate debate will eventually return to normality. Some people will continue to believe there is some kind of global conspiracy to suppress their own favourite, nonscientific idea but in truth it is highly unlikely to be the case. Does anyone still believe that oil and car companies suppressed advanced hydrogen technologies decades ago in order to protect their profitable oligopolies?

For years it seemed plausible however these same companies are racing to develop alternative energy supplies, including green and renewable energy sources, because oil supplies are dwindling. If not in 40 years or 100 years the recoverable reserves will dwindle as there is only a finite amount of accessible oil even with improvements in technology for oil recovery. The key point is that about now it appears that more money can be made from renewable and alternative energy sources yet the multinational companies that in some circles purportedly suppressed those advanced technologies cannot, against all rationality, now find them again.

Conspiracy theories aside, where does our moral and ethical position stand on this kind of issue? Is it proper for someone to promote a theory they believe to be for the greater good when they know that theory to be flawed? How about if they hold a reasonable belief in the theory without proper justification?

In the first case, there is scientific fraud and a kind of personal conceit that beggars belief. In the latter case, we again have the same sort of intellectual laziness that William Clifford railed against. Public trust in the scientific establishment has always been one that ebbs and flows, increasing trust and respect as people become more educated and declining when seeming advances lead, in war for example, to widespread unhappiness and distress.

While I believe environmental action is well within the scope of directors and officers acting with a proper purpose (eg. management of reputational risk) I am unsure where a corporation should stand with regard to social responsibility in consideration of staff, customers, the general community and our kids understanding of basic science.

For example, the hockey stick graph - smoothing the Medieval Warm Period - that has so badly humiliated many right-minded members of the IPCC and damaged its standing features prominently in An Inconvenient Truth and even more so in the public consciousness. Such distortions and convenient mistruths to push one line of thinking are quite damaging to trust and serve to close down alternate lines of enquiry.

Surely we can do better than this to stimulate and encourage public debate on this and a range of other issues. The truth based on a rational, scientific approach is the minimum the public deserves on the issue of climate change and other important issues like education and health care.