In his blog post IPCC “Explains” the Greenhouse Effect, Steve McIntyre critiques the IPCC (2007) FAQ that explains the greenhouse effect. He claims that “…the answer does not rise about a primary school level and can hardly be considered an adequate answer to the question.”

Firstly, make note that he does not dispute that the greenhouse effect is real. It is, and it results from the optical properties of the gas at different wavelengths. There were some commenters on McIntyre’s post that disagreed that the greenhouse effect was a real phenomenon. I would suggest that they read the first chapter of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation by Craig Bohren and Eugene Clothiaux; ISBN: 0-471-29340-7 (yes, that Bohren). Note: there are other texts that explain the greenhouse effect; I chose this text to recommend because of the author’s skepticism of other IPCC conclusions.

When explaining anything to anyone it is important speak to their current level of knowledge. If I go to a 4th grade classroom and I wanted to explain lightning to them I would not bring notes with lots of equations and citations to the primary literature. To do so would be a waste of time. Instead, I would draw cartoonish pictures on the board and use a qualitative way of describing it using small, easy to understand words.

If I was to present this to a group of scientists not involved in lightning research, I may again start with a cartoon. But the presentation would inevitably contain at least some equations and citations. If the presentation was to a group of lighting experts, the cartoons would likely, but not necessarily, vanish and the talk would contain much more quantitaive information. (I am not a lightning expert. It was only used as an example.)

The next step is evaluating the level at which the authors were writing. Since I was not one of the authors, I do not know exactly for whom they were writing, but it shouldn’t be difficult to tell. McIntrye himself gives us the answer: “We simply get a grade school brochure without references.” If we look at the entire FAQ, there are a total of 17 figures. Of those, I would consider 4 to be extremely cartoonish. There are 5 citiations; 3 to primary sources and the remaining 2 to other IPCC reports. All 5 were from figures and not in the text. There are 0 (zero) equations.

McIntyre was correct in his diagnosis that the answer to the FAQ about the greenhouse effect was written as a “grade school brochure”. By examination of the document, I would argue that this was it’s purpose. The answers provided in this document are presented in a way that the average adult citizen of the World with a secondary-level education would understand. Those expecting to find a more detailed examination of the greenhouse effect should look elsewhere. In my view this brochure is not intended for readers with more than a cursory interest in climate change.

This is not to say that the greenhouse effect FAQ answer is perfect even for it’s target audience. For instance, “[t]hus, Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible.” This just isn’t true. Most of the lifeforms that we are familiar with may have adapted so that the natural greenhouse effect is now a necessity. But that doesn’t mean that all life on Earth is dependent upon the natural greenhouse effect. We have known since 1977 that there is “abundant and unusual sea life — giant tube worms, huge clams, and mussels — that thrived around the hot springs [thermal vents at the spreading centers of mid-oceanic ridges].”

At the end of the post, McIntyre writes, “[t]he general public should not be required to wade through Goody and Yung at a university library to get an explanation.” I don’t think the general public would be able to understand Goody and Yung, but they don’t have to trudge over to the good-old university library to wade through it. Relevent portions of it are online.

Reference:

IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Related Posts:

Trackback URI |