Review of a recent “steel man” debate about AGW between Clifford Saunders and Jack Dale

Two papers were discussed by two LinkedIn members, Jack Dale and Clifford Saunders, in a way that was agreed between them was to be a “steel man” approach, such that each would select a paper for the other to try to summarise and strengthen using, as far as possible, the other’s line of argument about that paper.  For example, an AGW advocate would summarise and strengthen an AGW-dismissive argument from the paper selected by that AGW dismissive, and an AGW dismissive would summarise and strengthen an AGW argument from the paper selected by that AGW advocate.

Clifford Saunders chose the following 2015 paper for Jack Dale to summarise and strengthen:
 
Morner (2015) “The Approaching New Grand Solar Minimum and Little Ice Age Climate Conditions” -   Natural Science Vol.07 No.11(2015), Article ID:61284,9 pages
10.4236/ns.2015.711052
 
Jack Dale chose the following 2016 paper for Clifford Saunders to summarise and strengthen:
Dunne et al (2016) “Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements” -  SCIENCE VOLUME 354| ISSUE 6316| 2 DEC 2016
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaf2649
The CERN paper can also be found here:
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/107269/1/Global%20atmospheric%20particle%20formation.pdf
 [correction - see footnote below, which explains that, in fact, Clifford Saunders also selected this paper, so that Clifford Saunders chose both papers to be reviewed]
 
The relevant interactions between Clifford Saunders and Jack Dale started here:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dr-clifford-saunders-9a7990234_global-atmospheric-particle-formation-from-activity-6950408640486903809--kgB/?utm_source=linkedin_share&utm_medium=member_desktop_web
 
and continued here:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dr-clifford-saunders-9a7990234_update-i-am-having-scientific-exchange-of-activity-6952518465463173120-_DV3?utm_source=linkedin_share&utm_medium=member_desktop_web
 
 
The steel man process is fine, as far as it goes and as far as it relates to a private interaction between the two individuals engaging in it, and assuming they both have a genuine desire to understand each other’s reasoning and viewpoints better.
 
 
 
 
But what happens when such a dialogue is shared in a public channel such as LinkedIn?  In that case, it’s important to consider the likely perceptions of the “audiences” witnessing the relevant interactions.

1. There is a risk of “false balance” – ie onlookers perceiving that the topic being debated (eg AGW) is less certain that it actually is.  In 2018 the BBC, aware of this risk, changed its editorial policy on AGW, to reduce the risk of false balance.  See a Carbon Brief article about this here:  https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change/
2. The selection of the papers to be used in the steel man debate are clearly much more important in a debate held “in public” (or at least with an audience) rather than one held in private , because the papers form the vast majority of the subject matter to be debated.  With only 2 papers selected, they can only represent a tiny fraction of the scientific knowledge about, eg, AGW or related scientific matters.  So, even if one paper was pro-AGW and one was AGW-dismissive or AGW-skeptical, this in itself might create a perception of “false balance” – a “balance” which doesn’t, in fact, exist
3. The steel man argument doesn’t, on the face of it, enable the quality, credibility, evidence-base, logicality, causality and relevance of each paper to AGW to be debated, because those are not its core purpose.  These important aspects of critical appraisal are largely absent in the steel man process, in order for people with very different views to try to use and reflect the others’ line of reasoning (and strengthen it) rather than to critically appraise it (the latter of which might well tend to lead to negative appraisal and weakening of the representation of the other’s view rather than reflecting it as that other person would do and strengthening it).
4. There is a risk of one of the two participants not acting in good faith, and using the process simply to try to strengthen their argument (in fact, using the other party to do this for them) without having any intent to strengthen the other person’s argument in return (but instead to simply do the minimum of summarisation required to pass a test as complying with the steel man process).  This risk is more likely to crystalise in a participant with an inherently weak starting argument than it is for the other participant (ie the one with the already strong argument that it would be difficult to strengthen further).

 
 
 
Clifford Saunders seemed to do a first draft summarising the CERN CLOUD paper as follows:
 
Clifford Saunders’ summary of CERN CLOUD paper ---------------------
"Clouds are important in the Climate debate because they reflect sunlight. More clouds = less heating.

Clouds form from water droplets that condense around seeds, little balls of material. Nuclei.

These seeds can be made up of organic and/or inorganic compounds. Dust is a good example of a seed.

The CERN CLOUD experiment was set up to investigate the importance or not of the effect of Galactic Cosmic Rays on seed, and therefore cloud, formation.

The CERN scientists created a controlled artificial atmosphere with various concentrations of:

- organic & inorganic molecules,
- various temperatures and pressures to simulate height within the troposphere,
- into which they varied the effects of Galactic Cosmic Rays [“GCRs”] by sometimes directing a beam of positively charged particles, pions into their CLOUD chamber.

With this tool they simulated the effect of the cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere and seed formation.

The stream of particles and/or rays caused the organic molecules to ball up into approximately 2-nanometer size particles which became cloud seeds.

They cross checked their experimental results with airborn surveys.

The experimenters conclude:
'This work offers a new understanding of global particle formation with ions playing a major but subdominant role. Our results suggest that about 43% of cloud-forming aerosol particles in the present-day atmosphere originate from nucleation.'
Clifford Saunders’ summary of CERN CLOUD paper ends ---------------------
 
 
 
My own contribution to the understanding of the 43% figure in Clifford’s summary was as follows:
 
Contribution/clarification from David Calver --------------------------------
As well as saying "43% of cloud-forming aerosol particles in the present-day atmosphere originate from nucleation "

the CERN paper goes on to say some things that might be very relevant to understanding the implications for past, present and future climate:

1) "The total nucleation rate is determined by adding the inorganic rates to the neutral and ion-induced ternary organic nucleation rates"

2) "the fractional contributions to the production rate of 3 nm particles below 15 km altitude are 15% binary (2.6% neutral, 12% ioninduced), 65% ternary inorganic with ammonia (54% neutral and 11% ion-induced) and 21% ternary organic. We are unable to quantify the fraction of ternary organic nucleation that is ion-induced as accurately as for inorganic nucleation .., but we estimate that 28% of all new particles are formed via ion-induced nucleation."

3)     "We tested the effect of changes in the GCR ionization rate that occur between solar maximum and minimum.. Over the solar cycle, the global mean change in CCN [Cloud Concentration Nuclei] at cloud base altitude ... is only 0.1% (Fig. 4B) with local changes of no more than 1%. This is ... consistent with previous assessments”
 
My interpretation of my point 2) is that the proportion of the production rate of 3 nm particles below 15 km altitude that is ion-induced is 0.43 x (0.15 + 0.11 + 0.02) ie 0.43 x 0.28 =  0.12 of the particle formation rate.

(The 0.02 is inferred, being 0.28 -0.15 – 0.11, each of these latter numbers being from the original text, converted from percentages to decimals)

The variability in the ion-induced cloud formation via 3nm particles below 15km altitude via CNN is therefore 0.1% of this 0.12 (with local maxima of 1%, these percentages from the original text). 

This means that the variability in the ion-induced cloud formation rate between solar minima and maxima is one thousandth (0.1%) of 0.12, which is 0.00012 (about one ten-thousandth), with local maxima of 0.0012.
 
Contribution/clarification from David Calver ends --------------------------------
 
After which, Jack then clarified his understanding of the CERN CLOUD paper and its main conclusion of relevance to AGW as follows:
Jack: “The point 2 [quoted by David Calver above] is the basis for the conclusion that GCRs have no significant effect on current climate change”
 
To remain compliant with the steel man process, Jack Dale was making it clear that the main conclusion of the paper was that GCRs have no significant effect on climate since the industrial revolution, which I understand is not Clifford Saunders’ opinion.  So, I think we reached the point where these additional comments, and some others, by Jack and myself should be considered part of the text of the final summarisation of the paper by Clifford Saunders.
 
The final summarisation by Clifford Saunders, of the CERN CLOUD paper, should now read as follows:
 
 
Clifford Saunders’ summary [as edited by David Calver to reflect final comments by Jack Dale] of CERN CLOUD paper ---------------------
The role of clouds in earth's climate is poorly understood and this experiment was designed to elucidate some of the mechanisms

Clouds form from water droplets that condense around seeds, little balls of material. Nuclei.

These seeds can be made up of organic and/or inorganic compounds. Dust is a good example of a seed.

The CERN CLOUD experiment was set up to investigate the importance or not of the effect of Galactic Cosmic Rays on seed, and therefore cloud, formation.

The CERN scientists created a controlled artificial atmosphere with various concentrations of:

- organic & inorganic molecules,
- various temperatures and pressures to simulate height within the troposphere,
- into which they varied the effects of Galactic Cosmic Rays [“GCRs”] by sometimes directing a beam of positively charged particles, pions into their CLOUD chamber.

With this tool they simulated the effect of the cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere and seed formation.

The stream of particles and/or rays caused the organic molecules to ball up into approximately 2-nanometer size particles which became cloud seeds.

They cross checked their experimental results with airborn surveys.

The experimenters conclude:
'This work offers a new understanding of global particle formation with ions playing a major but subdominant role. Our results suggest that about 43% of cloud-forming aerosol particles in the present-day atmosphere originate from nucleation.'
 
As well as saying "43% of cloud-forming aerosol particles in the present-day atmosphere originate from nucleation "  the CERN paper goes on to say some things that might be very relevant to understanding the implications for past, present and future climate:

1) "The total nucleation rate is determined by adding the inorganic rates to the neutral and ion-induced ternary organic nucleation rates"

2) "the fractional contributions to the production rate of 3 nm particles below 15 km altitude are 15% binary (2.6% neutral, 12% ioninduced), 65% ternary inorganic with ammonia (54% neutral and 11% ion-induced) and 21% ternary organic. We are unable to quantify the fraction of ternary organic nucleation that is ion-induced as accurately as for inorganic nucleation .., but we estimate that 28% of all new particles are formed via ion-induced nucleation."

3)     "We tested the effect of changes in the GCR ionization rate that occur between solar maximum and minimum.. Over the solar cycle, the global mean change in CCN [Cloud Concentration Nuclei] at cloud base altitude ... is only 0.1% (Fig. 4B) with local changes of no more than 1%. This is ... consistent with previous assessments”
 
Point 2) above tells us  that the proportion of the production rate of 3 nm particles below 15 km altitude that is ion-induced is 0.43 x (0.15 + 0.11 + 0.02) ie 0.43 x 0.28 =  0.12 of the particle formation rate.

(The 0.02 is inferred, being 0.28 -0.15 – 0.11, each of these latter numbers being from the original text, converted from percentages to decimals)

The variability in the ion-induced cloud formation via 3nm particles below 15km altitude via CNN is therefore 0.1% of this 0.12 (with local maxima of 1%, these percentages from the original text). 

This means that the variability in the ion-induced cloud formation rate between solar minima and maxima is one thousandth (0.1%) of 0.12, which is 0.00012 (about one ten-thousandth), with local maxima of 0.0012.
 
Point 2 above is therefore the basis for the conclusion that GCRs have no significant effect on current climate change”
 
Clifford Saunders’ summary [as edited by David Calver to reflect final comments by Jack Dale] of CERN CLOUD paper ends ---------------------
 
 
 
Jack’s summarisation of the Morner paper was as follows:
 
Jack Dale summary of Morner paper ----------------------
The approaching Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) has received a great deal of attention. Morner admits his paper is not the first to examine the GSM and provides references to several precedents suggesting a future "Little Ice Age" (LIA) similar to the one that corresponded to the Sporer, Maunder and Dalton Minima.

The central proposition is that several cycles: solar, planetary and ocean will combine to produce a cooling period that is projected to begin in the decade between 2030 and 2040. This conclusion contradicts the IPCC assertion that warming will continue.

Morner presents several correlations to support his conclusion.
1) The acceleration of the rotation of the Earth linked to a decrease in Solar Wind affecting the magnetosphere (Morner 2010 and Morner 2011)
2) Cyclical phasing of combined Gleisberg and De Vries Cycles linked Arctic ice extent. (Morner 2006 and Morner 2001)
3) Atlantic warm and cold periods (above), and solar irradiance from 1200 to present (Morner 2015 and Hansen 2015)
4) A Venus - Earth - Jupiter spin-orbit coupling model correlation to the 11 year solar cycle (Wilson 2013)

Morner then forecasts a continuning decline in solar actvity using Solar Cycles. (Salvador 2013)
Jack Dale summary of Morner paper ends  ----------------------
 
 
 
As Jack Dale pointed out at the end of the exercise, the process seemed to sit at the bottom of the Bloom’s Taxonomy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_taxonomy

That is probably because of the nature of the papers selected for use in the exercise, and the lack of use of techniques such as the CRAAP test in evaluating the contents, logical reasoning, ,  the strengths of the evidence bases of the respective papers and the validity of conclusions drawn in each paper. 
https://researchguides.ben.edu/source-evaluation
 
Jack Dale also commented:
 I thought you might like to read my new article: Critique of Morner (2015)
 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/critique-morner-2015-jack-dale
 
Where he published, as a separate blog article, a critique of the Morner paper. 
In doing this, he was able to separate out his summarisation from an AGW-skeptical viewpoint as part of the steel man process (see above) from his own views about the Morner paper, which are clearly very different from those of Clifford Saunders.
 
I reproduce it here, which I hope Jack Dale will approve of:
 
 
Critique of Morner (2015) by Jack Dale --------------------------------------

• Published on July 20, 2022 (by Jack Dale)

Consider the source
Scientific Research Publishing Inc. is a predatory publisher. It is on Beall's List (https://beallslist.net/). Natural Science charges $1299 to get a paper published. Its peer-review process is so poor grammatical errors were missed. Academic review sites such as Norway's CRIStin give SRP an integrity rating of zero (0).

Diatribe against Copernicus Publishing
Morner claims that Pattern Recognition in Physics was shut down because of its conclusions about the GSM. That is a lie. Pattern Recognition in Physics was suspended because the editors misled the publisher about the mission of the journal and because it used a nepotistic peer-review process. The two issues of the journal are still available. (https://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/)
The episode calls into question the intellectual integrity of the editors, including Morner.

Content considerations.
1) "The cyclic alternations between solar maxima and minima were found to correlate with periods of speeding-up and slowing-down in the Earth’s rate of rotation as illustrated in Figure 1."
The data show the Earth's rotation has been slowing pretty much constantly over that past 2700 years (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2016.0404)
2) Abdussamatov predicted a new LIA starting in 2013 (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/grand_minimum.pdf) 
It did not happen.  (https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2013/to:2021/trend/plot/uah6/from:2013/to:2021)
3) The discussion of cycles is based entirely on correlation, there is no discussion of mechanism. Correlation is not causation. With no mechanism there is no evidence of causation.

Bibliography.
24 of 55 references are Morner. Most others are from the discredited PRP. 
Hansen 2015 critiqued. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291388197_Discussion_of_Hansen_JM_Aagaard_T_and_Kuijpers_A_2015_Sea-Level_Forcing_by_Synchronization_of_56-_and_74-Year_Oscillations_with_the_Moon's_Nodal_Tide_on_the_Northwest_European_Shelf_Eastern_North_Sea_)
In 1989 , Landscheidt (best known as an astrologer) forecast a period of sunspot minima after 1990 , accompanied by increased cold. Did not happen. 

In general, astrophysicists reject the whole notion of a climate change resulting from a GSM.
"Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming."
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535
 
"We conclude that winters in which the Thames froze are not at all good indicators of the hemispheric or global mean temperatures, although well-correlated with the lowest temperatures in the local observational record, the CET. The often-quoted result that they were enhanced during the solar Maunder minimum is false. Thames freeze years are slightly more frequent before the Maunder minimum began and also considerably more common 65 years after it ended. The association of the solar Maunder minimum and the Little Ice Age is also not supported by proper inspection and ignores the role of other factors such as volcanoes. Together these mean that, although the LIA covers both the Spörer and Maunder solar minima, it also persisted and deepened during the active solar period between these two minima." https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/58/2/2.17/3074082
Dr Keith Strong has a very good video debunking a coming cooling cycle. https://youtu.be/VjNMTSrz8U8
Strong also has an entire series debunking Suspicious Observers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DFypd5NGS8&list=PLlASxYaKskYjXH68akiL9eJld6MzuUw69
I am of the view that I represented a fair precis of Morner's article, despite the fact that it has little scientific basis. 
 
Critique of Morner (2015) by Jack Dale ends --------------------------------------
 
 
So, where does that leave us with regard to the matters I raised near the start of this article? 

1.  Risk of “false balance” Yes, in the absence of a fuller context and discussion of the science, an impression of false balance was probably given to some onlookers

2.  The selection of the papers to be used in the steel man debate Neither of the papers provided credible evidence contradicting the position of the IPCC, as expressed in IPCC AR6 WG1 (2021) that
“It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.
Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere
have occurred.”

3.  The steel man argument doesn’t, on the face of it, enable the quality, credibility, evidence-base, logicality, causality and relevance of each paper to AGW to be debated, because those are not its core purpose.  Yes, this seems to be the case, and credibility and relevance of the papers in assessing whether they contribute to debates about AGW was assessed outside the steel man process, largely after the process itself appeared to have been completed.

4.  There is a risk of one of the two participants not acting in good faith, and using the process simply to try to strengthen their argument (in fact, using the other party to do this for them) There is no evidence one way or the other on this point, so it’s not possible to conclude on it at this point.  

​
​
How could the steel man process be improved?

1. Conduct the process in private, so that the “false balance” risk is all but eliminated.
2. Select the papers very carefully, perhaps in a subject field or sub-field where the papers are, on the face of it, of roughly equivalent scientific, factual and persuasive merit on each side of a genuine area of uncertainty which has not yet been very conclusively decided
3. Be very clear that the exercise is not about establishing scientific conclusions about the subject matter, but is wholly about improving the mutual understanding of the participants about each other’s viewpoints
4. Take whatever steps are possible and feasible to establish the good intentions of both participants
5. Use an independent referee to help with any disputed points of fact, points of process or topic areas where the participants are finding the exercise particularly difficult

 
 
Footnote on feedback received subsequently from Jack Dale:

"Thanks for the assessment of the process.  One quick clarification: I did not select  Dunne et al for Dr. Saunders.  He chose it.  If I [had] had a choice in which one he summarized, I would have chosen [one] with a broader scope than GCRs."

So, it seems that, on this occasion, Dr Saunders chose both the papers that the two participants were to summarise.   This would seem to reinforce my improvement recommendation 2 above.

Feedback from Clifford Saunders:

"Thank you very much for this beautifully written piece David Calver. I hope others read it too.  
You are spot on when you say "{Both} Take whatever steps are possible and feasible to establish the good intentions of both participants". Yes. Jack Dale and I agreed at the start that there was no 'trickery' involved, simply a willingness to see the world from the other fellow's perspective and "is wholly about improving the mutual understanding of the participants about each other’s viewpoints". Quite right. We wanted to use an Active Listening technique, one which I'd learnt from an organizer of the Aldermaston Marches.  It seems like an easy thing to do, until you sincerely do it.
I don't know what Jack discovered about himself but I definitely noticed my defence mechanisms kick in, I heard a lot of 'Yes, buts' in my head as my internal dialogue sought to rebut what I was reading and summarizing. It is interesting and salutary to self observe one's automaticity."