Published by on 11 Jul 2008 at 05:02 pm
How the Hadley Centre spins the data on non-warming
Paul MacRae, July 11, 2008
Mystification is the process of explaining away what might otherwise be evident.
— John Berger, Ways of Seeing
Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research is in a spot of bother at the moment.
On the one hand, the Hadley Centre is a firm believer in the hypothesis that humans are the main cause of global warming and that we’re heading toward catastrophe. It even devotes several of its web pages to waving a nagging finger at those foolish enough or unprincipled enough to believe otherwise.
On the other hand, the Hadley Centre, as part of the British Meteorological Office and one of the world’s foremost climate-monitoring sites, is also churning out data showing that the planet isn’t warming at the moment, and hasn’t for the past 10 years or so. Clearly, increasing human carbon emissions aren’t causing the warming that was expected.
What to do?
As principled scientists, the Hadley staff can’t cook the books so the temperature figures fit the hypothesis, although at least one other major climate centre is doing its best to keep its figures matching the hypothesis.1 On the other hand, if the general public got the idea that maybe the planet wasn’t warming after all, despite what it’s been told so often, the people might rebel against punitive carbon taxes and go back to their materialist-loving ways.
The Hadley Centre’s solution is a combination of spin-doctoring and let’s hope nobody notices.
You find the spin in its finger-wagging admonitions that we mustn’t take this non-warming trend at all seriously. Just temporary. Planet’s still warming. Move along; nothing to see here.
So, in its webpage on Climate Facts #1, it says: “There is indisputable evidence from observations that the Earth is warming.” 2 This is hardly controversial; even the pesky warming skeptics who annoy the Hadley Centre so much agree on the earth is, overall, on a warming trend. But, just to make sure we’re clear so far: the earth is in an overall warming trend (interglacial) right now and would be whether humans were a factor or not.
Humans causing ‘most of the warming’?
Hadley goes on: “Concentrations of CO2, created largely by the burning of fossil fuels, are now much higher, and increasing at a much faster rate, than at any time in the last 600,000 years. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years” (italics added).
So, just so we’re clear: humans are the primary (Al Gore likes to use the term “principal”) cause of global warming – that’s what’s meant by causing “most of the warming.”
But then, Climate Fact #3 tells us: “Earth’s climate is complex and influenced by many things, particularly changes in its orbit, volcanic eruptions, and changes in the energy emitted from the Sun. It is well known that the world has experienced warm or cold periods in the past without any interference from humans” (italics added).
So, just to be clear: humans are causing “most of the warming” at the moment, but not warming in the past, and there are many other causes of warming as well, all natural, and all, one would think, a lot more powerful — solar orbit changes, volcanoes, variations in solar energy — than anything humans could throw at the planet.
The site goes on: “In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming” (italics added).
Driving or amplifying? They aren’t the same thing
We’ve got two processes here, described by two different verbs: driving and amplifying. Even though the planet is warming naturally (Fact #1), which would naturally tend to increase CO2 levels anyway, human-emitted CO2 is “driving” the greenhouse effect.
This is an amazing feat when you consider that human-added concentrations of CO2 are only about five per cent of natural carbon emissions every year from factors like rotting vegetation, volcanoes, outgassing from the oceans, and the like. And amazing considering that 90 to 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect is produced by water vapor, not CO2.
Never mind. For the Hadley Centre, five per cent of a trace gas like carbon dioxide (CO2 is only 380 parts per million in the atmosphere, to which human emissions add about 10 ppm every five years) is “driving” the greenhouse gas system.
Then the Centre backtracks a bit and says we humans are “amplifying,” rather than “driving,” the recent warming. How much are we “amplifying” natural warming? Presumably about five per cent. Is an amplification of five per cent enough to produce “most of the warming” we’ve experienced over the past 30 years? It’s unlikely, especially considering that the planet warmed about the same amount from 1850-1940, when human carbon emissions were still relatively low.
Furthermore, in the 1850s the planet came out of more than 400 years of cooling known as the Little Ice Age. Before that, during the Medieval Warm Period (900-1350), global temperatures were up to a degree Celsius higher than today’s. Temperatures were warmer about 2,000 years ago (the Roman Warm Period) and about 3,500 years ago (the Minoan Warm Period).
Natural warming occurs every 1,000 years or so
This means that over the past 5,000 years there’s been a major warming and cooling cycle every 1,000 years or so. The current warming, a millennium after the Medieval Warm Period, is right on track as part of that natural cycle.
In other words, the planet may be going about its natural warming at the moment, with a bit of “amplification” – five per cent? – from humans. “Amplifying” doesn’t mean the same as “driving” the climate, but the Hadley Centre doesn’t make this fine distinction.
Then there’s that pesky decade of warming. To counter this inconvenient truth, Hadley tells us in its webpage on Climate Facts #2 that “the rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. Warming has been unprecedented in at least the last 50 years, and the 17 warmest years have all occurred in the last 20 years. This does not mean that next year will necessarily be warmer than last year, but the long-term trend is for rising temperatures.”
Translating this into understandable English, the Centre is saying that just because it’s not warming now doesn’t mean it hasn’t warmed in the past, which is hardly news. Therefore, it concludes, because it’s been warm in the past three decades, the planet is going to be warmer in the future.
It was warm from 1850 to 1940, too, but in 1940 the planet cooled for 30 years. However, this cooling can’t happen again, according to the Hadley Centre. How does it know? Because its computers tell it so — the same computers that couldn’t predict the recent 10 years of non-warming.
But why isn’t the planet warming now? After all, humans are “driving” the climate, aren’t we? Well, not quite. As the Hadley Centre tells us in Fact #2: “The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures” (italics added; incidentally, “slight slowing of the warming” is an unsual way of describing “no warming”).
So the oceans are driving this non-warming through an La Nina (a cold current), overriding our human-caused carbon dioxide. Maybe humans aren’t as powerful a “driving” force as the Hadley Centre would like us to believe after all. And if humans aren’t the main cause of cooling, maybe we’re not the main cause of warming, either.
How Hadley chart buries non-warming
Finally, again, the Hadley Centre is stuck with a bunch of numbers that show the planet isn’t warming, despite its computers’ predictions that human CO2 will warm things up. It can’t sweep this data under the rug so it does the next best thing: it produces a graph that makes the lack of warming barely discernible. Here’s the chart the Hadley Centre uses to illustrate temperatures (actually, temperature anomalies) over the last 157 years:
The current flat-lined warming shows as a tiny, horizontal tail on the right side of the chart. If you get out a magnifying glass, you’ll see that, yes, the blue temperature line flattens out after the year 2000. I’ve searched the Hadley site and can’t find any graphic that shows the last 10 years in detail, although the numbers are there as a long list. (But, see Postscript.)
However, on his site, Anthony Watts has produced a graph of the past 10 years, using the Hadley Centre’s numbers.3 Here’s what that graph looks like (I’ve added a red line to show average temperatures).
Why hasn’t the Hadley Centre produced a graphic like this? Isn’t an average temperature that hasn’t gone up in 10 years worthy of public attention? Shouldn’t even a temporary pause in warming be good news? Why bury that news in a tiny fillip at the end of a very long-term chart? Why work so hard to hide the truth?
Because the truth doesn’t agree with the Centre’s hypothesis that humans are the “driving” force behind climate. In short, it’s an embarrassment, and therefore to be underplayed as much as possible.
I argue that much of what the public is told by “consensus” climate science about global warming is misleading, exaggerated, or plain wrong.
The Hadley Centre’s spin effort isn’t exaggerating the data (far from it), nor is it plain wrong — the true figures are on the site. But the Centre is doing everything it can to mislead the public in hopes that the planet will start warming again before the peasants figure out that, maybe, the “consensus” climate science prophets are, in fact, plain wrong.
Postscript: One of the comment posts below has a link to a Hadley chart that shows the last few decades in more detail (see right). The blue and orange lines both show a slowdown in average warming in the last few years, including a startling drop (orange line) in 2008. The graphic can be found at http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/smoothing.html.
Of course, this wouldn’t do, so the Hadley programs revised their way of calculating temperatures to produce the rising blue and orange lines that they wanted (see the web page above for the second, revised graph).
It’s worth noting, as well, that the more detailed graph with the obvious fall in temperature is not the graph that the public sees on the Hadley Centre’s “myths” pages.
Notes
- See Steven Goddard, “Painting by numbers: NASA’s peculiar thermometer,” available at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/print.html ↩
- Available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html. You can find all the other “facts” on the same set of webpages. ↩
- Available at http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/ ↩
Josh Maxwell on 11 Jul 2008 at 5:31 pm #
A friend of mine just emailed me one of your articles from a while back. I read that one a few more. Really enjoy your blog. Thanks
Leon Brozyna on 11 Jul 2008 at 11:35 pm #
Should the average layman see the Hadley graph in their morning paper he’d be impressed by the huge amount of warming that’s going on. Of course, he wouldn’t realize that it’s not showing temperature but annual temperature anomalies from a certain base period. If the base period is set near the low point reached when the Little Ice Age (LIA) ended, then all warming that follows will look impressive. Should the predicted slow down in warming turn into a precipitous drop in temperatures that last 50 or more years, than there will be some serious twisting and squirming happening. If we’re lucky, it’ll be a brief LIA.
When I see these recent explanations that are being posited of late, I don’t see the doubts of scientists being expressed, but their handmaidens — the former scientist turned administrator. He knows enough of the talk of science to understand what’s really happening but he also knows that continued research requires funding and you don’t get the funding you want if you say that all the funding received over the past number of years was wasted. This would, of course, explain the incessant speeches by astronomer-turned-administrator James Hansen. The prospect of impending doom must be kept forever in the public’s mind so that the funding tap never runs dry; at least until he retires, then it becomes someone else’s problem.
kerry on 12 Jul 2008 at 6:25 pm #
Paul,
I’m also an ex-journalist and continually staggered at how few people use their own brains to sort through this “debate”. What a debt we owe the auditors like Steve McIntyre for revealing the truth behind dodgy stats, and how ironic that it is his rigorous business/capitalist background that gave him the tools to clean up this debate. No doubt the truth will seep through in the long run, it’s the here and now I worry about!
Christopher Hanley on 13 Jul 2008 at 1:32 am #
Leon Brozyna mentions an aspect of this matter which bugs me as a layman, i.e. the graphics.
Presenting the temperature trends as annual anomalies rather than absolute temperature may be useful to the climate scientists, but is confusing to the public at best, or downright misleading.
There is also the use of the compressed time (‘x’) axes or expanded temperature (‘y’) axes, which seems designed to heighten alarm.
At least the the Hadley Centre doesn’t use color – the ‘cool and calm’ blue versus the ‘hot and bothered’ convention.
Bob_FJ on 13 Jul 2008 at 1:35 am #
Paul MacRae wrote in part in the lead article:
This Hadley claim is BS!
See my graphical composite in link below of global SST’s with the (NOAA) ENSO and also the PDO indexes.
Positive values per NOAA ENSO, are El Nino, and negative are La Nina.
The PDO, (Pacific Decadal Oscillation, further north in the Pacific) is arguably substantially a manifestation of ENSO
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/2615685346_eeb693e1a3_b.jpg
Paul, I have some Hadley annual bar chart stuff that is perhaps a year more recent than yours in my file, such as the SST‘s above. I’ll see if the original links can be found, but whatever, I will get back to you with copies of what have maybe been since deleted by them.
Roger on 13 Jul 2008 at 2:06 am #
How do you give your Nobel Prize back?
Bill Illis on 13 Jul 2008 at 7:22 am #
What we need is a chart showing both the “temperature change” over time as well as the “temperature adjustments” made over time. They are very close to the same trend, a closer correlation than even the ENSO index.
Bob_FJ on 13 Jul 2008 at 6:44 pm #
Bill Illis wrote above in part: “…a closer correlation than even the ENSO index.”
I’m not sure of Bill’s point in this but in my earlier post, the intention was to illustrate that the Hadley claim that the recent plateau since 1998 is caused by increased La Nina’s is inconsistent with other complex information on my composite graph.
http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=74#comment-72
For instance, the LH half of the chart shows a much colder and prolonged La Nina/PDO phase than during the last ten years, and yet the published global SST’s steadily ROSE throughout those cold oscillations.
I also have a composite that compares Hadley global SST’s with their global average air T’s…….see following post.
Bob_FJ on 13 Jul 2008 at 7:19 pm #
Paul,
In your lead article, you mused about possible later graphs from Hadley, and how they do their smoothing.
The following link is my merging of the latest annual bar charts that I’m aware of for global average air T and global SST’s.
Their website is not easy to navigate, (for me anyway), and I can’t find the original URL for the top graph, at the moment.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3108/2578342655_30b0b21b54_o.jpg
The following webpage describes their 21-point smoothing technique and what they do when they run-out of data for the final ten years. (needed out-to 2017) They also describe why they had to change that MSU method recently after finding that the recent period of cold weather did not give them the arbitrary result that they wanted
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/smoothing.html
If it weren’t so serious, it would be funny!
If only British tax-payers knew!
BTW, both my composite graphs were made for a different purpose originally, and some remarks thereon are not really relevant to this thread.
Bob B on 13 Jul 2008 at 8:06 pm #
They are witches at the hadley centre–burn them–their global warming spell isn’t working any more.
Dan on 13 Jul 2008 at 8:08 pm #
Taking Al Gore as any type of honorable source is almost a joke.
Bickers on 14 Jul 2008 at 2:50 am #
Great article.
We need the World’s media to be brave (especially the BBC) and open up the MMGW vs natural GW debate.
Millions of people are going to starve and millions/billions see their standard of living decline because of unproven climate forecasts.
Bjorn Lomborg predicted this in his recent book, ‘Cool it!’, however I suspect that he didn’t expect the negative impact so soon.
Here’s the kicker: if CO2 doesn’t play a major, or any role, in climate change then the whole MMGW movement is wearing the Emperor’s New Clothes.
If the cooling continues thousands of people’s jobs in the climate industry will be under threat so they’re going to do anything they can to keep spinning and fearmongering the ‘impending disaster’ – remember SARS, AIDS, bird flu and Y2K – all predicted by experts to be world disasters in the making – what happened – not a lot!
barry schwarz on 14 Jul 2008 at 8:24 am #
Paul MacRae,
Please explain your trend methodology for the red line in the HadCRU temperature profile.
I suspect it is two linear regressions, one run to 1998, and one run from it.
This is not a robust methodology for the data population. A first order polynomial by l;east squares will give you a better fit.
I’ve run a linear regression from 1998 to 2007 – the last ten complete years. Even that method, while not robust, shows a slight warming.
By beginning the second trend with the anomolously high 1998 (el Nino) and ending with the anomolously low January 2008 (la Nina), you are giving too much weight to noise (weather), and not enough weight to signal (underlying temperature trend).
There are three errors at work here.
1) The data is unreasonably bifurcated.
2) Cherry-picking. The series runs are too short (yours and my example) and are not weighed with respect to the entire series, which would give a more robust conclusion. The greater the data pool, the better the analysis. Limiting a trend analysis by starting in 1998 is a classic cherry-pick, one propagated by the skeptical milieu since at least 2005. Why do you not filter the last ten years with respect to the entire trend? Why not start at 1997, or 1979 (when the satellite record began)? Or any other point further back?
3) A linear regression for a ten-year period gives too much weight to noise. You will find that the coefficient of determination is not good enough. A first order polynomial least squares has a higher significance value, reducing the noise and revealing the trend.
Hadley’s statement on the trend is right for 1998 – 2007. They haven’t run a trend to 2008 because the year isn’t finished yet. A trend using an unfinished year as if its the complete figure is false. Hadley’s figure for 2008 is based on the very cool first few months. It will undoubtedly get hotter as summer hits the Northern hemisphere. Until the year is done, it can’t be used in an annual trend analysis (which is why Hadley don’t include the data for such a short period – 10 years), and including the la Nina-influenced first few months (or just January, the lowest January in 20 years) distorts the trend. Or rather, the conclusions reached are based on carefully selecting not just the years, but the months.
The Watts post you cited does an even more appalling cherry-pick – he trends for one year only, for Jan 07 to Jan 08. But Watts knows better than to make an absolute diagnosis from that. He says in a caveat at the bottom of the post;
***
The website DailyTech has an article citing this blog entry as a reference, and their story got picked up by the Drudge report, resulting in a wide distribution. In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph:
“Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.”
I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”
There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied.
***
The link to the ten-year trends from that page are broken. I imagine he uses a linear regression as well. And it is sophistry to claim that the Jan to Jan trend is ‘unexpected’. No model run makes predictions at that resolution, only annually. And those runs (appearing in the IPCC 2007 report) include 8, 10 and 20 year cooling or flat trends. Long flat or cooling trends are not unexpected at least.
So where does that leave us? Waiting for another 12 years of cooling before we can bgin to scotch AGW theory. And Hadley hasn’t jimmied the data. It’s been plotted using a more robust methodology, and they properly use different methodologies for the last ten years and the entire series, which you have conflated. The entire series is filtered with a 21-point annual average, which is done to reduce noise, and the method used to include the last ten years is simply to repeat the last (1997) value and combine with obs to continue filtering beyond 1997. There is no way this can be done with a ten-year period, so they rightly use a methodology more fit for the purpose – and they only run a ten-year trend in reesponse to this skeptical meme that you are here propagating.
Keith on 14 Jul 2008 at 10:50 am #
Barry,
You are correct that one needs to be careful not to cherry pick starting and ending regions when doing linear regression. However, even if you plot a linear regression fit from Jan 97 (to pick a point well prior to the El Nino event of 98) through present (June 08), you still only have a slope of .0048 deg C/year — essentially zero. (I used UAH lower troposphere data, but other sources match quite closely.) The fact is, there simply has been no global warming for the past decade. This is very difficult to explain if mankind-produced CO2 is the major driver of climate.
There is no problem with looking at month-to-month data as opposed to waiting for a year end. There is nothing special about January or any other month when looking at monthly anomaly data. Your comment that we have to wait until the warm summer months for the northern hemisphere is not correct. The monthly anomaly data are plotted as an anomaly for each month’s temperature. There is no propensity for higher or lower anomalies for any given month of the year.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say when you suggest a “first-order polynomial” fit is better than linear regression. A first-order polynomial (y=a0 + a1*x) is a line.
Dassin on 14 Jul 2008 at 11:55 am #
Global warming is a natural cycle.
Bob_FJ on 14 Jul 2008 at 3:57 pm #
Barry Schwarz,
We have been through this before, over at Gristmill, but please advise if you understand the following MS dictionary definition:
plateau [pláttō]
1 raised area with level top: an area of high ground with a fairly level surface
2 stable phase: a period or phase in something when there is little increase or decrease
3 phase of stagnation: a phase in mental or physical development during which little headway is made
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you can crack that OK, please study the Hadley annual RAW data for the period of the last ten years, and compare it with that of the previous say 20 years. Without looking into the future, does it look like you have just climbed up one side of mount Kilimanjaro, and reached an area of high ground with a fairly level surface?
It’s called a plateau……see 1 above!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no need to excise el Nino 1998, because the following years of 1999 and 2000 are La Nina CORRECTIONS, and that 3-year mean is simply part of the plateau.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is hardly relevant if by some statistical or selective means you can calculate a slight upslope. It is still a plateau. It is self evident using the popular technique known as “eyeball”.
Bob_FJ on 14 Jul 2008 at 4:03 pm #
BTW Barry,
You don’t seriously give credence to how Hadley invents data for the last half of the 21 year filter band out to 2017 do you?
How about you read:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/smoothing.html
With more care, and try and see the funny side of it, including why they had to revise the method recently when they did not get the arbitrary result that they wanted
Tom in Texas on 14 Jul 2008 at 7:58 pm #
Thanks for the link Bob
“January and February 2008 were cooler than recent months, leading to a marked downturn towards the end of the smoothed series
(Figure 2, orange line) that caused discussion.”
LMAO at Fig. 2 – They must have had a stroke when they looked at that.
“much discussion” sounds like famous British understatement.
There probably was lots of hand ringing and numerous communications with Hansen.
The smoothed temp. would have take a dive (vs a plateau) had they used their old smoothing technique. Couldn’t “adjust” the data (again), so we’ll change our smoothing technique.
“How we present our data…” – smells like propaganda and cow patties to me.
manacker on 14 Jul 2008 at 9:31 pm #
Hi Barry,
See you’re back again, trying to giggle the numbers to “prove” that it is still warming when everyone (including Hadley and IPCC Chairman Pachauri) has already accepted the fact that there has been no warming since 1998 (or at least since 2001).
Why do you not include the record for the past 6 months (which has shown significant cooling, as the author of the lead article shows graphically)?
Are you “cherry picking”? For shame!
Regards,
Max
manacker on 14 Jul 2008 at 11:17 pm #
Here’s a link to a study with a new slant on the importance of AGW in the overall scheme of things.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
It confirms what many scientists have been saying all along: “it’s the sun, stupid!”
Bob_FJ on 15 Jul 2008 at 12:04 am #
Tom in Texas wrote in part:
Yes Tom, I would love to have been a fly on the wall when they saw that orange line plunging down instead of up. I could imagine dear ol’ Phil Jones making a somewhat British immoderate comment such as:
I say chaps, this does not look very good! What are we going to jolly well do to secure our future funding?
No, I jest, it might have included a few vulgar expletives!
What intrigues me is that unless there is a late warming in the NH summer/autumn, then 2008 appears to be heading for a sharply low T. Faced with such a situation in early 2009, it would seem Hadley will have to change their method once again to achieve their desired arbitrary outcome. Still, at least they are not as overtly crass as Hansen et al!
I’ll post this without links to see if it goes through without moderation delay, but my next post will have a graph that adds interest to that down-plunging orange line you referred to. (It may not be unique)
BTW, the Australian black widow (redback) spider (probably ex South America) is very similar to your website image except the red-spot (not always present) is more on its back and the body is shiny black. (Around Melbourne anyway)
I found a great shiny beauty in my office at work, many years ago, but it had a pale-yellow spot, not red.
Bob_FJ on 15 Jul 2008 at 12:15 am #
Further to my link to the Hadley description of how they smooth their annual raw data @
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/smoothing.html
and how they were embarrassed when their long standing method for the recent final ten years did not show what they wanted, what with the last year of cold weather:
Please study the plunging orange line on graph #1 at that link.
Then study my graphical mark-up speculating a similarity to the plateau around 1940 @
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2458648692_1701416471_o.jpg
Any comments please?
barry schwarz on 15 Jul 2008 at 6:26 am #
“However, even if you plot a linear regression fit from Jan 97 (to pick a point well prior to the El Nino event of 98) through present (June 08)”
It’s the same as running a ttrend FROM 1998. The first half of this year is the coldest in 20 owing to a strong la Nina cooling. When it ends, we’ll have Bob’s correction period.
If, (as Bob and manacker put it), we can’t measure 1999 or 2000 because these two years are the ‘correction’ from a strong ENSO event, then surely the same applies to the current period. If we need to cut out 1998, 1999 and 2000 to remove an ENSO signature, then we have to excise 2008 (and possibly 2008 and 2010) because this is weather dominating long-term trends.
Whatever year you pick to start with, you’ll be saying something about a trend of year ‘x’. The period chosen can’t be arbitrary. there needs to be a good scientific reason for making that choice, which can lead one to a conclusion. It seems to me that people here are finding a cooling period and makinmg up a scientific reason for doing so.
Pick different periods from 1990 to the present and you’ll find cool, flat and warm trends depending on how you select the data, even if you always end at June 2008.
So what does it mean that a linear regressiontrend analysis produces a cooling trend for 8, 10 or 12 years?
Is that method a good one for determining the trend of the data population? Can anyone answer this without hand-waving? Does anyone here know what they’re talking about or is it enough to suggest that the complexity of trend analysis is ogga-booga magic, all smoke and mirrors and. That is as far as rebuttals have got, and the implication is “yesiree, a linear regression is the only statistical methodology that you should use, no matter what. The other fancy-pants big-name analysis thingies are a bag of tricks for shady characters to sell sell an idea.”
I assume it’s because no one has studied it. Perhaps MaCrrae understands the utility and shortcoming of running a 21-point averagen annual trend, or a first order polynomial least squares trend.
If anyone could, that would demonstrate some knowledge of what we’re talking about here. I would appreciate a statistically savvy rundown of what the methods are, why and how they’re used, When you criticize something, the very least you have to do is understand it.
I’m surprised no one else here asked MacRae to explain his trend methodology. He doesn’t say. Not a shred of skepticism inquires about this missing information. The replies have been uncritical back-slaps. Isn’t this the kind of ‘faith-based’ data-hugging despised of so-called ‘alarmists’?
So, what’s wrong with the trend analyses used by Hadley? Whar are MaCrae’s? And why is a linear regression the best fit-to-data analysis for the series so far under discussion?
I can happily talk about any cooling trends, but I need to know how they are derived, if the methodology is sound, and why the period is chosen. The latter decision has to be arrived at beore the analysis to be intellectually rigorous.
I think it is confusinf to say, “global warming stopped”. The phrase global warming carries a long-term understanding, 30 years according to the MWO, 20 years according to the IPCC. For completely neutral language it is better to say “there has been a cooling trend over period ‘x’ and this is significant because…”.
If AGW theory is right, global warming hasn’t stopped. We’ve had flat and cooling periods before, but the long term trend over the period purported to be under the infuenfluence of AGW is up. If (as only god might know) AGW has stopped for good, then the statement is appropriate. I don’t know if anyone here is saying that.
manacker on 15 Jul 2008 at 12:06 pm #
Hi Barry,
Enjoyed your rather wordy waffle concerning the pros and cons of various methods of drawing trend lines.
IPCC likes the linear trend line. They know how to use it to full effect.
They do so when they “shift” a 100-year period by 5 years to eliminate a cooling trend at the beginning and insinuate that the linear increase resulting from this shift came from rapid warming at the end of the period, which did not occur in actual fact.
They do so when they compare linear trends over longer periods with more recent shorter periods in order to insinuate an acceleration where none exists in reality.
Doing exactly this linear trend analysis in reverse would show that early 20th century warming occurred at a more rapid rate than the warming of the entire century, but this would be just as misleading as the IPCC presentation.
So it is only natural that linear trends are used when comparing multi-decadal global temperature trends. It appears to be the “industry standard”.
The attachment gives a picture of these linear trends and the linear equations using the Hadley record.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2332/2656244893_e6c9d7fe01_b.jpg
Regards,
Max
manacker on 15 Jul 2008 at 5:06 pm #
Hi Barry,
For a good laugh check out IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 3 FAQ (p.253).
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf
You’ll see a curve showing temperature trend lines. I’ve copied the curve for easier viewing below.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/2534926749_f2be35e86f_o.jpg
You see that the closer we get to today’s date the steeper the temperature curves appear to get over shorter time periods. This looks like things are getting more alarming and are doing so at an accelerating rate.
In its 2007 SPM report, IPCC alludes to this accelerating trend (p.5) with the sentence: The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C [0.10°C to 0.16°C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years” (0.074°C [0.056°C to 0.092°C] per decade).
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
This is actually a bit of “smoke and mirrors”. In a record with cyclical warming/cooling periods, such as the Hadley global average land and sea surface temperature anomaly, shorter cycles will usually show steeper trend lines than longer cycles, if properly picked.
Using the same Hadley record and the same IPCC “smoke and mirrors” approach, one can show that global warming occurred at a more rapid rate in the early 20th century than later.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3249/2672880098_1ede950b42_b.jpg
One could then modify the IPCC statement as follows: “The linear warming trend over the first 40 years (0.135°C) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years (0.074°C per decade).”
Both analyses are absurd, of course, but this shows how one can get a message across with proper chartmanship and bit of subterfuge.
Just something to think about, Barry.
Regards,
Max
barry schwarz on 15 Jul 2008 at 6:01 pm #
Quote: IPCC likes the linear trend line. They know how to use it to full effect.
Quote: It appears to be the “industry standard”.
As you know, the IPCC considers a range of trend methodologies and a range of time series.
We are not discussing the IPCC trend analyses here, but Hadley’s. You’ve just changed the subject.
Hadley’s trend methodology for the full time series (cf graph in top post) showing a series of curves, is obviously NOT a linear regression, or we’d see a straight line. MaCrae conflates two different trend analyses by referring to it under the rubric of ‘the last ten years’.
As we know, Hadley’s trend for the period 1998 – 2007 was derived from a first order polynomial least squares trend.
Please demonstrate that you understand what this is, and why it is/isn’t an appropriate methodology for the data population. Then you might convincingly explain why a linear regression would provide a better statistical fit.
Otherwise I have to assume your knowledge of statistical analysis is too limited to answer the question.
Please, no more hand-waving or changing the subject. The questions are specific and they require an understanding of statistical analysis to answer. Rhetoric is a poor substitute for knowledge.
Bob_FJ on 15 Jul 2008 at 7:40 pm #
Barry, Reur 15 Jul 2008 at 6:26 am
I’m not sure what you are trying to say in parts, even though I’m more familiar with your earlier obsessions and contexts, than other readers here. Anyhow, I won’t plough through it all, but concerning your assertion that the 2008 cold is caused by La Nina, didn’t Hadley claim that for the whole period since 1998? Did you check my first graph above. Did you read the posts above?
BTW, some people are worried about this:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3185/2670890882_b1868f6939_o.jpg
Bob_FJ on 15 Jul 2008 at 8:01 pm #
Barry,
I’d like to add to Max’s post of that hilarious IPCC chart:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/2534926749_f2be35e86f_o.jpg
First of all it’s good to see that you have a sudden new expertise in trending graphs! (or should I say new obsession?) Amusingly, you indignantly wrote in part above:
OK Barry, perhaps you could explain to us all, what the IPCC consensus is telling us in this graph, what methodology they used, and if with your new-found skills you can spot anything dodgy.
barry schwarz on 15 Jul 2008 at 8:17 pm #
Paul MaCrae, I should probably direct my questions specifically to you.
Can you explain the differences between a linear regression, a first order polynomial least squares analysis, and a 21-point smoothing analysis using annual averages? These appear to be the three trend methodologies under discussion (I emailed Hadley for the trend method they used for 1998 – 2007 as per their ‘Fact 2’. they replied that they employed a first order polynomial least squares function).
Can you explain why one methodology may provide a better fit to data than another?
Can you corroborate/rebut that linear regression always provides a better fit to data, and comment on the utility of that function compared to others?
If possible, could you run a polynomial least squares analysis for the period 1997 to June 1998 and advise of the result?
Regards,
barry.
manacker on 15 Jul 2008 at 11:42 pm #
Hi Barry,
To my previous post (pointing to the IPCC subterfuge in AR4) one could add:
“The 40-year period 1906 to 1945 saw a linear warming of 0.54°C, compared to 0.74°C for the entire 100-year period 1906-2005. This shows that roughly 73% of the entire 20th century warming occurred before 1945.”
Regards,
Max
Bob_FJ on 16 Jul 2008 at 3:00 am #
BTW Barry,
Just in case you missed this Hadley figure, from above, here it is again:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/reply.png
Can you see the orange line there?
“Tom in Texas” spotted it OK!
Why can’t you, and thus think it through to a logical conclusion?
admin on 16 Jul 2008 at 7:14 am #
Barry,
Paul MacRae here.
I’m happy to respond to your question. I’m not a mathematician or statistician (but, then, neither is Al Gore).
On the other hand, to slightly misquote Bob Dylan, you don’t need to be a weatherman to see the way the wind blows. Right now the global temperature is flat and has been for almost a decade. Even the IPCC admits there’s been a “plateau.” Yet, according to the AGW hypothesis that the planet is warming, humans are the principal cause, and it’s going to be a disaster, the plateau shouldn’t have happened, which is why the AGW side is working so hard to minimize it and keep this news from the public as long as possible. Why not be happy that the planet’s stopped warming and it’s now clear that humans aren’t the “principal” cause of climate change?
And why be so fiercely determined to demonize anyone who doesn’t agree with the AGW hypothesis? That’s not how science works and is a sure sign that the AGW’ers aren’t sure themselves.
The planet may well get warmer again but, if you think like a geologist who’s aware of past climatic changes, it’s pretty clear that humans aren’t “driving” the climate right now, and never have. Nothing that is happening now, climate-wise, with the exception of the speed of rising CO2 levels, hasn’t happened before in the not-too-distant past. This is why most geologists don’t buy AGW (I’ve got a post on that on the site). CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and it wasn’t a disaster; quite the opposite. The Eocene, with much higher temps and much higher CO2, is often described as an “Eden.”
And, as the geological evidence shows (accept it or not), CO2 doesn’t drive temperature; it’s the other way around. CO2 is a bit player in climate change, and the humans are bit players in the carbon cycle — 5 per cent a year is minuscule compared to what nature throws out — especially when water vapor represents 90 per cent or more of the greenhouse effect.
We are contributing to climate change, but to say we are the “principal” driver is like saying “oceans are the principal driver” or “surface albedo is the principal driver” or “sunspots are the principal driver” (which may be true, actually). No respectable climate scientist would claim that *one* natural climate element is driving climate in such a complex system, but it’s OK to claim that human carbon emissions are driving climate? This makes no sense.
So, I continue not to be convinced by the AGW hypothesis. That said, I appreciate you taking the time to write from your perspective. Hopefully, if you can provide the climatic “smoking gun” that will prove me wrong, I’ll have the intellectual honesty to change my perspective. Right now, though, as far as I can tell as a non-mathematician, the “smoking gun” — in the form of no warming for a decade — is pointing the other way.
WFM on 16 Jul 2008 at 3:49 pm #
From William F. McClenney.
The problem here is what I call the Nine Times Rule. We live today in the Holocene Epoch, or the interglacial comprising the past 11,500 years since we melted our way out of the Wisconsin ice age. There have been seven ice ages and six interglacials on a 100k year clock dating back to the Mid Pleistocene Transition 800k years ago which forms the only clock we know of in all geology. The ice ages last on average about 90-95k years, and the interglacials lasting about 5-10k years. So at 11.5, this one is starting to look a bit long in the tooth.
Not to worry though we have evidence from the Ironshore Formation (Grand Cayman) that over the past four interglacials, sea levels have been only 16, 22.5, 23 and 29 meters above present, respectively. So a rise of 0.6 (IPCC) or 3 meters (the Gorical) will be almost indistinguisable from what we probably have to go in order to get where we normally end up during each interglacial, and inconsequential in that we have had 16 major climate changes in the last million years that have each averaged 120 meters in sea level change.
But there are two reasons none of this matters one whit. The first is the recent ascendency of prediction to a level above that of fact. A prediction, of course, being a quite credible but nevertheless obvious future fantasy. Facts on the other hand (like those above) are just facts, nothing more. The second being the Nine Times Rule, or my moniker for a pesky fact I learned in a graduate psychology course in the 1980’s. As it turns out the human being is nine times more susceptible to rumor than it is to fact. and since that is a fact, there is an 88.9% chance you will not believe it. You can prove the 9TR by answering this simple question:
What is the correct religion?
You may include in your choice any of the now discarded Holocene religions such as Rah, the Egyptian sun god, or Zeus and the pantheon of gods once resident on Mt. Olympus, if this helps.
On the other hand if predictions are truly ascendent in your mind, try this one on for size. Arctic sedimentologists are coalescing around the fact that the trigger event that precipitates the abrupt slide into each ice age appears to be the complete melting away of the Arctic ice cap, which is predicted to be complete by 2070……..
Moderator’s note: McClenney’s detailed description of the Nine Times Rules and possible melting of the Arctic can be found at the Icecap site, http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/the_sky_is_falling_or_revising_the_nine_times_rule
manacker on 16 Jul 2008 at 10:33 pm #
Message to William F. McClenney
Liked your post, in particular your line of reasoning, “A prediction, of course, being a quite credible but nevertheless obvious future fantasy.”
Don’t know if you have read “The Black Swan” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. It is a good read that goes into your line of reasoning.
In a section entitled “we just can’t predict” he lists two quotes from that great philosopher and American baseball player (New York Yankees) and later coach, Yogi Berra (that every IPCC author, reviewer and political editor should take to heart):
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
And, particularly now that the thermometers out there (even the ones next to AC exhausts and asphalt parking lots) are no longer going along with the predictions:
“The future ain’t what it used to be”.
Words of wisdom.
Max
barry schwarz on 16 Jul 2008 at 10:48 pm #
Thank you for the reply, Paul.
Quote: I’m not a mathematician or statistician (but, then, neither is Al Gore).
Me neither. This is the only statement in your post that bears on my questions. You are the first to make such an (intellectually) honest admission in the conversation I’ve been having here and elsewhere on the topic.
I would prefer to leave Al Gore (and all politics) out of discussions on the science and statistics. I never refer to him myself.
Quote: Even the IPCC admits there’s been a “plateau.”
It does? Have they published something further to the 2007 report? Could you cite it please?
I can see a lot of different trends, positive, negative and flat, using linear regression, depending on the time frame. Certainly there’s been a plateau in recent years, even a downwards trend to present depending on the start year. What hasn’t been explicated is why this is significant. What is the point being made?
Hadley is fudging the data? Then you need to be able to explain why in terms of statistical analyses. Your trend methods are different from Hadley’s. Why are yours more appropriate?
The recent trend has significant implications for anthropological global warming theory? Then what are these implications?
There are some errors in your top post.
Quote: the earth is in an overall warming trend (interglacial) right now and would be whether humans were a factor or not.
The earth is in the cooling phase of the interglacial, heading for an ice age in the next 40 thousand years or so of the Milankovitch cycles. Temperatures peaked about 8000 years ago after a rapid 4000 year climb out of the last ice age and the earth has been cooling since until recently.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
If you can substantiate otherwise, I would be interested to know.
The bears on a point in your top post, about the use of the verbs ‘driving’ and ‘amplifying”. I am fairly sure that this is a case of poor expression. I don’t think Hadley mean to imply that there is already warming underway from natural processes that is being amplified by CO2 accumulation. There are other greenhouse gases operating that also contribute. I will email Hadley for clarification. I suspect they’ll change the wording (‘amplifying’), because I believe it is erroneous. I’ll let you know what they say.
Quote: It was warm from 1850 to 1940, too, but in 1940 the planet cooled for 30 years. However, this cooling can’t happen again, according to the Hadley Centre. How does it know? Because its computers tell it so — the same computers that couldn’t predict the recent 10 years of non-warming.
Hadley contribute to the IPCC on projections and refer to the IPCC in public announcements on climate projections. Some of the model runs for projections from 2000 – 2100 show cooling or flat trends that continue for 10 years and longer – provided you pick your start and end date carefully and run a linear regression.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch10.pdf
(Table 10.5, page 763; and figure 10.20, page 790 – expand to 400% for clarity of viewing)
You can find 10 yr+ flat or cooling trends in all the range ensembles.
In your post script;
Quote: Of course, this wouldn’t do, so the Hadley programs revised their way of calculating temperatures to produce the rising blue and orange lines that they wanted (see the web page above for the second, revised graph).
You are in error. The second graph is not a revision of the first. The calculations used were exactly the same. The time series are different, and the point of that part of the page is that including incomplete years in annual trend analyses can give misleading results.
Bob_FJ on 17 Jul 2008 at 12:00 am #
WFM,
Congrats on a very lucid and rational commentary.
However, you have spoilt my day by writing in part:
Bugger! There I was thinking that loss of all (floating) sea-ice in the Arctic would provide some benefits to humankind! (without ANY increase in sea level, per that guy Pythagoras, and his EUREKA! Annat.)
So what happens? The thermo-haline circulation collapses?
Oh! Oh! Groan! Knickers!
So when I stare daily at SOHO MIDI, hoping to see a sunspot, I could be hoping for the wrong thing? Here is that image of 15/7 again, magnified, and it remains unchanged as of a few minutes ago:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3185/2670890882_b1868f6939_o.jpg
So the much delayed solar cycle 24 may partially save us with a Maunder-type minimum?
Otherwise, a full-blown ice-age with our population of ~6.5 billion could be a tad tricky!
manacker on 17 Jul 2008 at 10:04 am #
A tip for BobFJ
“What do you reckon guys? I’ve been watching this little blemish daily for nearly a week, hoping it will become a sunspot!”
Get a clean cloth and some Windex – it’s just a fly speck on your telescope lens.
And while you’re at it, break out your woollies.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 17 Jul 2008 at 10:23 am #
A follow-up for WFM
Mentioned the book “The Black Swan” in response to your excellent post on the 9TR, predictions, etc.
Taleb starts his chapter 10 “The Scandal of Prediction” with:
“This chapter has two topics. First, we are demonstrably arrogant about what we think we know. We certainly know a lot, but we have a built-in tendency to think that we know a little bit more than we actually do, enough of that little bit to occasionally get us into serious trouble.”
“Second, we will look at the implications of this arrogance for all the activities involving prediction. Why on earth do we predict so much? Worse, even, and more interesting: Why don’t we see how we (almost) always miss the big events? I call this the scandal of prediction.”
The author does not make reference to the climatologists and computer statisticians (at Hadley or elsewhere) that make predictions for IPCC.
He doesn’t have to.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 17 Jul 2008 at 10:51 am #
Hi Barry,
To Paul’s statement, “ Even the IPCC admits there’s been a “plateau”, you asked ,
“It does? Have they published something further to the 2007 report? Could you cite it please?”
Since I’ve already got the info on that, I’ll provide it to you to save him time.
No, of course IPCC has not published a revision to its AR4 WG1 or SPM 2007 reports. This would be an admission that their prediction of a 0.2°C per decade temperature increase for the early 21st century was wrong, and IPCC is not too good at forecast verification or admitting that they made bad predictions.
But the IPCC Chairman, Dr. Pachauri, has acknowledged this temperature plateau even back in early January, when it was not quite as apparent as it has become more recently.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/01/pachauri-to-look-into-apparent.html
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001320pachauri_on_recent_c.html
But, hey, 8 or 10 years do not constitute a “climate trend”, as the 22 years from 1976 to 1998 did, so we’ll have to wait and see what happens.
And we’ll have to wait for Pachauri to look into the causes for this plateau, as he told us he would.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 17 Jul 2008 at 3:17 pm #
Hi Barry,
You asked Paul the question, “Hadley is fudging the data? Then you need to be able to explain why in terms of statistical analyses.”
On the Grist “Global Warming Stopped in 1998” site I sent you this message (part of message discussing Hadley trends):
Now, interestingly Hadley has already started some ex post facto “corrections” to the monthly record for the first four months of 2008 (to “mitigate” this cooling trend?):
Original record
J -0.105
F +0.039
M +0.430
A +0.250
“Corrected” record
J +0.054
F +0.192
M +0.445
A +0.254
Is Hadley “fudging the data” to make it come closer to its prediction??
I sincerely hope that this is not the case.
Up until now, I have always assumed that it is only the GISS record that has been compromised (and is therefore out of line with the others). Let’s hope it stays that way.
Regards,
Max
John Nicklin on 17 Jul 2008 at 5:00 pm #
NASA-GISS and Hadley are driven by computer models that show consistently increasing temperatures, so the record of observation has to be altered to match their reality. They “know” that the observations are just wrong, so they must be tweaked.
This is not science. Science works from observation and hypothesis. When a hypothesis does not match physical observation, the hypothesis must be abandoned or changed. What we see in climate science is just the opposite. We hypothesize then accept only those physical observations that match the hypothesis, where confirming observations cannot be found, they are manufactured.
Over the past year, the temperature anomaly has declined by somewhere around 0.7 degrees C. One year does not make a trend, but it is worthy of note. Maybe the hypothesis should be examined. Not in climate science, just dimiss or better still, alter the records to show that “no, temperatures have not gone down, just plateaued.” In their minds, we can rest assured that the heating will resume soon, nothing to see here, move along.
barry schwarz on 17 Jul 2008 at 6:07 pm #
Quote: They “know” that the observations are just wrong, so they must be tweaked.
Quote: This is not science. Science works from observation and hypothesis.
All the temperature records are adjusted and fairly regularly. This is because the data coming from temperature readings around the world are imperfect. Thermometers are imperfectly calibrated. The initial ARGO bouys were found to float at depths they were not assigned and the data had to be adjusted when this was discovered. You may have read more recent discussions on a different matter re the ARGO system. The satellite data had to be adjusted from Spencer and Christey because they had failed to take orbital decay into account (among other things). Satellites don’t actually measure temperature, so the data is inferred using complex calculations. The two main records, UAH and RSS, get different results from exactly the same data. Each applied a different methodology to ascertain temperatures (from measured wavelength band changes in the atmosphere). Readings from ships around the world use a variety of methods to get sea surface temperatures Engine room intakes have a warm bias, and it’s different for each ship. Canvas buckets cool very rapidly, so this introduces a cool bias (I know this from my own experience with canvas containers holding water). There’s not enough money or manpower to check every ship, so the data must be inferred. And this is even more the case for the historical record, when many ships may have been redesigned, the thermometers moved, or decommissioned. The urban heat island effect must be accounted for. The poles have poor gridding (few weather stations), and a disparity in temps across those regions, so the temperatures again need to be inferred. Readings occur at different times of the day/night, and this needs to be accounted for. Readings at different altitudes must be considered.
There are many other considerations of instrumental bias that affect the final product, and all of these are the subject of ongoing study, criticism and adjustment towards homogenization. Some of this criticism finds its way into the public debate. Bad science would be to assume that all data is perfect and that all thermometers are all perfectly calibrated, or to assume that the inhomogeneities cancel themselves out. Good science does not make such assumptions but tests, discovers, and adjusts.
Quote: NASA-GISS and Hadley are driven by computer models that show consistently increasing temperatures, so the record of observation has to be altered to match their reality.
NASA, GISS, NCDC, UAH and RSS are in fairly good (but not perfect) agreement. The temperature time series are derived by independent institutes, and adjustments are made from various independent studies by people working in and independently from these institutions. The adjustment from canvas buckets raised temps around 1940. This resulted in a small decrease in the centennial trend. Stephen McIntyre found an error with the US temperature record and that resulted in a down adjustment for the latter years of the series. Many adjustments are down, many up. GISS extrapolate data to include the poles. Hadley does not (and so its temperature record is not truly global). Each temperature record uses different methodologies. It seems unlikely to me that there is a conspiracy that each of these institutions is involved in mutually. I would suggest that this theory is grounded in exactly the same fault that it is charging – that the conclusion has come before the reasoning. This bit of the skeptical inquiry is purely political – faith-based if you like. “They’re crooks, therefore everything they do is crooked”. First you have to demonstrate that NCDC, GISS, Hadley, Climate Research Unit, UAH, RSS have done crooked science. Then you can make a conclusion.
John Nicklin, you’ve given some shape to my query on why the last 10 or so years is significant. You’ve implied it that it threatens AGW theory. Will you state your case a little more fully?
Bob_FJ on 17 Jul 2008 at 7:06 pm #
Barry, you wrote in part to Paul MacRae, (Sorry Paul for cutting-in, but Barry seems to have “forgotten” earlier stuff from over at Gristmill and here):
Further to earlier post of Keith on 14 Jul 2008 at 10:50 am, (etc), which you have either not understood, or have ignored, let me try a little analogy:
You have I imagine completed a tax return some-time for the ATO, (In Oz), and will have probably noticed that the financial year runs from July1 to June 30. Could you please answer this simple question; what is the duration of the financial year? Once you have worked that out, could you please apply yourself to Keith’s comments etc.
You also wrote in part
Further to my Bob_FJ on 14 Jul 2008 at 4:03 pm, (etc), can you not understand that the declared Hadley practice of ARBITRARILY selecting the final year of data, and repeating it ten times^, is not sound, and is different to the explanation you quote per an Email. How about you publish your Email and their reply, so that we can try and understand better, rather than you rant at Paul! (Why not ask Hadley for more clarification, even for example; the function values)
^so that they can extend non-existent data and apply their 21-point code,
barry schwarz on 18 Jul 2008 at 8:39 am #
Quote: can you not understand that the declared Hadley practice of ARBITRARILY selecting the final year of data, and repeating it ten times^, is not sound
The practise is not arbitrary. When one runs a 21-point smoothing, one needs data for the ten years either side of the year in question, moving the filter sideways across the time series for each year. Hadley have completed annual data up to 2007. Therefore, the last year for which there is actual data to feed into a 21-point filter is 1997. When they get to 1998, 1999, and 2000, they need data from 2008, 2009 and 2010. Clearly they do not have complete data for these years so they are forced to extrapolate to give an up-to-date annual trend analysis (1850 – 2007). There is no data at all for 2009, which is the end year of a 21-point averaging filter, the middle year being 1999. If they wished to past the past complete year (2007) through the filter, they would need actual yearly data up to 2017. This data is a long way off. Therefore, they can choose a number of methods to do the smoothing. They chose to repeat the last value (which is a product derived from the entire series) in order to filter against the actual data for the years from 1998. If there is a problem with doing this to work out a trend for the ENTIRE SERIES, then you may explain why. Remember, the methodology is used to reduce noise in the 159 year instrumental record to derive an underlying signal (or trend).
Therefore, this is not an arbitrary choice. It is entirely dependent on the length of the filter (21 years). If you wish to question the methodology, you must question the use of a 21-point filter, as opposed to, say, a 10-point filter, or a 5-point filter and so on. Their choice for repeating the last value for ten years is entirely constrained by the choice of using a 21-point filter.
Now, when Hadley ran a trend analysis for the years 1998 – 2007, which is a different analysis altogether, and based entirely on a challenge by the skeptical milieu, not their normal course of business, they used a different methodology because the they have 10 points of data to work with for an annual trend. (2008 is not a complete year, and so may be used for a monthly trend, but not annual) Clearly there is not enough data to run a 21-point trend when there are only 10 data points in total, so they chose to run a first order polynomial lest squares function. If you think this methodology is less robust than a linear regression (which shows warming anyway for the period, but less), then please explain why in statistical, not conspiracy theory, terms. Hit us with the science, not the innuendo.
Hadley have not run a trend that includes the last 6 months. People here see this as suspicious. I see it as proper caution. We can say little about the annual trend including 2008 until all the data is in. I totally agree that the linear regression trend from 1998 to June 2008 is downwards. I have done so already, although it seems that some are so hell-bent on bending me to their view that they have missed it. I have asked on that and ask again: what is the significance of this trend? What is the utility of running a linear regression compared to Hadley’s method? What is the result of running the series you’re interested in under a first order polynomial least squares analysis?
I published the Hadley email in in the gristmill thread. Minus my name and the sign off, it was one sentence only. You read all the substance of it at gristmill. I have left out nothing that would affect this discussion.
barry schwarz on 18 Jul 2008 at 9:04 am #
I could not recover the Guardian article on Pachauri’s comments and so quoted entirely from a skeptical blogsite that only published the following. If anyone has access to the full Guardian web page, I should be grateful.
Guardian Quote:
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.
“One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents,” he told Reuters, adding “are there natural factors compensating?” for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.
He added that sceptics about a human role in climate change delighted in hints that temperatures might not be rising. “There are some people who would want to find every single excuse to say that this is all hogwash,” he said.
: Unquote Guardian
‘Apparent’
1. Readily seen; visible.
2. Readily understood; clear or obvious.
3. Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming: an apparent advantage
A true skeptic will acknowledge that ‘apparent’ can mean ‘readily seen’ or ‘appearing as such but not necessarily so’. The faith-based debaters will select the meaning that suits them.
I will examine Pachauri’s comments and make my own judgment.
Quote: “One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents,” he told Reuters, adding “are there natural factors compensating?” for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.
The period is not specified.
I don’t think it is very skeptical to make a firm pronouncement on what Pachauri thinks based on this. I noticed shortly after it came out that the skeptical blogosphere made its own, sure determination of what Pachauri meant. We do not have the train of question and answers (I’ve searched for it), so we do not have the context properly, just as constructed by a reporter. I am pretty sure that everyone here will agree the media frequently distorts things. Basically, there’s too little information. I notice Pachauri asks the same question I am asking. What does this ‘apparent’ plateau represent?
Also, this is not the view of the IPCC. These are likely the cautious comments of an IPCC official being asked a question at (I assume) a press gaggle, and asking questions, not making pronouncements. At best, he implies that the question is solid. It is hardly definitive.
The skeptical blog I pulled the quote from follows it with this;
Quote Prometheus:
Ironically, by suggesting that their might be some significance to recent climate trends, Dr. Pachauri has provided ammunition to those very same skeptics that he disparages.
: Unquote Prometheus
Indeed.
‘Suggesting’. ‘Might’. The author has not forgotten critical thinking (at least for this comment). Contributors to this blog are much less nuanced, who are the mirror image of the alarmists who make uncritical and incautious claims, turning ‘possibly’ into ‘definitely’.
I do not see much skepticism or critical thinking on this topic, on this thread. I see soundbytes and reasoning derived from prior conclusion.
If you’re going to be a skeptic, be a real one, people.
Make sure it cuts both ways.
That’s worth repeating.
Make sure your skepticism cuts both ways.
There’s precious little real skepticism on both sides of the debate. Most take a position and reason from there – a fallacy in critical thinking we should all be able to recognize.
manacker on 18 Jul 2008 at 11:16 am #
Hi Barry,
You are truly outdoing yourself in the longwinded meaningless commentary category.
But you did find the original article quoting Pachauri.
Great!
Now let’s see what “analysis” he comes up with as an explanation for this “apparent (i.e. ‘readily visible’) plateau”.
We are awaiting with baited breath.
Regards,
Max
PS As a rational skeptic, I agree that skepticism must not be just one-sided. I am skeptical of those who tell me that there has been no warming over the past 75 years (just because US temperatures were higher in the 1930s than they are today). I am sust as skeptical of those that insist that there has been continued warming over the 21st century (when the global record says otherwise). And I am extremely skeptical of climate “forecasters”, both those who predict a new little ice age, as well as those who predict “alarming” AGW. As a rational skeptic I take all climate predictions with a grain of salt. How about you, Barry? Are you a rational skeptic?
barry schwarz on 18 Jul 2008 at 11:27 pm #
Quote: You are truly outdoing yourself in the longwinded meaningless commentary category.
The antidote to soundbytes is a careful exposition of the topic. Over-simplification is the fools answer to science.
“As simple as possible but no simpler”
(Generally attributed to Albert Einstein)
Quote: Now let’s see what “analysis” he comes up with as an explanation for this “apparent (i.e. ‘readily visible’) plateau”.
“Readily visible”. I see you have selected your definition.
Quote: As a rational skeptic I take all climate predictions with a grain of salt. How about you, Barry? Are you a rational skeptic?
I think so. For example, I did not attribute a particular definition to “apparent”. I thought it was too ambiguous from the dearth of information in the cite.
As to climate predictions, they are already expressed in degrees of certainty. The salt is already in the soup. As a rational skeptic, I always have to allow that the whole theory of AGW could be quite wrong. Doubt is fundamental to skepticism.
Bob_FJ on 19 Jul 2008 at 3:28 am #
Barry,
I managed to prop my eyes open long enough during your great long waffle, and found this gem of yours worth quoting, my emphasis added:
You are internally contradictory in what you say about the various CHOICES available, both in the type of filter and why it might be selected, but more importantly, how to handle the tricky problem of the end-point of the smoothing line!
Here follow two charts, that I quickly found for your further education. (Sorry about the source, but the BoM website is masterfully difficult to navigate, I find). The first chart uses an eleven-year, and the second, a five-year moving average. It is un-stated, but they are probably unweighted filters. (going by BoM/CSIRO precedents elsewhere.)
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/rainfall06_bom_summary.JPG
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/rainfall06_bom_austsummaryb.JPG
Notice that in the former, the black smoothing line starts and stops 5 years short from each end, and that the raw data is rather noisy. (11-point)
Notice that in the latter, the red smoothing line is short by 2 years at each end, and the raw data is relatively smooth. (5-point)
The reason why the BoM STOPS short at each end is that in order to continue their smoothing to the end of the raw data, it is necessary to have additional data out into the FUTURE to half the band-width of the filter. The BoM have decided NOT to INVENT such not-yet-existent data, which is scientifically the correct thing to do. However, Hadley CHOOSE to invent 10 years of data into the future, by repeating the last-year result ten times. But why the last year? There is ZERO scientific basis for doing so!
An interesting comparison is with the paleo-dendro’s. (Tree-rings) They have used mostly 30 and 40-year smoothing, but what they do is they repeat the last 15 or 20 years in entirety, but then…. Wait for it…. They flip-flop it! Why? It seems to be in order to show an upturn in growth rate to ameliorate the OBSERVED divergence problem in recent decades!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You also go -on to say that Hadley have done a separate trend plot for the period seen by most of us as a plateau rather like mount Kilimanjaro. I have no recollection of having seen it. Could you please remind me of where it is located? Perhaps a link?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, BTW, per MS WORD dictionary:
arbitrary [rbitrəri]
adj
1. based on whim: based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles
an arbitrary decision
2, 3, 4 [deleted for brevity…..law & authority]
5. mathematics assigned no specific value: describes a mathematical constant that is
barry schwarz on 19 Jul 2008 at 9:55 am #
Quote: I managed to prop my eyes open long enough during your great long waffle
Bob: you get more courteous, we talk.
Here’s the link for the third time. It also appears in Paul’s article above.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html
Hope this post is suitably succinct.
manacker on 19 Jul 2008 at 2:24 pm #
Hi Barry,
Thanks for post. Let’s discuss.
To my statement regarding Dr. Pachauri’s press release, “Now let’s see what “analysis” he comes up with as an explanation for this “apparent (i.e. ‘readily visible’) plateau”, you comment, “readily visible”. I see you have selected your definition.
No, Barry. I let the physically observed facts select my definition of “apparent”. The current plateau in global temperature, to which Dr. Pachauri was making reference, is “apparent” (i.e. “readily visible”) based on the observed Hadley record. No need to interpret anything here, Barry.
To my statement, “As a rational skeptic I take all climate predictions with a grain of salt”, you wrote: “As to climate predictions, they are already expressed in degrees of certainty. The salt is already in the soup.”
Yes, the “degrees of certainty” expressed (by IPCC) are defined by such expressions as “very likely” (>90%), “likely” (>66%) and “more likely than not” (>50%). However, one still needs to take these predictions with a “grain of salt”.
Let’s just take one example (straying from temperature curves, which we have already discussed to death).
I read in IPCC 2007 SPM (Table SPM.2.) that it is “likely” (>66%) that the frequency of “warm spells/heat waves” and “heavy precipitation events” increased “in the later 20th century”, and that it is “more likely than not” (>50%) that there was “a human contribution to observed trend”. There are the footnotes: “magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed” and “attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies”.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
So I conclude that “experts” have made the “judgment” (without any “formal attribution studies” to back up this “judgment”) that there is a slightly better than 50-50 possibility that humans made a “conribution of unassessed magnitude” to a late 20th-century trend of increased “warm spells/heat waves” and “heavy precipitation events” that are “likely” (>66% probability) to have occurred.
Now we come to the “climate predictions”. In the same table IPCC tells us that the “likelihood of future trends based on projections for 21st century using SRES scenarios” tell us that both “warm spells/heat waves” and “heavy precipitation events” are “very likely” (>90%) to increase.
The expressed “degree of certainty” for the future prediction is considerably higher than the “degree of certainty” for the past event, which in itself is not based on “formal attribution studies”, but on “expert judgment”.
That’s when I say (as a rational skeptic), “pass the salt shaker, please”.
You wrote: “As a rational skeptic, I always have to allow that the whole theory of AGW could be quite wrong. Doubt is fundamental to skepticism.”
This is correct. And, as a rational skeptic, I can accept that the greenhouse hypothesis may well be right (although unproven as yet by physical observation). At the same time I can be rationally skeptical of climate model assumptions suggesting a series of “positive feedbacks” that exaggerate the warming as stipulated by the greenhouse hypothesis for CO2 by a factor of 3 to 4.
And, when I see that there are studies based on physical observations that directly refute these assumed computer-based positive feedbacks, I get even more rationally skeptical (back to the “salt shaker”).
So maybe these few examples can explain to you my position as a rational skeptic on AGW as it is being postulated by IPCC.
But I’m glad you also classify yourself as a “rational skeptic”. Just keep challenging all the hype that’s out there (from both sides) and make up your own mind based on physically observed data (where available) rather than model studies or someone’s interpretation of the data.
Regards,
Max
barry schwarz on 19 Jul 2008 at 6:34 pm #
Quote: No, Barry. I let the physically observed facts select my definition of “apparent”. The current plateau in global temperature, to which Dr. Pachauri was making reference, is “apparent” (i.e. “readily visible”) based on the observed Hadley record. No need to interpret anything here, Barry.
The point we were discussing was not what you think but what the meaning was in the context of the article. There’s not enough information to know that IMO.
Pachauri studied economics and engineering, and has mostly held managerial positions in his career. That he said he’ll “look into it” (the reporters words, not his) should suggest he’s not qualified to comment – why he qualified his remarks. This soundbyte has gotten wa-a-ay more traction than it merits.
As to your own thoughts on the matter, we don’t seem to be in too much disagreement. A linear regression for climatically short period ‘x’ shows a flat trend. Too soon to make a judgment on anything. It will be interesting to see what develops. Where we differ is on the question of the utility of the regression methodology. You seem to give it absolute credence. I question that. Neither of us has the skill to make a determination on that question, apparently*, but you appear* to have done so regardless.
* Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming
Keith on 19 Jul 2008 at 8:17 pm #
Barry,
There is no difference between a “first order polynomial least squares function” and linear regression. Both find a line which minimizes the sum of the squares of the errors between the line and the data points.
As you already pointed out, Hadley is using a 21 point weighted moving average to calculate a smoothed temperature anomaly plot. The problem with any moving average is what to do at the end points. For example, for the 21 point moving average, after 1997, you run out of data ten years into the future. The way Hadley worked around this in the past is that they estimated a temperature anomaly for the year in progress by averaging the months already seen in this year. They then used this estimated anomaly for ten years into the future and used this extrapolated value to continue the moving average up to 2008. This is shown by the orange line in Figure 2 at http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/smoothing.html. The problem is that 2008 has so far been rather cool which caused the resulting smoothed temperature anomaly plot to dip down toward the low average anomaly seen so far for 2008.
So what do you do with data which inconveniently does not show the trend you want? Why, you ignore it, of course. This is what they have done with the blue line in Figure 2. They simply took the anomaly for 2007 and extended it for 10 years instead. What should be quite interesting to watch will be their gyrations should 2008 continue to be on the cool side. In this case, their smoothed plot at the end of 2008 would indeed look exactly like the orange line. Who knows? They may just stop producing a plot until the Global Warming Gods start cooperating with properly increasing temperatures.
Bob_FJ on 20 Jul 2008 at 1:12 am #
Barry,
Further to Keith’s elaboration on the recent change of methodology for their MSU data for the last ten years, *if you still don’t get it*, try Steve McIntyre’s related article and blog @
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2955
(MSU = Make Stuff Up)
Bob_FJ on 20 Jul 2008 at 1:16 am #
Barry, Reur; 19 Jul 2008 at 9:55 am
Thanks for a succinct reply, but unfortunately it did not address the question and is confused. What you linked to is an older 21-point smoothed version, probably early 2007, of what Keith explained shortly above. (I have shown a more recent early 2008 version by Hadley, which is more embarrassing, and which seems to have been deleted)
However, what I asked you to elaborate was different again, concerning your Email exchange with Hadley, which describes SOMETHING ELSE, being the equivalent of the second graph in Paul’s lead article above, that he borrowed NOT from Hadley, but from WattsUP.
Please carefully read Paul’s text alongside both of the graphs he presented for further explanation.
You also wrote in part above:
I’m sorry Barry, but there are several internal contradictions in this statement!
In brief, where is the Hadley equivalent of the second graph presented by Paul in the lead article?
Bob_FJ on 20 Jul 2008 at 1:38 am #
BTW Barry,
If you invent MSU data out ten years into the future, by simply repeating the last available value ten times, can you not see that it would by quite silly to then do a linear trend analysis on it?
manacker on 20 Jul 2008 at 3:05 am #
Back in January, Hadley predicted no let-up in warming for 2008.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL0314515220080103
“The Met Office and experts at the University of East Anglia on Thursday said global average temperatures this year would be 0.37 of a degree Celsius above the long-term 1961-1990 average of 14 degrees and be the coolest since 2000.”
Quoting Phil Jones the article states, “What matters is the underlying rate of warming – the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 degree C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 degree C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000.”
Let’s see how well the Met Office is doing in their prediction. (They already did poorly two years in a row with predictions of “record years” that did not turn out that way.)
The first six months of 2008 averaged 0.201 degree C (later “corrected” to 0.256 degree C) above the long-term 1961-90 average, and 0.05 to 0.10 degree C colder than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000.
So far, the “experts at the University of East Anglia” are off by 0.12 to 0.17 degree Celsius.
Ouch!
barry schwarz on 20 Jul 2008 at 7:24 am #
Hello Keith. If you are able to shed some light on statistical analysis, I would be very grateful to learn.
When you say, “There is no difference between a “first order polynomial least squares function” and linear regression.”, are you saying that they are exactly the same equation? More to the point, will you always get the exact same result for a trend run from the same set of data with the two analyses?
Pure least squares will always produce a straight line, correct? Will a first order polynomial likewise always produce a straight-line trend?
“Both find a line which minimizes the sum of the squares of the errors between the line and the data points.”
This much I’ve learned to date. I speculated that Hadley used the 1st order polynomial least squares to run a trend analysis from annual temps 1998 – 2007 because it provides the better fit to data (smaller sum of errors than linear regression). Are you able to test that theory and confirm/refute?
barry schwarz on 20 Jul 2008 at 8:09 am #
Bob said: “Thanks for a succinct reply, but unfortunately it did not address the question and is confused.”
You asked a few questions. I addressed only one. Short replies can lead to ambiguity.
Bob, you wrote:
“You also go -on to say that Hadley have done a separate trend plot for the period seen by most of us as a plateau rather like mount Kilimanjaro. I have no recollection of having seen it. Could you please remind me of where it is located? Perhaps a link?”
The Hadley link I gave you contains the statement;
“A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade.”
When this was queried at gristmill I emailed Hadley for what the ‘simple calculation’ was. They replied as I’ve transcribed here and at gristmill – first order polynomial least squares method.
I assume this is a different methodology than just ‘least squares’ method, which gives a different result. I have since, and am still, asking why people think a pure least squares analysis is the better choice for the data population. I speculate Hadley chose the method that gave the best fit to data for the 1998 – 2007 period (smallest sum of errors). Hopefully Keith will respond on this precise point.
I had composed a longer reply to your other points, but it occurred to me it wasn’t worth posting it if you are having trouble staying awake while reading my stuff.
If we were experts in statistical analysis, I would be able to make more concise posts. If this gets too windy, you can always abandon the conversation, no hard feelings.
You said:
“The BoM have decided NOT to INVENT such not-yet-existent data, which is scientifically the correct thing to do. However, Hadley CHOOSE to invent 10 years of data into the future, by repeating the last-year result ten times. But why the last year? There is ZERO scientific basis for doing so!”
Hadley do not ‘invent’ the data. The data are the temperature anomalies for each year.
What Hadley do that is exciting so much interest is to EXTRAPOLATE the last ten years by repeating the value of the last year – in order to shape the FILTER through which each subsequent year’s temperature anomaly is passed. They do not repeat the same temperature anomaly for each year, or they’d wind up with a completely flat line.
I believe Keith would do a better job of explaining this.
As Hadley themselves say, there are a number choices for the way to continue a 21-point filter when they get to the last ten data points, and that extending in this way is not ‘ideal’. This is one of the subjects of discussion at the climateaudit link you gave. I found the conversation interesting, and, to my surprise, I found the description of different methods comprehensible
Hadley makes the same point you make;
“Ideally the smoothing should stop before the filter ‘runs off’ the end of the series,” [as BoM has done in the graphs you linked]
and then Hadley explain why they continue the series;
“but a series that has been shortened in this way appears not to be up-to-date.”
The 21-point filter is chosen to reduce noise and reveal the signal. This methodology is extended beyond the ideal limit because Hadley wish to (and are probably asked to) present an annual trend that is up to date (includes the last full year).
I reckon you will want to make a new point, but can we sort these out before moving on? I’m not going anywhere just yet.
If Keith is an expert in statistical analysis, it would be wonderful to have him weigh in. I am content to be wrong – as long as the points I make are addressed specifically and light is shed on my errors.
Keith on 20 Jul 2008 at 8:23 am #
Barry,
“When you say, “There is no difference between a “first order polynomial least squares function” and linear regression.”, are you saying that they are exactly the same equation?”
Yes.
“More to the point, will you always get the exact same result for a trend run from the same set of data with the two analyses?”
Yes.
“Pure least squares will always produce a straight line, correct? Will a first order polynomial likewise always produce a straight-line trend?”
Yes.
The equation for a line is the familiar y=mx + b. For a polynomial regression, you minimize the errors to an equation of the form y= a0 + a1*x + a2*x^2 + … + an*x^n, where “n” represents the “order” of the polynomial. A first order polynomial, y=a0 + a1*x, is precisely the same as a line. When a scientist says they are using first order polynomial least squares, they are just using a fancy term for linear regression. In fact, linear regression is just short for “linear least squares regression.”
admin on 20 Jul 2008 at 6:09 pm #
Paul here. My apologies for not contributing to this thread for a few days, but I’ve been on holiday. Here are some of my thoughts on what Barry and others have had to say:
Barry,
The question about the IPCC plateau has been answered – I think it’s disingenuous to suggest that Pachauri doesn’t have a clue because he’s just a bureaucrat. He’s the head of the IPCC, for Pete’s sake! Surely he follows the latest climate figures at least as closely as we do.
And I’ll be interested to hear what the Hadley Centre has to say about the difference between “driving” and “amplifying.” It’s more than a question of semantics, because most climate skeptics are quite willing to accept that human activities amplify, to some (probably small) degree, natural effects. Those who accept the AGW theory, of course, believe humans are driving the process. There is a huge difference – indeed, it is the difference.
In this respect, what you said about the planet already being in the ice-ward slope of this interglacial is intriguing. I’m not unaware of this, of course, and if you were to look at almost any of my posts or columns, you will see a warning that the real enemy we face in the longer run is not warming but cooling.
If the planet has tipped into the cooling side of the curve then our descendents are in trouble. But, then, they’d be in trouble no matter what we do – the Milankovitch natural cycles are way beyond our ability to control, as I think you’d agree. It’s just a matter of time before the glaciers begin to advance – unless, of course, it’s true that humanity’s carbon dioxide is warming up the planet to such a degree that it will delay indefinitely the glacial episode.
This would be a blessing, not a curse, wouldn’t it? And life has survived and thrived under higher CO2 and temperature regimes – we’re not facing extinction if CO2 levels go to, say, 800 ppm or even higher (see “Making of a climate skeptic” and “Learning to think like a geologist,” on the site).
On the other hand, if you do agree about the power of the Milankovitch cycles, then you might also agree nothing we can do will substantially warm up the planet enough to stop them, although this is what AGW theory states we can do through CO2, so perhaps I shouldn’t be so quick to anticipate agreement.
I do know that several scientists, including Fred Hoyle, back in the colder 1970s when some scientists feared a new Ice Age, rejected the idea that we could warm the planet with CO2 or by any other known means (Hoyle suggested warming the oceans over thousands of years).
One of these warming skeptics then was Stanford’s Stephen Schneider, a major publicizer of the AGW hypothesis today. In those days, he was a less-major but very vocal proponent of fears that the planet was cooling (see The Genesis Strategy). Why won’t CO2 do the job? Because, as Schneider and S.I. Rasool noted in a paper back in 1971: “As more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase eventually levels off” (S.I. Rasool and S.H. Schneider, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.” Science, July 9, 1971 (Vol. 173), p. 139). Today, Schneider, at least, seems to have changed both his mind and the laws of physics.
One of my posts, on David Attenborough getting “hosed” by consensus climate science, has a photo of a GCM projection that shows the “natural” climate (without human influence) as a green line descending into cooling. The red (temperature) and yellow (human-induced warming) lines are, of course, much higher.
I pooh-poohed Attenborough’s confidence in that projection because I believe it’s a lot more difficult to separate the human and natural components of warming than the climate modeler claimed. I could be wrong on this, but if so I’m in good company – a lot of scientists far more knowledgeable than I believe we still don’t have a handle on what part of climate change is natural and what human.
I and others do contend, though, that the human part is too small to be a major player – we’re talking in the order of perhaps 30 molecules of human-caused atmospheric CO2 per million molecules of air. That’s the equivalent of three people in a stadium holding 100,000 people – those three people will not, I’d think, be “driving” the cheers of the crowd, although they might “amplify” the noise.
However, let’s accept for a moment that the planet is, as the Attenborough GCM states, naturally cooling or, as you say, Barry, that the planet is past the tipping point in this interglacial.
I’ve yet to hear any “consensus” climate scientist come right out and say this, which is surprising to me because I follow the climate scene closely. What we, the public, are told is that the climate would be stable if we weren’t “polluting” the atmosphere with CO2, therefore warming is primarily our fault. But, assuming that human activity is as powerful as the AGW theorists believe – if we stopped “polluting” — the alternative is not a “stable” climate but a cooling one. In other words, we’re on the downward slope to glaciation.
If this was so, if human CO2 really was this powerful -– then why on earth would we want to reduce carbon emissions if they are keeping the planet from cooling? If carbon dioxide has the warming qualities that the AGW hypothesis claims — I don’t believe it does, not in the short run; in the long run, over centuries, CO2 may perhaps “amplify” warming, as even Gristmill (or is it realclimate? Or both?) notes in its shameful defence of Al Gore’s giant and completely misleading wall chart; but if it did — then the carbon-reducing strategy the “consensus” scientists would like us to adopt will expose us even more than at present to this downward slide into another glaciation.
On the other hand, if the AGW theorists are correct, putting carbon in the atmosphere might delay this process of glaciation that, far, far more than warming, is a threat to global civilization, at least in the northern hemisphere. No northern Europe, no Canada, no northern part of the United States.
Yet I’ve yet to hear one “consensus” scientist say, “If we stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere, the planet will get colder and — oops! — we’ll have another ice age.” Why? Because this admission, too, will weaken the public’s resolve to deal with carbon – why try to stop warming when it’s not warming? Hence Hadley and the other “consensus” centres try to minimize any hint of cooling.
One further thing: falsification. If one accepts the idea that hypotheses are created to be falsified, then the current flat-line (or very weak warming) doesn’t support the AGW hypothesis. Mark Lynas weasels on this: it’s natural variation, he says (see “Why Climate ‘Science’ isn’t Science” on my site): “Although CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing each year, no one ever argued that temperatures would do likewise. Why? Because the planet’s atmosphere is a chaotic system, which expresses a great deal of inter-annual variability due to the interplay of many complex and interconnected variables. Some years are warmer and cooler than others.”
So, when it suits the AGW theorists, like now, the climate system is chaotic, with many variables beyond the human, and climate variation is natural. When it doesn’t suit, climate change is entirely human-caused. This infinite expandability of interpretation is one of the hallmarks, incidentally, of pseudo-science (see Popper’s The Logic of Scientific Discovery or, for a simpler explanation, his autobiography, Unended Quest. Popper is someone whom the AGW theorists seem to avoid because he attacks the idea of scientific certainty, among other things dear to the “consensus”.)
But, more to the point here, the recent non-warming seems to be due to a drop in sunspot activity (see “Are sunspots to blame for climate change” on the site), as some contributors have pointed out in this thread. If sunspot activity falls, warming stops. Doesn’t this imply that sunspot activity is a strong component of warming? That it overrides human influence?
We’re told by the “consensus” that even if we severely reduced our carbon emissions, we’d only get a tiny drop in the pace of warming. But when sunspots stop, warming stops (or almost). Therefore, my vote as the “principal” component of warming is the sun, not human activity. Again: no sunspots, cooling (or non-warming). Sunspots, warming. Humans? Pretty irrelevant.
I hope there are some thoughts here worth pondering and debating, in a respectful fashion. Why respectful? Because, Barry, you could well be right! I don’t think you are, for the reasons stated above and many more, but I’m not 100 per cent certain you’re not right, in part because I don’t think anyone really knows what’s going on with climate – it’s all hypothesis and no proof. And so we should listen, with respect, to anyone who has something intelligent to contribute, as you do.
Paul
manacker on 20 Jul 2008 at 11:23 pm #
On the ClimateAudit site I am trying to get an answer to my remark on this site (17 July 3:17 pm) why the Hadley temperature record for the months of January through April 2008 was “corrected” after the fact in an upward direction to the extent of +0.08C average per month, making a sharply cooler period appear “less cool”.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964
So far I have gotten two answers:
“The data doesn’t all arrive at once, as data arrives it’s input into the calculation.”
To which a second blogger added: “You neglected to mention that the changes include late data PLUS an estimated variance adjustment. In other words, the temperature reported in the dataset is another artifact and not the real observed temperature.”
I also noted that Hadley had already predicted in early 2008 that warming would continue in 2008. (I find it basically strange that the Met Office, which is supposed to be reporting observed temperature anomalies as they occur, gets into the business of “predicting” what they will measure and report in advance, but maybe someone has some other thoughts on this.)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL0314515220080103
Is this upward adjustment introducing an “artifact” in order to confirm the earlier Hadley “prediction”?
If anyone here has an answer to why the Hadley record for January-April 2008 was adjusted upward after the fact, I would very much appreciate clarification.
Max
manacker on 20 Jul 2008 at 11:36 pm #
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your post 20 Jul 2008 at 6:09 pm. This is the kind of informative blog from which we can all benefit.
Your point that “I don’t think anyone really knows what’s going on with climate – it’s all hypothesis and no proof” is well taken.
I am also convinced that there is still a whole lot more that we do not yet know about what drives Earth’s climate than we do know.
This is why I also tend to categorize the arrogantly confident statements (based on GCM projections rather than physically observed hard data) in the IPCC SPM 2007 political report (for policymakers”) as “pseudoscience”, rather than real science.
But the debate with Barry and others is interesting and your site provides a good forum.
Max
Bob_FJ on 21 Jul 2008 at 12:15 am #
Paul,
Reur concerns about potential global cooling.
I checked “SOHO MDI Continuum Latest Image” a few minutes ago, (an image of the Sun), and there is still NO CHANGE since my descriptive magnified image version @
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3185/2670890882_b1868f6939_o.jpg
I’m beginning to think that Max is right; that the tiny speck at 3 o’clock, is maybe a “fly-speck”; not an emerging black-hole!
I’m confused now; is cooling “Good news” or “Bad news”?
Bob_FJ on 21 Jul 2008 at 12:33 am #
Barry, you wrote in part:
What you describe (?) is not a mathematical or graphical formulaic extrapolation.
It does not have any scientific validity in forecasting that the same value as that of (say) 2007, will be repeated IDENTICALLY for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.
If you carefully study the annual bar chart in Paul’s lead article, you will see that in the past ~150 years, there has never been a case where two adjacent annual bars have had the same value. You are now asking us to believe the Hadley projection, that there will be eleven years in a row, ten into the future, when they will all be IDENTICAL in value. Statistically, I find this to be a totally bizarre speculation. (= an invention)
Do you now agree that the Hadley approach is an ARBITRARY method, (= a whim, a choice,,,,), which has nothing to do with accurately conveying scientific information to the public. Furthermore, have you not yet understood that they are not shy to change their arbitrary method if the actual data does not give the trend that they want to show?
Bob_FJ on 21 Jul 2008 at 1:06 am #
Paul,
Re: various potential global cooling hypotheses.
Have you seen the first item on:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool
Click “full story”
I feel that the argument of an emerging multi-decadal cold PDO cycle is not yet supported by adequate evidence, and we can probably do without it for the moment.
I further believe that Hadley’s assertion of cold PDO causing the plateau since 1998, is NOT supported by any published ENSO or PDO index charts. (I may elaborate on that more later, if you like)
However, I’m worried about our dear ol’ Sun. Why does she slumber, and for how long? …. hoping she does not repeat some bad history!
Then of course there is that massive “Svensmark” 5-year research programme at CERN!
And, and, and….. Enough for now!
barry schwarz on 21 Jul 2008 at 7:59 am #
Keith,
Thank you very much for the reply.
The two equations are the same thing – it has been quite difficult, as a novice, to nail that down. I finally found a page today that was very clear on it, my new search prompted in part by the wording in your reply.
http://www.curvefit.com/other_regressions.htm
I have an acquaintance who is an economist, who ran the instrumental time series through what he called a ‘linear regression’ and a ‘polynomial regression’. He emailed me the results. The polynomial regression was a curve. This, as well as seeing curved plot lines titled ‘polynomials’ as I tried to fathom the methods by searching the net, led me astray.
I ran a linear plot to check the Hadley claim for 1998 – 2007. There is no discrepancy.
I ran a linear regression from 1998 which included the figure for the unfinished 2008. The trend is warming but less so than for the 1998 – 2007 trend, understandably.
At this point, it would seem that ‘global warming stopped in 1998’ is a misnomer just looking at the trend. (I know that it is a misnomer for other reasons, but this particular rendering has been a point of contention).
Beyond 1998, the trend has been down, or flat. What this means in climatic terms has been debated. 9.5 years of no warming is not unexpected, but it has created quite a stir.
barry schwarz on 21 Jul 2008 at 9:33 am #
I was thinking the other day of the meta-narrative that may be derived by lay-people accepting AGW theory.
The story goes: we are all confronted by a mutual threat. The whole planet pulls together to combat it. This threat transcends borders and brings the peoples of the world together in a grand plan to protect everyone.
Whether or not this meta-narrative is a product of bad science or being ill-informed, it’s a positive one. Idyllic: yes. Unrealistic: maybe. But for those who think like that, it is hard for me to rubbish their idealism, regardless of the foundation of their views.
A positive meta-narrative can easily be constructed for the dogged skeptics – who are trying to save the world from self-interested scientists, when poverty and strife are more pressing issues deserving of a concerted effort and funding.
🙂
manacker on 21 Jul 2008 at 8:46 pm #
Hi Barry,
Your story goes: “we are all confronted by a mutual threat. The whole planet pulls together to combat it. This threat transcends borders and brings the peoples of the world together in a grand plan to protect everyone.”
“Whether or not this meta-narrative is a product of bad science or being ill-informed, it’s a positive one. Idyllic: yes. Unrealistic: maybe. But for those who think like that, it is hard for me to rubbish their idealism, regardless of the foundation of their views.”
“A positive meta-narrative can easily be constructed for the dogged skeptics – who are trying to save the world from self-interested scientists, when poverty and strife are more pressing issues deserving of a concerted effort and funding.”
Enjoyed your meta-narrative meta-narrative “that may be derived by lay-people accepting AGW theory”, Barry. It’s a beautiful story.
But let’s get more specific.
What is this “mutual threat” by which “we are all confronted”?
Imminent climate “tipping points”? Not probable.
Invasion by aliens from outer space? Unlikely (despite the still top-secret USAF “Roswell” file plus others).
A “power grab” by politicians and bureaucrats to tax the very air we breathe, so they can shuffle around hundreds of billions of dollars, thereby reducing everyone’s prosperity and diverting money from worthy causes? Or the equally onerous alternate involving the set-up of new “carbon footprint cap and trade schemes” by which a few already wealthy individuals and some hedge funds will get wealthier at the expense of everyone else, especially those at the bottom of the economic pyramid today? Is this the “mutual threat” by which “we are all confronted”? Lets us assume so for this dramatic “meta-narrative”.
So (in your words) “The whole planet (at least those rationally skeptical of the “pseudoscience” being used to support the threat) pulls together to combat it. This threat transcends borders and brings the peoples of the world together in a grand plan to protect everyone” (from this power grab and the economic havoc it would create for everyone, especially the poorest on the planet).
Again, in your almost poetic words, “Whether or not this meta-narrative is a product of bad science or being ill-informed, it’s a positive one. Idyllic: yes. Unrealistic: maybe. But for those who think like that, it is hard for me to rubbish their idealism, regardless of the foundation of their views.”
So, even if these ”noble skeptics” do not have all the facts and lack some information, they are still idealistically fighting to avert the “mutual threat by which we are all confronted”. Idyllic: yes. Unrealistic (in view of the big money support of their opposition): maybe. But (as you say), “it is hard to rubbish their idealism, regardless of the foundation of their views.”
Yet (and now the background music shifts from heroic sounds of marching music in major keys to sinister bass sounds in minor keys), “A positive meta-narrative can easily be constructed for the dogged believers in and supporters of this “power grab” – who, in their misguided naïve gullibility are playing into the hands of the sinister power brokers who claim to be trying to save the world from a virtual climate disaster that never was, but in fact are only pressing issues in their own interests, thereby diverting critically needed funding from those who need it most).”
As the music fades out, a picture of a starving child in Africa fills the screen…
How do you like my meta-narrative, Barry?
Regards,
Max
barry schwarz on 21 Jul 2008 at 9:00 pm #
Bob, I’m not sure I get your comments properly, but it seems to me that you are suggesting the temperature anomaly for 1997 is being repeated as the mid-year for the 21-point smoothing. As far as I can glean with my too limited knowledge, this isn’t the case. The temperature anomalies for the following 10 years are employed as the middle figure. They still have the greatest weight – at the high point of the bell curve. The ‘final value’ for 1997 is included in the FILTER that weights the value for the subsequent years temperature anomalies. This is not, of course, ideal, as Hadley says. The filter is compromised. But if they wish to continue this smoothing methodology beyond 1997, to present a graph that shows a smoothed trend to the present day, a choice must be made in how to do it.
I obviously cannot speak about the efficacy of that choice. I wonder what you think would be better. There are three options I can think of.
1) Don’t present a smoothed trend beyond 1997.
2) Choose a smaller filter.
(But you’d still have the problem of what to do to if you wanted to extend the trend to the last full year)
3) Don’t smooth the data at all.
This brings certain questions to mind.
Why do they smooth the data? Why go with a 21-point filter? Is there a better way of extending the line using the filtering methodology? What are the reasons for publishing an up-to-date trend (despite lack of real data)?
I have my own answers to some of these questions, but I wonder if you have considered them neutrally.
What would you do?
barry schwarz on 21 Jul 2008 at 9:09 pm #
That’s a fine meta-narrative, Max. Not much different from the short one I offered supporting the skeptical view – except the villains are greedy governments. In either case, the rational skeptics fight to save humanity from powers that hide their rapacious self-interest behind a smokescreen of environmental responsibility.
barry schwarz on 21 Jul 2008 at 9:36 pm #
Paul, I posted a reply to you, but it appears not have gone through. When I tried again I got the duplication message. I saved the copy and am posting it now. If a double-up ensues, please delete one of them.
****************
Paul,
Thanks for your reasoned and reasonable reply.
Quote: However, let’s accept for a moment that the planet is, as the Attenborough GCM states, naturally cooling or, as you say, Barry, that the planet is past the tipping point in this interglacial.
The way I’d put it (from what I’ve learned) is that the earth climbed fairly rapidly out of the last glacial period 12k years ago. The process took 4k – 6k years to peak, and there has been a long, slow, gradual cooling going on since. Something we would not notice (apart from LIA and Maunder-like periods). IIRC, the amount of mean cooling over the last 6k – 8k years is about -0.5C.
Although wiki is a limited resource, it usually provides a lot of references. I therefore repost the wiki page on the Holocene cooling and direct you to the studies listed. Although they have a large variance in the temperature reconstructions, all but one are in fair agreement as to the long-term cooling. The plot is the mean of the 12 studies referenced.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Quote: I’ve yet to hear any “consensus” climate scientist come right out and say this, which is surprising to me because I follow the climate scene closely.
While Milankovitch cycles are complex, involving many different orbital and rotational parameters, there is a consensus (it may be unanimous – I don’t know) that the 8k yrs of slow, slight and gradual cooling is an artefact of the Milnkovitch cycles.
Cite: “An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that, “Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years”
My understanding comes from reading articles citing various studies and in the semi-popular debate on the web. I’ve not found any material positing a warming from the current phase of the Milankovitch cycle.
Quote: What we, the public, are told is that the climate would be stable if we weren’t “polluting” the atmosphere with CO2, therefore warming is primarily our fault. But, assuming that human activity is as powerful as the AGW theorists believe – if we stopped “polluting” — the alternative is not a “stable” climate but a cooling one. In other words, we’re on the downward slope to glaciation.
It depends on the (temporal) context of what is being said. The concern with AGW theory is that industrial CO2 emissions (plus other GHGs, plus climate feedbacks), could bring about a rapid change of climate – relative to, say the last 1000 years. The early 20th century warming was assisted in some part by increased solar activity (there has been decreased solar activity over the last 30 years). The current interglacial has been an unusually temperate and stable period. The general cooling that has occurred over the last 6 – 8k years has been modest. Compared to projected temperature rises in the coming century, this represents ‘stability’. No one purports that stability = the same temperature year after year, or that there is not a gradual change over geological periods.
The concern is not that the climate will change – that has always happened. The concern is with the RATE of change.
Humans have been around for 200 000 years and have survived an ice age and a ‘rapid’ warming phase (measured over 4 – 6 thousand years) to the present interglacial equilibrium.
Humans have have spread out and gained dominion over the the land surface of the planet. Our populations are sustained by agricultural infrastructure and access to water. We’ve stopped being nomadic and are more ‘locked in’ to the systems we have created. We have become numerous and rely heavily on the stability of our resources. All this has occurred in a relatively stable climatic environment. Where there has been a rapid rise or fall of temperature, it has occurred over several hundred years. If the climate changed in the past, humans simply followed the weather.
In the last thousand years, state borders have sprung up. Rivers and lakes have been dammed and irrigation now provides feeds to farms that could not have been sustained before technology came along to extend our infrastructure. Rice paddies that feed hundreds of millions in Asia and around the world subsist in a few centimetres of water. If the sea level rises 10 centimeters, that may devastate a large swathe of rice paddies along the Mekong delta (for example). When there were fewer of us, the farmers would simply relocate to higher ground. That higher ground is now owned by other farmers growing different stocks. Relocation now would have ongoing consequences. There would be a large exodus, and the focal point would be the cities. And there is no guarantee that the projected climate shift would move good weather to arable soil. We might not just be playing catch-up, we might find that the weather for sustaining agriculture has moved to mountains or barren earth. Climate migration is also the subject of ongoing study.
Water is projected to become more scarce. Precipitation is projected to increase, but it is projected to fall more and more outside catchment areas. The US and UK militaries have been contingency strategizing on so-called ‘water wars’. I’ve traveled to parts of the world where water resources have already prompted bitter state to state antipathy (like between India and Nepal at the Western border near Banbassa/Mahendranagar).
In my own country, the oldest continent on the earth, we subsist on the most stable, and relatively barren geology on the planet. There is no massive volcanic activity bringing minerals to the surface and replenishing arable land. Our soil is thin, our water scarce. We have endured some of the severest droughts in post-colonial history in many parts of the country (eased up in some places very recently). This has already brought much hardship to the agricultural sector. If droughts become more intense and more frequent, that would strain our resources further. Adaptation would be expensive. The fertile soil has been blowing off the Great Australian Bight for thousands of years (fertilizing the marine life in the southern sea). This country is vulnerable. I hope the IPCC projections are all wrong, and that AGW theory is as wrong as some critics put it.
I guess I will be accused of waffling here, but I mean to establish that the concerns are grounded in real potentials, not the hand-waving alarmism that (rightly) is criticised for its lack of probity. I had to set a couple of friends straight the other day when they insisted that Greenland would be melted in the next ‘few years’, and that their coastal residence was threatened. They had conflated the Arctic melt with knowledge of sea-level rise from a full Greenland melt.
I want to say that no scientist thinks humans will die out, or that the planet will die. These are the vapid comments of people who are real alarmists, and thankfully they don’t have any political clout or scientific credibility. The concern is simply that we rely on a stable climate – namely, one that won’t change too much over a period of decades. Long-term changes we can adapt to, like the frog in the pot brought to boil (throw the frog in a boiling pot and it dies – leave him in there while it slowly heats, and he survives). But if the change is rapid, adaptation could be costly, and possibly deadly for many vulnerable people in poorer countries. Some economists reckon that mitigation would be considerable less costly than adaptation. This is one of the aspects that is subject to considerable debate.
There’s one thing I want to say that I think is very important. This sums up my current position in the general debate.
If we give the skeptical side of the debate equal footing with the mainstream view, we end up with this:
It’s possible that the changes we have made to the atmosphere, and are continuing to make, will change the climate. How rapidly that might occur, to what degree, or even if much will change at all, is uncertain.
In the words of a skeptic I greatly admire;
“Lost in the Manichean debate over climate change is the real significance of what climate models really are telling us: We should act on climate mitigation and adaptation not because we are able to predict the future, but because we cannot.”
– Roger Pielke Snr
barry schwarz on 21 Jul 2008 at 10:19 pm #
‘Course, if the globe is heading for substantial cooling, then we’d need to direct our efforts differently.
manacker on 22 Jul 2008 at 3:28 pm #
Hi Barry,
I liked your well-reasoned post in response to Paul, and would only have comments to two points.
“Some economists reckon that mitigation would be considerable less costly than adaptation. This is one of the aspects that is subject to considerable debate.”
The logic here has a basic flaw.
To “mitigate” against something that may or may not happen some distant day in the future means diverting a portion of today’s global prosperity from other priorities to address a virtual “maybe” threat to tomorrow.
To “adapt” to something that has actually happened when it has happened (let’s say 10 or more years from today) means diverting a portion of the global prosperity at that time in order to adapt to a real-life situation then.
Let’s say there is a 20% chance that reduced solar activity which started early this year with solar cycle 24 will continue as some scientists predict, thereby reversing the increasing trend in solar activity that some scientists tell us was unprecedented for several thousand years and has caused at least a portion of the 20th-century warming we have experienced.
And let’s say that this 20% probable development has a 50% probability to cause temperatures to sink by one degree C over the next 50 to 100 years, as these same scientists suggest.
This will surely mean that some parts of the world will have to react by diverting a portion of their prosperity at that time in order to “adapt” to a real-life situation then (say in 50 years from today).
So the “economists” who favor “mitigation” over “adaptation” are not only ignoring the “time value of money”, they are also ignoring the “probability factor” and the even more basic point that one can “adapt” to a “fait accompli” (whatever that turns out to be), but one can only “mitigate” against an assumed virtual future event that may or may not occur in actual fact.
You wrote: “If we give the skeptical side of the debate equal footing with the mainstream view, we end up with this:
It’s possible that the changes we have made to the atmosphere, and are continuing to make, will change the climate. How rapidly that might occur, to what degree, or even if much will change at all, is uncertain.”
I basically agree with your wording for the skeptic viewpoint, but would modify it slightly:
“It’s possible that humans have made, and are continuing to make, significant changes to the atmosphere through emissions of carbon dioxide and other minor “greenhouse gases”, which, if they continue to occur in actual fact, could possibly contribute to a perceptible warming of the climate, which is believed to have been somewhere less than 1 degree C since records started in the mid-19th century. Whether or not that might occur at all, and if so, how rapidly it might occur, to what degree, or even if much will change at all, is uncertain.”
To your postscript: “Course, if the globe is heading for substantial cooling, then we’d need to direct our efforts differently”, I would agree, adding that there is very little room for “mitigation” in this case, it would involve “adaptation”, as indicated above.
Regards,
Max
barry schwarz on 23 Jul 2008 at 12:56 am #
Max,
the mitigation/adaptation argument I put forward was treated under the rubric of AGW. Clearly, if the mainstream science is wrong, then money spent on mitigation to ease global warming will be wasted. So how should the cost/benefit risk management be assessed?
Policy makers always rely on imperfect data, whether they be population trends and projections, health trends and projections projections, economic trends and projections etc. They must rely, not on perfect analysis – there’ s no such thing – but the best current analysis, which usually includes a variety of projections towards assessing risk. Risk management is the job of government. Providing data and analysis is the job of experts. There are never any guarantees.
The scientific/economic consensus (a much debated term) on climate change is that the globe will warm at a rate (while not monotonic) that will impact the environment, populations, infrastructure and economies negatively in the coming decades and centuries. The range of forecasts presented by the IPCC show projected scenarios under different parameters (like the amount of CO2 emitted over time). The ‘best’ (peer-reviewed consensus) scientific and economic analysis converge on the conclusion that mitigation will be less expensive than adaptation in the long-term, which accounts for money/time, GDP etc. The calculations are not simple and include the factors you are alluding to, if I understand you correctly (the Stern Review, for example). As I say, the debate on this is ongoing.
At the same time, there is a very vocal ‘anti-establishment’ community positing that;
a) The warming will not be as severe as projected
b) Warming is a good thing
c) It’s too late to do anything about it
d) It’s mainly natural variation and mitigation won’t have an effect
e) We should be worried about global cooling
The critical community present a variety of arguments that are not only in opposition to the mainstream, or dismissive of it, these arguments contradict each other. Given the choice between;
1) laying one’s eggs in the contrarian baskets, which can’t seem to agree on climate change, and which have never produced an all-embracing theory that accounts for all aspects of the science; and,
2) Directing policy in line with the general view of the greater majority of climate science, which endeavours to incorporate all aspects of weather/climate in a grand unified theory, endorsed by all the world’s leading science institutes and most of the energy and engineering sectors,
I’d want my policy makers to bet the farm on (2).
This is not to discount the uncertainty in the mainstream, or the potential validity of any of the various contrary hypotheses. It is just to point out the weighting of contemporary science on the issue of climate change towards policy. There are still medical scientists claiming (scientifically) that the link between smoking and cancer/lung disease/heart disease is unfounded, that the link between HIV and AIDS is unfounded. There are always outliers and uncertainty in any scientific/medical/economic theory. But should governments weight their mitigation/adaptation policies to account for some percentage point of outliers? I don’t think so.
The critical camp puts it, variously, that the current ‘consensus’ is a product of a small cabal of climate scientists. One scientist asks for his name to be removed from the IPCC report, is initially refused, and that is evidence of the shanghaiing of the science. Singular contrary views from contributors are not incorporated into the IPCC document, and this is taken to be evidence of the same (instead of a sound judgment that their views are not good enough to change the opinion). A small number of qualified climate scientists express dissatisfaction (and suspicion) that there work was not included, or given equal weight in the IPCC documents, and ditto. A body of ‘evidence’ is gathered that the mainstream view is biased, and adherents to this view then give much more weight to outliers (even though the one contrarian may cite a number of non-mainstream scientific views that contradict each other – this happens with phenomenal hrequency, clearly evidencing that the contrarian is more concerned with rubbishing the IPCC than developing or promoting a comprehensive alternative scientific analysis). The basic message is that the popular view is corrupted by the high-priests, and that the ‘real’ science is being done (or championed) by ‘rational’ mavericks.
Ultimately, the validity of the science cannot be tested against these anecdotes. Interested lay people like us must perforce get to grips with the actual science to make a sound determination. At my level of understanding, at least, these conspiracy theories will remain speculation – until such time, if ever, that I can fully understand the drill-down science. Until then, ceding some trust to the IPCC, NASAGIS, Hadley, NCDC scientists, etc, seems to be the most reasonable thing to do, and following alternative science seems like a responsible thing to do, if I care about the issue at all. Politicians are generally not scientists qualified to make the determinations either. Who should they listen to?
As things stand, I don’t see any calamitous economic policies emanating from the governments of the world. My own has just released the latest green paper, which will have a minimal impact on the economy and on businesses, and also (unfortunately?) on CO2 emissions. I see this repeated the world over.
(There is a bunch of alarmists on the anti-AGW side of the debate (I have yet to find terms that are neutral without being cumbersome), who predict economic Armageddon if policies towards mitigating CO2 emissions are enacted. Cap and trade is some communist conspiracy. They predict massive impoverishment of third-world countries, and considerable impoverishment of developed countries)
If we are just across the threshold of a global cooling trend, then that will become evident in the next 20 years – far too short a time, IMO, for economic Armageddon to engulf humanity, and by then the science will have improved. GDP may slow a little, but not catastrophically. I think we can follow the progress of all this without freaking out too much (not that I’m suggesting YOU are).
Enjoying the conversation,
Barry.
manacker on 23 Jul 2008 at 4:07 pm #
Hi Barry,
Your argument for spending a significant sum of today’s dollars (or whatever currency) in an attempt to mitigate against something that may or may not happen rather than maybe spending tommorow’s dollars to adapt to whatever really does happen is weak.
You have not addressed the key flaws in the “mitigate now” rather than “adapt later, if a problem really exists” proposal, which I outlined:
· Uncertainty factor
· “Time value of money”
“The critical community present a variety of arguments that are not only in opposition to the mainstream, or dismissive of it, these arguments contradict each other. Given the choice between;
1) laying one’s eggs in the contrarian baskets, which can’t seem to agree on climate change, and which have never produced an all-embracing theory that accounts for all aspects of the science; and,
2) Directing policy in line with the general view of the greater majority of climate science, which endeavours to incorporate all aspects of weather/climate in a grand unified theory, endorsed by all the world’s leading science institutes and most of the energy and engineering sectors,
I’d want my policy makers to bet the farm on (2).”
Premise (1) basically states that since “contrarians” cannot all agree on the causes or the impacts of “climate change”, they would appear to have a lower probability of being “right” on this than the “believers” who all religiously agree on the causes (i.e. AGW). There are many pieces to the puzzle, Barry, and IPCC has narrowed its focus on the AGW hypothesis, essentially ignoring other causes
Premise (2) asserts that “the general view of the greater majority of climate science” supports “mitigation”, a postulation which I would ask you to prove.
While you are at it, I would ask you to define specifically what policy steps you understand under “mitigation” and what specific impact these steps would have on “climate”.
Premise (2) also postulates that IPCC “endeavours to incorporate all aspects of weather/climate in a grand unified theory, endorsed by all the world’s leading science institutes and most of the energy and engineering sectors”; this is naively utopian, Barry. For example, IPCC ignores many hypotheses that solar forcing is significantly higher than the direct total solar irradiance factor. There is no “grand unified theory”. There are hundreds of respected climate scientists that do not support the conclusions reached by IPCC and an even larger number that do not support the more alarming “tipping point” predictions (of James E. Hansen) or the proposed “mitigation” step of imposing carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes (which will have the impact of “mitigating” nothing).
You wrote “There are still medical scientists claiming (scientifically) that the link between smoking and cancer/lung disease/heart disease is unfounded, that the link between HIV and AIDS is unfounded.”
Barry, this old saw is shopworn and totally irrelevant to our discussion. There are hundreds of clinical trial studies that unequivocally demonstrate these links. There are no such studies validating the AGW hypothesis (and, in particular, the assumed positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, without which AGW is a yawn, i.e. 0.4C increase from today to 2100). In fact there are studies refuting these assumed positive feedbacks.
Finally, your premise is naïve in supposing that IPCC has been set up to establish the “truth” on climate change. It was specifically set up by the UN (a political group) as a partly political / partly scientific sub-group to provide pseudo-scientific justification for alarming AGW in order to provide support for the political agenda of a draconian system of carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes.
So I’d want my policy makers to bet the farm on (1) rather than on (2).
It appears that (1) is gaining ground today with the general public of the world, but who knows what will happen?
My grandfather once told me you shouldn’t bet on either politics or the weather. I still think this was good advice.
You are doing both with your “mitigation” strategy.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 23 Jul 2008 at 4:25 pm #
Hi Barry,
Further to my previous post.
In order to help you assess the effectiveness of the “mitigation” strategy as stipulated by Kyoto, here are some interesting facts:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/07/hypocrisies.html
Quoting David Aaronovitch and world-wide CO2 emission statistics, the author (Tom Nelson) states:
“Between 1997 and 2004, carbon dioxide emissions rose as follows:
Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%;
Emissions from countries that ratified the protocol increased 21.1%;
Emissions from non-ratifiers of the protocol increased 10.0%;
Emissions from the US (a non-ratifier) increased 6.6%;
Emissions from the US increased less than 75% of ratifying countries.
With respect to the last point, the following are the percentage rises in emissions for a list of selected countries which have ratified the protocol (or which were exempted from targets): Maldives, 252%; China, 55%; Luxembourg, 43%; Iran, 39%; Norway, 24%; Russia, 16%; Italy, 16%; Finland, 15%; Mexico, 11%; Japan, 11%; Canada, 8.8%.
Here is unequivocal factual evidence in support of David’s scathing observation. ‘Global warming’ has become the ultimate faith without works. All that matters is the public confession of sin and belief, which must now also include, again as David points out in his article, the vilification of the US.”
So much for the effectiveness of political “mitigation” measures and for the hypocrisy of the so-called supporters of these measures.
Happy reading.
Regards,
Max
barry schwarz on 23 Jul 2008 at 8:18 pm #
It is commendable that US CO2 emissions increase is relatively small. There are many witless commentators out there, aren’t there? I include the author of that article, who neglects to mention the EU increase of 1.1% for 2007, or that some countries actually reduced their emissions a few years ago. The US saw a reduction in emissions itself a few years ago.
So much for polemics.
Max, is there another forum you subscribe to where we can rove around topics? I’m reluctant to digress too much on particular threads unless that is the stated practice.
manacker on 23 Jul 2008 at 11:27 pm #
Hi Barry,
In your latest waffle you wrote: “Max, is there another forum you subscribe to where we can rove around topics? I’m reluctant to digress too much on particular threads unless that is the stated practice.”
As I recall, you were discussing the benefits of “mitigation”, which is what the Kyoto accord was all about.
The good folks that signed on to Kyoto were unable to “mitigate” at all, as the record shows, despite a lot of “happy talk”.
In fact, their CO2 emissions increased by a larger percentage than those of those nations that did not sign on (USA, for example).
Those that were arbitrarily “exempted” from the Kyoto reductions for political reasons (China, India) had the highest increase in CO2 emissions.
So this discussion is very germane to our discussion concerning the effectiveness of “mitigation” strategies, and is not a “digression” at all.
It demonstrates very clearly, Barry, that these “mitigation” strategies do not work.
Regards,
Max
barry schwarz on 24 Jul 2008 at 8:17 am #
You’ve once again referred to a post of mine as ‘waffle’. It was 6 sentences long. I’m not really interested in replying to mockery. If you state your case succinctly and politely, I’ll play.
I’m not really sure what point you’re making. Sure, reductions programs have produced poor results -and fair results (you ignored that the EU increase was 6 times less than the US, and that certain countries actually lowered their emissions). Also, implementation has been recent, and the EU has only just tested their economic system. It’s a mammoth undertaking – 11 000 plants – and is being implemented in stages. Stage one actually saw many companies falling short of projected emissions, when the stage one was about getting the system up and running, and the emphasis was not on reductions.
Now, this is a huge area of discussion. It deserves a country by country appraisal. That’s why I asked for a different forum. We’re straying way off-topic.
Quote: “The good folks that signed on to Kyoto were unable to “mitigate” at all, as the record shows, despite a lot of “happy talk”.”
I don’t know what ‘happy talk’ is. Please substantiate. Stop hand-waving. Some of the ‘folks’ did ok. To get a non-hand-waving grip on it, we need to examine a range of factors that are different for each country. I doubt you’re interested in that. I don’t know how interested I am. I’m into the science, not the politics, but I’ll extend my learning if the curiosity is mutual.
Or maybe you reckon you know all about it?
As to mitigation, there are a range of options on the table. Research and development for greener energies, leading to implementation, mitigation at the smoke stack, carbon sequestration, cap and trade, the carbon market – economic policies for reductions and alternative energy, fuels, recycling. Alternative energies by itself is a broad topic – geothermal, wind, solar, wave, nuclear, hydrogen… Various market systems for reductions, cap and trade, command economy, carbon credits… Why Kyoto has exempted some countries, whether that is the right thing to do… China is still catching up to the developed world (?) Brazil is fuel independent owing to ethanol… What do you want to talk about first?
One thing I don’t understand is your thing about time/money. Maybe you could lay that out a bit more.
barry schwarz on 24 Jul 2008 at 8:18 am #
Paul, let us know if it’s ok to go off-topic so much. I don’t want to abuse your thread.
barry schwarz on 24 Jul 2008 at 8:35 am #
Here’s some ‘happy talk’.
************
” Jones transformed Woking, removing it from the national grid by generating electricity from thousands of photovoltaic (PV) cells on roofs across the area. By 2004 it was producing 80 per cent of its own power…..
During his time at Woking Jones helped to install nearly 10 per cent of Britain’s solar energy photovoltaics in a town of only 100,000 people. Woking is also now home to the first fuel cell combined heat and power (CHP) system in the UK.
Between 1991/92 and 2003/4 Woking Borough Council achieved a 77.4 per cent saving in carbon dioxide emissions and reduced CO2 equivalent emissions for the whole of the borough by 17.23 per cent through the council’s own action. ”
http://www.governmentnews.com.au/news/article/VKUINOMDWU
Paul MacRae on 24 Jul 2008 at 2:29 pm #
Barry et al,
Paul here
It’s fine by me if you want to go “off-topic” on this thread — it’s all the same topic as far as I’m concerned.
manacker on 24 Jul 2008 at 3:10 pm #
Hi Barry,
Thanks for your response.
You wrote: “Sure, reductions programs have produced poor results -and fair results (you ignored that the EU increase was 6 times less than the US)”.
This statement is incorrect as the published data (which were the basis for the article) confirm.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls
The EU member states (of 1997) increased their combined CO2 emissions by 267.80 million mt (by 8.3%) from 1997 to 2004, while the USA increased by 364.31 million mt (or 6.6%) over the same period.
So the EU increase was not “6 times less than the US” (as you state) but roughly 26% lower in absolute increase and 26% higher in % increase.
The EU numbers do not include the emissions of new member states added since 1997. These totaled around 700 million mt CO2 in 2004.
You wrote: “Now, this is a huge area of discussion. It deserves a country by country appraisal”, and “To get a non-hand-waving grip on it, we need to examine a range of factors that are different for each country. I doubt you’re interested in that. I don’t know how interested I am. I’m into the science, not the politics, but I’ll extend my learning if the curiosity is mutual.”
I am indeed interested, and as a result, have made such an appraisal, based on the cited source and other published input.
There are several ways to look at CO2 emissions. Some have proposed looking at a “per capita emission rate”, rather than just absolute emissions, where China in 2006 surpassed the USA for the first time at around 6.2 Gt CO2 vs. 5.8 Gt CO2, but is well below the USA in per capita emissions.
I believe a more realistic comparison would be to look at the “carbon efficiency” of various nations or blocs of nations in generating prosperity.
Carbon efficiency (by groups)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3250/2651295468_76552bcfd6_b.jpg
Carbon efficiency (by nations), p.1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3070/2647364221_b1cf427ab1_b.jpg
Carbon efficiency (by nations), p.2
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3122/2647377283_76aa70033b_b.jpg
Looking just at nations, Switzerland is the most “carbon efficient” at over $8,000 GDP per mt CO2, followed by Sweden, Norway and France at between $5,000 and $6,000 per mt CO2.
One could deduce that Switzerland lies so high due to the high percentage of hydroelectric power, a large service industry with very limited heavy manufacturing, a good network of electrically powered public transportation and relatively high population density. France has close to 80% of its electrical power from nuclear and also has a fairly high population density and good public transportation.
When comparing large nations and blocs of nations, we see that Japan leads the 27 current EU nations at $3,500 vs. $3,100. The USA is at $2,100.
Again, Japan has a very high population density and an extremely efficient electrically powered public transportation system, while the USA has a low population density and (as a result) a very limited system of public transportation, relying instead on motor vehicles and commercial aircraft, both of which consume large amounts of fossil fuels per passenger-kilometer.
But if you compare the “carbon efficient” nations and blocs (those that generate over $1,000 GDP per mt CO2 emitted), with those that are less “carbon efficient”, you see that 66 industrialized or developing economies generate 92% of the world’s prosperity (or GDP), whereas the remaining 143 nations generate 8%.
The same 66 nations also generate 92% of the world’s human CO2 emissions.
The major difference is that the “carbon efficient” nations (Japan, the 27 EU nations, Brazil, the USA, Mexico, Canada, Australia and six smaller developed Asian nations), generated 80% of the GDP and 52% of the CO2, while the less “carbon efficient” nations (the 11 OPEC nations, India, South Africa, Russia, China, 11 other ex-USSR nations) generated 12% of the GDP and 40% of the CO2.
And it has been proposed to add in a factor for population density in assessing “carbon efficiency”, since this has a major impact on the viability of “carbon efficient” public transportation systems versus less “carbon efficient” motor vehicles or commercial aircraft, or on the way that freight is moved around. For this reason, Australia will have a hard time becoming as “carbon efficient” as the Netherlands or Japan, for example.
So yes, Barry, you are correct when you write,“this is a huge area of discussion. It deserves a country by country appraisal.”
Now to your other questions: “happy talk” refers to unrealistically optimistic statements or predictions.
The “time value of money” is an economic term. A dollar invested today is more valuable than a dollar invested in ten years due to its earning power over those ten years. Therefore an investment made today to “mitigate” against a possible threat is more costly than that same investment made ten years later to “adapt” to the threat (if it, in fact, really happened).
I’ll respond to your list of “mitigation strategies” separately.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 24 Jul 2008 at 3:23 pm #
Hi Barry,
BTW I checked out the numbers in the Tom Nelson article I cited earlier. They are correct.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3224/2699072207_682326d633_b.jpg
Regards,
Max
manacker on 24 Jul 2008 at 10:24 pm #
Hi Peter,
You are beating a dead horse and avoiding the key issue when you write: “You might just want to check your calendar and remind yourself of the year.
If we are comparing the loss of sea ice, over the past few decades, for the months of June, July, August and September, I would have thought that it was quite reasonable to leave out the figures for 2008.”
We are not “comparing the loss of sea ice, over the past few decades, for the months of June, July, August and September”. We are comparing the trends cited and published monthly by NSIDC for the past decades. I have been tracking these for many months and they are interesting. They tell us that Arctic sea ice is shrinking at an average rate of around 3% per decade (IPCC reported a shrinking of 2.7% per decade, presumably using 2005 data).
At the same time the long-term record shows that Antarctic sea ice is growing by 3.7% per decade. Since the total extent of Antarctic sea ice is somewhat larger than that in the Arctic, the net global impact is that sea ice is growing slightly (not shrinking).
As a result it is safe to say that the surface albedo feedback from changes in sea ice is not a “positive” (i.e. warming) feedback as suggested by IPCC (and programmed into the GCMs), but a slight “negative” (or cooling) feedback.
And that, Peter, is my point, which you have evaded but have been unable to refute.
“Checking my calendar” is not going to change the facts, Peter. They speak for themselves.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 25 Jul 2008 at 5:37 pm #
Hi Barry,
You wrote about “mitigation strategies” and asked, “What do you want to talk about first?”
Let me give you my opinion on these “mitigation strategies” (which, BTW, is shared with some others).
“Greener energies” is a vague term, but I am assuming you mean energy sources, which do not generate CO2 from fossil fuel consumption.
This would include (as you have partially listed):
· Nuclear (fission) power generation for electrical power (France)
· Geothermal power generation (where this potential exists)
· Hydroelectric power generation (where this potential exists)
· Solar panels for home use and some isolated small-scale power generation
· Windmills in sparsely populated regions with reliable wind for power generation
· Bio-fuels for motor fuel (these emit the same amount of CO2 as they consume when they grow, plus the amount used in conversion to motor fuel, so they are net “reducers” of CO2)
· Electrical automobiles (charged with electrical power from non-fossil fuel generation) and hybrids
· Hydrogen fueled automobiles (produced by electrolysis with electrical power from non-fossil fuel generation)
· Fast-breeder thorium reactors (nuclear fission) as this technology becomes economically viable
· Nuclear fusion (some day in the future)
· R+D efforts for wholly new more economical solutions for the future
Essentially all of these technologies (with the exception of the last two) are available today. Some still need “fine tuning” to be economically viable.
Sugar-cane based ethanol is successful in Brazil, without the need for massive subsidies. Corn-based ethanol in the USA is not, even with massive subsidies (so these subsidies should be discontinued and this source will either become economically viable or die).
Home solar panels are extremely expensive per KWH generated, but will probably become more viable as this technology matures. At any rate, solar will remain a very small fraction of the mix due to its high investment cost and relatively low “on-line” factor (around 30%).
With new large fans, wind power is a bit less expensive than solar, but also suffers from a low “on-line” factor (40%) and very high requirement for land. Despite grandiose plans of T. Boone Pickens for West Texas and the UK windmill supporters, this will remain a small portion of the mix.
Geothermal and hydroelectric generation are limited geographically today; maybe new deep-drilling technologies will make geothermal more generally viable in the future.
Nuclear generation (as it now exists) is reliable (90+% online factor), safe (look at France) and economically viable today. Some nations mandated a ban on new nuclear plant construction, in overreacting to the “Chernobyl” event in the USSR; in the USA the “Three Mile Island” non-event was used to spread anti-nuclear hysteria. Spent fuel storage or disposal is still a problem, which could in the future be solved with fast breeder technology. But a “green energy” (i.e. non-fossil fuel) program would have to be based largely on a major expansion of nuclear power generation.
These “green” solutions make sense, if for no other reason than to reduce the world’s dependency on dwindling imported oil (peak oil) and natural gas. If there is a side benefit from reducing CO2, so much the better.
Pickens’ proposal is to replace existing natural gas stations in the USA to free up the natural gas as a motor fuel. His particular scheme is to replace them with wind stations (leaving a portion on line in standby service when there is no wind). It would be just as feasible to replace them with less costly nuclear power plants (with no “standby” needed, due to the high online factor for nuclear).
Electrical automobiles plus hybrids probably make more economic sense than hydrogen. The economic viability of converting electrical energy back to a motor fuel sounds questionable. There are also a lot of safety considerations that speak against hydrogen as a motor fuel.
Now we come to your other proposal for “various market systems for reductions, cap and trade, command economy, carbon credits.”
These proposals neither reduce CO2 emissions nor oil/gas consumption, so are not “solutions” to either a CO2 problem or an energy dependency problem. The best technical solutions will be chosen based on their economic viability without the need for a “big brother” government “planned economy” approach. This did not work back in the USSR days and won’t work today.
Now to “mitigation at the smoke stack and carbon sequestration”, these are not root cause solutions to either the CO2 or peak oil problem.
“Mitigation at the smoke stack” sounds nebulous. CO2 scrubbers? CO2 absorbers?
As an alternate to “at the smoke stack”, there is supposedly a scientist at the University of Arizona that has come up with a system to remove CO2 from the atmosphere efficiently and cost effectively, but I do not know if this is real.
IMHO “sequestration” is the biggest boondoggle of all. Where do you “sequester” the CO2: in the ocean, knowing what the long-term pH impact would be? (of course not); in the ground, without knowing what the long-term impact would be? (I certainly hope not). What is the cost of all this? What does it accomplish? Why even consider it? Sounds like an economic and ecological can of worms.
You mentioned “Kyoto” deliberations. “Kyoto” has died without accomplishing much of anything at all. What will succeed it? Who will be on board? If temperatures continue to flatten out or cool, will this have any effect on future deliberations? If CERN confirms the Svensmark cosmic ray/cloud hypothesis as a major driver of climate rather than AGW, will this change things? If solar cycle 24 continues with a very inactive sun and temperatures begin to drop significantly as some solar scientists predict, what impact will this have?
So I think a discussion of “Kyoto” alternates at this point is a waste of time.
But I am interested in discussing the technical alternates out there to solving the energy crunch (a real problem of today at dwindling supply of $130/bbl oil imported from politically unstable or even hostile regions) and the CO2 emission/AGW problem (which I personally consider to be a virtual computer-generated “maybe” problem of the future), if you are interested.
Regards,
Max
barry schwarz on 27 Jul 2008 at 8:40 am #
That is a fine, comprehensive list, Max.
I think a variety of strategies can be in play without discomforting people too much. So mitigation hasn’t been fast enough with cap and trade? Though business is virtually as usual (expanding energy supply meeting demand) Europe is ahead of the curve and is only in the implementation phase. Is now the time to throw in the towel?
Do you think self-interest will devalue a carbon market, or are their inherent problems in the attempted and proposed economic models?
Hypothetical: say there was no question – not a shred of doubt – that the worst of global warming is accurately projected, and that the clear best way to prevent the worst damage is a co-operative approach by the international community, tailoring economic policies toward a common goal of reducing industrial CO2 emissions – would you get behind such a thing? If it was clearly the best way to mitigate a real problem?
I do not have much faith in the kind of economic rationalism that tells us the public votes with their wallets and will ‘force’ industry to comply for the ‘greater good’. But I do think there is a huge market for alternative energy and fuel that could profit sharp entrepreneurs.
barry schwarz on 27 Jul 2008 at 9:00 am #
Quote: BTW I checked out the numbers in the Tom Nelson article I cited earlier. They are correct.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3224/2699072207_682326d633_b.jpg
Did you imagine I disputed them?
Look at the countries in your list – it highlights the worst. 4 nations including the US, China and India, and “developing Asian nations”, whoever they might be. I see the graph you’ve cited gives a 1.15% increase for the EU, and 2% for the “rest of world”. But Nelson’s piece is even more biased. He mentions an even more select group. It is the very definition of a polemic – a vigorous refutation with no attempt at balance. But we should have known that from the point of the article; “How can people slam the US when there are worse offenders?”
You own views are much more nuanced.
barry schwarz on 27 Jul 2008 at 9:02 am #
Quote: At the same time the long-term record shows that Antarctic sea ice is growing by 3.7% per decade.
I’m not sure that’s right. Can you substantiate this, Max?
And can you cite a regular source? I don’t know what farm4.static.flickr.com is.
barry schwarz on 27 Jul 2008 at 9:42 am #
Sorry Max, read the wrong column. The EU increase was down to 1.1% last year – got that from another source. And the developing Asian countries are Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand S. Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand. The graph is from 1997 to 2004. The protocol entered into force in 2005 and a review is scheduled for the first stage in 2012. What are the figures from 2005 – 2007?
manacker on 27 Jul 2008 at 12:25 pm #
Hi Barry,
You asked about more recent CO2 emission figures by country since the IEA report was made (which covered data through 2004).
The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency published a recent report entitled “China now number one in CO2 emissions, USA second”.
Open this link
http://www.mnp.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/moreinfo/Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition.html
Below the multicolored graph click on “data”. This will give you an Excel spreadsheet. The Dutch study is based on the IEA data up to 2004 and a BP study for the 2004-2006 trend. It includes CO2 from fossil fuel consumption, but excludes CO2 from cement production.
Globally CO2 from fossil fuel emissions increased by around 6% from 2004 to 2006.
The study shows that the USA decreased its CO2 emissions over this period, as did Japan.
All other states (or groups) had increased CO2 emissions from 2004 to 2006. The EU states had a slight increase over this period, while China, the “Asian Tigers”, India and Russia had major increases.
From lowest to highest 2004-2006 increase we had:
–0.82% (-48 GT) USA
-0.55% (-14 GT) Japan
+0.41% (+7 GT) EU-15
+5.91% (+85 GT) “Asian Tigers”
+6.08% (+93 GT) Russia
+10.93% (+121 GT) India
+19.98% (945 GT) China
The article adds in the estimated CO2 from cement production in the USA (50 megatons CO2) and in China (550 megatons CO2), so that when this is included, the totals for 2006 for these two countries are:
6.23 GT CO2, China
5.80 GT CO2, USA
This makes China the top producer of man-made CO2 in 2006 (7+% higher than the USA). I have seen preliminary estimates for 2007, which show that this spread has increased, with China around 15% above the USA.
Looks like the “protocol” doesn’t have much to do with actual CO2 emissions.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 27 Jul 2008 at 12:34 pm #
Hi Barry,
You asked about sources confirming the growth in Antarctic sea ice.
My Antarctic sea ice blog inadvertently got posted on this site. I am actually in an ongoing discussion with someone else on the newbery site concerning this topic, and the sources are listed there.
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63
Regards,
Max
manacker on 27 Jul 2008 at 1:04 pm #
Hi Barry,
Back to “mitigation” versus “adaptation”. You got off the path of talking about true “mitigation” steps and into the socio-political area of policy changes.
You asked me: “Hypothetical: say there was no question – not a shred of doubt – that the worst of global warming is accurately projected, and that the clear best way to prevent the worst damage is a co-operative approach by the international community, tailoring economic policies toward a common goal of reducing industrial CO2 emissions – would you get behind such a thing? If it was clearly the best way to mitigate a real problem?
Lots of “ifs” there, Barry.
There is a whole lot more than a “shred of doubt that the worst of global warming is accurately projected”.
There is even more doubt that “that the clear best way to prevent the worst damage is a co-operative approach by the international community.”
And (even if the above two “ifs” could be removed), I would be extremely skeptical of “tailoring economic policies toward a common goal of reducing industrial CO2 emissions”.
This is the “big brother” approach of “planned economy”.
You wrote: “I do not have much faith in the kind of economic rationalism that tells us the public votes with their wallets and will ‘force’ industry to comply for the ‘greater good’.”
I have more faith in the common sense of the “public” (especially in democratic nations, where these have a voice) than in appointed bureaucrats and politicians, many of whom do not come from nations that have a democratic tradition of allowing the “public” to be a partner in decisions.
As far as “policy” is concerned, I would also trust the “public” far more than I would trust “scientists”, “climatologists” or what-not. These guys have an important role to play, but it is not making policy. They are not elected by the “public” to do so.
The “greater good” is a nebulous concept, Barry.
Beside the obvious steps such as: eliminating real pollution of the environment, eliminating waste, improving energy efficiency, ensuring sustainable growth, helping the poorest nations of this world improve their standard of living (and per capita GDP), etc. what does this concept encompass?
Is it energy self-sufficiency?
Is it averting a “peak oil” energy crunch?
Is it mitigating against a possible adverse long-term climate change caused by AGW?
You see, Barry, there is no overall consensus on what is meant by the “greater good”. I, for example (along with a large number of others) do not believe that the last item on the above list is a real problem that we can (or should) “try to do something about”.
This is especially true if that “something” involves hundreds of billions (or even trillions) of dollars diverted from global GDP growth and the real problems of today in the form of carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes that will only make a few already wealthy people richer and give politicians and bureaucrats obscene sums of money to shuffle around.
I would rather follow the advice of Bjorn Lomborg to allocate limited resources where they can provide the most positive effect.
Yes, the “public votes with their wallets” and, in a democratic system with their votes, as well. It is, after all, the public that knows what is best for the public. It does not need a “big brother” to do this.
In the planned economies of the old Soviet bloc, it was the government who knew what was best for the “greater good”, and the public had nothing to say. The record shows that this did not work, just as it will not work here, Barry.
Let the “public” decide with their “wallets” (and their “conscience”, their “good will toward their fellow man”, and whatever else drives their decisions). It’s a safer bet than turning it over to “big brother”.
Regards,
Max
barry schwarz on 27 Jul 2008 at 8:21 pm #
Thanks for the replies, Max. I’ll respond in the order they were given.
1) CO2 emissions
Thank you for posting more recent emissions data.
Your thesis seems to be that emissions are still increasing, therefore Kyoto is a failure.
There are two main areas that need highlighting. 1 – countries that are required to reduce their emissions. 2 – countries listed that are not required to reduce their emissions (yet).
On point 2, there is considerable debate as to the justification of exempting certain countries. Underdeveloped countries posit that their total contribution to the rise of CO2 over the last century is miniscule compared to developed nations, and that they would be economically compromised by having the same standard applied regardless of historical contribution. Some of these countries have a much smaller per capita emissions rate than developed nations (China, India). Criticism of this view considers that either or both considerations (per capita comparison/historical contribution) are inconsequential, and that an ahistorical gross emissions accounting is the correct measure towards allocating reductions targets. What is your view?
On point 1 there is a variety of results. Of the ratifying countries, only Japan has reduced its emissions recently, but many have slowed down the rate of increase. The US, as I have agreed, has done relatively well – despite not having ratified the convention.
A proper analysis would examine the targets for each individual country, break down the emissions scenario to separate supply variability (dependent largely on weather), consider the rate of increase/decrease separately from background variability, and would also include a time line of mitigation strategies (for each country) , from conception to implementation and beyond.
Generally, these are still early days. The results are not promising. Current emissions are in line with the highest range of IPCC emissions. China has outstripped the US (as of 2006) in gross emissions.
Does this mean Kyoto has failed and should be scuttled?
I don’t believe so. It does not do any harm. It is the only truly international forum driving policy. As a socio-political tool, it creates a culture of international awareness. As to its effectiveness, early results are not good, but it is too early to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I hope to see reductions targets for China and India (amongst others) set in 2012.
As to whether Kyoto should be abandoned in favour of domestic market responses, more in the 3rd reply.
barry schwarz on 27 Jul 2008 at 8:28 pm #
2) Antarctic sea ice
You have referenced a bogsite that appears to have a thousand posts on the one page. I’m not inclined to wade through that thread. I searched it for information, bt it was scant on the subject. Haven’t you something better to cite? I know there has been a slight increase in sea ice lately, but I find no verification that it has quantitatively outstripped Arctic sea ice decrease. And I wonder if you have matched time series?
Let the time series be the satellite period – 1979 to present. How much has average sea ice declined in the Arctic over this period, and how much has Antarctic sea ice increased over the same period?
barry schwarz on 27 Jul 2008 at 8:59 pm #
3) Hypothetical
I posited the hypothetical to find out if you object to an internationally cooperative effort on material or ideological grounds. You didn’t answer it, but instead took issue with the premises.
It seems clear to me that you don’t like the Kyoto protocol because your economic ideology does not admit intergovernmental cooperation. That the early results have been poor is incidental to your primary objection, but it is convenient to it.
There are precedents for similar international agreements on commercial and industrial emissions. Ozone-depleting gases have been curtailed by the Montreal agreement. Sulphur emissions have been curtailed as a result of international forums leading to clean air acts. These likewise took time to implement.
Quote: Yes, the “public votes with their wallets” and, in a democratic system with their votes, as well. It is, after all, the public that knows what is best for the public. It does not need a “big brother” to do this.
That would explain the success of McDonalds and obesity in the US and Australia. That would explain the millions of smokers in the world, despite the attempts of some governments to wean the public of nicotine. No doubt you are aware of the obfuscation of tobacco companies and the rate of disease and mortality from smoking. The corporate sector is not given to helping the public make informed choices, and the public is not given to studying their choices very well. Most people buy without much consideration for the consequences of their purchases, The vision you have is at least as pie-in-the-sky as the collective ideal. You assign a wisdom to the general public that isn’t there.
Do you think the public of China are going to join calls to have China included in the next round of emissions targets? Do you think the average American has digested the science on climate change? Perhaps there should be a referendum on which paleoclimate model is the most accurate.
Quote: The “greater good” is a nebulous concept, Barry.
Why I put it in quotation marks. Why I made the point general.
Quote: I have more faith in the common sense of the “public”
I believe pretty much what you believe. The public will vote, with their wallets or at the polls, towards their immediate desires. Some take a long-term view. Not many. I believe I have correctly identified you position – economic rationalism. I think this model works on some issues and not on others. I prefer a balanced approach.
I do not intend to further draw out a conversation on the relative merits of liberalism. Suffice to say you cannot come at an economic-based intergovernmental collective approach, for any reason. Therefore, if a threat emerged that could only be answered by such approach, you would rather doom us than surrender your ideology.
Yes, there are a lot of ifs in my hypothetical, all contestable, but it has helped me understand your position better.
barry schwarz on 27 Jul 2008 at 9:35 pm #
To sum up, I agree that the public may ‘vote’ with their wallets. At the same time I do not believe the market has a long-term view, nor am I confident that a solely market-based approach will respond in a timely fashion to the precautionary principle on the matter of global warming. If we proceed WRT mainstream science and projections, a range of approaches are required, including collective action. If we’d left the public to deal with the ozone issue, deciding whether to buy fridges with CFCs, or more expensive fridges with less ozone-depleting gases, I doubt the response would have been as effective.
And what economic calamities befell the world after Montreal and the Clean Air acts?
Government may regulate markets. Companies must operate within the regulations. This is so for the the economies of all nations. We are not talking here about “big brother”. We are talking about degrees of regulation, as there are across all industries in the developed world. As the commodities under discussion are more deeply embedded in industrial and commercial infrastructure, the response is more wide-ranging. This should not be confused with Soviet-style command economics.
Keith on 28 Jul 2008 at 7:54 pm #
Barry, you asked, “Let the time series be the satellite period – 1979 to present. How much has average sea ice declined in the Arctic over this period, and how much has Antarctic sea ice increased over the same period?”
Try http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ out of the University of Illinois. They have anomaly trends for both the Arctic and Antarctic back to 1979.
barry schwarz on 28 Jul 2008 at 9:10 pm #
To put some context on Arctic/Antarctic sea ice;
Annual average fluctuations in sea ice
Arctic – 8 million sq kms
Antarctic – 15 million sq kms
Winter
Arctic – 15 million sq kms
Antarctic – 18 million sq kms
Summer
Arctic – 7 million sq kms
Antarctic – 3 million sq kms
Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has remained relatively stable over the satellite record. The last year has been extremely cold and saw the greatest winter sea ice extent since 1979. The Arctic sea ice extent has been in decline from the beginning of the satellite record.
Max, you may be interested in this web page.
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/regional-changes-in-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice
From 1979 (to ?) Arctic sea ice has decreased by 3.2% per decade, Antarctic sea ice increased by 1.2% per decade – the site references NASA.
These pages may interest you also.
http://maps.grida.no/go/collection/global-outlook-for-ice-and-snow
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/maps-of-average-sea-ice-extent-in-the-arctic-summer-september-and-winter-march-and-in-the-antarctic-summer-february-and-winter-september
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/monthly-average-sea-ice-extent-globally-and-in-both-hemispheres
barry schwarz on 28 Jul 2008 at 9:13 pm #
To put some context on Arctic/Antarctic sea ice;
Annual average fluctuations in sea ice
Arctic – 8 million sq kms
Antarctic – 15 million sq kms
Winter
Arctic – 15 million sq kms
Antarctic – 18 million sq kms
Summer
Arctic – 7 million sq kms
Antarctic – 3 million sq kms
Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has remained relatively stable over the satellite record. The last year has been extremely cold and saw the greatest winter sea ice extent since 1979. The Arctic sea ice extent has been in decline from the beginning of the satellite record.
Max, you may be interested in this web page. (I had to space out the link because this site won’t accept it)
http : //maps.grida.no/go/graphic/regional-changes-in-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice
From 1979 (to ?) Arctic sea ice has decreased by 3.2% per decade, Antarctic sea ice increased by 1.2% per decade – the site references NASA.
These pages may interest you also.
http : //maps.grida.no/go/collection/global-outlook-for-ice-and-snow
http : //maps.grida.no/go/graphic/maps-of-average-sea-ice-extent-in-the-arctic-summer-september-and-winter-march-and-in-the-antarctic-summer-february-and-winter-september
http : //maps.grida.no/go/graphic/monthly-average-sea-ice-extent-globally-and-in-both-hemispheres
barry schwarz on 28 Jul 2008 at 9:36 pm #
Looks like we posted at the same time, Keith. Thanks for the reference. I’ve looked at it previously.
The Cryosphere Today site generally refers to sea ice area, whereas the sources I refer to tend to report sea ice extent.
From the NSIDC website:
“In light of the the importance of ice concentration within the pack, another way to analyze the health of the sea ice is to look at a slightly different measurement: sea ice area. Sea ice area is a way of figuring in ice concentration over the entire Arctic. To determine the total ice area, we multiply each twenty-five- by twenty-five-kilometer (sixteen-mile by sixteen-mile) grid cell by its ice concentration. For example:
50% ice concentration x (25 kilometer x 25 kilometer grid cell) = 312.5 square kilometers of sea ice area
After making the calculation for all grid cells that contain at least 15% ice concentration, we add up the results. The number we obtain is the ice area for the Arctic. The total ice area numbers for August 27 are 3.17 million square kilometers (1.22 million square miles) in 2007 compared to 4.33 million square kilometers (1.66 million square miles) in 2005. In terms of ice area, sea ice cover in 2007 looks even a bit worse than sea ice extent. So, you might wonder, “Area seems like a more intuitive measurement. Why do scientists generally talk about ice extent instead of ice area?”
The answer is that scientists are cautious about summertime values of ice concentration and area. To the sensor, surface melt appears to be open water rather than water on top of sea ice. So, while reliable for most of the year, the microwave sensor is prone to underestimating the actual ice concentration and area when the surface is melting. One way scientists resolve uncertainty about ice extent and ice area is to compare measurements from the microwave sensor with measurements from other satellites.”
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html
barry schwarz on 29 Jul 2008 at 9:57 am #
Sorry for the double post. The first one with the unexpurgated links must have sat on moderation for a while.
barry schwarz on 29 Jul 2008 at 11:32 am #
Max, I’m sorry I haven’t attended to other of your points upthread. Some I didn’t see, and others were left hanging as I drilled down on other topics.
Are you aware that reduced commercial and domestic energy use may have been the biggest contributor to the US decrease in overall emissions in 2006. At the same time, the industrial sector reduced emissions by 1.2% despite growth in the industry.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070524085725.htm
I haven’t been able to locate a breakdown of EU emissions (commercial, industrial, domestic, transport), but I did find a government report for the UK that does a breakdown for 2006 – 2007 and 1990 – 2007. Here are some results.
•
Net CO2 emissions in 2007 were provisionally 544 MtCO2e/yr, or 8 per cent below 1990 levels. This is 11 MtCO2e/yr (2 per cent) lower than in 2006. Excluding the net contribution of LULUCF [land use changes], emissions were provisionally 546 MtCO2e/yr, or 7½ per cent below 1990 levels.
•
The fall in emissions since 1990 occurred despite an overall increase of 6 per cent in gross inland energy consumption over the same period. The decrease in emissions between 2006 and 2007 resulted from fuel switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, combined with lower fossil fuel consumption by households and industry.
•
CO2 emissions from use of coal and other solid fuels fell by 6½ per cent between 2006 and 2007 resulting from reduced coal fired electricity generation; emissions from gas rose by 1½ per cent; whilst emissions from oil were 2 per cent lower.
•
CO2 emissions from power stations decreased by 11½ per cent between 1990 and 2007. Between 2006 and 2007 they fell by 2 per cent. Emissions from power stations are driven by changes in both the fuel mix used for generation and generation efficiency; less coal and oil but more gas was used to generate electricity in 2007 compared with 2006.
•
Over the period 1990 to 2007 there were also falls in emissions from the industrial, household and the commercial and public service sectors; however emissions from the transport sector increased.
•
These estimates do not include the effect of emissions trading.
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file45404.pdf
I meant to explain earlier what I meant by ‘mitigation at the smokestack’. This includes changes in fuel type for power and more efficient machinery/infrastructure for energy providers and industry.
I don’t know much about carbon sequestration, but the little I’ve read in the media doesn’t make me hopeful either. Nuclear power has to be an option I think, but that source is problematic in a number of ways. I’ve read some on geothermal power and this seems to be promising, and while a technical challenge to lay down a plant, is a remarkably simple and clean idea. T. Boone Pickens is going green without the climate change baggage encumbering his lobbying, and he posits that natural gas and wind farming are the best choices for the US. I’ve read on massive off-shore wind farm floats and of huge grids of solar cells, large than anything so far, located in in deserts to maximise potential.
Automobile use is down in many citites, especially around Australia.
I do not know whether all these signs are hopeful, particularly against the backdrop of increased global emissions, but they don’t make me feel cynical either.
manacker on 29 Jul 2008 at 5:53 pm #
Sorry, Barry.
Your “summer/winter “context” on sea ice is interesting but well-known.
I cannot find anything in your link referring to a 1.2%/decade reduction in Antarctic sea ice. I have seen (and sent you the link for NSIDC data) roughly confirming your summer/winter change for both regions, but showing that the increase was around 3.7% per decade on average when including the most recent data. I could find no monthly NSIDC data for this trend as is published for the Arctic. Please provide such a link if you have it.
IPCC quoted an average trend of -2.7% for the Arctic (indicating larger decreases for the summer at –7.4%/decade), but gave no figure for Antarctic sea ice. I can see from latest NSIDC charts that 2007 was a year of exceptional summer melting (due to unusual wind patterns as NASA tells us and not primarily “global warming”) and that the sharp rebound in 2008 was also exceptional (due to an exceptionally cold winter and not due to “global cooling”).
If IPCC were to have included 2007/2008 data in their report it would likely have shown higher rates of decrease than they reported.
It is obvious that the % trend (in either direction) would be greater for summer months than for winter months at either end of the globe.
For example, if Antarctic sea ice increased from a 1979-2000 end winter average of 15.2 million km^2 to a 2007 level of 16.2 km^2 this would be a much smaller % increase than if it increased from an end-summer average of 1.7 to a most recent level of 2.2 million km^2 thus showing a higher % increase (although smaller in km^2).
Same is true (in reverse) for Arctic sea ice where there is a detailed NSIDC for each month over the almost 30-year record.
The net crux of all this is that the overall global trend of sea ice is essentially flat, due to slight decline at one end and slight growth at the other.
But, Barry, I have indicated to you that the whole sea ice discussion has already been carried on at another site (which I linked), and that I accidentally posted one message in this whole discussion on this site, so I don’t really want to get into another discussion on that here.
If you want to continue our discussion on “mitigation” versus “adaptation”, relative importance of AGW-crisis versus “peak oil” or “energy crunch” crisis, that could be interesting.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 29 Jul 2008 at 6:03 pm #
Hi Barry,
You seem to like the idea of “carbon cap and trade schemes” with a system of carbon offsets (or indulgences) whereby one can pay for one’s “carbon footprint”, with the proceeds (hopefully at least partially) going to develop new “green energy” sources (after deduction of “collection costs” and “costs of administrative overhead”). Some “mitigation” proponents prefer a “carbon tax”. Either one would be paid by every man, woman and child on this Earth to help “save the planet”.
Your line of argumentation seems to into the direction that “this would not be so bad” as many have estimated.
But how realistic is this as a “solution to mitigate against AGW”? And what would it cost?
Let’s assume that the IPCC climate model estimate of “climate sensitivity”, CS (impact on global temperature in degrees C of doubling atmospheric CO2 concentration) is correct at 3C. (Physical observations on both cloud and water vapor feedbacks show that this climate sensitivity is overstated by a factor of 3 to 4 times, and that the real value for “climate sensitivity” is probably closer to 0.7 to 0.8C, but let us ignore this for purposes of this calculation).
The “3C climate sensitivity” (with assumed positive feedbacks) is equivalent to 4.39 times the greenhouse radiative forcing for CO2 alone as established by IPCC, i.e. instead of 1.66 W/m^2 as stated by IPCC this calculates to be a RF of around 7.29 W/m^2 from 1750 to 2005 (and slightly higher to 2007).
And let us assume that through “mitigation” we want to lower the warming impact we will have on global climate by 1 degree C by the year 2100 by reducing future emissions in man-made CO2. A relatively modest goal?
How much will we have to reduce our CO2 emissions in order to achieve this?
Let’s assume that the troposphere has a total mass of 3,750,000 gigatons (Gt) (75% of the total atmosphere).
IPCC tells us that pre-industrial (1750) atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 280 ppmv, and the Mauna Loa observatory tells us that this concentration was 384 ppmv in 2007.
Estimates for the year 2100 tell us it could rise to 560 ppmv by then if no drastic measures are taken to reduce human CO2 emissions.
So using the IPCC climate sensitivity of 3C for 2xCO2, we have:
1750 level = C1 = 280 ppmv
2100 level = C2 = 560 ppmv
C2 / C1 = 2.0
ln (C2 / C1) = 0.6931
RF = 23.49 x ln (C2 / C1) = 16.28 W/m^2
Stefan-Boltzmann = 5.4273
RF / S-B = 3.0C = temperature increase for doubling CO2 from 1750 to 2100
(Checks with “mean value” of IPCC estimates for “climate sensitivity”)
So far (by 2007) we have (theoretically) experienced:
1750 level = C1 = 280 ppmv
2007 level = C2 = 384 ppmv
C2 / C1 = 1.37
ln (C2 / C1) = 0.3159
RF = 23.49 x ln (C2 / C1) = 7.42 W/m^2
Stefan-Boltzmann = 5.4273
RF / S-B = 1.37C = temperature increase from 1750 to 2007 (from CO2 with assumed model “feedbacks”)
And from today until 2100 we will experience (without “mitigation”)
2007 level = C1 = 384 ppmv
2100 level = C2 = 560 ppmv
C2 / C1 = 1.46
ln (C2 / C1) = 0.3773
RF = 23.49 x ln (C2 / C1) = 8.86 W/m^2
Stefan-Boltzmann = 5.4273
RF / S-B = 1.63C = temperature increase from 2007 to 2100
How much reduction in CO2 is required to reduce the temperature impact by the year 2100 by 1 degree C? (i.e. instead of a theoretical increase of 1.63C from today only 0.63C increase)?
Using the greenhouse calculation:
2007 level = C1 = 384 ppmv
2100 level = C2 = 444 ppmv
C2 / C1 = 1.16
ln (C2 / C1) = 0.1452
RF = 23.49 x ln (C2 / C1) = 3.41 W/m^2
Stefan-Boltzmann = 5.4273
RF / S-B = 0.63C = temperature increase from 2007 to 2100
So CO2 increase from 2007 to 2100 would have to be reduced from 176 ppmv (560 – 384) to 60 ppmv (444 – 384), or by around two-thirds of the “normal” amount expected without “mitigation”.
How many Gt of CO2 is this?
Assume 100% of CO2 emission reduction results in lower atmospheric CO2 concentration (in actual fact this is lower: only 40 to 60% of CO2 emitted stays in atmosphere, the rest “disappears” somewhere).
Mass of troposphere = 3,750,000 Gt
Concentration reduction = 116 ppmv = 176 ppm(mass)
CO2 reduction = 661 Gt
(For comparison, humans are currently emitting around 28 Gt per year.)
How much is this amount of CO2 “worth” in “carbon footprint offsets” or “cap and trade scheme” money shuffled around?
Estimates for carbon offset costs vary from $15 to $30 per mt CO2. .
So these “offsets” (or indulgences) would realistically be “worth” between 10 and 20 trillion dollars out of today’s total global GDP of 54.3 trillion dollars. Paid for by whom? (See first paragraph.) Oops!
To achieve (maybe, at the inflated assumption of IPCC) 1 degree C reduction in the temperature increase from today until 2100 (from 1.63C to 0.63C increase over today’s temperature), to be accomplished by reducing CO2 emissions over the next 93 years by 67% below today’s values. Ouch!
Another study estimates an even higher cost:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195195,00.html
A recent Wall Street Journal article by Bjorn Lomborg points out that a reduction of 12 Gt CO2 by 2100 (a much more modest reduction of 18% [from a projected annual rate of 67 to 55 Gt/year by 2100]), would result in a reduction of greenhouse warming by 2100 of 0.4F or 0.22C (going through the above greenhouse calculation shows a slightly higher reduction of 0.25C).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121720170185288445.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Strangely, Lomborg does not mention nuclear power generation as a “green alternate” for achieving this reduction. He cites a study by Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University, which points out that mitigation is not enough, and a combination of adaptation plus R+D into new technologies is a much better investment.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL08874773
“A 100-year package costing $800 billion to help people adapt to the impacts of warming — such as droughts or rising seas — while also funding research into new technology and curbing emissions could yield benefits of $2.1 trillion, it said.
“We’ve got something that makes sense as an investment of public money,” said Gary Yohe, an environmental economist at Wesleyan University in Connecticut who was lead author of the 56-page study with colleagues in Ireland and the United States.
The same imaginary $800 billion invested solely in curbing or mitigating emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels, would lose money overall with returns of just $685 billion. Until now, emissions curbs have been the overriding focus.
“Mitigation is not enough,” Yohe told Reuters of the study, prepared for a May 26-28 conference in Copenhagen run by Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist.”
Now if we assume that the “climate sensitivity” (for 2xCO2) is not really 3C (as assumed by IPCC models), but only 25 to 35% of this amount, the net reduction in warming from today until 2100 by “mitigating” CO2 emissions would be reduced from 1C to 0.5-0.6C.
Shakespeare wrote a comedy the title of which summarizes this whole story pretty accurately: “Much Ado about Nothing”.
That’s what we are looking at here, Barry.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 29 Jul 2008 at 8:13 pm #
Hi Barry,
To CO2 emissions you asked: “Some of these countries have a much smaller per capita emissions rate than developed nations (China, India). Criticism of this view considers that either or both considerations (per capita comparison/historical contribution) are inconsequential, and that an ahistorical gross emissions accounting is the correct measure towards allocating reductions targets. What is your view?”
I believe the best measure is the carbon efficiency of an economy to generate prosperity, such as the table I proposed. As someone has suggested to me, one could adjust this for countries with a lower population density (who will automatically be less “carbon efficient” than those with high population densities plus efficient low fossil fuel public transportation and transport systems, etc). To deny a large number of sub-Saharan residents access to clean drinking water and electrical energy in the name of limiting CO2 emissions in order to avert AGW would not only be absurd it would be unconscionable.
So I think a simple “GDP per ton of carbon” is a good enough yardstick.
All of the above is NOT in the context of setting “reduction targets” in order to enable taxing these countries (the “big brother” approach), but simply for having a good yardstick for how carbon efficient their economies really are.
At present, this approach shows that 66 nations (and “groupings” such as EU, etc.) generate 92% of all GDP as well as 92% of all CO2 emissions.
Of this total group there are those with a high carbon efficiency, exceeding $1,000GDP per mt CO2 (Japan, EU, Brazil, USA, Mexico, Canada, Australia and the “Asian Tigers”); this group generates 52% of the CO2 and 80% of the GDP.
Then there is a second group with a lower carbion efficiency (OPEC, India South Africa, Russia, China and 11 ex-USSR nations); this group generates 40% of the CO2 but only 12% of the GDP.
As these countries develop their economies, they will improve their carbon efficiencies (as the others have done).
The underdeveloped countries of today will first have to pull themselves and their populations out of poverty. This will be the first order of priority (and rightly so), as it is now for India and China. In this process they will undoubtedly increase their “carbon footprint” (as China and India are doing today), but as they develop their economies they will eventually start to improve their carbon efficiencies.
There are many references that show that the “carbon tax” or “carbon cap and trade schemes” per se will accomplish no reduction in warming; they will only (as Lomborg and others have pointed out) distract us from more important problems we face today and set up a “big brother” scheme of controlling the world economy by carbon.
It could well be that the “energy crunch” problem (a real problem of today) and AGW (a vurtual, computer-generated “maybe” problem of tomorrow) have many similar solutions, such as building more nuclear plants, shifting natural gas from power generation to motor fuel, wind/solar generation, generating bio-fuels for automotive use, etc.
This is where I think you and I could agree to some practical solutions without getting into “big brother” type (carbon) controlled economies. These solutions do not need a “carbon tax” or “cap and trade schemes” to be realized. This will happen automatically as we near the energy crunch.
So let’s see where we can find common ground and real solutions to solve real problems, rather than “non-solutions” to “virtual future problems”.
Regards,
Max
Max
barry schwarz on 29 Jul 2008 at 11:56 pm #
Hey Max,
I understand you don’t want to make a meal of an inadvertent post, but this topic interests me. I want to clear up a couple of things and ask you for a reference.
Quote: I cannot find anything in your link referring to a 1.2%/decade reduction in Antarctic sea ice.
You misread me. I said;
“…Arctic sea ice has decreased by 3.2% per decade, Antarctic sea ice INcreased by 1.2% per decade…”
Here’s the link again. The information is in the graphic – total N/S Hemisphere and % per decade, as well as some reference in the text below.
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/regional-changes-in-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice
Quote: Your “summer/winter “context” on sea ice is interesting but well-known.
Yes it is, but it’s worthwhile noting the facts, and there may be readers here who are less familiar with ice dynamics. It’s great that you’re well read on the subject, but I don’t like to presume what people know in discussions and so lay stuff out to begin with when starting a topic or encountering someone new. I won’t wax on now, per your advice.
Quote: I have seen (and sent you the link for NSIDC data) roughly confirming your summer/winter change for both regions, but showing that the increase was around 3.7% per decade on average when including the most recent data.
I cannot locate any such link from you. The only one you’ve posted as far as I can see is the blog link. Can you post the NSIDC reference/s, or direct me to your post in which they appear? I still want to test the legitimacy of your decadal trend, particularly as it disagrees with NOAA/NASA. I know enough about statistics that an increase in sea ice extent in the last couple or several years is not going to more than double the trend.
The IPCC notes a slight increase of ice in the Antarctic, but do not make much of it as it has been minimal. The recent increase (sea ice) is another matter, possibly a result of a very cold year (“global cooling” was not my terminology). It will be interesting to see what happens.
It so happens that I’ve been intermittently following ice dynamics for about a year now, the data and the science (and there are still more question than answers in that field). I won’t trouble you for a conversation on that here since you’ve probably gone into more depth elsewhere and you’d be backtracking and repeating, but I would like to get some corroboration for what you’re saying about Antarctic sea ice decadal trends. I will confine any further commentary on polar ice to that.
I mean to continue the mitigation/adaption discussion and will post on it soon.
barry schwarz on 30 Jul 2008 at 3:14 am #
Mitigation/adaption
Max, first we need to separate two arguments that you sometimes have bled together in your comments.
1) Whether or not AGW is ‘real’
2) Whether or not mitigation is a better approach than adaptation
On the premise that AGW is not a real phenomenon, or that it has a very low probability of being more or less right, I would agree with your other comments. I reckon coming to some agreement on that between us would take a ling time, if ever (and reference to it underlines my contention that conversations of a political nature must perforce devolve to the science).
As far as I get your thought, it seems you are saying that AGW is an iffy prospect and that we shouldn’t bet on it by mitigating now, in case we waste money (which could be used for more pressing needs down the track – like providing heaters for impoverished Africans). Also, you’re saying that a dollar invested today realizes a greater economic potential than a dollar spent today.
On the latter argument, I guess we could invest money we might have to spend on, say, agricultural infrastructure for impoverished Africans and spend it 30 years down the track when it has accumulated interest. But if infrastructure decays over that time, the money spent would be more than if it had been maintained the while. The interim period is of no benefit to Africans, and then there is the amount of time it would take to rebuild a more greatly decayed agricultural sector. Better spend the money now, carefully, to strengthen the sector, so that by the time 30 years rolls around Africa might not need so much investment from foreign sources.
If we accept that, for the moment, the prevailing view on climate change is the best science we have, that we will already see changes that will compromise parts of the world severely, that it is an international problem contributed to in different degrees by most countries, and that the indications are that mitigation will be less expensive in the long-run than adaptation, then the right thing to do would be to mobilise towards mitigation. If ‘time is short’, or if we are already headed for rapid warming and the best we can do is slow the rate down a few decades from now, if we act comprehensively now, then I can see no argument that a mix of economic liberalism and regulation systems to avert potential crises down the road is a bad thing.
What is the worst that could happen, reasonably speaking, from cap and trade systems or other regulatory economic systems? The price of fossil fuel energy goes up, as does cleaner energies for a while, and then the balance tips as green energy infrastructure becomes more broadly implemented. The government macro-economizes the energy sector, and private interests work within the regulatory systems. This is a mixed economy, not too dissimilar from the US general model, but with more constraints on the energy sector until such time as GHG emissions have been depleted (the standard is pre-1990 emissions for most developed countries required to reduce).
This is the way I see it in a nutshell. If you want to separate this out, I’ll follow and hope to comment usefully.
You may continue to argue that the future climate could be anything, and if I thought AGW theory was so flimsy, or that adaptation was going to be less expensive than mitigation, I’d be in agreement with your point of view. Risk management, for me, depends on the best advice we’ve got and the best response to the best advice. Holding out for better science would be the right thing to do if the current scientific consensus wasn’t telling us that we’re already headed for considerable climate change, and if the major economic reports based on that science were not telling us that the costs of mitigation would be less than adaptation.
It’s the old asteroid analogy. 20 years before the thing is meant to sweep through Earth’s orbit, a 25% chance it will impact, and there are various projections on where it will hit and how much damage it would do. We could start heavy subsidisation of the relevant research and evelopment industries, or we could do it lite, let the private and public sector judge how much should be invested, and wait another ten years when we’ll be more certain on the trajectory. Every week’s delay (and shifting market priorities) eat at the effectiveness of our response, if needed. What to do?
barry schwarz on 30 Jul 2008 at 3:49 am #
Max, I’m sorry I haven’t attended to other of your points upthread. Some I didn’t see, and others were left hanging as I drilled down on other topics.
Are you aware that reduced commercial and domestic energy use may have been the biggest contributor to the US decrease in overall emissions in 2006. At the same time, the industrial sector reduced emissions by 1.2% despite growth in the industry.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070524085725.htm
I haven’t been able to locate a breakdown of EU emissions (commercial, industrial, domestic, transport), but I did find a government report for the UK that does a breakdown for 2006 – 2007 and 1990 – 2007. Here are some results.
•
Net CO2 emissions in 2007 were provisionally 544 MtCO2e/yr, or 8 per cent below 1990 levels. This is 11 MtCO2e/yr (2 per cent) lower than in 2006. Excluding the net contribution of LULUCF [land use changes], emissions were provisionally 546 MtCO2e/yr, or 7½ per cent below 1990 levels.
•
The fall in emissions since 1990 occurred despite an overall increase of 6 per cent in gross inland energy consumption over the same period. The decrease in emissions between 2006 and 2007 resulted from fuel switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, combined with lower fossil fuel consumption by households and industry.
•
CO2 emissions from use of coal and other solid fuels fell by 6½ per cent between 2006 and 2007 resulting from reduced coal fired electricity generation; emissions from gas rose by 1½ per cent; whilst emissions from oil were 2 per cent lower.
•
CO2 emissions from power stations decreased by 11½ per cent between 1990 and 2007. Between 2006 and 2007 they fell by 2 per cent. Emissions from power stations are driven by changes in both the fuel mix used for generation and generation efficiency; less coal and oil but more gas was used to generate electricity in 2007 compared with 2006.
•
Over the period 1990 to 2007 there were also falls in emissions from the industrial, household and the commercial and public service sectors; however emissions from the transport sector increased.
•
These estimates do not include the effect of emissions trading.
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file45404.pdf
I meant to explain earlier what I meant by ‘mitigation at the smokestack’. This includes changes in fuel type for power and more efficient machinery/infrastructure for energy providers and industry.
I don’t know much about carbon sequestration, but the little I’ve read in the media doesn’t make me hopeful either. Nuclear power has to be an option I think, but that source is problematic in a number of ways. I’ve read some on geothermal power and this seems to be promising, and while a technical challenge to lay down a plant, is a remarkably simple and clean idea. T. Boone Pickens is pushing green energy without the climate change baggage encumbering his lobbying, and he posits that natural gas and wind farming are the best choices for the US. I’ve read on massive off-shore wind farm floats and of huge grids of solar cells, large than anything so far, located in in deserts to maximise potential.
Automobile use is down in many cities, especially around Australia.
I do not know whether all these signs are hopeful, particularly against the backdrop of increased global emissions, but they don’t make me feel cynical either.
barry schwarz on 30 Jul 2008 at 3:51 am #
(I’ve tried to post this twice with no luck – I’ve separated the link below to see if it will work this time)
Max, I’m sorry I haven’t attended to other of your points upthread. Some I didn’t see, and others were left hanging as I drilled down on other topics.
Are you aware that reduced commercial and domestic energy use may have been the biggest contributor to the US decrease in overall emissions in 2006. At the same time, the industrial sector reduced emissions by 1.2% despite growth in the industry.
http : //www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070524085725.htm
I haven’t been able to locate a breakdown of EU emissions (commercial, industrial, domestic, transport), but I did find a government report for the UK that does a breakdown for 2006 – 2007 and 1990 – 2007. Here are some results.
•
Net CO2 emissions in 2007 were provisionally 544 MtCO2e/yr, or 8 per cent below 1990 levels. This is 11 MtCO2e/yr (2 per cent) lower than in 2006. Excluding the net contribution of LULUCF [land use changes], emissions were provisionally 546 MtCO2e/yr, or 7½ per cent below 1990 levels.
•
The fall in emissions since 1990 occurred despite an overall increase of 6 per cent in gross inland energy consumption over the same period. The decrease in emissions between 2006 and 2007 resulted from fuel switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, combined with lower fossil fuel consumption by households and industry.
•
CO2 emissions from use of coal and other solid fuels fell by 6½ per cent between 2006 and 2007 resulting from reduced coal fired electricity generation; emissions from gas rose by 1½ per cent; whilst emissions from oil were 2 per cent lower.
•
CO2 emissions from power stations decreased by 11½ per cent between 1990 and 2007. Between 2006 and 2007 they fell by 2 per cent. Emissions from power stations are driven by changes in both the fuel mix used for generation and generation efficiency; less coal and oil but more gas was used to generate electricity in 2007 compared with 2006.
•
Over the period 1990 to 2007 there were also falls in emissions from the industrial, household and the commercial and public service sectors; however emissions from the transport sector increased.
•
These estimates do not include the effect of emissions trading.
http : //www.berr.gov.uk/files/file45404.pdf
I meant to explain earlier what I meant by ‘mitigation at the smokestack’. This includes changes in fuel type for power and more efficient machinery/infrastructure for energy providers and industry.
I don’t know much about carbon sequestration, but the little I’ve read in the media doesn’t make me hopeful either. Nuclear power has to be an option I think, but that source is problematic in a number of ways. I’ve read some on geothermal power and this seems to be promising, and while a technical challenge to lay down a plant, is a remarkably simple and clean idea. T. Boone Pickens is going green without the climate change baggage encumbering his lobbying, and he posits that natural gas and wind farming are the best choices for the US. I’ve read on massive off-shore wind farm floats and of huge grids of solar cells, large than anything so far, located in in deserts to maximise potential.
Automobile use is down in many cities, especially around Australia.
I do not know whether all these signs are hopeful, particularly against the backdrop of increased global emissions, but they don’t make me feel cynical either.
manacker on 30 Jul 2008 at 3:31 pm #
Hi Barry,
You wrote as a lead-in to your post: “Max, first we need to separate two arguments that you sometimes have bled together in your comments.
1) Whether or not AGW is ‘real’
2) Whether or not mitigation is a better approach than adaptation”
I think there are actually two more basic questions. In addition to the two you listed there is:
– Whether or not AGW represents a significant threat to our planet
– Whether or not “mitigation”, i.e. a significant but realistic reduction in global CO2 emissions, could have any noticeable impact (i.e. 1C or greater) on future temperature (by 2100)
I can accept that there is an AGW component to the most recent warming, but this does not necessarily mean that I agree that there is any significant threat from any future AGW that may or may not occur.
I can also agree that human CO2 may have played a contributing role to the 0.7C increase in temperature we have seen over the past century, but may not accept that it is realistically possible to reduce human CO2 emissions enough to result in 1C less warming by 2100 than we would experience “normally” (i.e. without these “mitigating” reductions).
Once we have cleared up these four ponts I think we can continue with more specifics.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 30 Jul 2008 at 4:40 pm #
Hi Barry,
To you post on “mitigation” vs. “adaptation” you prefaced this with two basic questions, which I expanded to four. I assume we can agree that “AGW is real”, but still have the other three questions to resolve. To the “is AGW real?” question you wrote:
“On the premise that AGW is not a real phenomenon, or that it has a very low probability of being more or less right, I would agree with your other comments. I reckon coming to some agreement on that between us would take a long time, if ever (and reference to it underlines my contention that conversations of a political nature must perforce devolve to the science).”
I believe we have covered this already, and I believe we do, in fact, agree in principle that AGW has a high probability of having contributed to the warming our planet has experienced from 1976 to today. The magnitude of its contribution is, however, unclear.
Earlier warming periods cannot be explained by the climate models, and the logic in AR4 WG1 seems to go as follows:
1. Our climate models cannot explain what caused the early 20th century warming from 1910 to 1944 (linear warming of 0.53C)
2. We know that CO2 caused a significant part of the most recent warming from 1976 to 2005 (linear warming of 0.50C)
3. How do we know this?
4. Because our climate models cannot explain it any other way
As a “rational skeptic”, I have a bit of a problem with this logic, i.e. how do we know that the “unexplainable cause” for a significant part of the warming from 1910 to 1944 may not also have been an “unexplainable cause” for a significant part of the warming from 1976 to 2005?
What you refer to as “the science” must be defined. Does it include all the “science”? Are solar studies and hypotheses of a significant solar contribution to warming to be included? Are computer model (GCM) outputs to be considered “science”? Are physical observations that contradict GCM outputs to be taken more seriously than the GCM outputs, or are they to be discarded as “outliers” in favor of the model outputs?
These are points that would need to be cleared up.
But if one considers all of the studies, observations and hypotheses (i.e. the “science”) one could probably safely assume that maybe 50% of the warming experienced from 1906 to 2005 (linear warming of 0.74C per IPCC) was caused by AGW, and that this phenomenon will probably cause additional warming in the future, pretty much regardless of what we do to try to “mitigate” this (but “mitigation” is another topic).
So do we have agreement on your premise that AGW is a real phenomenon with the caveats that I included above?
If so, we could move on.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 30 Jul 2008 at 5:50 pm #
Hi Barry,
Believe we agreed to your premise that “AGW is real” (i.e. that there is an anthropogenic component of some undefined magnitude to the current and past warming our planet has experienced).
Moving right along, you stated: “If we accept that, for the moment, the prevailing view on climate change is the best science we have, that we will already see changes that will compromise parts of the world severely, that it is an international problem contributed to in different degrees by most countries, and that the indications are that mitigation will be less expensive in the long-run than adaptation, then the right thing to do would be to mobilise towards mitigation. If ‘time is short’, or if we are already headed for rapid warming and the best we can do is slow the rate down a few decades from now, if we act comprehensively now, then I can see no argument that a mix of economic liberalism and regulation systems to avert potential crises down the road is a bad thing.”
Lots of “ifs” there, Barry.
Can you please define what you mean by “the prevailing view on climate change is the best science we have”. Which view? IPCC AR4? Svensmark? Lindzen? Hansen? Spencer? There are many “views” that do not necessarily agree with one another. All may agree that there is an AGW component to recent warming, but they disagree sharply on the magnitude of this component and even more sharply on the potential future impact from this component.
“Best science” is a vague term, Peter. The “best science” of the 1930s made ridicule of Wegener’s continental drift theory, which only evolved into the current “best science” of plate tectonics many years after his death. Consensus does not define “best science” today anymore than it did in the 1930s. In addition, “agenda driven science” is suspect when (as is the case here) politics and very large sums of money are involved.
Can you explain what you mean specifically when you write,“that we will already see changes that will compromise parts of the world severely”. What are these specific changes and how are they specifically compromising parts of the world severely? What is the specific impact on human life? What is the specific economic impact?
Before addressing whether or not it is “an international problem contributed to in different degrees by most countries,” we must demonstrate that it is a “problem” at all, and do so in specifics (not generalities).
I think we can discard the statement, “that the indications are that mitigation will be less expensive in the long-run than adaptation” as unfounded or at least disputed by many. Again, specific economic evaluations are required taking into consideration all the alternates and all the eventualities; unfortunately, we do not have the “crystal ball” to know what these are, so this statement can be dismissed as pure conjecture.
So the conclusion, “then the right thing to do would be to mobilise towards mitigation” is unfounded and can also be dismissed.
The following premise, “if ‘time is short’, or if we are already headed for rapid warming” is also an unfounded supposition, which can be dismissed as such.
The next premise, “the best we can do is slow the rate down a few decades from now” is probably an understatement; I would say “the best we can do is possibly make an infinitesimal change in warming rate a few decades from now, if at all”.
The nice-sounding premise, “if we act comprehensively now” should have more substance. Is this just another word for imposing draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes on the population of this world or is there something other than this? Who is “we”?
Many of the above premises have been dismissed and others have been questioned. As a result, the conclusion, “then I can see no argument that a mix of economic liberalism and regulation systems to avert potential crises down the road is a bad thing” is unfounded. It could equally be countered with “then I can see no argument that a mix of economic liberalism and regulation systems to avert potential but highly speculative crises down the road is a good thing”
The ball is back in your court, Barry. Bring specific answers to the points raised above. Show me specific evidence why those that have been dismissed should not be.
Regards,
Max
.
manacker on 30 Jul 2008 at 6:21 pm #
Hi Barry,
To our previous discussion on CO2 emissions, Kyoto, etc.
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/EdFeulner/2008/07/29/kyoto_treaty_pointless_promises?comments=true#postComments
Regards,
Max
manacker on 30 Jul 2008 at 8:54 pm #
Hi Barry,
Your past comments on this site have led me to believe that you like to feel that you are representing the moral “high ground” in the AGW debate.
I will argue that just the opposite is the case.
You support the position of UN bureaucrats and politicians, very few if any of whom have been elected by the public and many of whom come from countries where the public has nothing to say in any case. That position is that a “carbon tax” or some equally onerous scheme of “cap and trade” must be imposed on “carbon emitters” of the world in order to “force” them to reduce their emissions in order to save the world from a computer-predicted climate disaster.
You wrote earlier, “I do not have much faith in the kind of economic rationalism that tells us the public votes with their wallets and will ‘force’ industry to comply for the ‘greater good’.”
Your view is that the public should have nothing to say here yet the burden will ultimately fall on every man, woman and child. They will be asked to give away a significant portion of their hard earned money to feed this gigantic bureaucratic scheme, which will make a few already wealthy people richer and give the politicians obscene sums of money to shuffle around, all at the expense of the public.
Let the public decide what is best for the public.
Not a group of non-elected UN bureaucrats and politicians.
And certainly not a bunch of “egg-head” climatologists who have not been elected by the public and have no earthly notion of what the “best policy should be”. Keep these guys (including James E. Hansen) in their laboratories or behind their computers where they belong. They have no business even discussing policy issues.
This, Barry, is the “moral high ground” in a democratic society.
Not the “big brother”, Soviet-style, top-down approach espoused by the UN where bureaucrats decide what is in the interest of “the greater good” and then force the public to pay for it whether they want to or not.
Just a basic philosophical question on “where the high ground lies”, which we should also clear up in our “mitigation” vs. “adaptation” discussion.
Regards,
Max
FALSE ALARM: Why Almost Everything We’ve Been Told About Global Warming is Misleading, Exaggerated, or Plain Wrong » What has ‘consensus’ climate science got right? on 31 Jul 2008 at 12:11 pm #
[…] See “How the Hadley Centre spins the data on non-warming” and “Is the planet still warming?” on this […]
barry schwarz on 31 Jul 2008 at 7:31 pm #
Interesting replies, Max.
Quote: I think there are actually two more basic questions. In addition to the two you listed
there is:
– Whether or not AGW represents a significant threat to our planet
– Whether or not “mitigation”, i.e. a significant but realistic reduction in global CO2
emissions, could have any noticeable impact (i.e. 1C or greater) on future
temperature (by 2100)
You put it much better than I did.
The theory goes that we are in for at least another 50 years of continued warming even if we stopped emitting today. Beyond that (or longer), the rate of warming and how long it will last depends on how quickly and how much we reduce GHG emissions.
It may be that we don’t reduce very much or very soon and that there will not be a significant decrease in the rate of warming by 2100.
It would seem we have a different response to this possibility. Mine is to try harder. Yours appears to be that adapting as events unfold is the proper way to go.
I look beyond 2100 and ask what is our responsibility to the following generations? At the time scale of centuries, we’re looking, under increasing warming, at the melting of Greenland, the loss of all glaciers and sea level rise, increased drought… I’m sure you’re familiar with the projections into the future.
Some limitations of a market driven response is that the dominant motivators are immediate comfort and convenience, and profit. If renewables are not as profitable as fossil fuels, companies will not rush to make the switch. If clean energy is more expensive than fossil fuel, customers (voters) will be more inclined to go with the cheap stuff. Not all, but most will, especially if they are skeptical of AGW, despite having little or no credentials with which to judge.
Quote: Let the public decide what is best for the public.
Not a group of non-elected UN bureaucrats and politicians.
And certainly not a bunch of “egg-head” climatologists who have not been elected
by the public and have no earthly notion of what the “best policy should be”. Keep
these guys (including James E. Hansen) in their laboratories or behind their
computers where they belong. They have no business even discussing policy
issues.
I don’t completely agree, but first let me repeat something I said upthread.
“Risk management is the job of government. Providing data and analysis is the job of experts. There are never any guarantees.”
If the science on AGW and the public debate was not trammeled by lobbying from special interests, if there was not a well-documented disinformation campaign highlighting outlying hypotheses and rubbish papers, and if governments like the US were not in the habit of suppressing and editing scientific findings (beyond climate science, too), then I might be able to agree more fully with this demarcation. But in the light of the politicization of the science by the corporate sector and by government, and if the scientists (like Hansen) are genuine, then the response is fair. Petitions from the science community to the US government demanding that the science not be suppressed, public declarations on the mainstream view and illumination of the propaganda campaign, and lobbying in favour of the mainstream view when it has been publicly distorted, are responses that fall in line with a democratic process. The Soviets were in the habit of suppressing opinion. Scientists paid by democratic governments are required likewise to toe the party line. Some refuse. Would you not credit them for participating in free speech, or do you condemn them for ignoring governmental strictures designed to maintain party uniformity?
The IPCC is a science body. It’s officials are required to speak in line with its protocols when they are representing the IPCC. Because this is not a command-style institution, they are allowed to speak their own opinions separately. Their freedom to do so is more democratic wouldn’t you say? Is there not something hypocritical about you warning against Soviet-style policies, and then advocating the suppression of opinion?
The UN is not a democratic institution – in the security council. The general assembly is staffed by appointees from the governments of the world. When we vote for a political party, we underwrite their competency (for a time). We do not get to vote on political appointments, or judicial appointments, how cabinets are staffed, or on many of the decisions made that were not even mentioned during that party’s campaign. We do not get to vote on who our foreign ambassadors will be, or hold referendums on foreign policy. Are we standing on moral low ground here? We hope that our democratic choice will produce a sound government that makes wise decisions. If we don’t like them, we vote them out of office.
The public of Australia recently voted in a government that had made the signing of Kyoto one of its platforms. Is this not democracy at work? The agreement could only come into force with a 55% percent majority. Is this not a democratic process?
No one was forced to sign Kyoto. And an international forum is appropriate to the matter. The consequences of CO2 emissions – and the emissions themselves – go beyond state borders. The issue is one of collective responsibility, with varying degrees of contribution to the problem.
Many countries have signed, despite the burden placed on countries required to reduce emissions. In these I see a responsible commitment to an uncertain future.
A limitation of democratic government is its short-sightedness. When periodic contests for power occur, long-term responsibility gets side-lined by short-term gain. It could be argued that a four-year election cycle actually prohibits a long-term investment in policy. A government may commit the state to investing (financially) for the future, but that could be undone by the next government. And we’ve all seen policy flips after winning election. The agreements that survive are typically constitutions, legal systems and international treaties. These can be amended or ignored, but not easily. If the world needs a standard looking ahead, then an international body is required to maintain it.
Not that the UN will enforce the agreement in a Soviet/authoritarian manner, but treaties exert pressure, and if the world needs a collective solution, that pressure is required when countries left to their own devices will neither consult the public on foreign policy, nor incline much towards a long-term good it it impinges on short-term gain. This is so for any kind of polity.
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 2:45 am #
An interesting reply, Barry.
Let me go through it.
“The theory goes that we are in for at least another 50 years of continued warming even if we stopped emitting today. Beyond that (or longer), the rate of warming and how long it will last depends on how quickly and how much we reduce GHG emissions.
It may be that we don’t reduce very much or very soon and that there will not be a significant decrease in the rate of warming by 2100.”
Yes. This is how the “theory” (or “hypothesis”) goes. But has it been validated? Not really (computer model outputs do not count as validation, Barry). How does the “theory” explain the past 10 years of no warming, yet confidently predicts the next 50 years of warming? Any weather (or climate) prediction that goes beyond a few months is suspect. The GCM predictions made so far have failed miserably as has been documented. In fact, almost any prediction that goes 50 years into the future on almost any subject is likely to have a greater degree of error than the predicted effect, itself. That’s just the way it is, Barry. For a good treatise on why this is the case and how we delude ourselves into thinking it is not the case, I can recommend a book by Nassim Taleb entitled “The Black Swan”.
What we do now will have no noticeable effect on our climate in the year 2100. I believe I have already gone through these numbers. To realize a 1C reduction in the warming between today and 2100 will require a 67% reduction in the “normal” CO2 emissions without “mitigation”. You can be sure that the world is not ready, willing or even able to make this commitment. And this is based on the inflated climate sensitivity (at 2xCO2) of 3C, where physical observations on cloud and water vapor feedbacks have demonstrated that this assumption is exaggerated by a factor of 3 to 4, which means that the temperature reduction would be less than 0.5C.
“It would seem we have a different response to this possibility. Mine is to try harder. Yours appears to be that adapting as events unfold is the proper way to go.”
To state my response more precisely, it is to adapt to those events, which actually do unfold (be they warming or cooling or whatever) as they actually unfold, rather than trying to mitigate against model forecasts of what might unfold, which may in all likelihood be totally incorrect.
And I would ask you to be a bit more specific than just (as Janice Joplin sang) “try harder”.
You wrote: “I look beyond 2100 and ask what is our responsibility to the following generations?”
My advice: “give them the cleanest, most prosperous and best possible world we can.”
So we are in agreement on the goal, but possibly not on how to achieve this goal.
“At the time scale of centuries, we’re looking, under increasing warming, at the melting of Greenland, the loss of all glaciers and sea level rise, increased drought… I’m sure you’re familiar with the projections into the future.”
These are all lo-o-o-o-ong term predictions that can be dismissed as conjectural. The latest long-term study on the Greenland ice sheet (continuously covering the period 1992 to 2003) showed a net increase in ice mass.
Sea level rise has been occurring since records started with large multidecadal swings in rate but no acceleration caused by AGW (in fact the latter part of the 20th century had a slightly slower rate of increase than the first half). No low-lying islands are currently being threatened and any prediction that this will occur in the future is again purely conjectural, and can therefore be dismissed.
Increased drought? Even IPCC has to admit that there is only a 66% chance that this has occurred at all in the late 20th century, with only a 50% chance that there was a human contribution (of non-assessed magnitude) to this possible increase, concluding, however, (not based on attribution studies but on “expert judgment” instead) that there is a 90% probability that this will increase in the future. This is conjecture in its purest form. Forget it, Barry. Read Taleb instead.
“Some limitations of a market driven response is that the dominant motivators are immediate comfort and convenience, and profit. If renewables are not as profitable as fossil fuels, companies will not rush to make the switch. If clean energy is more expensive than fossil fuel, customers (voters) will be more inclined to go with the cheap stuff. Not all, but most will, especially if they are skeptical of AGW, despite having little or no credentials with which to judge.”
To state that voters have “little or no credentials with which to judge” is extremely arrogant. It is their hard-earned money they are judging about. Non-experts are as well-positioned to make sound judgments as are experts (read Taleb and you’ll see that the record shows they are likely to be even better positioned).
Nuclear power emits no CO2 (or real pollutants such as sulfur, heavy metals, etc.) and is as economically viable today as fossil fuel fired generation. No problem. No incentives needed. Just building and operating permits.
Other “clean” sources (wind, solar) will have their niches. They will undoubtedly become more competitive as the technologies mature and the economy of size and scale come into play, but they are as unreliable as the wind and sunshine on which they depend. Pumping in a bunch of taxpayer money into one or another “green” power source is opening a can of worms. It will prevent this source from ever becoming truly competitive and stifle any other competitive source. Look at the US corn-ethanol debacle. A bad plan, Barry.
Now you seem to be getting a bit polemical when you write: “If the science on AGW and the public debate was not trammeled by lobbying from special interests, if there was not a well-documented disinformation campaign highlighting outlying hypotheses and rubbish papers, and if governments like the US were not in the habit of suppressing and editing scientific findings (beyond climate science, too), then I might be able to agree more fully with this demarcation. But in the light of the politicization of the science by the corporate sector and by government, and if the scientists (like Hansen) are genuine, then the response is fair. Petitions from the science community to the US government demanding that the science not be suppressed, public declarations on the mainstream view and illumination of the propaganda campaign, and lobbying in favour of the mainstream view when it has been publicly distorted, are responses that fall in line with a democratic process.
Do you include the UN and IPCC in your categorization of “special interests”? How about the incessant lobbying from AGW activist groups? How about non-geniune individuals, such as James E. Hansen who wears the cloak of an unbiased scientist (paid by the US taxpayer to provide them objective information on weather and climate) but is, in fact an AGW activist trying to influence the US lawmakers through fear? How about the petitions from another branch of the “scientific community” asking the UN to consider the true science on AGW, etc.
Barry, your whole paragraph is pure polemic. Face it. There is an awful lot of money floating around already in AGW. It is BIG business today. Some politicians see that it can become even BIGGER business if large countries such as the USA and China can be duped into signing on to carbon tax or cap and trade schemes. The hedge fund operators are already licking their chops in anticipation of the killing they’ll make when the carbon offset business really gets rolling. Al Gore has already assured himself a piece of the action. Politicians are drooling in anticipation of the obscene sums of money they will be allowed to shuffle around.
So I can counter your polemic with some of my own. Neither one makes either of us any smarter, so we should drop the approach of using polemics to make a point. OK?
When you get into politics the discussion becomes a bit murky: “A limitation of democratic government is its short-sightedness. When periodic contests for power occur, long-term responsibility gets side-lined by short-term gain. It could be argued that a four-year election cycle actually prohibits a long-term investment in policy.”
The good ol’ USSR did not have that problem. Five-year plans were made (and underachieved) with regularity. Give me democracy every time, Barry, with all its shortcomings. It still beats the hell out of centrally planned “long-term investment in policy”.
I covered my thoughts on that in an earlier post on “high ground”, so will not repeat them here.
“Scientists paid by democratic governments are required likewise to toe the party line. Some refuse. Would you not credit them for participating in free speech, or do you condemn them for ignoring governmental strictures designed to maintain party uniformity?”
If you are referring to Hansen when he whined that he was being “muzzled” or that “the messenger was being shot” I can only ask you to check the volume of pseudo-scientific op-eds that he generates on a continuous basis (at US Government expense). This guy is far from muzzled. He is being paid to provide a service, not to set policy, so that when he recommends to the US Congress that a carbon tax should be imposed immediately to save the planet from horrible imminent tipping points, he is off base. This is not his area of expertise. This goes beyond simply exercising “free speech”. He is trying to browbeat lawmakers though fear.
“The IPCC is a science body. It’s officials are required to speak in line with its protocols when they are representing the IPCC. Because this is not a command-style institution, they are allowed to speak their own opinions separately. Their freedom to do so is more democratic wouldn’t you say? Is there not something hypocritical about you warning against Soviet-style policies, and then advocating the suppression of opinion?”
No, Barry, the IPCC is not a “science body”, it is a political body, set up by its parent, the UN, another political body. Speaking “in line with its protocols when they are representing the IPCC” is another way of saying “toeing the party line”, i.e.providing “agenda-driven science” to support the political agenda of the UN. Most scientists are astute enough to realize that the AGW party line brings recognition and funding while going against the grain can cause friction and unpleasantness. A few have had the courage to resign. Others just grin and bear it. So no, I would not say their freedom to state their own opinion is democratic at all. Sorry.
I agree that the UN is, in principle, a good thing. But it is a stretch to assume that the UN acts in the interest of “the common good” of our planet. UN peacekeeping forces have a better record than many others (although it is not always squeaky clean). Some of their agencies bring added value to this world. They are notoriously inept and even blatantly corrupt when it comes to handling (or shuffling) large sums of public money, and they should be kept out of this role. They have no business making world policy, nor is it their job to enforce policy, except in very limited specific instances where this authority has been granted by the member states. That is the domain of the sovereign states, be they dictatorships run by socialist or fascist despots, military juntas or whatever breed of dictator, be they kingdoms or emirates or be they democracies. Since “enforcing policy” could imply making decisions that can result in costs or benefits for individual countries or industries where the danger of bribery or “kickbacks” could exist, I would think that this role should be assigned to the UN on only a very limited basis, in view of the UN track record on corruption.
Believe I’ve covered all of your points and it is clear to me that we are a long way from reaching agreement.
But it is interesting to learn and analyze another viewpoint.
Regards,
Max
barry schwarz on 01 Aug 2008 at 6:02 am #
Quote: “how do we know that the “unexplainable cause” for a significant part of the warming from 1910 to 1944 may not also have been an “unexplainable cause” for a significant part of the warming from 1976 to 2005?”
Because data resolution is finer for the latter part of the 20th century. We did not have satellites in the sky telling us that solar variance, for example, has been flat or down for the period.
The IPCC does not make wild hypotheses about some unknown or “unexplainable” forcing, whether internal or external. The argument over the first warming period is WRT to the degree of solar contribution. For the recent warming period, we have much more data.
I do not think it is very logical to posit that the state of knowledge on the last 30+ years may be constrained by uncertainty of the degree of solar contribution to the first warming period.
Quote: What you refer to as “the science” must be defined. Does it include all the “science”?
Yes. All the science that survives peer-review, and that which survives beyond.
Quote: Are solar studies and hypotheses of a significant solar contribution to warming to be included?
Yes. They should be tested and incorporated if robust or sufficiently valid, and not included if they are not.
Many studies which are flawed may yet contain useful science that can contribute to understanding.
Quote: Are computer model (GCM) outputs to be considered “science”?
Yes. Models of reality are exactly what science theories are. Electronic computation is a standard across a range of disciplines – health, environment, astronomy, pure physics… A recent 7-year project culminated in computer modeling of stellar activity in the early universe. No one will claim that this is not science, even though the ‘telescope’ is a computer.
Quote: Are physical observations that contradict GCM outputs to be taken more seriously than the GCM outputs, or are they to be discarded as “outliers” in favor of the model outputs?
They are to be taken seriously, tested for accuracy, appropriately contextualised (scientifically speaking) and employed towards better understanding the science and improving the models. It’s not an either/or proposition. It is an evolving picture.
I am in general agreement with the science based premises you have outlined, but not with your economic assertions/arguments.
To put what I said in a previous post another way, even if we do not – or cannot – make a significant change to global temperatures by 2100, I do not see the logic in not trying harder, and certainly no reason to ignore what is projected beyond that time. Why limit our perspective (and responsibility) to the next 97 years?
I read your calculations above. I um unable to test them (little maths skill). But I can follow the conceptualisation and I think there are some wrong assumptions.
Quote: “So using the IPCC climate sensitivity of 3C for 2xCO2, we have [calculation]
3C
(Checks with “mean value” of IPCC estimates for “climate sensitivity”)
So far (by 2007) we have (theoretically) experienced [calculation]
1.37C = temperature increase from 1750 to 2007 (from CO2 with assumed model “feedbacks”)” :Endquote
You have conflated the time series from the beginning of industrial revolution with the time series from when CO2 increase is said to have had an impact (late 19th century). Prior to 1900, anthropogenic CO2 emissions (excess to natural variation) were absorbed by the earth’s natural sinks and had little effect. Towards the beginning of the 20th century, continued CO2 emissions overwhelmed the earth’s capacity to absorb the excess. Currently the natural sinks absorb about half the CO2 we emit (the ‘missing’ fraction you pointed to upthread).
Also, your calculations assume that the rate of feedback from 1750 – 2007 will be the same in the future.
Quote: “And from today until 2100 we will experience (without “mitigation”)
2007 level = C1 = 384 ppmv
2100 level = C2 = 560 ppmv
C2 / C1 = 1.46
ln (C2 / C1) = 0.3773
RF = 23.49 x ln (C2 / C1) = 8.86 W/m^2
Stefan-Boltzmann = 5.4273
RF / S-B = 1.63C = temperature increase from 2007 to 2100”
1.37 +1.63 = 3 (C)
This is a radiative forcing scenario purely for CO2 emissions, which does not include aerosols, other GHGs or variability in feedbacks. A feedback that comes to mind immediately is the Arctic ice. Ice melt increases exponentially under constant heat. Observations have shown a non-linear response to warming in glaciers and ice shelves, and the ice-albedo positive melt reinforcement during the 21st century is well-corroborated by models.
Quote: “So these “offsets” (or indulgences) would realistically be “worth” between 10 and 20 trillion dollars out of today’s total global GDP of 54.3 trillion dollars.”
I am a little unclear on your time series. 10 or 20 trillion dollars is the going rate for the next 97 years, right? And is it appropriate to stipulate world GDP as the exchange rate figure, or is it more appropriate to use the purchase power figure ($65 trillion 2007)?
Assuming you meant 20 trillion for the whole period, that makes 0.4% of GDP over the next 93 years if GDP remains the same annually (but it tends to increase doesn’t it?). Now, clearly the spending shouldn’t be so spread out. Let’s try and get things done by 1950. That makes mitigation strategies costing about 1% GDP – which is the conclusion the Stern report came up with – and the Stern report is one of the major economic reports that vouched that mitigation would be cheaper than adaptation alone.
Note: neither I nor anyone else that I know of is advocating a purely government driven mitigation program. R&D and adaptation down the road should also be in the mix. Private enterprise is not curtailed. Why not have a multi-pronged approach?
The cost of adaptation would be about the same for the next 50 years at least, than if we took no steps towards mitigation. We’re investing for the long term.
There is another factor that we should consider. We are currently at the middle (or possibly near the end) of one of the longest booms in history. International affairs are relatively stable. Growth has been good for the richer and developing countries like India and China (which is already investing heavily in Green technology). Now is exactly the right time to make a strong investment in the future because we can afford it now. We don’t know what the future will bring. We don’t know if there will be large-scale wars sapping at the coffers. We currently have an international coalition dedicated to a mutual project. In terms of scope and international agreement, it is virtually unprecedented. We can afford to do it. We have general agreement on it. We have extraordinary international co-operation right now, despite the conflicts and antipathy in regions of the world. In 20 years, the world may be a very different place. We should go while the getting’s good.
Assuming, of course, that the risks have been weighed carefully enough. You have dropped various hints that you don’t think they are. Shall we deal with them? (Admittedly, I am more out of my league on policy and economics)
barry schwarz on 01 Aug 2008 at 8:24 am #
Quote: “it is interesting to learn and analyze another viewpoint.”
Likewise. I appreciate your clarity and apparent fair-mindedness.
“This is how the “theory” (or “hypothesis”) goes. But has it been validated? Not really (computer model outputs do not count as validation, Barry).”
You are here replying to my comments on long-term projections. How on earth are they to be projected without models considering such a complex, dynamic system? How can you ‘validate’ anything that is a projection of the future?
You can’t, until the future arrives to test the theory. Until then you can run hindcasts with models to see if they work backwards in time with already observed data. This does not mean inserting observed values, but by running the model with tuned variables. And hindcasting has performed well. You can also test forecasts over relatively short periods (but short period forecasting is afflicted with noise problems).
Forecasting has also worked well. Computer models successfully predicted a downturn in global climate after massive volcanic eruptions. The IPCC projections from 1995 on are in good agreement with temperature change (the 1990 projections overestimated temperature rise – the temps were revised downwards in the 1995 report – before the corroboration came – science progressed).
“How does the “theory” explain the past 10 years of no warming, yet confidently predicts the next 50 years of warming?”
AGW theory does not project monotonic temperature rises. Surely you know this? As I’ve demonstrated before, from the body of the latest report, some projections have cooling periods of as much as 20 years (or at least periods where a temperature is not exceeded for 20 years). Short term variability is expected.
“Any weather (or climate) prediction that goes beyond a few months is suspect.”
On the contrary! The shorter the period, the less skillful the projection. Which is why the weather man gets it wrong so often. When you have larger period, or data populations, the noise is diminished and the underlying signal is revealed. Climate scientists attempting to predict a particular year’s temperature are far more likely to be wrong than in their projections over a longer period.
“The GCM predictions made so far have failed miserably as has been documented.”
We’re reading different documents. My view is that some models do very well, others don’t, and that they are constantly being fine-tuned and extended to incorporate more of the climate system. No model is perfect and probably never will be. The ensemble runs give fairly good resolution and come up with results (like predicting changes from vulcanism), that correlate with later observations.
I’ve read a sheaf of studies on GCMs. Without exception they explain the shortcomings, qualify the conclusions and note areas in need of improvement. The projections derived are the SUM of GCMs, and include caveats.
“In fact, almost any prediction that goes 50 years into the future on almost any subject is likely to have a greater degree of error than the predicted effect, itself. That’s just the way it is, Barry.”
This is just not so. Consider: I toss a coin 10 times a day for 100 days. 1000 coin tosses. The further into the series we go, the closer we get to what is expected mathematically – 1/1 heads/tails. It is quite possible that by day four I will have tossed 30% heads and 70% tails. Is there something wrong with the probability calculation then? No, the anomaly is an expression of the shallowness of the data pool. The more days I toss coins, the closer the overall results will come to 50%/50%. With a larger pool of data (coin tosses), the random variability diminishes (noise), and the underlying probability is revealed (signal).
Quote: For a good treatise on why this is the case and how we delude ourselves into thinking it is not the case, I can recommend a book by Nassim Taleb entitled “The Black Swan”.
I’ll look out for it.
“What we do now will have no noticeable effect on our climate in the year 2100. I believe I have already gone through these numbers.”
I doubt the probity of your calculations (comments in above post), but am not really equipped to judge with any authority.
“To realize a 1C reduction in the warming between today and 2100 will require a 67% reduction in the “normal” CO2 emissions without “mitigation”. You can be sure that the world is not ready, willing or even able to make this commitment.”
(Polemics?) I see varied results and we’re only three years into the program.
“And this is based on the inflated climate sensitivity (at 2xCO2) of 3C, where physical observations on cloud and water vapor feedbacks have demonstrated that this assumption is exaggerated by a factor of 3 to 4, which means that the temperature reduction would be less than 0.5C.”
This is something you’ve hinted at upthread. For each assertrion you make, you generally corroborate with “a recent paper”, as if it’s recentness somehow marks it as validated. You should cite your sources.
And you are basing your opinions on single studies (so far), rather than weighing the bulk of them. How is this not cherry-picking? A single paper very rarely undoes a theory. Most studies are additive at best, or invalid at worst. Please cite your sources, particularly when referring to them in the singular.
“To state my response more precisely, it is to adapt to those events, which actually do unfold (be they warming or cooling or whatever) as they actually unfold, rather than trying to mitigate against model forecasts of what might unfold, which may in all likelihood be totally incorrect.”
That is exactly what I said, with some rhetoric thrown in. Loosen your grip, amigo.
“So we are in agreement on the goal, but possibly not on how to achieve this goal.”
Yes. I figure (and I admit my figuring is limited by thin understanding of the economics) that a multi-pronged approach is best, rather than dropping the governmentally driven economic policies. For now.
“These are all lo-o-o-o-ong term predictions that can be dismissed as conjectural. The latest long-term study on the Greenland ice sheet (continuously covering the period 1992 to 2003) showed a net increase in ice mass.”
Well, here we are with “the latest study”. What is it? How robust is it? How does it compare with the other studies out there that have been peer-reviewed and survived further scientific scrutiny? I’ve read several other papers describing a net loss of ice. A January paper put Antarctic ice loss nearly as great as Greenland ice loss over the last decade (ice sheet loss – not sea ice). How do we balance these conflicting reports (assuming your report is robust and actually does conflict)?
“Sea level rise has been occurring since records started with large multidecadal swings in rate but no acceleration caused by AGW (in fact the latter part of the 20th century had a slightly slower rate of increase than the first half).”
“In fact”? This is exactly the opposite of what I’ve read on the matter (centennial sea level rise of 2mm p/yr, with recent sea level rise being 3+mm p/yr. Where do you get your information from, and why on earth do you call it “fact”?
“No low-lying islands are currently being threatened and any prediction that this will occur in the future is again purely conjectural, and can therefore be dismissed.”
The people of Tuvalu are prepared to abandon their island in the face of rising sea levels and have asked Australia and New Zealand to take them in, so that contention is wrong straight up. If you were ideologically motivated, you would now move to saying this has nothing to do with global warming (and possibly it isn’t), but because you seem fair-minded, I expect you will just say that you forgot or didn’t know about this.
“Increased drought? Even IPCC has to admit that there is only a 66% chance that this has occurred at all in the late 20th century, with only a 50% chance that there was a human contribution (of non-assessed magnitude) to this possible increase, concluding, however, (not based on attribution studies but on “expert judgment” instead) that there is a 90% probability that this will increase in the future. This is conjecture in its purest form.”
Conjecture is what people do when they are making guesses with bare information and no work tools. This is not an apt description of the years of work behind mainstream climate projections. This is a propagandic use of the word “conjecture”.
“To state that voters have “little or no credentials with which to judge” is extremely arrogant.”
It is not. If I want to be medically examined, I see a doctor. I do not ask my plumber to diagnose me. If I want financial advice, I do not visit the dentist. The people qualified to assess the science of climate are those people with qualifications. The general public is simply not equipped (unless it should one day become common practise for everyone to take 5 years of physics and then specialize in geochemical, or atmospheric, or geologic, paleogical, or astrophysical science).
“It is their hard-earned money they are judging about.”
Sure. Let them make choices about how to spend.
I’m not sure where you’re coming from here. What difference is there between establishing a carbon tax or a cap and trade system, and any other financial regulation that governments oversee as a matter of course? Do you resent having your hard earned money stolen from you by the government and spent on stuff you, personally, will not profit from? Are taxes a Soviet-style plot to fleece the democratic populations of the world to be mishandled by bureaucrats? Are tarriffs? Are government regulations barring a big company from buying every media outlet in the country a communist plot designed to smack down the private sector, or is it a reasonable prohibition to protect the freedom of the press?
I think the best analogy is tobacco. The government taxes cigarettes and allocates funds towards improving health care. This serves a dual use. It encourages people to get off the fags, and it provides a fund for health care. Some decades ago, the tobacco industry spent millions on bad science and propaganda campaigns to keep people smoking. Many smokers did then what ‘skeptics’ are doing now with AGW theory. They are fixating on only the science that appeals to them, and rejecting the ‘doctor’s’ advice as being politically motivated. I’m sure there was a fortune to be made for medical scientists in claiming tobacco is bad for health back then.
Would you argue that the tax should be taken off cigarettes, and that the smoking public should decide whether or not they want to donate to health care? Shall we resurrect some of the old ‘science’ studies that showed there was no correlation between smoking and illness or death?
If this debate had occurred in the age of the internet, we can be pretty sure that smokers would be inundating the web with this ‘scientific’ disinformation, and positing that the science was uncertain, I’m going to keep on smoking rather than get inviolved in this highly speculative ‘what if’ malarkey.
“Non-experts are as well-positioned to make sound judgments as are experts (read Taleb and you’ll see that the record shows they are likely to be even better positioned).”
Not about climate science, and not about economic policy. I’m not even sure what you’re referring to here. Are you saying that people know best how to spend money for themselves? Fine. But the general public is generally not equipped to understand climate science (have you read the popular press pro and con?), and most people have enough trouble balancing their own budget, let alone figuring out what a necessary contribution to reducing GHG emissions might be, not to mention that a good many people, the great majority, will not be inclined to spend their money on it at all.
It is NOT arrogant to say this. It is hopelessly idealistic to think that the general public will, en masse, effectively scrutinize the science on climate change, figure out how they can contribute to a potential threat, and then follow that up by spending a bit more for the generations that follow. It’s as optimistic as saying that smoking is dangerous for your health, and that this well-known fact should see no more smokers by next year.
Speeding, alcoholism, gambling, smoking, drug-taking… how long a list can you come up with suggesting that maybe the general public is not really so wise?
For the record, I think governments should not ban any of the above – people should have the right to exercise a choice – but the government should tax producers and consumers for products that are luxuries and that can create widespread social problems.
“Nuclear power emits no CO2 (or real pollutants such as sulfur, heavy metals, etc.) and is as economically viable today as fossil fuel fired generation. No problem. No incentives needed. Just building and operating permits.”
I have no problem with nuclear power per se, but the shortcomings are a long lead-time to having a running plant (12 – 15 years), considerable CO2 emissions in their construction, and there are the issues of waste disposal and safety (the latter of which has improved over time). Running costs are more expensive than coal or natural gas powered electricity generators, but this makes nuclear power a slightly better financial prospect than many alternative energies. Due to the long lead-time and expense, nuclear power will probably rely in part on government subsidy or loans. How does this square with your economic model for a changing energy market?
“Other “clean” sources (wind, solar) will have their niches.”
I just read the other day of a plan for a large solar cell grid in the Sahara that could provide Eurpoe’s electricity needs. I don’t know how likely this is, but I am reasonably confident that, left to public choices, solar energy will indeed remain a niche industry.
OTOH, some people have bought solar power untis, and pay less for energy. Most people I know have bought neon, low power light bulbs in the last few years. The political will is here now, and I think the government can make use of that t approve a broad economic policy on mitigation. It’s partly why the current government came to power. Seems democratic to me.
“they are as unreliable as the wind and sunshine on which they depend”
The sun shines almost constantly in many deserts. The interior of Australia is awash with sunlight. It is to our discredit that we’ve abandoned the lead we had on photovoltaic cell R&D. Our country is most apt to use it.
“Pumping in a bunch of taxpayer money into one or another “green” power source is opening a can of worms. It will prevent this source from ever becoming truly competitive and stifle any other competitive source. Look at the US corn-ethanol debacle. A bad plan, Barry.”
The corn-ethanol ‘debacle’ is noted for food price issues that will not be affecting solar and wind power. Solar cells in deserts, wind power anywhere but on arable land. There are huge floating wind farms proposed in the seas of Northern Europe. The cost benefit in the long-term is potentially very great. No moving parts for photovoltaic cells. No need to mine and transport material. Maintenance is all that’s required.
Certainly, wind and solar power is not yet cost-effective, but with the price of oil going up, and it WILL continue to increase, these technologies are becoming more cost acceptable.
What do you think of geothermal energy? I think it has a lot of potential, and with more R&D, it could be cheaper to set up than nuclear power (it may already be so). There are already a few plants up and running.
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 1:45 pm #
Hi Barry,
Thanks for your last post. As it was very long and you have requested references for some points, I will reply in segments. Here comes the first.
You asked: “How can you ‘validate’ anything that is a projection of the future?”
Here is one example to answer your question. Comparing actually observed temperature data over a long time period with model results, this study demonstrates that “local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported”.
http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/pdf/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671?cookieSet=1
There are other studies out there, including a “greenhouse warming scorecard” that gets updated from time to time.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Your next point, “The shorter the period, the less skillful the projection. Which is why the weather man gets it wrong so often. When you have larger period, or data populations, the noise is diminished and the underlying signal is revealed. Climate scientists attempting to predict a particular year’s temperature are far more likely to be wrong than in their projections over a longer period.”
Sorry, Barry, this is a myth. Read Taleb. The longer the time period, the greater the chance for randomness (i.e. unforeseen events), which throw the whole projection out of the window. That is the fact. BTW, this holds for other long-term predictions, not just for climate model projections.
“AGW theory does not project monotonic temperature rises. Surely you know this?”
I am not aware of an “AGW theory”. I know what the greenhouse hypothesis states and I can live with that. I have a bit more of a problem with modeled “feedback” assumptions, which are programmed into the models to enhance the greenhouse impact by a factor of four or more. As to monotonic warming, I see that AGW “believers” are generally quick to blame any warming on AGW as it occurs, but then fall back to your line of reasoning when it does not occur or when temperatures cool. Read Taleb. He covers this phenomenon well; he calls it “retrospective explainability”.
“No model is perfect and probably never will be. The ensemble runs give fairly good resolution and come up with results that correlate with later observations.”
The first part of this premise is accurate. Please refer to previously cited reference for evidence that the second part is not.
“The people of Tuvalu are prepared to abandon their island in the face of rising sea levels and have asked Australia and New Zealand to take them in, so that contention is wrong straight up.”
Show me the evidence, based on immigration statistics, that Tuvalu residents are, indeed, emigrating to Australia or New Zealand in increasing numbers. Show me the physical evidence, based on long-term tide gauge records at Tuvalu, that this trend is due to rising sea level at Tuvalu. Check the tide gauge record below:
http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-02a.htm#funafuti
After reading the cited attachment, demonstrate to me, with some evidence, that an escape from overpopulated and relatively poor Tuvalu to relatively affluent Australia or New Zealand does not offer a chance for a higher standard of living, and therefore, could well be the underlying root cause for any migration that may be occurring. (I could just as easily state that the hordes of Mexicans and Central Americans that are entering the USA today on a daily basis are doing so to “escape global warming in their native countries”, which would (also) be utter rubbish.
You bring in a “toin coss” analogy with: “With a larger pool of data (coin tosses), the random variability diminishes (noise), and the underlying probability is revealed (signal).”
This analogy is flawed. Coin tossing is a “black or white” simple thing. There is very little randomness. There are no unforeseen outside factors (such as a sudden hurricane blowing through and disappearing with the coin or the tosser himself). This is what makes long-term forecasting less reliable than shorter-term predictions. As the American baseball player (and philosopher) Yogi Berra once said: “Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future.”
To my calculation, which demonstrates that what we do now will have no noticeable effect on our climate in the year 2100, you commented, “I doubt the probity of your calculations, but am not really equipped to judge with any authority.” And in your previous post your comment was, “This is a radiative forcing scenario purely for CO2 emissions, which does not include aerosols, other GHGs or variability in feedbacks.”
Wrong, Barry. This is not “purely for CO2”. It is for CO2 plus all assumed feedbacks, which lead to an assumed 3C climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 (IPCC). It is what IPCC tells us will be the total result of increasing CO2 emissions. Aerosols, other GHGs, etc. have nothing to do with this (IPCC has shown us that these essentially cancel each other out.)
A tip: before you make statements “doubting the probity” of my calculations, study the theory, in order to be able to “judge with authority” whether or not they are well-founded. Keeps you from writing silly statements such as the one above.
I referred to studies, which indicate that the assumed feedbacks from water vapor and clouds are overestimated, to which you countered: “And you are basing your opinions on single studies (so far), rather than weighing the bulk of them. How is this not cherry-picking? A single paper very rarely undoes a theory.”
Barry, I’m sorry, but I’ll have to tell you that this response is a waffle.
The studies I cited are based on physical observations. The model projections are not physical observations. One study based on physically observed and recorded data is worth more than a thousand model studies (sort of like the “bird in the hand” vs. “10 birds in the bush”). This, Barry, is what true science (as opposed to what I will refer to as “climatology”) is all about.
The studies show that:
Atmospheric water vapor concentrations do indeed increase with temperature, but to a lesser extent than postulated by the models. Minschwaner + Dessler used actual satellite observations to create a model, from which they concluded a climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 of 1.2C, including a theoretical water vapor feedback based on maintaining a constant relative humidity (had they used the actual satellite observations themselves rather than their model, which was derived from these observations), the sensitivity would have been even lower, since the relative humidity did not remain constant with increased sea surface temperature, as assumed, but decreased. The conclusion drawn: physical observations show significantly lower positive water feedback impact than the models assume. What should we do? Believe the many model studies or the physical observations? If you know anything about the scientific process (Poincaré, et al) you will know the answer to that question. http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/minschwaner_march04.pdf
A study by Pierrehumbert et al. estimates that a doubling of water vapor would result in a forcing of 6 W/m^2. (No model study goes so far as to assume that 2xCO2 will result in 2xH2O.) Based on model studies it concludes, “the relative humidity probability density function (PDF) will remain nearly invariant for small or moderate warming”. (Yet the satellite data in Minschwaner + Dessler showed that relative humidity decreases with increased SST.)
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/CaltechWater.pdf
Yet another source points out that water vapor alone should theoretically cause a positive feedback with warming, but that the situation is not so simple due to the negative feedback impact of clouds.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17402
“Water vapour in the atmosphere can change phase, which leads to more clouds, and greater cloud cover means that more sunlight is reflected straight out of the atmosphere. Crude calculations suggest that the two effects approximately balance each other, and that water vapour does not have a strong feedback mechanism in the Earth’s climate.”
Another (post AR4) study by Spencer et al. validates, based on physically observed data, the above statement as well as the theory of Lindzen that the feedback from clouds is negative (rather than positive, as postulated in the climate models) and, moreover, that it is significant. Spencer’s observations show that the ‘major negative feedback’ from clouds is –6.1 W/m^2/K or equivalent to 75% of all the warming assumed in the models from CO2 plus feedbacks, putting the climate sensitivity back to around 0.7C rather than the assumed 3C. This is not to blame AR4 for ignoring these data when they conceded (IPCC 2007 SPM) that “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty” (the Spencer report had not yet been published). Again we have physically observed data contradicting model study outputs (and, thereby providing hard data to clarify what IPCC concedes to be “the largest source of uncertainty”. Which should we believe: the outdated model study assumptions with high “uncertainty” or the more recent physically observed facts? (See above example for a clue to the correct answer).
http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
You brought up IPCC projection of increased drought. I pointed out to you that “even IPCC has to admit that there is only a 66% chance that this has occurred at all in the late 20th century, with only a 50% chance that there was a human contribution (of non-assessed magnitude) to this possible increase, concluding, however, (not based on attribution studies but on ‘expert judgment’ instead) that there is a 90% probability that this will increase in the future. This is conjecture in its purest form.”
In your reply you were unable to refute my statement, but sidetracked to defining the meaning of the word “conjecture” instead: “Conjecture is what people do when they are making guesses with bare information and no work tools. This is not an apt description of the years of work behind mainstream climate projections. This is a propagandic use of the word ‘conjecture’”.
Barry, you are getting back into polemics when you throw out words like “propagandic use”, rather than addressing the issue at hand. IPCC takes marginally likely data from past observations with undefined human impact based on “expert judgment” (i.e. guesses by experts) rather than observations and parleys this into 90% probable forecasts. This, Barry, is another example of conjecture, whether you like this word or not.
Address the issue; don’t sidestep it with waffles about word meanings.
Enough for today.
This part of my response covered the “scientific” or “statistical” part of our discussion.
To summarize:
· Evidence that indicates that the reliability of climate models to predict the future is poor
· In making long-term predictions for very complex systems (such as Earth’s climate), randomness is a key, but not considered, factor that changes everything
· Imaginary sea level rise in Tuvalu causing residents to flee (sometime soon, maybe) is a hoax
· Application of greenhouse theory with IPCC assumed feedbacks to demonstrate that a non-realistic 67% reduction of projected “normal” CO2 emissions would be required to achieve a 1 degree C lowering of the warming from today until 2100
· Physical observations demonstrating that the positive feedback from water vapor is much lower than assumed in climate models cited by IPCC
· Physical observations demonstrating that cloud feedbacks are negative and substantial enough to totally offset any assumed positive feedback from water vapor, thereby invalidating IPCC assumptions on total impact of water (vapor, liquid droplets or ice crystals)
· Reiteration of the observation that IPCC takes “iffy” observational data on actual trends in droughts (a topic you brought up earlier) with questionable human impact and parleys these into forecasts with high probability of future increase (to which you had no answer, except a rather polemic “word definition waffle” on the meaning of “conjecture”.
The rest of your post was more concerned with the political or polemic side of our discussion. I’ll come back to that later.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 2:43 pm #
Hi Barry,
[I have posted this message once, but it has apparently been rejected, due to the many links included, so I will repost (without the links) and post the links separately.]
Thanks for your last post. As it was very long and you have requested references for some points, I will reply in segments. Here comes the first.
You asked: “How can you ‘validate’ anything that is a projection of the future?”
Here is one example to answer your question. Comparing actually observed temperature data over a long time period with model results, this study demonstrates that “local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported”.
(see Link 1)
There are other studies out there, including a “greenhouse warming scorecard” that gets updated from time to time.
(see Link 2)
Your next point, “The shorter the period, the less skillful the projection. Which is why the weather man gets it wrong so often. When you have larger period, or data populations, the noise is diminished and the underlying signal is revealed. Climate scientists attempting to predict a particular year’s temperature are far more likely to be wrong than in their projections over a longer period.”
Sorry, Barry, this is a myth. Read Taleb. The longer the time period, the greater the chance for randomness (i.e. unforeseen events), which throw the whole projection out of the window. That is the fact. BTW, this holds for other long-term predictions, not just for climate model projections.
“AGW theory does not project monotonic temperature rises. Surely you know this?”
I am not aware of an “AGW theory”. I know what the greenhouse hypothesis states and I can live with that. I have a bit more of a problem with modeled “feedback” assumptions, which are programmed into the models to enhance the greenhouse impact by a factor of four or more. As to monotonic warming, I see that AGW “believers” are generally quick to blame any warming on AGW as it occurs, but then fall back to your line of reasoning when it does not occur or when temperatures cool. Read Taleb. He covers this phenomenon well; he calls it “retrospective explainability”.
“No model is perfect and probably never will be. The ensemble runs give fairly good resolution and come up with results that correlate with later observations.”
The first part of this premise is accurate. Please refer to previously cited reference for evidence that the second part is not.
“The people of Tuvalu are prepared to abandon their island in the face of rising sea levels and have asked Australia and New Zealand to take them in, so that contention is wrong straight up.”
Show me the evidence, based on immigration statistics, that Tuvalu residents are, indeed, emigrating to Australia or New Zealand in increasing numbers. Show me the physical evidence, based on long-term tide gauge records at Tuvalu, that this trend is due to rising sea level at Tuvalu. Check the tide gauge record below: (See Link 3)
After reading the cited attachment, demonstrate to me, with some evidence, that an escape from relatively poor and overpopulated Tuvalu to relatively affluent Australia or New Zealand does not offer a chance for a higher standard of living, and therefore, could well be the underlying root cause for any migration that may be occurring. (I could just as easily state that the hordes of Mexicans and Central Americans that are entering the USA today on a daily basis are doing so to “escape global warming in their native countries”, which would (also) be utter rubbish.
You bring in a “toin coss” analogy with: “With a larger pool of data (coin tosses), the random variability diminishes (noise), and the underlying probability is revealed (signal).”
This analogy is flawed. Coin tossing is a “black or white” simple thing. There is very little randomness. There are no unforeseen outside factors (such as a sudden hurricane blowing through and disappearing with the coin or the tosser himself). This is what makes long-term forecasting less reliable than shorter-term predictions. As the American baseball player (and philosopher) Yogi Berra once said: “Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future.”
To my calculation, which demonstrates that what we do now will have no noticeable effect on our climate in the year 2100, you commented, “I doubt the probity of your calculations, but am not really equipped to judge with any authority.” And in your previous post your comment was, “This is a radiative forcing scenario purely for CO2 emissions, which does not include aerosols, other GHGs or variability in feedbacks.”
Wrong, Barry. This is not “purely for CO2”. It is for CO2 plus all assumed feedbacks, which lead to an assumed 3C climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 (IPCC). It is what IPCC tells us will be the total result of increasing CO2 emissions. Aerosols, other GHGs, etc. have nothing to do with this (IPCC has shown us that these essentially cancel each other out.)
A tip: before you make statements “doubting the probity” of my calculations, study the theory, in order to be able to “judge with authority” whether or not they are well-founded. Keeps you from writing silly statements such as the one above.
I referred to studies, which indicate that the assumed feedbacks from water vapor and clouds are overestimated, to which you countered: “And you are basing your opinions on single studies (so far), rather than weighing the bulk of them. How is this not cherry-picking? A single paper very rarely undoes a theory.”
Barry, I’m sorry, but I’ll have to tell you that this response is a waffle.
The studies I cited are based on physical observations. The model projections are not physical observations. One study based on physically observed and recorded data is worth more than a thousand model studies (sort of like the “bird in the hand” vs. “10 birds in the bush”). This, Barry, is what true science (as opposed to what I will refer to as “climatology”) is all about.
The studies show that:
Atmospheric water vapor concentrations do indeed increase with temperature, but to a much lesser extent than postulated by the models. Minschwaner + Dessler used these actual observations to create a model, from which they concluded a climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 of 1.2C, including a theoretical water vapor feedback based on maintaining a constant relative humidity; had they used the actual satellite observations (rather than their model, which was derived from these observations), the sensitivity would have been even lower, since the relative humidity did not remain constant with increased sea surface temperature, as assumed, but decreased. The conclusion drawn: physical observations show significantly lower positive water feedback impact than the models assume. What should we do? Believe the many model studies or the physical observations? If you know anything about the scientific process (Poincaré, et al) you will know the answer to that question.
(See Link 4)
A study by Pierrehumbert et al. estimates that a doubling of water vapor would result in a forcing of 6 W/m^2. (No model study goes so far to project that 2xCO2 will result in 2xH2O vapor.) Based on model studies it concludes, “the relative humidity probability density function (PDF) will remain nearly invariant for small or moderate warming”. (Yet the satellite data in Minschwaner + Dessler cited above showed that relative humidity decreases with increased SST.)
(See Link 5)
Yet another source points out that water vapor alone should cause a positive feedback with warming, but that the situation is not so simple due to the negative feedback impact of clouds.
(See Link 6)
“Water vapour in the atmosphere can change phase, which leads to more clouds, and greater cloud cover means that more sunlight is reflected straight out of the atmosphere. Crude calculations suggest that the two effects approximately balance each other, and that water vapour does not have a strong feedback mechanism in the Earth’s climate.”
Another (post AR4) study by Spencer et al. validates, based on physically observed data, this statement as well as the theory of Lindzen that the feedback from clouds is negative (rather than positive, as postulated in the climate models) and, moreover, that it is significant. Spencer’s observations show that the ‘major negative feedback’ from clouds is –6.1 W/m^2/K or equivalent to 75% of all the warming expected from CO2 plus feedbacks, putting the climate sensitivity back to around 0.7C rather than the assumed 3C. This is not to blame AR4 for ignoring these data when they conceded that “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty” (the Spencer report had not yet been published). Again we have physically observed data contradicting model study outputs (and, thereby providing hard data to clarify what IPCC concedes to be “the largest source of uncertainty”. Which should we believe: the outdated model study assumptions or the more recent physically observed facts? (See above example for a clue to the correct answer).
(See Link 7)
You brought up IPCC projection of increased drought. I pointed out to you that “even IPCC has to admit that there is only a 66% chance that this has occurred at all in the late 20th century, with only a 50% chance that there was a human contribution (of non-assessed magnitude) to this possible increase, concluding, however, (not based on attribution studies but on ‘expert judgment’ instead) that there is a 90% probability that this will increase in the future. This is conjecture in its purest form.”
In your reply you were unable to refute my statement, but sidetracked to defining the meaning of the word “conjecture” instead: “Conjecture is what people do when they are making guesses with bare information and no work tools. This is not an apt description of the years of work behind mainstream climate projections. This is a propagandic use of the word ‘conjecture’”.
Barry, you are getting back into polemics when you throw out words like “propagandic use”, rather than addressing the issue at hand. In this specific case, IPCC takes marginally likely data from past observations with undefined human impact based on “expert judgment” (i.e. guesses by experts) rather than observations and parleys this into 90% probable forecasts. This, Barry, is another example of conjecture, whether you like this word or not.
Address the issue; don’t sidestep it with waffles about word meanings.
Enough for today.
This part of my response covered the “scientific” or “statistical” part of our discussion.
To summarize:
· Evidence that indicates that the reliability of climate models to predict the future is poor
· In long-term predictions covering complex systems randomness is a key, but not considered, factor that changes everything
· Imaginary sea level rise in Tuvalu causing residents to flee (sometime soon, maybe) is a hoax
· Application of greenhouse theory with IPCC assumed feedbacks to demonstrate that a non-realistic 67% reduction of projected “normal” CO2 emissions would be required to achieve a 1 degree C lowering of the warming from today until 2100
· Physical observations demonstrating that the positive feedback from water vapor is much lower than assumed in climate models cited by IPCC
· Physical observations demonstrating that cloud feedbacks are negative and substantial enough to totally offset any assumed positive feedback from water vapor, thereby invalidating IPCC assumptions on total impact of water (vapor, liquid droplets or ice crystals)
· Reiteration of the observation that IPCC takes “iffy” observational data on actual trends on droughts (a topic you brought up earlier) with questionable human impact and parleys these into forecasts with high probability of future increase (to which you had no answer, except a rather polemic “word definition waffle” on the meaning of “conjecture”.
The rest of your post was more concerned with the political or polemic side of our discussion. I’ll come back to that later.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 2:44 pm #
Link 1
http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/pdf/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671?cookieSet=1
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 2:44 pm #
Link 2
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 2:45 pm #
Link 3
http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-02a.htm#funafuti
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 2:46 pm #
Link 4
http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/minschwaner_march04.pdf
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 2:46 pm #
Link 5
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/CaltechWater.pdf
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 2:47 pm #
Link 6
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17402
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 2:47 pm #
Link 7
http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
barry schwarz on 01 Aug 2008 at 6:12 pm #
Quote: “Now you seem to be getting a bit polemical when you write: “If the science on AGW and the public debate was not trammeled by lobbying from special interests, if there was not a well-documented disinformation campaign highlighting outlying hypotheses and rubbish papers, and if governments like the US were not in the habit of suppressing and editing scientific findings….
“Do you include the UN and IPCC in your categorization of “special interests”?”
Not really. The IPCC was established to evaluate the science on a possible anthropogenic contribution to climate change and whether this carried risks. This came about because of lobbying by the WMO and the United Nations Environment Program, when mainstream science was tending to agree with earlier hypotheses that increased GHG emissions could warm the globe. The IPCC was tasked to assess that risk.
In the normal course of science, challenges to a prevailing theory are examined and weighed. This happens beyond the jurisdiction of the IPCC, but the IPCC has contributed by collating the state of the science and explicating it. Peer-reviewed papers are weighed against each other by scientists and the language agreed on by scientists and corporate and political representatives (it has been argued that it is the non-scientific reps lobby to change the language – for instance, Saudi Arabia and the US lobbied successfully to change language from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’), and there is good agreement amongst the body of work that GHG emissions are warming and will continue to warm the globe. When the question goes to ‘how much’, there is less certainty, but the IPCC presents the mean of the best available work after weighing the probity of individual papers.
There is a charge from some scientists, most notably Chris Landsea, that the IPCC fixes their conclusions around a pre-disposition to over-emphasise global warming, but the real story is that Landsea disagreed with a connection between warming and hurricane intensity. His view didn’t make the cut and he asked for his name to be removed as a contributor. He alleges at his views were ignored because they did not suit the orthodoxy of the IPCC. The IPCC responds that his views were rejected because they didn’t reflect the balance of the science – which in the IPCC makes a qualified link – expressing uncertainty. Landsea expressed no uncertainty. He wants the IPCC to come down fully on the side of his view.
If there is a “special interest”, it is on the topic. You are referring to some speculative political or pecuniary interest. I doubt you could corroborate either.
“How about the incessant lobbying from AGW activist groups?”
I’d call those special interest groups, but only in reference to the narrowness of their agenda, not in regards to any supposed self-interest.
“How about non-geniune individuals, such as James E. Hansen who wears the cloak of an unbiased scientist (paid by the US taxpayer to provide them objective information on weather and climate) but is, in fact an AGW activist trying to influence the US lawmakers through fear?”
Through FEAR? Are you serious?
I think this is a fiction. Hansen’s science may be unbiased, and he may then advocate based on it – making clear he is not speaking as a representative of the NOAA. I don’t know about this “cloak” (and dagger) stuff. Well, I’m up to date with the chatter.
Landsea was not silenced. His views are easily recoverable from the web. The IPCC does not attempt to prevent him making his personal view known. This is in contrast to directives handed to NOAA and NASA from politicos that inhibit personal commentary outside the auspices of these government science offices. Hansen clearly ignores this directive, which came about during the Bush administration’s tenure. Landsea was hardly the only scientist whose views were not included in the report. He is one of the few (the only one?) to complain about it.
“How about the petitions from another branch of the “scientific community” asking the UN to consider the true science on AGW, etc.”
How about it? Cite your source and we’ll see if it is backed by special interests or if this is a bunch of genuinely concerned scientists with qualifications in the field.
“Barry, your whole paragraph is pure polemic. Face it.”
My paragraph is well corroborated. Science findings have actually been suppressed by government. Science articles presented to government by scientists have actually been edited by politicos, changing the science (you must have read about this re the Bush administration). Thousands of scientists (15 000) across a range of disciplines have actually signed a a complaint petition about the (Bush) government’s politicisation and suppression of science findings. Coal and oil companies have actually offered money ($10 000) for any paper that calls into question the mainstream theory, and actually organize conferences and pay lecturers, not to further the understanding of the science, but to collate skeptical positions. This is in stark contrast to the work done for free by the contributors to the IPCC.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html
http://www.whistleblower.org/doc/2007/Final%203.28%20Redacting%20Climate%20Science%20Report.pdf
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/scientists-signon-statement.html
None of this is proper science. All of it is politics. And all of it is quite real, and not polemical. If you still disagree, I will provide further links.
However, you would be right in saying that my paragraph was politics, and not science, but it was a response to your own political and polemical comments:
“Let the public decide what is best for the public.
Not a group of non-elected UN bureaucrats and politicians.
And certainly not a bunch of “egg-head” climatologists who have not been elected
by the public and have no earthly notion of what the “best policy should be”. Keep
these guys (including James E. Hansen) in their laboratories or behind their
computers where they belong. They have no business even discussing policy
issues.”
Stalin would be impressed.
I introduced the notion of policy upthread when I said I commented that economic reviews have indicated that mitigation would be cheaper in the long run than adaption. It wasn’t my intention to go down this road, but I was happy to talk about it with you. You introduced a politically ideological component to this conversation when you submitted that the correct approach should be a democratic one. I should probably have curtailed the discussion there, but you are a reasonable interlocutor, so I traveled with you where I don’t often go – on this topic. I agree that things get murky when politics is introduced.
“There is an awful lot of money floating around already in AGW. It is BIG business today.”
And government employed scientists like Hansen will profit how? Point me to the money train. How, exactly, are government-employed scientists going to reap the rewards of their devious lobbying?
“The hedge fund operators are already licking their chops in anticipation of the killing they’ll make when the carbon offset business really gets rolling.”
Let me see if I have the implication right. Hansen is in league with hedge fund operators, who are quietly slipping envelopes stuffed with cash in his letterbox. Or they’re promising him a position in their establishments with a handsome salary one day.
“So I can counter your polemic with some of my own. Neither one makes either of us any smarter, so we should drop the approach of using polemics to make a point. OK?”
I will not only drop it, I will remind you when you take it up again. I don’t have much interest in it.
“The good ol’ USSR did not have that problem. Five-year plans were made (and underachieved) with regularity.”Give me democracy every time, Barry, with all its shortcomings. It still beats the hell out of centrally planned “long-term investment in policy”.”
Politics.
“If you are referring to Hansen when he whined that he was being “muzzled” or that “the messenger was being shot” I can only ask you to check the volume of pseudo-scientific op-eds that he generates on a continuous basis (at US Government expense). This guy is far from muzzled. He is being paid to provide a service, not to set policy, so that when he recommends to the US Congress that a carbon tax should be imposed immediately to save the planet from horrible imminent tipping points, he is off base. This is not his area of expertise. This goes beyond simply exercising “free speech”. He is trying to browbeat lawmakers though fear.”
Politics. Polemics.
“No, Barry, the IPCC is not a “science body”, it is a political body, set up by its parent, the UN, another political body.”
Politics.
“I agree that the UN is, in principle, a good thing. But it is a stretch to assume that the UN acts in the interest of “the common good” of our planet.”
Politics. (And I never said the UN was a “good thing”)
“They have no business making world policy”
Politics. Did you mean to extend your demonstration of polemics?
“nor is it their job to enforce policy”
I believe I already said much the same.
The rest of the post was politics, except;
“Believe I’ve covered all of your points and it is clear to me that we are a long way from reaching agreement.”
Aye. But the conversation is edifying and you’ve given me food for thought. If my replies are interesting to you, I am glad just for that.
On the science, you have mentioned an exaggerated climate sensitivity owing to a faulty diagnosis of water vapour. And I’m still interested in some scientific corroboration on the percent of Antarctic sea ice increase over the satellite record – the percentage compared to sea ice reduction in the Arctic. Let’s by all means proceed with the science. But if you are happy to discuss policy, and even the murky politics, you are about the only person I’d be likewise content to tease that out with.
barry schwarz on 01 Aug 2008 at 6:33 pm #
Max, this website has issues. I posted some time after your latest posts, but without checking to see if you had posted in the interim. Now my post sits in a queue or is gone to the never-never. If it pops up, you will see that I make queries that you’ve already answered. I will respond later. I’m off to work.
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 9:12 pm #
Hi Barry,
Back again with part 2 of my response to your long post. Again, I will post the links separately so this post does not get kicked out.
You made the statement, “At the time scale of centuries, we’re looking, under increasing warming, at the melting of Greenland, the loss of all glaciers and sea level rise, increased drought… I’m sure you’re familiar with the projections into the future.”
To which I replied, “These are all lo-o-o-o-ong term predictions that can be dismissed as conjectural. The latest long-term study on the Greenland ice sheet (continuously covering the period 1992 to 2003) showed a net increase in ice mass.”
Your response was, “Well, here we are with “the latest study”. What is it? How robust is it? How does it compare with the other studies out there that have been peer-reviewed and survived further scientific scrutiny? I’ve read several other papers describing a net loss of ice. A January paper put Antarctic ice loss nearly as great as Greenland ice loss over the last decade (ice sheet loss – not sea ice). How do we balance these conflicting reports (assuming your report is robust and actually does conflict)?”
Barry, you must be a bit more careful when you read something to make sure you truly understand what was written.
I referred to “the latest long-term study on the Greenland ice sheet (continuously covering the period 1992 to 2003)”. There is a reason why I referred to this study, which I will elaborate.
IPCC SPM 2007 claims a net mass loss of Greenland ice 1993-2003 due to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with a corresponding sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the same period (pp.5,7). This equates to a loss of ice mass of 71 Gt/year.
(See Link 8)
A report by Ola M. Johannessen et al based on 11 years of continuous actual measurements covering the same period shows no shrinking, but an increase with a corresponding lowering of sea level over the period.
(See Links 9 and 10)
Johannesen used the record of hundreds of thousands of 24/7 satellite altimetry readings for the time period mid-April 1992 to mid-April 2003. The study showed a significant increase in Greenland ice, particularly in the interior, where previous assumptions were that the interior was essentially “in balance”, concluding that “the spatially averaged increase is 5.4 cm per year over the study area.”
A subsequent study by H.J. Zwally et al calculated an overall mass balance for Greenland, using the Johannesen data plus other estimates to cover marginal areas near the coast, which were not accurately measurable by satellite altimetry. Strangely, Zwally truncated the Johannessen record by an entire cold season, i.e. a period with heavy snowfall (October 2002 to April 2003), but still ended up with a net positive mass balance of 11 Gt/year for the entire ice sheet.
(See Link 11)
Zwally’s understated conclusion of an overall net 11 Gt/year mass gain is clearly not compatible with the IPCC claim of 71 Gt/year mass loss over the same time period.
There have been other reports covering different time periods and showing different results, some of which are only based on spot readings, etc., but no studies cover the period cited by IPCC other than the Johannesen and Zwally studies, which IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept).
Later in the IPCC report, IPCC states the future sea level “projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from … Greenland at the rates observed for 1993-2003” (p.14), ignoring the fact that … the Greenland ice sheet grew during this period, rather than shrinking.
So a faulty past record was used to make a faulty projection for the future.
I’ll come back to you on global sea level records. It’s another specific well-documented example of misleading IPCC claims.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 9:13 pm #
Link 8
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 9:13 pm #
(Link 9)
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/esa-eas110405.php
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 9:14 pm #
(Link 10)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1115356v1
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 9:14 pm #
(Link 11)
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2005/00000051/00000175/art00001
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 9:49 pm #
Hi Barry,
Part 3 of my response. Again Links are posted separately below.
To my statement: “Sea level rise has been occurring since records started with large multidecadal swings in rate but no acceleration caused by AGW (in fact the latter part of the 20th century had a slightly slower rate of increase than the first half).”
You replied: “’In fact’? This is exactly the opposite of what I’ve read on the matter (centennial sea level rise of 2mm p/yr, with recent sea level rise being 3+mm p/yr. Where do you get your information from, and why on earth do you call it ‘fact’?
You are apparently reading the wrong stuff. Barry, it is always important, where possible, to go to the source of the data, rather than rely on “interpretive” documents like IPCC reports, that seem to be trying to help the reader (in this case the “Policymaker”) understand, but in fact are selling their interpretation of the data as the “facts”.
Let’s follow the (simplified) IPCC interpretation of AGW and sea level:
· Human CO2 emissions (and atmospheric concentration) are rising, therefore:
· Global temperature is warming (at least it was until 1998), therefore:
· Ice caps are melting, i.e. losing mass (at least at the coastal edges), therefore:
· Sea levels are rising (have been at about the same rate for 100+ years)
But wait! IPCC claims a faster rate in sea level rise in the period 1993-2003 over earlier periods (pp.5,7). Must be due to AGW (as postulated on p.10).
(See Link 8)
“Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.9 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear.”
Strangely, IPCC does not show a graph that depicts the topic under discussion, i.e. the rate of sea level rise in mm per year, since such a graph would quickly clear up the uncertainty of whether the “faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend” (and would confirm that there is no longer-term trend). Instead IPCC shows a graph (Figure SPM.3., p.6) of “global average sea level” expressed as “difference from 1961-1990” mean in mm.
This curve shows rising sea level since the record started in the 19th century. It appears to the naked eye to show a slight “hockey stick” end, similar to the “global average temperature” curve, cleverly place just above it, conveying an apparent visual “cause and effect” message. Clever “chartmanship” combined with implied “acceleration” in sea level rise, when the actual record on rate of sea level rise shows no such acceleration but decadal variability instead.
The actual measured record based on tide gauges shows significant up and down swings in rate of change (from positive to negative), but an overall slowing down instead of an acceleration, with the rise in sea level 1954-2003 somewhat lower than the rise in sea level 1904-1953.
(See Links 12 and 13)
Prior to 1993 IPCC uses the tide gauge record of sea level, which records measurements at several shorelines; in 1993 this was changed to satellite altimetry, which measures the entire ocean. The change in method coincides with an apparent acceleration of sea level rise over previous periods, which IPCC attributes to AGW, throwing out the tide gauge record, which shows significant fluctuations but no such acceleration. This change of methodology and scope is covered by a small footnote (Table SPM.1., p.7): “Data prior to 1993 are from tide gauges and after 1993 are from satellite altimetry.”
On page 7 the statement is also made: “These estimates are based on improved satellite and in situ data now available.”
To compare one set of results using one method covering one scope over one time period (prior to 1993) with another set of results using a different method covering a different scope over another time period (after 1993) and then using this cobbled-together record to claim an acceleration trend between the two time periods is bad science, at best, especially if the record for the latter time period which uses the same method and covers the same scope for both periods and shows no acceleration is ignored. This record concludes: “it is found that the high decadal rates of change in global mean sea level observed during the last 20 years of the record were not particularly unusual in the longer term context”. In other words, the implied acceleration of sea level rise is not supported by the facts.
(See Link 14)
Another obvious flaw in the IPCC comparison of a short term recent period (1993-2003) with a longer term period (1961-1993) in a series of data that reflects large decadal swings is that one can invariably show a steeper trend over the shorter time period. This is pure “smoke and mirrors”.
Now to the IPCC reference of “improved satellite” data: a 2004 report by the NOAA Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry cites a 1992-2003 “accepted value” of 2.5±0.5 mm/year from satellite altimetry, but points to errors and mishaps in the satellite instruments and data processing “that result in rates of change that easily exceed the formal error estimate, if not the rate itself”, adding “it seems that the more missions are added to the melting pot, the more uncertain the altimetric sea level change results become.”
(See Link 15)
A more recent study entitled “Decadal Trends in Sea Level Patterns: 1993-2004” concluded that the increase over this period was 1.6 mm/year (or around one-half the rate reported by IPCC). It did conclude, however that “systematic errors are likely to dominate most estimates of global average change” and the “database is insufficient to compute sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming”.
(See Link 16)
For a comparison showing the various estimates cited above plus the overall trend over the 20th century see (chart by me using data as referenced):
(See Link 17)
Based on this strange and arbitrary selection of recent sea level change, IPCC projects sea level rise of 0.18 to 0.59 meters over the 21st century (p.13); this compares to 0.17 meters rise observed over the 20th century, more than half of which occurred in the first 50 years.
INQUA, the worldwide agency responsible for sea level monitoring, states, “The late 20th century lacks any sign of acceleration.” It estimates a rise of 0.1±0.1 meters for the 21st century and states that any projection exceeding 0.2 meters is “nonsense”.
(See Link 18)
Contrary to IPCC the claim (pp.5,7), “There is high confidence that the rate of observed sea level rise increased from the 19th to the 20th century”, the report states “In the last 300 years, sea level has been [in] oscillation close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890-1930”.
In other words, the (not very alarming) low end IPCC projection is reasonable (essentially the same overall rise as in the 20th century) while the (more alarming) high end projection is not.
The key is that there has been no recent increasing trend in the rate of sea level rise (as confirmed by both INQUA and Proudman). In fact the long-term trend over the 20th century has actually been decreasing. The record shows multi-decadal cycles that swing from positive to negative decadal trends.
The latest decadal rate of increase reported by Proudman tide gages (for the decade centered on 2000 (1995-2005) shows an increase of 1.0 mm/year, while the decade centered on 1999 (1994-2004) shows a decrease of –0.2 mm/year. In effect one can predict any longer-term trend desired, just by properly picking the decade used as reference for the projection.
There is no trend. To extrapolate a long range forecast of up to to 0.59 meters rise by 2100 from these numbers is indeed “nonsense”. And to do so based on GCM model predictions is “folly”.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 9:49 pm #
Link 12
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 9:50 pm #
Link 13
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_54461.htm
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 9:51 pm #
Link 14
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 9:51 pm #
Link 15
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU04/05276/EGU04-J-05276.pdf
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 9:52 pm #
Link 16
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/Wunschetal_jclimate_2007_published.pdf
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 9:53 pm #
Link 17
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3185/2690464396_3a2b975c7e_b.jpg
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 9:54 pm #
Link 18
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_54461.htm
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 9:57 pm #
This link did not go through the first try
Link 16
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/Wunschetal_jclimate_2007_published.pdf
manacker on 01 Aug 2008 at 11:07 pm #
It appears that the filter really does not like this link (third try)
Link 16
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/Wunschetal_jclimate_2007_published.pdf
barry schwarz on 02 Aug 2008 at 11:01 am #
Well, my post did pop up, two above this one.
Your main point of contention on the science just now is that the mainstream view relies on ‘models’, and the alternate (rationally skeptical?) view is derived from ‘observations’.
Firstly, I think we should distinguish reasonable skepticism from unreasonable.
A paper by Roy Spencer or Minchaner and Dressler is a reasonable contribution. The John-Daly website is littered with non peer-reviewed papers, many put together by people with no qualifications in the field being discussed. This is an unreasonable source (which I’m very familiar with). Nevertheless, I am looking at the article….
http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/pdf/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671?cookieSet=1
I was not able to access this source (despite successfully testing my cookie protocols as recommended).
“Atmospheric water vapor concentrations do indeed increase with temperature, but to a much lesser extent than postulated by the models. Minschwaner + Dessler used these actual observations to create a model, from which they concluded a climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 of 1.2C”
The implication is that M+D based their models on observations, while mainstream results derived from computer models are – what – not derived from empirical observations?
This is a false dichotomy. Some studies model entirely theoretically (or rather, based on empirical spectral data), and others incorporate atmospheric observations, as M+D have in their 2003 paper. A great many studies incorporate satellite and radiosonde measurements when modeling atmospheric dynamics and these observation-based studies are employed to parameterize GCMs. The implication that this approach is novel or rare, and consequently ‘real’ or ‘better’ science is extremely ill-informed.
M+D are studying a particular parameter the upper tropical troposphere over a very short time period that they say may have little bearing on climatic periods. Your unqualified remarks do not reflect the qualifications in the paper, which is an excellent example of sound science representing some uncertainty in the general view on water vapour feedbacks.
You may be interested in their latest study (2006), which builds on the one you cited.
http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:-xmmaniKREUJ:www.met.tamu.edu/people/faculty/dessler/minschwaner2006.pdf+
(The PDF version is not freely available – apologies)
The IPCC mentions M+D papers, drawing attention to the impact the papers have on the general view.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-1/sap3-1-draft3.pdf
The introductory sections in that document will give you a better idea of how GCMs are tuned. You will discover that they are parameterized and tested by observations.
“A study by Pierrehumbert et al. estimates that a doubling of water vapor would result in a forcing of 6 W/m^2. (No model study goes so far to project that 2xCO2 will result in 2xH2O vapor.) Based on model studies it concludes, “the relative humidity probability density function (PDF) will remain nearly invariant for small or moderate warming”. (Yet the satellite data in Minschwaner + Dessler cited above showed that relative humidity decreases with increased SST.)”
So? It is not news to me that there is disagreement amongst studies. Pick another 6 and you’ll have 6 slight variations on climate sensitivity. The IPCC presents roughly the mean of these studies. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.
M+D (2004) is one of a very few peer-reviewed papers that posit (with caveats), a temperature response of less than 2C with a doubling of CO2. It is a useful outlier.
When you dismiss my concern that you are placing too much emphasis on single papers (that appear to be selected simply because they support your view) as waffle, you are side-stepping a crucial point regarding the way you approach the whole subject. Your other choices of references reinforce the notion.
I put it to you that you are doing exactly what you allege the IPCC is doing. You are selecting and emphasising opinions and studies that conform to your view. You imagine you are balancing the ‘debate’, but you are actually zeroing in on that which suits your predilections and unbalancing the debate by giving undue prominence to these preferred articles. M+D is a genuinely useful paper, but you give it undue weight. It is one of many. I wonder if you focus the skeptical lens on your own methodology? (I do)
You reference a physicsworld article which says this:
“While increases in carbon dioxide may be the source of an enhanced greenhouse effect, and therefore global warming, the role of the most vital molecule in our atmosphere – water – is rarely discussed. Indeed, water barely rates a mention in the hundreds of pages of the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
This is completely wrong. Choose any pdf chapters from TAR or AR4 that you think should contain discussions of water vapour, and type ‘water vapour’ in the search box (note the European spelling). I’ve done this myself in both reports, on exactly this claim. Eventually I stopped counting the hits. In one chapter alone (AR4) there were nearly 100 hits for water vapour, and about ten more for ‘CO2’ and ‘carbon dioxide’ combined (I did not search under H2O). There are also sections devoted to water vapour alone. In chapter 1 of the TAR, water vapour gets 13 mentions. Carbon dioxide gets 18.
In the second chapter of the TAR – Observed Climate Variability and Change – ‘water vapour’ gets 51 hits, ‘carbon dioxide’ 7, ‘CO2’ gets 10. This physicsworld claim is fatuous, as is the contention that climate scientists ignore or overplay the role of water vapour. it is included in all GCMs (as you yourself know, I’m sure).
The article says this:
“Our favourite molecule is water. Water vapour is responsible for 70% of the known absorption of incoming sunlight, particularly in the infrared region.”
Water vapour absorbs very little of the incoming sunlight (as does CO2). The ‘70%’ refers to the amount water vapour contributes to ‘greenhouse’ warming from absorbing upwelling, longwave radiation. I went no further with this article.
The Warwick Hughes article is unscientific. The mainstream view is misrepresented and observations cherry-picked and gotten wrong (ref: UAH and RSS temperature record – both understated). All links and cites reference ONLY the ‘skeptical’ view. This page is not testable as it provides no specific reference to the mainstream view it purports to ‘score’. It’s not even worth going through the ‘scorecard’ when the first few items are demonstrably wrong.
Cite: “Type of prediction
1900-2000 surface temperature trend
Model prediction 1.1 to 3.3 C warming if all greenhouse gases are included (IPCC 2001)”
Models in the 2001 IPCC hindcasted the 20th century in the range of 0.5C – 0.8C – this includes models with “all greenhouse gases”, as well as models with “all greenhouse gases” + aerosols. This article is dross.
But please check the TAR yourself. For example:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-08.PDF p. 497
You should think about applying a skeptical lens to this web page and seeing how you rate it on a second review.
The John Daly piece is pure polemic, including such phraseology as “crocodile tears”, “scam”. To answer on substance, the Tuvaluans have claimed since about the mid-1990s that rising sea level and intense hurricanes have produced more flooding (and have asked for reimbursement due to AGW, as well as for the entire population to be taken in by Australia and New Zealand – who refused).
If you look at the graph linked at Daly’s website, you can see that there is a great deal of fluctuation. The sea level minimum, however has risen, particularly around the time the Tuvaluans started asking to be relocated.
http://www.john-daly.com/funafuti.gif
The effect of rising minimum sea level is that high tides, particularly king tides, and tsunami reach further inland. The Daly website (no author given) doesn’t note any of this, nor does it reflect the uncertainty of the science – absolute refutations based on uncertain science is a hallmark of polemical commentary.
The Australian BOM set up a tide gauge system for the region (SEAFRAME), which has been measuring Tuvalu since 1993. They find an increase of 5.7 mm p/yr, 0.1 mm of which is due to the island sinking. These results are highly qualified, but give the lie to the claims at the John Daly website.
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60033/IDO60033.2006.pdf
To be fair, the J-D website posted its findings in 2001 when the results were even less certain. It intrigues me that you did not link to a scientific product (easily accessible through the J-D page), or that you did not cite something more recent when the quality of the scientific analysis would be better (as it will continue to be as time goes by).
“Show me the evidence, based on immigration statistics, that Tuvalu residents are, indeed, emigrating to Australia or New Zealand in increasing numbers.”
If you’re sincerely interested, Australia and New Zealand have refused Tuvaluan requests to take them in en masse, but there has been significant migration to New Zealand, most notably around the time Tuvalu was saying they were threatened by sea level rise.
http://www.une.edu.au/economics/publications/econ_2005_10.pdf
How much of this is due to concern about sea level rise is unknown, but it seems the cliams made by the Tuvaluan PM may be well founded. Erosion of the atolls is certainly recorded by BOM in recent years due to flooding. Although the phenomenon is not new, the degree likely is. I note that the BOM sea level increase for Tuvalu exceeds that of global sea level rise projected by the IPCC, but that is of little consequence when the region is so small. I will concede this point because it is mainly anecdotal.
Spencer’s work must be taken with a grain of salt. He is notorious for getting the first versions wrong and having to make considerable revisions (his work with Christy on the radiosonde/satellite record is a case in point).
In this paper, he is suggesting that Richard Lindzen’s widely discredited ‘iris effect’ m,ay have validity. A question I have immediately is – if the iris effect is real, then it doesn’t seem to have had much effect at keeping temperatures down when the earth may have been hotter – see Holocene climactic optimum and Eemian interglacial. This suggests that the climate sensitivity is resistant to iris-like effects (in the absence of GHG forcing). It will be interesting to see how this paper fares.
“As to monotonic warming, I see that AGW “believers” are generally quick to blame any warming on AGW as it occurs, but then fall back to your line of reasoning when it does not occur or when temperatures cool. Read Taleb. He covers this phenomenon well; he calls it “retrospective explainability”.”
I’m not interested in discussing “believers” opinions, whoever they are. “Warming as it occurs” is vague. Cite scientific references please. Political (or religious) epithets should be beneath the level of our conversation. This comment does not address the scientific view in any way, but rather side-steps into a bit of polemics. If you think monotonic warming is projected by the climate science community, say so. I think we’d be better served by leaving believers, deniers, alarmists, contrarians, Al Gore and David Bellamy out of it.
barry.
barry schwarz on 02 Aug 2008 at 11:16 am #
Max, I will come back to respond to your latest posts, but I have to say, you keep presenting one or two papers and saying, “well here are the facts”, as if these papers represent the pinnacle of understanding instead of one of a series of studies.
You and I both can find papers to support a particular assertion. But saying that any of these papers are definitive is just wrong. The IPCC weighs a body of evidence. You do not. You find papers that support your case and present them as the unvarnished facts, as if they are at the apex of knowledge.
Can you not see the error in this method – the inherent bias, not from the choice itself so much as the fact that you only make one (or two) choices?
There are tens to thousands of studies on most components of this broad complex subject. Surely a rational skeptic like yourself cannot be content with emphasisng papers that conform to your view? A rational skeptic – as actual scientists do in the studies – refers to studies that call their view into question. A rational skeptic does not pad their case with friendly opinion.
When you start balancing the books this way, qualifying assertions instead of implying you’re presenting the authoritative view, I will begin to believe you are truly skeptical.
More soon. Hope the day’s being good to you.
Kohl Piersen on 02 Aug 2008 at 5:02 pm #
One of the things which dismays me about the pro AGW web-sites is the tendency (not universal but very common) to denigrate the antagonist in ad hominem remarks. Sometimes this is accompanied by scientific or rational comment/criticism, often not. I think it is disgusting to compare someone with ‘holocaust deniers’ simply because s/he disagrees with one’s point of view.
However, I am ashamed to note that there appears to be in this thread a very similar tendency by some from the negative (i.e. anti-AGW) side of the debate to disparage those with whom they disagree merely because they disagree.
It seems to me that Barry Shwarz puts forward some excellent points in relation to the criticism of the manner in which the Hadley crew apply statistical methods to the data. It is unnecessary, undignified and counterproductive.
I for one prefer to see reasoned explication of points of view, no matter what the point of view. Let the cards fall where they may – I want to see/hear ALL of the opinion, provided only that it is rational and couched in measured language.
manacker on 02 Aug 2008 at 11:48 pm #
Hi Barry,
You wrote, “Max, I will come back to respond to your latest post…”
Good.
Am awaiting your response.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 02 Aug 2008 at 11:59 pm #
Hi Barry,
You are a bit off base when you make the assertion, “The IPCC weighs a body of evidence. You do not. ”
You have no idea whatsoever what I have “weighed”, do you?
So this is a rather silly statement.
I have shown you evidence that IPCC ignores (or rejects or refuses to accept as correct) papers that do not agree with their “party line” (please refer to the Greenland example).
As the “gold standard” organization for climate information, it is their job to do otherwise.
When you respond to my post, please tell me why you think they ignored these very important studies when they made claims directly contradicting their results.
But, Barry, please be specific and try to stick to the subject rather than rambling and getting wrapped up in generalities.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 03 Aug 2008 at 12:31 am #
Hi Barry,
Scientific studies are not ranked on the basis of numbers of reports or consensus among report writers.
It only takes one report, based on sound physical observations, to shatter dozens of prior studies based on model simulations.
Spencer’s study on clouds is such a report.
It shows that all the model assumptions of net positive feedback from clouds are invalid. Instead, there is an observed major negative feedback from clouds, which essentially cancels out any positive feedback from water vapor as well.
This is a major breakthrough, that can well result in a shift from the old model-based paradigm of a 3C climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 (used by IPCC) to a value of only one third or one-fourth of that amount, bringing the climate sensitivity to a value of 0.7C to 0.8C, as was estimated earlier by Lindzen and Shaviv + Veizer.
This is exciting stuff, Barry.
Minschwaner + Dessler’s work also differed from most of the model study work in that it started with actual satellite observations of the impact of higher sea surface temperatures on water vapor content.
As with Spencer, the study showed that the prior assumptions based on model outputs were not validated by the actual physical observations. Based on these actual observations, M+S then created a model to show that water vapor feedback is well below the values assumed by model outputs, resulting (again) in a major reduction in the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.
Barry, I believe you will agree that model outputs are an unfortunate substitute when there are no physically observed data, but that physical observations are much more pertinent in arriving at the scientific “truth”.
And that is why I believe that one or two studies based on physically observed data can outweigh and even cancel out dozens (or even hundreds) of computer model studies.
This is the scientific method at work, Barry. It’s not a matter of “numbers of votes” or “consensus”.
If you are of another opinion on this, I would be very interested in hearing your views.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 03 Aug 2008 at 8:17 pm #
Hi Barry,
Thanks for link to very interesting report on Tuvalu emigration, which confirms my presumption that this phenomenon is not driven by rising sea levels at all, but by the limited employment opportunities within Tuvalu and greater opportunities abroad, for example in New Zealand.
“Recent migration to New Zealand would suggest that some of the shortages of employment opportunities is now being ameliorated by emigration.”
This report, together with the chart showing the Tuvalu tide gauge record for which I provided you the link, should lay to rest the myth of Tuvalu residents fleeing their homeland due to rising sea level. As you can see, this is just another one of the many AGW myths floating around out there.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 03 Aug 2008 at 10:00 pm #
Hi Barry,
I do not plan to spend too much time discussing your rather wordy post of 2 August (11:01 am), but just a few comments.
You attempt to downplay the importance of the Spencer study, which confirmed, based on recent physical observations that there is a significant negative (cooling) feedback from clouds with higher sea surface temperatures, rather than a positive (warming) feedback (as previously assumed by IPCC with an admitted high degree of uncertainty).
You do this by opining, “it doesn’t seem to have had much effect …in the Holocene”.
The “Holocene”?
Let’s check out your logic, here. We have physical observations from TODAY, which tell us that higher temperatures result in an increase in low altitude clouds, which in turn results in a strong negative feedback effect, and you say this cannot be so because of some proxy studies made for the HOLOCENE?
Get serious, Barry. Can’t you see how absurd your statement is?
In another paragraph you avoid discussing the subject matter itself, but concentrate instead on ranting on about my use of the word “AGW believers”.
Then you sprinkle your post with “widely discredited ‘iris effect…”, “…is notorious for getting the first version wrong”, “…is pure polemic”.
Talk about polemic, Barry.
Stick to facts in the future. Forget the “ad homs” and other “badmouthing”. This only makes you look silly.
Regards,
Max
barry schwarz on 04 Aug 2008 at 7:42 am #
Hi Max,
It’s getting hard to keep up. I’ve been a bit busier of late.
“You have no idea whatsoever what I have “weighed”, do you?’
That’s right. I have only what you post to go on, and that is what I have responded to.
Had you said “paper x shows a climate sensistivity much lower than the IPCC, whereas paper y shows a higher sensitivity”, I would not have made my comments. As it is, the only studies you cite, IIRC, are those that fall on one side of the line – that call the IPCC findings into question.
As if the IPCC does not throughout the document reference studies that are at odds with the general findings. For instance, the 2007 IPCC report include both the 2003/4 and 2006 Minschwaner papers (Ch. 8) – the earlier was the one you cited. Did you read the updated 2006?
“I have shown you evidence that IPCC ignores (or rejects or refuses to accept as correct) papers that do not agree with their “party line” (please refer to the Greenland example).”
You will find that the IPCC does in fact refer to both papers you cited (Johansen and Zwaly) in Chapter 4 (snow and ice). IPCC cites them both corroborating thickening of the ice sheet interior and the Zwaly study when mentioning snow density (and on Antarctica). Neither cover the entire ice sheet. There are many other studies mentioned, most of which are focused on observations (satellite, air and ground-based) of the <1500 meter altitude. The fringes of Greenland are more accessible to observations. The IPCC conclusions are a mean of the studies.
Both your cited studies are qualified, acknowledge shortcomings in spatial data, and attribute the thickening of the interior of Greenalnd to a warming climate.
The Johanessen study notes an significant altitude trend change to -6cm a year after 1999 below 1500 meters altitude.
If you have not read the full papers, here they are.
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/pdf/2006/Johannessen(2005)Science-Recent_Ice-Sheet_Growth_in_the_Interior_of_Greenland.pdf
http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/publications/IGS/mass_changes_2005.pdf
The IPCC does not ‘reject’ or ‘ignore them’. I do not know what you mean by “refuses to accept as correct”. Are they any more ‘correct’ than the other papers on Greenland ice-sheet? They definitely contribute to the overall understanding. What is your concern? that they are not given greater weight, when most studies show a loss in mass balance?
It seems to me that to fully appreciate the IPCC findings on Greenland, you would have to read and understand all the papers listed and decide yourself which papers should be accorded what weight and then determine your own mean.
barry schwarz on 04 Aug 2008 at 7:49 am #
Hi Max,
“It only takes one report, based on sound physical observations, to shatter dozens of prior studies based on model simulations.
Spencer’s study on clouds is such a report.”
How do you know? What makes you say that? I’d like to know.
And why do you think that other estimates of climate sensitivity are not also observationally based?
Annan, J.D., and J. C.Hargreaves, 2006 – Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf
barry schwarz on 04 Aug 2008 at 8:42 am #
“Thanks for link to very interesting report on Tuvalu emigration, which confirms my presumption that this phenomenon is not driven by rising sea levels at all, but by the limited employment opportunities within Tuvalu and greater opportunities abroad, for example in New Zealand.”
Hang on a minute. You presumed a reason for Tuvalu emigration? This is what you wrote upthread, before.
“Show me the evidence, based on immigration statistics, that Tuvalu residents are, indeed, emigrating to Australia or New Zealand in increasing numbers.”
How could you presume a reason for something of which you were unaware and apparently skeptical? I’m troubled by this progression. I think it’s dishonest.
The next sentence from that post was;
“Show me the physical evidence, based on long-term tide gauge records at Tuvalu, that this trend is due to rising sea level at Tuvalu.”
I posted an Australian Bureau of Meteorology report showing that sea level has risen markedly around Tuvalu, and which also documents erosion of the atolls. Did you read it?
As I said, the evidence for Tuvaluans leaving because of the sea-level rise is anecdotal, and I don’t make that case. You asked about emigration. I posted a study, even though I thought it was orthogonal to the discussion. I find your response disappointingly opportunistic. You neglect to mention that Tuvaluans have been emigrating to New Zealand despite getting no visas and despite NZ cracking down. Neither of us have a positive case on the grounds of emigration. Neither of us know what motivates the emigration. We have only speculation. Where is the skepticism in asserting without qualification that Tuvaluans are emigrating for jobs?
And if they’re emigrating for jobs, why might that be?
You and I may speculate, but you should, as I did, drop the emigration thing altogether. You asked if sea level had risen. I’ve provided a tide gauge analysis (exactly what you asked for) of the only tide gauge system specifically devoted to measuring sea level change in the region.
manacker on 04 Aug 2008 at 9:24 am #
Hi Barry,
In your latest waffle (pardon the expression, Barry, but that is what it appears to me to be) you wrote:
“Neither of us know what motivates the emigration. We have only speculation. Where is the skepticism in asserting without qualification that Tuvaluans are emigrating for jobs?
And if they’re emigrating for jobs, why might that be?
You and I may speculate, but you should, as I did, drop the emigration thing altogether.”
Just to remind you, I posted you the Tuvalu tide gauge record, which showed no increase in sea level there.
You posted me the report of emigration, which confirmed that the reason for emigration was lack of local emplyment opportunities.
So why did we even get into this discussion?
On 01 August 2008 at 8:24am you wrote:
“The people of Tuvalu are prepared to abandon their island in the face of rising sea levels and have asked Australia and New Zealand to take them in, so that contention is wrong straight up.”
As I recall, this was in response to an earlier posting where I had cited references, which showed that there is no accelerating trend in global sea level rise in the late 20th century, and that this had, in fact, decelerated in the second half as compared to the rate of the first half.
Barry, your “Australian Bureau of Meteorology report showing that sea level has risen” is very nice. But I have cited the official tide gauge record at Tuvalu, which shows clearly that this is not the case.
So let’s summarize this before we shut down the conversation on Tuvalu:
– you start out making an assumption that people are fleeing Tuvalu due to high sea levels
– I show you a report, complete with the Tuvalu tidegauge record, that shows sea level is not rising, and suggest they may be leaving for the same reason that many people are leaving Mexico for the USA, namely to improve their standard of living
– you counter with a New Zealand immigration report and a report from the Australian BOM
– I point out to you that your NZ immigration report confirms that people are leaving Tuvalu for NZ because of lack of emplyment opportunity in Tuvalu
– I remind you to look at the Tuvalu tide gauge record, which shows no increase in tide there, rather than relying on the interpretation of the Australian BOM
It’s a pretty clear case.
We have invalidated your initial statement with (I know you hate the word) the “facts”:
“The people of Tuvalu are prepared to abandon their island in the face of rising sea levels and have asked Australia and New Zealand to take them in.”
If the people of Tuvalu are emigrating, as, indeed appears to be the case, it is NOT “in the face of rising sea levels”, as you assert, but for other reasons.
Let’s move on. This dog is dead, so stop beating it.
Regards,
Max
barry schwarz on 04 Aug 2008 at 9:38 am #
The Spencer study is interesting. I am not wedded to my rebuttal. I was just toying with ideas. I have read a number of Spencer’s studies and much about his work with radiosondes and satellites. I am on familiar ground with his track record, know that he has made substantial contributions to climate science, as well as authored some flawed papers. He really does make large corrections to his peer-reviewed work. My attitude is to wait and see how this one fares. It may make it into the next IPCC report (as previous others of his have).
If Spencer’s paper resurrects Lindzen’s iris effect, it really will be a shattering study.
But I would be cautious about heralding it as a breakthrough if I were you. Hopefully, the paper is sound.
barry schwarz on 04 Aug 2008 at 10:17 am #
“Barry, your “Australian Bureau of Meteorology report showing that sea level has risen” is very nice. But I have cited the official tide gauge record at Tuvalu, which shows clearly that this is not the case.”
The BOM use the SEAFRAME tide gauge, which is the only one in the region dedicated to measuring long-term sea level. If you click on the link in the John Daly article to the National Tide Facility, you get directed to the BOM.
“Just to remind you, I posted you the Tuvalu tide gauge record”
You posted a graph linked to by the John Daly website. There are actually two tide gauge records, so saying you posted THE tide gauge record demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the subject.
I’ve provided you an updated source, a scientific source. If you want to continue to press your assertion that Tuvalu has not experienced sea level rise, please provide a proper, reputable source (ie, not a biased blogsite), preferably a recent one.
What tide gauge system was used for the National Tide Facility, for example? Which study is the J-D website referring to?
While looking for the original, I found the following, 2002 paper from the NTF, the same org cited by the John Daly website (they cited an earlier 2002 paper).
http://staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/tuvalu.pdf
The NTF comments in this paper on the very article you cited at the J-D website.
“Probably the most widely quoted estimates of long-term sea level change at Funafuti have been made by Mitchell et al. (2000) and by the NTF (2002). In particular, the NTF (2002) reported:
“As at February 2002, based on the short-term sea level rise analyses, performed by the National Tidal Facility Australia, for the nearly nine years of data return show a rate of +0.9 mm per year.”
and:
“The historical record from 1978 through 1999 indicated a sea level rise of 0.07 mm per year.”
These results, which are based on quite short records and for which no uncertainty estimates are provided, have unfortunately been quoted out of context and without
appropriate qualication. For example, the `greenhouse skeptic’ website `Still Waiting for Greenhouse’ (http://www.john-daly.com/) made the statement (April, 2002) that:
“Now the National Tidal Facility, based in Adelaide, Australia, has dismissed the Tuvalu claims as unfounded. They have maintained accurate monitoring of sea level at Tuvalu.
According to their latest news release on the issue, `Sea Level in Tuvalu: Its Present State’, the NTF concludes `The historical record from 1978 through 1999 indicated a sea level rise of 0.07 mm per year.’ This compares with the IPCC 3 claim of 1 – 2.5 mm/yr for the world as a whole, indicating the IPCC claim is based on faulty modelling.”
Quite apart from the fallacy in suggesting that observations from a single site can cast doubt on a global average value, the above statement contains no qualification concerning the relatively short length of the record, nor of the probable uncertainty in the estimate.”
That sounds familiar – “the above statement contains no qualification concerning the relatively short length of the record, nor of the probable uncertainty in the estimate”.
I am more convinced that you are not a skeptic, but someone who is casting about for any corroboration of your point of view. You do not qualify your assertions, and you do not reflect the caveats in the papers you cite. You think they “shatter” mainstream science. I think that’s what you want to believe.
The J-D website quoted only the lower of the two figures, the one that was given less confidence, and which is not the NTF system. It’s the Hawaiian system, which is not configure to measure long-term sea level change, which is why they gave the low figure a lower confidence.
The John Daly website is irretrievably biased. I’d recommend avoiding it.
So, how about my comments on the IPCC incorporating Minschwaner, Zwally and Johanessen studies? Do you think these studies shattered the mainstream view, too, and the IPCC failed to give them due prominence?
barry schwarz on 04 Aug 2008 at 11:06 am #
Let’s examine your breakdown.
– you start out making an assumption that people are fleeing Tuvalu due to high sea levels
Your first mistake. I said the Tuvalu PM had asked for his people to be relocated. I also said that they’d been rebuffed. YOU introduced the notion of people fleeing.
– I show you a report, complete with the Tuvalu tidegauge record, that shows sea level is not rising, and suggest they may be leaving for the same reason that many people are leaving Mexico for the USA, namely to improve their standard of living
Unless it got lost in the mix, you posted no link to a report, only to a graph. The only other source was the J-D website. I hope you don’t consider that a ‘report’. even the establishment J-D cited rejects what J-D said.
– you counter with a New Zealand immigration report and a report from the Australian BOM
I searched for some emigration stats because you requested them.. I posted a link to the most recent study on Tuvalu sea level change for the last few decades. I think this is a little better than the 6 year old, biased John Daly blog page.
And I did not ‘counter’. I followed a lead YOU instituted. My comment directly beneath the link to the emigration stats was;
“How much of this is due to concern about sea level rise is unknown, but it seems the cliams made by the Tuvaluan PM may be well founded.”
You seem to have read me in a different way.
– I point out to you that your NZ immigration report confirms that people are leaving Tuvalu for NZ because of lack of emplyment opportunity in Tuvalu
It doesn’t, actually. It says nothing of motivations. It is a report put together by an economist for economic purposes. Of course it discusses the economic angle. It does NOT detail motivation. It does show that there was a doubling of the emigration to NZ in the period when the Tuvalu PM was making his claims (1990s), and it also says this;
“Moreover, in the future, environmental factors may also play a part in migration as climate change and potential se-level rise threaten the habitability of the island.”
Note what I say now carefully: I am not making a case that this indicates previous motivation for emigration. I am just pointing out that it appears in the report, and your skeptical eye didn’t pick it up. Nor do I expect an economic report on migration patterns to be an authority on sea-levels.
– I remind you to look at the Tuvalu tide gauge record, which shows no increase in tide there, rather than relying on the interpretation of the Australian BOM
I urge you to actually read the science papers on the matter that I’ve offered. And you may corroborate by eye that the sea level minimum has risen even on your out-dated, not-designed-for-measuring-long-term-sea-level-change tide gauge record. Surely you can figure out what that means when high and king tides roll in to Tuvalu.
The BOM actually carry out the tide gauge measurements. The NTF has been incorporated into the BOM.
There is no more authoritative system for Tuvalu than the SEAFRAME system deployed by NTF and no more authoritative institute to give sea level readings for Tuvalu than the BOM. If you’d read the papers, you’d know why.
barry schwarz on 04 Aug 2008 at 11:30 am #
Quote: “In your latest waffle (pardon the expression, Barry, but that is what it appears to me to be)”
I don’t pardon you. This derisive commentary is unnecessary.
But I’ve finally become annoyed with it.
The combination of your repeated condescension and recent apparent dishonesty does not inspire me to continue. I will play on if you concede you were dishonest or explain otherwise the following comments you made;
“Show me the evidence, based on immigration statistics, that Tuvalu residents are, indeed, emigrating to Australia or New Zealand in increasing numbers.”
and then
“Thanks for link to very interesting report on Tuvalu emigration, which confirms my presumption that this phenomenon is not driven by rising sea levels at all, but by the limited employment opportunities within Tuvalu and greater opportunities abroad, for example in New Zealand.”
I did not know if emigration had increased until I located that report and I had said nothing about it previously. How could you have presumed anything about a phenomenon of which you were unaware, and then have it ‘confirmed’ upon learning of the phenomenon?
I’m curious to know.
barry schwarz on 04 Aug 2008 at 6:34 pm #
Quote: “This is the scientific method at work, Barry. It’s not a matter of “numbers of votes” or “consensus”.
If you are of another opinion on this, I would be very interested in hearing your views.”
A scientific consensus is not science. Hypotheses that are have withstood scientific scrutiny, that have been independently testing and agree fairly closely with observations, such that a great majority of scientists consider them robust, become formal theories.
Name any current theory in any discipline, and I will provide studies that may counter them.
Einstein’s theories have flaws (which he himself recognized) and have been superseded by quantum physics, completely changing our concept of reality (matter non-determinate, space non-local). At the same time, Einstein’s gravity theory is valid enough to be used for telemetry (as is Newton’s ‘Law’ of Gravity, which Einstein’s theory superseded). At large scales, Newton’s theories are useful. The next two evolutions in physics in the 20th century refined that usefulness. I see a correlation with AGW theory and arising papers that prompt minor corrections.
Previous hindcasts of the 20th century temperatures are in good agreement with observations. The temperature rate is closely matched. Certain short-term features are well reproduced (eg, global dimming due to volcanic eruptions and mid-century industrial aerosols) There are minor deviations in absolute temps and discrepancies with ENSO fluctuations. climate scientists can’t make projections on small time scales (except for a couple of days ahead, when storm fronts can be tracked, for example – no meteorology can make robust predictions a month ahead. And these predictions are very local, not global).
Where is your scientific corroboration that the Antarctic sea ice increase is equal to or greater than the sea ice decline for the Arctic over the satellite period – 30 years? Aren’t you comparing events of the last 2 or 3 years?
Having considered Spencer’s study a little more (I had read it a couple of months ago and marked it as ‘interesting’ I remember now), it seems the time-scale is too short to make profound claims on the validity (Spencer himself notes this in the study). The negative value is constrained to the uppermost parts of the atmosphere in the tropics, so even if the value is valid, it’s impact on overall climate sensitivity may be small (as Spencer himself said in his EPW testimony on the matter, quoting a colleague). The thrust of his paper is that the tropical, upper troposphere cloud/radiation dynamics produce negative temperatures under warming, where previous study has recommended a neutral temperature trend associated with cloud/radiation dynamics for this portion of the atmosphere. The paper does not conclude that the findings overturn climate sensitivity, he merely suggests in a properly scientific way, that his results for this particular portion of the atmosphere be ioncorporated in the parameterization of climate models. It is in his environment and Public Works testimony (which I also read a couple of months ago) that he makes a case for what the coverall climate sensitivity may be.
In the EPW testimony, Spencer attempts to explain the 20th century temperature rise as a function of POD fluctuations. He needs to do that in order to substantiate his value for climate sensitivity – a natural mechanism apart from GHG warming must be postulated to validate his figure. He does this using the PDO fluctuations. How he arrives at a rising trend when the PDO fluctuations show an overall flat trend, not a rise, is a mystery to me. realclimate have a bash at explaining his methods.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
I’m not able to verify this. If you are, I’d be interested in your thoughts on the RC analysis.
manacker on 05 Aug 2008 at 4:38 pm #
Hi Barry,
You are waffling, whether you like that expression or not.
You wrote that Tuvalu residents are leaving their island because of the threat of rising sea levels.
I then posted you a link to the tide gauge record for Tuvalu, which shows up and down fluctuations but no unusual rising sea level there.
You posted me a link to an NZ immigration report. This report states clearly that Tuvalu residents were emigrating to NZ because of lack of employment opportunities in their homeland.
In other words, your oiriginal statement (Tuvalu residents fleeing their island due to the threat of rising sea level) was shown to be untrue by
– the Tuvalu tide record
– the NZ immigration report
I see no reason to keep rehashing this.
I am not saying your statement was a deliberate lie, it just is not true, that’s all.
End of discussion on this point.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 05 Aug 2008 at 7:06 pm #
Hi Barry,
In your latest post it is apparent that you are missing the point completely when you write, “Name any current theory in any discipline, and I will provide studies that may counter them.”
We are not talking about “studies” here, Barry (as, for example one computer model study versus another). We are talking about physically observed data, which either validate or refute a hypothesis.
Let’s leave the “greenhouse hypothesis” per se out of the discussion. IPCC AR4, Chapter 2 (p.141) and 2007 SPM Figure SPM.2. (p.4) state that the estimated radiative forcing of CO2 (from a concentration of 280 ppmv in pre-industrial 1750 to a concentration of 379 ppmv in 2005) is 1.66 W/m^2.
This corresponds to a greenhouse warming from 2xCO2 (or climate sensitivity) of 0.7°C. If you do not believe this, I will be glad to walk you through the calculation, using the IPCC assumptions.
(IPCC further states that the warming from other minor greenhouse gases is essentially offset by cooling from aerosols and land use changes, so that the net anthropogenic forcing is 1.6 W/m^2.)
All this is not under discussion here.
What is under discussion here are the assumed positive “feedbacks” (primarily from water vapor and clouds), which result in multiplying the climate sensitivity of 2xCO2 by a factor of four, from around 0.7°C. to an assumed 3.0°C. This assumed climate sensitivity is the basis for climate model studies cited by IPCC.
If you will take the time to read IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 8 (I know it’s tedious work and very boring), you will see (p.630) the statement: “ In AOGCMs, the water vapour feedback constitutes by far the strongest feedback, with a multi-model mean and standard deviation for the MMD at PCMDI of 1.8 ± 0.18 W/m^2°C., followed by the (negative) lapse rate feedback (-0.84 ± 0.26 W/m^2°C) and the surface albedo feedback (0.26 ± 0.08 W/m^2°C). The cloud feedback mean is 0.69 W/m^2°C with a very large intermodel spread of ± 0.38 W/m^2°C.”
Later (pp.631,633) you will see the statement, “In the idealized situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating (but allowing for the enhanced radiative cooling resulting from the temperature increase), the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2°C (Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al, 2006). The water vapour feedback, operating alone on top of this [a doubling of CO2], would at least double the response. The water vapour feedback is, however, closely related to the lapse rate feedback (see above), and the two combined result in a feedback parameter of approximately 1 W/m^2°C, corresponding to an amplification of the basic temperature response by approximately 50%. The surface albedo feedback amplifies the basic response by about 10%, and the cloud feedback does so by 10 to 50% depending on the GCM.”
Later on p.633: “Using feedback parameters from Figure 8.14 [climate feedback from various models], it can be estimated that in the presence of water vapour, lapse rate and surface albedo feedbacks, but in the absence of cloud feedbacks, current GCMs would predict a climate sensitivity (± 1 standard deviation) of roughly 1.9°C ± 0.15°C (ignoring spread from radiative forcing differences). The mean and standard deviation of climate sensitivity estimates derived from current GCMs are larger (3.2°C ± 0.7°C) essentially because the GCMs all predict a positive cloud feedback (Figure 8.14) but strongly disagree on its magnitude.”
“The large spread in cloud radiative feedbacks leads to the conclusion that differences in cloud response are the primary source of inter-model differences in climate sensitivity… However, the contributions of water vapour/lapse rate and surface albedo feedbacks to sensitivity spread are non-negligible, particularly since their impact is reinforced by the mean model cloud feedback being positive and quite strong.”
SPM 2007 concedes (p.12): “Cloud feedbacks remain the greatest source of uncertainty.”
So let’s summarize:
IPCC starts out with an assumed warming from a doubling of CO2 alone (without feedbacks) of 1.2°C. [Note that this is substantially higher than the 0.7°C derived from the radiative forcing cited for CO2 by IPCC.]
IPCC then cites model study estimates for the positive feedback impact from water vapor plus surface albedo, minus the negative feedback from lapse rate), showing a combined climate sensitivity of 1.9°C for 2xCO2 including these feedbacks, but excluding a feedback from clouds.
IPCC then states that all models assume a positive feedback from clouds (but they “strongly disagree on its magnitude” and even state separately that “Cloud feedbacks remain the greatest source of uncertainty”). Including this positive feedback (plus the feedbacks cited above), the climate sensitivity derived from current GCMs is 3.2°C ± 0.7°C.
IPCC tells us that this major increase from clouds (from 1.9°C including other feedbacks but without cloud feedback to 3.2°C including cloud feedback) is that the “impact” [of the other feedbacks] “is reinforced by the mean model cloud feedback being positive and quite strong.”
This is what the various GCM estimates show, i.e. a “positive and quite strong cloud feedback.”.
Hypothetical model studies are very nice, but now let’s talk about physically observed data, which either validate or refute the model studies.
The physical observations on clouds made and reported by Spencer et al. AFTER the IPCC AR4 and SPM reports, do not validate the hypothesis of a strong net positive feedback from clouds, as assumed in all the models cited by IPCC.
Instead, they support the hypothesis of a strong net negative feedback from clouds.
In other words, the admitted “greatest source of uncertainty” in the IPCC reports has been cleared up by the Spencer observations, validating a hypothesis postulated earlier by Lindzen and refuting the strong positive feedback from clouds assumed in all the GCMs.
This is how science works, Barry.
Physical observations either validate or refute a hypothesis. In this case they validated the Lindzen hypothesis and refuted the IPCC GCM assumptions.
What impact does this have?
We have seen (from AR4) that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity with all assumed feedbacks with exception of the cloud feedback is 1.9°C.
With the GCM assumed positive feedback from clouds, the models show a combined 2xCO2 sensitivity of 3.2°C.
Now that we know from physical observations that the cloud feedback is strongly negative, rather than strongly positive, as previously assumed in all the models, we also know that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity must, by definition, be below 1.9°C.
Is the magnitude of the “strong negative feedback” equal, in the opposite direction, to the magnitude of the previously assumed “strong positive feedback” (i.e. -1.3°C)?
Spencer has estimated that the overall effect of this observed strongly negative feedback from clouds will reduce the previously assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity by three-fourths, to a value of around 0.75°C (rather than 3°C).
This, Barry, is indeed a major breakthrough in the knowledge of climate science, clearing up a previous major “source of uncertainty” and pointing out how hypotheses can be validated or refuted by physically observed data.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 05 Aug 2008 at 8:39 pm #
Hi Barry,
You referred me to a RealClimate blurb entitled, “How to cook a graph in three easy lessons”, which attempts to discredit Roy Spencer, and asked me for comments.
My advice to you: disregard anything that is posted by RealClimate. This is not a serious blogsite on climate science.
They are, however, experts on “how to cook a graph”, a real specialty of Michael E. Mann, one of the site’s founders. I’m sure you will remember Mann as the “cook” of the since discredited “Hockey Stick” graph, which attempted to deny the existence of a global Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than today, despite overwhelming historical evidence and physical data confirming its existence.
Stick with serious science and physical observations, Barry. Go to the source of data, wherever possible, rather than to “interpretations” of the data.
That way you’ll do better than if you tune into these pseudoscientific sites trying to sell their “bill of goods”, such as RealClimate.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 05 Aug 2008 at 9:02 pm #
Hi Barry,
More to the rest of your long post later.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 05 Aug 2008 at 9:16 pm #
Hi Barry,
Here’s some more info for you from Australia (but please don’t let it deter you from addressing the issues I raised in my earlier post):
“Show us the Evidence, Penny Wong!
Dr David Evans
BSc, BE-EE, MA (Sydney), MS-EE, MS-Stat, PhD EE (Stanford)
[A slightly shorter version of this article appeared in The Australian newspaper on Friday 18 July 2008.]
I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector. FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology, and satellite data. I’ve been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good -CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together, and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon plays only a minor role and is not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes – weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hotspot whatsoever. Not a little hotspot, but none at all.
If there is no hotspot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of the global warming. So we now know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hotspot is there but went undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hotspot. Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hotspot. If you believe that you believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.
There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed), but there are no observations that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming. The world has spent $50b on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that support the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
3. The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the last year (to the temperature of 1980). Land based temperature readings are corrupted by the ‘urban heat island’ effect – urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA report only land based data, and report a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores shows that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these four points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician’s assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions. In the mind of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn’t noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved. If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don’t you think we would have heard all about it ad naseum by now?
The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be before wrecking the economy. It is the job of our opposition politicians and press to demand the evidence from the relevant minister, Penny Wong.
And what is going to happen over the next decade as the global temperature continues not to rise? When the public find out that all the above points were known in 2008, might they feel deceived, furious at the futility of the economic sacrifices?
Who is going to be held responsible? Perhaps the political class, for not having the wit to examine the evidence? Maybe the press, for not have not done even the most elementary job of informing a debate and asking questions? (If any of the missing signature, the lack of actual evidence, the lack of temperature rises since 2001, or the 800 year lag of CO2 in the ice cores are news to you, then no, your press has not been keeping you well informed.)
Don’t you think some evidence is required before wrecking the economy? Someone simply has to demand to see evidence. You will find that there is none.
July 20th, 2008”
This guy has some salient thoughts on this whole AGW debate. Definitely something to think about, Barry.
Regards,
Max
barry schwarz on 05 Aug 2008 at 9:33 pm #
Max,
“You wrote that Tuvalu residents are leaving their island because of the threat of rising sea levels.”
I did not. I have said this already. You introduced this notion. What I said was exactly this;
“The people of Tuvalu are prepared to abandon their island in the face of rising sea levels and have asked Australia and New Zealand to take them in.”
This was a reference to a well-known lobby by the Tuvaluan PM.
You then asked for emigration statistics – proof that Tuvaluans were leaving. This was an extension to my point that I had not made. I said the Tuvaluans were willing to leave, I did not say that any were leaving. But out of curiosity, I searched for figures. I then replied;
“If you’re sincerely interested, Australia and New Zealand have refused Tuvaluan requests to take them in en masse, but there has been significant migration to New Zealand, most notably around the time Tuvalu was saying they were threatened by sea level rise.
http://www.une.edu.au/economics/publications/econ_2005_10.pdf
How much of this is due to concern about sea level rise is unknown, but it seems the claims made by the Tuvaluan PM [about sea level rise] may be well founded.”
My point was that the Tuvaluan PM had asked Australia and NZ to take in the entire Tuvaluan population because of rising sea level. The BOM data support the claim that the sea level has risen. I did not try to make a case from emigration, but merely noted a temporal correlation with claims and increased migration, saying that the motivation was unknown. On this point, I was following a lead you gave me, not putting forward my original point.
I said many posts ago that there was no substance to the emigration thing, and that I wouldn’t make a case of it. I have only gone on about it because you requested information and latterly keep assigning an argument to me that I have not made.
This may seem like waffle to you. It is important you do not misrepresent my argument or put words in my mouth. We cannot discuss usefully if you make straw men of my points or initiate argumentation that you later attribute to me.
“In other words, your oiriginal statement (Tuvalu residents fleeing their island due to the threat of rising sea level) was shown to be untrue by
– the Tuvalu tide record”
You have my original statement wrong, and the tide gauge readings show sea level have risen by 5.7 mm a year.*
There are two big problems here.
1) The tide gauge record you cited – from a 2002 BOM study – expressed extreme caveats on their findings. You do not seem to be interested in the scientific uncertainty. You are content to confine your understanding to an unscientific article that cherry-picked the study (it didn’t quote the higher sea level trend, which the study gave more credence) and gave no indication of the uncertainty, instead making absolute assertions, which you repeat. And you continue to do so when the BOM/NTF – the source John Daly cited – directly refuted John Daly’s representation of their report.
2) You have dismissed as “nice”, the latest BOM/NTF study that now shows a much higher sea level rise. You are apparently unaware that the National Tide Centre is run by the BOM. The study I provided is in fact the latest update on the Tuvalu sea level record from the same institute that the John Daly site referenced 4 years earlier.
This tells me that you are not interested in following the science. You could easily have found all this out yourself. Though I have posted all this information for you, instead you cling to an outdated study and the unqualified and cherry-picked (and less accurate) assertion from a non-science source. You refuse to accept the latest findings. Though I hate to use the term, this sort of behaviour is clear denialism.
Unless, of course, you can make a reasonable case that the J-D article is more accurate than the source they are citing.
One more thing.
You keep saying “I pointed to the tide gauge record”, as if I have not done exactly the same thing. The BOM National Tide Facility is the only institute that has deployed tide gauges specifically to measure long-term sea level at Tuvalu, and it is the most authoritative source for the record (which may be why John Daly (mis)quoted it in 2002).
To clear up. In 2002, the National Tide Facility, an arm of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, issued a report on the tide gauge record for Tuvalu. They gave two figures, one from the Hawaaian tide gauge system, which does not give accurate long-term sea level readings as the system is designed to measure tides and short-term ENSO events and has data problems (0.07mm/yr rise), and one from their own system SEAFRAME, dedicated specifically to long-term sea level readings (0.9mm/yr). The BOM assigned greater confidence to the higher figure (which by coincidence, is close to IPCC figures). The BOM/NTF put these figures as highly uncertain.
The John Daly website, citing this report, posted only the low, less certain figure and neglected to reflect the considerable uncertainty in the report. This was blatant cherry-picking and propagandising.
The BOM/NTF issued a second report that year which unreservedly criticised the misuse of their report by the John Daly website.
The BOM has issued annual reports on the Tuvalu tide gauge record, and the record now shows a rise of 5.7mm/yr over the whole period. *Again, this conclusion is qualified, but much more confident than the figure cherry-picked by John daly.
barry schwarz on 05 Aug 2008 at 10:08 pm #
I checked back to the origins of the Tuvalu side-issue. Here is what you said, and what I said;
Max – “No low-lying islands are currently being threatened and any prediction that this will occur in the future is again purely conjectural, and can therefore be dismissed.”
Barry – “The people of Tuvalu are prepared to abandon their island in the face of rising sea levels and have asked Australia and New Zealand to take them in”
I reported an anecdote, we investigated it. You cited an old biased website (John Daly has since passed away, BTW). I referred to the request by Tuvalu for the population to relocate to Australia and NZ under the threat of sea level rise and cited the most recent scientific report on sea level, from the same source John Daly referenced. The report gives sea level rise at 5.7mm/yr, and puts it that there has been considerable erosion of the inhabited atolls in the past couple of decades and degradation of drinking water as high tides contaminate fresh water sources. These points are not ‘conjecture’.
You asked for emigration statistics (not my point), I gave them, saying that whether increased emigration was due to rising sea levels is unknown. The emigration report does say that future emigration may arise as a result of rising sea levels. You omitted this from your analysis of the study.
barry schwarz on 05 Aug 2008 at 10:40 pm #
“In your latest post it is apparent that you are missing the point completely when you write, “Name any current theory in any discipline, and I will provide studies that may counter them.”
We are not talking about “studies” here, Barry (as, for example one computer model study versus another). We are talking about physically observed data, which either validate or refute a hypothesis.”
I was not talking about GCMs. I am talking about studies based on observed data. I will quote you to demonstrate what I mean;
“Another (post AR4) study by Spencer et al. validates, based on physically observed data”
You have digressed into semantics. I know the difference between a GCM and a field study. And how do you imagine I would be referring to global climate models when I offered to cite studies from any discipline (no GCMs in medical studies, for example)?
Either of us could cite observational studies that appear to invalidate AGW theory. There are many over the last 50 years that have been incorporated or that have been rejected because the data analysis is flawed.
You realize that Spencer’s paper is not just ‘physically observed data’. The satellite data has to be converted mathematically and extrapolated- why there is uncertainty in the paper. satellites do not measure temperature. they measure radiation bands. The data must be inferred, corrected and averaged (this is exactly what Spencer did). Spencer is making models from observed phenomena. Are you qualified to judge whether Spencer’s data analysis is sound?
“My advice to you: disregard anything that is posted by RealClimate. This is not a serious blogsite on climate science.”
Oh dear. The rational skeptic considers he is fit to judge the quality of the science at realclimate and dismisses it.
You are not a skeptic. You are a biased partisan on this subject, rejecting anything which disagrees with your POV, assigning superior verity to any study which comports with your view, and without the requisite expertise to make the determination.
I am interested by papers like Spencer’s, Johanessen’s and Minschwaner’s, interested in Pielkje’s take on the IPCC and climate science, willing to entertain a clearly anti-AGW/IPCC site like climateaudit, which is run not by climate scientists but by an economist, and will continue to discuss the matter with anyone who reasonably weighs substance from any source staffed by qualified experts or honest lay-people who try to look deeply into the matter.
I apologise for not having attended to a number of your points, having been bogged down on others. I am put off by your trenchant rejectionism and no longer wish to continue the conversation. I have enjoyed much of it and thank you for it. I wish you well.
manacker on 06 Aug 2008 at 9:08 am #
Bye, Barry. You can’t win them all.
But if you go to the trouble of downloading the raw tide gauge data from Tuvalu into Excel, you’ll see that the linear sea level trend is 1.75 mm/year there.
Max
manacker on 06 Aug 2008 at 9:40 am #
Hi Barry,
You have broken off our discussion, but I think I should correct one point where you appear to be confused.
You wrote: “You will find that the IPCC does in fact refer to both papers you cited (Johansen and Zwaly) in Chapter 4 (snow and ice). IPCC cites them both corroborating thickening of the ice sheet interior and the Zwaly study when mentioning snow density (and on Antarctica). Neither cover the entire ice sheet.”
Zwally took the same continuous 10-year 24/7 data used by Johannessen, strangely truncated the last 6 (winter) months with heavy snowfall, added in data from various spot studies to cover the fringe area not measurable by satellite altimetry and showed that the ENTIRE Greenland Ice Sheet gained mass over the 10-year period 1993-2003 (despite truncating an entire winter season).
None of the other studies mentioned cover the entire GIS over this entire period 1993-2003 (the period cited by IPCC in its claim of GIS loss). There are various “spot” studies, covering parts of the period and/or parts of the GIS.
In other words, IPCC “cites” Johannessen/Zwally and then ignores, rejects or refuses to accept as correct the conclusions reached by Johannessen/Zwally (mass gain of GIS) in making exactly the opposite claim in its report (mass loss of GIS).
Really quite simple, Barry. You can rationalize this to death, but the fact of the matter is that IPCC ignored (or rejected or refused to accept as correct) the conclusion reached by Johannessen/Zwally that the GIS gained mass over the period 1993-2003, when it made its claim of GIS mass loss over exactly this same period.
Regards,
Max
manacker on 06 Aug 2008 at 12:21 pm #
Hi Barry,
You advised me:
“The John Daly website is irretrievably biased. I’d recommend avoiding it.”
And I advised you:
“The RealClimate website is irretrievably biased. I’d recommend avoiding it.”
Yet when I gave you the same advice you had earlier given me, you countered with:
“The rational skeptic considers he is fit to judge the quality of the science at realclimate and dismisses it.
You are not a skeptic. You are a biased partisan on this subject, rejecting anything which disagrees with your POV, assigning superior verity to any study which comports with your view, and without the requisite expertise to make the determination.”
Hmmm…
All this sort of makes you look silly, Barry, whether you realize it or not
Regards,
Max
manacker on 06 Aug 2008 at 12:36 pm #
Hi Barry,
Just to quickly summarize where we stood in our discussion of the scientific debate surrounding the “climate sensitivity” issue, before you broke it off.
IPCC GCMs all assume a strong POSITIVE (warming) feedback from clouds; this is estimated to increase the assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity from 1.9°C to 3.2°C.
Actual physical observations (Spencer et al.) reported after the 2007 IPCC report show a strong NEGATIVE (cooling) feedback from clouds instead; this is estimated to reduce the overall 2xCO2 climate sensitivity by three-fourths (i.e. from 3.2°C to around 0.8°C).
And I used this example to point out that physical observations can either validate or refute a hypothesis (in this case the hypothetical positive feedback from clouds as assumed by the computer models versus the “infrared iris” hypothesis of a negative feedback from clouds, as proposed by Richard Lindzen).
In this case the physical observations validated Lindzen’s hypothesis and refuted the positive feedback hypothesis suggested by IPCC.
It is really quite simple, Barry.
Regards,
Max
Bob_FJ on 07 Aug 2008 at 12:09 am #
Barry Schwarz,
I don’t want to participate much here but I was amused by your following rationale or repartee, whatever it is intended to be.
I am put off by your trenchant rejectionism and no longer wish to continue the conversation. I have enjoyed much of it and thank you for it. I wish you well.
Concerning the sinking of Tuvalu, her is an EXTRACT from an article by the respected Chris de Freitus, a buddy of BobCarter
Since instrumentation was installed in 1993 on Tuvalu’s main island Funafuti, sea level has shown no discernible trend. There is some inundation evident on islands in Tuvalu, but global warming is not the cause.
It is the result of erosion, sand mining and construction projects causing an inflow of sea water.
Other factors are also involved.
Excessive use of freshwater for irrigation also causes destruction of underground freshwater reservoirs. A consequence is seawater encroachment into vegetable growing pits is occurring, but is not due to sea level rise.
Part of the problem is related also to the paving of the roads and the runway on Funafuti.
According to estimates, about one quarter of the island has been paved over. The effect of this has been to reduce infiltration of rainwater into the freshwater lens. When this increased runoff is combined with a high tide, flooding along the coast looks like the sea level is rising.
Perception of trends can also be affected, as increasing population on the islands means people are now living on flood prone land that was previously avoided.
Coral is capable of growing faster than most if not all past rates of sea level rise. The atolls are not static.
The islands grow as they are replenished by coral that breaks off the reefs and is thrown ashore by storms.
In that way atolls are self-maintaining, provided humans don’t intervene, such as by digging the coral for use in construction work, and building flush toilets that discharge the effluent into the sea and where it affects coral growth.
The whole article can be found at:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10498927
Hopefully it might enable you to investigate other perspectives on Tuvalu, Barry.
(and to not assert that you know it all)
Bob_FJ on 07 Aug 2008 at 12:14 am #
Barry Schwarz,
I don’t want to participate much here but I was amused by your following rationale or repartee, whatever it was intended to be.
Concerning the sinking of Tuvalu, her is an EXTRACT from an article by the respected Chris de Freitus, a buddy of BobCarter
The whole article can be found at:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10498927
Hopefully it might enable you to investigate other perspectives on Tuvalu, Barry.
(and to not assert that you know it all)
Bob_FJ on 07 Aug 2008 at 12:18 am #
Barry Schwarz,
I don’t want to participate much here but I was amused by your following rationale or repartee, whatever it was intended to be.
Concerning the “sinking of Tuvalu”, here is an EXTRACT from an article by the respected Chris de Freitus, a buddy of BobCarter
The whole article can be found at:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10498927
Hopefully it might enable you to investigate other perspectives on Tuvalu, Barry.
(and to not assert that you know it all)
Bob_FJ on 07 Aug 2008 at 12:22 am #
Barry Schwarz,
I don’t want to participate much here but I was amused by your following rationale or repartee, whatever it was intended to be.
Concerning the “sinking of Tuvalu”, here is an EXTRACT from an article by the respected Chris de Freitus, a buddy of BobCarter
The whole article can be found at:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10498927
Hopefully it might enable you to investigate other perspectives on Tuvalu, Barry.
(and to not assert that you know it all)
Take care to click page 2 of Chris’s report, where you can also find his qualifications.
Debra Gamarra on 10 Jan 2011 at 12:27 pm #
I do not generally reply to posts but I’ll in this case.
my God, i believed you were going to chip in with some decisive insght in the finish there, not depart it
with ‘we depart it to you to decide’.