The news that 2005 was the warmest year ever recorded in Australia comes at the end of a year in which, to the extent that facts can settle anything, the debate over human-caused global warming has been settled. Worldwide, 2005 was equal (to within the margin of error of the stats) with 1998 as the warmest year in at least the past millennium.
More significantly, perhaps, 2005 saw the final nail hammered into the arguments climate change contrarians have been pushing for years. The few remaining legitimate sceptics, along with some of the smarter ideological contrarians, have looked at the evidence and conceded the reality of human-caused global warming.
Ten years or so ago, the divergence between satellite and ground-based measurements of temperature was a big problem – the ground based measurements showed warming in line with climate models but the satellites showed a cooling trend. The combination of new data and improved calibration has gradually resolved the discrepancy, in favour of the ground-based measurements and the climate models.
Another set of arguments concerned short-term climate cycles like El Nino. The late John Daly attributed the high temperatures of the late 1990s to the combination of El Nino and solar cycles, and predicted a big drop, bottoming out in 2005 and 2006. Obviously the reverse has happened. Despite the absence of the El Nino or solar effects that contributed to the 1998 record, the long-term warming trend has dominated.
Finally, there’s water vapour. The most credible of the contrarians, Richard Lindzen, has relied primarily on arguments that the feedback from water vapour, which plays a central role in climate models, might actually be zero or even negative. Recent evidence has run strongly against this claim. Lindzen’s related idea of an adaptive iris has been similarly unsuccessful.
Finally, the evidence has mounted up that, with a handful of exceptions, “sceptics” are not, as they claim, fearless seekers after scientific truth, but ideological partisans and paid advocates, presenting dishonest arguments for a predetermined party-line conclusion. Even three years ago, sites like Tech Central Station, and writers like Ross McKitrick were taken seriously by many. Now, anyone with access to Google can discover that they have no credibility. Chris Mooney’s Republican War on Science which I plan to review soon, gives chapter and verse and the whole network of thinktanks, politicians and tame scientists who have popularised GW contrarianism, Intelligent Design and so on.
A couple of thoughts on all this.
First, in the course of the debate, a lot of nasty things were said about the IPCC, including some by people who should have known better. Now that it’s clear that the IPCC has been pretty much spot-on in its assessment (and conservative in terms of its caution about reaching definite conclusions), it would be nice to see some apologies.
Second, now that the scientific phase of the debate is over, attention will move to the question of the costs and benefits of mitigation options. There are legitimate issues to be debated here. But having seen the disregard for truth exhibited by anti-environmental think tanks in the first phase of the debate, we shouldn’t give them a free pass in the second. Any analysis on this issue coming out of a think tank that has engaged in global warming contrarianism must be regarded as valueless unless its results have been reproduced independently, after taking account of possible data mining and cherry picking. That disqualifies virtually all the major right-wing think tanks, both here and in the US. Their performance on this and other scientific issues has been a disgrace.
John Quiggin 
A shame this wasn’t one of those fundraising threads. Proceeds to realclimate.org, perhaps.
Well, this discussion is getting interesting. Let me recap some recent events:
I made several statements, as follows:
1) Mann has not revealed all that he was subpoena’d to reveal. For those who claim he has, I posed a simple question for them to answer, to wit:
What is the cross-validation R2 statistic for the 15th century MBH98 reconstruction?
If Mann has revealed all, this question should be easy to answer, and I invited people to answer it.
Why is this question important? For those who are not statisticians, the R2 statistic indicates whether results are significant or not. Near as anyone can tell, the MBH98 results are not significant. It is theoretically possible that this lack of significance may not be related to the reason why Mann has steadfastly refused to answer this question …
2) The MBH98 study had bad data (bristlecone pines which are not a temperature proxy) and bad methods (incorrect PC centering). I invited people to disprove this, with no takers at all.
3) The studies which have claimed to “replicate” Manns work have used the same bad data, or the same bad methods, or both. Problems with the so-called “replications” of Manns work are discussed at
http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=240#more-240
Now these are simple scientific statements, which are capable of being proved or disproved.
In response to my questions, Ender said things like “No, they didn’t”, and “No, they don’t”. I queried these simplistic answers, and Ender replied:
OK, Ender won’t try to disprove my statements because he is “fed up” with answering questions. This sounds a lot like Michael Mann, but that’s his right. Ender, I am sorry to see you retiring from the discussion and leaving my questions unanswered.
Please note that I am not engaging in “he said, she said” as Enders claims. I have made scientific statements which are capable of being disproven. To date, no one has done so.
Steve Munn, on the other hand, takes a different tack. He says (with loads of personal attacks mixed in for no apparent reason) that Mann has complied with the NSF Guidelines.
So what? Whether Mann has or has not complied with NSF guidelines was not the question. The question was whether Mann has made full disclosure. He has not.
Steve also says that:
Unfortunately, both Steve Munn and Prof. Holdren somehow neglected to identify the “half a dozen different studies” in question, so that doesn’t answer the question either.
Finally, Steve, calling Steve McIntyre a pig does not advance your case. It does not prove your point. It just makes your arguments look weak.
If Mann has revealed all (as Steve and Tim Lambert and Ender and others are all claiming), then surely one of you guys, or someone out there, can answer my question about R2, and we can establish if the MBH98 findings are significant or not.
Until then, my statements still stand. Mann is still concealing, still hiding, MBH98 has errors in data and methods, and it still has not been replicated.
w.
PS — Mann’s position in all of this is quite strange. If he truly has nothing to hide … why has he been fighting so hard to hide it?
PPS — Replication is the core of science. A while back, some scientists claimed that there was “cold fusion”. However, no one was able to replicate their results, so the claim was discredited.
No one has ever been able to replicate MBH98, despite a variety of attempts. Cubash tried, he couldn’t do it. Why? Because Mann hid the data and the methods. Why did he hide them?
The world wonders …
Willis – why no-one will ‘debate’ you on this point is probably this:
“PS — Replication is the core of science. A while back, some scientists claimed that there was “cold fusionâ€?. However, no one was able to replicate their results, so the claim was discredited.
No one has ever been able to replicate MBH98, despite a variety of attempts. Cubash tried, he couldn’t do it. Why? Because Mann hid the data and the methods. Why did he hide them?”
Why should anyone debate someone that is able to write that? I mean if Einstein stood in front of 1000 monkeys for 1000 years explaining relativity in the end they would still be monkeys.
Ender:
Say what?
I say no one has been able to replicate MBH98.
You reply that if Einstein tried to explain relativity to monkeys, they’d still be monkeys.
While I admit that your statement is correct, the monkeys would still be monkeys, I fail to see the connection here … perhaps someone could explain the relationship between the monkeys remaining monkeys, and the fact that no one has been able to replicate MBH98.
w.
While researchers are generally not required to reveal source code, it is false that they rarely do so. As a researcher, if your results are based on simulations, and anyone cares enough about them, you’ll be asked for your source code. Many researchers comply with such requests on an individual basis (I used to), without necessarily making a big public, maintained distribution available. In a controversial case like Mann’s, he absolutely should reveal his source code, otherwise it looks like he has something to hide.
Orthogonally, and maybe somebody already made this joke upthread (at 500+ postings I haven’t read them all), but if not:
When is it going to be the end of “The end of the global warming debate”?
Dogz – “When is it going to be the end of “The end of the global warming debateâ€??”
In 20 or 30 years when whatever is going to happen happens.
At current rates this thread will contain 250,000 comments in 20 years time.
With apologies to Douglas Adams:
January 20th, 2046:
“The longest global warming blog thread is now into its fourth generation and still no one shows any signs of leaving. Somebody did once look at his watch, but that was eleven years ago now, and there has been no follow up.
“One of the problems, and it’s one that is obviously going to get worse, is that all the people commenting are either the children or the grand children or the great-grandchildren of the people who wouldn’t stop commenting in the first place, and because of all the business about selective breeding and recessive genes and so on, it means that all the people now contributing are either absolutely fanatical global warming bloggers, or gibbering idiots or, more and more frequently, both.
“Either way, it means that, genetically speaking, each succeeding generation is now less likely to end the thread than the preceding one.
Well the creation vs evolution is still going strong for those in denial, its amazing what a healthy dose of confirmation bias and cherry picking can do to keep a debate going. But one way or another in this case some one will be wrong.
If the AGW supporters lose they win, if the skeptics lose we both lose, no points for I told you so with climate refugees up to our eyeballs and you will be drinking your own piss.
Sorry recycled piss.
We can be sure of one thing: if AGW turns out to be a dramatic and destructive reality, no-one will be held accountable.
Here’s an idea: an international agreement to fine every adult citizen of the main CO2-methane-producing nations if long-term warming comes to pass. In 2030, 2040 or 2050, our nieces and nephews might have to cough up for our extravagance. If AGW turns out to an illusion and the icecaps are advancing, no fine. Are AGW skeptics prepared to make that bet?
The prospect of a future, punitive fine might concentrate consumers minds’.
& that these nations must have an open door policy for climate refugees., with Australia taking any from the pacific region. The increase in taxes to settle them will be part of the fine.
Dogz – can I use that one – I really like it 🙂
Simonjm, there are plenty of places on the planet where people already drink recycled piss. It’s a favourite of the environmental lobby – they all tend to prefer that over desalination as a solution to water shortages. I guess with so little ocean water available they have a point. And drinking your own recycled piss has the added advantage of satisfying your average environmentalists’ penchant for self-loathing.
Sounds good to me. And while we’re at it, lets throw in a fine for every country that transmits electricity via overhead lines if it turns out that 50Hz-60Hz AC causes cancer, another fine for every country that puts fluoride in the drinking water if it turns out that causes cancer, a third fine for every country with a cell phone network if it turns out they cause brain tumours, etc, etc.
But that’s probably too much bureaucracy for even the more left-leaning members of the audience. So how about we minimize our risk altogether and do away with everything post-stone-age, crawl back in the caves, and live on grubs. That will have the added benefit of reducing the human population by at least 90%, and hence get rid of most of the terrible things we wicked wicked homonids are doing to the planet.
Ender, I lifted that straight from Hitchhikers Guide by Douglas Adams. So do with it what you will 🙂 (the original is about a never-ending party)
dogz I’ve no problem with drinking recycled waste I just hope it gets up the gall of the AGW sceptics that don’t 🙂
BTW no self-loathing here either I’m actually becoming quite optimistic for those countries who have the wealth are enlightened enough to change that they can redesign our lifestyles to live a more sustainable and ethical lifestyle.
From clothing to building to energy and transportation I see glimpses of that future even now. Pity recalcitrants like yourself will make it so much harder and not more conservatives like Hawaiian Republican Governor Linda Lingle’s “Energy for Tomorrow” bill
http://renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=41812
It will happen pity thousands will die and millions displaced to get there. Wonder what effect that will have on the worlds economy?
BTW since we want to go with coal at any cost at least the gov should look at this
Turning Emissions Into Fuel With Algae
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003999.html
In reference to my idea of an international fine should AGW turn out to be a genuine threat, Dogz has said, ‘Sounds good to me.’
I’m glad someone liked it. It was meant to be a ‘thought experiment’ about how we could deter behaviour that may or may not cause a global problem, to make skeptics put their money (or their neices’) where their models are. Alternatively, nations could post ‘bonds’, which they would forfeit if the global temperature rises too high.
NB: I’ve noticed that some of these ruggedly individualistic anti-greenies have a thing about piss, other human waste, rootin around in mud, eating worms, caves. It’s like reading ‘Lord of the Flies’.
DogZ: Simonjm, there are plenty of places on the planet where people already drink recycled piss. It’s a favourite of the environmental lobby – they all tend to prefer that over desalination as a solution to water shortages. I guess with so little ocean water available they have a point.
Actually almost all recycled water is used for non-potable uses (i.e. industry and watering lawns) rather than as drinking water.
It happens to be a lot cheaper than desalinized sea-water – at least until the last few years, apparently the desalinisation technology has improved considerably recently.
I always love it when the self-proclaimed champions of free markets latch on to specific technological fixes that fit their prejudices – desalinisation, nuclear power, geosequestration – ignore the failure of these technologies in the marketplace and demand government hand-outs for them.
G’day. Water is another one of my favourite subjects. The amount of water that falls within metropolitan Melbourne is equivalent to the run off that ends up in our reservoirs. It may be the same in the other capital cities. We should be harnessing that water I believe.
I note a small amount of Melbourne’s sewerage water is now used in horticulture. Ideally, not a single drop of that precious “piss water” would be sent out to sea. I think it should be used in agriculture instead. I would have no objection to drinking recycled “piss water” but I realise this is politically impossible.
Doesn’t Israel recycle its waste water for drinking?
Ian Gould is correct about the huge costs and need for subsidies for desalinisation, nuclear power and geosequestration. I do hope however that geosequestration will eventually prove viable, particularly given Australia’s massive coal reserves.
As to my use of words like “oink”, “smelly”, “sniffy” and “sour”, I picked these up from reading Andrew Bolt’s articles in the Herald Sun. If this type of language is OK for a RWDB then it should be OK for a Lefty like me! 🙂
We only do it to irritate you Ian.
It’s also well documented that we’re better in bed.
“Doesn’t Israel recycle its waste water for drinking?”
http://wingolog.org/writings/water/html/node55.html
Quote: “In summary, direct potable reuse is the most extreme case of water recycling, and is at present used only in water-critical situations. While toilet-to-tap systems do work in theory, and some pilot plants are presently being monitored, they are generally an option of last resort.”
If Israel is experimenting with direct potable re-use it’s porbably linked to its strategic position. Currently Israel takes for more water from the Jordan river and from cross-border aquifers than it would be entitled to under international law.
If they ever do negotiate a comprehensive deal with the Palestinians, Israel wqill need ot get by with a lot less water.
Singapore is another example of where potable re-use is being trialled (along with desalinisation). Basically that’s because they don’t like their current depenency on Malaysia for msot of their water.
Steve said:
Heck, yes, it’s OK. Plus it makes you sound so sophisticated, adds weight to your arguments, lets people know you’ve really thought about what you are saying, and generally adds to the tenor, style, and overall je-ne-sais-quoi of your discussions … not to mention how it improves your standing in the opinion of those to whom you apply those charming, endearing, and ever-so-imaginative terms.
I am curious about something, though. Since it sounds like you despise Bolt and the horse he rode in on, and quite possibly for good reasons … why on earth would you want to emulate him?
w.
(Disclaimer – please don’t associate me with whatever Bolt has written. I know nothing about Bolt, having never read his sour, smelly oinking and sniffing.)
Well, that sounds good. And it should be an excellent source of income, too, since the world has been warming since the early 1700s, which is certainly long-term. The only problem will be collecting the fines from all of those 18th and 19th century folks, since the overwhelming majority of them are kind of dead at this point.
Of course, to be fair, I suppose we’ll have to tax the trees for their methane production as well …
w.
Well, heck, I’m on a roll. No one has amswered the question about R2, so I guess Mann really hasn’t revealed everything after all. No one has disputed that there is more excess mortality just in Britain in your average winter (40,000 excess deaths) than from the big heat wave in all of Europe.
No one has challenged my facts about bristlecone pines not being a temperature proxy. No one has said Mann actually used the right centering technique in the MBH98 study. So dang, we be happening.
In that case, lets move right along. Y’all have likely seen the headlines …


Real animals going extinct … sounds dire.
The study, entitled “Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming”, by J. Alan Pounds et. al., and reported in the Jan. 12th edition of Nature magazine, was done on the various species of “harlequin” frogs, of the genus Atelopus, which live in and around tropical streams in Central and South America. The study says that a fungus is driving dozens of frog species extinct, and that the fungus in turn is driven by global warming.
Being a suspicious kind of fellow with some knowledge of how hard it is to drive a species extinct, I wondered “How many of these species of Atelopus frogs are really extinct?” The study claims that 67% of the Atelopus species have gone extinct.
The beauty of the web is that you can find out the answers to questions like that. The study listed 113 species of Atelopus frogs, although many of them are not official species yet. 67% of the claimed species, then, is about 77 species of Atelopus frogs that the study says have gone extinct.
So I went to the official site, the Red List. The Red List is maintained by the IUCN, the International Union of Concerned Naturalists, and it lists all the extinct, endangered, and vulnerable species worldwide. It is considered to be the official registry of extinctions.
At the Red List site you can search for information by species, area, genus, or whatever you want to search by. (http://www.redlist.org/search/search-expert.php) I asked for a list of all of the Atelopus frogs which had gone extinct.
Anyone care to guess, given the study and the headlines listed above, how many “widespread extinctions” there actually have been, that is to say, how many species of Atelopus frogs the Red List says have actually gone extinct?
w.
Willis said: “In addition, while (as you point out) the methane generated by trees only lasts a decade or two, it decays into CO2 …”
So where does the carbon for the methane, which soon goes back to CO2, come from?
The bottom line is that in a steady state of tree mass, there would be a particular ratio of tree-generated methane in the atmosphere to tree mass. This mass of tree-generated methane is vastly exceeded by the mass of trees.
Also, quoted in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1684379,00.html
“If you’re after predictions of global average temperature, it (methane generation by trees) won’t make a huge amount of difference,” said Richard Betts of the climate change monitoring organisation the Hadley Centre.
So what’s the big deal?
Willis said: “I gave a report on what happens in the ocean when atmospheric CO2 is increased.”
Pity that wasn’t a report on what happens when the CO2 level is a lot higher than it is now.
” I hold that the report from the ocean tells us what happens in the real world, and the report from the aquarium tells us what happens in the aquarium. Since the results are different, which one is more relevant in your view?”
So the report from the ocean tells us what happens when the CO2 level is a lot higher than it is now as opposed to the aquarium where they can have a real CO2 level a lot higher than it is now?
Hey Willis E how about you use this scoop to contact the journal or author/s accusing them of scientific fraud and ask them for an apology and to retract the paper?
When they confess, those of us that have questioned your intellectual integrity will then have to apologize for doubting that integrity.
Let us know how you get on.
Cheers 🙂
ok then:
Hitler
Simonjm, not sure which scoop you’re talking about, there’s not a clue in your email to let me know what subject you’re referring to.
Cheers,
w.
Chris, thank you for posting. You say:
Actually, the question we are investigating is a bit different from the one you refer to. We are investigating the relationship between coral growth and CO2. The question is, does increasing atmospheric CO2 lead to decreasing coral growth? This question can be answered by observation, without doubling the CO2.
But this question can only be answered in the real world, because the sea is buffered in several ways with respect to CO2. One of the more interesting, powerful, and generally unappreciated ways is that sea shells dissolve at great depths. As the dissolved CO2 increases, the depth at which the shells dissolve (called the “lysocline”, which is way deep, about 4 km or so) changes to remove more carbon from the upper ocean and dissolve it in the lower ocean. This buffers the system.
Now, the reason the shells dissolve is because of pressure. Four kilometres down, the pressure is about 4,000 tonnes per square metre (about 400 tons/sq. ft.), which favors dissolution of the shells. This immense pressure, of course, cannot be duplicated in an aquarium. And it is not alone, as this is only one of many carbon buffering systems in the coupled ocean – clouds – rain – land-river-ocean system which aquariums simply can’t replicate.
And that is the reason why reports from the real ocean are infinitely preferable to aquarium reports — the map is not the territory, and the aquarium is not the ocean.
When we look at what happens in the real ocean, coral growth rates have not declined in the last 150 years, despite a large rise in CO2. It’s not clear why. Ugly, I know, but that’s the observation of the real world, and that observation, not the aquarium results, is what our theories have to fit.
My best to you,
w.
Chris, you raise an interesting point when you say:
If you’ll re-read what I wrote, I was clear what the big deal was. This discovery highlights how little we actually know about the climate system. Even the editor of Nature commented to the effect of “how could we have missed such a large forcing”.
Climate modelers like to think that the climate system is well understood. Nothing could be further from the truth. In particular, our knowledge of the internal connections, forcings and feedbacks is woefully deficient. This finding highlighted that lack of knowledge, and as I said in reporting it (above), that’s the big deal.
I also mentioned what the second biggest deal was, which is the discovery that the tree’s breath is warming the trees, and thus is warming the planet. This demonstration of the overall warming effect of plants on the global climate was totally unknown and unexpected.
Another example of our lack of climate knowledge was the discovery last year that when plankton get too hot, they give off airborne compounds which serve as cloud nuclei. This leads to the formation of clouds above the plankton, which cools them down.
Again, given the amount of plankton on the planet, this is a large forcing, and again, it was completely unknown. The idea that we understand the climate system of our marvellous planet is … let me just say, it’s not supported by recent discoveries …
w.
PS – You said that the methane was not important, because it didn’t stay long in the atmosphere, and so the effect didn’t last long.
I pointed out that methane decays into much longer lasting CO2, which showed that your claim of a short term effect was not true.
Your response to that is to ask where the carbon comes from. I don’t see what that has to do with the length of the effect, which (contrary to your claim) is long-lasting no matter where the carbon comes from.
Willis, it is far too early to be talking about a brand spanking new paper in Nature about plants releasing methane as if it is a solid, well established fact. Let’s wait until other researchers try to replicate the findings.
If it does turn out to be a fact it may still be the case that the net affect of plants is a cooling one because of their role as a carbon sink.
As I have said previously, I personally doubt that climate models will ever display the pin point accuracy many sceptics seem to demand. This shouldn’t matter. In real life we must often make decisions with incomplete knowledge.
Willis says that we should do nothing about our GHG emissions because it would be too expensive to cut them. This is simply untrue. One example of a scheme that will benefit consumers as well as cutting GHG emissions is the Victorian government’s new Five-Star Energy Rating Scheme for new homes. Better designed homes will require less energy for heating and cooling and benefit everyone.
I note the federal government has decided to phase out the rebate for solar hot water systems. This decision is crazy. For one thing, demand for electricity peaks, and the power grid is sometimes at risk of being overloaded, on hot days. Solar hot water systems can actually send surplus electricity back to the grid on very hot, sunny days and can therefore reduce the risk of blackouts. Furthermore, they can delay the need to build new power stations.
Willis Eschenbach,
I generally support your assertion that our understanding of climate change is not very good. There are a lot of factors that we don’t yet readily understand. That is not to say that we should ignore what we do know.
With regards to the frogs and the Red List that you reference. The Red List only includes extinction determinations made in 2004 or earlier. So it is not as up to date as a study in nature magazine might be. So whilst it makes some sence to question the basis of the study in nature it is possible that both are correct.
If you read through some of the details for the Atelopus frogs in the red list then even amoung the ones that have not yet be classed as extinct there are some that have not be observed anywhere for more than a decade.
Regards,
Terje.
P.S. The red list shows three extinctions for Atelopus frogs out of a list of 77. Of the three extinctions listed the causes cited include chytridiomycosis (amphibian chytrid fungus disease), climatic change and habitat destruction.
It has all been quite entertaining. It seems to me Willis Eschenbach stands triumphant, with none of his challenges answered, and it also amazes me that Tim Lambert and JQ are willing to support the hockey stick despite its proponents’ avoidance of mainstream econometrics. Their reliance on “peer review” is a furphy. Those who can do, those who can’t …. edit journals, and send submitted articles to the friends they can count on to support their own prejudices one way or the other. More than that the whole CO2 thing is as likely to explain current stellar economic growth around the globe as to result from that growth (both may well be true) – but at 0.5% p.a. the current net growth of atmospheric CO2 is well below the growth rates of both GDP and emissions of CO2. The idea that a gas comprising only 375 ppm of the atmosphere in 2005 would be able to block outward radiation from earth is absurd – the decline in the non-CO2 components of the atmosphere from 999,720 ppm in 1750 to 999,625 ppm today, at an annual compound rate of decline of minus 0.000042% pa may terrify JQ and TL & co but leaves me sleeping easily. When I had a real greenhouse in York England it was one million ppm glass, and anything less than that would have been useless. Of course if CO2 were noxious, like say cyanide, increases of 0.5% pa might be worrying, but CO2 at present concentrations is beneficial and may well largely explain the burgeoning agricultural yields around the globe. Economists like chemists tend to work only linearly, but CO2 (like radiation and DDT) is non-linear, that is, its concentrations are subject to hormesis, i.e. a large range where they are beneficial before they become remotely harmful. But IF JQ et al are right about CO2 being linearly bad for us, then why are they so fiercely against nuclear energy? Of course one understands why the ALP is opposed, partly dependent as it is on unionised coal mining workers, but objectively nuclear is the only meaningful and economically viable zero CO2 alternative to coal’s output of CO2. JQ’s claim that it is not competitive without huge subsidies is spurious, and even Tony Blair and David King now accept that their declared aim of cutting emissions by 60% is unattainable without nuclear.
Tim
“But IF JQ et al are right about CO2 being linearly bad for us, then why are they so fiercely against nuclear energy?”
Can you point to an instance of this “fierce” opposition Tim? I’ve expressed the judgement that it’s uncompetitive at current prices, and that’s backed up by market outcomes, most obviously in the US. But if someone can build a cost-competitive nuclear power plant meeting modern safety standards, I’ve got no problem with that. If they can make fusion cost-effective, better still.
You might as well say that I’m “fiercely anti-HDTV” or “fiercely anti-ethanol” because I think they are duds on the market and I don’ want to be forced to pay for them.
Steve, thanks as always for your posting. You say:
Funny, that. When a new paper comes out that supports the AGW hypothesis, you guys are immediately all over it. Then this methane paper comes out, and suddenly its “wait until its confirmed” … heck, if you’d taken that point of view with the Mann hockeystick paper, we still wouldn’t be talking about it, ’cause it has never been confirmed. Instead, AGW supporters made it the centerpiece of the TAR, before it had even been examined, much less confirmed …
As near as anyone can tell, plants, in general, are neither a sink nor a source of carbon. When forests are cut down, they are a source, and when they grow back they are a sink. However, generally they are approximately in overall mass balance, and thus are neither a source or a sink.
Because they are carbon neutral, when we include the methane production it is very likely that plants overall have a net warming effect.
I do not expect pin point accuracy from the GCMs. I do, however, expect their output to be lifelike (similar to observations), which in general their output is not.
What is simply untrue is that I ever made that claim. I did not.
I said Kyoto was too expensive, but it is your (unfortunately too common) fantasy that I said cutting GHG emissions was too expensive. Once again, a plea — read what I wrote, and respond to that, not to your fantasy of what I said, or your memory of what someone else wrote.
You are 100% correct, conservation is both effective and necessary. It is also far and away the most cost effective response to stretching our energy. This both saves scarce resources, and reduces pollution. (I’m not talking about reducing CO2, although that occurs as well, I’m talking about reducing pollution.) So I agree with you regarding conservation, it is the path we need to take.
Steve, not sure which Federal Government you’re referring to (Australian?), but governments doing foolish things rarely surprise me. Having said that, rebates are not always the best tool to use to encourage change. This is because, almost by definition, they are put in place to encourage actions which are not economically viable.
Seems to me that a better response is to encourage actions which make economic sense, like low flush toilets or replacing incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent bulbs.
Thanks for writing,
w.
Terje, good to hear from you. You say:
You are right that the Red List goes up to 2004, and the study was done in 2005. While this means the Red List is not quite as up to date as the study, the study claims 77 extinctions and the Red List says 3. I don’t think the one year difference is the reason, and the large difference between 3 and 77 suggests that both cannot be correct as you suggest.
I have also read through the details of each and every one of the Atelopus frogs. While some have not been seen for a decade, in many of these cases, no one has visited their (often remote) habitat since then, so of course they haven’t been seen for a decade. Also, many of the frogs which the study says are extinct have not even suffered a population decline. They are listed as extinct because they are projected to decline.
This, of course, means that the conclusions of the study are … well … at least let me say that it casts considerable doubt on the conclusions. Steve (above) says that we should wait to see if the methane study is confirmed before relying on it. However, the AGW supporters certainly haven’t waited before jumping on the frog study bandwagon, which has many more problems than the methane study.
Finally, the articles described the frogs as living in “pristine” habitats, and the study says that they picked the frogs to study because the threat from the fungus was much larger than other threats. This is not true. The Red List shows the number of Atelopus species affected by various threats as being:
90% – fungus
79% – habitat loss/degradation (human induced)
40% – water pollution
21% – land pollution
18% – introduced predators
5% – hunting/gathering
5% – floods
5% – restricted range
The study did not control for any of these other factors. Since 40% of the frogs are subject to water pollution and 80% to habitat loss/degradation, this also calls their results into question.
w.
I love this thread because I’ve learned so many words from it. From Steve, I’ve learned “spruiking” and RWDB, and now Tim Curtin brings up “furphy” … what the heck is a “furphy” when it’s at home?
Off to Google … OK, Google sez “wild rumour; tall story; false report.”
Thanks to everyone, not just for the vocabulary lesson, but for the discussion. I know it has gotten hot at times, but overall it has been entertaining, interesting, and thought-provoking.
All the best,
w.
John, thanks for your contribution. You say:
This strikes me as an extremely reasonable position to take, which is not to support “solutions” unless they are cost-effective.
However, in the US at least, a main reason that the nuclear plants are generally not cost-effective is the cost of regulation. It takes years and years of meetings, discussions, reports, and regulatory approvals before a company can even start building a nuclear plant. This adds a giant cost to the plant, one which generally makes nuclear plants uneconomical to build even if they are economical to run.
Given that, though, I’m with you all the way regarding the need for any solutions to be economical. I worked for years doing development work in third world villages. During that time I came up with what I call “Willis’s Rule of Development”, which simply states:
“If it doesn’t pay, it doesn’t stay.”
This means that no matter how beneficial a projected course of action may be for the environment or for the village, unless someone can make money doing it, it will not last much beyond the original grant to put the project into place.
The same is true of “solutions” like ethanol. If it requires a government subsidy to make it work, it won’t stay, and thus it is likely not a long-term viable solution to the problem.
In passing, John, many thanks for having the blog, and for letting it basically run free and be self-governing. Much appreciated,
w.
Willis Eschenbach says: “Having said that, rebates are not always the best tool to use to encourage change. This is because, almost by definition, they are put in place to encourage actions which are not economically viable. ”
This is untrue. Consumers and corporations are not entirely rational. There is a common tendency to take the option that has the lowest initial cost even though the more expensive initial cost option is cheaper in the long run. A good example of this is light bulbs. Incandescent bulbs are cheaper to buy than fluorescent bulbs but end up costing more as they use more electricity. Yet incandescent bulbs still outsell fluorescent bulbs. Rebates are good public policy in situations such as this.
Actually, everyone would be better off if incandescent bulbs were simply banned.
You also say: “I said Kyoto was too expensive, but it is your (unfortunately too common) fantasy that I said cutting GHG emissions was too expensive. ”
Since the object of Kyoto is cutting GHG emissions I’m unsure what you mean by this statement. Are you able to explain?
And again : “Funny, that. When a new paper comes out that supports the AGW hypothesis, you guys are immediately all over it. Then this methane paper comes out, and suddenly its “wait until its confirmedâ€? ”
I have not jumped on the latest paper at any stage in this debate. Your accusation is therefore false. Indeed, it was only two or three years ago that I finally became convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that AGW is a critical issue.
I note this earlier comment from you: “It’s particularly not science because as with most plants and animals, elevated temperatures generally increase rather than decrease coral growth rates … “
I’m not sure this statement is true. Doesn’t different biota have a “thermal comfort zone” outside of which it suffers? You are also ignoring the nuances of complex ecosystems. I’ll give a couple of examples cited in Tim Flannery’s newly published book “The Weather Makers”:
(1) Subantarctic plankton grows almost entirely at the edge of floating ice and it forms the basis of the antarctic food chain. Krill feed on the plankton and whales, seals and penguins and other marine birds feed on the krill. Dr Atkinson of the British Antartctic Survey has discovered by examining krill catch records that krill have decreased by about 50% between 1926 and 2003. The most probable cause is a 20% reduction in sea ice as outlined in Wolff, E. 2003. “Whither Antarctic Ice?” Science 303, p.35.
(2) Alaska has warmed by 2 or 3 degrees Celsius over the past 30 years. The warming has provided ideal conditions for plagues of the spruce bark beetle, which has killed about 40 million trees in Southern Alaska over the past 15 years. Whitfield J. Alaska’s Climate: Too Hot To Handle. Nature News Service 2/10/03 at http://www.clivar.org/recent/nat_alaska_climate.htm
(3) Peary’s Caribou, which is found in Greenland and some Artic Islands, has declined in numbers from 26,000 to 1,000 since 1961. The decline has been associated with warming changing rain and snowfall patterns and hence the accessibility of lichen, which is a dietary staple for Caribou.
For details on (2) and (3) see Hassol, S. 2004. Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. CUP, Cambridge. The study also notes declines in polar bears, harp seals and collared lemmings associated with global warming.
Willis’s claims about coral reefs and climate change are also hopelessly misguided. I will address these in a later post.
p.s. I’m in Melbourne, Australia.
“It has all been quite entertaining. It seems to me Willis Eschenbach stands triumphant, with none of his challenges answered,”
No that is not the case. The arguments that Willis uses have been thoroughly debunked again and again on hundreds of different blogs however it makes no difference hence the silence. Most of us a prefer now not to play to the wedge tactics that the skeptics use and ignore the taunts and false challenges.
Willis Eschenbach says: “… I am mystified that anyone still believes that warming will lead to increased storms. The IPCC specifically disowns this specious claim, and good records over the past century (a time of warming) show no increase in storms despite the warming. Go find another claim, that one is dead and buried. “
What Willis fails to mention is that it is still unclear as to whether global warming exacerbates storm intensity. RealClimate.org says the following:
“A recent study in Nature by Emanuel (2005) examined, for the first time, a statistical measure of the power dissipation associated with past hurricane activity (i.e., the “Power Dissipation Index” or “PDI”–Fig. 2). Emanuel found a close correlation between increases in this measure of hurricane activity (which is likely a better measure of the destructive potential of the storms than previously used measures) and rising tropical North Atlantic SST, consistent with basic theoretical expectations. As tropical SSTs have increased in past decades, so has the intrinsic destructive potential of hurricanes. “ (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181)
I note some researchers and in particular those who are AGW skeptics, like Pat Michaels, have sought to discredit the Emanual study. Personally, I think it is far too early to jump to a conclusion one way or the other.
Are these irrational people the same breed of humans that get to vote and get jobs writing regulations for the light bulb industry?
Willis, I have been here most of the way. I just have not had so much to say on this topic. I have enjoyed reading all your contributions. You are certainly well read.
I take it then that the Red List is a reliable source?
Why does that not surprise me.
I am not sure where you got these percentage figures. Did you compile this list from reading all 77 frog descriptions or is there some specific reference?
The list does not include climate change. However for “Atelopus ignescens” the red list says:-
On a personal note. What motivated you to study so much of this stuff? Does it relate to your line of work or was it just one of those hobbies that took over.
Terje, thanks very much for your comments. The Red List is more than a reliable source, it is the reliable source for extinctions and threats.
I got the percentage figures for the particular kind of threats from the Red List. What you can do is ask for all of the Atelopus with particular threats, from the “Major Threat Type” section of the expert search. We know that there are 77 Atelopus frogs listed in the Red List, so however many come up for a particular threat, divide that by 77 to get the percentages.
To get the list for each threat, put “Atelopus” in the “Text Search” section of the “Expert Search” section of the Red List (http://www.redlist.org/search/search-expert.php), and then select the kind of threat you want to search for in the “Major Threat Type” section of the search page.
I have studied these questions because I am an environmentalist, I am passionate about the environment, and I see the environmental movement taking a foolish turn in supporting questionable climate science. I am fortunate in that I am only working half time these days, so I am able to spend time researching the various claims of the various groups.
Regarding your personal note, regarding climate change, I am an agnostic. That is to say, I do not think we have enough information yet to make many clear statements about the climate. I am also a computer programmer. I wrote my first computer program in 1963, likely before most of the people on this list were born, and I am very aware of both the strengths and particularly the weaknesses of computer models.
I have researched the models, and I find that they are not “lifelike”. That is to say, the results of the models do not stand, move, or turn like the observational data. By “stand, move, and turn”, I am referring to the data (how it stands), the first derivative of the data (how fast it moves) and the second derivative of the data (how fast it turns from increasing to decreasing). In general, the models predict much wider swings, and much warmer swings, than the actual observations.
As I have mentioned before, our understanding of the climate system is poor, way too poor to forecast what will happen in 100 years … hey, we can’t predict next year, we can’t predict next month for that matter, why you folks think a hundred year prediction is possible absolutely astounds me …
In any case, Terje, these kinds of discussions are extremely valuable, as they bring all of us into the decision making process. Please, don’t think that “peer review” means anything. Take a look at the current Korean stem cell scandal, where Science magazine has had to disown a number of peer reviewed studies.
My advice? Look it up yourself, just as I have done on the Red List. The fact that the frog study was published in Nature magazine means NOTHING, it means no more than the fraudulent stem cell study being published in Science magazine meant. Do your own research and decide for yourself, because the “peer review” process is worthless these days, as the Korean stem cell debacle has clearly shown.
My very best to everyone,
w.
Steve, thanks for hanging in there despite being shown wrong at every turn. You say:
Steve, there have been a variety of studies of the strength of extra-tropical storms. These have shown no increase in strength, despite an increase in the global temperature.
You cite the Emanuel study, which measures the power of Atlantic hurricanes. Unfortunately, we don’t have good historical records of hurricanes. I agree with you that because of this, it is too early to say either way. However, studies of extra-tropical storms, which we do have good historical records for, show no sign of increasing strength. In fact, there have been no signs of any increase of extreme weather events of any type.
My best to you,
w.
Willis says: “In fact, there have been no signs of any increase of extreme weather events of any type.”
I dispute this claim, although I will wait for your reply to my other 21 January 2005 post before I take on this topic.
In spite of everything, I am glad to hear you consider yourself an environmentalist. I must admit I am intensely passionate about Australia’s flora and fauna in particular and have spent plenty of time, energy and money doing my best to save what is left of it. Cheers.
Ender, thank you for your view on this discussion. You say:
The silence is not because my arguments have been “debunked”, Ender. If they had, people would have answered my questions. The silence is because you don’t have anything to counter my arguments. Let me go over them again, so you are clear that they have not been “debunked”.
1) I said that Michael Mann has not revealed his methods and data. I invited people who believed differently to answer the question:
What is the what is the cross-validation R2 statistic for the 15th century MBH98 reconstruction?
Neither you, nor anyone else, has answered the question.
2) No one has challenged my facts about bristlecone pines not being a temperature proxy.
3) No one has said Mann actually used the right centering technique in the MBH98 study.
4) I pointed out that cold was harder on people than heat. In support of this, I cited data that shows that every winter, 40,000 extra people die in the UK, which is more than the 200 heat wave killed in all of Europe. No one has disputed this fact.
5) I stated that the thermodynamic calculation shows that a forcing of 3.7 watts from doubling of CO2 gives a warming of 0.68 degrees, per Stefan-Bolzmann. No one has argued with that.
6) I stated that, as Charles Darwin showed, coral atolls “float” on the surface of the ocean. I noted that Tuvalu had survived the massive sea level increase at the end of the last ice age. I gave citations for coral growth, along with my own experience. No one has disputed any of that.
7) I gave a reference to show that coral growth has not decreased despite increased CO2 concentration, and I showed why an aquarium can’t replace actual observations, because of the extreme pressures involved in the lysocline. No one has even commented on that.
8) People have cited computer models as “evidence”. I have shown why they are not evidence, with an example from high energy physics. No one has disputed that.
9) People asked for evidence that the Roman Warm Period was worldwide. I showed evidence that the RWP existed in Asia, North America, South America Africa, Europe, and Antarctica.
10) I was 100% wrong about Chris’s approximation of the fourth power relationship (which for small increments equals ~ 1/4), because he did not indicate that it was an approximation rather than an exact calculation.
11) I have said that there is no consensus among climate scientists that AGW is happening, and I have cited a study to prove it. Other than noting that the study took place a few years ago, no one has disputed it.
12) I have said that trees are very poor indicators of temperature, because both hot temperatures and cold temperatures produce narrow tree rings. I didn’t get any comments on this one at all.
13) I said that the IPCC mis-information on malaria was given by people who did not know much about malaria at all, not by the “world’s top scientists�. No one disagreed.
14) I have said that the experts say that the limit on the spread of malaria is not temperature, it is social and political factors. While there were claims that this was not true, there were no citations that it was not true.
15) I said that the Kyoto Protocol would cost billions of dollars. This was roundly disputed, until I pointed out that billions of dollars had already been spent by Canada alone, and because of that, Canada was thinking about pulling out of Kyoto. Things got real quite re: Kyoto costs at that point …
16) I said that Kyoto would not make any measureable difference in the world’s temperature. No one disputed that at all.
Ender, your claim that these statements of fact have been “thoroughly debunked” is a load of crap. Your unwillingness to debunk them proves it. Your attempt to claim that the reason you have not answered my questions is that you want to “ignore the taunts and false challenges” is ridiculous.
Fortunately, other people see the truth, which is that if you had real answers to my statements, you would have come up with them. The fact that you have not done so speaks volumes about the weakness of your position.
The real weakness, however, is revealed by your basic claim. This claim is “I don’t have to disprove these statements of fact, they’ve been disproven elsewhere.”
Oh, really?
Where?
Neither you, nor anyone, has “debunked” my statements here, and they have not been debunked elsewhere.
w.
Steve, as always, when you’re not abusing me, you have interesting questions and points. You say:
Since fluorescent bulbs are in fact economically viable, this does not disagree with my statement that the best things to support (with rebates or in any manner) are those that are economically viable. If you propose supporting them with rebates, that’s fine by me. My point was that rebates are usually used for things that are not economically viable, which I think is a mistake.
Glad to. There are many ways to cut GHG emissions. Kyoto is too expensive, which is what I said. However, conservation, another way to cut GHG emissions, is not too expensive.
I was referring to the mad rush to embrace the frog paper, which has hit the headlines bigtime. I was also referring to the Mann paper, which was accepted without question because it fit the IPCC’s storyline. My apologies, i did not mean you personally, which is why I said “you guys”.
Yes, and my point was, within that thermal comfort zone, in general the warmer the temperature, the faster the growth. This is because of basic chemistry, which shows that chemical reactions proceed faster at higher temperatures.
I’d have to read that study to comment. Since there is still Antarctic sea ice, why would a 20% decrease in ice lead to a 50% decrease in krill? Something’s missing here …
I don’t understand this one. As temperatures increase, so does the beetle. Your point is? ….
The ACIA contains more misinformation than information, quoting that study doesn’t impress me at all. Polar bear populations have actually been increasing.
Peary’s caribou have suffered a sharp decline, which seems to be due to three particularly harsh winters, which left them unable to find food.
The ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) sets limits on the numbers of harp seals that can be hunted. They have not indicated any decline in the harp seal population. See, for example:
Like I said, the ACIA contains lots of misinformation, don’t trust it, it will bite you.
Overall, though, I’m mystified about what your point is here. It seems that all of this krill and beetles and caribou is aimed to disprove my claim that increased temperatures increase coral growth rates.
Do you really think that claim is not true? If so, why bring in harp seals and polar bears? Why not just cite a study that shows that coral grows slower in warmer water?
Oh, right … you can’t find a study that shows that … actually, I can cite a number of studies that show that coral growth increases with temperature, so I’d be very careful about your claims regarding coral and temperature. Krill, maybe. Coral? No way. It grows faster when it’s warmer.
I await your comments. I love the “hopelessly misguided” part, though … dang, if I’m gonna be wrong, I don’t want to be plain vanilla wrong. I want to be hopelessly misguided …
Finally, Steve, you may have forgotten that you called me a liar, but I have not. I’d still like either an apology, or a statement of where you think I lied. It’s a matter of common decency, either to back up your claim, or to apologize.
w.