There’s no longer any serious debate among climate scientists about either the reality of global warming or about the fact that its substantially caused by human activity, but, as 500+ comments on my previous post on this topic show, neither the judgement of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, nor the evidence that led them to that judgement, has had much effect on the denialists[1].
And the Australian media are doing a terrible job in covering the issue. I’ve seen at least half a dozen pieces this year claiming that the whole issue is a fraud cooked up by left-wing greenies, and January isn’t over yet.
The latest is from Peter Walsh in the Oz. Walsh is still banging on about the satellite data, and the Medieval Warm Period, suggesting that his reading, if any, in the last few years has been confined to publications emanating from the right-wing parallel universe. But that hasn’t stopped the Australian from running him, and a string of others.
If an issue like genetically modified food, or the dangers of mobile phones was treated in this way, with alarmist cranks being given hectares of column space, most of those who sympathise with Walsh would be outraged and rightly so.
Walsh does make one valid point however, saying. “If your case is immaculate, why feed lies into it?” To which, I can only respond, “If the cap fits …”
fn1. At this point, the term “sceptic” is no longer remotely applicable. Only dogmatic commitment to a long-held position (or an ideological or financial motive for distorting the evidence) can explain continued rejection of the evidence.
John Quiggin 
Tim, I pointed out before (and took a lot of stick for it) that cold is much harder on humans than heat. When someone pointed out the European heat wave had killed thousands, I cited the fact that in Britain alone, some 40,000 extra deaths occur in winter each year compared to the rest of the seasons … after that, the claims that hot was worse than cold dropped off precipitously. So I agree totally, we’ve warmed, and the sky has not fallen.
Finally, Ken, I’m still waiting for the rest of the evidence you have claimed to have in hand, as I wrote above:
Since you have obviously identified this “lots of evidence”, Ken, it should be the work of a few moments to let us know about it. Why the delay? I’m starting to suspect that perhaps you just made up the claim about having “lots of evidence”, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
And JQ, your failure to provide any evidence to back up your nasty, unwarranted attack on me and other people who don’t toe the AGW line has gone past pathetic, and is rapidly becoming hilarious … when are you going to provide a list of the evidence you are accusing me of denying?
w.
psdoidge – “The physics may be great, but the predictions less reliable. psdoidge cites temps up by 3.6C if CO2 doubles (from 1956 level). Here in Canberra our ave min in Jan 06 was up by 2.2C on 2005 and our ave max by 1.6C. But the sky has not fallen, we had record rainfall, and the garden looks great.”
Yes but a couple of years ago you had record low rainfall and devastating bushfires. If we have the climate sensitivity right and AVERAGE temperatures increase by the amount predicted it is not a case of your temperatures going up by that much. Like in school when the class average mark goes up 10 marks does not mean that the whole class got exactly 10 marks more, the actual local temperature rise will depend on your location, wind patterns etc. Some locations could increase much more than the average and some less.
The most worrying thing is tipping points. There are some systems that are very sensitive to temperature and we just do not know how they all work. Small changes in temperature may lead to large changes in climate due to postive feedbacks reinforcing the changes.
Again no-one really knows what will happen. This is a article you could read:
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33652/story.htm
or
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012801021.html
So after 450+ posts on the second thread devoted to this topic, we have sceptics who think it’ll get cooler, firebrands who think it’ll get warmer, those who think nothing will happen, those who think everything will happen. We have physics that will prove it will get warmer, we have physics that will prove it will get cooler, we have physics that will prove nothing will happen.
So: we know absolutely nothing about something that is vitally important. Whether you believe in AGW or not, maybe we can all agree that until we get our facts straight we should alter the climate as little as possible by reducing emissions?
Tim: “Many thanks for enlightenment. Now can we hear what’s wrong with more CO2, less infrared radiation to space, and so higher temperatures. The physics may be great, but the predictions less reliable. psdoidge cites temps up by 3.6C if CO2 doubles (from 1956 level). Here in Canberra our ave min in Jan 06 was up by 2.2C on 2005 and our ave max by 1.6C. But the sky has not fallen, we had record rainfall, and the garden looks great.”
Tim, you made yourself look foolish on Tim lambert’s blog by claiming that the DDT “ban” was killing Australians.
You’ve made yourself look foolish again here by trying to overturn a basic, well-documented and noncontroversial physical fact (the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide) accepted by scientists on both sides of this debate.
Can I suggest a more measured approach to comments in future?
Willis says: “When someone pointed out the European heat wave had killed thousands, I cited the fact that in Britain alone, some 40,000 extra deaths occur in winter each year compared to the rest of the seasons … after that, the claims that hot was worse than cold dropped off precipitously. So I agree totally, we’ve warmed, and the sky has not fallen.”
One would expect that more people would die as a result cold weather rather than hot weather in Britain by virtue of the fact that Britain rarely gets hot. How many 35 or 40 or 45 degrees celsius days do you have in Britain?
Morbidity factors associated with heat waves include dehydration, heat exhaustion, bushfires, pollutants resulting from bushfires causing respratory illness and water pollution and increased risk of spoilt food resulting in food poisoning.
Prolonged warming could disrupt local agriculture, threaten water supplies and affect the risk of various diseases. Sea level rise is also a massive concern. 100 million Bangladeshis alone would be displaced by a sea level rise of only 50 centimetres.
Sub-Saharan Africa appears to have a long term decline and this may be due to warming.
Western Australia has had several decades of 20-25% below average rainfall which has been associated with warmer weather and diminished antarctic ozone.
Maybe Willis might like to consider perusing the British publication “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change” as it outlines many of the concerns associated with global warming.
As several hundred scientists were involved in the publication I don’t think even Willis can simply dismiss them all as Michael Mann’s mates. But then again, based on past performance …..
Tim Curtin says: “Here in Canberra our ave min in Jan 06 was up by 2.2C on 2005 and our ave max by 1.6C. But the sky has not fallen, we had record rainfall, and the garden looks great.”
I’m glad to hear that Tim. However, as you well know, the story in much of the rest of the country isn’t so good. Both Melbourne and Sydney are in a prolonged period of below average rainfall. If the trend continues for a few more years both will face critical water shortages.
I’m originally from Horsham in Western Victoria. Once we had half a dozen lakes within a 20 minute drive of town. Only one is now left and it may not last much longer either. Such a situation is unprecedented during the period of white settlement.
John Quiggin has declared the debate about anthroprogenic global warming (AGW) finished. So evidence is no longer required.
Willis (and Terje) I pointed to the evidence about 300 comments ago. It is as I mentioned, conveniently summarised by the IPCC, but you can also read the thousand or so papers summarised in the literature survey by Oreskes.
I gave up responding to Willis when it became apparent that he was still trying to claim that the satellite data supported the anti-AGW case. As I mentioned in the original post, even sceptics have abandoned this line if they want to retain any credibility.
re Ian Gould
I confess – and apologise – that I was wrong about malaria being still present in north east Australia although it appears DDT deserves the credit for the eradication of the anopheles mosquito there. It seems a pity Australia did not achieve the same in PNG by 1975. Ross River and dengue fever remain endemic in Australia – do we need that kind of mozzie bio-diversity?
Meantime I await responses to Karlen on Arctic temperatures and my posting on the beneficial agricultural effects of elevated CO2. The climatic effects of the physics remain amibiguous at best.
I also await more recruits from the AGW school to adoption of nuclear power in Australia (and resumptions in USA and UK); if CO2 is the villain, then only the nuclear option is meaningful.
Tim
I disagree. If we need to stop CO2 production then on the face of it nuclear is the cheapest alternative however there are many other options that are viable.
I think the work of the Rocky Mountains Institute demolishes the argument that we need to go nuclear to solve AGW.
The Rocky Mountains Institute (RMI) also have the evidence and case studies to demonstrate that the claim remedying AGW will cost us “billions and billions of dollars” (to quote Willis) is sheer nonsense.
RMI have a great track record and deserve to more widely known.
see http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid305.php
Tim Curtin appears to be a deliberate shit-stirrer, to use a good ol’ Aussie expression.
Are you suggesting that it will cost less than 2 billion?
If we closed down all our coal fired power stations and build nuclear power stations to replace them it would cost us billions and billions of dollars. And thats just for Australia. How is that nonsense? Even if we just build one nuclear power station in each developed nation it would be billions.
A more useful point to make would be that the energy business globally is a trillion dollar game. Billions and billions may actually be pretty cheap.
Terje, it will cost billions but the cost will be manageable. We can afford to make the necessary changes.
RMI give hundreds of examples of how conservation measures can actually save money. Here is one example http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid1136.php
I have an RMI book called “Natural Capitalism” that contains hundreds of similar examples.
Steve,
Good energy design for buildings is to be encouraged. However I doubt it would make any sence to replace our current stock of housing.
Regards,
Terje.
Willis,
I’m on holiday right now, so I’ve got much better things to do than to become your research assistant – besides, I’m sick of playing stupid games with you, it’s about as interesting as debating with creationists. You asked for a single piece of evidence, I provided it (and alluded to it considerabler earlier). Your writtings on corel have convinced me that you have no interest in an honest debate, but would much rather score cheap points. If you can’t reread this and the other thread with even a remote sense of objectivity, that’s your problem not mine.
Actually can we just deal with it as it comes? Otherwise this discussion will never happen. Willis please talk to the issue of CO2 absorption of IR spectra.
Question for Hans,
“I personally am convinced that a doubling of CO2 will cause a rise of only 1 degree celcius, however the IPCC thinks its between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees.”
I’m curious about your reasons for picking such a low value for climate sensitivity, given the range accepted by the IPCC (remembering of course that the IPCC range is a summary of what is presented in the literature). Care to elaborate on your reasons?
Cheers,
“Terje, it will cost billions but the cost will be manageable. We can afford to make the necessary changes.’
But Steve? How are these changes you propose helpful or even necessary. They aren’t.
Hopefully you can make a sensible reply this time. Instead of writing a liberick.
The contiguos states of the US had their warmest January ever – and by quite a margin too, 5 degrees centergrade above average.
This in itself does not prove global warming. I mention it merely to counter the references (eg Avaroo on Jan 26th) about the freezing cold hitting much of Asia at the same time.
Whether warming or cooling there will be extreme events, but the important thing is to focus on the averages over a reasonable period rather than a few weeks for one (admittedly very large) region. Annual global averages have been well in line with the predictions of climaologists, and completely out of step with Bob Foster and other contrarians’ expectations.
JQ, thank you for responding. You say:
John, I posted evidence that showed that:
1) All of the surface global average data disagrees with each other.
2) All of them show more warming than the MSU satellite data.
In fact, the GHCN surface data is significantly higher than the MSU, RSS, and balloon data.
You never responded to that. Now you say that I am “trying to claim” that satellite data supports the anti-AGW case. I’m not “trying to claim” that, I have posted evidence to show that.
If you wish to dispute that difference between satellite and ground data, just saying it’s wrong is pathetically inadequate. If you think satellite and ground temperature trends agree, bring on the data, show the evidence, reference the study, give the citation. Your word, I fear, is as useles as mine in establishing the facts. Do what I do, provide some evidence. I’ve done it. I’m still waiting for you to do it.
The IPCC TAR, which you are fond of quoting, says “Discrepancies between MSU and radiosonde data have largely been resolved, although the observed trend in the difference between the surface and lower tropospheric temperatures cannot fully be accounted for.” The recent small (0.035°C/decade) upward revision of the MSU data does not change that, as the differences are still quite large. The MSU and the balloon (radiosonde) data agrees. The surface record disagrees with both, by a large amount. How does that large difference support the AGW case?
Finally, the RSS and MSU satellite data are virtually identical for the period 1979-1992 … and during that period, both of them show much less warming than the ground data. How does that support AGW?
Oreskes, of course, presented no evidence for AGW at all, she only claimed to survey the literature. She claimed that she surveyed a thousand papers, and didn’t find a single one that was skeptical of AGW … right. John, if you believe that, you’ll believe anything. I can provide you a list of a number of papers that Oreskes seems to have miraculously “missed” …
Regarding the TAR, the IPCC reviews a variety of information about the climate. However, they have fallen into the “models can provide evidence” trap. Section E of the Technical Summary of the Working Group 1, entitled “E. The Identification of a Human Influence on Climate Change” purports to deal with the evidence for AGW which we are discussing.
Unfortunately, it does not do so — it deals solely with the results of computer models. As we have discussed, computer model results (since obviously, they could either be correct or incorrect) are not evidence. For example, look at the model results in Fig 14 of that section (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/025.htm)
One computer model of a thousand year run shows temperatures staying the same. A second model shows temperatures dropping. A third shows temperatures rising. To me, this means that the computer models are unreliable, since all three show different things. The IPCC’s conclusion from these models is that, since none of the models show a change the size of the 1980-2000 rise, that humans are warming the planet … not very convincing, I fear. We are given no tests of the model results, no evidence that they are in any way similar to the real world. We have no evidence that they are correct, no data to show that they accurately reflect the real climate. Why do you believe these untested models?
In fact, the model results in Figure 14, in addition to not showing any temperature rise comparable to the 1980-2000 rise, also show nothing comparable to the 1910-1930 rise. As this 1910-1930 rise is well before the big increase in CO2, it must be at least mostly natural. So the computer results do not show the natural variation … this is not evidence, John, this is just very primitive models.
I just re-read the entire Section E, and I find nothing but computer model results, no evidence at all. So if you think there is evidence in the IPCC report, please point it out. I’ve read and re-read the TAR, and have found none. You say it’s there, so you must know where it is … but where is it? I’ve looked hard, and I can’t find it.
John, I fear this “look at the IPCC report” and “Look at the literature” is all handwaving. If you know of evidence, break it out. It is a sick joke to say “Search through a thousand papers, I’m pretty dang sure there’s some evidence in there somewhere, by gosh.” That’s a cop-out. You’ve made a clear, bold claim. You’ve said there is evidence, not “I’m pretty sure that somewhere in the studies there’s some evidence, I think.”
Since you are so sure it exists, you must have some clue as to where it is, but …
Where is the evidence?
w.
Willis – “You never responded to that. Now you say that I am “trying to claimâ€? that satellite data supports the anti-AGW case. I’m not “trying to claimâ€? that, I have posted evidence to show that.”
Why does the smaller rise from upper atmosphere satellite data support the anti-AGW case? No-one expects them to be exactly the same as they are measuring differnent quantities as is explained in this older paper:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/jclim96/jclim96.html
“We have shown that very important sources of differences between the MSU 2R and surface temperature records are the physical differences between the quantities being measured that arise from the relative importance of advection versus surface interactions and the effects of continentality (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5). At the surface, the variability of temperatures over land is much greater than that over the oceans (Fig. 4), which reflects the very different heat capacities of the underlying surface and the depth of the layer linked to the surface. Consequently, temperature changes tend to be amplified over the continents in response to changes in circulation. Hemispheric or global averages of mean surface air temperature are, therefore, largely determined by the temperature of the continents (Fig. 4 and Fig. 7). The standard deviation of the monthly MSU 2R anomalies has a much more zonally symmetric structure (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5) so that relative to the surface there is a much larger contribution from the northern oceans and a generally smaller contribution over land and near the equator to the hemispheric and global means. Changes in circulation over the past two decades have resulted in a surface temperature anomaly pattern of warmth over the continents and coolness over the oceans (Wallace et al. 1995, Hurrell 1996). This pattern of temperature change helps account for the discrepancy between trends in MSU 2R and surface air temperatures. The surface record is dominated by the continental warming, whereas the cooling over the oceans contributes much more to the MSU record.”
Tim Curtin: I also await more recruits from the AGW school to adoption of nuclear power in Australia (and resumptions in USA and UK); if CO2 is the villain, then only the nuclear option is meaningful.
There’s a basic concept in economics known as comparative advantage.
Australia has a comparitive advantage in the production of low-cost coal-fired power.
Conversely, countries such as India and China have a comparative advantage in generating emission reduction credits (by, for example, replacing inefficient small-scale power-plants.)
Given the higher cost of nuclear electricity in Australia. It makes more sense for Australia to continue to use coa,-fired elcticity and purchase emission reductions.
Ian Gould said:
There’s a basic concept in economics known as comparative advantage. I say: fancy that!
Ian said: Australia has a comparitive advantage in the production of low-cost coal-fired power.
I say: it has even more such advantage in nuclear energy with its vast uranium desposits and ample space for safe waste storage
Ian said: Conversely, countries such as India and China have a comparative advantage in generating emission reduction credits (by, for example, replacing inefficient small-scale power-plants.)
Given the higher cost of nuclear electricity in Australia. It makes more sense for Australia to continue to use coa,-fired elcticity and purchase emission reductions.
I say: “purchasing emission reductions” will raise the cost of power here; using nuclear will not.
Tim
Tim, I linked previously to a report from the Australian national electricity regulator showing that price of electricity to both domestic and industrial users is dramatically lower in Australia than in countries such as France and Japan which get a large proportion of their power from nuclear energy.
Fuel costs are a relatively low proportion of the total cost of generating nuclear electricity and fuel transport costs (a key reason why generating power in Australia costs less than generating power from that same coal in, for example, Japan) are an even lower proportion.
Australian coal-fired electricity is almost the cheapest power on the planet – rivalled only by some large hydro plants.
The International Energy Agency has data on nuclear electricity generation costs here: http://www.iea.org/textbase/nptable/Levelised%20costs%20of%20nuclear%20generated%20electricity.pdf
The lowest generation cost for nuclear anywhere in the world is just over US$30 per megawatt hour – equivalent to ca. A $40 per kilowatt hour.
Australian pool prices are provided here – http://www.nemmco.com.au/data/avg_price/averageprice_main.shtm
I believe these include distribution costs and the generator’s profit margin.
Average annual costs for 2005-6 (excluding Tasmania) vary between A$31-45 per megawatt hour.
(These average pool costs are higher than the cost of baseload coal since the pool also covers peakign power and power from gas and renewables.)
Australian generation costs seem to be treated as commerically sensitive – if anyone can provide this information it would be appreciated.
I don’t think the discussion will make 600 this time round.
Thank goodness.
I’ve just spent a couple of hours reading this thread.
First, I think it’s highly amusing that a post stating, in effect, “the debate is over” has produced the longest comments thread in JQ’s history.
I’m a professional statistician, and I first became interested in the climate debate via the hockeystick (not as a sceptic, but rather as an alarmed citizen.)
The “evidence” for AGW basically comes in two forms:
1) The paleoclimatic reconstruction (which appears to demonstrate that recent warming is unusaul and unprecedented).
2) Global Climate Models (GCMs) which purport to show that CO2 forcings are responsible for recent observed warming.
I believe I have an unusual perspective to cast on these two arguments, as I have extensive experience with principal components analysis (PCA) as used by Mann et al in the paleo papers, and also multivariate modelling.
On the first point (and contrary to JQ’s handwaving), I consider Steve McIntyre’s critques of MBH and most of the paleo studies to be completely devastating. That is to say that they contribute nothing worthwhile to the subject of temperature variablity on a milleinial scale.
Regarding the attribution studies (the GCMs) it is simply ridiculous to claim that they have any predictive validity. You can tune a model to have any result you want – it’s simply a matter of changing the weights of the parameters to agree to observed data.
I am amazed that in a thread of this length, not one person has responded to Willis’ call for evidence of AGW, other than referring him to the IPCC, or a google search on “global warming”.
A final point, commenters should realise that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. It’s not “basic physics”. AGW model predictions rely on massive positive feedback effects relating to water vapour (by far the most important greenhouse gas).
Hey James why not take this post an put it on realclimate.com, let us know when and which thread.
Why waste your time on us, in hundreds of posts and still haven’t satisfied Willis or yourself?
Cheers
SimonJM,
I have posted to realclimate several times, however my posts have never appeared. Why would I bother again?
Would you care to address my arguments, or is that too difficult?
Well James realclimate seem to take posts from other AGW sceptics as long as they behave themselves, were you a naughty boy ;)? Post again and I’ll ask them why you are barred if indeed you are.
Again I’m reluctant to try to google debate something like climate especially when both those better qualified and with the backing of mainstream science say it is now without doubt and if they cannot convince the AGW recalcitrants I’m sure as hell wont be able to.
Don’t have enough knowledge about McIntyre but does that mean the whole field of paleo studies “contribute nothing worthwhile to the subject of temperature variablity on a milleinial scale.�?
If so that’s a big call, and again calls into question a whole field of science. I’m a bit concerned that other statisticians especially those used by the worlds leading scientific institutions haven’t picked this up, aren’t you?
“Regarding the attribution studies (the GCMs) it is simply ridiculous to claim that they have any predictive validity. You can tune a model to have any result you want – it’s simply a matter of changing the weights of the parameters to agree to observed data.â€?
Oh is that like statistics itself with the throw away line that they can be made to argue anything so by your logic we could ignore the whole field?
As far as I know you can do this but like statistics when you attempt to do so you will leave indications that you have done so. Also from what I understand these models are back tested to historical climates and the result come up pretty good.
Surly your fellow statisticians will raise their voices as they aren’t the closet greenie types like these climate scientists?
Willis wants evidence that we are outside the normal range of climate variability.
Thinking of it from just a lay perspective for arguments sake AGW may be happening and still be within the natural range of climate variability so while the trends could be in sync with AGW predictions the evidence Willis is looking for isn’t there and won’t be until the system has acceded that natural variability.
By that time it will be too late to avoid the worst of the extremes.
Hmm we have the latest like Heat Wave of the Millennium
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/210/3
again if past history means anything this won’t be evidence either it may still be within natural variability so we can ignore it.
James why don’t you and Willis –after his frog paper- do a joint paper to point out where these guys have it all wrong and get it published? I’m sure we would all love to see you rock the science world and maybe earn a Nobel prize to boot.
According to Jimmy ” Principal Components” Lane “A final point, commenters should realise that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. It’s not “basic physicsâ€?. AGW model predictions rely on massive positive feedback effects relating to water vapour (by far the most important greenhouse gas).” The greenhouse gases modelled are outlined in the IPCC report
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/130.htm and also
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/213.htm
Simonjm Says:
February 11th, 2006 at 10:18 am
>Well James realclimate seem to take posts from other AGW sceptics as long as they behave themselves, were you a naughty boy >? Post again and I’ll ask them why you are barred if indeed you are.
Realclimate is well known for denying posts that are inconvenient. So be it, it’s their blog. However, since you think otherwise, why don’t you post asking Mike Mann: “Mike, is MBH98 robust to the presence or absence of the bristlecone pine proxies?” and we’ll see if that gets a gig.
>Again I’m reluctant to try to google debate something like climate especially when both those better qualified and with the >backing of mainstream science say it is now without doubt and if they cannot convince the AGW recalcitrants I’m sure as hell >wont be able to.
i.e. I won’t argue with you because i can’t.
>Don’t have enough knowledge about McIntyre but does that mean the whole field of paleo studies “contribute nothing >worthwhile to the subject of temperature variablity on a milleinial scale.�?
Well why don’t you spend a few hours at climateaudit.org and acquaint yourself? And yes, I really believe that the paleo studies are for the most part hopeless. MBH98, in particular is a laboratory of statistical horrors. Of the rest, Moberg is probably the best, but not without its problems.
>If so that’s a big call, and again calls into question a whole field of science. I’m a bit concerned that other statisticians especially >those used by the worlds leading scientific institutions haven’t picked this up, aren’t you?
I don’t think that quality statisticians are well represented in the climate science ranks, but you could try Burger &Cusbach (2005):
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL024155.shtml
“Regarding the attribution studies (the GCMs) it is simply ridiculous to claim that they have any predictive validity. You can tune a model to have any result you want – it’s simply a matter of changing the weights of the parameters to agree to observed data.â€?
>Oh is that like statistics itself with the throw away line that they can be made to argue anything so by your logic we could ignore >the whole field? As far as I know you can do this but like statistics when you attempt to do so you will leave indications that you >have done so. Also from what I understand these models are back tested to historical climates and the result come up pretty >good.
Not at all, statistics are incredibly useful in almost all branches of science. But when it comes to modelling, it’s all very well to tune your model to predict known data, that doesn’t mean it has any predictive validity
>Surly your fellow statisticians will raise their voices as they aren’t the closet greenie types like these climate scientists?
I didn’t assert that climate scientists are “closet greenies”, nor do I believe that they are. Competent statisticians like McIntyre and Burger & Cusbach have turned their attention to the paleo studies and their criticisms have been withering.
>Willis wants evidence that we are outside the normal range of climate variability.
That would seem to be a fair question.
>Thinking of it from just a lay perspective for arguments sake AGW may be happening and still be within the natural range of >climate variability so while the trends could be in sync with AGW predictions the evidence Willis is looking for isn’t there and >won’t be until the system has acceded that natural variability.
So there’s no evidence…?
>By that time it will be too late to avoid the worst of the extremes.
For which there’s no evidence?
>Hmm we have the latest like Heat Wave of the Millennium
>http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/210/3
>again if past history means anything this won’t be evidence either it may still be within natural variability so we can ignore it.
Well it might be just natural variability, as I think you’ve just said. That is why the paleo evidence is important. You seem to be saying that over the last 2000 years we’e enjoyed some “acme” of perfect stable temperature, and now everything is going haywire. Well, sorry, I don’t think the paleo evidence is strong enough to draw such a conclusion.
>James why don’t you and Willis –after his frog paper- do a joint paper to point out where these guys have it all wrong and get it >published? I’m sure we would all love to see you rock the science world and maybe earn a Nobel prize to boot.
Well, if we’re still talking about the paleo stuff, I think McIntryre & McKitrick have already done that (sans Nobel Prize).
Do get back to us about my suggested question to Mike Mann @ realclimate on the bristlecones.
Re #482
Bill,
Why do you provide two links that do nothing to contradict my assertion? Or if you think they do, why don’t you quote a paragraph or two to that effect.
Jimmy “Principal Components” Lane
After 484 comments, I think we’ve amply demonstrated the validity of the final sentence of the post. Only dogmatic commitment to a long-held position (or an ideological or financial motive for distorting the evidence) can explain continued rejection of the evidence on Global Warming
But what we haven’t done is to say why its a bad thing. In fact it’s a very good thing. I think the effect is real but this could be wishful thinking on my part. It better be real or we are in trouble.
jquiggin said:
February 11th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
After 484 comments, I think we’ve amply demonstrated the validity of the final sentence of the post. Only dogmatic commitment to a long-held position (or an ideological or financial motive for distorting the evidence) can explain continued rejection of the evidence on Global Warming
I say that exactly states your own situation – a long held preconceived view, an ideological motive being a self-proclaimed social democrat (eg ALP) which like Blair’s UK Labour is committed to state interference in everything including the climate god help us), and very likely financial motives (to be rewarded as “economics of climate adviser” should ALP win power). Only all of that can explain libelling Wilhelm Karlen along those lines without attempting either to read or to counter his data that I posted here.
Best
Tim
Tim, in general I don’t find your comments worth responding to, as being consistently both obtuse and offensive.
However, I guess I should say something about the suggestion that I am motivated by:
likely financial motives (to be rewarded as “economics of climate adviser� should ALP win power)
In case you hadn’t noticed, I’ve done pretty well in career/financial terms under the present lot (much to the chagrin of some on the Right), and even you couldn’t suggest I had pandered to them. As for the ALP, I don’t suppose a string of posts with headings like “Anybody but Beazley” is exactly the way to promote my chances there.
“…a long held preconceived view, an ideological motive …”
Which presumably also lies behind your failure to acknowledge the data I posted on Australian electricity prices and world nuclear power costs.
While we’re talking abotu preconceived views: Has anyone noticed how the US and world economies have survived a massive increase in fossil fuel costs without the disastrous economic consequences which were suppsoedly goign to result from Kyoto?
Remember – a $40 a barrel increase in oil costs is just a natural result of the workings of the market, a $1 a barrel carbon tax is an unitigated catastrophe which will see us all starving in the gutters.
JQ
OK, so don’t impugn everybody who disagrees with you as a paid lackey. Who is paying for Karlen? I can tell you that Osborn Jones and Briffa of the UEA (authors of the latest effusion in Science) owe their research funding to the UK gov, would it flow so well if they took a different view? Their article basically recycles Michael Mann and their own previous, as well as ignoring the Karlen data and those dendrochronologists who are uncertain that tree ring widths are monotonic with respect to climate. It would also be nice to see the unmassaged correlation coefficients of the ORIGINAL tree ring data sets. Perhaps you could oblige with a cut and paste job showing these (rather than your usual 1,000 unrelated IPCC references)
I still await your recognition that if the CO2 science is so compelling then the only rational policy response in Australia is to switch from coal, oil, and gas powered power to nuclear. Or would you like me to send you my grandmother’s treadle sewing machine so that you can convert it to create power for your PC when the sun is not shining and the wind has died?
Re Ian Gould, we already have various carbon taxes, and as you note demand is inelastic, probably a tax of at least US$40 per barrel would be needed to have much impact on motorists, and would not be very social democratic (low income car users would perforce have to be the first to give up on cars). Phasing out coal power would be better social democratically because as you have shown the impact on low-income earners’ power costs would be minimal. But I can imagine that JQ would fit in well with the UK chardonnay set of The Observer who are baying for a ban on cheap air travel for the masses, allowing sprawling in greater full fare comfort for themselves.
But until all the true believers endorse nuclear energy I shall remain sceptical of the sincerity of their views on the dangers of even the worst IPCC scenario.
Tim
Tim, I’ve never mentioned Wilhelm Karlen, or even heard of his existence. Google reveals someone called “Karlén, Wibjörn”, who’s written on global warming. Is this the person I’m supposed to have libelled, and in whose defence you’re happy to libel me?
As regards nuclear power, I pointed you to my comments on this topic months ago. Try Google if you’ve forgotten.
And you wonder why I don’t take AGW “sceptics” seriously.
James,
In my observation that creationists and global warming skeptics are intellectual comrades, your comments are an excellent data-point.
You appear to have a very poor understanding of the science, but that doesn’t stop seem to caution your statements in any way.
The “evidence� for AGW basically comes in two forms:
1) The paleoclimatic reconstruction (which appears to demonstrate that recent warming is unusaul and unprecedented).
2) Global Climate Models (GCMs) which purport to show that CO2 forcings are responsible for recent observed warming.
This statement is just ignorant rubbish. If you want to learn what the biggest evidence for AGW is, look up quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. Once you’ve finished that, move on to looking at temperature trends and attribution studies. Once you’ve done all of that, then you can start to look at GCMs and reconstructions. To borrow a technique from Willis, GCMs and reconstructions are third-order evidence.
Regarding the attribution studies (the GCMs) it is simply ridiculous to claim that they have any predictive validity. You can tune a model to have any result you want – it’s simply a matter of changing the weights of the parameters to agree to observed data.
This is a common slander used by peusdoscientists. Fortunally, it’s easy to test.
Until recently satellite data suggested that the troposphere was cooling. Whereas, climate models suggested that it was warming.
Now according to the “GCM’s have no predictive value and can be tuned to any result that you want” hypothesis, climate scientists should have produced model results which showed a cooling troposphere.
So what happened… the scientific community went away and thought about results (the climate skeptics on the other hand simply crowed about – not too surprising given the complete lack of objectivity in the climate skeptic camp). The scientists gave it a lot of thought and tried to find faults in either the physics which underlies the GCMs or reliability of the observations.
Eventually, it was discovered that the observations were wrong. Score one for the predictive power of the models.
However, that being said, that the observations were wrong wasn’t the biggest surprise in the world. It was pretty basic physics which suggested that the troposphere should be warming – you didn’t need a GCM to tell you that.
I am amazed that in a thread of this length, not one person has responded to Willis’ call for evidence of AGW, other than referring him to the IPCC, or a google search on “global warming�.
I thought that you read this thread.
It appears that you missed the part where I pointed out that Willis’ request was poorly framed.
Or Hans Erren’s comment on my comment.
Or when (because of Willis’ failure to address my earlier remarks about his challenge) I spelt out on obvious piece of evidence (ir absorption spectra).
Or when Willis acknowledges my point, and then makes a clumsy attempt at delaying discussion on it.
Or when Willis stalls discussing it again.
Or when Terje tells Willis to quit stalling.
Or when Willis discusses it seriously (oh wait, you didn’t miss that comment because Willis never discussed it seriously).
My prediction, is that Willis will never discuss it seriously.
A final point, commenters should realise that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. It’s not “basic physics�. AGW model predictions rely on massive positive feedback effects relating to water vapour (by far the most important greenhouse gas).
Oh dear. It is basic physics.
I’ll spell it out for you.
The earth is warm because the sun warms it (basic thermodynamics). Because it is warm it emits lots of infrared light (basic thermodynamics). Some gases in the atmosphere absorb infrared light (basic quantum mechanics). When the concentration of these gases increases, they absorb more infrared light and heat up (basic quantum mechanics).
Also CO2 is hardly a minor greenhouse gas – it’s the second biggest.
Congratulations, between yourself, Bob, Tim, Louis and Willis you’ve just proved JQ’s point – “At this point, the term “scepticâ€? is no longer remotely applicable. Only dogmatic commitment to a long-held position (or an ideological or financial motive for distorting the evidence) can explain continued rejection of the evidence.”
Tim, perhaps you should learn about how temperature scales work before lecturing others on climate change.
JQ
Yes, my sight is failing. You said “Google reveals someone called “Karlén, Wibjörnâ€?, who’s written on global warming. Is this the person I’m supposed to have libelled, and in whose defence you’re happy to libel me?”
Yes, so why do you ignore his article which I put on this very thread?
You also said: “As regards nuclear power, I pointed you to my comments on this topic months ago. Try Google if you’ve forgotten.” You are a greenhouse believer and a nuclear sceptic. Time for a penalty shootout? Offer of peddle power for your PC stands.
And you added: “And you wonder why I don’t take AGW “scepticsâ€? seriously.” If CO2 is the problem, why is not nuclear the solution?
Hard to take you seriously when Hamilton and Quiggin could not even bring themselves to mention nuclear (1997); and we are still waiting for your prediction then that India and China would sign Kyoto to come through. Why should anyone take you or Kyoto with its equal non-mention of nuclear (as an option for credits) seriously?
I suppose nuclear is as politically incorrect as those cartoons which your mob also deprecate.
Tim
Tim, I stopped reading your comments with any attention a long time ago. You may have mentioned Wilhelm(?) Karlen(?), but I didn’t notice it and I certainly didn’t libel him.
However, I have read the last few from you. There are so many errors (spelling errors, factual errors, bogus rhetorical points and so on) that I can’t be bothered pointing them all out. The fact that you can’t even get the name of your own source right will have to stand for all of them.
As you may have detected in my response to avaroo and others, I’m getting tired of trolls, and you have trolled consistently ever since you arrived at this blog.
JQ
Your comments are unfair and a sure sign you have lost your case. Here is the Karlen article I posted on this very thread that if you knew how to use the Find function…
(any transcription errors are mine):
Recent Global Warming: An Artifact
of a Too-Short Temperature Record?
INTRODUCTION
Although the magnitude of the greenhouse effect has been of major concern during the
last decades, the reality of the processes involved has hardly been discussed. It has
become common to base planning on predictions that indicate a major warming.
Assumptions concerning the future have been repeated at numerous occasions and
are reflected in a number of statements in the recent report, ‘‘Impacts of a warming
Arctic’’ (1). The warming of the Arctic has become an important issue, because the
prediction is that changes will be strongest and first noticeable in the Arctic and
because of the undesirable environmental impact that might accompany the elevated
atmospheric CO2 (2). The following discussion focuses on temperature observations from meteorological
stations in the Arctic and surrounding areas. Is the temperature really rising at an alarming rate? Has the well documented
and rapidly increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere really affected the temperatures at Arctic
stations, where, according to the models, this effect will first will be observed?
DATA
There are several data sets showing the temperature in the Arctic and its surrounding
areas. One set of data, which has been made available on the Internet during the last few years, is the Nordklim database
(3). This database includes temperature observations made between 1890 (or from
the time when observations were initiated) and 1999, and has been obtained from meteorological
stations in the Nordic countries (3). Information about changes in the Arctic
climate is also reported in several papers (4, 5, 6) and data for many stations are
available on the Internet (7).
For the purpose of this discussion, mean annual air temperature have been used.
Svalbard Lufthavn, located on a group of islands at 788N, is selected as representing climate
in the Arctic. The first few years of observations from
this station may have been affected by several shifts in
the position, but this factor is not believed to have affected the record for the temperature
maximum that was reached during the late 1930s (Fig. 1). The Svalbard temperature
is compared with the annual mean temperature at Arctic stations. In addition,
the temperatures of the Arctic are compared with data from Stockholm, because
observations have been carried out there for 250 y, thus making it possible to place the
short Arctic record in a longer perspective.
The long record has been corrected for urban effect (8, 9). Corrections for urban effect are quite important, because it does
influence climate even when the population is relatively small (10).
RESULTS
The Svalbard mean annual temperature increased rapidly from the 1910s to the late
1930s. The temperature thereafter became lower, and a minimum was reached around
1970. Svalbard thereafter became warmer, but the mean temperature in the late 1990s
was still slightly cooler than it was in the late 1930s. Svalbard is, of course, only one
point in the vast Arctic area. However, the observed warming during the 1930s is
supported by data from several stations along the Arctic coasts and on islands in
the Arctic, e.g. Nordklim data from Bjo¨ rno¨ ya and Jan Mayen in the north Atlantic,
Vardo¨ and Tromso¨ in northern Norway, Sodankylaeand Karasjoki in northern Finland,
and Stykkisholmur in Iceland (3). There is also data from other reports; e.g.
Godthaab, Jakobshavn, and Egedesmindde in Greenland, Ostrov Dikson on
the north coast of Siberia, Salehard in inland Siberia, and Nome in western
Alaska (7). All these stations indicate the same pattern of changes in annual mean
temperature: a warm 1930s, a cooling until around 1970, and thereafter a warming,
although the temperature remains slightly below the level of the late 1930s. Although
details of the temperature fluctuations vary over time between the stations, the pattern
of these fluctuations remains similar. Many stations with records starting later
than the 1930s also indicate cooling, e.g. Vize in the Arctic Sea north of the Siberian
coast and Frobisher Bay and Clyde on Baffin Island (7).
In Stockholm, where temperature observations have been made since 1756, it is apparent that the temperature has been
affected by the growing city. This urban effect has been studied in detail, and a compensation has been made for this
bias in the data used here (8, 9). The Stockholm temperature also increased Figure 1. Annual mean temperature and trends for Stockholm,
Sweden and Svalbard Lufthavn, Svalbard. Ambio Vol. 34, No. 3, May 2005 263 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005
http://www.ambio.kva.se
Synopsis
between the beginning of the century and the 1930s, then reached a minimum around
1970 and rose again, a pattern similar to the one observed in the Arctic. The 250-ylong
Stockholm record shows that the fluctuations of the 1900s are not unique;
changes of the same magnitude as in the 1900s occurred between 1770 and 1800,
and distinct but smaller fluctuations occurred around 1825 (8).
DISCUSSION
How can a distinct warming so often be reported for the Arctic areas when the temperature
observations indicate variations but no consistent trend? If it was clearly
stated that the warming is predicted, not yet indicated by empirical data, these claims
could be accepted. The prediction is based on theory, but the empirical data used to support the theory
is misleading. For example, to select a short period between a minimum and a high point, possibly a maximum, call it a trend
and use it in support of a theory, is not acceptable. Obviously, neither the difference
between two maxima nor the calculated regression during an arbitrarily selected
period is an acceptable measure of trend either. However, either of these two methods
is better than using nothing more than a temperature increase to indicate a trend.
A trend showing considerable warming in northern Siberia and also in parts of
Alaska has been used as an indication of a drastic warming in the Arctic. The temperature
increase in Siberia is based on a record restricted to 40 y (11), a period following a cold period in the 1970s. The
meteorological station Ostrov Dikson, located in this area of warming climate, has
reported temperatures since 1917. Regression analysis of the 65-y annual temperature record after the maximum in the late
1930s indicates a temperature decrease of 1.58C between 1935 and 1999. The reported increase is a result of the selected period
(1960–2000). In addition, Alaska is reported to have experienced a rapid warming.
One of the stations often referred to is Point Barrow on the north coast of Alaska,
for which a recent study shows that even the small settlement (4600 persons) creates
an urban effect (10). This was measured to be 2.28C during the winter of 2001–2002
(10).
There is no definite period of time that should be used to study temperature trends.
However, it is obviously wrong to start a calculation of a trend at a minimum and
finish at a high point (possibly a maximum). The result will be misleading; from a minimum
to a maximum there will always be an increase.
Ostrov Dikson has experienced a very distinct decrease in temperature since the
late 1930s. This decrease is unusually large, but a trend towards a cooling seems
to be typical for Arctic stations, e.g. Iceland (3) 1935–1999, 0.78C; Frobisher
Bay (7), 1942–1999, 0.88C). For other stations, e.g. Vardo¨ (3), the cooling was
small, 0.18C. The data do not indicate a warming of the Arctic. The cooling after
the maximum in the 1930s occurred during
the time when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had increased
markedly; thus, an increase in temperature could be expected.
The increase in temperature during the early 1900s is considered to be caused by
increased solar irradiation (12). The temperature increase at several Arctic stations
was greater and more rapid during this
earlier period when carbon dioxide, according to models, did not contribute to the
temperature. During the 50 y in which the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased
considerably, the temperature has decreased. The Arctic temperature data do
not support the models predicting that there will be a critical future warming of the
climate because of an increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
At a few locations in Europe, temperature
has been recorded for considerably longer than it has in the Arctic. The
Stockholm temperature record, which covers the last 250 y, has been discussed by Moberg and Bergstro¨ m (8) and by Jones et
al. (9). The patterns of this record are similar to those from the years of overlapping
data (1930s to 1999), for the Arctic stations (Fig. 1); therefore, it is probable
that the Stockholm record can be used for an estimate of variations in the Arctic
climate. If there is a similarity between the long Stockholm record, other European
records (13), and the Arctic record, as the overlapping period of records indicate, it is
likely that the recorded fluctuations in the Arctic temperature are short fragments of
a series of fluctuations in the climate.
The so called ‘‘global temperature’’ (12), frequently taken as a proof of a human
influence on the climate, is based on a short record beginning during the cold second
half of the 1800s and going to the warm present. Even this global temperature record
begins during a very cold period and ends during a period that some scientists
claim to be the warmest in very long time.
Considering the 250-y record from Stockholm,it becomes obvious that these last
100 y of warming climate comprise only one section of a fluctuating climate, or, in other
words, a small fraction of a series of several such fluctuations in the temperature. The
so-called ‘‘global temperature record’’ covers too short a period and therefore does not
yield empirical support for an anthropogenic effect on the climate, which so often is
claimed.
CONCLUSIONS
The frequently mentioned rapid increase of the temperature in the Arctic is based on
a record beginning at a minimum in the temperature around the 1970s and ending
during a period of relatively warm climate.
If the time series had begun a few decades earlier, the records would indicate a cooling
climate in the Arctic. This conclusion does not prove that there is no global warming, but that the
observations available give no proof of such a warming.
References and Notes
1. ACIA 2004. Impact of a warming Arctic, Arctic
Climate Impact Assessment. (http://amap.no/acia/)
2. Søgaard, H., Elbering, B., Friborg, T., Sørensen, L.,
Larsen, S.E., Rysgaard, S., Grøndahl, L. and Bendtsen,
J. 2004 High Arctic carbon sink identification—
a systems approach. Global Change NewsLetter no. 59,
11–14.
3. Tuomenvita, H., Drebs, A., Fo¨ rland, E., Tveito, O. E.,
Alexandersson, H., Vaarby Laursen, E. and Jo´ nsson, T.
2001. Klima, Nordklim Data Set 1.0, Description and
Illustrations. DNMI Report no. 08/01, 1–26.
4. Kahl, J.D., Charlevoix, D.J., Zaitseva, N.A., Schnell,
R.C. and Serreze, M.C. 1993. Absence of evidence for
greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past
40 years. Nature 361, 335–337.
5. Kahl, J.D.W., Jansen, M. and Pulrang, M.A. 2001.
Fifty-year record of North Polar temperatures shows
warming. EOS, Transactions 28, (1), 1–5.
6. Humlum, O., Instanes, A. and Sollid, J.L. 2003.
Permafrost in Svalbard: a review of research history,
climatic background and engineering challenges. Polar
Res. 22(2), 191–215.
7. Daly, J.L. 2004. (http://www.google.se/
search?q=cache:Z8N2Su-hGSgJ:www.john-daly.com/
+John.L.+Daily,+Australia&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8)
8. Moberg, A. and Bergstro¨ m, H. 1997. Homogenization
of Swedish temperature data. Part III: The long
temperature records from Uppsala and Stockholm.
Int. J. Climatology 17, 667–699.
9. Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R., Osborn, T.J.,Moberg, A. and
Bergstrom, H. 2002. Relationships between circulation
strength and the variability of growing-season and coldseason
climate in northern and central Europe. The
Holocene 12, (6), 643–656.
10. Hinkel, K., Nelson, F.E., Klene, A.E. and Bell, J.H.
2003. The urban heat island in winter at Barrow,
Alaska. Int. J. Climatology 23, 1889–1905.
11. Kerr, R.A. 2004. A few good climate shifters. Science
306, 599–600.
12. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working
Group II, Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability Summary for Policymakers. (http://www.
meto.gov.uk/sec5/CR_div/ipcc/wg1/WGI-SPM.pdf)
13. Luterbacher, J., Dietrich, D., Xoplaki, E., Grosjena, M.
and Wanner, H. 2004. European seasonal and annual
temperature variability, trends and extremes since 1500.
Science 303, 1499–1503.
Wibjo¨rn Karle´n
Luthagsesplanaden 3B
SE-752 25 Uppsala,
Sweden
264 Ambio Vol. 34, No. 3, May 2005 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005
http://www.ambio.kva.se
Tim, on reading this I thought this read like one of John Daly’s pieces, and indeed there he is in the reference list. You may recall that Daly used the same kind of argument to predict a decline in global temperature from 2003 to a minimum just about now, once the disturbing effects of solar cycles and El Nino were removed. It’s depressing that someone apparently qualified should put forward such a thin argument.
Sad to say, a search reveals that Karlen does indeed have an ideological/financial axe to grind. He’s a member of the European Science and Environment Forum, originally a tobacco industry front, and now more generally anti-environmentalist rightwing lobby group. If you’re looking ofr a counterexample to the claim in my post, you’ll have to trya gain.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:European_Science_and_Environment_Forum
I’m trying very hard to stay polite and not write an acerbic post that exposes Tim Curtin as an archetypal Grump Old Methuselah.
I pray to Gaia that if I reach seventy I won’t turn into a cynical, whining old curmudgeon.
James L
“i.e. I won’t argue with you because i can’t.�
Maybe but like with the creationists and other biased recalcitrants I cannot be bothered, once mainstream science has moved on so do I.
“I don’t think that quality statisticians are well represented in the climate science ranks, but you could try Burger &Cusbach (2005):�
Then do you think the G8’s leading scientific institutions –you know the Royal Society and the like- don’t have access to quality statisticians or similar resources?
Odd don’t you think, that these premier scientific institutions –the same ones the G8 countries rely on for the scientific advice- cannot pick up these statistical errors that are only picked up on the fringe anti-environment web sites?????
James you post it and if it’s rejected I’ll ask why.