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 
1st Willis have you ever come up against a creationist, very frustrating and for me you follow the same pattern. Doesn’t mean anything to you that the mainstream is moving on you and your ilk continue to ignore them and cherry and highlight studies/points in isolation.
BTW the passive aggressive stance is a common creationist defense that they are just presenting the facts and are undeservedly attacked because of this.
Yes I missed your earlier post but if you hadn’t attempted that cheap point score on senators picking themselves I would have given you more slack.
Your polar bear article lacked depth or context so an article needs not be untrue for its worth to be lacking. My article has these and with the below post is more consistent the context not facts in isolation as you have it.
BTW how are you going on that frogs scoop?
Lets see understanding the habitat and behavior of polar bears with the fact of there is local changes consistent with AGW and that mainstream scientists –
Future Ice Free Summers in the Arctic
http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/9/wa/SRStoryDetails?ArticleID=11532
(you would have probably seen it on the junkscience with their fantastic knockdown dismissal. Just amazing what goodies you can come up with at places like junkscience and realclimate hey Willis?)
-are concerned they shouldn’t have upgraded their classification?
So even with the Holocene climatic optimum HCO and the 1930 spike we didn’t see arctic sea ice disappear so that’s the reason the polar bears didn’t go extinct even though other fauna did during the HCO.
You can continue pick out these points in isolation and seem plausible and then use the convenient excuse to ignore the recommendations in the theses fields, when they don’t suit your ideological agenda, even though their stance is backed up by those qualified in that relevant field(like the link above).
The same thing the creationists do.
By your logic Willis with those droughts in Africa we really don’t need to do anything until those populations are in decline, we should still enter structurally unsafe buildings, -there are still standing after all- nor should be prepare for a potential bird pandemic hasn’t happened, no need to worry till it does.
JQ
Some more sense on global warming:
There’s a graph (from Ehleringer 2005, 75, would not paste into this blog) whose upper curve combines CO2 (ppmv) from Antarctic ice cores with Keeling’s Mauna Loa measurements and correlates very strongly with the lower curve showing world population growth. The Lambert-Quiggin school of econometrics would agree there’s a likely high R -squared and t statistic, and that these “prove” that CO2 “causes” population growth and AGW, as well it may, as the same source (236, see below) shows that C3 plants (95% of all plant matter) do best at elevated CO2 levels, eg soya, 61% higher mass when CO2 rises from 160 to 330 ppm, with mass peaking at CO2 600 ppm (today only 380). Not only that, water-use efficiency of eg wheat and oats rises linearly as daytime CO2 rises from 200 to 360 ppm and beyond (241). Clearly rising CO2 is as much a major explanation for a growing warmer and better-fed population as it is a result via AGW. The plans of IPCC for 60% reductions in CO2 emissions portend a hungry as well as cold future. Source: A history of atmospheric CO2 and its effects on plants, animals, and ecosystems, James R. Ehleringer etc al., Springer, 2005. And yes, the contributors were peer-reviewed and include true believers like Keeling.
Tim
Willis and Simon
Perhaps you could both read this report for the Canadian Marine Environment Protection Society – it has a bit for both of you
Click to access PolarBearReport2005.pdf
“The evidence of the impact on polar bear populations is
already in. Ian Stirling and Andrew Derocher, who have been
studying Hudson Bay bears for decades, first documented the
relationship back in 1993. By 1999, their findings had been
confirmed:
“From 1981 through 1998, the condition of adult male
and female polar bears has declined significantly in
western Hudson Bay…. Over this same period, the
breakup of the sea ice on western Hudson Bay has
been occurring earlier. There was a significant positive
relationship between the time of breakup and the condition of adult females (i.e., the earlier the breakup, the poorer the condition of the bears). The trend toward
earlier breakup was also correlated with rising spring air
temperatures over the study area from 1950 to 1990.�48
Similar warnings are found in a 2002 paper by Stirling,
Derocher and Nicholas Lunn. The speed of the warming
climate and the resulting reduction in sea ice means
“the prognosis for polar bears is uncertain� they wrote.49
In addition to smaller areas and briefer periods of ice cover,
they expect thinner ice, smaller floe sizes, more open water,
more ice drift and changes in the nature of snow cover.
The same paper calculated some worrying trends in the
effects on individual female polar bears. Their observations
showed many pregnant females were losing as much as
4.71 kilograms of mass a year as the ice period shortened.
At that rate, a typical female bear, healthy at 283 kg in 1992,
will be too underweight to successfully carry offspring to
term by 2012. Similar challenges arise in the Norwegian
and Russian Arctic, where receding sea ice will put feeding
grounds beyond the reach of pregnant bears (which are
restricted to land) by the 2050s.
Among the key characteristics of polar bear ecology is
their inability to simply move north as the climate warms.
While many terrestrial mammals should have little trouble
doing so, polar bears are facing a future in which “the very
existence of their habitat is changing and there is limited
scope for a northward shift in distribution.�50 And their
former habitat will soon pose new threats. Increased
shipping traffic through a newly ice-free Northwest Passage
will likely expose them to oil spills, for one. Derocher,
Stirling and Lunn have raised the possibility that the species
will prove vulnerable to diseases introduced to the region
as it warms. They suspect that polar bears rid themselves
of many diseases and parasites as they migrated north
and adopted a fat-based diet that is inhospitable to most
parasites’ intermediate hosts. How the bears’ immune
systems will respond to the reintroduction of such organisms
is unclear.
The most recent complicating factor is the discovery in
Canada’s High Arctic last year that the species from which
polar bears evolved is moving in on its arctic cousin’s
territory. Two geologists from the University of Alberta,
Jonathan Doupé and John England, came across grizzly paw
prints on Melville Island, 1,000 kilometres north of the Arctic
Circle. DNA analysis of brown hairs found nearby confirmed
the identity of the interloper: Ursus horribilis, the grizzly,
or brown bear. England even produced a photograph he
had taken a year earlier of the suspect bear.51 A single wayward
grizzly does not a problem make, but it is a worrying
example of the unpredictable reactions that can be expected
as the fundamental ecological processes governing the Earth
try to adapt to what we are doing to it.”
It is a very complex issue with no clear cut answers however as it is critical for polar bears to have both ice and water any reduction of sea ice is going to reduce the population over the next few decades. Also as the arctic warms other species move into territory in competition with polar bears.
Andrew
What is language but an inventory of labels conveyed within an architecture of contextual dynamics such as time, space and interactive juxtaposition.
Would you prefer that I exhaustively reiterate the outline of a condition or character or that I do it clearly and adequately once, give it a reasonable name and then continue to refer to that name.
Obviously you would prefer the former so why have me on about creating a label for the discrete but relatively unfamiliar form that I am commenting upon. Especially after I have gone to so much length to elucidate what that label specifically refers to.
If my use of a label is lazy, misleading, cliched, overstated, unfair, etc, then sure, have me on. But to say that the use of labels is generically invalid invalidates language itself. I think you know that. So I can only think that you are being either lazy in your assessment or just a little bit disingenuous in your technique.
C’mon. Play the ball for a while hey?
Greg, thanks for yur post. You say:
Greg, what I have said is that before we start taking action, we should at least have some evidence. There is no evidence that polar bears are declining, and thus no action is indicated. Why would you want to act with no evidence?
You also ask about my understanding of the precautionary principle. A bit of caution about the Precautionary Principle might be in order. It is not just a restatement of “better safe than sorry”, nor is it ordinary caution.
Let me start with an early and very clear statement of the “Precautionary Principle� (I’ll call it PP for short), which comes from the UN Rio Declaration on the Environment (1992). Here’s their original formulation:
“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capability. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.�
This is an excellent statement of the PP, as it distinguishes it from such things as wearing condoms, denying bank loans, approving the Kyoto Protocol, invading Afghanistan, or using seat belts.
The three key parts of the PP (emphasis mine) are:
1) A threat of serious or irreversible damage.
2) A lack of full scientific certainty (in other words, the existence of partial but not conclusive scientific evidence).
3) The availability of cost-effective measures.
Here are some examples of how these key parts of the PP work out in practice.
We have full scientific certainty that condoms and seat belts save lives. Thus, using them is not an example of the PP, it is simply acting reasonably on principles about which we are scientifically certain.
There are no scientific principles or evidence that we can apply to the question of invading Afghanistan, so we cannot apply the PP there either.
Bank loans are neither serious nor irreversible, nor is there partial scientific understanding of them, so they don’t qualify for the PP.
Finally, the Kyoto Protocol is so far from being cost-effective as to be laughable. The PP can be thought of as a kind of insurance policy. No one would pay $200,000 for an insurance policy if the payoff in case of an accident were only $20, yet this is the kind of ratio of cost to payoff that the Kyoto Protocol involves.
On the other side of the equation, a good example of when we might use the PP involves local extinction. We have fairly good scientific understanding that removing a top predator from a local ecosystem badly screws things up. Kill the mountain lions, and the deer grow wild, then the plants are overgrazed, then the ground erodes, insect populations are unbalanced, and so on down the line.
Now, if we are looking at a novel ecosystem that has not been scientifically studied, we do not have full scientific certainty that removing the top predator will actually cause serious or irreversible damage to the ecosystem. However, if there is a cost-effective method to avoid removing the top predator, the PP says that we should do so. It fulfils the three requirements of the PP — there is a threat of serious damage, we have partial scientific certainty, and a cost-effective solution exists, so we should act.
All the best,
w.
Andrew
Do you really believe the statement quoted above?
I am beginning to get a chilling view of your cause and effect blindspot.
Have you ever considered the possibility that corporations seize power by accumulating and consolidating control of society’s vital resources? Like consolidated media ownership can control a Govt. That holding thickly woven strings over investment and employment options delivers direct power over the social groups affected as well as over the option of their representative governments. Evaporate the ‘big govt.’ and who has any chance of intervening upon the feudal power held by the consolidated interest of mega-corporate policy. Please don’t tell me it will be the market action of a gazillion atomised consumers and workers. That is just plainly and impractibly silly.
But please be clear on my total viewpoint.
I don’t like big govt. I don’t like big business. I don’t like the big market place they create to service their inhuman scale of interest. Big political systems of any type work to suffocate, corrupt and stupefy individual and local interest, awareness and sovereignty.
You will never get little or no ‘govt’ with a social growth agenda, although you may very well might get a corporate feudalism.
Be very careful what you ask for and that you understand the real world contingencies of your ideal. You may get it and not recognise it when you do.
Simonjm, you have me totally baffled when you say
I can’t find that I’ve written a single word about senators on this blog … plus you are now equating me with a creationist. What are you on about? Who are you confusing me with? And why, after both JQ and I have requested an end to personal attacks, are you continuing with them? Whether I remind you of a creationist, or of your best friend, or of your worst enemy, or of anyone else, has nothing to do with the question at hand.
–
Once again I say, I have asked for the evidence of AGW that y’all claim I am “denying”.
Once again I say, so far, no one has offered any.
–
Instead, I’m getting abused for imaginary comments about senators, and told that we should take some immediate action (but what? put in a polar ice-making machine?) about non-declining polar bears so that we can stop their non-decline, and being told I’m like a creationist. While this is all interesting, and some of it is humorous in its own sick way, it’s not evidence, folks …
Going once … going twice … unless someone comes up with some evidence of AGW pretty soon, the question will have to be considered as settled …
w.
This seems to fit rather neatly with the logic that John Quiggin has used to justify Kyoto.
1. Global Warming is asserted to be both serious and irreversible.
2. He asserts the existance of some evidence that it is happening.
3. He asserts that Kyoto is cheap (although I don’t recall him explaining how it was cost effective).
My own position is as follows:-
1. Broadly I agree with JQ. However I am uncertain about how bad Global Warming will be.
2. Most of us here accept that it is happening. The debate is mostly about the causes (ie is it caused by us humans), and it’s seriousness (how hot will it get and how fast).
3. I agree with JQ that Kyoto is probably cheap. However I don’t see it as cost effective (ie minimal benefits).
In terms of point number one, my major concerns with global warming are:-
a) Will it impact biodiversity signifiantly? This would seem to only be the case where species migration is inhibited by human created barriers. And also where mountain peaks and islands limit the migration of some species. I wonder what we can do to fascilitate species migration. More corridors between national parks may be a partial answer.
b) Will we experience a serious flipping point where the process enters a run away phase. I am thinking about the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”. Although that movie was certainly an extreme example.
c) If it’s not caused by humans then we should be focused on learning to live in a warmer world rather than attempting to moderate CO2 output.
Willis
I have to do other things right now and I cannot fully read or respond to your post until a little later. Just skimming through it however reveals an ‘error’ that makes me quite worried about what the rest of it will contain.
You quote a key element the PP as?
‘2) A lack of full scientific certainty (in other words, the existence of partial but not conclusive scientific evidence).
You have quite blatantly butchered away the fullness of the actual statement to convey a near inverse meaning to the genuine one.
Paraphrasing from memory (due to time constraint) it actually says�
A lack of full scientific certainty should not prevent action being taken to avert damage that is likely to occur if that action is not taken.
This difference is pretty breathtaking and somewhat damning upon whatever cause you had in presenting it.
What if the action itself does not avert the damage. The Kyoto protocol is predicted by the IPCC to merely delay the damage by a few years not avert it.
Willis E
“I can’t find that I’ve written a single word about senators on this blog..”
# Willis Eschenbach Says:
January 27th, 2006 at 8:53 am
SJ, immediately after posting (above) my comments on your ‘leave it to the experts, the non-experts don’t know enough to judge’ idea, I found the following on the web, regarding a proposed bill in Utah to let the Utah Legislature pick the State Senators:
Utah Senate President John Valentine said SB156, which would allow legislators to pick Senate candidates, as long as the political parties agreed, has nothing to do with sitting Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett.
It’s an effort to bolster the power of state leaders, who are more equipped to crack down on unfunded programs foisted upon the states by the U.S. Congress, he said.
“We know more than voters do,� Valentine said. “They don’t get the chance to hear all that we do.� The legislation would also allow lawmakers to “direct� senators by making requests.
To me, the interesting part of this was their reasoning as to why the bill should be passed — “We know more than the voters do,� Valentine said.
Does this sound familiar?
w.
Hmm someone is masquerading as Willis. JQ track the fiend down! 🙂
& Willis like the creationists no amount of evidence is going to change your mind, even Bush knew when to stop beating that dead horse.
Again hows the frog scoop going?
TP
Kypto was only the first step, not the last which is made out by the AGW sceptics.
Simonjm, thanks for posting. Regarding your points.
1) Ah, my apologies, you are right and I was wrong. I did write that about senators (although it’s not about senators picking themselves). Don’t know why my search didn’t find it. However, why you think that my posting that is some kind of justification for abusing me is truly a mystery.
2) I ask for evidence. No one comes up with any … and your explanation is “no amount of evidence is going to change your mind.”
BZZZT! Sorry, wrong answer. Evidence, as I have said, is what I use to make my decisions. Not the fears of scientists. Not vague handwaving. Not insults. Evidence. Put up, or …
3) Not sure what you mean by “How’s the frog scoop going.” Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the peer-review process for this kind of paper.
I’m writing the paper now. When it’s done, I’ll send it to the authors, per Nature’s established procedures. Then it gets submitted to Nature itself.
They then send it out for review. The reviewers comment on it. I comment on the reviewers comments, and either modify the paper or not. It may then go back to the reviewers a second time. Finally, it is either accepted or not. The whole process takes about six months, so don’t hold your breath …
w.
Greg, you say:
I’m not clear what difference you are seeing here. The statement from the original was “lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures”.
This, to me, means that if we have only partial scientific certainty, we shouldn’t use that as a reason to postpone cost-effective measures.
Saying that we should act if we have partial scientific certainty does not, however, mean that we should act with no scientific evidence at all.
Which is what I thought I said in my paraphrase … what am I missing here? Are you saying that we should act with no scientific evidence? Because the original doesn’t say that.
I suppose, on reading it again, that you could construe what I said to mean that we should not act if we have full scientific certainty … but that’s obviously not what I meant, because if we have full scientific certainty (as I pointed out in my examples of seat belts and condoms) we don’t need the precautionary principle at all. We just act upon our certainty.
w.
Willis looking forward to, even if its gets rejected I hope you will allow us a peek. 🙂 We’ll still be here.
BTW Willis it is interesting to see the stance on there being no evidence on AGW even some your fellow AGW sceptics know this is a weak stance to take.
But hell, no man is an island unless he is Willis E.
Thanks, Simonjm. Usually, the rules don’t allow anyone to peek at papers under review.
I have not said that there is no evidence for AGW. I’ve just asked what the evidence is … and without a single reply to date. Time’s running out …
w.
Willis just afterwoods will do fine.
Sorry don’t know what you have rejected already, how about you contact that site that has been mentioned that is run by climatologists and have them repond to your questions?
Post the replies here.
Then you have it from the horses mouth so to speak and don’t have to rely on lay people to answer your question. I’d like to see you tell them where they have it wrong.
Simonjm, the depressing part (or perhaps the encouraging part) is that after all the abuse I’ve taken, after JQs proud boasting on the top of the page and his claims that I’m in denial about the reams of evidence that he has claimed exists, the total amount of evidence that has been offered (not put up and rejected, but offered) in support of Prof. Quiggins claims has been … well, not to put too fine a point on it, the total of offered evidence has been zero.
Like I say, I feel at least like the abuse is now shown up for what it is … a bunch of people who are on very shaky evidentiary ground, who are trying desperately to make people look somewhere else, anywhere else, other than at the lack of evidence for their beliefs.
Anyhow, maybe some evidence will turn up …
w.
Well, while I’m waiting for the reams of evidence of AGW to come in, I thought I’d write about UHI (Urban Heat Islands) and global average tempertures.
Now, some people say there’s no such thing as a global average temperature. I just laugh and say “Sure there is … in fact there’s three of them …”
These three are the global average temperatures calculated by GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies), GHCN (Global Historical Climate Network), and the Jones or HadCRUT (Hadley Climate Research Unit) average temperature records.
The only problem is … they’re all different.
Since 1880, the GHCN record says we’ve warmed by 0.76° per century. The Jones record says we’ve warmed by 0.64° per century. And the GISS record says we’ve warmed by 0.48° per century.
Now these guys each claim that their record is correct, of course. Why are they different? Well, it’s not entirely clear. Phil Jones refuses to let researchers look at his raw data, so we can’t tell about the HadCRUT temperature set (as I commented before … bad researcher … no cookies). For example, Jones only uses about 450 temperature stations, whereas GISS and GHCN use about 1,800 stations. Why … well … Phil’s not saying …
For the other averages, differences seem to be in how they account for grid cells (typically 5° x 5°) with only a few temperature stations, how they do what are called “variance adjustments”, how they deal with cells with no stations (which is far more common than you would think), how they average the cells together, and how they deal with UHI.
Since the GHCN record shows more than 50% !! more warming than the GISS record, this is more than a theoretical question, and points to the possible importance of the UHI in all of the records. Has the UHI been accounted for correctly in any of these global averages?
Sad to say … we don’t know. We don’t even have records (photographs, descriptions, etc.) of each the temperature stations themselves, how could we possibly know if UHI has been correctly accounted for?
And at the end of the day, we still don’t even know within 50% how much the world is warming … with this kind of radical disagreement on a most basic, central fact, climate science is obviously not anywhere near as accurate as most people assume. In short, it’s not yet ready for prime time …
My advice? Let’s not rush out and spend billions of dollars on climate control solutions quite yet … we don’t even know how much we’re warming right now, much less how much we might warm in the future.
w.
“I have not said that there is no evidence for AGW. I’ve just asked what the evidence is … and without a single reply to date. Time’s running out …”
Willis, I took it as read that people were aware of the large volume of evidence supporting various aspects of the AGW hypothesis and that I could merely summarise the results.
Now, after 1000 comments over two posts, I discover you aren’t aware of any of the evidence supporting AGW. As it happens there’s a body called the International Panel on Climate Change that’s ideally suited to the needs of people like yourself who are (apparently) to the issue. Its reports, available on the Internets, summarise thousands of studies in reputable peer-reviewed journals.
Maybe you should read them, talk to some real scientists with proper jobs and actual research experience in the field and then come back.
John Q,
This thread has really become a hornet’s nest – I really hope these people never meet up somewhere…
Dogz, You stated this earlier: “Our technological capabilities already increase geometrically without consuming more than the interest provided by nature”.
Clearly, the loss of biodiversity (estimated at thousands of times the natural backgroud rate), the number of well known species that are threatened (10-40% depending on taxonomic group), the loss of 10,000-30,000 genetically distinct populations per day (see Hughes et al., 1997) massive declines of groundwater, soil productivity and fertility, etc. as well as the fact that human activities now impact biogeochemical cycles over huge spatial scales is sufficient evidence that our species is living off of natural capital, rather than income. The fact that 11 of the 15 major fisheries in the world have been depleted to the point of collapse is further evidence. We’ve also significantly reduced a number of ecosystem services, but luckliy for us the systems have thus far been resilient enough – and to contain enough functional redundancy – that they haven’t been yet pushed beyond a point where they cannot sustain themselves and us. But we are headed in that direction, and this is hardly controversial. In simpler language, humans are conducting a single experiment on systems of unimaginable complexity whose function we barely understand but upon which our survival is utterly dependent. Its galling enough that most of the contrarians who populate this site have not got a clue about the importance of natural systems in providing life-support for civilization, but because they don’t understand it at all they dismiss it. This is complete and utter folly.
As for Graeme, I am sure to be in his firing line next, but he writes as if the well-being of natural systems and humans are mutually exclusive. He also peddles out the long discredited Charles (Quark Soup), Hans (everywhere) and Greening Earth Society nonsense that ‘warming is good’. This comes from a complete misunderstanding of ecology and the roles played by various abiotic factors in driving different processes over variable scales of space and time.
Further, his words resonate with the message that our species is exempt from the laws of nature, and that we can continue to nickel and dime the planet to death and that there will no consequences. Its this type of simplicity that tells my in CAPITAL LETTERS that scientists have got to do a heck of a lot more to show how the expansion of the human enterprise – mostly to support the whims of the privileged few – is pushing us towards a cliff. There is tons of empirical evidence showing this in the biodiversity-ecosystem functioning debate but its clear that Graeme – and Willis – and most of the other nay-sayers here don’t peruse through the ISI Web of Science and assiduously go through the relevant journals.
Willis, two points. First, read issues of Nature, Sceince, and the IPCC document again. As a scientist, I place much more faith in the conclusions of 2,500 climate scientists who cotributed to the IPCC final draft and the NAS document than in a few contrarians and corporate-funded web sites.
Second, the rate of warming between 1880 and 1940 was not as severe as it has been since 1980, and morever, biomes across the planet have been radically altered by human activities muc more during the latter period (e.g. especially since 1950). Thus, the ability of anthropogenically simplified natural systems to respond to a changing climate is much less now than when these systems were much more resilient. To adapt to a changing climate, species and populations must now traverse vast expanses of agricultural and urbanized landscapes that simply did not exist in that state over 100 years ago. There will be many losers. The consequences of further simplification of nature are likely to be dire, and delayed (as I said in my last post). In other words, many of the effects of human changes even initiated decades (or even centuries) ago will not manifest themselves on provisioning ecological services for many years, and perhaps only decades into the future, by which time it will be too late to do anything, and the quality of life for our species will drop rapidly and precipitously. I can’t tell exactly when this will happen, because we are capable of devising temporary technological fixes which forestall the expression of the problems, but there is no doubt that we are headed in the wrong direction. This point is not controversial at all amongst most statured scientists.
The changes are likely to be non-linear, in other words initially gradual and then express themselves as sudden entropy. Its like rocking a canoe past a point of no return: one can rock the canoe a considerable amount and them suddenly be pitched into the water. Global environmental change predicated by human activities will do much the same: expect nasty surprises.
Hans, I’m sorry if I am so heavy on you, but I still can’t figure out why you don’t publish your concerns in the mainstream peer-revewed journals. Is it because you can’t? I’ll consider the aerosols point carefully, but please try and avoid making fatuous remarks about the benefits of warming. In doing this you are speaking off the top of your head, and I expect more from a qualified scientist.
Yes Willis why not start at http://www.realclimate.org/ throw your hat in the ring and tell them why they are wrong.
Let us know when you start and which thread, as many here would love to see how you go 😉
& don’t forget to let us know how your frog paper goes.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=477#comment-11064
To Jeff:
Why I don’t submit to a peer reviewed journal.
Most content on my website is there as backgrounder for discussions on several internet forums, as such is is basic statistical information, few journals will consider acceptance. A few items cold develop into a paper (eg my Arrhenius work) but I doubt that outside science historical journals this will be accepted.
But be patient, perhaps you’ll see more of me, in the meantime I do publish on the internet, not peer reviewed , just like Arrhenius did in 1896. I however have an advantage: It’s free, in colour, available to everybody with internet, and published in seconds. Compare this to a paper when I publish it in a journal, publication is delayed by months and people have to pay to read it. The small benefit is that it’s peer reviewed and it is included in a citation index. Now I don’t benefit from a citation index as my income is not depending on scientific publications.
People who disagree with my work have told me so in forums (you can consider this also as peer review) and I have evolved my opinion eg on climate sensitivity. If you do have criticism on my work feel free to join the regular fora eg ukweatherworld or yahoo climatechangedebate.
In the mean time there is a lot of poor publications about which I won’t hesitate to criticise.
The big difference between us is: I’m an optimist, you are a pessimist. We live in the same world, but I am happier.
Jeff (Harvey), thanks for your long and well though out post.
You recommend that I read Science, Nature, and the IPCC documents again. Your blind faith in peer review, while touchingly heart-warming, is sadly misplaced. This was most clearly shown recently in the Hwang misadventure in Science. Regarding Nature, my experience with their peer-review system is not good either. I have written a piece, which they published, showing the errors in one of their peer-reviewed climate “science” articles. All peer-review does, especially these days, is make sure that the article doesn’t contravene the prejudices of the editors of the journal.
The problems with the IPCC and its non-existent “peer-review” process of its “science” have been covered in a number of publications. The problems are highlighted by their blind, unthinking, uncritical acceptance of the Mann “hockeystick”, simply because Mann was the lead author of the section of the IPCC report where the “hockeystick” was published. But that is not the only problem. See the resignation of Dr. Chris Landsea, and the mistreatment of Dr. Reiter for his temerity in disagreeing with the IPCC, and the way the IPCC has (mis)handled the Castles/Henderson critique, and the changes made in the Summary of the TAR after the scientists had gone home, and the treatment of the issues raised by Richard Lindzen, for other examples. Take off the dark glasses, bro’, and look at these questions closely … the way the IPCC does business will turn your stomach.
For example, you repeat the oft-quoted claim that there are “2,500 climate scientists” involved with the IPCC … bwahahahaha, that’s hilarious … check out how many of the 2,500 are actually climate scientists, and then report back to us with your findings. You’ll be shocked to find out that many of them, far from being climate scientists, are not scientists at all. I await your report.
So, while you may prefer to hang out and get your information from established frauds like Michael Mann and to blindly believe the journal that published Hwang … me, I prefer science, myself.
A good example of this is that, for all of the heat and noise about Science and Nature and IPCC, you have not provided a single bit of evidence that AGW is real, and neither has anyone else on this blog. Do you call that science? Surely, if you are so sure about the science, you could give me at least one tiny bit of evidence to support your case?
Second, the record shows that the rate of warming in the years running up to 1940 was indeed as rapid as the warming in the second half of the decade. The Jones et. al. record shows that the warming 1910-1940 was 0.15°/decade, while the warming 1950 to present was 0.10°/decade.
Third, regarding species loss from warming, you say that from warming
But … where are they?
No one has ever explained to me why, if a species can survive a swing of say 40°C in a single day, it will be threatened by a 1°C rise in average temperature. We’re all in agreement (I think) that the earth has warmed, something like a couple of degrees. since 1700. And we’re all in agreement that there are on the order of ten million species on the earth.
A recent study in Nature magazine (“Extinction Risk From Climate Change”, January 2004) said that a 1° temperature rise would drive up to 37% of all species extinct. But let’s say they exaggerated a bit (what? scientists exaggerate? in Nature magazine?), lets say it’s only 10% of the species, that would mean a million species should have gone extinct since 1700.
So it should be dead easy for you to identify for me say five of the one million species that have gone extinct from climate change in the last 300 years … I’m not asking for all one million names, you understand, just five will do.
I await your response …
w.
Willis asked a straight question. JQ said he should go read some more IPCC reports, although Willis seem on the face of it to have read more IPCC reports than anybody else here. Then SimonJM tells Willis to go and have a discussion with the people at realclimate.org, however Willis has been active over there already. SimonJM is starting a trend actually, because he also told me to discuss economics at some site other than johnquiggin.com. Apparently he thinks there is no one at johnquiggin.com qualified to refute my views effectively.
Rather than telling Willis to go away why not attempt to answer his question. It can’t hurt. At the end of the day the topic was started so that a discussion could be held. So rather than sending people away (or abusing people) why not discuss? The worst that could happen is that we learn something that we didn’t know.
~~~
Willis you appear to accept that the Earth is undergoing a global warming. And I assume that you accept that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased over the last few centuries. I don’t know if you attribute the CO2 increase to humans but let me assume for the moment that you do.
From the above we can speculate about a theory called AGW. It says that humans are warming the earth by increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere and the CO2 is trapping more of the suns heat. Now it seems to me that on a pragmatic level any outright rejection of the theory would need to entail contrary evidence or else a better theory. Otherwise we would have to say it is our best theory even if unproven. So given that you appear well read let me ask you two questions:-
a) Do you know of any evidence that contradicts the AGW theory.
b) What do you believe is currently the best theory to explain GW.
Terje, think about what WIllis is suggesting. How, in a comments thread or blog post, can I or anyone else “provide” evidence on global warming other than by pointing to it. Even the bibliography of the IPCC would be far too long to print. The Oreskes study listed nearly 1000 scientific publications supporting AGW and statements by leading scientific bodies. These in turn referred to more publications.
On the other side we have a body of work so thin that its forced to rely (literally) on astrologers for support.
John,
There are two different versions of proof being argued over here. Willis seems to be dealing with the version called “beyond reasonable doubt”. You seem to be dealing with the lesser version called “on the balance of probability”.
Now I think your version is acceptable in so far as the other version may be unobtainable. However if you are using the latter version then we still need to remain open to reasonable doubts, even if we proceed with action.
If however you are dealing with the version called “beyond reasonable doubt” then surely you could paraphrase the strong points of evidence that show that Global Warming is caused by humans.
My own view is that AGW is on the “balance of probability” the best theory we have. Hence my question to Willis seeking any better theories. As you say there are thousands of small bits of insight that contribute to the overall AGW picture. However I remain open to contrary insights which is why I make space for Willis and want him to continue his contribution and why I would like people to give him a straight answer rather than a dismissive one.
~~
And John while I have your attention can you clear up your position further for me. I accept your view that Kyoto probably will not cost much in the great scheme of things. However do you accept that the benefit is tiny. Do you except that by the end of the century it would only delay warming (if AGW is correct) by a few years.
And if the real end point is some type of Kyoto+ arrangement then surely we should be costing that and comparing those costs to its corresponding benefits.
Regards,
Terje.
If it isn’t human warming it sure looks like at least partly CO2 warming. You can see this by its benign nature.
You would expect the warming to be global at the level where the Troposphere starts. Since that’s where the greenhouse gasses hang out. And everywhere we see melting on the high mountains. The snows of Kiliminjaro are melting. But not much in the way of reports of warming at ground level.
They say that the hot places will get hotter and the cold places will get colder. They talk nonsense when they say this as a generalisation.
Since CO2, water vapour and other greenhouse gasses help increase retention of heat in a logarithmic way and not in an additive way, we would not expect any extra heat coming from extra CO2 in the rain forests. The only hot places we would expect to get hotter would be the deserts where the air is dry. Of course this generalisation doesn’t include more complex knock-on effects with currents and wind systems. But it would still hold true as a generalisation.
Most of the dry air on the planet is cold air. And the cold dry air is warming as we would expect. The weather is improving for people in Siberia. And there is much melting going on in Greenland. The temperature at the tree line is warming and in the Arctic.
We would expect the weather to become on average more severe if all the extra warmth was coming from extra radiation from the sun. Since there is greater heat differential to be distributed from the equator to the poles.
But its just the opposite for CO2 warming. We expect from CO2-based warming less severe ‘extreme weather events’ because of the blanket effect and less heat differential between the equator and the poles.
This is for the most part what we are seeing indeed. What we have been seeing since the 1950’s or so. The strength of hurricanes and cyclones has reduced on average. Except quite recently off the coast of Florida and Louisiana. And those cyclones appear to be on a thirty year cycle and were due for a more violent time…….
CO2 warming is an incredibly benign type of warming. And I hope it is partly a man-made phenomenon. Because this idea, if true, is a source of great hope and optimism for the planet. And if true will be making life easier for many people this very day.
“And John while I have your attention can you clear up your position further for me. I accept your view that Kyoto probably will not cost much in the great scheme of things. However do you accept that the benefit is tiny. Do you except that by the end of the century it would only delay warming (if AGW is correct) by a few years.
And if the real end point is some type of Kyoto+ arrangement then surely we should be costing that and comparing those costs to its corresponding benefits. ”
I agree. I have posted estimates on this in the past, and will do a new post soon.
except != accept.
I can’t believe I got it both correct and incorrect within one paragraph. Doh!!
Thanks John. I look forward to the new post.
Willis wrote;
“But … where are they?
No one has ever explained to me why, if a species can survive a swing of say 40°C in a single day, it will be threatened by a 1°C rise in average temperature……”.
While some people display a detailed knowledge of ‘hockey sticks’ and other seemingly arcane subjects, biology and ecology may not be their cup of tea.
Many species have highly temperature sensitive functions/behaviours. Embyro development in the estuarine crocodile is one such case- sex determination is temperature dependant. Higher temperatures favour the developement of females. High enough temperatures result in no males.
There are also fish species that are temperature dependant sex determinants.
Terje just to refresh my memory where did I say to look at economics at another site?
Michael H., thanks for your reply, but you seem to have missed my question, despite quoting it. My question was … where are they?
If a small temperature rise will drive thousands of species extinct … where are the extinct species from the last three centuries of temperature rise? I mean, the estuarine crocodiles didn’t go extinct from the temperature rise of this century.
Michael, you claim expertise in this matter, and say that “biology and ecology may not be [my] cup of tea” … leaving the insult aside, where are all these putative species which have been driven extinct by the ~1-2° temperature rise of the last few centuries?
I pointed out that the Nature article claimed up to 37% of all species would be driven extinct by a 1° temperature change … where are they?
w.
JQ, as always, your postings are interesting. You say:
John, this is specious. You provide evidence on this blog for a variety of things, both economic and climate related. You do it by saying “The evidence for this is …” and then you list the evidence.
Or, if you have Fermat’s problem, and the evidence is too small to fit into the margin, you say “I’ve posted the evidence at http://www.somewherespecial.org“.
Are you saying that your blog is an evidence-free zone? I don’t get the objection. You abuse all sceptics by saying (my emphasis)
Then when I say “What evidence? Bring on the evidence!” you say oh, sorry, can’t provide evidence on this blog, I can only point to it … Say what?
OK, point to it, then. Use sign language, message in a bottle, I don’t care, but for goodness sake, what evidence are you saying I am rejecting and distorting?
You must have had some evidence in mind when you claimed I’m “rejecting evidence” … at least I hope you did. So trot it out, whisper its location, indicate it by the cryptic means of your choice, but don’t try to slide out from under with a claim that a blog can’t contain evidence …
w.
PS — Although I must say, to date, this blog sure hasn’t contained much evidence, so maybe you’re right ..
PPS — Remember the frogs? I said the frog extinction claims were nonsense, and I provided evidence by quoting the Red List entries showing that some of the “extinct” frogs were in fact not extinct, and citing the source of the evidence. Take that as a model — make some evidentiary claims, and cite the references … am I nuts here? Is this really that hard? Quote the evidence, and point to where the quote is from …
Terje, your posting are always most welcome. You say:
Since so far no one has offered even a single shred of evidence, we are a long, long ways from the distinction between “beyond a reaonable doubt” and “on the balance of probability”. We’re still at the “no evidence at all” stage, which obviously doesn’t meet either standard.
If we get some evidence, we can then move on to discussing what kind of standard of proof we’re looking for … but that’s then, and this is now.
w.
1. Terje, where is the cost-benefit analysis of ‘economic rationalism’?
2. WE, where is the evidence that past investment decisions in physical capital, some of which produces emissions, having been based on evidence which fulfills the criteria you want?
BTW Terje do you think a google post debate between lay people even with science or academic backgrounds can definitively prove one way or another something as complex AGW?
A my link your link is enough information is enough to trump not only the climate scientists themselves but the worlds leading scientific institutions that give scientific advice to the G8 countries who have come out supporting AGW?
Gee if that is all it takes we can certainly save plenty of money if we just shut down those institutons and leave it up to google debates instead.
Why not forget about peer review or getting qualified in a discipline just collect the raw data somewhat like accountants and publish it on the web and we have a new era of scientific knowledge at a greatly reduced price?
Sure put up reasons the sceptics feel you have a case it just seems incredulous that a group from outside a discipline can strut around saying the work of those qualified is crock of sH%t and that they who are most qualified and with the best resources can get it so wrong.
Not only that but what a really weak edifice our science and scientific institutions must be on that that the mainstream institutions are likewise hoodwinked into supporting flawed science and that they have persuaded even Bush and co –who are rolling back environmental regulations left right and center- that they can no longer contest the science.
Opps there goes the baby!
-Funny how that seems to happen only on environmental issues that affect the business community 😉
Lastly since Willis has been at realclimate and ignored what they have to why bother debating with those less qualified? If the experts in the field cannot set him right or show the evidence he’s looking for we sure as hell wont.
I’d still like to see Willis and his fellow AGW recalcitrants start a fresh debate over there so I can see them put those wacky climate scientists in their place and teach them a thing or to about real science, the type that doesn’t impact on business profits.
Like the creationists when they say there is no evidence at all for evolution even after debating with evolutionary biologists if Willis has already gone to realclimate and is still ignortant of the evidence for AGW then I’m not going to waste my time on it.
My suggestion is that any future AGW debates are transferred to realclimate so at least when they so readily dismiss the evidence presented from the horses mouth.
Michael H., I got to thinking about your estuarine crocodiles … having lived up close and personal with them in the past, and having killed one that came up on land and was eating the local dogs, I figured I should learn more about them.
You say
While I find evidence that higher temperatures lead to less males, I find nothing that says that high enough temperatures result in no males.
I find the following
SOURCE:http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Crocodylus_porosus.html
However, you’ve chosen a very, very poor example of creatures at the mercy of climate change. This is because salt-water crocs are sneaky … they use the heat of decomposing vegetable matter to keep the temperature just where they need it to be:
SOURCE: http://www.billabongsanctuary.com.au/article2.asp?Id=79&group=reptiles
So, those dang crocs won’t just lay down and die if the temperature varies by a few degrees … mighty impolite of them, I’d say, but typical of all species — they’re hard to drive extinct.
So where are the extinct species, the ones that died from a mild warming?
The world wonders …
w.
On the shelf next to the cost-benefit analysis for socialism, christianity and waffles.
Not so far but time will tell.
Let me repeat my earlier questions to Willis:-
a) Do you know of any evidence that contradicts the AGW theory.
b) What do you believe is currently the best theory to explain GW.
Willis wrote,
“Michael H., thanks for your reply, but you seem to have missed my question, despite quoting it. My question was … where are they?
………………..
I pointed out that the Nature article claimed up to 37% of all species would be driven extinct by a 1° temperature change … where are they?�
I don’t know is you’re just careless or are being deliberately obtuse.
Jeff’s initial proposition was that ‘there will be� future species losses. That’s future tense, to which you requested to be shown were that had already happened, relating this question to your highly flawed summary of the Nature article.
It doesn’t predict 37% species extinction based on a 1 degree temp rise. It actually talks about “commitment to extinction’, that is the commencement of a process by 2050, that would lead to extinction, and the 37% figure relates to the maximal climate change scenario, rather than the minimal scenario as you misleadingly suggest. This inaccuracy then forms the basis of all your subsequent ‘scepticism’.
And rather than making wild claims, which seems to be part of your point, the Nature study is quite aware of it’s own limitations,
“Many unknowns remain in projecting extinctions, and the values provided here should not be taken as precise predictions. Analyses need to be repeated for larger samples of regions and taxa, and the selection of climate change scenarios need to be standardized…………We estimate proportions of species committed to future extinction as a consequence of climate change over the next 50 years, not the number of species that will become extinct during this period.�
If your comment “why, if a species can survive a swing of say 40°C in a single day, it will be threatened by a 1°C rise in average temperature..” is any indication of your understanding of ecology and ecosytems, it’s no wonder you fail to see any problems.
I wonder if it was waffles that got me moderated?
Michael, thanks for your reply. Yes, Jeff’s proposition was that “there will be” losses from future temperature rises.
This, of course, implies that there should also be losses from past temperature rises … unless I’m missing something, a temperature rise is a temperature rise, whether it happens tomorrow or yesterday.
So it is more than reasonable to ask, where are the losses from past temperature rises? What’s the problem with that question? Why is it out of bounds (other than the fact that you don’t know the answer)?
Since the temperature rises took place over the last three centuries, your explanation of the “committment to extinction” and how it will take time for the extinctions to actually happen simply doesn’t apply. We’ve had plenty of time, three centuries for the “relaxation” to take place, so we should have seen some extinctions by now. We haven’t seen any. In technical terms, this is known as a “clue” …
Also, I did not take the 37%, I took 10%. Hey, let’s make it 5%, I don’t care. 5% of ten million species, that’s half a million species you say have gone extinct.
Where are they? Look, Michael, the fact is, out of that half a million claimed extinctions, you can’t name me one lousy species that ever went extinct from climate change, not one. All of your fluffing around with claiming I don’t understand ecology and ecosystems is designed to obfuscate that simple point.
If climate change drives hundreds of thousands of species extinct as you claim, we would have noticed at least one of them …
I’m not impressed by insults. I’m not impressed by “it wasn’t 37%”. I’m not impressed by your claims of profound knowledge of ecosystems. You want to make some headway here?
Name a species.
w.
Let me try to get around the moderation problem and try again.
I would like to repeat my earlier questions to Willis:-
a) Do you know of any evidence that contradicts the AGW theory.
b) What do you believe is currently the best theory to explain GW.
Willis: The dinosaurs.
Terje, asking for evidence of global warming, is a poorly defined question. For example, does one mean, evidence of global warming or evidence of anthrogenic global warming. This is important, because some skeptics argue that the world isn’t warming (rather what we are seeing is an illusion due to urban heat islands) and other skeptics argue that the world is warming but humans aren’t causing it.
That CO2 causes warming is basic physics. I really don’t see how anybody can argue against that (unless one heads into serious pseudoscientific territory). But a much more interesting question would be, how much warming are greenhouse gases causing?
Terje, excellent questions. My apologies for not answering them sooner, occasionally things get lost in the flood.
Regarding a), “Do you know of any evidence that contradicts the AGW theory?”, as I have said before, I am an agnostic rather than a sceptic on the question of climate and CO2. We simply don’t have enough evidence to say one way or the other.
The underlying problem is that CO2 is a second or third level forcing, with a theoretical effect of only some ~3.7 w/m2 for a doubling of CO2. IPCC estimates are that the doubling will take ~130 years, so we are looking for evidence for (or against) a forcing change of say 0.03 watts/m2/year, a microscopic amount. This is a very difficult task in the best of situations, and we don’t have the best of situations.
What we have is less than two thousand temperature stations of unknown and highly variable quality, to measure the average temperature of ~150 million square kilometres of land. This means one thermometer for every ~85,000 square kilometres … take a guess at how accurate that will be.
And then add the fact that land is only about 30% of the world’s surface, and that coverage of the sea temperature is much, much worse than on land, and you can get an idea of the vagueness of our data.
Add on to that the UHI problem, the poor distribution of the measuring stations (sometimes quite close, sometimes thousands of miles away from each other), and then consider how accurate the whole “global average” is likely to be … and we want to detect a signal of a few hundredths of a degree per year? Bwahahahaha … with the data we have, three groups of scientists give warming rates that differ by 50%, without even taking into effect the uncertainty of each rate calculation!
We can say certain things about all of this. There is, for example, plenty of evidence that the current crop of GCMs does not accurately model the climate. The results are not even lifelike, and they perform poorly on “out-of-sample” data. But this provides no evidence that a small increase in CO2 will or will not warm the world.
Or again, in the ice core records, temperature is clearly driving the CO2 levels with a lag of about 800 years. But this doesn’t really say whether a doubling of the CO2 will have any effect, it just shows that temperature has always driven CO2 in the past, and not vice versa.
For me, the clearest evidence that a doubling of CO2 will not upset the global temperature balance is the stability of the worlds temperature over the last 3 billion years or so. During that time, the strength of the sun has increased by about ~30%, and the temperature has not risen correspondingly. This implies a very strong negative feedback, one which can overcome a forcing change of ~100 watts/m2. With such a feedback, a change of a few watts/m2 will not make much difference.
My own theory is that this feedback is of the form:
Increased warming -> increased evaporation -> increased clouds -> increased albedo -> decreased solar input.
Indeed, negative feedbacks (such as the one above) must be stronger than positive feedbacks, or the world would have spiraled into either a barbecue or a snowball long ago, and never returned. Instead, it has stayed in the narrow range that allows life for three billion years … amazing.
–
Regarding your question b), “What do you believe is currently the best theory to explain GW?”, if a room has a fireplace, and the room is getting warmer, before we start thinking about the CO2 content of the air we should look at the conditions of the fire.
My feeling is that variations in the sun are responsible for the warming which has occurred since 1700. However, it is not the variation in the TSI (total solar irradiance) which is causing the change. It is the variation in the solar magnetic field which causes the variation in temperature.
This magnetic effect is mediated by, of all things, cosmic rays. When the sun’s magnetism is weak, many more cosmic rays strike the earth. Just as in a “cloud chamber”, which was an early radiation detection device, cosmic rays cause cloud formation. Less magnetism, then, means more cosmic rays, which means more clouds, and colder weather.
In about 1700 we had the “Maunder Minimum”, when there were no sunspots (indicating low solar magnetism) for a period of some years. This occurred at the same time as the “Little Ice Age”, the coldest period in modern history. I don’t think this was coincidental.
Since then, the sun’s magnetic field has increased, and is now the strongest it has been in 1000 years. As the sun’s magnetic field has increased, clouds have decreased, and the earth has heated up.
(By the way, don’t believe the GCM people when they say “We’ve included changes in the sun in our models, and they don’t explain the warming.” What they mean is that they’ve included changes in TSI in their models, and it hasn’t explained the warming. The modelers seem reluctant to include the changes in solar magnetism in their models … which likely relates to the fact that it is hard to predict the future magnetism of the sun, so how could they truly include this most relevant of forcings?)
Anyhow, those are my ideas about the whole thing. Your mileage may vary …
w.
Willis, glad you’ve been reading about crocodiles.
Unfortunately for crocs their skill in regulating temperature is best in one direction – up. That’s the thing with decomposing plant matter, it produces heat, not cooling. So in cool conditions, more plant material can be scraped onto the mound. If it warms, material can be scrapped away, but only until there is none left and then…….
The sex ratio of hatchlings is usually in favour of females even in normal conditions, but becomes very skewed to females as the temp rises. Survival rates are very low for hatchlings and so a low number of male hatchlings means trouble.
Fortunately for crocs their distribution makes it very unlikely they are candidates for an untimely demise. As the ‘Nature’ study points out, other factors such as the proximity of other suitable habitats and the ability of species to move to them will also determine the risk of extinction.
Tropical mountain habitats are an example. Rising temps mean cool climatic conditions simply ‘migrate’ upwards. Which is fine if you have the altitude to do so – if you don’t (like here), that habitat, and the species which rely on that precise habitat may simply disappear.
Crocs illuminate a particular point – that temperature changes, which seem minor in terms of human comfort, can have significant effects.
The underlying problem is that CO2 is a second or third level forcing, with a theoretical effect of only some ~3.7 w/m2 for a doubling of CO2. IPCC estimates are that the doubling will take ~130 years, so we are looking for evidence for (or against) a forcing change of say 0.03 watts/m2/year, a microscopic amount. This is a very difficult task in the best of situations, and we don’t have the best of situations.
Now, to inject some reality into the conversation.
The radiative forcing caused by a doubling of CO2 is estimated to be between 3.5 and 4.1 Wm-2.
The IPCC does not estimate that doubling will take ~130 years.
Also, the effect of CO2 radiative forcing drops as the concentration increases, so simply dividing forcing by time is ludicrous.
And, what on earth does “CO2 is a second or third level forcing” actually mean? I suspect that it’s meaningless fluff.