ABC Four Corners ran an interesting show last night on the anti-science interest groups who dominate the formulation and official discussion of policy on global warming in Australia. Transcript here, along with discussion from Tim Lambert and Larvatus Prodeo.
What particularly interested me was the number of scientists who had been pushed out of CSIRO, or had left of their own volition, after being tightly censored in what they could say about global warming, and the emissions reductions that would be needed to stabilise the climate (the latter point is particularly sensitive since any actual number implies a target and government policy is opposed to targets).
In particular, I was struck by the fact that global warming contrarians commonly explain the overwhelming support of climate scientists for the consensus view on anthropogenic global warming in terms of careerism. The contrarians say that if the scientists deviated from the dominant consensus, they would lose their jobs or their grant funding.
THe Four Corners report made it clear that, in Australia (as also in the US) the exact opposite is the truth. Speaking out in support of science on global warming is a very bad career move, at least for anyone employed by the government. In climate science, where the big organisations have been CSIRO and the Met Bureau, that constraint applies to most people working in the field.
John Quiggin 
I appreciate Paul Williams’ honesty in making clear that, for most contrarians, global warming is a party-political, and not a scientific, issue. As I said quite a while back, only financial motives, ideological motives or a dogmatic adherence to previously held views can explain GW contrarianism, and Paul illustrates one part of this conclusion very nicely.
But he’s at least the third right-wing contrarian in the last few threads to assert that I’m doing all this because of affiliations with the Labor Party, and or hopes of a job with them. I don’t have any such affiliations, and if you care to search the blog for “Labor”, “Beazley” or “Ferguson” you’ll find that I haven’t exactly sought to curry favor with the ALP, particularly its current hereditary leadership.
[In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I was a member of the ALP from the early 70s to the mid-80s. I haven’t been a member of any political party for 20 years or so.]
I”m sorry Paul Williams, but people like yourself and Willis do not command my respect because you knowingly set out to deceive those who are new to the AGW debate. For example you say:
“The failure of the warmers to acknowledge past climate changes such as the Medieaval Warm Period ….”
This is a blatant lie. Take for instance Mann and Jones (2004) in “Reviews of Geophysics” which I linked to previously. What the IPCC and mainstream climate science object to is the inference that MWP was a global phenomena.
I am heartily sick of following up Willis’s red herrings and finding that he has lied or deliberately misled. I have provided evidence to show that he has lied or misled on a dozen or more issues including issues related to his supposed speciality of coral reefs. For example he lied about reef recovery times after bleaching events, he lied about coral growth rates, he misled by ignoring the fact that the more biologically significant branching corals are often crowded out by less biologically significant forms after bleaching events and he misled by implying that in general “the warmer the better” for coral reefs.
On other issues he lied and misled with respective to CO2 forcings (although he later changed to admitting 3.7 W/m2 stefan-boltzman), he deceived in claiming that the IUCN Red List is up-to-date and the final word on species status when in fact I showed an example of it being 10 years out of date and he deceived by saying lab results and modelling results are not evidence but later brazenly using both of these to shore up his own arguments without a hint of shame. And so on it goes.
I have long since given up researching and drawing attention to each of Willis’s falsehoods. Most other folk have neither the time or inclination to do so and hence he has used this and the preceding threads for his self-absobed grandstanding. I do not believe this serves any useful purpose for those of us who honestly seek out the truth.
I do not resile from labelling Willis a charlatan. His own actions betray his nature.
Good on you John, I voted Labor in the early 80’s too, but then I grew up. Apologies if you were offended by being linked to Labor. I know I would be!
Steve, you sure spent a lot of time responding to Willis, but it was rather the slurs within your comments that I found disgraceful. Still, your comment to me was quite polite. Thank you.
I’ve seen some fabulous arguments put by the disbelievers when presented with science including having “no experimental evidence” become “yeah but what about the real world” when experimental evidence was provided. Not one of the “compelling” arguments has survived when scrutinised by scientists active in this field, no matter how convincing on the surface. but lay people such as myself can, with a bit of internet searching, find where ideas and arguments originate and the disbelievers are seriously lacking in credible scientific sources, as JQ has pointed out. The AGW science originates in credible scientific institutions and peer reviewed publications, the disbelievers arguments seem to lead back to paid-for-opinion think tanks who deal in rhetorical arguments aimed at pressing peoples ‘buttons’.
Still, we have seen a reluctant shift from the Federal Gov’t – at least our top scientists can speak about AGW like it is real even if they are prevented from saying what actions are needed to do anything about it.
It really is really time to move on and maybe start a search for those of the right who have a clue about how science works, the standing and qualifications of those from the premier science institution that world powers get their scientific advice from and who know when to stop beating a dead horse.
Like the creationists no amount of argument or evidence will say this lot, nor point pointing out the scientific debate is now over and mainstream science is moving on. The AGW recalcitrants just like the creationists are not taken seriously and thought of as jokes in the scientific community maybe we should do the same.
Some from the pro-business right have seen the writing on the wall have been able to accept the umpires decision and move onto constructive input and policies, realising there is actually benefits and profits to be from a more enlightened and rational business stance that incorporates sustainability and ethical behaviour.
There must be some moderates from the right out there that don’t let their ideological bias blind them to the reality of the situation, they sure as hell ain’t here!
Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt would be so proud, never let evidence or reason get in the way important debate.
Lets move on to solutions.
“Good on you John, I voted Labor in the early 80’s too, but then I grew up.”
If you’re not liberal when young, you have no heart. If you’re not more conservative when grown, you have no brain. 🙂
“If you’re not liberal when young, you have no heart. If you’re not more conservative when grown, you have no brain.”
From the opinion polls we can see that “grown” means over 55.
I think it’s actually a bit younger that most people become more conservative. Around 30ish in the US. Of course the arrival of children tends to accelerate the change for many people.
Steve Munn:
But the MWP was a global phenomenon, as referenced by the 240 some proxies surveyed by the metastudy of Soon and Baliunas, and from proxy studies done since from around the world. Oh and don’t bother boring us with a whinge about how the meta-study was partly industry-funded, unless of course you’d like to go for broke and inquire about industry-funding paid to Greenpeace (and we’ll start with Enron for starters)
It was the Mann Hockey Stick that made the claim that the MWP and LIA were not global phenomena, one claim made against a mountain of evidence from all over the planet. The Mann Hockey Stick has been shown very successfully and completely to be a fake.
I’ve no idea how the deeply flawed statistical techniques of Mann and Jones came to be viewed by some as “mainstream science”, but let me assure you, mainstream science has nothing whatsoever to do with refusing to reveal sources of data and key methodological steps for the purposes of replication until told to do so by a Congressional committee.
Oh and by the way, the outputs of climate models are not evidence, in the same way as the outputs of large scale economics models are not evidence, and for exactly the same reasons. People who bet on the predictions of the big economics models quickly went bust. Now if only we could get climate modellers to predict climate change for five or ten years – nah, it’ll never happen, they know what happened to the economists, and they’re running scared.
It’s difficult to see what climate models are for, except of course, to rewrite the past according to the fad belief of the moment. If they were useful, they would have predicted something useful, such as the next El Nino, but sadly no-one is going to put his testicles on the block for that one.
John A, I don’t think a post that starts off with a reference to Soon and Baliunas is likely to do you much good here. Indeed, it’s a strong illustration of the point that most contrarians are acting from ideological/financial motives.
If you want to quote Baliunas, start off by defending (or explaining away) her claim that CFCs don’t harm the ozone layer (search here on “Baliunas”) and you’ll find it.
JQ, what Soon / Baliunas said about CFCs has nothing to do with what they said about anything else.
This constant repetition of ad hominem arguments on this blog is sadly typical of AGW adherents everywhere.
If you have some kind of evidence saying that their study of the MWP is flawed, bring it on, bro’ … but just claiming “they were wrong about something else” means nothing. So what? You were never wrong about one thing and right about another? Should I discount where you were right, simply because some other time you were wrong?
In fact, as Soon and Baliunas clearly demonstrate, there is evidence of a MWP all over the world, from Asia, from South America, I just looked at the Greenland Ice temps and found it there, the evidence shows it was a world-wide phenomenon.
Now if you have evidence that says that all or even some of the references in the Soon/Baliunas paper are incorrect, you can present it and we can discuss it.
That’s how science works, not by ad hominem argument. I don’t care if the evidence has been submitted by a known pathological liar, or by a faulty computer, or whatever. That’s not the question in science. The question is:
IS THEIR EVIDENCE TRUE?
…
…
Oh. I forgot. You don’t do evidence, just ad hominems and hand waving … my error.
w.
“JQ, what Soon / Baliunas said about CFCs has nothing to do with what they said about anything else.”
On the contrary, the argument on CFCs was almost identical to that on global warming, and Baliunas explicitly linked the two.
“From the (Australian) opinion polls we can see that “grownâ€? means over 55.”
“I think it’s actually a bit younger that most people become more conservative. Around 30ish in the US. Of course the arrival of children tends to accelerate the change for many people.”
If that is the case then that’s another difference between Australia and the US.
Steve A,
Your turn to carry the torch I guess. As that goes, this statement:
“Oh and by the way, the outputs of climate models are not evidence, in the same way as the outputs of large scale economics models are not evidence, and for exactly the same reasons. People who bet on the predictions of the big economics models quickly went bust.”
is a canard- and a discordant quacking one at that. Models of climate or of the economy are not intended to be evidence, rather to make use of it. And if economic models are indeed useless than you ought to inform the world’s central banks, money managers, brokerage houses, etc. whose point of view on that subject tends to diverge decidedly from your own.
The fact of the matter is that, where decision making is involved, forecasting is not an elective enterprise. Either a decision is made based on an explicit forecast of its consequences, (i.e. some sort of model), or it implies one. And that is particularly instructive in this case, as it underscores the fact that AGW denialists are not passively questioning scientific theories, but actively postulating global climate dynamics. By advocating a drill and guzzle energy policy, denialists are postulating a model of global climate in which carbon emissions have a negligible effect (or, at worst, an effect less economically wrenching than a slightly higher price for energy). The thing is, as this thread so capably demonstrates, the denialists don’t seem particularly keen to produce that model or argue for its validity. Now, why would that be, I wonder? Could it be they’re underfunded??
PS Willis, Steve Munn has cited a high number of instances in which he claims, credibly given the high degree of specificity, that you played fast and loose with the facts. Maybe, for the purposes of fostering constructive debate if nothing else, it would behoove you to step off the soap box for a moment and address his post.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1666
Statistical results generally involve observing data from which correlations can be drawn to indicate possible cause-and-effect. An example is the much-acclaimed research on mouth cancer for which Dr. Jon Sudbo of the Norwegian Radium Hospital observed a database of 908 participants. Sudbo has admitted to fabricating his database. Many questions addressed to statistical studies involve little more than closely analyzing the specifics of the data. For example, when 250 of the 908 people studied by Sudbo shared the same birth date, a red flag should have fluttered.
Results, such as those claimed by Hwang and the Newcastle team, are “yes/no.” That is to say, the cells and embryos were either cloned in the manner indicated, or not. The questions addressed to “yes/no” experiments may be more fundamental than those addressed to statistical claims but all research should be able to answer them. Those questions include:
+ Is the report, including all data and methodology, available for examination? If not, then the researcher is asking you to accept his word for the findings.
+ What is the researcher’s reputation? More credibility should be accorded to the claims of a scientist with a sound track record than to an unknown factor who comes out of nowhere.
+ Who funds the research? A questionable source of money does not invalidate research but public skepticism should sharpen if the funder stands to profit from a specific finding and, indeed, that finding results.
+ Have the findings been independently verified? Claims should be sufficiently documented to allow replication. (Unfortunately non-scientific concerns, like patents, sometimes interfere with disclosure.)
+ Does the claim contradict previous data? A breakthrough that achieves a difficult result is qualitatively different than one that achieves a result previously believed impossible. A ‘paradigm shift’ demands a high degree of proof because it involves invalidating previous findings.
+ Does the claim include policy recommendations or changes in law? Research that includes a political agenda is more likely to express the researcher’s personal beliefs than work that merely states data and findings.
+ What is the response of the scientific community?
+ Where was the research published? The differing levels of prestige for scientific journals has been quantified in terms of their “impact factor.” If a researcher publishes in a low impact journal, then asking ‘why’ becomes appropriate.
JQ, thanks for your reply. I said:
You replied:
We were talking about the Soon / Baliunas paper on the MWP being a worldwide phenomenon, and listing over 200 proxies.
What on earth does that have to do with CFCs?
My point is simple. Soon and Baliunas presented evidence to show the MWP was a worldwide phenomenon. If you want to refute that conclusion, you have to refute that evidence.
Refuting their arguments or evidence re: CFCs means nothing about the Medieval Warm Period.
Do you have anything to refute their evidence about the MWP? if not … once again, John, we’re to the “put up or shut up” time regarding evidence. Handwaving and talking about CFCs won’t do it. Ad hominems are not enough. They’ve listed over 200 proxies showing the MWP existed all around the world. You claim it was only a local European phenomenon.
And your evidence for that claim is? …
w.
Willis, your claim is that I should accept a summary of the evidence even if it comes from known liars (your example, and applicable here, as I’ve already pointed out). How does this work?
Have you checked each of the 200 proxies, and made sure there are no others omitted? If not, what do you have to go on apart from the authority of Soon and Baliunas, which is worthless?
20 Feb 06
I am always intrigued by the uncrticial attitude of JQ and his acolyte to anything on Kyoto which supports their core beliefs. Frankly I find it hard to belive any reputable economic or econometric journal could have published the article by Osborne and Briffa in Science (10 Feb 06) that has been widely reported as confirming AGM and in particular the IPCC’s controversial reliance on Michael Mann’s (et al.) “hockey stick” portrayal of global temperatures over the last millennium to the present.
However O&B actually demonstrate that there was in fact a period of significant warmth around 1400 (without admitting that Mann et al. had not shown this), and that it was not much less pronounced (their Fig.2) than the present warming (allowing for uncertainties over whether tree rings are truly an accurate temperature gauge within not more than 1 degree C margins of error). Nevertheless O&B still conclude “the late 20th century was the warmest period during the last millennium” (p.841).
But there are other problems with their paper:
1. The authors used only those proxy records (14 in all) that “are positively correlated with their local temperature observations” (since those became available about 1850). This is a bit like joining up only those dots in a scatter diagram that fit a preconceived hypothesis, or in other words, there appears to be some cherry picking here. Why are the many other tree ring series Not “positively correlated”?
2. This leads on to the validity of the correlations as presented. Only two of the 11 tree ring series used by O&B have correlations greater than 0.5. This suggests that the null hypothesis of b = 1 for the equation TR = a + bt (which is required for use of tree rings as proxies for temperature) is not confirmed.
3. Whilst O&B rely on the equation
TR = a + bt …… (1)
(where TR are tree ring widths, and t is temperature)
for the instrumental period since 1850, since it is known that tree ring widths are somewhat correlated with – and caused by – changes in temperature, they also perforce have to rely on the somewhat more dubious relation
t = d + cTR ……(2)
for the earlier period before 1850, when we have no general instrumental temperature record, so in effect temperature is “caused” by tree ring widths. Yet O&B assume that the correlations they find between TR and t after 1850 hold for the earlier period. For that period the nul hypothesis is
c = 0
and is supposedly refuted by the correlation coefficients cited by O&B.
But if the correlation coefficients as cited by O&B are correct and both >0 but
JQ, thanks for posting. You ask why we should believe Soon/Baliunas, which is an excellent question.
First, I like to look at the history of an idea. The idea of the Medieval Warm Period was first postulated by Bryson et. al. in 1963, followed by Lamb in 1965. Lamb believed, and produced a variety of evidence to support the claim, that the MWP was a worldwide phenomenon.
This contention was not seriously challenged until the MBH98 “hockeystick” paper by Mann et. al., although the idea that the MWP covered at least the Northern Hemisphere has been supported by one of Manns co-authors (Briffa 2000), as well as by Esper et. al. (2002)
So the idea of a worldwide MWP is not Soon’s, nor is it Baliunas’s. It was actually orthodox belief among climate researchers until the Mann hockeystick.
In response to Mann’s claim, Soon and Baliunas looked at a wide range of proxies that were not available to Lamb or Bryson. While I have by no means checked all of the Soon/Baliunas proxies, the ones that I have checked do indeed show that the MWP existed in a wide variety of places (I chose a couple from each of the areas to check on).
So that’s what I have to go on, that and the fact that I have not heard of (nor can I find on Google) anyone saying that the cited proxies do not show what is claimed. People have disagreed with the Soon/Baliunas conclusions, but the proxies have not been disputed.
The main objection to the Soon/Baliunas paper seems to have been that the peak of the warming has occurred at different times in different proxies. Given the generally low resolution of the proxies, along with the fact that the modern warming, while worldwide, has not affected the world equally in either timing or amount of warming, this is not surprising to me.
In addition, I look at other studies. Here are some typical references about the MWP from around the world:
–
Reference
Daniels, J.M. and Knox, J.C. 2005. Alluvial stratigraphic evidence for channel incision during the Mediaeval Warm Period on the central Great plains, USA. The Holocene 15: 736-747.
Description
Alluvial stratigraphic data from the upper Republican River, southwest Nebraska, USA, provided evidence for major channel incision between c. 1100 and 800 14C yr BP that correlates with a multicentennial episode of common, widespread drought, which the authors state is associated with the Medieval Warm Period, which occurred between AD 900 and 1200.
–
Reference
Williams, P.W., King, D.N.T., Zhao, J.-X. and Collerson, K.D. 2004. Speleothem master chronologies: combined Holocene 18O and 13C records from the North Island of New Zealand and their palaeoenvironmental interpretation. The Holocene 14: 194-208.
Description
Temperatures were inferred from δ18O data obtained from four stalagmites found in caves at Waitomo (38.3°S, 175.1°E) on New Zealand’s North Island for which 19 TIMS uranium series ages were measured. The Medieval Warm Period occurred between AD 1100 and 1400 and was warmer than the Current Warm Period.
–
Reference
Mauquoy, D., Blaauw, M., van, Geel, B., Borromei, A., Quattrocchio, M., Chambers, F.M. and Possnert, G. 2004. Late Holocene climatic changes in Tierra del Fuego based on multiproxy analyses of peat deposits. Quaternary Research 61: 148-158.
Description
Changes in temperature and/or precipitation were inferred from plant macrofossils, pollen, fungal spores, testate amebae and peat humification in peat monoliths collected from the Valle de Andorra about 10 km to the northeast of Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina (54.75°S, 68.4°W). Mauquoy et al. report finding evidence for a period of warming-induced drier conditions from AD 960-1020 that “seems to correspond to the Medieval Warm period (MWP, as defined in the Northern Hemisphere)” and “shows that the MWP was possibly synchronous in both hemispheres.”
–
Reference
Khim, B.-K., Yoon, H.I., Kang, C.Y. and Bahk, J.J. 2002. Unstable climate oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula. Quaternary Research 58: 234-245.
Description
General climatic features were inferred from a study of the grain size, total organic carbon content, biogenic silica content and, most importantly, magnetic susceptibility of 210Pb- and 14C-dated sediments retrieved from the eastern Bransfield Basin (61°58.9’S, 55°57.4’W) just off the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. Most of the Medieval Warm Period (AD 1050-1550) was warmer than the Current Warm Period.
–
Reference
Qian, W. and Zhu, Y. 2002. Little Ice Age climate near Beijing, China, inferred from historical and stalagmite records. Quaternary Research 57: 109-119.
Description
General climatic conditions were inferred from analyses of several data sets, one of which was a record of annual calcite accumulation in a stalagmite found in Shihua, Cave, Beijing. The Medieval Warm Period occurred between AD 940 and 1200.
–
Reference
Cini Castagnoli, G., Taricco, C. and Alessio, S. 2005. Isotopic record in a maring shallow-water core: Imprint of solar centennial cycles in the past 2 millennia. Advances in Space Research 35: 504-508.
Description
Plotted δ13C data from a two-millennia-long tree-ring record of Japanese cedars growing on Yakushima Island, southern Japan (30°20’N, 130°30’E). The authors describe the Medieval Warm Period as an interval of high temperature between 800 and 1200 AD.
—
OK, so in addition to Soon/Baliunas’s list of proxies, that’s other evidence of a warm period starting around 800-1000 AD and continuing to around 1200-1400 AD, from North America, South America, Antarctica, China, Japan, and New Zealand. Note that some of these authors themselves, not anyone else, say that their research shows that the MWP was a global phenomena.
Lamb, in his 1965 study, said “‘[M]ultifarious evidence of a meteorological nature from historical records, as well as archaeological, botanical and glaciological evidence in various parts of the world from the Arctic to New Zealand . . . has been found to suggest a warmer epoch lasting several centuries between about A.D. 900 or 1000 and about 1200 or 1300.” Soon and Baliunas found the same.
Now, if you don’t believe those proxies, John, you can’t blame Soon and Baliunas. They didn’t do the studies. They didn’t come up with the idea of a worldwide MWP. If you don’t believe the MWP was a worldwide phenomena, as Lamb believed based on all of his research, and as climate scientists generally believed from 1965 until the Mann “hockeystick” debacle, go find a hundred proxies that say it wasn’t warm during that period in some part of the world.
There are a couple such proxies … and they are listed by Soon and Baliunas in their paper. The majority of the proxies all around the world, on the other hand, show a warm period during that time.
You ask what basis we have for believing Soon and Baliunas? I read the paper, I read the history, I read selected proxies from their paper, I read other proxies. I found that Soon/Baliunas made no revolutionary or new claims, they just agreed with Lamb and with lots of proxies and with 40 years of climatologists.
In other words, I made up my mind based on the EVIDENCE. The preponderance of the evidence says yes, as Lamb said, and as climatologists believed for decades, the MWP was a worldwide phenomenon.
What do you do? You may not believe Soon/Baliunas for some ad hominem reason … but on what basis do you not believe Lamb, or Briffa, or Esper, or the evidence of the proxies themselves?
w.
Tim (Curtin), your excellent post was cut off, likely because it included the “less than” symbol, the opposite of the “>” symbol. It seems the WordPress software interprets the “less than” symbol as the start of a meta-tag, and goes off the rails. You might try posting it again and replacing the symbol with the words “less than” … hope this makes sense, when I can’t actually type the symbol or my post will be cut off.
w.
20 Feb 06
My first posting was cut off in full flight! Hope this gets through the filters!
The article by Osborne and Briffa in Science (10 Feb 06) has been widely reported as confirming AGM and in particular the IPCC’s controversial reliance on Michael Mann’s (et al.) “hockey stick” portrayal of global temperatures over the last millennium to the present. However O&B actually demonstrate that there was in fact a period of significant warmth around 1400 (without admitting that Mann et al. had not shown this), and that it was not much less pronounced (their Fig.2) than the present warming (allowing for uncertainties over whether tree rings are truly an accurate temperature gauge within not more than 1 degree C margins of error). Nevertheless O&B still conclude “the late 20th century was the warmest period during the last millennium” (p.841).
But there are other problems with their paper:
1. The authors used only those proxy records (14 in all) that “are positively correlated with their local temperature observations” (since those became available about 1850). This is a bit like joining up only those dots in a scatter diagram that fit a preconceived hypothesis, or in other words, there appears to be some cherry picking here. Why are the many other tree ring series Not “positively correlated”?
2. This leads on to the validity of the correlations as presented. Only two of the 11 tree ring series used by O&B have correlations greater than 0.5. This suggests that the null hypothesis of b = 1 for the equation TR = a + bt (which is required for use of tree rings as proxies for temperature) is not confirmed.
3. Whilst O&B rely on the equation
TR = a + bt …… (1)
(where TR are tree ring widths, and t is temperature)
for the instrumental period since 1850, since it is known that tree ring widths are somewhat correlated with – and caused by – changes in temperature, they also perforce have to rely on the somewhat more dubious relation
t = d + cTR ……(2)
for the earlier period before 1850, when we have no general instrumental temperature record, so in effect temperature is “caused” by tree ring widths. Yet O&B assume that the correlations they find between TR and t after 1850 hold for the earlier period. For that period the nul hypothesis is
c = 0
and is supposedly refuted by the correlation coefficients cited by O&B.
But if the correlation coefficients as cited by O&B are correct and both >0 but
Willis, just in the list of citations above, you’ve got the MWP running from 800 to 1550 (overlapping the Little Ice Age) while one of the cited studies gives it only 60 years. One study has it *ending* in 1020, in other it doesn’t *begin* until 1050. It looks as if the same label has been attached to events at radically different times and places, just as claimed by Mann et al.
“I am always intrigued by the uncrticial attitude of JQ and his acolyte to anything on Kyoto which supports their core beliefs. ”
I’m curious: what’s the acolyte’s name?
“Frankly I find it hard to belive any reputable economic or econometric journal could have published the article by Osborne and Briffa in Science (10 Feb 06) that has been widely reported as confirming AGM”
Wow. In the ten days since publication, this thing must have been widely reported indeed.
Google News Search: osborne briffa
Or maybe not.
And what’s this AGM stuff anyway? Annual General Meeting? Assistant General Manager? Air to Ground Missile?
And yeah, it’s hard to believe that a reputable “economic or econometric journal” like Science would have published it, isn’t it?
Sheesh.
20 Feb 06
Thanks Willis, here it is #3 without offending symbols.
The article by Osborne and Briffa in Science (10 Feb 06) has been widely reported as confirming AGM and in particular the IPCC’s controversial reliance on Michael Mann’s (et al.) “hockey stick” portrayal of global temperatures over the last millennium to the present. However O&B actually demonstrate that there was in fact a period of significant warmth around 1400 (without admitting that Mann et al. had not shown this), and that it was not much less pronounced (their Fig.2) than the present warming (allowing for uncertainties over whether tree rings are truly an accurate temperature gauge within not more than 1 degree C margins of error). Nevertheless O&B still conclude “the late 20th century was the warmest period during the last millennium” (p.841).
But there are other problems with their paper:
1. The authors used only those proxy records (14 in all) that “are positively correlated with their local temperature observations” (since those became available about 1850). This is a bit like joining up only those dots in a scatter diagram that fit a preconceived hypothesis, or in other words, there appears to be some cherry picking here. Why are the many other tree ring series Not “positively correlated”?
2. This leads on to the validity of the correlations as presented. Only two of the 11 tree ring series used by O&B have correlations greater than 0.5. This suggests that the null hypothesis of b = 1 for the equation TR = a + bt (which is required for use of tree rings as proxies for temperature) is not confirmed.
3. Whilst O&B rely on the equation
TR = a + bt …… (1)
(where TR are tree ring widths, and t is temperature)
for the instrumental period since 1850, since it is known that tree ring widths are somewhat correlated with – and caused by – changes in temperature, they also perforce have to rely on the somewhat more dubious relation
t = d + cTR ……(2)
for the earlier period before 1850, when we have no general instrumental temperature record, so in effect temperature is “caused” by tree ring widths. Yet O&B assume that the correlations they find between TR and t after 1850 hold for the earlier period. For that period the nul hypothesis is
c = 0
and is supposedly refuted by the correlation coefficients cited by O&B.
But if the correlation coefficients as cited by O&B are correct and both greater than 0 but less than 1, then there is some reason to believe that the temperatures asserted by them for the period before 1850 should be at least doubled, since on average their 11 tree ring correlations are less than 0.5. Thus the medieval warm period they admit to for around 1400 may well have been twice as warm as they claim, and therefore at least as warm as the period of the later 20th century.
4. Another curiosum in O&B is that nearly all of their proxies show a DOWNTURN in northern hemisphere temperatures in the first half of the 1990s.
5. Oddly enough, only one of the proxies used by O&B is from ice cores (from W. Greenland). Is that because the well-known cores from elsewhere are not “positively correlated” with instrumental temperatures as appears to be implied by their exclusion by O&B? That is quite likely, as much of the ice core data implies that temperature is a function of CO2 rather than the converse, because of the lags between first temperature increases and then increases in CO2. On the other hand the Greenland ice core seems to confirm the warm period there when dairy farming was possible (according to Jared Diamond).
JQ – please forgive any spelling mistuks in the above.
Tim Curtin
Tim, maybe I’m missing something, but when I did econometrics a proxy was a variable correlated with the variable of interest.
Professor Quiggin, Willis is now repeating stuff from about 500 posts ago. He has already posted on the MWP and another even more obscure supposed global phenomenon, the Rome Warm Period.
Wouldn’t it be better to close this debate off until something new and substantive happens in the AGW debate?
The findings of the recently convened NAS panel to assess the scientific evidence on temperature reconstructions might provide a good topic for further discussion.
I realise slick Willie and his acolytes will wave their fingers and complain of censorship but I cannot see the point in going around in circles for another 1,000 bloody posts!
Willis can go play somewhere else like TechCentralStation or JunkScience if he wants to win further disciples to his anti-science crusade.
Steve weighs in with his usual ad hominem … although the idea that I have “acolytes” is kind of cool, I always wanted “acolytes”, all of the evil overlords in the comic books have acolytes … he says shut it down, John, shut down the conversation quickly …
JQ, what you seem to be ignoring is that the idea of a global MWP was the common, prevailing, orthodox belief, taught in schools and accepted by climate scientists, for about 30 years.
Then, Michael Mann published the “hockeystick”, which claimed there was no global MWP. To my knowledge, no evidence of this claim other than the “hockeystick” exists. If you know of some evidence other than Mann’s paper, please tell us.
For true believers such as yourself, Mann’s paper alone was enough to overthrow the 30 year belief. Other people, however, said “huh? Where’d the MWP go?”
Now, the old saw says “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Mann’s paper has been found wanting by many people, is by no means generally accepted, and does not therefore qualify as extraordinary evidence. Me, I don’t think it’s evidence at all, because of poor data, poor methods, and poor statistics. By any description, however, it’s not extraordinary evidence.
It is certainly not enough to overthrow a 30 year old belief based on, as Lamb said in 1965, “[M]ultifarious evidence of a meteorological nature from historical records, as well as archaeological, botanical and glaciological evidence in various parts of the world from the Arctic to New Zealand …”
Nor is the fact that according to some proxies, in some parts of the world the warmth continued to as late as the 1500’s, enough to overthrow the idea of a global MWP. While you might not like that the proxy in question says that … well, that’s what it says. All that means is that according to the evidence, the warmth lasted longer in some parts of the world.
But throw that proxy entirely out if you want, John, that’s fine. It does not disprove the global MWP, just says it lasted a long time. There’s still, as Lamb noted, multifarious proxies that support a global MWP.
The one thing that stands out in this discussion, though, is that you haven’t produced one bit of evidence to support your claim that there was no global MWP. You attack the odd proxy that you disagree with, you say that Soon and Baliunas are not believable, but you don’t produce any evidence … this is getting familiar …
I keep asking for evidence … Steve says I’m on an “anti-science crusade” and doesn’t offer any … John repeats ad hominems, throws out the odd proxy, and doesn’t offer any … what’s wrong with this picture?
w.
Willis, I agree with Steve. Your continued complaints about lack of evidence are just silly. I don’t have time to repeat the thousands of studies that make up the case for AGW, and neither do you. On the other hand, whenever I have looked at any of these issues in any detail, starting with urban heat islands and going on to satellites, solar cycles and so on, it’s turned out that the scientists were right and their critics were wrong. In this case, it only took me five minutes to point out glaring contradictions in the case you assembled, which leaves only the summary assertions of a pair of well-known hacks with a track record of predictable error.
You’ve had your say on demands for evidence. Unless you have something new to say, I suggest you take this point to the IPCC. Please don’t raise it again here.
Good question Willis, and it’s hard to know where to start. From where I sit, the most egregious flaw in this diorama is the aplomb with which you ignore counterarguments, (or in my case, counter-arguers). In just the last few posts, you have neglected to address JQ’s very valid point about the dissonance across your “global MWP” sources, (even as your indignance with the hockey stick gains intensity). You have neglected address the multiple specific instances cited by Steve where, according to him, you made patently false statements and passed them off as fact. And you ignore JQ’s, mine and others requests for reputable scientific work that rebuts the AGW hypothesis.
To make matters worse, you refuse to back off your high handed italicized bold pleas for evidence as if somehow you were the one playing it straight. Get off of it. If you want to play the child who in the throws of a temper tantrum insists he cannot hear you, don’t expect us to pull your fingers out of your ears.
Majorajam, I believe that I have addressed each and every point brought up by Steve. He doesn’t like the evidence I have presented, and insists that I am “lying”, which is nonsense. OK, fine, he doesn’t like the evidence I have cited, but I’m neither lying nor am I ignoring his points. Steve, of course, has repeatedly refused to back up his slanderous claims of “lying” with any specifics … he said I “lied” about the Medieval Warm Period, for example, and about coral reefs … but he has repeatedly refused my reasonable requests to say where I lied, or what I lied about. Believe him at your peril, he’s real quick to call a man a liar, but he’s a pusillanimous, craven coward when it comes to backing up his nasty insinuations.
Nor have I ignored JQ’s point about the “dissonance” of one of the papers I cited. I addressed it directly in my last post. I said OK, throw out the dissonant papers, there are still (as Lamb pointed out in 1965, and as was not questioned until the Mann “hockeystick, and as was expanded upon by Soon and Baliunas) hundreds of proxy studies from all over the world showing a global MWP. To disprove this, you need to start by disproving Lamb’s original proxies, and then disproving the Soon/Baliunas proxies, and the Esper proxies, and the Briffa proxies, all of which show an MWP which is not just a local phenomenon.
JQ’s merely saying that a single proxy I quoted shows warming until 1550 does not come close to doing that. For you both to think that his comment about a single proxy somehow settles the issue speaks volumes about your misunderstanding of the weight of evidence supporting a global MWP, evidence which was very convincing as far back as 1965. John’s assertion that the case for a global MWP rests only on Soon and Baliunas is a tragic joke. And contrary to your claim, I have not ignored the issue, I have dealt with it in detail, and am doing so here again. You have not read, or perhaps have not understood, what I said. Disagreeing with one proxy (a proxy which in any case is not cited by either Lamb or Soon/Baliunas) does not disprove their work.
Nor am I ignoring JQ’s and your request for reputable scientific work that rebuts the AGW hypothesis. I have explained patiently and at length about the weakness of the evidence for either side, which is why I am agnostic on the question. I have not seen good scientific papers for either side. You have ignored this entirely. I am not claiming that AGW is false. I am saying that we have neither the theory, nor the raw data, nor the evidence to decide either way. Is that so hard to understand?
I have asked repeatedly for evidence of AGW, precisely for this reason — it doesn’t exist. Your handwaving is not playing it straight, nor is JQ’s saying “it’s in the IPCC report”. I have read that report very carefully, and found only computer model results, which are not evidence. Yet when asked where the evidence is in the IPCC report, JQ refuses to answer.
Majorajam, I have asked here for evidence in part because of John’s rather ugly claim that I am denying the evidence. I reasonably said “what evidence am I denying?”. It is a matter of common courtesy, if you are accusing a man of denying some evidence, to tell him what evidence you think he is denying. Seems like a simple enough question to me … but it is still unanswered.
Now JQ just says ‘don’t ask for evidence here again’, which could serve as the inscription on the gravestone of this blog as far as science goes … don’t ask for evidence in a discussion about science? … oooh, that’s too good, the AGW case in a nutshell …
Done, John, done, I shan’t bother you with requests for evidence again, I won’t ask for facts again, your minds are clearly made up … bear in mind, though, that in the event, you have not provided any evidence on this blog for AGW, despite rubbishing me and every other skeptic for “denying” your supposed (but mysteriously invisible) evidence.
My congratulations to everyone for being engaged and passionate about this issue, my regards to all of the lurkers, my apologies to anyone I may have wronged, my thanks to those who have read all of this with an open mind.
w.
Willis – at the risk of setting of another 500 posts I will wade in here with my thoughts.
There is no real dispute that there was a warming period in medieval times. It is shown fairly clearly in MBH99 and all the other studies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years
There are also SOME tentative evidence that it was not just confined to Europe despite very misleading descriptions of research at CO2Science.
http://stevegloor.typepad.com/sgloor/2006/02/bogus_descripti.html
Now this is presented by contrarians as the smoking gun that present AGW is wrong however this argument is as false as it can be. You and other contrarians are using the MWP as another wedge argument to confuse the issue. I must admit you do stay on topic very well with the Hockey Stick bogus argument followed closely by the MWP and LIA argument.
So what is wrong with it? It is very very obvious that even though there was a MWP that does not preclude in any, way, shape or form the present warming we are experiencing now being caused by human emitted greenhouse gases and land use changes. Climate change and warming have many causes and to try to say that the MWP happened before large scale human activity occcured therefore present day warming is not being caused by human activity is so wrong that I am continually surprised that contrarians get away with even mentioning it.
Also how do you know the MWP was not caused by human activity? You have offered no evidence at all of the causes of the MWP and LIA. These could well have been caused by large scale deforrestion carried out by medieval people – you do not know that it wasn’t. It could have been caused by a volcano or methane burp from an area that there is no records for and be completely unconnected with the causes of the present warming. Please give all of us a rest from this bogus argument.
Hey, Ender, thanks for the post, but you’re pursuing a straw man. Check my posts. I never said that either the MWP, or the LIA, either proved or disproved anything about the existence or non-existence of AGW.
Also, you are wrong to say the MWP shows up in “MBH99 and all the other studies”, as this whole MWP issue rose to prominence precisely because the MWP didn’t show up in the MBH98 “hockeystick” study.
At that point, AGW adherents faced an ugly choice — accept the “hockeystick” and deny the global MWP, or vice versa. Unfortunately, they opted for vice rather than versa, and the modern attempt to deny a global MWP began.
It is worth keeping in mind that the global MWP was first postulated by Lamb way back in 1965, and was an accepted tenet of climate science for decades — it’s not a modern denialist idea dreamed up by evil anti-AGW forces. It’s an old, well accepted idea. Those of you struggling so hard against the truth of the global MWP seem curiously unaware of the age, the decades of acceptance, and the huge amount of evidence supporting the idea.
So, I fear I can’t “give all of us a rest from this bogus argument”, as I have not been making the argument that the existence of the global MWP proves anything except that the “hockeystick” wasn’t accurate … it’s just a straw man to claim I said it proves anything about AGW.
All the best,
w.
Willis – have another look at the graph of MBH99 – there it is in blue
You can clearly see the peak and the dip. The conclusion that that the IPCC made from MBH99 is that recent GLOBAL warming is unprecedented in the last 1000 years and all the proxy studies, without denying the MWP or LIA, show that current temps are indeed unprecendented. No amount of nit-picking or wedge tactics can take this away. The main question that we have is whether the MWP was regional or global and what caused it.
So what is the point of mentioning the MWP at all?
At that point, AGW adherents faced an ugly choice — accept the “hockeystick� and deny the global MWP, or vice versa. Unfortunately, they opted for vice rather than versa, and the modern attempt to deny a global MWP began.
Actually, there is a third chose here. AGW adherents could read MBH99, and realise that the paper supports the existence of a hemispheric MWP. The authors of the paper state this quite clearly.
Next time Willis, could you read the MBH papers before making stuff up about them.
Ken the paradigm shift was from Medieval Warm Period to Medieval not-so-warm Period.
Ender, thanks for the post and the reference. Please note that I have never referred to that graph or that study. I have referred exclusively to the MBH98 “hockeystick” study.
The hockeystick basically flatlined both the MWP and the LIA, leading to the dilemma I mentioned above.
The 99 study, as you point out, shows both. However, both studies suffer, as has been reported by various investigators, from problems with method, with data, and with statistics.
The method problem involves improper centering of the PC components, leading to an algorithm that mines for hockeystick.
The data problems are also severe, involving both the use of unarchived or “grey” versions of proxy data, and the inclusion of proxies known not to be sensitive to temperature.
The statistics problem is that temperature data, as well as temperature proxy data, is strongly autocorrelated. The determination of various statistical measures of significance is quite different in autocorrelated series. This has not been taken into account, and has led to claimed signicance where none existed.
Finally, an overarching problem with tree ring data (which comprises most of the problematic data sets, as well as most of the data sets) is that there is no way to tell if a narrow ring means the year was really hot or really cold, as both produce narrow rings … as far as I know, to date there is no practical solution to this problem.
Now, one of the effects of this is that in dendrochronological studies such as MBH98 and others, narrow rings mean only one thing — cold. The effect of this error is to flatten any high parts of the record … such as the MWP.
Finally, narrow tree rings in hot weather are a function of available water. With enough water, a tree grows happily and produces wide rings at a temperature where it is withering and hardly growing without water, and producing narrow rings. The effect of this confounding variable can be large, and is not accounted for in the Mann studies.
So me, I don’t draw any conclusions from either of those studies. Too many problems to conclude anything.
w.
Ken, thank you for posting. You say:
I have never referred to the 99 paper prior to this evening, only the 98 paper, which I have read quite carefully, thank you. I have also read the 99 paper, but nowhere near as closely.
Indeed, the 99 paper shows the MWP was at least hemispheric, which kinda ups the odds that the other hemisphere was affected … then add in all of Lamb’s 1965 proxies, and whichever of the Soon and Baliunas proxies you don’t throw out (perhaps justifiably throw out, but by any reasonable a priori criteria it won’t be all 240 proxies) and hey, it’s a global MWP.
But that’s not really the question. The question is, was it warmer in the MWP than it is today? If it was, then the current termperature is not unprecented. Eric the Red says yes, subsistence agriculture in Greenland was possible then, but after a few centuries of good times, it cooled down and the ice came down and the cattle died and the crops failed and the colonies got hungry and left.
What do the Mann studies say?
I have dealt above with the documented problems with the Mann papers, problems of method, data, and statistics. I have also mentioned the flattening effect of the tree ring linearity assumption. Because of those problems, any conclusion that the MWP was more or less warm cannot be drawn from either of these papers.
What do I think? Hey, I’m a sailor … I gotta go with Eric the Red, along with other historical records, and northermost plantings of vines, and dates of harvest, and treeline variations, and of course Lamb’s and other proxies … my best guess is, the MWP was at least as warm as today, and probably warmer.
w.
PS – Curiously, this conclusion that the MWP was warmer than today is supported by Mann’s original MBH98 study if done properly. If you correct all of the errors of method and data in that study, and re-run Mann’s original analysis, it shows a warmer 14th century than the present … but of course, it’s still not significant, still very low R2.
Somthing relevant from Steve Gilliard today:
The context is slightly different – Steve is talking about dishonest wingnut Republican trolls rather than dishonest wingnut greenhouse sceptic trolls – but the conclusion is still valid: “You can not have an argument with a dishonest person, and you have to keep in mind that while they play on your decency, they will not follow the same rules.“
Out of interest do you have a reference of who and where this was redone “properly”.
SJ, if your post is a roundabout way of accusing me of dishonesty, I would again ask as a matter of decency that you make your accusation plain … what are you saying I am “dishonest” about?
And if not … then who are you talking about, and what are they dishonest about?
I’ve never seen a blog with folks so fast to call a man a liar … and so slow to back up their words …
w.
I saw the program in question, and it appeared to me that there were two separate issues discussed.
The first was whether the environment minister’s policy documents on global warming issues were written for him by people in the energy industry rather than his own staff. Leaving aside the question of the credibility of the whistle blower, of whether he understood what he was told, of whether the people he talked to were stringing him along, and so on, there is another glaring credibility problem. If you are left wing, pro environment, and politically driven, the place in government where you are going to want to end up is the environment ministry. It’s surely not unfair to say that a large number of the staff there are not going to be prepared to stand for any sort of dodgy behaviour from energy industry representatives. So how could this happen for years without anyone noticing and commenting? It’s normal practice for anyone to submit comments to the minster which can end up being incorporated into his briefing by his staff. I would suggest that it is thus more likely that there is a misunderstanding somewhere in the process about what information was being suppied to who, and that it’s probably the energy people who are fooling themselves.
The second issue was the question of whether CSIRO scientists were being censored. If a Coles checkout girl were to publicly announce that Coles were selling cornflakes for 10c a box on a particular day, the result would be to place a great deal of pressure on the management of Coles. They would either have to honour the offer or publically deny it and accept the ensuing bad publicity. The problem is that because the checkout girl works for the company, her pronouncements gain a level of credibilty that they would not otherwise have. This applies to all companies, political parties, and other organisations: management do not like to see juniors forcing their hand, and it is normal for people who work for an organisation to be expected to understand this and self censor their comments appropriately. Imagine what would happen if the deputy vice president of the NSW branch of Greenpeace announced that nuclear testing did no real harm to the environment and that in future greenpeace would be lobbying for more of it? How long would he keep his job? If he held such an opinion he would be expected to keep it to himself. Academics and scientists are normally given a lot of leeway in expressing their opinions, but outside of universities it’s not open slather. You can understand that academics think they have a right to say what they want, and you can understand that the government don’t, and you can also understand that this causes resentment. The director of the CSIRO seemed to me to take the view that his staff could say what they wanted within their own fields, but if they went outside their fields they should not say things that could be used against the government. That seems to me to be an eminently sensible compromise. It appears that the scientist at the centre of the argument wasn’t prepared to accept that, and was fired for it (or “made redundant”). I don’t find that surprising, or particularly sinister. It seemed clear to me that the issue was not one of suppressing comment about a particular field of study, but one of acceptance of authority.
In short, it seems to me that both stories were beatups. The reporter’s closing comments left no doubt about why she would choose to present the stories as she did.
Bravo James!
See also Garth Paltridge in today’s Australian Financial Review on the same subject.
Tim
Willis,
Appreciate the thorough response, but I’m not so sure it passes the smell test. Starting from the top, your statement: “Steve, of course, has repeatedly refused to back up his slanderous claims of ‘lying’ with any specifics … he said I ‘lied’ about the Medieval Warm Period, for example, and about coral reefs … but he has repeatedly refused my reasonable requests to say where I lied, or what I lied about.”
Does not square with a cursory reading of this thread. Steve’s most recent post states- “he lied about reef recovery times after bleaching events, he lied about coral growth rates, he misled by ignoring the fact that the more biologically significant branching corals are often crowded out by less biologically significant forms after bleaching events and he misled by implying that in general ‘the warmer the better’ for coral reefs.
On other issues he lied and misled with respective to CO2 forcings (although he later changed to admitting 3.7 W/m2 stefan-boltzman), he deceived in claiming that the IUCN Red List is up-to-date and the final word on species status when in fact I showed an example of it being 10 years out of date and he deceived by saying lab results and modelling results are not evidence but later brazenly using both of these to shore up his own arguments without a hint of shame.”
which sounds pretty specific to me, (in particular “warmer the better”, the IUCN Red List, etc.). Now, perhaps there is a history here that you don’t care to rehash, but these are serious enough accusations that you should acknowledge them and perhaps link or refer to a prior rebuttal if there was one. If not, it doesn’t reflect well your credibility.
Some way further on, you summarize: “John’s assertion that the case for a global MWP rests only on Soon and Baliunas is a tragic joke. And contrary to your claim, I have not ignored the issue, I have dealt with it in detail, and am doing so here again. You have not read, or perhaps have not understood, what I said. Disagreeing with one proxy (a proxy which in any case is not cited by either Lamb or Soon/Baliunas) does not disprove their work.”
However, there you have incorrectly represented John’s counterargument: ” you’ve got the MWP running from 800 to 1550 (overlapping the Little Ice Age) while one of the cited studies gives it only 60 years. One study has it *ending* in 1020, in other it doesn’t *begin* until 1050. It looks as if the same label has been attached to events at radically different times and places, just as claimed by Mann et al.” Now, my interpretation is of this is, “various unrelated proxies have been connected by hacks to ‘debunk’ a theory that goes toward the lack of precedent for current warming.” Hmm.. That does sound a bit fishy, right? And speaking of, it is furthermore insufficient to “throw out” the various selected proxy studies that are in discord. You don’t have to be a scientist to realize that picking and choosing the evidence that supports your theory isn’t a sound methodology. What is required, and I imagine we can agree with this, is academic work that summarizes the sea of evidence to conclude on the nature of the MWP. In that, JQ is not happy to except such a synopsis from scientists who’ve shown themselves to be more interested in (and probably more rewarded by), an agenda than in science. I can’t say as I blame him.
Finally, I read this, which irked me something awful:
“Nor am I ignoring JQ’s and your request for reputable scientific work that rebuts the AGW hypothesis. I have explained patiently and at length about the weakness of the evidence for either side, which is why I am agnostic on the question. I have not seen good scientific papers for either side. You have ignored this entirely. I am not claiming that AGW is false. I am saying that we have neither the theory, nor the raw data, nor the evidence to decide either way. Is that so hard to understand?”
Your being ‘agnostic’ is a thinly veiled ruse. Every reasonable person understands that there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty inherant in any model of global climate, (though this is not by any means unique to climate models. Many more mundane predictions- such as budgets- are also fraught with uncertainty). What defines your position in this debate is not your acknowledgement of that uncertainty, but your judgement based on the EVIDENCE about the likelihood/potency of the AGW effect. If you are a “AGW proponent”, (and a reasonable one), your judgement might be that there is a 70% likelihood that carbon emissions have a considerable effect on average temperatures, and that preponderance of probability will cause you to advocate policy that reduces carbon emissions. If you are an “AGW skeptic”, (and a reasonable one- presuming any exist), you might propose the reverse, and therefore believe that based on the small risk, no measure of caution is required. The point is that no one in this debate, outside of looney tunes like Michael Crighton, is assured about their understanding of the global climate system. In other words, this idea that you are “agnostic” is not so much superfluous as it is a sorry cop out.
Given that, your refusal to cite evidence that rebuts AGW and tilts the scales against the evidence that supports it, cited here, (e.g. the proven physics of the greenhouse effect, the evidence of the anomalous nature of the current warming and the multitudinous models of climate that support AGW) is damning. As any lawyer will tell you, it takes more than cross-examination to win a case and, as I will tell you, the flimsy argument that, “computer models are not evidence” is not even that. Please see further up this thread for my response to that ruse. Even more worryingly on a subsequent post it became clear that not only was your claim to being ‘agnostic’ beside the point, it was also disingenuous. This further impinges on your credibility. I say that after reading (which as an aside borders on the farcical):
“What do I think? … I gotta go with Eric the Red, along with other historical records, and northermost plantings of vines, and dates of harvest, and treeline variations, and of course Lamb’s and other proxies … my best guess is, the MWP was at least as warm as today, and probably warmer.”
So, to summarize your personal views 1) computer models are not evidence and therefore the physics of the greenhouse effect has no bearing on the AGW debate, (non sequitur, strawman) 2) the current warming is not at all anomalous in historical context, (which, notwithstanding the expert summation above, is unsubstantiated) 3) what warming there may be is actually good for coral reefs, the environment and my summer holiday. All of which makes you about as agnostic as Dick Cheney.
I’m new to this debate Willis, but I know when I smell a rat.
Umm, Tim, maybe you should read the blog before commenting, in case the point you make has already been mentioned
Majorajam, thank your for your detailed reply.
Steve has said:
As usual, Steve is being deliberately vague, and improperly insulting. Let me take just this one as an example, as I’m sick of dealing with Steve’s unwarranted insults.
I started by saying that the recovery times for coral reefs in Fiji from the latest bleaching was about 5 years. I also provided evidence that it can be as short as six months, or as long as ten years or more.
What of that is a lie? He doesn’t say.
I did not deal with the question of branching vs other coral types. I have only so many hours in an day, and can’t answer everything tossed my way. Was this done to mislead? No. I don’t know anything about this particular question, and didn’t have time to do the research.
I gave two scientific studies about coral growth rates, plus recounting my own experience with watching the coral grow in Solomon Islands. Which of the two scientific papers was a lie? I know my report about having to re-clear a channel through the reef was not a lie, so it must be one of the scientific papers. Once again, he doesn’t say.
Nor did I ever say, or imply, “the warmer the better” for coral.
Did I “deceive” about the “Red List”? No, I just said that it was the best resource we have. Some parts of it are newer, some are older, depending on the exact species. In general, this is a problem with the entire field (species locations are not visited every week or even every decade, so some information is old or simply not available) and not just a problem with the Red List.
So no, Majorajam, in general Steve has not said where he thinks I lied, and where he has, it’s not true. But that’s not the real problem. When Steve is wrong, I say he’s wrong. When I’m wrong … he says I’m lying. It has gotten very old and boring. I don’t lie about any of this stuff. I may be wrong, and have been many times in the past, and no doubt will be in the future, and have admitted being wrong on this very blog … but to claim I am lying is both slanderous and untrue.
He also said I don’t believe in experiments unless they support my case, which is nonsense. What I actually said was that an aquarium couldn’t tell us much about calcium carbonate in the ocean, in part because of the important buffering processes that only occur under 4,000 kg/m2 pressure … funny, Steve never got around to discussing how the aquarium solved that problem .
I have nothing against experiments, I just said that experiments that are that far from the real situation can’t tell us anything. Which is true.
So. Forwards to your issues.
You say that the proxies I cited are “various unrelated proxies [that] have been connected by hacks to ‘debunk’ a theory that goes toward the lack of precedent for current warming.�
I’m not trying to “debunk” a theory … that’s your job. My point is that even if we ignore the Soon/Baliunas proxies entirely, Lamb in 1965 gathered a “multitude” of proxies to show that the MWP was global in scope. This evidence was enough to satify 30 years of scientific examination and discussion of the idea of a global MWP, and to make the idea of a global MWP an established part of climate science for thirty years.
Now you folks are saying we’ve been wrong for thirty years, it isn’t global … OK, but to do that, you need to debunk Lamb to start with, and neither you, JQ, or anyone I know of has done that. Your cited evidence (Mann 99) shows clearly that it covered half the world, so it is incumbent on you to show that Lamb (and Mann) were wrong and that it was just European warmth as y’all are claiming, not global. None of you, nor anyone else, has done that debunking as far as I know.
Then you say “Your being ‘agnostic’ is a thinly veiled ruse.” Veiled? I said it straight out. A ruse? What is it with you guys? Can’t we just have a discussion without you accusing me of lying and deception every post?
I don’t think there’s enough evidence to say either way regarding AGW. I’ve already given my guess on this forum, which is that humans likely influence the climate, but that the influence is too small to measure.
Now you may not like that stance, you may claim there is enough evidence to make a decision. That’s your right. Calling my counter-claim a “ruse”, however, is an unwarranted personal attack. I don’t think that the theory of climate, nor the data available about the climate, are sufficient to do anything more than guess. That’s not a ruse. That’s not done to hide anything. That’s my honest opinion. If you don’t like it, fine, but spare me your nasty insinuations, they do nothing but lower your credibility.
You say my refusal to agree with the evidence for AGW, which you say is “the proven physics of the greenhouse effect, the evidence of the anomalous nature of the current warming and the multitudinous models of climate that support AGW)” is “damning”. I have already dealt with all of these at length, so let me recap:
1) While the physics of the greenhouse effect are known, the effect of a small change in forcing on the climate system is definitely not known. To take just one example, in the last fifteen years, the solar forcing changed by about 10 w/m2, some three times the effect of a CO2 doubling, without a significant change in temperature.
Why? Well … we don’t know. All we know is that a 10 w/m2 change occurred. By you guys theory, from that change in forcing the temperature should have changed from 3.5°C to 12°C, but guess what … it didn’t. We don’t know why.
Thus, to claim a 3.7 w/m2 change from CO2 will have a pre-determined effect is contrary to what we see happening. The ugly reality which you are ignoring is that we don’t understand the climate, and cannot predict it, because it is a chaotic, multi-stable, buffered driven, constructal system with multiple feedbacks, both known and unknown. You claim to know what a small forcing will do to this system. But our experience says no, we don’t have a clue, in fact we just saw a 10 w/m2 forcing change with no discernible effect.
2) Is the current warming anomalous? At present, the Arctic is still cooler than it was in 1930, as are many parts of the planet. Large areas, such as the whole southeastern US, have hardly warmed at all. The Southern Hemisphere has not warmed anywhere near as much as the Northern. Siberia seems to have warmed, but the data there is very unreliable due to the Soviet practice of paying cities extra money if they were cold.
And three groups of scientists can’t even agree how much it has warmed, offering significantly different answers. GISS says that the globe has warmed 0.4°C per century.
The fastest warming in a couple of the longest temperature records we have (the CET and the Armagh records) occurred in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s respectively, so the recent change is not anomalous in those records.
So is the current warming anomalous? Once again, we don’t know, we don’t even know if the GISS figures we are comparing to historical records are even correct themselves.
3) Are computer models evidence? Out of 10,000 recent Hadley model runs done on distributed computers as part of the latest distributed computing experiments, hundreds and hundreds of them show cooling, with a number of them forecasting our dropping into an ice age in thirty years or so.
Are these hundreds of cooling model runs evidence that the world will cool? Of course not, no more than those runs that show warming are evidence that the world will warm. All a computer model can do is make calculations based on the assumptions of the programmer. Since in the climate models this involves hundreds and hundreds of untested assumptions and “parameters” (fudge factors included to tune the models), the idea that their output is evidence is … well, let me just call it a hopeful fantasy.
Finally, you seem to think that I have claimed that warming is beneficial, either for coral reefs or in general. I have not said that. What I have said is that climate is always changing, either up or down. It is never stable. Given the choice, I’d choose warmer, as excess warmth is easier on humans than excess cold … and yes, I’ve provided citations for that claim in this discussion.
Best regards,
w.
PS – I’ve also said that (within limits, of course, and ceteris paribus) a coral reef (and plant life in general) grows faster when it’s warm than when it’s cold. This happens to be true (because the underlying chemical reactions proceed faster), but doesn’t mean it’s beneficial. Just true.
PPS – Finally, do you have to close with an un-necessary insult? Does it make you feel better or smarter? Maybe I should try it, sure, why not, might make me feel better too … here we go …
Majorajam, if you’re smelling a rat, a shower may be in order … your computer doesn’t have an olfactory interface, so it can’t be me …
Naw, didn’t make me feel any better, I take it back, my apologies … but why do you do it?
Oh, and back to the topic of this thread on JQ’s excellent blog, I’m still inviting comments on the statement I posted above, viz:
Science and politics don’t mix. I believe that active researchers should offer objective assessment of the science problem and leave it to others to extract policy implications.
True? Not true? Irrelevant?
Thanks,
w.
Willis,
I get the impression that you follow a given thread but don’t regularily review JQs entire blog. You may enjoy what JQ has to say about ad-hominem arguments at the following location:-
https://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/02/21/ad-hominem-ad-nauseam/#comments
Regards,
Terje.
“Science and politics don’t mix. I believe that active researchers should offer objective assessment of the science problem and leave it to others to extract policy implications.’
A reasonable position, but one that would knock out virtually all of the prominent contrarians/sceptics, notably including Lindzen, Baliunas, Michaels, Christy (to the extent you call him a sceptic) and Paltridge. If there are any notable sceptics who haven’t engaged in policy comment, I’m not aware of them. And, as far as I know, there are absolutely no sceptics who’ve taken the (quite reasonable) policy line that, while the science may be uncertain, it would be a good idea to take precautions such as Kyoto.
On the contrary, it seems pretty clear that opposition to Kyoto and similar interventions comes first, and scientific contrarianism follows.
Except that the benefits of Kyoto are not very far removed from zero.
“Science and politics don’t mix. I believe that active researchers should offer objective assessment of the science problem and leave it to others to extract policy implications.’
A foolish and naive position. Any scientist worth a pinch of salt will have well considered views on policy matters related to his/her field of expertise and the public can only benefit from hearing these views.
As I mentioned earlier, the CSIRO mannagement boffins had a ludicrously broad definition of policy and this stopped scientists from commenting on issues that pertained to science as well as policy. This included prohibitions on the discussion of GHG emission targets and the proportion of GHG reductions necessary to stabilise the climate.
For God’s sake, scientists shouldn’t be treated like naughty schoolboys who have to be watched over by ham-fisted bureaucrats. The public should also be credited with enough intelligence to hear different views and make up their own minds.
I think we should also acknowledge Professor Quiggin’s point. Most of the denialists merrily bleat their anti-environmentalist and anti-regulation views. They also berate mainstream scientists as people who have a vested interest in the “AGW hoax”.
Why the hell shouldn’t mainstream scientists be allowed to counter these claims? What is the real agenda of Willis and others who wish to muzzle our best and brightest scientists?