(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
Objection: Climate is complicated and there are lots of competing theories and unsolved mysteries. Until this is all worked out, one can't claim there is consensus on global warming theory. Until there is, we should not take any action.
This is similar to the "global warming is a hoax" article, but at least here we can narrow down just what the consensus is about.
Answer: Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect.
No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.
This is where there is a consensus.
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
- the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
- the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
- the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
- if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
- a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.
This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.
The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ...
- Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
- Royal Society of Canada
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Academié des Sciences (France)
- Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
- Indian National Science Academy
- Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
- Science Council of Japan
- Russian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Society (United Kingdom)
- National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
- Australian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
- Caribbean Academy of Sciences
- Indonesian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Irish Academy
- Academy of Sciences Malaysia
- Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
- Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
... in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
- NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
- National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
- State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- American Institute of Physics (AIP)
- National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
- American Meteorological Society (AMS)
- Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?
(Addendum: One could legitimately argue that such policy statements by necessity hide possibly legitimate internal debate while trying to present unity of position. Science is ultimately determined in peer reviewed journals. Fortunately, there is a bit of research that looked specifically at this very question -- the subject of another guide entry.)
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Jon Stewart praises ‘SuperFreak’ author
The big stories out of Tuesday’s Senate hearing on Kerry-Boxer
Comments
View as Flat
Andrew Dessler Posted 4:33 am
14 Nov 2006
Oreskes, N., 2004. Science and public policy: what's proof got to do with it? Environmental Science & Policy, 7:369-383
You can get it here.
I strongly recommend everyone with an interest in how science gets used for policy read this.
Permalink
cbrtxus Posted 4:36 am
14 Nov 2006
Anyone who wants to do even rudimentary research on the Internet will find that statement to be at best misleading. Yes, if you only consider the opinions of those scientists who agree with each other and discard the opinions of scientists who disagree, there would appear to be a consensus. Isn't that be a peculiar sort of consensus?
There is debate about whether the human contribution to the CO2 levels is going to significantly impact future climate. There is debate about whether the current warming trend that started around 1850 is natural or anthropogenic. We would expect for sea levels to rise with the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age but even that is debatable.
If you only go to RealClimate.org for your information, you will find that there is a consensus of opinion--the talking points. You really need to dig deeper than that. Some folks claim to understand climate completely and many of them are probably sincere in their belief. The truth is that we really don't know yet.
It seems to me that the talk of consensus is just an attempt to declare that the debate is over. If the science about anthropogenic global warming is robust, why not just lay it out and let the facts speak for themselves. It shouldn't be necessary to engage in misrepresentation and exaggeration. It shouldn't be necessary to try to shut down opposing points of view either.
Since when are talking points or "consensus" a part of the scientific method anyway?
Permalink
wacki Posted 4:51 am
14 Nov 2006
This is a massive list:
The Consensus on Climate Change: From Science to Industry
And the somewhat related:
Quotes from Energy Experts - Energy Research, Peak Oil, Terrorism and more
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 8:11 am
14 Nov 2006
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
I note that the counter balance offered to the extensive list proided in the article is a blog comment from "cbrtxus", which is why simple internet searches are not a good way to gauge the state of a scientific topic.
Since when are talking points or "consensus" a part of the scientific method anyway?
Consensus is not a part of the scientific method, it is, however, the result of the scientific method.
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever!
-- Anonymous
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 8:19 am
14 Nov 2006
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever!
-- Anonymous
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:33 am
14 Nov 2006
www.grist.org
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 9:00 am
14 Nov 2006
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever!
-- Anonymous
Permalink
swozniak Posted 2:45 pm
14 Nov 2006
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 5:11 pm
14 Nov 2006
There will be no effective action.
Permalink
jshore Posted 8:51 am
15 Nov 2006
Well, if you do your research on the internet, you would probably also conclude that there is no consensus on the correctness of evolutionary theory. The point is that one has to look in the peer-reviewed scientific literature to see what, if any consensus exists, and there one finds there is a strong consensus. This doesn't mean there are no other opinions, as Coby notes, but they are a small minority.
One can never expect unanimous agreement. For example, Fred Singer is not going to stop claiming that AGW is a non-issue. He is perfectly happy to spend years arguing that the satellite record shows little or no warming...and then turn on a dime when this claim becomes untenable, and immediately switch to the claim that the warming is part of an "unstoppable" 1470 year (natural) cycle. How can you hope to convince such a person?
I think when the scientist who is probably the most respected of the climate change deniers, Richard Lindzen, starts publicly making statements so deceitful as the claim that there has been no warming since 1998 then it is clear that the real scientific debate is long over. If Lindzen had real scientific arguments to make, he wouldn't be reduced to the claim that is equivalent to a statement like "Today in Rochester it was warmer than it was last Saturday. Therefore, this unproven idea of seasons, and that we are currently heading toward winter, is unfounded."
Permalink
cbrtxus Posted 12:45 pm
16 Nov 2006
Do you believe that the warming that ended the Little Ice Age around 1850 was anthropogenic or natural? Do you believe that humans were producing enough carbon dioxide around 1850 for the warming to be anthropogenic? If the 1850 climate change was natural, would it be unreasonable to assume that continued warming was natural also?
How can we know that any warming that occurred (on average) during the twentieth century was anomalous? Wouldn't we have to be able to compare it to the warming that occurred during the Medieval Warm Period? How would we do that?
Peer review? I would assume that you mean peer review by the paleoclimatology community (Mann & Co.). I doubt that would happen. My impression is that anyone with the temerity to question the mantra of the "consensus" is ignored, ostracized, and often subjected to ad hominem attacks. I don't know that the "consensus" would ever seriously review a paper that they considered climate change sacrilege. Besides they are probably far to busy peer reviewing each others papers to bother with a paper from outside.
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 5:21 pm
18 Nov 2006
You ask many questions, but they seem to be rhetorical and not seriously looking for an answer. They do however have answers and your best resource is here.
I am not aware of a temperature record that shows warming starting in 1850, it does not get going until around 1900. At this time CO2 forcing was indeed a factor but so was solar variation and a decline in volcanic aerosols.
The best evidence suggests that yes indeed this temperature variation is quite far outside natural variation, at least those without dramatic causes like asteroid impacts or the eruption of the Deccan Traps etc.
"My impression is that anyone with the temerity to question the mantra of the "consensus" is ignored, ostracized, and often subjected to ad hominem attacks"
Heh. Very ironic, I leave it to readers to notice how so.
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever!
-- Anonymous
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 1:16 am
19 Nov 2006
Instead of asking these lawyerly rhetorical questions, just cite your research.
If I had a rhetorical question to ask you, it would be, can you do better than the White House-commissioned National Academy of Sciences, or the IPCC, who have been over this ground many, many times before?
This page shows a set of nine studies, from several different sets of data, all showing the signature of anthropogenic warming:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/...
Permalink
Toji Posted 2:07 am
13 Feb 2007
http://www.ozean-klima.de/
...you will find a "climate change fact sheet", which explains the situation very short but easily understandable, and several other sources. Hope you can use it!
Toji
Permalink
Rctner Posted 6:07 am
22 Feb 2007
Permalink
Rctner Posted 5:01 am
26 Feb 2007
There is an alternative theory that the warming is due to natural causes, and there is little or nothing that mankind can do the try and control what is happening. So far as I am aware, there is no way of resolving which theory is correct, other than hard experimental data which will probably not be available for between 10 and 15 years. What I was hoping is that there could be some discussion on this topic.
There is no such thing as a scientific consensus. Science is not a democracy where 50% plus one of the votes means one theory is right and another wrong. Scientific validity depends on the quality of the science presented. It would be nice to debate the quality of the two rival theories, similar to the NERC debate.
In 2001, the IPCC put forward a scientific theory and experimental data in the TAR, which they claim, proved that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was a scientific fact. Over the years, different scientists have shown that many of the claims in the TAR could not stand up to rigorous scientific analysis.
In 2007, the IPCC produced the Summary for Policy Makers to AR4, in which it is claimed that the output of their climate models prove that only by assuming that AGW exists can the results be right. In other words, the current rise in world temperatures can only be explained if is assumed that AGW is real. However, the scientific basis for this claim will not be published until May 2007. There are unofficial copies of this scientific background which claim that the effect of variations in extraterrestial forces have a negligible effect on world temperatures. In particular they claim that there is a negligible effect from cosmic rays. At the time this was written it was possibly accurate.
However, the recent work by Henrik Svensmark on cloud formation in the lower atmosphere produced by ionizing radiation, and his subsequent book, The Chilling Stars suggest that to neglect the effect of cosmic rays is a mistake. What I was hoping is that some sort of reply to this suggestion could be given. Is it not possible that IPCC claim that only AGW can account for the current rise in global temperatures is wrong, and that cosmic rays could, indeed be the cause? If, indeed, there is a valid alternative theory as to what is causing the current rise in world temperatures, it is no wonder that no scientific consensus exists. I wonder if I will get a reply this time around.
Permalink
PerStrand Posted 11:07 pm
02 Mar 2007
How many look at the actual data!
Permalink
pcassen Posted 3:11 am
16 Mar 2007
Surely you are aware of the articles at:
Eos,Vol. 85, No. 39, 28 September 2004 (pages 370 and 374): "Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data" by Damon & Laut
and
Eos,Vol. 85, No. 4, 27 January 2004
(pages 38 and 41): "Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide, and Climate" by Rahmstorf et al.
both of which challenge the cosmic ray business in a very serious way.
Permalink
Alastair Posted 7:26 am
24 Jun 2007
I have just recently watched "An Inconvenient Truth" for the first time and one thing I noticed was the lack of scientific experts to appear in the film and endorse the films messege "in name". Contrarily, the british documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was endorsed by an impressive array of climate scientists.
Permalink
madler Posted 4:56 am
25 Dec 2007
"if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue"
while correct appears to be incomplete. One can also accurately include this consensus point: "if CO2 does not continue to rise over the next century, the warming will continue", due to the warming in the pipeline.
So what do you really mean for the consensus point there? It needs more modifiers. Maybe something like: "If CO2 continues to rise over the next century at the current rate, the overall warming will be greater than if the rate of increase in CO2 is reduced or eliminated."
Permalink
barry schwarz Posted 10:33 pm
05 Mar 2008
Here's the place;
http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/07/consensus-on-c ...
On yer bike, lazybones!
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 11:54 am
22 Apr 2008
Let's say I know a guy, named Joe, who I think is a really good drummer. Just because I write about it in my blog doesn't mean he is. Maybe he's my little brother and I'm just proud of him.
Let's say that I, too, am a drummer. That hardly means much... how good am I? Who says so? I might be the worst drummer ever. I might not know a good drummer from a hole in my butt.
Let's say that I am a drummer who has played on a lot of well-sold albums. This gives a certain level of popular approval to my drumming, though plenty of mediocre drummers have played on platinum-selling albums. So my opinion of Joe may matter a bit more, but it's not exactly gold.
Let's say that I am a studio drummer who gets called by all the big producers, the ones who have a lot of money to pay. That kind of money doesn't go to just any unproven schmo. Now it's pretty certain that I'm a good drummer, and my opinion of Joe suddenly looks likely to be true.
Let's say that eight hundred other equally proven drummers all feel Joe is a talented guy. You're not a drummer yourself... will you trust me and my eight hundred professional drummer friends, with our expert knowledge, and with our reputations to uphold? Or will you listen to the music critic who writes in Rolling Stone that they weren't too fond of Joe's band's latest album?
THIS is consensus. My opinion of Joe doesn't do a damn thing for his actual drumming ability. It doesn't make him a great drummer. The fact that 800 of us agree about it just means that you, not a drummer, can feel pretty safe in thinking Joe is, indeed, a shredder on the skins.
The scientific community, one based on proving and re-proving (and disproving) the foundations of their knowledge so that the work built on top of it is as solid as possible, agrees that climate change is happening fairly quickly. And they agree that we humans are very likely having a measurable influence. This doesn't make it any more true. It just means you can trust in the fact that lots of scientists, with their expert opinions and their reputations to uphold, feel that climate change is a problem.
p.s. I know it's a really old post, but I have to address it: Alastair... REALLY??? Did you follow these links that Wacki and Coby are posting?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 12:26 pm
22 Apr 2008
There are lots of musicians who are "respected" by other musicians. Many times, they can't sell a single CD, because they do stuff that sounds really good to other drummers...but which is not music.
Music is something that happens when a car goes by and its windows are open and its radio is on and you hear 2 or 3 seconds of a song, and that song stays with you for days until you can find it and hear the rest of it.
J. Bailo
Participant
Texeme.Construct()
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:41 pm
22 Apr 2008
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittake
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:16 pm
22 Apr 2008
Can you name any significant scientific organization in the entire world that says that manmade emissions aren't a primary cause of the warming we've experienced in the past few decades?
Can you name one independent scientist who says they are absolutely sure of that?
J. Bailo
Participant
Texeme.Construct()
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:22 pm
22 Apr 2008
Transcript:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/320/5873/250b/DC1/1
Supergreenhouse temperatures in the geologic past meant higher ocean temperatures and less of a temperature gradient by latitude - meaning there wasn't as much difference between tropical and polar temperatures as today. In a paper in this week's Science, Lee Kump and David Pollard describe a new model for how the Earth got so hot, in particular, by taking into account cloud albedo, or how much of the Sun's radiation is reflected back into space. What accounts for the less dense cloud cover that permits more solar radiation to reach the Earth? Fewer biogenic cloud-condensing nuclei on which water droplets form. I spoke with Kump from his office at Pennsylvania State
University.
Podcast Page:
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/podcast.dtl
J. Bailo
Participant
Texeme.Construct()
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:46 pm
22 Apr 2008
If they were asked to write it up in a peer reviewed journal any competent scientist would only posit a probability of their own existence as an independent entity in three+ dimensions.
Come to think of it I wonder if your postings would get you past a Turing test; they do have a certain consistency. Prove you're not just a kludgy piece of malware. Make us "absolutely sure."
Me, I'm pretty sure that I'm just a complex meme occupying a lump of temporarily organized gases with a nasty heavy metals problem.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:09 pm
22 Apr 2008
You seem to be devoted to the idea that all "good" science must be peer reviewed. Ideologically, that is a fair position to adopt, but you should bear in mind that it is neither foolproof or practical for all of the scientific documents around.
For instance, if you actually read the IPCC reports you will be unable to find any scientific paper which makes a direct connection between CO2 and climate change. Instead, the IPCC employs models to express a belief that there is such a connection....up to 90% likely we think!
These 'ere models involving some kind of assumptions. Do you know of any where the code, the nature of the assumptions etc, have been peer reviewed?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for your self description:
"Me, I'm pretty sure that I'm just a complex meme occupying a lump of temporarily organized gases with a nasty heavy metals problem."
Perhaps, if you have a diet of ants, that may explain your problem
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 6:07 am
23 Apr 2008
Here's where your problem is: The question at hand, in terms of drummers, is, "Does this drummer possess skill and talent?" This is something measurable by other drummers. Can he keep time? How fast are his hands? How accurately can he play in a given style? What kind of dynamic contrast is he capable of? What you think of the drummer doesn't matter. It doesn't affect these quantifiable benchmarks.
Translating into climate science, the question at hand is not whether we like these scientists' ideas or the consequences they imply. It is whether their work is legitimate and robust based on the opinions of other scientists, not Joe Schmo bloggers. You and I are hardly qualified to intelligently critique the work of scientists with thousands of collective years of study, research, and experience among them, and who work in a community that strives for truth because it would die without it.
Your arguments continue to distract from the important issues, just like a slimy politician. This entire series of articles, along with many of the comments from Coby and others, contain a wealth of references to the work of scientists working for universities, environmental groups, governments, and industry groups. I don't know what "independent scientist" means to you, but I think are hundreds of them in all these lists of names. Unless "independent scientist" means a guy in his basement with some homemade equipment and hairbrained theories. You may not find many of those here.
I get the feeling you fantasize about being at some climate science convention, and during a Q&A session you stand up and deliver the enormous uppercut of a question that stumps the panel of experts. "Wow, this random guy from the audience has thought of something that we and our 800 highly educated colleagues haven't considered before." Is that why you're on here posting comments like this?
(Not a rhetorical question.)
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 6:12 am
23 Apr 2008
I'd like you to answer my question from yesterday's post. As someone who's got only a passing knowledge of drums, will you accept the assessment of me and hundreds of other respected professionals that Joe is a talented drummer, regardless of your opinion of his music?
If not, why not?
I feel this is at the root of your disdain and distrust, and that it's important.
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:22 am
23 Apr 2008
This statement is incorrect. Coby should check the Hadley record, which goes back well before 1900.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
The Hadley record shows a period of slight cooling from 1850, when its record began, to around 1860.
From 1860 through 1879 there was a period of rapid warming. If Coby were to download the Hadley data into Excel and plot a trend line, he would see that the warming trend over this period was 0.196 degC per decade (while CO2 rose by 2 ppmv), higher than any subsequent period, INCLUDING the much-ballyhooed period starting in 1976 and ending in 1998, which had a warming trend of 0.175 degC per decade (while CO2 rose by 33 ppmv).
The 20-year 1860-1879 period accounted for around 30% of all the warming since the record started.
IPCC (like Coby) ignore this early period of warming.
It is an "inconvenient" period, since it cannot be explained by AGW. It cannot be explained by unusual solar activity. In fact, it cannot be explained.
The second period of warming started in 1906 and ran to around 1940. This period is very briefly mentioned in passing in AR4 WG1 Chapter 9 (p.691): "Detection and attribution as well as modeling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th-century warming than the recent warming."
40% of the total temperature rise occurred during this 34-year period, although the linear trend was somewhat lower than in the other two periods at 0.161 degC per decade. CO2 rose by 14 ppmv over this period.
IPCC states (Chapter 3, p.240): "The picture prior to 1976 has essentially not changed and is therefore not repeated in detail here."
Now IPCC also states (p.681) "The simulations also show that it is not possible to reproduce the large 20th-century warming without anthropogenic forcing regardless of which solar or volcanic forcing reconstruction is used, stressing the impact of human activity on the recent warming" and (p.685) that the warming during the most recent period "can only be reproduced when models are forced with combinations of external forcings that include anthropogenic forcings".
The logic"
1. We cannot explain what caused the warming of two earlier periods (1860-1879 and 1906-1940)
2. We are not interested in clearing up the "uncertainties" of any unexplained forcing factors for these periods, in fact we are not going to talk about them at all.
3. We know that AGW largely contributed to the warming from 1976 to 1998.
4. We know this is the case, because our models cannot explain it otherwise (i.e. AGW is guilty by "default").
Until IPCC investigates in detail both earlier periods, which together account for 70% of the total warming since records began, they cannot name CO2 (and other GHG) as the culprit by default for the most recent warming period, which accounts for the remaining 30% of the total warming.
This is the fatal flaw in the AGW hypothesis.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:28 am
23 Apr 2008
Correlation between CO2 and temperature
Here is a way to get a good visual look at the correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature.
Take the data below (from the Hadley global temperature record and the atmospheric CO2 record according to Mauna Loa and IPCC) and plot them into Excel with a 2-axis chart.
The correlation will become obvious.
Period......Dtemp......DCO2
1860-1879...+0.39......2
1879-1906...-0.13......5
1906-1940...+0.56......14
1940-1976...-0.07......25
1976-1998...+0.39......33
1998-2008......0.00......20
Dtemp is linear temperature change over period in degrees C
DCO2 is increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration over period in ppmv
Why do we not see this simple chart in any IPCC report?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:46 am
23 Apr 2008
There is not such thing as "Climate". Therefore, there is no such thing as "Climate Science".
Climate is a numerical average of weather statistics.
There are atmospheric scientists, but that's only part of the puzzle.
The analysis of numbers and data and making extrapolations on them are the domain of many disciplines: computer programmers (of which I am one), scientists (which I consider myself to be as well) of many disciplines.
The IPCC is not a scientific body, because it's recommendations spill over into all aspects of life and social policy.
Therefore, since they opened that Pandora's Box -- which should have never been breeched -- yes, a blogger, your grandmother and every human walking around has a right to open his mouth and criticize.
J. Bailo
Participant
Texeme.Construct()
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:48 am
23 Apr 2008
I'd like you to answer my question from yesterday's post. As someone who's got only a passing knowledge of drums, will you accept the assessment of me and hundreds of other respected professionals that Joe is a talented drummer, regardless of your opinion of his music?
The dynamic of the expert class is always in play.
Can anyone walk in and perform brain surgery?
Before you answer...see the movie "Catch Me If You Can"...
J. Bailo
Participant
Texeme.Construct()
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:52 am
23 Apr 2008
You got it wrong when you wrote:
"The question at hand is not whether we like these scientists' ideas or the consequences they imply. It is whether their work is legitimate and robust based on the opinions of other scientists, not Joe Schmo bloggers."
Here's what's wrong with that.
The work does not have to be "robust based on the opinions of other scientists (or bloggers)", it has to be "robust based on sound observed physical evidence".
The AGW link between anthropogenic GHGs (primarily CO2) and temperature is not.
This hypothesis cannot explain earlier periods of global warming (late 19th, early 20th centuries), the mid-20th-century cooling period and the current "plateau" in warming. In fact, over the entire 150+ years of the temperature record, it only shows good correlation for the 22-year period 1976-1998. 22 out of 150 is about a 15% hit rate; not too "robust".
Forget "opinions of other scientists", bring evidence.
Max
Permalink
atreyger Posted 12:04 pm
23 Apr 2008
1860-1879...+0.39......2, 19 years
1879-1906...-0.13......5, 27 years
1906-1940...+0.56......14, 34 years
1940-1976...-0.07......25, 26 years
1976-1998...+0.39......33, 22 years
1998-2008......0.00......20,10 years
What kind of a way is this to look at data? And also, the last 10 years look very suspicious, which makes me think that you 'fudged' the data
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:58 pm
23 Apr 2008
The record shows that there have been three major warming periods since 1860, two cooling periods and one most recent flat period. Those are the unvarnished facts.
The record also shows that there is no apparent correlation of the temperature change with the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration over these periods.
Just facts, that's all.
Everything else is model gibberish and hype.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
atreyger Posted 3:35 am
24 Apr 2008
I'm done talking to you.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 3:36 am
24 Apr 2008
I'm done talking to you.
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 9:06 am
24 Apr 2008
There have been hundreds of papers written in the last 15 years or so in the peer-reviewed literature, and along with the many that support the concept of anthropogenic global warming or that at least leave the door open to it, there are exactly zero that strongly doubt or refute the theory. I have to imagine these hundreds of papers, written by hundreds of scientists, represent exactly what you're asking for: evidence. Here's an article that discusses the consensus and the scientific literature in a clear and logical way: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Now, I'm no expert on all this stuff, and far from being any kind of science nut, let along a scientist. But I do tend to trust experts, especially lots of them who say the same thing. It seems to me these experts were doing a very wise thing when they combined data from many different temperature record sources, rather than simply pointing to one temperature record that appears to be contrary. Your argument seemst to rest upon only one set of observations.
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 9:43 am
24 Apr 2008
Sounds like you're bitter. Did you flunk out of some advanced degree program and then get mad that no one would publish your work? This is what I'm getting from you--a really deep, chronic resentment for anyone with authority, expertise, or resources to get at truth and reality more effectively than you.
I've read your posts on several different articles on Grist now, and you have a stunning habit of asking unscientific questions about scientific issues. And when you do pose scientific questions, it's as if you have blinders on. You really need to open your eyes to the volume and reputability of the work of scientists all over the world to answer these questions.
As so many well-spoken folks on this site have suggested, you should look at the IPCC. You're now thinking, "But that's a bunch of policy-makers and economists!" And I'm now reminding you this is a synthesis, analysis, and summary (by scientists) of an enormous body of work (by scientists) and contains references all over the place to specific research (by scientists).
Everyone who has ever asked to see "a specific study" in support of AGW, once again, read the IPCC. Here is one tiny example, from page 389 of AR4WG1, chapter 5:
"This section reports on updates of this estimate and presents estimates for the upper 700m based on additional modern and historical data (Willis et al., 2004; Levitus et al., 2005b; Ishii et al., 2006)."
Do you see all that stuff in parenthesis? That is a citation to three different papers. If you want specific studies, GO READ THEM. If you can't find them, don't worry, there are HUNDREDS more listed in the IPCC reports. If you're a little intimidated by all this, that's probably normal if, like me, you're NOT A SCIENTIST.
Please, if you're scared of what you might find in real scientific papers in real peer-reviewed journals, then just don't read them. But you can officially stop asking for evidence and lamenting the existence of an "expert class."
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 9:48 am
24 Apr 2008
Please read the last few paragraphs of my response to J. Bailo regarding specific evidence. That was for you, too, along with all the others who say there's no evidence.
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 10:00 am
24 Apr 2008
Furthermore, it definitely does matter whether other scientists find the work to be robust and legitimate. Most of our "facts" about anything are really just theories or estimates accepted by the scientific community. A study that reveals "facts" really just reveals one person's measurements of a set of data, and perhaps their interpretations of those measurements. Data does not just leap from the earth into our textbooks and reports; it must pass through human minds first and there is room for error. The purpose of peer-reviewed journals is to provide open and redundant review of the person's methods to reduce the chance and margin of error.
So, from a contrary angle, if a data is seen as contradictory to a scientific theory, it needs to be seen that way by many scientists for it to be accepted as proof against the theory. I can only assume (as I have no idea where I'd find any peer-reviewed discussion of the data you mentioned) that either (A) noone from this enormous pool of experts has seen or addressed this data, (hmmm...) or, (B) it has been addressed and has been found to be less significant, relevant, or accurate than all the other data they've got. Doesn't that make sense?
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 10:07 am
24 Apr 2008
You still haven't answered that lingering question from earlier in the week. As someone who's got only a passing knowledge of drums, will you accept the assessment of me and hundreds of other respected professionals that Joe is a talented drummer, regardless of your opinion of his music?
If not, why not?
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:07 pm
24 Apr 2008
You wrote:
"Furthermore, it definitely does matter whether other scientists find the work to be robust and legitimate."
Not really.
"Other scientists" at the time thought Alfred Wegener's theory of "continental drift" was not "robust and legitimate".
They were even in "overall consensus" of this view, as is being claimed now for the AGW hypothesis.
And that was before there was a multi-billion dollar AGW industry paying scientists to find the AGW paradigm "robust and legitimate".
Wake up to the facts, jbullfrog. It's a multibillion dollar scam.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:25 pm
24 Apr 2008
You apparently do not like discussing observed facts (such as the Hadley temperature record), when these facts do not support your preconceived notions.
As I showed you, this record shows that there have been several multidecadal warming/cooling cycles over the past 150+ years that have nothing to do with AGW.
It further shows that the late 20th century warming is not unusual when compared to other warming periods prior to increased CO2 concentrations.
It confirms that warming before this latest period was at least twice as great as during this period.
And finally it shows that warming has essentially stopped since 1998 despite continued increase in CO2 concentrations.
That is the observed truth, even if it is a bit "inconvenient" for you to accept, atreyger.
But cheer up. We will not fry or drown because of AGW. (I'm actually more concerned that AGW has reversed and we may freeze, instead, which I view as a much more serious problem for humanity).
Regards,
Max
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 4:33 pm
24 Apr 2008
Until the scientific community strengthens this point of view with more tests and supporting evidence, it remains one of relatively few potentially valid arguments against AGW, in the face of hundreds of studies that seem to support AGW.
Put another way... You and I have no idea if this is a valid piece of evidence. It's up to scientists to figure that out, and the odds seem pretty small right now, though by no means is it impossible.
Is this concept making any sense to you? It's how science works. Evidence gathered by observations is used to form hypotheses, which are tested, and the results of multiple tests are linked together to support theories, which quite often can never be proven beyond all doubt. Scientists must simply judge the relative strength of the collective evidence for a theory while attempting to disprove any hyphotheses that refute it. It frustrates me to think you don't know how the scientific method and the scientific community function, yet you're in a public forum trying to paint the independent work of hundreds of respected biologists, geologists, ecologists, climatologists, meteorologists, and other scientists all around the globe as a scam. What you and I think of the science doesn't matter, Max. It's what experts think of it that matters.
There is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise, so if you continue to insist that you can judge good and bad science for yourself instead of trusting experts, this argument is over.
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 4:39 pm
24 Apr 2008
Who are you to say this one temperature record is correct, or more brashly, to say that it proves anything, when there are so many other temperature records that suggest the opposite? Clearly there is some explanation, but who are you to decide what it is?
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:31 am
25 Apr 2008
You wrote: "This temperature record you keep talking about, Max, is not "observed facts."
IPCC believes in it jbullfrog. Don't you? It may have some built in human errors and UHI distortions, etc., especially in later years as AC units were put in next to thermometers and asphalt parking lots were put in. But these records are all we have as far as observed surface air temperature records are concerned. So they are as close to "facts" as we are going to get.
IPCC uses this record to sell its AGW story. Problem is, they cherry pick the part of the record they want to talk about and ignore the part that does not support their AGW story.
You wrote: "Who are you to say this one temperature record is correct, or more brashly, to say that it proves anything, when there are so many other temperature records that suggest the opposite? Clearly there is some explanation, but who are you to decide what it is?"
Which other records "suggest the opposite"? Please specify what you are talking about.
The two satellite records (UAH, RSS) agree with flat to slight cooling since 1998. GISS is the "odd man out" and shows flat to slight warming. Over the past seven years (2001-2008) all records agree with flat to slight cooling.
The two satellite records can obviously not be used to track the early 20th-century and late 19th-century warming cycles, because they did not exist.
I personally have more faith in Hadley than GISS, in view of the recent disclosures of errors in the GISS record for the USA, which had to be corrected quietly. I also have a bit of a problem with the objectivity of James E. Hansen, since he has become an AGW activist preaching "tipping point" stories instead of giving the US taxpayers unbiased information on weather and climate. And, as noted above, I have seen that when comparing trends (particularly over the past 10 years), the GISS record is "odd man out" compared to the other three (Hadley, UAH and RSS).
Hope this clears things up for you.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:37 am
25 Apr 2008
Ok, I will keep answering...and you will keep asking. Eventually this will all go away...
How are you qualified to decide that this particular study was performed and interpreted infallibly?
You keep talking about "climate scientists".
There is no such thing.
There are atmospheric scientists.
There are statisticians.
The lie is that there are experts in this field.
There are none.
Yet they overstep their disciplines to tell us how we should live, work, travel.
It's not "science" they're after...but political control.
As such, everyone has a right...a necessity...to comment!
J. Bailo
Participant
Texeme.Construct()
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:10 am
25 Apr 2008
If this whole AGW debate were just a scientific discussion among atmospheric scientists, astronomers and physicists, there would not be too much public interest and these blog sites would not exist.
What has made it everyone's business is that it is a political discussion involving policy measures that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars and achieve absolutely nothing.
IPCC was set up by politicians and bureaucrats to help justify these policy measures.
The IPCC charter is not to find the "truth" about what drives changes in climate, it is to find the "proof" for anthropogenic causes of climate change and project that these will have adverse effects unless "measures are taken" to reduce GHG emissions (primarily CO2).
The "measures" involve carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes with very large sums of money being shuffled around by bureaucrats and politicians, hedge funds, carbon trading companies, etc., with "big bucks" to be made. Al Gore and others are already lined up at the trough, hoping to make a killing on carbon trading. Other public figures are relishing the thought of the prestige and power (and maybe a bit of financial gain on the side) they will get from having billions of dollars to shuffle around.
Many of the so-called "climate experts" have sold out to the IPCC, responding to the axiom in publicly funded research of "no crisis = no funding". This has made the so-called "peer review" process a sham (sort of like a court proceeding in the old Soviet Union).
Then there are the activists who pose as "climate experts" (Hansen Schneider, etc.) to spread the message of impending disaster unless we "act now". "Act now" = take "measures" (see above).
The media love a good hysteria wave because it generates good public interest and profits.
Who will pay for this whole circus?
Everyone.
The worst hit will be those already at the bottom of the pyramid, who will continue to be denied access to clean drinking water and electrical power, in order to "save the planet" from the added CO2 this would generate.
What positive results will the implementation of these measures have?
None.
That's why jabailo is right when he says everyone needs to get involved in this discussion and not rely on only the opinions of the so-called "climate experts", who have sold out to the IPCC or the climate alarmists, who hope to gain from this wave of hysteria.
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:36 am
25 Apr 2008
"You still haven't answered that lingering question from earlier in the week. As someone who's got only a passing knowledge of drums, will you accept the assessment of me and hundreds of other respected professionals that Joe is a talented drummer, regardless of your opinion of his music? If not, why not?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK then: please advise why you have not answered my posts # 20 and 21 @ which have some important issues therein @.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329#com ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TIP: If you were long-term familiar with jbailo's style, you would know it includes satire, and breaks many conventions, which even some fundamentalists appear to have a sneaking admiration for. He makes you think! If you ask him an obscure or irrelevant question, you should not be surprised if the response is likewise so, or unexpected in some way. Please learn to work on it, and enjoy the stimulation that he provides.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 11:06 am
25 Apr 2008
[A] "This temperature record you keep talking about, Max, is not "observed facts." Nothing in science is. It is a set of data collected, reported, and interpreted by humans, using their own senses and some equipment. The tools, actions, and methods involved are all susceptible to error, as is any attempt to measure or interpret data."
You should try to understand that the IPCC and the World treat the surface temperature record(s) as a fact(s). Further, that we are stuck with them, at least for the period prior to quality satellite observations. Furthermore, it is known that they are unreliable in several ways, (See earlier posts) but they are the facts that we have to discuss.
To help you understand how the usage of `Fact' is generally applied, here is a paste from the MS Encarta dictionary: (I have taken the liberty to bold some words at the start)
fact [fakt]
(plural facts)
n
something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened
truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something based on fact
piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth
law actual course of events: the circumstances of an event or state of affairs, rather than an interpretation of its significance
Matters of fact are issues for a jury, while matters of law are issues for the court.
5. law something based on evidence: something that is based on or concerned with the evidence presented in a legal case
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You go-on to say Bullfrog, [with my emphasis added]:
"Who are you to say this one temperature record is correct, or more brashly, to say that it proves anything, when there are so many other temperature records that suggest the opposite? Clearly there is some explanation, but who are you to decide what it is?"
I find the whole statement baffling, but particularly the bold bit. I wonder if you should elaborate a bit more
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 11:18 am
25 Apr 2008
(1) scientists with top academic and scientific institutions are getting paid to do studies and fudge the numbers or their analysis in favor of AGW,
(2) other respected scientists who would naturally question and test these findings are also ALL getting paid to fudge their own numbers or analysis, and
(3) there are no scientists left out of the many hundreds who publish in legitimate, peer-reviewed journals relevant to the topic of AGW who are not in the pocket of the AGW conspiracy.
This is in spite of the fact that there is a long-standing, much better funded industry (oil and coal) that, it seems, would have gotten these same scientists in their own pockets decades ago.
I'll answer a few more specific points next week, as I don't expect to be near the computer this weekend. But for the most part, I'm done. My inclination to deal with such absurd assertions is pretty much gone.
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 11:21 am
25 Apr 2008
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:51 pm
25 Apr 2008
Read what I wrote, don't try to re-phrase it with your spin on it.
IPCC was set up by the UN, a political body, to investigate anthropogenic influences on climate (i.e. primarily the impact of human CO2 on warming) and to report whether these changes would have any negative impacts on humanity and the environment, with the underlying agenda to find ways to mitigate any identified potential problems by implementing political solutions.
The existence of the IPCC depends on (a) the identification of anthropogenic climate forcing factors and (b) the projection that the impact of these is likely to be more negative than positive, unless (c) mitigating steps are taken.
No anthropogenic forcing with potential for negative impact = no need for IPCC to exist. Bureaucratic committees do not easily disband voluntarily, so it is a matter of self-preservation to keep a level of alarm alive that AGW could cause serious problems.
"Climate scientists" must get taxpayer-funded grants to do their work. If the work meets the political agenda of the IPCC, it will get funding. If not, it has a lower chance. The motto here is: "no crisis = no funding". Billions of dollars are at stake here and the smart researchers know what is necessary to get the funding they need. The most effective reports conclude with statements such as "the problem could become more serious, but additional work is required to identify the magnitude of this potential problem" (guaranteed to get more funding from politicians who also benefit from a potential crisis).
Some of these "climate scientists" have gotten stuck in the AGW paradigm that pays their salaries. To challenge the paradigm is to risk losing their funding and getting scorn from colleagues who are also stuck in the paradigm or fear for their funding.
In such an "in-bred" society the "peer review" process is often just a rubber-stamping by like-minded colleagues as was demonstrated by the Mann hockey stick scandal.
"Serious scientific journals" also fall into the trap. Papers that defend or support the AGW paradigm are more eagerly accepted for publication than those, which challenge this paradigm.
This is not to say that many of these "climate scientists" do not truly believe there could be a problem, and some may actually have the warm feeling that they are doing something good to "save the planet".
Some of these "climate scientists" become "activists" or "alarmists". A classical example is James E. Hansen, paid by the US government to give un-biased weather and climate information to the US public, but instead of doing his job he is spreading scare stories of imminent "tipping points" with horrible consequences for humanity, other species and the planet itself unless carbon taxes are implemented immediately. In other cases it is the politicians, such as Al Gore or Ban Ki Moon, that do the scare mongering in order to get public support for their personal, financial or political agendas.
We even have Hollywood and the Nobel committee handing out politically motivated prizes.
This is not a "conspiracy". It is "agenda driven science" and plain old human nature. Remember that politicians, bureaucrats and scientists are all just human beings.
You accuse the oil and coal lobbies of doing the same. The managers and directors of these companies are also just human beings. I cannot disagree in principle that both sides use the same approach. I have just seen a much lower volume of "agenda driven science" from these lobbies than from the AGW lobbies that are spending billions of dollars annually to sell their message.
AGW has truly become "big business", and the vast majority of papers out there on climate change support the AGW viewpoint. Several billions of dollars go a long way toward building "consensus".
And then you have the media (also directed by human beings). Nothing sells as well (and brings in profits as surely) as a good "imminent disaster" story. Here again there may be some individuals who think they are doing something good for humanity by alarming the public to a problem that is sure to come. Others are in it for the "bucks".
No conspiracy required, jbullfrog. Just plain old folks, billions of dollars and "agenda driven science" at work.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 3:33 pm
25 Apr 2008
Somewhere above you comment on the frailty of human nature in the interpretation of data, which seems to support in part what Max has just explained to you.
However, it would seem that if any of us rationalists point out for example that the so-called global average temperatures between 1998 and now are flat#, then you seem to consider that to be a conspiracy, and/or we have no right to indicate those facts!
WHY?
# that is, in considerstion of the raw data and not using the arbitrary filtering methods adopted by the publishers
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:39 pm
26 Apr 2008
You've been sort of quiet lately. Have you given up the debate?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 4:19 pm
26 Apr 2008
Grist readers who would like to see the effect of different time spans on the shape of the trend lines being calculated can look at the following links:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
The above graph shows the monthly linear trend lines for the monthly average global temperature anomaly for the past ten years, for both the meteorological stations and the land-ocean index. The unusually high temperature anomalies during the el niño of 1998 and the lower temperature anomalies of the la niña of 1999-2000 are readily visible, as are the lower la niña temperature anomalies of the past winter.
This is to some extent a graph of monthly weather, presented in the form of the anomaly, and obviously the trend lines are a zigzag. To see the effect on the trend lines when calculating the trend over longer time frames, you can try the next three links:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/diagnostics/global/nh ...
The graph at the top of this page apparently shows a smoothed trend through the annual average global temperature anomaly, using a "21 point binomial filter". For those who don't have a math background, it should be noted that this isn't like laying a ruler across a 21 year time span. You would only get that kind of "ruler" effect if you were calculating "linear" trends for 21 year (or other) time spans.
Instead, this is a "moving point average" where the "weighting" of each of the 21 years in the "time span" varies like a bell curve with almost all of the weight assigned to the 5 years before and 5 years after the point being calculated.
If you're curious, the weighting is described here:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/smoothing.html
There has been some complaint on this thread and other threads here at Grist that this smoothing takes place over too long a time span to reveal brief perturbations in the weather. The relevance of those perturbations depends on what you're looking for, of course. To see what a shorter time frame for the trend calculation looks like, Grist readers can compare the 21-point-smoothed graph to the following graph:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
On this graph, there are two trend lines. The black dotted line on the graph is the annual linear trend between yearly anomaly points. This line shows the kind of weather variations seen from year to year, expressed as an anomaly.
The red line is a moving-point average calculated over a 5 year span, which is visibly "lumpier" (i.e. more "responsive") than the 21 point smoothed trend line in the earlier graph.
This red, 5 year average might be the kind of trend calculation that would appeal to readers interested in shorter term trends, such as the trend over the past ten years. Note, however, that the trend line must always end "two years ago" due to the 5 year averaging method.
Hopefully by looking at these three graphs, showing monthly linear trend, yearly linear trend, 5-year moving-point-average trend, and 21 point smoothed trend, Grist readers can see the effect of the various time spans used in the trend calculations and weigh the significance of the various downswings and upswings in the temperature anomaly over the past 150 years.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:35 pm
26 Apr 2008
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/GCAGtsalt?mon1=1&bye1=1 ...
and run the numbers with temperature data from 1880 to 2007. So, you can see trends and year by year deviations.
Well, of course you want to start with the classic run of all the data:
1880-2007
Now according to the site it shows a trend of 0.05 centrigrade per decade. So, in a century, you would warm by half a degree. Now, that's a long way from the IPCC predictions of minimun 2C and possibly 6C or more.
Ok, they must be seeing accelerating warming in more recent years...right?
Well there's the classic cold spell of 1940-1970. It shows a global cooling trend of -0.04C per decade.
1940-70
But we're not arguing trivialities here -- we know that those three decades were "an anomaly". So lets get serious. Surely there was some extreme warming leading up to the nineties. Let's start at 1980 to get away from the nasty cooling and run it up to 1995.
1980-1995
We see a more rapid rate of warming -- 0.09C...per decade. So, now we're warming faster...to almost 0.9C in a century (much more than the 1/2 a degree based on the century long trend).
But gee...still doesn't seem like much. Ok, how about those "hottest years ever". Well, certainly the temperature has been trending up over the 20th century (by 1/2 a degree)...but where's the "ooomph".
Ok, let's try
1995-2007
Dam! Now we're up to 0.23C per decade. That's the 2C per century we heard about in the initial reports. But man, how did we get that high so fast. Well, let's tighten it up
1997 -2003
0.38C per decade! Wow...it's getting hot in here, so take off all your clothes...I think...but seems funny the more I narrow it down to those few very, very hot years the bigger the trend.
How about recent history...?
2002-2007
Ouch! It's getting cooler again...by -0.05C per decade. A century of this it might drop half a degree.
Well, I don't know. But here at Grist they all rant about climate being an average over a long period of time.
But if I take a big period of time, and especially if I de-emphasize the "weather" of 1998-2001, things start to seem a lot less dire.
So, who's talking about the weather? The skeptics...or the IPCC?
Texeme.Construct(Participant)
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 5:38 pm
26 Apr 2008
This concern is not entirely irrational. If a carbon tax is unwisely administered, it is indeed possible for the poor to be hurt and we need to be aware of this possibility when designing any such tax.
To make sure carbon taxes do not push the poor deeper into poverty, some of the carbon tax revenue needs to be funneled back to the poor as some form of rebate or subsidy. Keeping in mind that most of the carbon tax revenue would be gathered from big consumers, not from the poor, only a small fraction of the total carbon tax revenue would need to be diverted to ensure the poor are not made worse off by the tax.
When deciding on the methods for funneling the appropriate fraction of tax money to the poor, we should remember that the higher purpose of the carbon tax is to monetarily steer all consumers, including the poor, away from carbon-intensive purchases.
So if rebates or subsidies are given to the poor, they should be aimed at making good, low-GHG choices accessible to the poor (affordable or free fares on good mass transit, affordable low-energy housing close to work, local organic food, etc.), and not aimed at offsetting the higher cost of continuing a carbon-intensive lifestyle (operating old guzzler cars, living in poorly insulated housing, etc).
If the carbon tax is done properly, the poor will not lose any ground.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:31 pm
26 Apr 2008
"Hopefully by looking at these three graphs, showing monthly linear trend, yearly linear trend, 5-year moving-point-average trend, and 21 point smoothed trend, Grist readers can see the effect of the various time spans used in the trend calculations and weigh the significance of the various downswings and upswings in the temperature anomaly over the past 150 years."
Jabailo has also shed some very helpful light on long term versus short term trends in the record.
As MNG has informed Grist readers there have been distinct "downswings and upswings in the temperature anomaly over the past 150 years".
The record shows that this is, indeed, true, as MNG suggests. If we use the Hadley record that goes back to 1850 we can identify these multidecadal "downswings and upswings" more closely. We see that there were three cycles of warming and four cycles of lesser cooling, with an underlying overall trend of warming over the entire period.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
If we correlate the linear rate of change of the temperature anomaly and the linear temperature change with the change in atmospheric CO2 over these cycles, we see the following:
1850-1860: linear cooling trend of -0.112C/decade, linear change -0.11C, negl. change in CO2
1860-1879: linear warming trend of +0.176C/decade, linear change +0.35C, 2 ppm CO2 increase
1879-1906: linear cooling trend of -0.039C/decade, linear change -0.11C, 5 ppm CO2 increase
1906-1940: linear warming trend of +0.130C/decade, linear change +0.44C, 14 ppm CO2 increase
1940-1976: linear cooling trend of -0.006C/decade, linear change -0.02C, 25 ppm CO2 increase
1976-1998: linear warming trend of +0.159C/decade, linear change +0.35C, 33 ppm CO2 increase
1998-2008: linear cooling trend of -0.021C/decade, linear change -0.02C, 20 ppm CO2 increase
Most rapid rate of increase was in the 20-year cycle 1860-1879, followed by the 22-year cycle 1976-1998 and the 36-year cycle 1906-1940.
Roughly 30% of the total warming occurred in the most recent warming cycle (1976-1998), another 30% in the late 19th-century warming cycle (1860-1879) and roughly 40% in the early 20th-century warming cycle (1906-1940). Intermittent cooling cycles reversed roughly 10% of the warming over the entire 150+ year record, for a net overall linear warming of somewhat over 1C.
The data do not show an apparent correlation between warming and CO2 over the individual cycles.
Hope this, together with the input from MNG helps Grist readers see the cyclical nature of the "downswings and upswings" mentioned by MNG and the correlation between temperature and CO2 over these cycles.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:42 pm
26 Apr 2008
You wrote: "If the carbon tax is done properly, the poor will not lose any ground."
My response: Don't count on it , MNG. Everyone will lose, but the poor will be the biggest losers.
And these taxes will do absolutely nothing to change the climate on this planet.
Sad but true, MNG.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:19 pm
27 Apr 2008
I've taken the liberty to paste your post over @
http://www.newstatesman.com/200801140011#reader-comments
Where I'm sure they will enjoy it, ot the rational ones, anyway
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 4:28 pm
27 Apr 2008
Eventually you start to crest the hill. Your speed rises while you keep the gas pedal on the floor.
After the crest, you start going down the other side of the hill. You pull your foot off the gas pedal a bit, but your speed continues to rise. Gradually you pull your foot all the way off the gas pedal while your speed continues to rise, eventually stabilizing at a higher speed.
Three observations from this scenario are:
The speed of the car did not vary in linear synchronization with the movement of the gas pedal. The speed dropped at the same time that the power was increased on the way up the hill; then the speed increased with constant power near the crest of the hill; and finally the speed increased further while the power decreased on the way down the other side of the hill.
Obviously, gravity, the inclination of the road, and various forms of drag are the reasons for the lack of linear synchronization between the gas pedal position and the speed, and if the car had very little power, those other factors would have a large influence on speed.
Although the gas pedal movement was out of sync with the changes in speed, the position of the gas pedal still had a significant influence on the speed.
-----
Just because recent changes in temperature anomaly don't seem to correlate linearly and in sync with changes in CO2 at Mauna Loa, that doesn't mean rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have no effect on temperatures.
Our analysis of these relationships needs to respect their complexity.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:52 pm
27 Apr 2008
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 4:37 am
28 Apr 2008
I'm also going to leave the arguing on these points to other folks, since I'm finding it kind of toxic. And I think NiceGuy, for one, has been both more polite and eloquent than I've managed to.
Before I go, a few things...
J. Bailo, Manacker, etc., I still wonder at what your assumptions are about the scientific community. A lot of folks seem to get a thrill from assuming that practically every member of the scientific community can somehow look the other way while everyone else falsifies their results or their conclusions to make a buck. Science itself would collapse under the weight of such a quagmire. Any scientist's work rests on the foundations of those that studied the subject matter before him. Falsities stacked upon falsities can only reach so high. As a respected member of the scientific community, J. Bailo, you would no doubt be inclined to check the data and methods and conclusions of others before you did any research that relied on them--or else your own work could be for nothing. I think you'd love to find errors in someone else's work, because it would get you closer to some kind of truth (or at least further from falsehoods). So I simply cannot buy this conspiracy theory (even as a passive "conspiracy of human nature"). Besides, human nature might lead me to drive like a bat out of hell, steal things when I don't have the money, cheat on my wife... but I don't do these things, because I am a decent human being who understands the consequences and wants to live a life that's honest and respectful of others. I'd venture a guess that most respected scientists feel this way about their profession. Wouldn't you?
Also, I'll reiterate that I am not a scientist in a field relating to the study of the climate. Neither are the skeptics posting here. So as I see it, if I post a link to an article that represents the work or the viewpoint of one or a small group of researchers, and I say I trust this study, there are three ways I could have arrived at that level of trust: (1) I took it on faith that they are right; (2) I analyzed and tested their methods and conclusions myself (and I'm very poorly equipped to do this); or (3) I found that their conclusions are supported or refuted by the work of other scientists. Otherwise, I have to assume those observations might be inaccurate; the methodology may have been wrong; factors may have been overlooked; or conclusions may have been dubiously inferred. The more experts approve of the methods that were used, and the more research that seems to suggest the same conclusions, the more likely the conclusion is correct. There are definitely exceptions to this, and most new "facts" begin as minority opinions, in a sense, but in the end science must determine if science is right. Economists cannot. Politicians cannot. Blog commenters cannot. I feel it is extremely arrogant and ignorant to think we can.
I am done debating folks who think their own opinion of science is more valid than that of hundreds of scientists. I am done with people who don't understand that the IPCC reports are compilations and analyses of research by hundreds of experts in various fields over many years, not a commissioned study or a statement of political opinion. If you are someone who feels this way, you are free to have your opinion, but I disagree with you and no longer feel the urge to argue.
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 5:32 am
28 Apr 2008
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
Not just that, but the Hadley Centre has posted a note about the effects of their method of data smoothing, giving the impression that "global average temperatures had dropped markedly in recent years, which is misleading." And just looking at the graph, with a strong foundation in math and a basic understanding of statistics, I personally think it speaks for itself, especially when combined with all the longer-term temperature records Coby references which suggest that the current degree and rate of temperature change is at least highly unusual, if not unique, in the last ten thousand years (or much more).
Following a link from the word "misleading" I found myself on a page where the Hadley Centre explains their data in nearly the exact words Coby uses frequently on this site. They say, for example: "Warming has been unprecedented in at least the last 50 years, and the 17 warmest years have all occurred in the last 20 years. This does not mean that next year will necessarily be warmer than last year, but the long-term trend is for rising temperatures." So I guess either the scientists that Max respects at the Hadley Centre see their own data much the way most of the world's climate-related researchers see all the other data... or the crooks at the IPCC have bought out the Hadley Centre, too.
OK, I think I'm really, totally, officially DONE, at least for a while. Have fun everyone.
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:01 am
28 Apr 2008
Liked your automobile analogy.
Also liked your statement: "Just because recent changes in temperature anomaly don't seem to correlate linearly and in sync with changes in CO2 at Mauna Loa, that doesn't mean rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have no effect on temperatures."
I could rephrase this is follows:
"Just because recent changes in temperature anomaly don't seem to correlate linearly and in sync with changes in CO2 at Mauna Loa, that doesn't mean rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations do have any effect whatsoever on temperatures."
Both sentences make sense.
The second one may even make just a little more sense than the first one, although that is just my opinion.
I could add:
"Just because none of the cycles of warming and cooling observed over the past 150+ years, with the notable exception of the 22-year period from 1976 to 1998, show any correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures, that doesn't mean rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have no effect on temperatures."
Nor does this observed fact show that rising CO2 concentrations do have any effect on temperatures.
But it sure raises an inconvenient question, leading to the statement:
And, until IPCC or anyone else can show what caused the warming cycles prior to the increase in CO2 concentrations and why these same factors were not responsible for the most recent warming cycle it makes the case for CO2/temperature causality very weak.
In fact, without such a detailed analysis eliminating any other unexplained factors, this causality is based on greenhouse theory, computer models and conjecture alone.
But I welcome your links to scientific studies that have determined the reasons for the "pre-CO2" warming cycles and have specifically concluded that these reasons could not also have caused the most recent warming.
I am sure that other Grist readers beside myself are eagerly awaiting your response in order to clear up this most important issue that lies at the heart of the entire AGW hypothesis.
If possible, I would nicely suggest that you stick to the specific issue here and avoid side issues and analogies, even though these may all be very interesting.
Hope I said this nicely enough.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:16 am
28 Apr 2008
Hi jbullfrog,
It's true that the Hadley record shows only a very slight cooling from 1998 to 2008, and it is anyone's guess whether this will continue and, if so, for how long.
No really big deal, but it makes the IPCC projection of 0.2C warming per decade (for the next 2 decades) look rather dubious, but, what the hell, you can't guess them right every time, even with fancy computer models.
But at least Hadley learned a lesson.
Rather than predicting that "next year will be a record scorcher" as they did twice in a row (and then have to crawl back with a rationalization why it did not turn out that way), they did not fall into that trap for the year 2008 (I guess the handwriting was already on the wall).
But one does learn from past mistakes.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Michael Tobis Posted 8:55 am
28 Apr 2008
"No anthropogenic forcing with potential for negative impact = no need for IPCC to exist. Bureaucratic committees do not easily disband voluntarily, so it is a matter of self-preservation to keep a level of alarm alive that AGW could cause serious problems."
Nope.
This hypothesis would work much better were the IPCC actually a bureaucracy.
The idea that scientists serve as advisors to the IPCC for self-interest is very remote from the truth. It is an honor to be invited, but many scientists are compelled to turn it down because it cuts out of their productive time and fundable work.
There's this sense among the doubters that there's a big carpeted air conditioned skyscraper somewhere in Geneva with a fancy IPCC logo in brushed nickel on top, leather chairs everywhere, fancy hors d'oeuvres, and lots of climatologists smoking cigars and eating filet mignon, laughing at the gullible public...
There is no such place. The IPCC directly funds travel to the meetings, but doesn't pay for the time of attendees. It occupies the full attention only of a few clerical staff who are employed by UNEP and/or WMO. That's it.
The members of the IPCC are the countries with representation in the UN. It's essentially a standing committee of the UN General Assembly.
IPCC is not a big employer or a major funding agency.
mt
Permalink
manacker Posted 11:28 am
28 Apr 2008
Not directly, anyway.
But if there were no UN there would be no IPCC.
If there were no IPCC there would be no highly publicized AGW scare.
If there were no highly publicized AGW scare, there would be no need for billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded climate research (better spend all that money on a real problem).
And if the research shows that there is no AGW problem and that everything is likely to be OK it does not get repeat government funding (no crisis = no funding).
That's the connection.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 12:42 pm
28 Apr 2008
The biggest problem we rationalists have with the Hadley 21 point method for trending is actually defined by Hadley in the fine print, but not mentioned by the great elaborator MNG:
Quote, my emphasis added
"Toward the ends of the series there are not enough points to calculate the smoothed value. For example, in order to calculate the smoothed value for 1998 we would need to know what the annual averages were for the 21-year period 1988-2008, but we only currently have annual data for the period 1988-2007. Ideally the smoothing should stop before the filter 'runs off' the end of the series, but a series that has been shortened in this way appears not to be up-to-date.
In order to extend the simple smoothing to the very ends of the time series it is necessary to either extend the data series, or shorten the filter. Howsoever it is done, the data near the endpoints will be treated differently to data in the middle of the series. Extending the data series can be done in a number of ways, but the method used on these pages is simply to continue the series by repeating the final value. [sic]
In March 2008, some diagrams were placed on this web site which showed smoothed annual series that included data for 2008. The annual value for 2008 was based on the only two months of data - January and February - that were available at the time. January and February 2008 were cooler than recent months, leading to a marked downturn towards the end of the smoothed series (Figure 2, orange line) that caused much discussion."
In other words, in addition to the arbitrary 21 point (20-year) smoothing used by Hadley, because there is no data for the last half cycle of 10 years, they use a different arbitrary method of inventing the statistical smoothing. Just recently, they made a change to it because they did not like the outcome.
I intend to expand on this in more detail this evening Australian time
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:44 pm
28 Apr 2008
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/040408_coo ...
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 3:16 pm
28 Apr 2008
<<
The biggest problem we rationalists have with the Hadley 21 point method for trending is actually defined by Hadley in the fine print, but not mentioned by the great elaborator MNG:
>>
Yes, the artificial extension of the Hadley 21-point smoothed trend line beyond 1997 was criticized on another thread here at Grist. The criticism seemed valid and seemed to have been accepted by everyone on that thread without complaint. Revisiting the issue on this thread did not seem to be necessary.
In my post above:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49/#co ...
...I included a link to a graph that shows the 5-year moving-point average of the annual average temperature anomaly. That trend line ends roughly 2 years ago as it should:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
This 5-year-average trend line (the red line) is "lumpier" than the aforementioned 21-point smoothed trend line, due to its shorter time frame.
Those who feel the 21-point smoothed trend does not meet their needs are welcome to look at this 5-year-average trend line, or to ignore the portion of the 21-point smoothed trend line which extends beyond 1997.
Hope this helps...
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:13 pm
28 Apr 2008
You wrote (very nicely):
"Those who feel the 21-point smoothed trend does not meet their needs are welcome to look at this 5-year-average trend line, or to ignore the portion of the 21-point smoothed trend line which extends beyond 1997."
Rather than using manipulated, adjusted or "smoothed" data, I would suggest that those who want to know what is really going on should go to the original source of the data as published and look at what these data points indicate, doing their own analyses of trend lines, etc.
A tip for Grist readers: by going to the original data you have the advantage of being able to make up your own mind on what the data indicate, rather than letting someone else (even a very nice person like MNG) do this for you.
I hope I communicated this tip nicely, and that you, MNG, will not be offended.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:34 pm
28 Apr 2008
Different data sources may be treated arbitrarily differently in any combination of both parameters. A further problem of choice comes when the end of the data-set is reached, so in the case of Hadley at say end 2007, data through to end 2017 is required, which of course is impossible. No problem! We can create other code of our choice to fill-in the last ten years of unknown information!
Again, there are various ways that this can be done, but arguably, such "statistical" treatments become of doubtful value over a short-term, and many would argue that an "eyeball" trend with a transparent ruler is as good as any fancy statistical development in that case. If you click (+Ctrl)? on the following link, which was kindly provided by MNG
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
It gives unsmoothed monthly data from GISS for about ten years. Blind Freddie can see, without any need to treat it statistically, that this short data span is virtually flat. However, it is possible to use arbitrary techniques in variety to show something different, including what you as an individual would prefer to see.
For those of you that don't like to hear good news, I can sense that your hackles are rising, but the fact is that I will next identify information in the IPCC reports of 2001 and 2007 which confirms that such cheating has been published quite brazenly in both peer reviewed journals and by the IPCC.
The most obvious was the disgraced "Hockey-stick" of Mann et al 1999, somewhat exaggerated in 2001 in the TAR's in all possible corners and at podia etc. It had a 40-year smoothing, to flatten trends as much as possible. (Any greater may have raised eyebrows?). However, that aside, what I come to is that, as above, the last twenty years of absent data had to be "invented" somehow, to complete the 40-year smoothing. This is where it gets really tricky, because since about 1997/8, (Openly; Re: Overpeck, Hughes and also Esper), the dendro's were scratching their heads over the issue that despite temperatures going up, and forestry experiments showing that increased CO2 gives improved growth, the rate of tree-ring growth since around 1960 was reducing, sharply opposite to expected trends. This has been coined "The Divergence Problem", (unsolved), and has not had a lot of IPCC or Media discussion. (After-all, it hardly projects confidence backward for a thousand years!)
So, the problem faced by the dendro's was that their proxy data was plunging down, opposite to the red instrumental data for a while on regular smoothing, but by doing a flip-flop on the last 20 years of data, (yet another method of data creation), we have a nice (desirous) upturn at the end. See the blue 40-year smoothing in Figure 2 in MBH99 @
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf ...
I give you the actual paper link rather than IPCC 2001, because you may be surprised at some (entirely) other things in the paper, that are not common knowledge, or reflected by the IPCC 2001, if you are courageous enough to study it.
When we come to the 4AR, 2007, WG1, there is the famous spaghetti graph, (Fig 6:10a) which includes a barely visible subdued version of the hockey stick buried in there, and a sneak preview of the gradual return of a MWP and LIA. There are a whole bunch of dendro' thingies with the same little upturn-cheat at the end, but this time they are said to have a 30-year smoothing, not 40-years. Oh well! Why not!
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html (Go to Chapter6)
Hey look, I want to watch some TV that interests me, so I'll come back tomorrow probably with part 3.
I see that Jbullfrog has got the hots on something he did not understand in the tweaking by Hadley, so I`ll try and comment on that too tomorrow.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:50 pm
28 Apr 2008
"A commenter above said:
etc etc:"
To assist Grist readers further, MNG is, by deduction, referring to me, nickname Black Wallaby. (Indicating an Australian connection).
It is interesting to note that he could not wait for my part 2, which I advised would be coming.
Would any Grist readers like me to respond to his latest comment?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 10:25 pm
28 Apr 2008
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:14 am
29 Apr 2008
Jabailo discussed this topic (April 23), but I believe his blog needs further clarification.
Webster (online) tells us:
Weather: state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness
Climate: The average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity and precipitation
In other words, weather comes first, and is then integrated over a period of time to define climate "at a place".
In today's world where "climate" has become a multibillion-dollar business the meanings have shifted a bit and the words have gotten a new spin.
Climate is now the integration of the weather, not only over a period of years (as Webster tells us), but also globally over all places from Antarctica to Congo to Siberia, etc. (rather than just one place, as Webster defines it) and usually refers to periods of at least ten years (rather than just years), depending on what is going on.
Weather is pretty much as Webster has defined it with one notable exception: weather is now perceived to be the result of climate, i.e. more droughts, floods and storms are caused by global climate change.
This is a basic philosophical difference: Webster tells us that weather comes first to define climate; today's new spin tells us climate changes first, causing weather changes to follow.
There is another factor that has been introduced by "climate scientists" who support the hypothesis of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW), also known as "man-made global warming".
This is the "universal inverse C:W relationship of climatology", which works as follows:
If it is Warming ("W"), it is "Climate ("C")
If it is Cooling ("C"), it is "Weather" ("W")
Once you understand the basics, jabailo, it's really quite easy.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:45 am
29 Apr 2008
Yes, by all means, but only if you do it in a nice manner.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:25 pm
30 Apr 2008
In order to extend the simple smoothing to the very ends of the time series it is necessary to either extend the data series, or shorten the filter. Howsoever it is done, the data near the endpoints will be treated differently to data in the middle of the series. Extending the data series can be done in a number of ways, but the method used on these pages is simply to continue the series by repeating the final value. [sic]
Notice that I added [sic]. This was because I could not really believe that they would repeat the final year ten times. If anything is to be repeated, a more neutral assumption would be to repeat the whole of the last ten-year series, but even this is a dodgy construct, with no statistical reality. Basically the Hadley team must be EXPECTING the trend to continue to climb upwards, even though the raw data does not indicate it for ten years!.
In fact if you look at graph 1 at:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
And "eyeball" the raw data, the current period ~1980, till now, looks remarkably similar to the period ~1910 to ~1945, and two somewhat similar smaller earlier downtrends.
Rather than tweak the data to make it look in line with their expectations, a true scientist should present the data as it is, and discuss the possibilities if he/she is surprised by it. Better still, the last ten years should not be smoothed at all!
Looking at prior trends it is statistically arguable that ~1998 looks like ~1940 and also ~1900 and ~1880. The projection for 2008 (Green) certainly adds to this. There is actually a consideration based on data here, whereas Hadley applied an arbitrary method which supported their expectations. This worked fine when there was a high last year to duplicate, but not so "desirable" when it is a low year. (Hence they made a "correction")
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steve McIntyre and Ross McItrick, eventually overcame Nature journal and the establishment to show that the Hockey-stick was a fraud. Also, August last year, Steve overcame resistance from GISS and forced them to make corrections to the surface temperatures for the contiguous USA, showing that 1934 was the hottest year. (roughly the time when Greenland was warmer, and not much NH sea ice). These guys are very good with data handling and stats.
Check-out the following:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2955
Please read diligently!
Part 4 to follow
Permalink
Michael Tobis Posted 3:08 pm
30 Apr 2008
Well, the WMO predates the UN, and was a pioneer in international scientific cooperation, but never mind that. So, no, basically even that's wrong.
If there were no IPCC there would be no highly publicized AGW scare.
No. That's perfectly silly. IPCC was created to investigate the situation in response to insistent input from the scientific community which predates IPCC by a decade or so.
If there were no highly publicized AGW scare, there would be no need for billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded climate research (better spend all that money on a real problem).
Climatology is an important and interesting science independent of its implications for greenhouse policy. It's not at all clear that it is better funded than it would have been if there were no greenhouse problem.
And if the research shows that there is no AGW problem and that everything is likely to be OK it does not get repeat government funding (no crisis = no funding).
This may be true of some research into some topics, such as carbon sequestration, but has no effect on the scientists writing the IPCC report.
In short, the whole mechanism that is supposed to have corrupted the process so badly that it makes the whole concern up out of nothing is a fantasy that doesn't bear scrutiny.
This is not to say that climatologists are superhuman and magically more unbiased by their won interests than anybody else.
It's just to say that this scenario commonly trumpeted by IPCC foes is meaningless, and Max's attempt to fall back to some variant is equally uninformed by actual knowledge of the facts.
mt
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:48 pm
30 Apr 2008
AGW aficionados, even the "very nice" ones like "Mister Nice Guy" are beginning to have problems defending the AGW hypothesis, as the facts on the ground (i.e. the temperature record for the past 10 years) no longer support this hypothesis, and the whole AGW story is beginning to become unraveled.
These individuals resort to rationalizations in support of their "belief" that become more and more bizarre.
To put it bluntly: atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase over the past 10 years at record rates, yet temperatures have actually decreased slightly. Why is this?
Prior to 1998 there was a 22-year period when both temperature and CO2 increased. These years are the "golden period" of AGW, when warming and CO2 appeared to be really in sync.
Before this, there was a 30+ year period when CO2 increased and temperature declined (1944-1976). How can this be explained?
And prior to this period there was a 30+ year period (from 1910 to 1944) that recorded around 60% of all the warming observed over the entire 20th century, when there was only a minor increase in CO2. What caused this temperature increase, and, if it cannot be explained, how do we know that these same "unexplained" factors did not cause the 1976-1998 warming (rather than increased CO2)?
The answers to these questions are obviously missing. Even very nice persons like MNG avoid addressing these basic questions (because they cannot find answers).
Yet, despite these observed facts to the contrary, AGW supporters (including the very nice ones like MNG) are (nicely) urging Grist readers to believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the principal drivers of climate despite any real solid supporting evidence.
Are these AGW supporters (even the very nice ones like MNG) trying to bamboozle us (nicely, of course)?
Dear Grist readers, I suggest you make up your own minds on this and not rely on (very nice) individuals (like MNG) to do your thinking for you. They may have a (not so very nice) hidden agenda.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:10 pm
30 Apr 2008
IPCC is trying to sell a message to the world (i.e. that increasing human CO2 emissions are causing temperatures to rise to dangerous levels).
This is being done to justify draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes (which UN would like to implement across all nations).
This message still had some semblance of validity a few years ago, but recent developments show that it is now very doubtful.
It will only be a matter of time until this whole bubble bursts and it becomes clear to one and all that (as you put it) the whole concern was based on nothing but hype to justify a political agenda.
Will this happen in one year, in two years or in five years?
My guess it is closer to one year than five years.
What is your guess on this?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 4:18 pm
30 Apr 2008
Do no harm.
If you have time left over, try to make things better than they were when you arrived. While attempting to do this, try not to violate hidden-agenda item 1, noted above.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:09 pm
30 Apr 2008
I hope (nicely) that this will give Grist readers a clearer understanding of this (very nice) agenda:
1. Do no harm. (i.e. do not engage in unsubstantiated fear mongering to the general public to sell a multi-billion dollar political agenda that will benefit a few at the expense of everyone, particularly the least affluent in the world, and otherwise accomplish nothing)
2. If you have time left over, try to make things better than they were when you arrived. (i.e. direct your resources to solving the real problems humanity faces today plus anticipating any unfavorable climate changes that may occur in the future and prepare for these potential changes before they occur). While attempting to do this, try not to violate hidden-agenda item 1, noted above.
I hope I expressed this nicely, MNG.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 5:51 pm
30 Apr 2008
1. Is the global average annual temperature anomaly still rising, stable, or possibly even declining?
If we look at this graph:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
...it seems that the average annual temperature anomaly for the past 7 years varied up or down within a range of perhaps 0.14 C. The red trend line, which is a 5 year average, seems to be just starting to level off at its rightmost end, which is roughly 2 years ago.
A second question being asked on this thread seems to be:
2. Does this apparent "leveling off" mean that Global Warming has ended?
As has been noted by another commenter, the answer depends on the time frame you use to define the term "Global Warming".
Looking at the above graph, the red trend line is pretty lumpy from 1880 to the present. There are "peaks" in 1900, 1914, 1943, 1960, 1970, 1981, and 1989, and each of those "peaks" in the red trend line was followed by at least a few years of decline in this trend line.
But none of those declines in the trend marked the end of Global Warming in any long-term sense. The graph seems to show that the most recent global average annual temperature anomalies are significantly warmer than the anomalies for any of those earlier "peaks".
If we are in the early years of another multi-year decline in the annual average temperature anomaly trend, the 127 year history shown on this graph seems to indicate that this reprieve probably won't last.
If we're smart, we'll make the best use of it that we can, to reduce the risks we face in the future.
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:59 pm
30 Apr 2008
USA: 20,730,000 bbl/day (~25% of the world usage) (0.068 per capita)
China: 6,534,000 bbl/day
India: 2,450,000 bbl/day
The World: 82,234,918 bbl/day
Ref: Germany: 2,650,000 bbl/day (0,032 per capita...less than half of the USA)
Ref: UK: 1,827,000 bbl/day (0.030 per capita; less still)
Re:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil- ... ...
Population Clocks
U.S. 303,917,023 (~4.6% of the World)....(~12.5% of India + China)
World 6,663,106,867
06:29 GMT (EST+5) Apr 23, 2008
Other sources: Population of India and China: ~ 2,450,000
Germany ~82.5 million (2004), projected 80.3 million by 2015.
UK 60,943,912 (July 2008 CIA est.)
Let us imagine a future when Americans suddenly awake to the possibility that oil-in-ground may not be able to keep-up with increasing World demand. Furthermore, that aircraft carriers and cruise missiles will not be able to ensure a "fair share" of it for them! (And, that some peoples in this shared World, whom "own" it, do NOT LIKE such attitudes)
Let us imagine a future when Americans suddenly awake to the fact that other developed nations of high "life quality" use roughly half the amount of oil per capita! Will they ask why?
Whatever, there currently seems to be an urgent need to develop bio-fuels, despite some negative aspects that may be attached to them.
Try to imagine how American life-style would be affected if auto fuel became as scarce as hen's teeth!
Oh yes, that's right; plug-in electrical cars. Just dig-up more coal to make the electricity to power them, and put-in a bit of infrastructure here and there, whilst trying to catch-up on other crumbling infrastructure like concrete bridges etc
Still, the bridges need not be so strong, because most cars will start to get really really small, apart from the odd "look-at-me" Hummer/Humvee (?) with several tonnes of batteries aboard.
Say, what is the greatest threat to our consumerism lifestyles:
A) A hypothesised small temperature rise in some places, accompanied by gradual sea level rises with pre-emptive coastal defences to be developed over the decades.
OR
B) A hypothetical but more evident calamity with diminishing oil-in-ground?
OR
C) NOT allow millions of HUMANS to suffer, starvation, no clean water, no electricity and horrible diseases etc etc
And that's without discussing any politics!
Permalink
MisterNiceGuy Posted 8:08 pm
30 Apr 2008
<<
...what is the greatest threat to our consumerism lifestyles?
>>
Tragically, the answer appears to be:
<<
...our consumerism lifestyles.
>>
-----
Hoping to be nice.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:27 am
01 May 2008
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:39 am
01 May 2008
You wrote: "The red trend line, which is a 5 year average, seems to be just starting to level off at its rightmost end, which is roughly 2 years ago."
Unfortunately, you cannot use a 5-year trailing average to determine what has happened over the last years of a trend.
If you look at the Hadley data, we see that there has been a flat trend over the 10-year period since 1998. But some may object that starting the trend with the record year 1998 introduces an "artifact".
So if we start the record with 2001 we show a slight cooling trend in three of the four records (Hadley, UAH, RSS) and a flat trend in GISS.
And the WMO tells us 2008 is likely to continue to be cooler than average. So we have an 8-year flat to cooling trend.
Whether this is the start of a longer-term flat or slight cooling trend is anyone's guess.
As you point out, the record shows that the planet has been warming since records started (and long before any significant anthropogenic CO2) in 1850, and that this warming has occurred over three multidecadal warming cycles with intermittent multidecadal cooling cycles and an overall warming trend of 0.6 to 0.7C per century.
I agree fully with you that it is logical to assume that this warming trend will continue (for whatever reasons) into the 21st century.
Until we really understand what caused the earlier warming cycles of the late 19th century and the early 20th century, plus what caused the intermittent cooling periods and the current "plateau", we cannot really be sure that this all has anything to do with CO2.
The point here is that you cannot look at 5-year trailing averages to see what is happening at the curve's "rightmost end". You have to go to the actual data points. And, yes, these data show that the warming has stopped (for now).
IPCC Chairman, Dr. Pachauri, has said he would look into the reasons for the most recent "plateau", adding that he hoped this would not influence people into thinking that global warming is "hogwash".
So let's see what his conclusions will be and what will happen over the next few years.
It is probably safe to predict that, if the flat to cooling trend continues for a few more years while CO2 emissions continue, many people will start concluding that the suggested link between temperature and CO2 is tenuous (particularly since it was only really observed during the most recent warming cycle) and that AGW is not really the serious threat some would have us believe.
We shall see.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:24 pm
01 May 2008
To recapitulate, (largely from Max), there are four common sources of global temperature graphs, (Hadley, UAH, RSS, and GISS). The latter; GISS, run by James Hansen, MAY be tainted in accuracy, because GISS data has significant differences to the other three, his inappropriate political art of AGW exaggeration and activism can be well demonstrated, and errors in GISS data have recently been exposed. However, despite some scepticism on accuracy, GISS do provide an accessible graph of monthly data for the last ~10 years @ link: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
From this, it is clear that a linear trend "eyeballed" through this ten-year period (decade) is at least a SUDDEN plateau!
There are diverse arguments that can be presented relative to this "eyeball" trend, but the FACT remains that SOMETHING has dramatically changed over the past decade, relative to the preceding significant warming period. The cause cannot be claimed to be positively known, but that is NOT the immediate issue! The immediate issue is that there has been a sudden ten-year change!
One of the challenges from "those that don't like good news" (alarmists) is that it is "unfair" to consider 1998 because it was a high spike. (Although the IPCC and Mann et al ETC, have orgasmed on it previously). However, alarmists ignore the fact that 1999 and 2000 were LOW spikes, amounting to a "correction". Furthermore such "data behaviour" is typical of other up and down spikes in the long-term temperature record, the share-market, and all sorts of other stuff.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just to make matters more complicated, the different data sources use different trending methods. (also known as filtering or smoothing). Hadley use a 20-year span, (21-point), and GISS a five-year (6-point, or 2.5-year each side). Interestingly GISS do not cheat on the last 2.5 years, whereas Hadley do "invent" stuff on their last 10 years of smoothing. If you are losing me, see parts 1, 2, and 3 above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In consideration of these complexities, I think the best way is to take the Hadley data, and DELETE their preferences in assumptions for the last ten years of constructed smoothing data. (eg 2007 through 2017, see earlier parts 1-3). After-all their arbitrary method can't be all that good, because they had to change recently when they did not like the results. (failing their EXPECTATIONS)
It can be shown that the "high inertia" of wide time-span (20-year) smoothing results in an over-shoot upwards beyond any suddenly occurring plateau, # but no matter, to be consistent, please see my mark-up and text on a Hadley graph, as follows:
Largest size (broadband)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2458648692_1701416471 ...
OR, smaller size for impatient dial-up users:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2458648692_a1442bf86f ...
Regards, BobFJ (Black Wallaby)
NOTE: # With say GISS 5-year smoothing, as MNG may imply above, detection of a plateau occurs earlier, with less over-shoot. A flattening-off will thus be seen sooner. Whatever, both such methods of trending are selectively arbitrary! To keep it simple let's look at Hadley pears compared with Hadley pears: bugger the GISS pineapples!
Part 5 to follow.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:02 pm
03 May 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now let's take another look at the Hadley graph considered in part 4, but without the changes which illustrated the similarity of raw data trend in the past decade, with that around 1940. This time, it is marked-up only with colour changes and notes to indicate certain features which seem to highlight the existence of natural cycles, rather than a cause of warming via CO2. Please open the link below, and read the notes appended.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2461371188_3f2ee147fa ...
Depending on your browser, you may have too zoom out. (With MS IE v7, go to menu Page-Zoom)
The original, if you want to, is at:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some brief recapitulations from parts 1, 2, and 3:
1] Some alarmists whilst originally enthusiastically embracing the high spike in 1998, now argue that it should be ignored in assessing trends over the last decade. This is despite that both 1999 and 2000, were clearly sharply downward "corrections", a feature often found in "noisy" data.
2] Even the GISS data at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
shows a plateau which by "eyeball" appears to give a flat average of ~0.6 C over the past decade, this being a sudden change from the previous warming.
3] The methods of smoothing of the raw data used at different sources varies, and is arbitrary, depending on what kind of result is desired by the source. In the case of some paleo-dendro studies, the treatment used over the final 20 years or so is blatantly false. Such corrupted data has been published in peer reviewed journals and by the IPCC (see part 2 for more detail)
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:39 am
04 May 2008
In his discussion with Black Wallaby, MisterNiceGuy has given us some links to "smoothed out" temperature records, in order to demonstrate to Grist readers that the observed "plateau" in global warming over the past decade is actually just an "anomaly" (in the anomaly) - to put it nicely.
Other contributors to this site have questioned whether or not global warming has stopped. Then there are those (i.e. jbullfrog) that have drawn our attention to Hadley comments about the effects of their methods of data smoothing, while others (i.e. MichaelTobis) defend "climatology" without directly addressing the CO2/temperature causality issue or the current flat trend.
Some of these contributors (jabailo, Black Wallaby, myself, etc.) have called attention to the cyclical nature of the temperature record, and commented on the lack of clear observed evidence of CO2/temperature causality.
To make these cycles easier to visualize I've plotted them.
Below are links to these data showing the overall linear trends, plus the linear trends during the various multi-decadal warming and cooling cycles observed since the record started.
The Hadley global average annual land and sea surface temperature anomaly record since 1850 (raw data)
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
The Hadley temperature record since 1850 (graph)
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2464515301/sizes/o/
The three multi-decadal warming cycles since 1850
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2465370166/sizes/o/
The seven multi-decadal warming and cooling cycles since 1850
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2465302088/sizes/o/
We can also see the correlation over these cycles between CO2 increase and temperature rise:
1850-1858: negligible increase in CO2
1858-1879: 2 ppmv increase in CO2
1879-1910: 6 ppmv increase in CO2
1910-1944: 15 ppmv
1944-1976: 23 ppmv
1976-1998: 33 ppmv
1998-2008: 20 ppmv
What can be seen from these data is that
· There has been an overall warming trend since 1850
· There have been three multi-decadal cycles of warming (and four cycles of cooling) since 1850, when the record started
· Warming over the most recent cycle (1976-1998) is not at all unusual, when compared to warming over two earlier cycles (1858-1879 and 1910-1944), when there was very little impact of CO2 or other GHGs
As has been pointed out earlier on this site, there is an inconsistency in the logic of the IPCC in stating its case for AGW. The warming of the most recent cycle is attributed (by IPCC) to CO2 (and other anthropogenic GHGs) because models show that "no other explanation can be found", yet no explanation has been found for the other two warming periods (when there was very little or no increase in CO2).
In other words, the logic goes something like this:
1. We cannot explain what caused the late 19th century and early 20th century warming.
2. We know that CO2 caused the late 20th century warming.
3. Why?
4. Because nothing else explains it.
And, one could add: we also do not know what has caused the current plus mid-20th century flat to cooling trends.
The clear "take home" is that there are multi-decadal cycles of climate change, that have very little to do with CO2 (or other man-made GHGs), that are ignored by IPCC, because they cannot be explained by AGW.
Hoping to have helped by plotting the Hadley data in graphs that show the various warming/cooling cycles and linear trends (rather than just tables of data), so that Grist readers and contributors can more easily visualize the data and make up their own minds.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:15 pm
05 May 2008
As we both know, correlation between two variables does not demonstrate causation.
An example would be the correlation between rising temperatures from 1976 to 1998 and rising global consumption of hamburgers over this same period.
It is, however, obvious that the LACK of correlation between two variables does clearly demonstrate the LACK of causation.
In the case of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature, the observed record shows an apparent correlation for the period 1976 to 1998, which, as explained above, does not demonstrate a causation.
Yet this apparent correlation is used to support the AGW hypothesis, with the nonsensical rationale that "it must be so, since we can find no other explanation".
The problem is that no other periods in the temperature and CO2 record since 1850 show such a correlation.
The lack of such a correlation is a clear indication that the suggested causation is falsified.
The attached graphs demonstrate this very clearly.
http://flickr.com/photos/6959/2469181025/sizes/o/
In the interest of enlightening you as well as other Grist readers (in a nice way, of course), I would (nicely) suggest that these readers (plus yourself) check out these data and then come to a rational decision regarding CO2/temperature causality.
Hoping to have been nice in helping to enlighten you, MNG, plus other esteemed Grist readers with some real data (as opposed to computer-generated hype or "statements of faith").
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:04 am
06 May 2008
The 21st century has not started out well for "believers" in the AGW hypothesis, or for the politicians and bureaucrats that are hoping to use the AGW scare to implement hundreds of billions of dollars in carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes.
The ink has barely dried on the IPCC's 1,000+ page AR4 WG1 report and it is already way out of date.
While AGW alarmists are predicting model-generated imminent "tipping points" with disastrous consequences, the thermometers out there (even the ones next to AC exhausts or asphalt parking lots) are telling us a different story: global warming has stopped.
Global land and sea surface temperatures have reversed the late 20th century warming trend and have cooled slightly since around 1998. The satellite temperature record of the troposphere shows the same slight cooling trend.
Ocean temperature measurements from Argo robots show that the ocean has cooled significantly since 2003, when measurements started, essentially reversing the warming measured at spot locations over the previous 50 years. Since the ocean holds 1,000 times more heat than the atmosphere, this is a sign of major cooling of our planet.
The cold winter 2007/2008, that did not want to end, has broken records all over the world, and the WMO tells us that 2008 will continue to be colder than normal, as ENSO is in a cool cycle and Solar Cycle 24 starts out very slowly.
And during all this cooling, human CO2 emissions are continuing at record rates, as the economies of new giants, such as China and India are booming, European emissions are continuing to rise and Americans are still driving around in their gas-guzzling SUVs.
To make matters even worse for the AGW alarmists, there are increasing numbers of scientists and journalists that are daring to take the "non-PC" stand of questioning the science underpinning the AGW scare. One such article by a top climate scientist:
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828
And, in this age of instant information, AGW skeptical sites like ClimateAudit, WattsUpWithThat, etc. are drawing the public's attention to weak points and errors in the science and data, which support the AGW hypothesis.
No wonder the AGW alarmist sites like RealClimate, Grist, etc. are getting worried and are hoping to keep the scare going with articles denying what the thermometers are telling us ("it's just a speed bump in the road") or diverting our attention with claims of overwhelming "consensus" in the "peer reviewed scientific community" for AGW (the lead article here), etc.
The politicians are also getting concerned that the multibillion-dollar boondoggle may implode before it really gets off the ground and are shouting that "the debate is over" and "we must act now to save the planet before it's too late".
Before it is too late, indeed... Pop!
Max
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:13 am
06 May 2008
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation
The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.
It's not cooler this year, last year or even this month. It's warmer. Most notably it's warmer at the poles where Hadley doesn't have thermometers but the ice melts nonetheless for lack of a data station.
Summary
The Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle have significant effects on year-to-year global temperature change. Because both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, the unusual warmth of 2007 is all the more notable. It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years (see 5-year mean curve in Figure 1a).
"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend. -ibid
If you want to believe Christian-fundie-whacko, weatherman, Anthony Watts and the mushrooms growing in his shade go right ahead. Just don't pretend it's science.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:24 am
06 May 2008
Of course the warming has stopped (for now). All you have to do is look at the official records.
There has been no warming since 1998 (or 2001, if you prefer not to start with the all-time record ENSO year, 1998).
You sort of went into an emotional rant with, "If you want to believe Christian-fundie-whacko, weatherman, Anthony Watts and the mushrooms growing in his shade go right ahead. Just don't pretend it's science."
No, Pangolin, I believe the thermometers out there (the same ones that were used a few years ago to sell us the alarming AGW storyline).
To deny the current flat to slight cooling trend is just sticking your head in the sand. Even Dr. Pachauri has said he would look into the reasons for this "plateau", adding that he hoped people would not use this to conclude that AGW is "hogwash".
And nobody (including you, me or the fancy computer models) knows if it is going to continue cooling for a while, or start warming again.
Isn't that exciting? Isn't nature grand?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:01 pm
06 May 2008
Dear Pangolin, do not worry, ignore those ticks under thine scales, for there is hope!
It is all found in "The knowledge"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hands up anyone who has studied the 2003 paper of: L.B. Klyashtorin & A.A. Lyubushin! (K & L)
No? Well what they did was show very logically, back in 2003 that there is an ~60-year low signal in climate fluctuation, with another peak commencing at about that time. (prior to publishing in 2003) Guess what? In 2008, the evidence for that is looking much stronger. It is good news if it continues to be true for the next 60 years!;
People worried about New York swamped by tidal waves will have a reprieve
Scientists worried about the potential return of a "Little Ice Age", eg...... Re: solar cycle 24 has gone all funny, and the PDO etc, may perhaps gain comfort from (K & L)
Anyway, see my updated mark-up of Fig 5 in (K & L)'s paper.
Let's hope they are right, because it appears to be very good news!
We can survive a bit of cold over the next 30 years or so!
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2357/2473007422_0f83ed191d ...
Source is identified thereon
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:45 am
07 May 2008
Here's one for Pangolin.
A well-respected climate scientist laments "The Sloppy Science of Global Warming".
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828
Good reading, Pangolin. May be an "eye-opener" for you.
Reagrds,
Max
Permalink
DavidCOG Posted 1:13 am
20 May 2008
Second, reading the comments in this thread is a stark example of the cognitive dissonance inherent in all those who deny the massive global scientific consensus for AGW. It's akin to reading creationists deny the reality of evolution... and almost always comes from the same source - right wing, bible belt USA.
The same tactics are being used in these comments that have been roundly debunked by Cody in his many articles. The irony is evidently lost on them all.
There's so much science-free, irrational argument on display, it's difficult to know where to start! I'll just pick on the one above my comment.
manacker, referencing one article from an ideological, USA-centric website does not make a strong argument, especially when the author is an intelligent design proponent! The only 'eye-opening' that produces is that you, and many others, are prepared to accept any article that reinforces your previously held belief - even when the author is clearly cuckoo when it comes to scientific reality.
Also, manacker, in an earlier comment you claim that you are not a "conspiracy theorist" and then immediately launch in to a detailed conspiracy theory surrounding the political agenda of the UN, how the IPCC is primarily concerned with self preservation, how thousands of scientists are focused on grants first and honesty second, how scientific journals are biased toward AGW just to increase their circulation. Your writing defines 'delusional', no different to moon landing denial, evolution denial, or 9/11 was an inside job.
jbullfrog, it is an exercise in futility to argue with many of those who deny AGW because they do not enter the debate with any honesty. They will repeat the same lies, cherry-picked quotes, reference the same wingnut scientists and simply ignore every rational argument put in front of them. However, many others will be swayed by rational discourse, so I hope you will keep posting.
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 6:28 am
20 May 2008
Here is one example to add:
All the folks on here who are trying to rely on the Hadley data as a counterargument to AGW seem to feel that "smoothing" data is "cheating." Yet they then talk about a "cooling trend" in the last 8 years.
Listen, folks, smoothing is simply a graphical representation of the concept of a trend. If you say there is no more global warming because of a downward trend, clearly you are examining small samples of less than a decade at a time. Or in your own words, you would like to look year-by-year. That's fine, let's do that. If we take a one year sample, we may find that, say, 2004 was cooler than 2003. If you implement a very fundamental and uncomplicated type of reasoning you might predict that 2005 would continue this "trend". But this was not the case. It was significantly warmer. So is the "trend" now towards "warmer?" Because the next year reversed again, and 2006 was a lot cooler, and 2007 a bit cooler still.
In other words, if you go year-by-year, then yes, we have a one year cooling "trend" from 2006-2007. If you go back another year, we have a two year streak of one-year cooling "trends." If you go back another year that streak is over, so your argument is dead. By your own year-by-year logic, we have only been cooling for two years...
...UNLESS you want to redefine "trend" to help us understand your theory, which is the "crime" of which you're accusing hundreds of scientists. Which will it be? Are you going to be scientific about this, or just quote the dictionary as if their definition of the word climate had ANYTHING to do with the true essence of this debate about rising temperatures and the credibility of the scientific community. No, you're stuck with two years of cooling, or else you are cheating, just like all scientists everywhere who ever say anything that sounds like it might not be any fun.
I can't stand this juvenille approach. If you're going to argue a scientific theory, you have to use scientific data to support your argument. If you're going to use scientific data to support your argument, you have to use it as part of a legitimate and consistent scientific approach.
NiceGuy, you're a better man than me. (Have I already said this?) You continue to prove it is possible to argue your position with consistency, accuracy and depth without getting visibly pissed off. I just can't help getting mad. I feel as if the denial folks on here think I wouldn't listen if there were a serious scientific counterargument being presented, and as if they think they are presenting one. It's like watching poison at work as they co-opt useful terms and positive traits and use them for their own irresponsible purposes. Like when they mock the fact that you make your arguments with civility, as if that lends their argument credibility. Like when they take a term like cherry-picking, a term representing a concept used by the scientific community to identify an illegitimate argument, and apply it haphazardly and erroneously to any data they can't understand.
So frustrating.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:06 pm
27 May 2008
Been gone for a while and just read your semicoherent babbling: "Also, manacker, in an earlier comment you claim that you are not a "conspiracy theorist" and then immediately launch in to a detailed conspiracy theory surrounding the political agenda of the UN, how the IPCC is primarily concerned with self preservation, how thousands of scientists are focused on grants first and honesty second, how scientific journals are biased toward AGW just to increase their circulation. Your writing defines 'delusional', no different to moon landing denial, evolution denial, or 9/11 was an inside job."
No "conspiracy theory" required. Just human nature, self-interest, agenda driven pseudo-science and several billions of dollars at work, with the jackpot in sight of hundreds of billions of dollars in carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes to be shuffled around by politicians and bureaucrats, with a few already wealthy and powerful individuals getting richer at the expense on everyone else (particularly those at the bottom of the pyramid today).
It's not a "conspiracy" - all you need to do is follow the money trail.
Hope this helps clear things up for you.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:17 pm
27 May 2008
You wrote: "So frustrating".
Don't get frustrated. Open your mind. Be rationally skeptical of any hysterical hype that's out there or any agenda-driven pseudo-science that's used to back it up.
Think for yourself.
Free yourself from fear and anxiety.
Your frustrations will go away if you do, I can assure you.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
jbullfrog Posted 5:57 am
30 May 2008
If your argument was scientific and you were correctly using scientific evidence and terminology and analysis to show me that these thousands of scientists all over the world are lying or mistaken, you'd have my ear.
If you agreed that these scientists have it right but wanted to argue the policy and economics of action vs. inaction, or compare different approaches to mitigating the problem, I would be interested.
But attaching the label "hysterical hype" to the work of an enormous number of scientists while failing to provide any valid hard evidence to the contrary leaves you far short of convincing.
I take it you have no response to any specific points in my previous post.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:12 pm
31 May 2008
Go clasp your strong forearms around one of the opposite gender, and make taddies, daddy.
Feel proud about something for an absolute change .... lots of little taddies!
Don't be scared of being naughty....have fun!
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:21 am
01 Jun 2008
Since you are apparently "frustrated" because no one has specifically responded to all the points in your earlier post, here goes.
1. "All the folks on here who are trying to rely on the Hadley data as a counterargument to AGW seem to feel that "smoothing" data is "cheating." Yet they then talk about a "cooling trend" in the last 8 years."
No one says "smoothing data" is "cheating". It is just one way of looking at data. The more obvious way to look at temperature data is the way that IPCC does this. Take the raw data without any smoothing over various periods and draw the linear rate of change over this period. And this approach shows clearly that global warming has stopped since around 1998, or 2001, if you prefer not to start with the previously (TAR) much-ballyhooed record year 1998.
2. "Listen, folks, smoothing is simply a graphical representation of the concept of a trend. If you say there is no more global warming because of a downward trend, clearly you are examining small samples of less than a decade at a time. Or in your own words, you would like to look year-by-year. That's fine, let's do that. If we take a one year sample, we may find that, say, 2004 was cooler than 2003. If you implement a very fundamental and uncomplicated type of reasoning you might predict that 2005 would continue this "trend". But this was not the case. It was significantly warmer. So is the "trend" now towards "warmer?" Because the next year reversed again, and 2006 was a lot cooler, and 2007 a bit cooler still."
3.
Nothing new added here, except a bunch of blah-blah. The current linear trend shows a plateau (since 1998) and slight cooling (since 2001). Just the plain old facts without any rationalizations or "smoke and mirrors".
4. "In other words, if you go year-by-year, then yes, we have a one year cooling "trend" from 2006-2007. If you go back another year, we have a two year streak of one-year cooling "trends." If you go back another year that streak is over, so your argument is dead. By your own year-by-year logic, we have only been cooling for two years... "
More blah blah. Do yourself a favor and really look at the data. You will see that the current linear trend is flat to slight cooling, and that has been the case for around 10 years. This is admittedly a short period (and no one is claiming that this is the beginning of a longer trend). Yet the IPCC's "poster period" of warming from 1976 to 1998 was only a bit more than twice as long as the current flat to cooling period, so the current period is really not that insignificant in comparison.
5. "...UNLESS you want to redefine "trend" to help us understand your theory, which is the "crime" of which you're accusing hundreds of scientists. Which will it be? Are you going to be scientific about this, or just quote the dictionary as if their definition of the word climate had ANYTHING to do with the true essence of this debate about rising temperatures and the credibility of the scientific community. No, you're stuck with two years of cooling, or else you are cheating, just like all scientists everywhere who ever say anything that sounds like it might not be any fun."
This one hardly merits a response: "two years of cooling, or else you are cheating". Look at the data, rather than making childish remarks about "cheating".
6. "I can't stand this juvenille approach. If you're going to argue a scientific theory, you have to use scientific data to support your argument. If you're going to use scientific data to support your argument, you have to use it as part of a legitimate and consistent scientific approach."
"Juvenile approach?" Hmmm...
7. "NiceGuy, you're a better man than me. (Have I already said this?) You continue to prove it is possible to argue your position with consistency, accuracy and depth without getting visibly pissed off. I just can't help getting mad. I feel as if the denial folks on here think I wouldn't listen if there were a serious scientific counterargument being presented, and as if they think they are presenting one. It's like watching poison at work as they co-opt useful terms and positive traits and use them for their own irresponsible purposes. Like when they mock the fact that you make your arguments with civility, as if that lends their argument credibility. Like when they take a term like cherry-picking, a term representing a concept used by the scientific community to identify an illegitimate argument, and apply it haphazardly and erroneously to any data they can't understand."
I will agree that MNG is a very polite individual that does not resort to name calling, fits of rage or other juvenile emotional outbursts in his discussions (I have had several interesting exchanges with him, myself, and find his manners and approach to an adult dialogue impeccable). In MHO he is sometimes a bit too naïve when it comes to believing all the climate hysteria that is out there and he sometimes tends to drift from the main issues at hand, but I have learned a few things from him and agree that he is a good representative for the AGW viewpoint in the ongoing debate.
To the second part: "Like when they take a term like cherry-picking, a term representing a concept used by the scientific community to identify an illegitimate argument, and apply it haphazardly and erroneously to any data they can't understand", I would say that this cuts both ways. IPCC itself, not to mention some of the more rabid AGW alarmists, have used "cherry picked" data, have ignored data that do not support the AGW message and have misleadingly equated their personal viewpoint with that of the "scientific community" (ignoring the scientists who do not support this point of view).
8. "So frustrating."
For my response to this, please refer to my post of 27 May 11:17
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:49 pm
03 Jun 2008
You may nevertheless have something to be nominally proud of for a change!
Go for it.....go froggy humpy
Permalink