If you don’t believe there are such things as global warming denialists, or even if you do, you need to watch this video by Naomi Oreskes of the U. Cal. San Diego.
It’s well worth watching the whole thing (about 58 min. long).
-
Support Your Global Climate Blog
You can help support this blog with a donation. Any amount is welcome, just click the button below. Note: it'll say "Peaseblossom's Closet" and the donation is for "Mistletoe" -- that's the right place.
-
Recent Comments
Deep Climate on Open Thread #14 Mark on Vapor Lock t_p_hamilton on Open Thread #14 Anna on Open Thread #14 Deep Climate on Open Thread #14 Timothy Chase on Ice Ages KenM on Key Messages Hank Roberts on Ice Ages mauri pelto on Ice Ages Curious on Vapor Lock TomG on Vapor Lock paulm on Vapor Lock MikeN on Open Thread #14 suricat on Vapor Lock suricat on Vapor Lock
90 responses so far ↓
cce // February 8, 2008 at 4:16 am |
If you have Dish Network satellite service (and probably other services), you should have UCTV. In addition to this presentation, there are new lectures on some aspect of Global Warming every few weeks. A recent one on clouds was especially good, which shows that we really have no idea what the cloud cover is doing.
Most of these lectures are archived and viewable from their website:
http://www.uctv.tv/ondemand/
Use the search command.
caerbannog // February 8, 2008 at 4:55 am |
That is a video of a lecture that Dr. Oreskes gave to a packed house at the Birch Aquarium at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography last October 8 (which I was fortunate enough to attend).
When I spoke with Dr. Oreskes after the lecture, I mentioned that several prominent Scripps climate-scientists had publicly announced their willingness to be interviewed by the media about global-warming.
I then asked her if any of those scientists had been able to get some air time with any of our local conservative talk-radio personalities (namely Roger Hedgecock and Rick Roberts). She replied with a laugh and an emphatic “No”.
The only San Diego radio station that gave the scientists at Scripps any publicity at all was the now-defunct “progressive talk” station KLSD.
Conservative talk-radio hosts in San Diego, like those everywhere else in the USA, have such an aversion to science that even an organization as prestigious as Scripps cannot get a fair hearing on their shows.
Deech56 // February 8, 2008 at 1:27 pm |
I watched this last night and it is excellent. I do wonder what those who are not “in the choir” will take away from this. I posted on a local newspaper forum; we will see what happens.
Hank Roberts // February 8, 2008 at 7:25 pm |
I hope this becomes a publication, in a history journal. Or a book or both.
Listening to it, this is a well organized piece of writing with a clear outline structure, and clear illustrations.
I wish for a transcript and footnotes with it. If the material has been published, pointer please if known.
It’s in two clear parts, the history of the science in the first 25 minutes, then the history of how the obfuscation of the science has been managed.
Dodo // February 8, 2008 at 9:54 pm |
OK, here’s from outside the choir. Five minutes into the lecture and I started to wonder if Oreskes is talking to children. “70 per cent of Americans think global warming is happening.” This is supposed to be the proportion of the population supporting some consensus, leaving the 30% supporting the denialists or whatever. Now, if you talk to or read any of the prominent names in the denialist camp (Singer, Lindzen, Svensmark…), they usually start with pointing out the observed (global) warming during the 20th century, and then go on about the possible reasons for it. Singer is in the habit of repeating ad nauseam, that “climate is changing, it always has changed and always will.” This has been the mainstream skeptical starting point for at least a decade, and distorting it the way Oreskes does is simply – how should I say – dishonest.
And what about the story of the converted republican strategist. Was he even a scientist? Btw., your very own GWB has not been a “global warming denialist” either, for years. It is just that the US administration’s ideas about what should be done about it that seem to differ from Oreskes’ and the European way.
So it is really just straw men she is talking about. What a pity that the consensus must rely on such cheap rhetoric. Actually, the use of the d-word in the title already gives it away. Sapienti sat.
Raven // February 9, 2008 at 3:17 am |
I watched the video because I wanted to see if she answered this question:
What empirical proof is there is that CO2 has caused the majority of the warming observed?
She offered none. A graph showing a correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels does not constitute a proof.
I was not surprised because there is no proof of her claim.
All her history simply describes the evolution of the CO2 HYPOTHESIS yet she speaks as if it is a proven fact.
Our knowledge of climate is incomplete. We do not understand how the sun might affect the climate nor do we really understand natural variations like the ENSO. Until we do understand these things no one can reasonably make the claim that CO2 is the only explanation for the observed rise in temperatures. I realize that some scientists have chosen to ignore the uncertainties and present the CO2 hypothesis as a fact – but denying the messy real world does not turn a hypothesis into a proven fact.
I am more than willing to accept the possibility the CO2 hypothesis could be true. However, any policy changes must take into account that people living 20 years from could be laughing at the idiots who thought CO2 was going to destroy civilization – just like we laugh at the people who predicted mass starvation or a new ice age in 1970s.
chriscolose // February 9, 2008 at 3:21 am |
About Arrhenius’ prediction, doesn’t Spencer Wearts page say he was overpredicting temperature rise (~6 C per 2x), but the thing was that they thought that CO2 couldn’t rise anywhere near today’s levels?
sod // February 9, 2008 at 9:11 am |
great speech.
single problem i see: we knew for a rather long time, what their tactic is. but how can we fight it effectively?
chriscolose // February 10, 2008 at 7:00 am |
Raven, going over basic radiative physics was not the intent of her lecture. If you want to understand that, a textbook in the subject would be good (David Archer is a good start). Moreover, science rarely “proves” things, and as per the scientific method, that is not really the point. I don’t think science can ever “prove” CO2 is causing warming– what we can do, and what we have done, is showed extreme consistency, and this has showed up in countless scientific documents. Many other things in science have much less support behind it, but no one questions them because they have so much disconnect from the “laymen.” I suspect that if global warming didn’t need to involve regular people, oil companies, and the political arena, it would be as well accepted as gravity…this is not the case, because as Dr. Oreskes points out, people have an agenda to make it not the case.
The CO2 theory has continued to be successfully explanatory as well as have great predictive power, with very high confidence– it is in line with a broad line of “fingerprint” attribution studies, our known understanding of the physics and its role in the paleoclimate record, and the failure of any other competing hypothesis.
Really, people can buy the garbage spewing out of the likes of the great swindle video and nonsensical arguments like how CO2 lagged temperature, and water vapor dominate anyway, and the mid century cooled, ad nauseum….or they can accept the peer reviewed literature and what every major scientific organization, and what probably 99% of scientists with relevant expertise have to say in the matter.
I do think the presentation was a great overview on the history of global warming (and would supplement some of Spencer Weart’s stuff), as well as successful exposure of some of the main arenas of criticism.
heretic // February 10, 2008 at 7:35 am |
Raven, these two papers are quite interesting:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL018765.shtml
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
dhogaza // February 10, 2008 at 11:38 am |
Funny you should bring up the false statement about predictions of an ice age in the 1970s, which if false for reasons you could very easily look up yourself if you were interested in truth rather than denialist bullshit.
In other words, if you weren’t buying into exactly the denialist crap being described by Oreskes.
What’s funny, though, is that one of the most repeated denialist mantras we hear today is that …
1. Global warming ended in 1998 (how would this deny those 1970s crazies you laugh at?)
2. It’s going to cool more because of some unknown solar factor magically caused by sunspot cycle 24 or somesuch thing.
3. Global warming might be good, because it will protect us against a possible future ice age.
All that “cooling, cooling, cooling” stuff by people who simultaneously laugh at a couple of “stupid” climate scientists who were predicting possible cooling back in the 1970s.
Right? Wrong? Which was it? Can you people please make up your minds?
And WHY must you repeat this strawman:
When climate scientists merely say that known, MEASURED, changes in natural inputs like solar output can’t explain ALL of observed warming in the last few decades.
But CO2’s role as a greenhouse gas IS a fact, it’s a fact that’s been known for 150 years, measured in the lab.
Another strawman, since climate science doesn’t “deny the messy real world”.
You’d be more convincing if you didn’t argue from a variety of false premises.
dhogaza // February 10, 2008 at 11:42 am |
Perhaps it’s because she’s presenting a lecture on the history of science denialism, not the science itself?
Much like a history GW I won’t spend much time arguing whether or not Saddam occupied Kuwait?
dhogaza // February 10, 2008 at 11:59 am |
The 30% isn’t broken down into those who believe what you call “mainstream skepticism”, and what you call “mainstream skepticism” doesn’t sound a heck of a lot like the noise I hear from the denialist machine.
Her history goes further back than a decade, and Singer certainly argued vehemently for a long time that WARMING WAS NOT HAPPENING.
Yes, Singer reluctantly changed his tune and now will say “well, ok, it’s warming, but climate is always warming and cooling, and, oh, it’s good for us, blah blah blah”.
But his long history of outright denialism is documented fact.
And Lindzen is quite famous for offering to bet, as recently as 2004, that by 2024 the global average temperature would be lower than now, not exactly congruent with your claim that he agrees that present (not historical) global warming is real.
And Lindzen has jumped on the “global warming stopped in 1998″ train, too.
Not at all. I’d say your description of “mainstream skepticism” is, at best, only true recently for Singer and is quite possibly not true at all for Lindzen.
dhogaza // February 10, 2008 at 12:12 pm |
A little more on Singer for Dodo’s benefit…in Q&A format, 1998…
Now, THAT’S an accurate picture of Singer’s denialism a decade ago.
And as I mentioned above, denialists love to scoff at the supposed warnings of an ice age made by a couple of climate scientists in the 1970s, while giving Singer, who two decades later spouted the same claim (shown false by climate scientists themselves back in the 1970s), their love.
I don’t think it’s Oreskes doing the distorting, here.
Dodo // February 10, 2008 at 1:00 pm |
So you are blaming Singer for having changed his mind in the face of evidence showing a warming in the 20th century. I understand how irritating it must be: a denialist who is humble before the facts. Can’t find the same attitude in the Oreskes’ choir, can you?
Sorry, there is Pachauri of course, who recently admitted Reuters that global warming has stopped in the 21st century and that he should “look into it”. I doubt if he really meat that. Must have been a distortion by the denialist reporter.
Dodo // February 10, 2008 at 1:02 pm |
Oops, typos: Pachauri admitted TO Reuters, and MEAT should be MEANT. You should have a preview function.
Dano // February 10, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
The best the denialists can do is what dodo and Raven dredged up?
Excellent.
Best,
D
dhogaza // February 10, 2008 at 6:06 pm |
No, I’m pointing out that your “Singer has always said …” claim is easily proven false, as my quotes show. I’m blaming you for not telling the truth, not Singer for backtracking slightly in light of overwhelming evidence.
JCH // February 10, 2008 at 6:08 pm |
“Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the UN Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former US Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.
He added that skeptics about a human role in climate change delighted in hints that temperatures might not be rising. “There are some people who would want to find every single excuse to say that this is all hogwash,” he said. …”
He’ll probably have to look little past Tamino’s analysis, and then he will know what is hogwash.
Hank Roberts // February 10, 2008 at 7:48 pm |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/31/AR2007013101808_pf.html
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/awards/02-08NaomiOreskes.asp
http://www.uwindsor.ca/users/w/winter/Winters.nsf/831fc2c71873e46285256d6e006c367a/b98c7c39d61ad93485257068006c4501/$FILE/Mooney_SomeLikeItHot_2005.pdf
cce // February 10, 2008 at 8:15 pm |
The party line, “there is no proof,” or that the jury is still out, is right out of the Tobacco industry playbook.
From a certain Tobacco industry document:
“Presently, there is a good deal of controversy in the scientific sector on the subject of smoking and health, with emminent medical authorities lining up on each side of the arguments.”
“Those who are convinced that cigarettes are being unjustly blamed for many infirmities have been willing to attest in court to their beliefs. Due in large part to favorable testimony as well as to the failure of the opponents’ assertions to stand up under rigours cross-examination, no plaintiff has ever collected a penny from any tobacco company in lawsuits claiming that smoking causes lung cancer or cardiovascular illness.”
“For every charge that has been made against cigarettes, there has emerged a strong body of scientific data or opinion in defense of the product.”
And on an on it goes. I could basically type the whole thing.
You know which document this is? The speech introducing Frederick Seitz as the head of RJR’s medical research program.
They claim, and Seitz claims that the research wasn’t influenced in any way, but the specific purpose it was set up was to “respond directly to a fundamental attack on our business” “if we can refute the criticisms against cigarettes, we may remove government’s excuse for imposing heavy taxes on the product” and “there are a large number of crucial questions that need sceintific answers in the area of smoking and heath.”
Given that the Tobacco industry refused to admit these links even into the ’90s, I think the claims of the impartiality of Seitz and the Tobacco industry, are a bit, shall we say, worthless. Those “large number of scientific answers” apparently were not provided by the research that Seitz directed for over a decade.
Read the whole thing here:
http://cce.890m.com/seitz-intro1.png
http://cce.890m.com/seitz-intro2.png
http://cce.890m.com/seitz-intro3.png
http://cce.890m.com/seitz-intro4.png
http://cce.890m.com/seitz-intro5.png
http://cce.890m.com/seitz-intro6.png
http://cce.890m.com/seitz-intro7.png
http://cce.890m.com/seitz-intro8.png
So, maybe global warming is caused by Solar? Maybe ENSO?
ENSO is not going to cool the stratosphere. Increasing solar is not going to cool the statosphere. The sun is not going to warm the nights faster than the days.
The reason skeptics refused to believe it was warming is because they put all faith in UAH satellite analysis which was riddled with problems. They ignored the instrumental record (”UHI!, blah, blah, blah”). They ignored an entire world full of observational evidence. They picked the satellites, because it fit their ideology.
Singer 2000:
“But since 1979, our best measurements show that the climate has been cooling just slightly. Certainly, it has not been warming. ”
Singer 2005:
“There is simply no consensus. That’s a myth. Even if there were a warming, it’s a question of how much. Obviously, the greenhouse effect is real; the problem is the data do not show a significant warming since 1940.”
From the original 1998 Oregon Petition (Frederick Seitz cover letter):
“The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth’s temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.”
Notice that skeptics now admit warming up to 1998, but, of course it’s cooling again. This is the game they will play forever, continually moving the goalposts. It warmed in the past, but it’s cooling now! And when it is shown to have warmed again, then the clock will be reset.
We’re supposed to forgive Singer for repeatedly stating that the world wasn’t warming, but we are supposed to forever condemn a handful of scientists in the ’70s who thought the world would be cooling? The difference between then and now, is there was a genuine debate which direction the climate was going (and unlike the fictional account given by skeptics, opinion was divided between warming and cooling). There is no debate now.
The only way we can “prove” the earth is being warmed because of mankind would be if we created an experiment with two ore more identical planets. One would be the Earth. And one would be an exact copy, except with no human influence. Then we’d sit back and measure the temperature. Obviously, we can’t do this, so the demands for “proof” are meaningless.
We can measure the physical properties of greenhouse gases, and then we can use physics to calculate the effect of increased atmospheric concentrations. But can we prove that there isn’t a fairy-god-mother-like negative feedback out their waiting in the wings to save us? No.
Raven // February 10, 2008 at 9:31 pm |
heretic // February 10, 2008 at 7:35 am
Raven, these two papers are quite interesting:
Thanks. Unfortunately these examples don’t come close to anything I would consider to be empirical proof of the CO2 hypothesis as described by alarmists. I should have put that last caveat in my previous post: the basics of GHE theory is relatively well established and can be demonstrated in laboratory conditions. The issue is whether the effect of CO2 in the real world is large enough to worry about – which is the claim that Oreskes made over and over again. The first paper attempts to address that issue but the second actually suggests the opposite.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL018765.shtml
This paper presents a correlation between temperatures and water vapor over and claims that there is a causal relationship between the radiative forcing and the water vapor. It is a not a proof since correlation does not mean causation – especially when the correlation is not perfect. I have seen many similar papers argue that correlation implies causation for everything from ENSO to cosmic rays. In this case, it is not clear why the authors think that the ocean cannot affect the water vapor and temperature in central Europe. Most importantly, it is impossible to quantify the effect of the NOA and separate that from the effect of radiative forcing which means one cannot draw any definitive conclusions from the data just like one cannot draw definitive conclusions from data showing a correlation between sunspots and climate.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
This paper simply screams “cherry picking” because it compares data from two very different satellites over a short period of time and geographical extent. To make matters worse the differences are so small I don’t see how the author’s can argue that they are statistically significant given the measurement error. More importantly, the differences noted in the paper are mainly in the Methane and CFC absorption band. The emissions in the primary CO2 absorption band are virtually identical which implies that the magnitude of the CO2 effect is insignificant because it does not show up even though the CO2 concentrations increased 10% over the period
Raven // February 10, 2008 at 9:37 pm |
dhogaza
“When climate scientists merely say that known, MEASURED, changes in natural inputs like solar output can’t explain ALL of observed warming in the last few decades.”
This statement presumes that scientist actually understand the solar effects enough to make that statement. The fact is we DO NOT understand how the sun affects climate despite the fact that there is ample evidence that it probably does. This means that any arguement that relies on the assertion that we know the the solar effects to be insignificant is a false argument. The the correct answer is we don’t know which means we cannot seperate the solar from the CO2 component in any observed warming trend.
Raven // February 10, 2008 at 10:11 pm |
“The CO2 theory has continued to be successfully explanatory as well as have great predictive power, with very high confidence”
This statement makes no sense. The only way to reconcile the actual temperature measurements with the CO2 theory predictions is to presume that large amounts of cooling aerosols have been added to the atmosphere at convenient times (i.e. 70s and the 2000s).
In terms of predictive power, the solar and/or ENSO theories offer much better predictive power but lack the theoretical underpinnings that make the CO2 hypothesis attractive to theorectical scientists.
In fact, I would not any issue with the CO2 hypothesis if it actually did predict outcomes. The reason I question it is because it has done a rotten job of predicting outcomes.
sod // February 10, 2008 at 10:40 pm |
So you are blaming Singer for having changed his mind in the face of evidence showing a warming in the 20th century. I understand how irritating it must be: a denialist who is humble before the facts. Can’t find the same attitude in the Oreskes’ choir, can you?
so every time a denialist takes another step down the denialist ladder (no warming. warming not caused by CO2. warming not bad….) we are supposed to applaud him?
IF Singer was “humble before the facts”, we would read his “I WAS WRONG” admission all over the internet. instead he is just spilling a different version of the same nonsense..
chriscolose // February 10, 2008 at 11:53 pm |
Raven,
predictive power of ENSO and solar?? Does that include satellite measurements and solar proxies showing no trend for 50 years? Stratospheric cooling? Decrease of DTR?
ENSO– does that include the fact heat is going in the ocean and not going out, or that we’re getting about 1 W/m2 more solar in than longwave out, opposite of internal variability?
I’m not even sure what your aerosol comment was supposed to mean…they clearly were high around mid-century when they offset some warming, and I suppose the ‘2000′ comment is a very wrong assumption that temperatures have not risen over this time.
The amount of warming we have received so far is roughly in line with what we would expect with just the CO2 rise– the total net RF and CO2 RF are roughly the same so you can almost exclude aerosols as well as the other positive forcings like methane, etc. If we accept Hansen 2005’s prediction of another half a degree, we are right in line with CO2 forcing of 280 to 380 ppmv. Moreover, the greenhouse “fingerprints” are everywhere to be found in the academic literature.
I strongly suggest you go over the literature, or read a textbook on the subject instead of making claims which are very easy to invalidate. The fact the denial community has no influence from any major scientific community or the peer reviewed literature, and must lie through the medium of channel 4 videos and marshall institute like organizations should be proof enough of the nonsense emanating from that side.
Chris
Raven // February 11, 2008 at 1:26 am |
chriscolose,
You are assuming that the sun can only influence climate via direct variations in TSI and that that variations in TSI have the same effect as CO2 forcing. The comic ray hypothesis is one example of how the sun’s magnetic field can affect climate. Climate science is not at the state today where is one can reasonably exclude the sun as a factor.
No matter how you spin the actual temperature rise has not kept up with the predictions required by CO2 hypothesis unless one assumes that there is a significant aerosol cooling effect. It is impossible to quantify this effect accurately which means you cannot say that the CO2 hypothesis has predicted the recent temperature trends.
This mismatch is most appearent in the upper troposphere where warming is happening much slower than would be expected with GHG forcing.
Similarily, I have not seen any graph of the stratosphere temps that shows cooling consistent with GHG forcing. What I have seen are graphs with step changes each time a volcano blows. Outside of these step changes the stratophere temps are flat despite the steady increase in CO2.
steven mosher // February 11, 2008 at 1:49 am |
Here is a good video.
Sampling the climate.
http://climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/html_pages/Ghcn2_images/air_loc.mpg
Watch the whole thing the end is shocking
Nexus 6 // February 11, 2008 at 9:20 am |
Excellent seminar, though I think Naomi slightly over-eggs the pudding.
For example, what’s the point of remarking on how accurate very early predictions of polar amplification were when clearly they didn’t predict the low degree of continental Antarctic warming? Sure, they predicted arctic warming very accurately and we now know why the Antarctic is warming much more slowly and that GCMs predict this, but it leaves her open to attacks of cherry picking from those she so well exposes in her talk.
Denialists are consistently inaccurate and worthy of little more than ridicule. However, it’s important that those who take on public roles of rebuttal are both accurate and non-selective when they are reporting ‘good’ science.
Chris Colose // February 11, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
Another hypothesis with no trend in 50 years, and yes, not very much known about it. The stratosphere has quite clearly cooled, and the upper troposphere has quite clearly warmed. I’m not going to do your homework for you.
Barton Paul Levenson // February 11, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
Raven writes:
[[We do not understand how the sun might affect the climate ]]
Actually, we do. The main effect is through sunlight, which warms the climate system. Want some numbers?
Barton Paul Levenson // February 11, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
Raven writes:
[[In fact, I would not any issue with the CO2 hypothesis if it actually did predict outcomes. The reason I question it is because it has done a rotten job of predicting outcomes.]]
The climate modelers, going basically on increased CO2, successfully predicted
1) that the world would warm
2) that the poles would warm more than the equator
3) that the nights would warm more than the days
4) that the stratosphere would cool
5) that polar cap ice would decrease
6) that there would be more droughts in continental interiors
7) that there would be more violent weather along coastlines
Seems like a good record to me. Oh, and the models predicted not only cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, but how much cooling, and how long it would last, which implies that they understand the effect of aerosols pretty well, as well as CO2 and sunlight.
Barton Paul Levenson // February 11, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
Raven writes:
[[You are assuming that the sun can only influence climate via direct variations in TSI and that that variations in TSI have the same effect as CO2 forcing. The comic ray hypothesis is one example of how the sun’s magnetic field can affect climate. Climate science is not at the state today where is one can reasonably exclude the sun as a factor. ]]
Raven, galactic cosmic rays show no trend for the past 50 years, either. And both solar magnetic indices and cosmic ray modulation track with TSI, so claiming it’s not TSI is kind of pointless.
[[No matter how you spin the actual temperature rise has not kept up with the predictions required by CO2 hypothesis unless one assumes that there is a significant aerosol cooling effect. It is impossible to quantify this effect accurately which means you cannot say that the CO2 hypothesis has predicted the recent temperature trends.]]
If “[i]t is impossible to quantify this effect accurately” how did they manage to do it for Pinatubo?
P. Lewis // February 11, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
[This is a sarcasm announcement]
But Chris, I might accept that there’s no trend in 50 years, but you can’t prove to me that there’s not an as-yet unknown physical process that can conflate a minuscule change that’s below “noise” level into a statistically significant temperature increase. Can you?
You can keep all your fancy statistics, imperfect models, and known physics. After all … [cue lights ... cue music]
[End of sarcasm announcement]
Sadly, it seems, the day of sanity is as far off in the future as it ever was. I believe some people still really believe the Earth is flat
Heretic // February 11, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
This page mentions the troposphere/stratosphere exchanges:
http://www.aero.jussieu.fr/~sparc/News17/ReportTropopWorkshopApril2001/17Haynes_Shepherd.html
This one has also interesting info on stratospheric cooling:
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html
Raven // February 11, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
1) that the world would warm
The prediction was warming by at least 0.2 degC/decade. That has not happened despite constant increases in CO2.
Temps have been basically flat for the last 10 years. No sign of GW as far as I am concerned.
2) that the poles would warm more than the equator
The South Pole is cooling. Dead wrong on that.
3) that the nights would warm more than the days
I don’t have time to check the data on this one but I am skeptical given the fact that your wrong on all of you other points.
4) that the stratosphere would cool
The stratophere temps have technically cooled in the last 30 years but if you actully look at the time series instead of imaginary trend lines you will see that the stratosphere temps are stable. The cooling effect was introduced by step changes that occurred when a volcano erupted. In other words, the time series data is not consistent with GHG theory even if there appears to be a nominal cooling.
5) that polar cap ice would decrease
The southern ice was at the largest extent ever measured this year. The northern ice cap has recovered signficantly. Ice levels in the bering strait are now above the 30 year mean.
6) that there would be more droughts in continental interiors
The biggest drough in North America was the 30s yet we have seen no repeat of that. The drought in Austrialia was a normal cycle and has now been replaced by massive flooding. The drought in the Southern US is also a normal cycle.
7) that there would be more violent weather along coastlines
No evidence of this. The only thing that has changed is the price tag of damages due to a larger number of people living in at risk areas.
John Finn // February 11, 2008 at 7:06 pm |
Just wondering – but regarding the 3/4 of a degree drop in the GISS global temps between Jan 2007 and Jan 2008.
Is this what they call “natural variability”?
Dodo // February 11, 2008 at 7:53 pm |
OK, I admit to having stretched Singer’s position somewhat: shouldn’t have used the word “always”. If somebody with his background says there has been no warming in the 20th century, it should be understood as “there is no statistically significant rise in the globally averaged temperature, considering all measurement and sampling biases.”
I don’t know if that is what he meant in the 90’s, but if he did not, then he may well be called a denialist, or blind.
The right way of course, is to accept the available data with all its’ shortcomings. If has warmed during the late 20th century, but it has not warmed after 2001. Let’s hope Pachauri finds the reasons for this plateau!
P.S. Check the Gistemp anomaly for Jan. 2008: a drop of 0,75 degrees K in just 13 months. No comments, no conclusions.
Marion Delgado // February 11, 2008 at 9:41 pm |
Chris Colose:
You expressed that well, and accurately, BUT. It will do no good. We really need to start saying “asked and answered” and linking to a couple sites. The trolls are on permanent repeat.
Hank Roberts // February 12, 2008 at 12:51 am |
Nexus6, I urge you to email/snailmail your comments; per her home page, she’s working on a book on the subject. But she’s also got a big administrative load so nitpicking can’t hurt, if it’s timely.
cce // February 12, 2008 at 3:12 am |
1) The world did warm at about 0.2 degrees per decade over the last 30 years.
2) The fastest warming spot on earth is the Antarctic Peninsula. The interior of Antarctica, due to various reasons is not expected to warm any faster than other places on earth.
3) The nights are warming faster than the days. See, for example, page 108 of the AR4 WGI FAQ.
4) The stratosphere has been cooling for as long as we’ve been sending up the radiosondes.
5) The southern ice has been stable for the last 30 years, after a huge decrease in the ’60s and ’70s, the earliest we have measurements for. The maximum extent reached last fall broke the past satellite record by less than 1%. The minimum extent in the arctic broke the past satellite record by 27%. Ice levels there are not “back to normal” both in extent and in age (unless the ice has aged years in the past few months).
6) The droubt in Australia was unlike anything in the last 1000 years. There is extensive droubt in central Canada, the Amazon, almost all of Africa, and throughout Asia.
7) People should not use strengthened storms as an example of global warming, as the consensus (”more likely than not”) is not particularly strong.
On another topic, the GISTEMP anomaly for January 2007 was the highest on record, and January 2008 is the coldest in recent years. Since the energy balance of the Earth has obviously not changed appreciably in 13 months, it has to be natural variability. i.e. Strong El Nino conditions then vs strong La Nina conditions now.
Raven // February 12, 2008 at 3:51 am |
Chris,
Your keep harping on the “no trend in 50 years” as if it actually means something. Some solar scientists are now claiming that we have misunderstood the solar proxies and there is no trend in TSI over 1000+ years. This means that any past climate change attributed to the solar variations cannot be explained by TSI measurements.
This means one of two things:
1) Some unknown factor is at work.
2) The TSI is not useful measure of the sun’s influence on climate.
You also misrepresent the comic ray hypothesis because it is only concerned with trends in high energy rays which means broad spectrum measurments of cosmic rays do not disprove the hypothesis. This is some recent work from a station in anartica which suggests that there is a trend in the types of rays required.
The cosmic ray hypothesis needs a lot more work but you are deluding yourself if you think it can be dismissed because someone showed you a graph of cosmic rays and there is was no trend on that particular graph.
The bottom line is:
The scientific evidence does not support the claim that the sun cannot possibily explain the recent warming. There are simply too many unanswered questions.
That said, the solar minimum and potentially weak solar cycle will answer a lot of these questions over the next 5-10 years. If temperatures do not rise over the next 5-10 years then we can safely assume that solar effects are at least a significant as CO2. If there is any cooling then we can say the solar effects are more significant.
I have a general question for alarmists:
Suppose the government wanted to set up a nuclear waste facility in your town and claimed that “the installation would be perfectly safe based on our understanding of the science today”. Would you accept that that or would you demand that the government demostrate that it really does understand the science well enough to make that claim?
chriscolose // February 12, 2008 at 5:46 am |
Just going through some recent journals…I found this very worrying
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2007JCLI1838.1
Heretic // February 12, 2008 at 9:29 am |
Raven says:
“The southern ice was at the largest extent ever measured this year.” Sounds impressive until you find out that the difference over the previous largest is not statistically significant. Tamino has analyzed this. The reality is more like: southern sea ice stable so far. This, by the way does not concern the continental ice and ice shelves, which are a different thing.
“The northern ice cap has recovered signficantly. Ice levels in the bering strait are now above the 30 year mean.”
You can’t say anything about the Arctic sea ice recovery until the next minimum is observed. Only if the next summer minimum is larger than the previous one can the term of recovery be used. Ice levels? What exactly is that? Extent? Thickness? You’re not talking about perennial se ice, are you? Tamino has also a good analysis of the trend in Arctic sea ice. You would sound more credible if you tried to attack models by using the fact that the real trend is much faster than the modeled ones.
“The drought in Austrialia was a normal cycle and has now been replaced by massive flooding.”
Here is the take of the Australian governement on that:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/drought.shtml
Anything but a “replacement,” really.
“The drought in the Southern US is also a normal cycle.” Dunno if you’re talking about South-East or South-west. There is significant evidence to indicate that the 20th century wet conditions in the southwest were unusual and that it is now going back to its normal dry self.
CraigM // February 12, 2008 at 10:31 am |
Mr. Raven
“The stratophere temps have technically cooled in the last 30 years but if you actully look at the time series instead of imaginary trend lines you will see that the stratosphere temps are stable. The cooling effect was introduced by step changes that occurred when a volcano erupted. In other words, the time series data is not consistent with GHG theory even if there appears to be a nominal cooling.”
Interested in finding out more about this stratosphere I did a google and ended up here:
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html
Ok, so im lookin at some nice graphs.
You say its stable?
According to the above website:
The impact of decreasing ozone concentrations is largest in the lower stratosphere, at an altitude of around 20 km, whereas increases in carbon dioxide lead to highest cooling at altitudes between 40 and 50 km (Figure 3). All these different effects mean that some parts of the stratosphere are cooling more than others.
I look at the graph for 50km up in the sky (scroll down to the bottom of the page). Well, maybe im seeing things. But things look pretty consistent to me.
guthrie // February 12, 2008 at 11:48 am |
John Finn- yes, thats natural variability. See the graphs for previous examples. If the next 10 years trend is downwards, then the denialists will probably be correct. However, I’m not expecting it.
Boris // February 12, 2008 at 1:14 pm |
“2) that the poles would warm more than the equator
The South Pole is cooling. Dead wrong on that.”
Once the models began to more properly model the southern oceans–around 1980 or so–they showed that the arctic would warm a lot faster than the antarctic. Changes in the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) due to ozone depletion have also kept the antarctic relatively cool.
So the models were dead right on that one.
Lee // February 12, 2008 at 4:45 pm |
““The northern ice cap has recovered signficantly. Ice levels in the bering strait are now above the 30 year mean.””
In the bering straight? Wat about the entire arctic sea ice. As of today, arctic sea ice is still about half million km2 below the 30 year mean for this date.
Arctic sea ice extent has not been above the 30 year mean for any date in the last 4 years.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
sod // February 12, 2008 at 6:39 pm |
The prediction was warming by at least 0.2 degC/decade. That has not happened despite constant increases in CO2.
Temps have been basically flat for the last 10 years. No sign of GW as far as I am concerned.
hm. the second claim is obviously false. the first one, i would like to see in a quote. who predicted what for when?
John Finn // February 12, 2008 at 7:21 pm |
” John Finn- yes, thats natural variability ”
Thank you, Guthrie. I thought I was being ignored for a while there.
Actually to be more precie the temp fall is due to a switch form El Nino (Jan 2007) to La Nina (Jan 2008) which is interesting since it demonstrates that ENSO events are capable of explaining ALL of the reported 20th century changes. And particularly when we consider them in combination with the higher solar activity in the second part of the 20th century.
luminous beauty // February 12, 2008 at 8:25 pm |
Except ENSO events are oscillations that transport stored latent heat from the ocean to the atmosphere and are incapable of warming the planet except within the transient period of their oscillations, and solar activity has been flat, if not diminishing, in the second half of the 20th century.
Hank Roberts // February 12, 2008 at 8:38 pm |
> ENSO events
might hypothetically in some world be
> capable of explaining ALL of the
> reported 20th century changes
But only if you rearranged them to match, because they don’t match up.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ts.gif
Heretic // February 13, 2008 at 1:03 am |
Raven says:
“Suppose the government wanted to set up a nuclear waste facility in your town and claimed that “the installation would be perfectly safe based on our understanding of the science today”. This happens to be exactly how ANY science application is implemented. If you ever perceived it otherwise, you are like the rest of the general population, i.e. with a poor understanding of what science is and how it is applied. It is especially a good description of medical science applications.
Raven says:
“Blah blah stratosphere.” The ESPERE page linked by CraigM is excellent. SPARC has some good info on the troposphere/stratosphere exchanges on this page, with references:
http://www.aero.jussieu.fr/~sparc/News17/ReportTropopWorkshopApril2001/17Haynes_Shepherd.html
Ravens says:
“Lalala Antarctic chilly chilly.”
See today’s new RC post about that:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold/
stewart // February 13, 2008 at 3:09 am |
So:
When can we start saying that various comments, that require us to accept that climate scientists are either fools or frauds, are crankery, and tell us about those making the comments, but convey no other information? It seems to me that we’re there now. Unfortunately, that sort of crankery is allied with a particular conservative vie, at least in the US, although much less anywhere else. How does this differ from the plasma universe, creationism, or other dogmatically-held, factually disproved beliefs?
Barton Paul Levenson // February 13, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
Raven writes:
[[Some solar scientists are now claiming that we have misunderstood the solar proxies and there is no trend in TSI over 1000+ years. This means that any past climate change attributed to the solar variations cannot be explained by TSI measurements.]]
Raven, temperature does correlate to TSI over much of recorded history. Solar warming was responsible for much of the 1900-1940 increase in temperatures, for instance. It just isn’t enough to explain the present global warming, since TSI has been flat for 50 years and global warming turned sharply upward 30 years ago.
And GCRs correlate to TSI. Which means they’ve also been flat.
Try as you like, the sun doesn’t explain the current global warming. You can’t propose some unknown new physics as the explanation when we have a perfectly good explanation that matches the facts. It would be just as scientific to say that a sharp increase in leprechauns starting in 1975 has driven the present global warming. How do you observe leprechauns? How do you observe solar effects that can’t be measured?
Hank Roberts // February 13, 2008 at 7:19 pm |
Hey, if Dr. Baliunas can use temperature as the proxy for sunspot numbers, as here:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?1996ApJ…472..891SPDF
Then doesn’t it make sense that Raven’s using sunspot numbers as a predictor of temperature?
Oh, wait …
zen // February 13, 2008 at 9:24 pm |
BPL – if you would just look at the evidence, it’s obviously not and increase in leprechauns but a decrease in pirates that drives global warming:
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif
chriscolose // February 13, 2008 at 10:12 pm |
Raven, as a follow up to Barton’s comment, Dr. Pierrehumbert eluded to the idea of explaining global warming with unknown mechanisms (his Phlogiston theory concept). The point was that you must not only explain and quantify your idea, but you need to show why 100+ years of physics is wrong. That is, why is CO2 not contributing to, or amplifying, the possible-but-unproven natural forcing you propose.
There are now three proposed mechanisms by which the sun changes effect our climate
1 – change in TSI
2 – change in solar UV, which alters the absorption of energy in the stratosphere and the temperature of the upper atmosphere, and effect circulation patterns.
3 – change in cosmic rays and effect on cloud micro-physics.
As I mentioned above, the CO2 explanation has a great deal of power to it. We did not just take a few possible mechanisms, throw them in hat, and pick one out at random. We did not just look at lines going up and say “there is a good correlation.” We did not say that “other things fail to explain it, therefore, it must be us.” There is a good deal of physics involved that goes to Arrhenius, and even before that.
For one thing, there are many greenhouse fingerprints, just one of which is stratospheric cooling (which does in fact show a noticeable trend). Our best GCM’s get the temperature trends nearly perfect when forced with anthropogenic influences, when the human signal starts to really separate itself outside the noise of natural variability around 1970.
I find it very unlikely we’re missing something big, that is undetectable today and across the paleoclimate record, and is now overwhelming the CO2 influence today. But if you think such a thing exists, then whatever works for you–maybe martians are sending heat beams to Earth, but “what ifs” aren’t going to get you too far…but I can also say that the CO2 must cause warming, whether that is superimposed on your hypothetical forcing mechanism, or is the predominant cause of global warming.
There is no doubt now that adding CO2 will warm the climate, and virtually no doubt that doubling or tripling its concentration will be non-negligible– there are still questions on feedbacks (like clouds) so there is a noticeable range between the best case and worst case scenarios, questions on “when and how much” etc, but the uncertainty doesn’t work in your favor.
John Mashey // February 14, 2008 at 2:03 am |
BPL: I like your leprechaun hypothesis, but it seems at least incomplete., as we also need a 2nd unknown force to cancel the warming demanded by basic physics that matches what seen. Let me call that gremlins.
The most general form is:
Temperature rise (T) is driven by:
(I) increase in GHG effects (heat) +
(L) leprechaun effect (heat) -
(G) gremlin effect (cool).
a) Since T is observed, theoretically, any combination of I, L, and G that adds up would work. However, since I is consistent with what we see, and with physics, the only way to believe that I is zero, is to believe the undiscovered gremlins (G) work just hard enough to cancel I, and then the leprechauns work equally hard to replace the GHG effects.
b) The Lindzen “IRIS” idea seems to have been a proposal that gremlins would have increasing power as the world got warmer, but alas, that didn’t pan out, although it would have been nice.
Raven // February 15, 2008 at 6:27 am |
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/
“Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years,” he said
We now know that the solar trend from the late 19th century likely did not happen. So if the sun did not cause the warming up until 1950 then what did? It can’t be CO2. If something else caused it then why did it stop in 1950?
Hank Roberts // February 15, 2008 at 8:01 pm |
> it can’t be CO2
You’re missing a cite for this belief.
I refute it thus:
http://www.savekyoto.ca/images/Climate_Change_Attribution.png
Raven // February 16, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
Thank you Hank for providing a graph that illustrates my point so nicely.
If you look carefully at your plot you will see that it assumes that there is a jump in solar forcing from 1900-1925 and another jump from 1930-1940. However, the recent work by Dr Svalgaard tells us that the net solar forcing has not changed over the last 100 years. If we replace the solar wiggle by a straight line you will see that the model predicts a much lower trend from 1900-1940 than was actually observed. This was my point in my previous post.
Now I am certain that the climate scientists will be able to ‘fix’ the model by decreasing the estimates of volcanic/sulfate forcings or by increasing the estimate of GHG forcings, however, doing so would simply prove another point that I made earlier: that CO2 hypothesis does not fit the temperature record unless one includes a large number of arbitrary fudge factors.
In other words, the attribution studies like the one you posted are simply an exercise in curving fitting and cannot be called proof of the CO2 hypothesis.
JCH // February 16, 2008 at 10:16 pm |
Clarify an auditing nuance, does calling it curve fitting make it curve fitting?
http://www.savekyoto.ca/images/sun_vs_temperature.gif
Hank Roberts // February 16, 2008 at 11:11 pm |
Raven, cite please?
Here’s Svalgaard, who doesn’t say what you claim he did. Got another source?
http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm07&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm07%2Ffm07&maxhits=200&=%22GC31B-0351%22
What’s your basis for what you believe? Please point to a source or show your work.
Else you’re just repeating your beliefs.
You’re entitled to keep them.
Want to challenge them? Point to your sources.
Raven // February 17, 2008 at 6:22 am |
Here are Dr. Svalgaard’s TSI estimates in graphical form: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.pdf
As you can see: zero trend since 1600.
I am surprised you demanded such cites since Tamino was more than happy to use Dr. Svalgaard’s data when he wanted to critique D’Aleo’s solar correlations. He even provided a link on this blog to an XML spreadsheet with the same data.
If you accept Dr. Svalgaard’s data then you will have to discard all of your graphs that show a solar trend in the early 20th century. This will require that models be reworked to take this new information into account.
The way I see it there are three possible outcomes:
1) The aerosol data will be ‘adjusted’ to make everything work out (thereby proving my point about how the CO2 hypothesis only matches the real data if unverifiable aerosol fudge factors are included).
2) The warming in the early 20th century will be attributed to ‘natural variations’ (thereby proving my point about how we really don’t understand climate enough to claim that CO2 is the only explanation for recent changes).
3) Dr. Svalgaard’s data will be discarded as inaccurate (unlikely since AGW advocates have already endorsed it as means to ‘disprove’ any solar climate link in the late 20th century).
In any case, Dr Svalgaard’s recent work supports my original claim that our understanding of the sun-climate link is very low and it cannot be excluded as a possibility explanation for some of the recent warming. My own gut feeling is that we will eventually establish that TSI is the wrong way to measure the effect of sun on climate and that parameters such as magnetic field strength will be more significant.
cce // February 17, 2008 at 9:32 am |
The presentation on cloud cover that I mentioned is online now:
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=12469
Of some significance to climate models, but it’s the death nell of cosmic rays (one of many).
luminous beauty // February 17, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
Raven,
One possible outcome (and the most likely) of less secular solar forcing on attribution studies you neglect to mention is that it would indicate climate sensitivity to GHGs may be on the high side of current estimates.
Oops!
Raven // February 17, 2008 at 5:35 pm |
luminous beauty,
With so many ‘adjustable’ parameters there are lots of options when it comes to resolving in the inconsistencies introduced by the new solar data. Cranking up the GHG sensitivity is one option, however, if you crank the sensitivity up to explain the rise in the early 20th century then you will find that the warming in the late 20th century is way too low. But no worries – that little detail can resolved by increasing the amount of late 20th century aerosols…
I realize that these arbitrary adjustments sound perfectly reasonable to someone who assumes that the CO2 hypothesis is correct and it is simply a matter of getting the data to agree with the hypothesis.
Unfortunately, such manipulations are not very compelling to those of us old fashioned folks who believe that a hypothesis should be adjusted to fit the data and not the other way around.
P. Lewis // February 17, 2008 at 5:54 pm |
Raven said:
Well, the ‘current’ thinking is that the warming signal in the early 20th century is currently largely subsumed in ‘noise’ anyway.
Dr Svalgaard’s current research is and will continue to be debated within the solar physics community. It is that physics community that will ultimately decide whether Dr Svalgaard’s hypothesis has any credence, not “AGW advocates” (unless, of course, any of those advocates happen to be solar physicists).
I sense that climatologists couldn’t really care one way or the other at the moment, other than thinking that it’s interesting work (which it is) and would have connotations (which it would) if found to be a better model than current thinking (but then most of those climatologists, it seems to me, have tended to think that “solar GW proponents” have tended to over-egg their situation anyway).
Hank Roberts // February 17, 2008 at 6:54 pm |
Lum’s right about that, and this point has been made repeatedly. It’s a point where people find out if they can consider the facts, or not.
Raven // February 17, 2008 at 10:21 pm |
P. Lewis said:
“Well, the ‘current’ thinking is that the warming signal in the early 20th century is currently largely subsumed in ‘noise’ anyway.”
What a startling admission considering the warming from 1900-1940 is equal to the amount of warming from 1980-2000 (see http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif )
If a 0.5 degC rise over 30 decades is considered to be noise then one cannot possibly claim that the recent rise is not ‘noise’ as well – especially when many temperature reconstructions make it clear that temperatures in the past were as warm as if not warmer than today.
“Dr Svalgaard’s current research is and will continue to be debated within the solar physics community. It is that physics community that will ultimately decide whether Dr Svalgaard’s hypothesis has any credence”
Fair enough – but this debate does have significant impact on historical reconstructions of climate. Given this uncertainty I think it is quite reasonable to state that nature of the sun-climate relationship is unknown and cannot be excluded as a possible explanation for the current warming.
I realize that there are people who will argue that co2 is a good ‘working hypothesis’ and I would agree if this was a purely academic discussion. Unfortunately, this is not an academic discussion and policy makers are being asked to implement some radical measures to eliminate a threat that may be imaginary.
P. Lewis // February 18, 2008 at 1:34 am |
Erm!
First, I said subsumed. I didn’t say didn’t exist. Signals can be teased out, with the relevant statistical provisos. (And “noise” refers to normal weather and circulation change variations.)
Second, that large temperature rise you point to in the (5-year) running mean global temperature from about “1900 to 1940″ was principally down to the set of data covering high latitudes above 64°N for the period ~1920 to ~1940 having a disproportionate effect on that (5-year) running mean global temperature. The data for this region in this period seem out of step with data from other northern hemisphere latitude bands in this same period.
Moreover, this pronounced high-latitude temperature increase was followed by a prolonged steep cooling phase of roughly the same magnitude and rate that was out of step with other northern hemisphere latitude band temperatures. I leave you to conclude what effect this might have had on the 5-year running average global temperature over the period 1940 to 1960(ish).
IIRC it is currently held to be (possibly largely) due to some secular (quasi-?) periodic ocean circulation change in the north polar region — similar to a continued El Nino-like effect over 20 years one might analogise I suppose. Thus, a possibly bona fide internal Earth climate/ocean circulation variation signal overwhelmed any GHG-induced signal in this period in this region (and had an effect globally). So what’s surprising about that? Nothing. For instance, it happens with strong and prolonged El Nino and La Nina episodes now (and in the past). It doesn’t mean there wasn’t/isn’t a GHG-induced global warming signal in there.
And IIRC, there were/are moves afoot to re-examine the early-century high-latitude data.
And now on to:
In your dreams, I’d say, that the “nature of the sun-climate relationship is unknown”. This seems to be the appeal to the “say it often enough, everyone will believe it” argument.
Hank Roberts // February 18, 2008 at 1:40 am |
> What a startling admission
Shocked, shocked …
Yet it’s been clear — statistics gives us this kind of information — how long it would take for a warming signal to emerge from the background climate variability. About 20 years.
Remember? Oh, you forgot.
So you write
> then one cannot possibly claim that
>the recent rise is not ‘noise’
And of course not, taken apart from the long term, same problem as before.
But we don’t throw out the older information and rely only on this year’s numbers, like it or not.
Do you know which century this refers to? I hope so:
———————-
The Modern Temperature Trend
Some of the change certainly came from natural variations, … he expected that the signal would emerge clearly around the end of the century, …
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm
Barton Paul Levenson // February 18, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
Raven posts:
[[My own gut feeling is that we will eventually establish that TSI is the wrong way to measure the effect of sun on climate and that parameters such as magnetic field strength will be more significant.]]
That would make sense if it weren’t for the fact that solar magnetic field strength correlates with TSI.
That whooshing noise is the sound of the bottom dropping out of your hypothesis.
Anna Haynes // February 18, 2008 at 5:37 pm |
The Oreskes talk is indeed excellent at conveying the history of the science and the background of the denial movement.
It doesn’t convey the urgency, but (via RM Reiss) Steve Kirsch does, in what appears to be *the* most valuable page on the climate crisis that I’ve run across -
Global Warming: Why we must take dramatic action within the next 8 years
I’d be interested in hearing feedback on Kirsch’s presentation of the issue from Hank and others.
Hank Roberts // February 18, 2008 at 6:04 pm |
New satellite for solar info coming in about a year:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071206162124.htm
It’s ironic that a full-sun instrument is going to be operating before the first full-Earth instrument gets launched (if Triana ever is taken out of mothball storage).
The two satellites should have been in place and working at the same time!
Raven // February 18, 2008 at 11:39 pm |
Barton Paul Levenson says
“That would make sense if it weren’t for the fact that solar magnetic field strength correlates with TSI.”
IMF varies by as much 200-300% over a solar cycle. This means that differences in IMF between solar cycles can be significant even if the IMF never goes below a floor.
The correlation between sunspots (aks IMF) and climate exists and has not been explained. It is not possible to rule out a connection until this correlation is explained since random chance cannot explain such a correlation.
Raven // February 18, 2008 at 11:57 pm |
Anna Haynes
“I’d be interested in hearing feedback on Kirsch’s presentation of the issue from Hank and others.”
I have encountered many thoughtful people who can make a reasonable case for action on CO2 – Kirch is not one of them.
The page you linked starts out with ‘3 undisputed facts’ that are better described as uninformed opinion. For example, the IPCC worst case scenario makes all kinds of dubious economic assumptions that, among other things, assume that Algeria, Argentina, Libya, Turkey, and North Korea will all pass the US in per capita income by the end of the century (see the critique of TAR by Ian Castles, formerly the head of Australia’s national office of statistics).
I recommend you take the time to research the “Club of Rome” and the “Population Bomb”. You will find that this kind of hysteria is not new and there is no reason to believe that it has any more merit than the previous incidents.
Hank Roberts // February 19, 2008 at 6:07 am |
Don’t feed the troll.
Yeah, without looking at it very long, I think Kirsch has it right.
Read the science. Think rate of change. Anyone who’s done a titration and understood what happened has a good idea what’s going on, if they think about it. Anyone who’s had a college or graduate level statistics course can figure it out.
Those who haven’t, have opinions.
Nothing like this has happened since humans evolved.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/286/5447/2043a
We had about ten thousand years of unusually stable climate in which to become intelligent enough to keep the planet in shape.
Here’s what we did with it:
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/7949/ipccfig1faq21lrgqo1.jpg
Knowing What’s Nice
by Kurt Vonnegut
November 6, 2003
Author’s note: I’m working on a novel, If God Were Alive Today, about a fictitious man, Gil Berman, 36 years my junior, who cracks jokes or whatever in front of college audiences from time to time, something I myself have done. Here are excerpts from some of what I myself said onstage at the University of Wisconsin in Madison on the evening of September 22, 2003, as we touch off the last chunks and drops and whiffs of fossil fuels.
K.V.
September 24, 2003
Sagaponack, New York
It must be kind of spooky to be a student or teacher in a university as great as this one, with its libraries and laboratories and lecture halls, while knowing it is within the borders of a nation where wisdom, reason, knowledge and truth no longer apply. …
http://www.vonnegutweb.com/archives/arc_nice.html
http://climateprogress.org/
http://www.ecoequity.org/
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20071020/fob7.asp
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?archives=true&id=7486
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5618/480
http://www.ugrad.math.ubc.ca/coursedoc/math100/notes/derivative/slope.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/286/5447/2043a
Barton Paul Levenson // February 20, 2008 at 12:23 pm |
Raven writes:
[[The correlation between sunspots (aks IMF) and climate exists and has not been explained. It is not possible to rule out a connection until this correlation is explained since random chance cannot explain such a correlation.]]
The correlation was explained a long, long time ago — before the 20th century, if I’m not mistaken. The Sun is brighter when there are more sunspots, due to the faculae surrounding the spots being brighter than the spots themselves are dark. The correlation is, once again, a correlation to TSI. And TSI, of course, correlates to climate.
Hank Roberts // February 20, 2008 at 4:42 pm |
You can’t take the information for granted.
For example the correlation was observed in 1816, but perhaps because of a coincidence — volcanic dust may have led to low numbers of observed sunspots. News of distant volcanic eruptions didn’t circulate worldwide at the time, and no other instruments detected high dust that could interfere with counts of sunspots being made.
http://www.dandantheweatherman.com/Bereklauw/yearnosummer.html
Periods of bad weather at times limited the number of days observations were made:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/jrp4j43422230381/
“The investigated time interval covers four solar cycles. After our results, the height of the first cycle (No. –4), given by Wolf, should be lowered by about two-thirds, the following two cycles (Nos. –3 and –2) lowered by one-third, as given by Wolf, and only the height of the fourth one (No. –1) should be unchanged. The activity levels of the cycles, as represented by group sunspot numbers, are lower by about one-fourth and, in the case of the first one (No. –4) even by two-thirds of the levels derived by us. The group sunspot numbers, derived from a much greater number of observations, have also greater credibility than other estimates.”
Heretic // February 21, 2008 at 4:09 am |
Raven said on 02/10 @ 09.31 of the Harries et al. Letter to Nature:
“This paper simply screams “cherry picking” because it compares data from two very different satellites over a short period of time and geographical extent.”
As usual, this is a serious acusation, suggesting dishonesty, if not stating it explicitly. You might be reassured to know, Raven, that this work has been expanded upon (with more data) in a more recent paper, available here, which Martin Vemeer kindly pointed to all on RC:
http://rose.bris.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/1983/999/1/paper.pdf
Which covers a longer time period, (the longest that could be cobvered by the data) and explains better how the data were selected:
“The data characteristics required for detection of long term changes are:
su±cient spectral resolution for gas absorption bands to be seen; and adequate temporal and spatial sampling
to average out synoptic variability. Aircraft data such as ARIES and HIS fail to meet the temporal and spatial
sampling requirements for our purposes. The SI-1 and SI-2 satellite data su®ered from similar sampling issues.
The spectral resolution of 16T, the ¯rst spectrally resolving instrument to be spaceborne, was insu±cient for
spectral features to be distinguished.”
There is more in the paper.
Of course, you can always scream cherry picking, or whatever else you want.
Anna // February 21, 2008 at 4:16 am |
(thanks H)
John Mashey // February 21, 2008 at 4:54 am |
Back to the original topic:
1) Anna: Steve Kirsch is a very smart guy. years ago, I went to a party he had where we could try out EV-1s. His material looks pretty good.
2) And of course, Naomi’s talk is quite orthogonal in looking at the history, although if her work helps more people understand where anti-science denialism came from, maybe it will help move action faster.
Starting from http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/02/oresekes-history-of-climate-denialism.html,
I ran into Lubos Motl’s comment on Naomi’s video at Quark Soup:
“Lumo said…
I find it completely mind-boggling that someone would take a video with this incredibly moronic female crackpot full of ad hominem cliches and containing no substance and promote it on his blog.”
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2008/02/oreskes-presentation.html
Now,those familiar with Motl might not be surprised. But then I found:
http://www.kolej.mff.cuni.cz/~lmotm275/e2.htm and it pointed at:
http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/ which revealed the “truth”:
It turns out that his real name is “Abbe Hyupsing Qong”, from the planet Zetor, but his adopted name is Lubos Motl. He provides a picture of his older brother, and a picture of the gender-changing human mask that he uses.
Ahh, all is explained.
Raven // February 22, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
Heretic says:
“As usual, this is a serious accusation, suggesting dishonesty, if not stating it explicitly.”
Yet RC and other AGW folks have no problem directly accusing anyone of deliberate dishonestly or fraud whenever someone dares to question the ‘consensus’. I don’t know why you bother to make such statements – only the choir is blind to the selective standards imposed by AGW advocates.
“You might be reassured to know, Raven, that this work has been expanded upon (with more data) in a more recent paper, available here”
Ok – still a very limited window (one month). I have also seen other data that shows that IR emissions fluctuate widely over time and even have a correlation with solar miniums and volcanos – all of which swamp the minor changes due to GHG absorption.
As a result, it is not clear to me that the results show anything other than what can be shown in a lab (i.e. if the concentration is X then the absorption spectra looks like Y).
It certainly does not provide any evidence of the numerous positive feed backs predicted by models.
One thing to keep in mind: all scientific skeptics agree that CO2 will cause some warming. The only debate is how much. Skeptics believe that it will be less < 2 degC/doubling which is nothing to be concerned about.
When I say that there is no empirical proof of the AGW claims I mean there is no proof that the CO2 sensitivity is anywhere close to the 3+ degC/doubling claimed by the IPCC. If there was proof the IPCC would not have quoted the rediculously wide uncertainity (+/- 1.5 degC) and confidence intervals (66%).
Heretic // February 22, 2008 at 6:28 pm |
“Yet RC and other AGW folks have no problem directly accusing anyone of deliberate dishonestly or fraud whenever someone dares to question the ‘consensus’”
You need to substantiate such a statement. I’ve seen that kind of accusation on RC about TGGWS, which deserved all of it and more. I’ve seen more often the RC guys saying that someone was wrong and giving the reasons why they think so. I do not recall any of the RC contributors accusing of fraud an author of a published paper, so a cite would be nice if I’m mistaken ( Soon&Baliunas may be the justified exception). I read CA regularly, the general tone there is much worse.
About the lack of empirical proof, as in many other areas of science, we do the best we can. There is no empirical proof that eating meat from a cow with BSE causes Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease, but go ahead and have a mad cow steak if you wish. Others will prefer to apply the principle of precaution.
The paper that you so summarily dismissed does not provide evidence for feedbacks, which does not mean that such evidence does not exist.
Of course, there is uncertainty. There is also a lot of uncertainty surrounding the benefits of coronary stents, or the effectiveness of countless medications whose adverse effects are in comparison pretty clear.
Heretic // February 22, 2008 at 6:58 pm |
Another point: the standard of “skepticism” practiced by climate skeptics is unmatched in any other area of science and one really has to wonder why that is when there are clearly some with equal possible weight on our lives. Economics, for instance, leaves a lot to be desired, especially on the “empirical proof” side. Yet everybody and his brother working in it goes merrily about making forecasts and predictions with a record that is often pathetic compared to even climate models of 20+ years ago. And those, of course, have the potential to affect our lives in very real ways.
I wish there were economics skeptics of the same kind than climate skeptics. And we need medical skeptics too. And boy, am I looking forward to the Political Sciences skeptics! Now, that’d be something.
Hank Roberts // February 22, 2008 at 7:07 pm |
You can read opinions, or you can look up the science.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html
Barton Paul Levenson // February 22, 2008 at 8:12 pm |
Raven writes:
[[When I say that there is no empirical proof of the AGW claims I mean there is no proof that the CO2 sensitivity is anywhere close to the 3+ degC/doubling claimed by the IPCC.]]
When know what you mean. We just realize you’re wrong. There are a number of paleoclimate studies now which indicate that the sensitivity is around 2.8 K, and none of them depend on climate models; they are purely empirical. We know the climate sensitivity is at least 1.2 K because that’s what you get solely from radiative calculations on CO2 doubling alone. And we can be pretty damn sure about the water vapor feedback; google “Clausius-Clapeyron Law” to learn why. Sensitivities below 2.0 K would require some kind of negative climate feedback to exist which nobody has been able to find, despite decades of dedicated searching. Lindzen came up with a plausible mechanism in his tropical-cloud iris, but satellite observations shot it down. Climate sensitivity is large and is almost certainly going to turn out to be in the range 2.5-3.0 K. Deal with it.
Gavin's Pussycat // March 12, 2008 at 11:22 am |
> Here is a good video.
> Sampling the climate.
> http://climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/html_pages/Ghcn2_images/air_loc.mpg
> Watch the whole thing the end is shocking
Steve, no, not really. Enlightening.
As Peterson et al. write (”Global rural temperature trends”, 1999, GRL, p. 332):
“The reason rural seasonal station fraction of the Earth covered in 1998 was only 0.07, compared to 0.24 for the full
data set, is because rural climate stations are not given a high priority in near real time international data
exchange and are instead acquired years later.”
The movie file is dated Feb 2001, the data likely older.