A reader mentioned, in a comment on another thread, that the discussion had gone off topic. So, here’s another “open thread” for readers to discuss — whatever, as long as it’s related to climate. No pokemon, no American Idol, no college basketball.
The next installment of the PCA series is pretty close to completion, I fully expect to have it up this week (probably by Friday). But please don’t discuss that here! General PCA discussion can go on the existing PCA threads, and discussion of the hockey-stick PCA issues should wait for the upcoming post.
Please use this thread for discussion of things not directly related to the topic of other threads.
199 responses so far ↓
Hansen's Bulldog // March 5, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I’ll start.
James Lovelock was recently interviewed, and painted an extremely dark, one might even say dismal, picture of our future:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
Opinions?
Kelly O'Day // March 5, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Here’s a link to an interesting post on “Global Warming: Man versus Sun?” by an environmental economist. While simpler than Tamino’s analysis, it does show what can be done with available data by interested non climate scientists.
I made an Excel workbook of the data and charts for those who want take a crack at the data.
It would be great to see original analysis of this and other data and trends.
http://www.env-econ.net/2008/02/global-watming.html
Kelly O’Day
BRIAN FLYNN // March 5, 2008 at 9:37 pm
I can understand Lovelock’s point of view if he 1) accepts Dr. Hansen’s public pronouncement that the safe level of atmospheric CO2 is 350 ppmv when we are at 385 ppmv now (and likely climbing by combination of a working Malthusian theory and ocean processes), 2) knows that the AGU has urged 50% reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions (Human Impacts on Climate, 2007), and others point to near zero emissions to stabilize temperatures (Matthews & Caldiera, 2008), 3) believes the present global cooling, regardless whether the beginning of a trend, will give way to massive and abrupt changes brought with the next warming, 4) realizes that the present political inertia to reduce emissions is overwhelming, and 5) expects efforts to develop of an infrastructure to capture, transport, and sequester (or convert to synthetic fuel) atmospheric CO2 will be too little and too late.
I believe he does.
JCH // March 5, 2008 at 11:32 pm
I want to know if anybody has a feel for what the AO index (standardized) was for 2007?
through 2006:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images/essays/atmosphere/figa1.gif
And Hank, I’ve googled for a dozens of times.
Mercury John // March 5, 2008 at 11:47 pm
K O’Day said -
“it does show what can be done with available data by interested non climate scientists.”
Speaking of which, I really like the tools available through the NOAA. I did get this rather dreadful result showing widespread drought potential in the central US this summer.
This is what i get when i plug in the precipitation anomalies using the average of 6 forecast variables-
http://web1.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/seasonal/ncolumn.pl?initial=85&units=/fcst&var=2&method=6&lag=all
(this was the model for last year, and it is very mild in comparison)
http://web1.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/seasonal/ncolumn.pl?initial=73&units=/fcst&var=2&method=6&lag=all
Any feedback on this would be wonderful.
ps. love your blog.
Simon D // March 6, 2008 at 3:00 am
Tamino,
I’d be interested in seeing you to take a whack at the global sea level data. The altimeter record goes back ~15 years. There’s also station data, which like the air temperature data, can be contentious.
[Response: Too many things to do! That's better, of course, than not enough to do. I was reminded by another commenter on yet another interesting topic I mentioned I might explore, and had to wonder whether' I'd get around to it. And the imminent posting of the final installment of the PCA series is likely to generate quite a bit of traffic; lately, simply moderating comments here is a nontrivial effort.
But sea level is indeed a fascinating topic, absolutely relevant, and frankly I admire your skill as a writer so your requests carry a little extra weight. I'll put it high on the list, and I hope I can get to it soon.]
bouldersolar // March 6, 2008 at 3:52 am
The skeptic conference issued a report. Its here
http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf
Although it superficially reads well I am sure Tamino can devastate any of the points it brings up. Come on Tamino. let’er rip!
[Response: I'm pretty busy these days, but it's likely I'll take a look and report what I find.
In the meantime, Rabett Labs has been assigned duty to collect reviews of the "work."]
fred // March 6, 2008 at 4:31 am
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/watts-NYC-2008/index.html
Have a careful look at this presentation. Watts and the volunteers have done some good factual work in documenting the state of the surface station network. It obviously has real quality control problems. This was work that needed doing if we are to rely on the surface temps from this network to make decisions with large financial and human impacts. We had to understand what sort of instruments were yielding the data, and we are starting to find that out now. The project deserves applause and has been wrongly criticized and ridiculed here and elsewhere.
Lab Lemming // March 6, 2008 at 5:01 am
Tamino, how much short-medium term cooling can we get out of the vast increases in aerosols coming out of industrializing S and E Asia?
Would these tend to be more prevalent during the dry season of the Himalayan monsoon? I’m assuming that during the wet cycle they would mostly rain out.
[Response: Honestly, I don't know. I'll look for some literature, and data relating aerosol emissions to aerosol concentration, and that to climate forcing. It's a subject I'd like to know more about.]
dhogaza // March 6, 2008 at 5:43 am
Which, of course, is why NASA and others have attacked the data statistically.
Because it is, of course, NASA etc who have originally made the point that the data needs to be rigorously analyzed if it is to be of use.
But you’ve been told that before (though obviously you aren’t capable of understanding the point).
No, rigorous analysis, not snapshots, are what was needed, and thankfully NASA has been doing this.
Gavin's Pussycat // March 6, 2008 at 5:50 am
Fred,
suppose all these issues are taken into account in the GISS processing to your, or Mr Watts’, satisfaction — what do you expect the effect on the land/ocean surface time series will be? How will it affect the agreement with the other surface and satellite time series?
See
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/
for the surface records, and inside this
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/#more-614
for also the satellite records.
Do you expect the good to excellent agreement between all these time series obtained by partly very different methods, especially on the long-term trends, to break down? And if it does, how would you explain it and which of these would you then believe to be closer to the truth?
In other words, how is this relevant to the study of anthropogenic climate change (other than by casting aspersions on the competence or integrity of those doing the hard work)?
guthrie // March 6, 2008 at 10:24 am
Bouldersolar- the report adds up every denialist trope of the last 20 years into one handy package. Every page I read (I could only stomach about 3) contains distortions, lies and innuendo. So have a read of it and then see what you can make of it.
Gavin's Pussycat // March 6, 2008 at 11:44 am
HB, an idea for a write-up (I know you’re looking for work to do :-). Already in 1999, Peterson et al., the impact of the Urban Heat Island adjustment was studied by comparing two time series, one generated using all stations, and one using rural stations only.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1999/1998GL900322.shtml
Unfortunately this GRL article is behind a paywall, but as an AGU member I could read it.
Look especially at its Figure 3. It shows the land surface record (i.e., no ocean), and is visually identical to
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif
on the GISTEMP page. But what’s more, it plots the full data set (drawn line) and rural-only (dashed) and indeed, as the abstract claims, “The global rural temperature time series and trends are very similar to those derived from the full data set.”
“Very similar” doesn’t begin to describe it. The differences are way smaller than those between, e.g., GISS and Hadley, to the point that the article provides a blow-up figure 3b for the sub-period 1951-1989 when the rural coverage maxed out!
Note that for this paper, the urban/rural classification was done worldwide using both population counts and night lights. A station had to be rural on both to classify as rural, a conservative approach.
Note also that the effective coverage by rural-only stations as a fraction of the full set was at best 70% during the 1951-1989 period (Figure 2b) and poorer before. So it is clear why we want to use the urban stations too.
Some statistics: the whole set gave a trend on 0.65 deg C/100 yrs and rural-only gave 0.70 deg C/100 yrs, being both significant at the 0.0005 level. Their difference was not significant, though. A similar comparison for 1951-1989 only gave 0.92 (full) and 0.80 (rural), also not significantly different.
This is certainly a study worth doing again with the newest data. Something for Mac & Mac?
P. Lewis // March 6, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Fred Singer: “The science is settled [chuckle] …”
ROFL!
And catch Sen. Mike Jungbauer’s answers.
ROFL! Priceless. For everything else there’s …
fred // March 6, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I neither know nor care what the results of having a properly sited and managed set of stations will be. We need it regardless of what it shows.
dhogaza, no, they have not been doing rigorous analysis. But don’t believe me, don’t believe McIntyre. Instead have a look at Atmoz’ work.
Changing the readings of stations for the year 191x in the year 200x with no information about what things were like then on the ground is not rigorous analysis. Relying on data from stations a huge proportion of which are out of spec is not rigorous analysis. Having an algorithm which is supposed to take account of UHI but seems to leave it unchanged….having an algorithm which leaves site change impacts unchanged…. We need better work than this, and if it shows the world is warming, or not, either is just fine.
This is not about being incapable of understanding things. Its about taking a view of them different from yours. Try and control yourself, and stop this continual descent into personal insults. People who do not agree with you are not idiots for that reason.
GP, what do I expect? I have no idea. I don’t think its relevant in any case. I just want to see a quality data series, whatever it shows. To think this is casting aspersions….etc, it ain’t.
If the work had been better done in the first place there would be fewer aspersions lying around to cast.
Old Dad // March 6, 2008 at 6:30 pm
A few rookie and unscientific obserevations.
I see points being scored on both sides of the surface station data debate. Looks like sophisticated statistical anaysis can do a pretty good job of cleaning up outliers. On the other hand, it makes sense that cleaner primary data will prove more reliable in the long run.
Maybe somebody has already done a cost benefit analysis. If stats can clean up most problems, does it make economic sense to spend the dough improving the stations?
FWIW, I doubt that most layman (like me) have any idea of the complexity presented by the problems of climate science. That’s one reason that I hate that the issue has been so politicized. The good work being done on both sides gets denigrated
Back to lurking.
Lee // March 6, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Oh, tell me they didnt…
“An error in the analysis of the NASA-GISS
surface data for the U.S. was discovered recently by
Stephen McIntyre [2007]. As a result, the year 1934
has emerged as the warmest of the twentieth century
for the U.S., and the 1930s the warmest decade. ”
Page 8, of the denialist report…
The piece is riddled with that kind of crap.
dhogaza // March 6, 2008 at 7:35 pm
There aren’t “two sides” in regard to THAT point. Improving the future data is a goal of the scientists involved.
But until someone invents a time machine, we’re stuck with the historical data we have, and as you’ve pointed out, analysis can do a pretty good job of making that data useful.
Fred sez
I’ve never said that this is why you’re an idiot, fred.
Gavin's Pussycat // March 6, 2008 at 8:48 pm
That much is clear. It’s called a “fishing expedition” in the trade.
Then why bring it up? The historical data is what it is — this is about the processing. Future data should indeed be collected with in-spec stations, which I understand everyone agrees on and is being worked toward within the limits of available resources (do you have any notion of the size of this operation? Yes it should be high priority. Tell the funders.)
You are seeing not one but even three, processing wise and inspite of the historical raw data (do you also want to go back to the last ice age to plant proper thermometers instead of those silly oxygen isotopes?). The implication that you don’t, illustrates the concept of “casting aspersions”.
Thanks for the second illustration.
fred // March 6, 2008 at 9:04 pm
dhogaza,
Will you cut this crap out and stop with the personal insults?
Or, Tamino, will you be kind enough to take some action on this stuff?
[Response: There's a fine line between too much restriction, and too little. I'm still learning where the line falls, and I can't claim to have a natural aptitude for knowing where it is.
I've tried (in the past) being very restrictive, it only seemed to shut down discussion too much. I guess nobody wants to watch an auto race if there's no chance of a fatal crash. I'm now trying to let people say what they want, but I agree that it's not working perfectly either.
I guess I'm gonna have to censor even more of the more hostile ad-hominem type statements. It's very much against my nature (I'm a passionate believer in free speech) but there are limits, and too much "liberty" facilitates only shouting; it really stifles communication. Just for perspective, if you think what's gotten through is rough, you should see some of the things that *didn't* get through.
In the meantime, to everybody: please, oh please, if you like this place, or if you hate it, if you think there's any value in discussing, arguing, disagreeing ... the more civility you can maintain, the more persuasive you'll be.]
dhogaza // March 6, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Well, perhaps fred might refrain from making obviously false statements like
The falseness of this statement is not a matter of opinion, and fred’s support of this statement is to make further demonstrably false statements. The falseness of which have been pointed out to him many, many times.
This doesn’t stop him from repeating the claims over and over again, in every thread.
Real Climate finally adopted a policy of deleting posts which repeat the same false claims over and over again, as it’s just noise and gets in the way.
[Response: I'd be hard pressed to identify anyone here who is innocent of rudeness and ad hominem -- myself included.
But there are *degrees* of hostility, and there's a big difference between "you've repeated the same invalid argument so many times it's getting tiresome, and really only exposes the utter emptiness of your arguments," and "you're a retarded idiotic moronic m**f** and your mother dresses you funny." The more we can stay within the bounds of civility the better. I can't make everyone adhere to the strictest standards without stifling discussion, but if we can edit ourselves we'll make a lot more progress. It also helps to let go of the (very natural) need to "never let go." We can *start* with *this* case; both sides have had their say, let it go.
Ultimately, if things get way out of hand then the failure is mine.]
Hank Roberts // March 6, 2008 at 11:13 pm
This may help:
http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2008/03/why_republicans_reject_science.php
CraigM // March 7, 2008 at 9:48 am
I’ll start.
James Lovelock was recently interviewed, and painted an extremely dark, one might even say dismal, picture of our future:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
Opinions?
BLOODY DEPRESSING
fred // March 7, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Simple, there is a difference between argument from which one may learn something, and trolling. I shall not be reading or replying to dhogaza any nore. This does not seem to be about science or climate, simply about trolling, it could be any forum any subject. Its a malady the net is unfortunately prone to.
[Response: He's probably thinking the same about you. I suggest both of you might still be able to learn from each other (albeit, with some aggravation involved). But of course it's up to you to choose whom you listen and respond to.]
luminous beauty // March 7, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Not as dismal as Lovelock, but hard and clear enough, is THIS presentation by John Holdren of Woods Hole.
What caught my attention was about 10 minutes in he shows two graphs he refers to as the smoking gun. The first is the graph showing all 20th century forcings from Hansen, et al. ‘07, and the second is the Gistemp series together with a combined construction from the first that purports to show a very compelling correlation. The video isn’t all that clear.
I’ve never seen this before.
Hank Roberts // March 7, 2008 at 4:30 pm
> Holdren
I left email inviting his staff assistant to follow up here if his slides are available individually. Hoping.
Hansen's Bulldog // March 7, 2008 at 6:47 pm
A note to readers (and commenters):
It often happens that, while moderating comments, I’ll notice a question I’d like to answer or an issue I’d like to address. So, I make a mental note to do so. But the comment is 3rd on a list of 36 comments to moderate, some of which can be very lengthy. By the time I’m done approving (or not) all the comments, my intention to answer or address has slipped from my consciousness.
So, if your question goes unanswered or your request unnoticed, please don’t take it personally. Thank goodness, there are several very well-informed readers here who can step up to the plate and provide answers (often, better than I can).
But don’t hesitate to keep the questions, and requests, coming. I don’t take demands, and I don’t intend to let one side (or the other!) decide what my blog is for. But I am paying attention.
Next on the list: sea level.
Hank Roberts // March 7, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Holdren’s staff, by email in reply to my request, pointed to several archives. Among those I found the presentation mentioned by
luminous beauty March 7, 2:23 pm
including the ‘Smoking Gun’ slide as a PDF, here:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/uploads/2007_11-6_Forum_(NXPowerLite).pdf
The archive links much else too:
————————————
Links below to Kennedy School websites with some of Prof. Holdren’s
presentations listed:
http://ksgaccman.harvard.edu/iop/events_forum_listview.asp?Type=PS
Link to Institute of Politics Forum archives
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/140/john_p_holdren.html
Link to Belfer Center website and Holdren publications and presentations
http://www.whrc.org/pressroom/press_release.htm
Link to Woods Hole Reseach Center, where John Holdren is the Director, with some presentations listed also
Hank Roberts // March 7, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Open Thread item, thank you for the place to put such.
Ocean acidification dissolves shells.
Here’s another reason that’s a problem, I suspect.
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2132&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
The Oxygen Gap
Terrestrial Climate History Summary (Nov 02, 2006): Vertebrate creatures first began moving from the world’s oceans to land about 415 million years ago, then all but disappeared by 360 million years ago. The fossil record contains few examples of animals with backbones for the next 15 million years, and then suddenly vertebrates show up again, this time for good.
——excerpt follows——
atmospheric oxygen rose sharply at the end of the Silurian period about 415 million years ago, to reach a level of about 22 percent of the atmosphere, similar to today’s oxygen content. But 55 million years later, atmospheric oxygen levels sank to 10 percent to 13 percent. The level remained low for 30 million years - during which Romer’s Gap occurred - then shot up again, and vertebrates and arthropods again began moving from the sea to land.
…..
“a mollusk shell is typically thought of as protection for the marine creature, he said, but it turns out the shell actually channels water across the gill to deliver oxygen.
“An unshelled mollusk has a far greater respiratory problem than a shelled mollusk,” Ward said. “In many groups the shell is an active part of the respiratory system.”
Story is about work by Dr. Peter Ward
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2132
Hank Roberts // March 7, 2008 at 8:53 pm
How to tell if you’re a scientist:
http://www.nukees.com/comics/nukees20080307.gif
luminous beauty // March 7, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Hank,
much obliged.
Hank Roberts // March 8, 2008 at 3:14 am
Holdren is impressive. Thank you for mentioning the work.
Another tidbit for the open thread:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/apelad/2315085361/
Hank Roberts // March 9, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Tamino, some Fred posted his climate page link at RC, you might find the charts interesting (they’re copied from Muller’s Ice Age book and cited to it).
http://www.personal.psu.edu/fth/gw.html
He starts by recommending the ‘Swindle’ movie and runs off into conspiracy theory later.
He cites Muller’s page for the charts; further down that page, Muller writes:
“Scientists realized that the ice age would eventually return. Some of them enjoyed scaring the public about the impending catastrophe. In Figure 1-7 we show the cover from a magazine of the 1940s …”
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/Image1.jpg
There’s a level of funny here rarely attained intentionally.
Hansen's Bulldog // March 10, 2008 at 3:14 am
I’m posting this to multiple threads. Things have gotten a bit out of hand. The level of hostility is … well … over the top.
So I urge everyone to try an experiment. For you next comment, make the exact point you wanted to make, but leave the hostility at the door. I really don’t want to censor viewpoints. But as has been pointed out, too much insult not only turns people off, it interferes with communication. Meanwhile, it’s time for me to reconsider my moderation policy … because “moderation” doesn’t seem to apply.
And please don’t send a comment saying it’s really my fault. I already know.
Barrington // March 10, 2008 at 4:22 am
Since this is an open thread, I’d like to ask an AGW-related question that’s puzzling to me. I’m an investor, venture capitalist and innovator with success in a broad range of businesses including solar cells and solar arrays. I’m not a big believer in government subsidies and tax breaks, but they have helped the solar industry achieve a small toehold in the energy business.
I’ve seen some intriguing ideas which seem to offer the opportunity to significantly reduce and maybe even stem global warming whether it’s caused by CO2 or the sun or a combination. But I see no interest in funding such ideas. Why would scientists and study groups and politicians who believe that AGW may lead to a catastrophic end to civilization not be pushing hard for solutions other than the single approach of a drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels?
Bill Bodell // March 10, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Barrington,
I think you have to understand the mind-set of the two “sides” of the AGW debate. This really isn’t meant as political and I fully realize that the “liberal” and “conservative” labels are too vague (but no other useful way of identifying the “sides” seems to exist). I’m not implying any preference for one world “side” over the other. It may seem that the AGW argument is a matter of science but, ask yourself, why are most non-scientist “liberals” AGW believers and most non-scientist “conservatives” AGW skeptics?
There has always been a political view that capitalism and “progress” is bad or, at least, that “unguided” capitalism and progress is bad. These people in the past often supported socialist governments. Environmentalism, in it’s more radical forms, has been seen as a method of giving centralized government a bigger role in decision making (i.e. now you can oppose the new superhighway due to it’s environmental impact instead of saying you’re opposed to people living wherever they want and commuting to work). AGW provides a way for anti-capitalist radicals to pursue their policies. “Conservatives” know this and instinctively oppose them. “Liberals” think that “conservatives” just care more about money than people. “Conservatives” think AGW is the “liberal’s” way of establishing world government by the UN. This, of course, by no means says anything about whether AGW really exists or not.
There are semi-rational people in the middle, but the radical left proponent is seeing AGW as a way to restrict capitalism and increase government control. Coming up with solutions that allow us to go on using ever increasing amounts of energy without creating global warming doesn’t achieve their primary goal. Someone from the far-left has been quoted saying something along the lines that “giving humans cheap energy is like giving monkeys machine guns”.
What’s more, “liberals” generally believe that it is possible for an “elite” to be right when the majority is wrong. People that disagree with them are “uninformed” (unless they are obviously informed, in which case they’re evil). Conservatives tend to believe that no one group of people knows more than the society at large and that of utmost importance is that “proper processes” be followed. Hence, “conservatives” put a lot of store in things like the integrity of the surface station data and archiving data. Liberals see the focus on such mundane matters as distracting from the greater truth and assume that an inordinate focus on details is an attempt to undermine the “truth”.
Taking all this in to account, what should you believe? I’d focus on “liberal” skeptics and “conservative” believers.
Better yet, seeing how everyone is carrying around so much baggage, try to keep things out of the political arena and focus on the science.
Hank Roberts // March 10, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Global warming isn’t the crisis issue. And it requires understanding advanced physics. The crisis for this century is ocean pH, solubility of calcite and aragonite, and it requires understanding high school level chemistry — anyone who has done a titration knows the principle.
And if you understand the chemistry, you know what’s needed.
mmghosh // March 10, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Mr Barrington,
It depends on what you mean by ‘funding’.
The funding process is rarely straightforward. There needs to be a basic amount of funding from the state towards universities and research institutes to kick start the funding process which can then be leveraged by the private sector.
The playing field also needs to be levelled by the correct mix of taxes and subsidies, as you suggest.
In fact, moving out of Middle East derived fossil fuel use has many advantages not related to the AGW argument. Mr Gore in his video made the fairly reasonable point that, as the largest research network in the world is in the USA, the possibility of the US leading in this field was also significantly higher.
And in fact many countries and companies are taking the challenge on.
Some examples:
Solar thermal energy is taking off in Egypt and Spain
http://www.eeaa.gov.eg/english/main/Env2003/Day3/Energy/nokrashy.nokrashy.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6616651.stm
Wind energy in India
http://www.suzlon.com
Portugal and Latvia plan to have upto 50% of their energy requirements met by renenwables by 2020.
Hank Roberts // March 10, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Speaking of monkey-jar traps, and reasons to eschew going looking for bait if they quit trolling it here:
http://www.strathern.eu/Books/Introduction.pdf
—–excerpt follows——-
Accountability is one of the biggest and most obvious hazards of predicting the
future, but another compelling matter to bear in mind while reading this book is what writer Bruce Sterling terms the futurists’ monkey puzzle. The classic monkey trap involves placing something tempting inside a jar with a narrow opening. When a monkey puts its
hand in and grips the prize, its fist gets stuck and it is caught in a dilemma between letting go and hanging hopelessly on to the prize. “The lesson for the futurist here is simple,”
explains Sterling, “out in the wilderness of delightful trends, conjectures and
happenstances is the one you can’t resist. That is your Monkey Puzzle. It is the one
futuristic curiosity that proves unbearable to your heart …. It is the scheme that you champion against all odds …. It is generally something rather trivial, silly, and goofy. You may find yourself longing to have your head frozen for millennia inside a tub of liquid nitrogen…. It might suddenly occur to you that UFOS might really and truly exist. The Monkey Puzzle is almost never based on a sober, rational analysis. Instead, it speaks to some underfed, sugar-starved part of the victim’s personal psyche.”
————————
Hank Roberts // March 10, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Also worth a fresh pointer:
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Global warming cut-and-paste for charity
I have an idea that readers can use to make money for charity - if you see any blogger or even any commenter on any blog, anywhere, who denies that temperatures will be trending upwards in the next 10-20 years, just cut and paste the following italicized text into a comment:
If you don’t believe that global warming is more likely than cooling over the next few decades, then you can make money for a charity of your choice. Go to here:
http://www.longbets.org/196
The bettor there believes that global warming will happen. You bet against him and both of you give a tax-deductible donation to the Long Now Foundation. When the bet pays off, all the money goes to the charity of the winner’s choice. His bet offer has been sitting there unanswered for over a year. This is your chance to put your money where your mouth is, double the amount of money you’d normally give to charity, and make sure HIS money goes to whatever cause YOU think is worthy. Check it out.
Martin Vermeer // March 10, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Mr Barrington,
your “intriguing ideas” won’t stand a chance won’t stand a chance until the
price of fossil fuel based energy includes the “externality” that expresses
in monetary terms the damage it does to the climate system.
If this externality is taken into account — meaning some kind of carbon tax,
whatever form it takes — your ideas won’t need any explicit funding from
public sources: they will be profitable as such. And the drastic reduction
of fossil fuel use will happen automagically.
The cost of such a switch to society would be modest: a few percent of GDP
globally. See the IPCC WG3 report, or the work of William Nordhaus. Our society
has handled similar challenges in the past. Technologies exist just around
the corner, but will never mature without incentives.
Martin Vermeer // March 10, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Mr Barrington,
one idea still that might be of some interest to you: it is widely understood
that there are many so-called “low hanging fruits” in energy saving and
efficiency, potentials for savings that don’t actually cost anything except
knowing what you are doing and cleverly combining existing elements, in space
heating, process industry, etc. There was a good example of this recently on
Joe Romm’s blog.
A consultancy operation around this could be an attractive business idea.
Frank O'Dwyer // March 10, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Has anybody looked at this, which will probably be all over the deny-o-sphere before long.
Hank Roberts // March 11, 2008 at 2:37 am
If he showed you the error bars on the IPCC line as he claims he’s showing the error bars on his line, how much do you think they’d overlap? Note he says if he’d done all the work appropriate, his error range could include the IPCC line.
Looks like about half his range of error and half the IPCC range overlap, but of course I’m just, heh, eyeballing the picture.
He’s already said what he thinks a journal reviewer would tell him, basically — to do the rest of the analysis. Let’s see if he does.
John Mashey // March 11, 2008 at 6:24 am
Martin: you maywant to take a look a Charlie hall’s Balloon Graph:
http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=14&idContribution=1305
and http://www.iea.org/Textbase/work/2004/eewp/Ayres-paper1.pdf
It’s not at all clear yet that mainstream economics has a good handle on what happens as Peak Oil hits, and then Peak Gas.
P. Lewis // March 11, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Just commenting for info really.
I see the Feb GISS Land + Ocean Temperature Index has been added: 0.26.
[Sarcasm mode begin]
Gosh! That’s over twice as high as the Jan level (0.12)! Global warming must have started again.
[Sarcasm mode end]
Seeing as the met station anomalies for Jan and Feb are identical, perhaps this is an early indication of La Nina having peaked (DJF ONI = -1.5). Although it’s too early to make any judgement call, I see that Nino 1+2 is positive and Nino 3 and 4 (and 3.4) are all now heading in a positive direction.
Hank Roberts // March 11, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Where did you see the Feb. GISS info?
[Response: It's here.]
luminous beauty // March 11, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Where is enhanced geothermal on Charlie’s graph?
Habañero 3 is now under-going flow testing in Oz. The DOE is spending a measly $1.6M on the relatively unadventurous project of expanding near surface circulation in Nevada.
The potential is enormous. There is a self-sustaining nuclear oven operating no more than 11 klicks under our feet.
P. Lewis // March 11, 2008 at 2:58 pm
GISS as indicated by HB. And the ONI is compiled here and the Nino region anomalies can be followed here.
Martin Vermeer // March 11, 2008 at 8:01 pm
John: yes I am aware of this. Not saying that it’s invalid, but I believe
he underestimates what human beings can come up with if they are really,
desperately motivated (as opposed to lip service and token gestures).
Unfortunately that level of desperation (which is all too appropriate) is
still not there.
From what I see, Charlie looks at all the wrong things; OTEC, powersats, and
thermal solar with storage / inter- time zone DC transport are not considered.
The SciAm Grand Plan http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan at
least has the right attitude :-)
I do agree though that it’s hopeless without also changing our wasteful
consumption habits. I believe that is doable too with proper incentives.
Also, consider the tempo aspect. It is often said, correctly, that every
failure to take necessary mitigation measures now will be paid for many times
over later. But the reverse is also true: any positive step in the right
direction now will pay off many times over.
E.g., if we could just curtail the growth of Western CO2 emissions enough to
put the “crunch” off by enough years, during which China and India reach the
point where their populations get well-off enough to start to care too — and
by then the evidence will be overwhelming anyway. And so it is with many
things.
It’s infuriating how so many people believe either that AGW is “not a problem”
or that it is “hopeless anyway”. What about the in-between position, “a grand
challenge”?
Petro // March 11, 2008 at 8:04 pm
What is the point of trying to debate with people, who disregard scientific reality? I don’t even see a point to allow them to post such rubbish again and again.
You Tamino have tried to understand them, have given them a benefit of doubt that they are looking for truth, not just denying. And boy, have you been patient!
Still, I am not sure if a single denialist has changed his view on global warming during this year or so. I have not seen anyone among the regular denialists to give an inch away from his ill-based opinion.
I don’t know, but perhaps you do, if the lurkers in this site have learned anything about scientific justification for global warming. I hope so, I hope you have received personal mail about it.
And for you lurkers there, please, tell us: Have you changed your opinon on human-induced global warming based on the posts and discussion in this site?
Frank O'Dwyer // March 11, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Hank,
“If he showed you the error bars on the IPCC line as he claims he’s showing the error bars on his line, how much do you think they’d overlap?”
He’s a she but judging by the text she reckons she has already shown the IPCC’s uncertainty range in the shaded area. Do you mean that it is not a like for like comparison?
I also notice that the trend she gets is very different, and in the opposite direction, from that given by
TaminoHB from 2000 onwards here, albeit that is only based on data available in August 07.Barrington // March 11, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Thanks to those of you who commented on the difficulty of finding sponsorship of global cooling technology. Let me expand a little on the idea……
The 1991 Mt. Pinatubo volcanic eruption temporarily cooled the earth by something like 0.3 degrees centigrade for a year. What if something similar to, but more effective than, the Mt. Pinatubo aerosols could be placed in the atmosphere in prescribed amounts and at prescribed times without the unwanted destruction of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption so as to offset global warming ? Say a tax of 1 cent per gallon was placed on oil products consumed world-wide yielding $10 billion/year. Also collect a small tax on coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Use this income to hire a “Global Cooling Company” with their own proprietary, but totally transparent technology, to provide an on-demand cooling service. This should make everyone happy except for what I’m told is a handful of denialists who refuse to believe that the world is headed headlong into an AGW catastrophe – right?
Frank O'Dwyer // March 11, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Petro,
“And for you lurkers there, please, tell us: Have you changed your opinon on human-induced global warming based on the posts and discussion in this site?”
I started out from a position of not knowing a great deal about AGW, and my initial introduction to the topic and to this site actually came just from checking into denialist arguments. I fairly quickly formed the impression that AGW was probably correct just based on the fact that if these were the oppositions best arguments, they hadn’t got any arguments.
Sites like this are probably not going to convince any denialists but they might stop them from convincing any fence sitters. Even if not, they are very educational anyway.
Hank Roberts // March 11, 2008 at 11:51 pm
>Barrington
> Right?
Wrong.
See the links provided earlier on ocean pH change. Did you complete high school chemistry? Give us some idea of how much science you have and we can try to explain the problem to you.
mmghosh // March 12, 2008 at 12:41 am
Mr Barrington
The problem is not limited to warming.
CO2 accumulation is leading to increasing ocean acidification and progressive destruction of the coral reef and other biospheres.
http://simondonner.blogspot.com/2008/02/lessons-from-coral-reefs-of-line.html
Reducing fossil fuel based energy sources should reduce the need to create reasons to invade Middle Eastern states.
I do not think spraying aerosols into the atmosphere will reduce fossil fuel energy use.
Lee // March 12, 2008 at 12:57 am
Richard Lindzen claims no warming since 1997. This is from Anthony Watts blog here:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/a-note-from-richard-lindzen-on-statistically-significant-warming/
A note from Richard Lindzen on statistically significant warming
11 03 2008
Yesterday, in response to the thread on “3 of 4 global metrics show nearly flat temperature anomaly in the last decade” I got a short note from MIT’s Richard Lindzen along with a graph. I asked if I could re-post it, and he graciously agreed:
Look at the attached. There has been no warming since 1997 and no
statistically significant warming since 1995. Why bother with the
arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998? (Incidentally, the red
fuzz represents the error ‘bars’.)
Best wishes,
Dick
==================================================
Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
MIT Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
Hank Roberts // March 12, 2008 at 3:31 am
For Mr. Barrington:
First place the CO2 goes is into the air.
Then it goes into the water, changing the pH and the solubility of the shells on the coral and plankton.
How much air and water?
Viz: http://blog.phiffer.org/post/27344630
Barrington // March 12, 2008 at 5:27 am
mmghosh:
I had hoped that a solution to the Global Warming problem would have been enough for 1 day, but I’m a problem-solver so I’ll tackle the CO2 ocean acidification issue as well if that’s what it takes.
The Southern ocean teems with phytoplankton that consumes large quantities of CO2 but is growth-limited by a shortage of iron, The other necessary nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous which limit plankton growth in other parts of the ocean are in surplus in the Southern ocean. By adding iron to the Southern ocean, a considerable additional quantity of CO2 can be removed. One estimate is that if 300,000 tons of iron are added, it may be possible to remove 2 billion tons of CO2. Compare that to the amount added by fossil fuels. You can read more here. http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/chisho00/chisho00.html
This is another idea that hasn’t generated the interest it would seem to deserve because scientists fear that it will take away the focus on reducing fossil fuels consumption. But if you want to solve the ocean-acidification problem as well as Global Warming, why not move it forward? There are ways to reduce the reliance on the Middle East oil.
Martin Vermeer // March 12, 2008 at 8:41 am
Mr Barrington, as Hank and mmghosh say. Aerosol engineering only addresses one aspect of global climate change, the
increase in mean global temperature (and relatedly, probably also continental ice sheet melt). Many other aspects
continue to worsen. Ocean acidification (de-basification if you insist) will continue. Changes in circulation
patterns will continue, making fertile areas arid and vice versa. Less sunlight will reach the Earth surface
affecting photosynthesis.
I see only one application for aerosol engineering: as a “morning-after pill” for the situation where we continue
to ignore the problem until we reach some tipping point. And then we panic and start mitigating seriously, but all
known mitigation techniques take time to kick in due to the delays in the system.
That’s where AE could be an emergency patch, while waiting for real mitigation to kick in. But for the same reason
why people want to ignore the problem, also don’t expect to find much sympathy on the public side — working with
you would constitute an admission that a problem really exists :-(
Barton Paul Levenson // March 12, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen posts that there has been no significant warming since 1995. Let’s just test that assertion.
I took the land-ocean anomalies from NASA GISS for the years 1995-2007 and put them in an Excel spreadsheet. Here they are:
Year Anom
1995 38
1996 30
1997 40
1998 57
1999 33
2000 33
2001 48
2002 56
2003 55
2004 49
2005 62
2006 54
2007 57
I then regressed anomaly on year. I got:
Anom = -3965.9 + 2.0055 Year
with 51% of variance accounted for (47% adjusted), and the t-statistic on the coefficient for year was 3.38, which would make the relationship significant at better than the 99% level.
Dr. Lindzen must be using some definition of “significant” that the rest of us don’t share. By t or F test, even with the small sample size of N = 13, the relationship is not just significant, but highly significant.
Hank Roberts // March 12, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Mr. Barrington:
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/fsn028v1?ct
Remember the current rate of change is something like 100x the fastest natural events short of a large asteroid impact.
Ian // March 12, 2008 at 4:51 pm
BPL, did post your analysis at Watts’ site, where Lindzen sent his graph?
Bill Bodell // March 12, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Petro,
I am a skeptical lurker, so I’ll answer what I can.
First, I can assure you that I don’t deny scientific reality. One of the things that most disturbs me about AGW believers is that most assume that any reasonable person would agree with them and that, since they don’t, they’re not reasonable and, therefore, it’s because they’re funded by Exxon. I assure you that I am every bit as interested in the future of the Earth (and my children’s children) as you are. The basics, that the Earth is warming and that a “Greenhouse Effect” and that AGW is a reality, are not contested by any reasonable skeptic (Patrick Michaels convinced me about the last two). I find it hard to believe that there is any scientific field that has no debate over some area of study and that the “science” just consists of listing the appropriate scientific facts.
What I’d love to see is a pro-AGW blog that only considers the science. No accusations of “dishonesty”, no accusations against Exxon/Mobil. A site that says things like “good point, we’ll exclude that study and focus on better ones”. I’d like to see a pro-ADW blog take Senator Kerry to task for his “Tennessee Tornados caused by Global Warming” nonsense. I’d like to see a pro-AGW site say things like “Sure, I can see that there are problems with the surface station records. I don’t think it makes much difference but let’s try to improve things and, meanwhile, let’s look at RSS”. Honestly, I’d love a site like that and, it probably would do a much better job of changing my mind.
I have learned things here, like a positive feedback system doesn’t have to be unstable if the feedback is less than 1. I have realized where there are faults in arguments I might other-wise have found convincing.
Of course, most of the blogging largely just makes everybody feel better about the positions they already held. But, I do think it advances the discussion (to the extent that you feel there should even be a discussion).
Gavin's Pussycat // March 12, 2008 at 8:01 pm
If you don’t want to be insulted, insulting us is not a good way to start. There is no AGW “belief”; believing is done in church. You are insulting atheists like me (who believe God does not exist, but know AGW does), and probably religious people too by trivializing their (real) beliefs.
This is a pro-science site.
PeterMeter // March 12, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Thanks Bill! You said:
“The basics, that the Earth is warming and that a “Greenhouse Effect” and that AGW is a reality, are not contested by any reasonable skeptic.”
You left out CO2. If I interpret you correctly, you are not denying that a) Increased CO2 level in atmosphere is mainly in response of recent warming and b) Added CO2 is mainly produced by human. Am I right?
While you are not denying these observed facts, I am curious, on what you are then sceptic. Are you sceptic of the impacts of projected changes? Are you sceptic on the pace of the projected changes? Are you sceptic what measures we should take to avoid the future impacts? It would be helpful to know, and could increase the level of discussion too.
Also, there are a bunch of denialists in this site, which claim the basics you outlined are not true. What is your opinion, why they do hold such views?
Petro // March 12, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Thanks Bill! You said:
“The basics, that the Earth is warming and that a “Greenhouse Effect” and that AGW is a reality, are not contested by any reasonable skeptic.”
You left out CO2. If I interpret you correctly, you are not denying that a) Increased CO2 level in atmosphere is mainly in response of recent warming and b) Added CO2 is mainly produced by human. Am I right?
While you are not denying these observed facts, I am curious, on what you are then sceptic. Are you sceptic of the impacts of projected changes? Are you sceptic on the pace of the projected changes? Are you sceptic what measures we should take to avoid the future impacts? It would be helpful to know, and could increase the level of discussion too.
Also, there are a bunch of denialists in this site, which claim the basics you outlined are not true. What is your opinion, why they do hold such views?
John Lederer // March 12, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Barton Levenson:
“I took the land-ocean anomalies from NASA GISS for the years 1995-2007 ”
Different data than Lindzen used. See his attachment.
dhogaza // March 12, 2008 at 10:36 pm
He used hadcrut, not giss.
Where does Lindzen show the details of his fit that shows no significant warming?
It looks to me as though he just took the end point of the graph, extended it horizontally to the left, and says that it crosses at 1997.
Doing so is cherry-picking this current La Niña-induced low temperature period as an end point, the mirror of the 1998 El Niño cherry-pick so favored by denialists.
Drawing lines that connect arbitrary points on a graph of data is not trend analysis.
Of course, maybe he did something analytical and I’m just not seeing it.
dhogaza // March 12, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Come to think of it, I’m a bit surprised Alan Watts would post that, since the surface station record is meaningless and all that …
Patrick Hadley // March 13, 2008 at 10:11 am
Gavin’s Pussycat does not like being called a “believer” in AGW since he thinks it simply a matter of science not faith.
If he is an orthodox member of the AGW faith then presumably he believes:
That CO2 is a primary driver of global temperatures despite 400,000 years of ice core records showing that this is not true.
That climate models can accurately predict the future up to 100 years in the future despite the fact that past predictions continually have to be corrected every few years.
That we can accurately reconstruct global temperatures for the last 1000 years based on dodgy analysis of tree rings in California.
That warming has no beneficial effects for the world, and that man’s prosperity has not been linked to warmer temperatures in the past.
That warming of 2 degrees over a period of 100 years would have catastophic effects on the planet.
That all recent weather effects whether floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornados or snowfalls have been caused by warming of 0.5 C over the last thirty years.
That we are not already due for the start of the next ice age.
I could go on and on.
As a global warming agnostic I do not have to disprove any of the above - it is up to the proponents of the extraordinary faith to prove their case. As David Hume said: extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.
As long I am not convinced by just one of the AGW arguments then the basic conclusion - that we must drastically change our lives in order to avert disaster remains unproven.
Armagh Geddon // March 13, 2008 at 12:11 pm
“This is a pro-science site.”
Really??
Barton Paul Levenson // March 13, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Ian,
No, how do I get there?
Petro // March 13, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Patrick Hadley, why you misrepresent the claims of the climate scientists? Are you an idiot, an engineer or something?
Gavin's Pussycat // March 13, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Patrick, the answer is no. I know your claims are straw man set-ups. So do you, and where to find the truth about each and every one of them.
You are not an AGW agnostic, you are an AGW ignorant. By choice. I suppose that qualifies as a belief system.
Armagh Geddon: really.
dhogaza // March 13, 2008 at 2:38 pm
That’s not the climate science position, but rather a strawman. The primary driver of global temperatures is, of course, the sun.
Barton Paul Levenson // March 13, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Here are the Hadley Centre land-sea anomalies for 1995-2007:
1995 0.275
1996 0.137
1997 0.351
1998 0.546
1999 0.296
2000 0.270
2001 0.409
2002 0.464
2003 0.473
2004 0.447
2005 0.482
2006 0.422
2007 0.402
The regression equation is:
Anom = -32.18311 + 0.016275 Year
N = 13
t = 2.269 which is significant at the 95% level, though not at the 99% level.
So using Hadley Centre data, there has still been significant warming since 1995.
Barton Paul Levenson // March 13, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Patrick Hadley posts:
[[If he is an orthodox member of the AGW faith then presumably he believes:
That CO2 is a primary driver of global temperatures despite 400,000 years of ice core records showing that this is not true.]]
650,000 years of ice core records show nothing of the sort. They show that in natural temperature swings, temperature tends to lead CO2. They also show that the CO2 is needed to amplify the temperature swing, and indeed accounts for most of the temperature change in every case.
The present warming is not a natural deglaciation, and the CO2 is coming primarily from fossil fuel burning, not from the climate system, as is proved by the radioisotope signal. For the last 200 years, CO2 has led temperature.
[[That climate models can accurately predict the future up to 100 years in the future despite the fact that past predictions continually have to be corrected every few years. ]]
Climate models aren’t used to predict the future. They are used to project it, given certain inputs, e.g., what kind of emissions will happen in the future, and assuming other factors like sunlight or albedo don’t change radically.
[[That we can accurately reconstruct global temperatures for the last 1000 years based on dodgy analysis of tree rings in California. ]]
See the top thread.
[[That warming has no beneficial effects for the world, and that man’s prosperity has not been linked to warmer temperatures in the past.]]
Our present agriculture and economy are geared to the present climate, not to some theoretically better climate. There may well be other climate regimes that would be “better.” We’re still screwed economically if we undergo a rapid transition from one to the other.
[[That warming of 2 degrees over a period of 100 years would have catastophic effects on the planet.]]
They will, yes. Normally it takes much longer than that to alter the mean global annual surface temperature by 2 K.
[[That all recent weather effects whether floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornados or snowfalls have been caused by warming of 0.5 C over the last thirty years. ]]
Straw man argument. No one has said anything of the kind.
[[That we are not already due for the start of the next ice age.]]
We aren’t. If you do the actual matrix math which governs predicting Milankovic cycles, the next ice age would happen in about 20,000 to 50,000 years.
cce // March 13, 2008 at 3:29 pm
A few points for Patrick to consider:
The increase in greenhouse gases is the primary cause for the increase in temperature of the last 30 years. Orbital cycles are the primary driver of climate change over long periods such as those shown in the ice cores. About 1/3rd of the temperature change during glaciation/deglaciation is due to changes in GHG.
The simple climate models from the ’70s predicted warming of about 0.5 degrees by the end of the century, which is what we got. Hansen’s models from ‘88 overpredicted warming by about 25%. They were not and are not perfect and we don’t require them to be perfect.
Skeptics believe the temperature of a tiny area of England represents global temperatures of the last 1000 years.
A warming of 5 degrees over 7000 years is the difference between an ice age and today. 2 degrees over 100 years is a big change.
Rising temperatures increase the probability of extreme weather extremes. It is not the cause of every weather event.
The next ice age is due in 20,000 to 50,000 years.
Bill Bodell // March 13, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Gavin’s Pussycat,
I’m happy to call you whatever you’d like to be called, although I’d like something more neutral than “pro-science”. It would be best if both sides could agree on the labels. It’s inconvenient naming the sides of the abortion debate “pro-life”, “pro-choice”, “pro-abortion” and “anti-choice” depending on one’s standing.
Petro,
I believe that the globe has warmed .6 C since 1900, that it warmed until 1940, cooled until 1980 and has warmed since.
I believe that the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from about 280ppm to 380ppm over the last 100 years, that the rate of increase is accelerating and that this is primarily due to human activity.
I believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic (more CO2, less effect) and that increased CO2 will cause warming. I believe the Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 (from 280 to 560) to be between .5 and 1.5 C. This is based on the increase currently recorded for CO2 by 100ppm and the observed temperature increase of .6 C (a sensitivity of 1.5 C credits all the warming to CO2).
Patrick J. Michaels (who should be the devil incarnate to most of you) agrees that the globe has warmed (although, in the past, he doubted it and lost a bet on the topic). He also agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it does lead to warming. He proved it by noting that temperatures increased more in cold, dry climates (in which CO2 is a larger proportion of greenhouse gas) than in warm, wet climates (where greenhouse gasses consist primarily of water).
If there are any “deniers” on this site that deny the above, they are uninformed and can be freely ignored (or point them out to me and I’ll try to correct them, they might take it better from me, a skeptic). I read a lot of skeptics and none that I’m aware of (other than the occasional ill-informed poster) denies the above.
I do not believe that moderate warming is necessarily a bad thing for the Earth or for humans. Previously in human history, warming has led to “golden ages” and cooling has led to hardship.
I am skeptical of the belief that Climate Sensitivity is greater than 1.5 C (most AGW proponents claim between 3 and 5) due to positive feedbacks because I haven’t seen any evidence that such a positive feedback exists. I am highly doubtful of recent attempts to explain the lack of positive feedbacks to date as being due to newly found negative feedbacks (i.e. aerosols) that will somehow stop being negative in the near future. I do not believe computer models tell us anything other than what will happen if our inputs are correct.
I believe that there are factors other than CO2 that cause warming (although I do not believe that anyone knows for certain what they are and the size of the effect they might have). More research needs to be done. I believe that the globe has warmed and cooled in the past and that this was probably due to factors other than CO2. I am highly doubtful of attempts to re-write history by making the MWP and “Little Ice Age” go away.
I believe that attempts to substantially limit human carbon emissions will have a large negative effect on humans and that this will be disproportionally burdensome on the poor. In light of this, I believe we must be more certain of negative impact of AGW before proceeding. In the case that something needs to be done, we might well be better off adapting to warming than trying to prevent it.
So that’s about it. I think if we can reach agreement on what we both believe, we can concentrate our efforts on what really matters.
Any skeptics disagree with what I’m stipulating?
Bill Bodell // March 13, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Patrick Hadley,
I probably agree with most of what you think.
But, what’s the point in being so confrontational? Do you think that those that disagree with you will suddenly “convert” once they’ve heard the “truth”. If not, what’s the point? Sure, there’s not much chance that anyone on either side, changing their minds, but shouldn’t we actually try to have a conversation?
BPL,
[[That all recent weather effects whether floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornados or snowfalls have been caused by warming of 0.5 C over the last thirty years. ]] is a straw man agruement only if you’re on record as disavowing Senator Kerry blaming the Tennesee Tornados on AGW. There’s a huge amount of hyperbole in the media blaming everything from Katrina to recent snowstorms on AGW. I know that they’re (largely) not climate scientists and don’t speak for you. But, your crediblity would rise if you would call them out.
Lee // March 13, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Bodell:
“I believe the Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 (from 280 to 560) to be between .5 and 1.5 C. This is based on the increase currently recorded for CO2 by 100ppm and the observed temperature increase of .6 C (a sensitivity of 1.5 C credits all the warming to CO2).”
On what grounds do you assume the time constants for response to CO2 to be effectively instantaneous?
—
“I haven’t seen any evidence that such a positive feedback exists.”
So, you assume that global atmospheric humidity will remain absolutely constant, not relatively constant? What makes you think that relative humidity will decrease in a warmer atmosphere -necessary for constant absolute humidity - on a planet where most of the surface atmosphere is in contact with the wet oceans?
Petro // March 13, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Thanks again Bill, I appreciate you can present your points in non-confrontational manner. That is civilized.
Still, I note your view on climate sensitivity is against the main stream science. Also, your view that current warming is not exceptional is against main stream science. Thirdly, your view that the current warming (the pace of it, mostly) is not negative for humanity, is not main stream.
I guess, that when you have grasped fully the arguments about climate sensitivity and historical temperatures, your views shift toward main stream. I believe you read studies on those topics and you have ability to separate science from humbug. Scientists do not do such trivial mistakes that has been done by several eminent bloggers in denialosphere.
For the negative impact of warming I recommend you reading Mark Lynas’ book Six degrees. It is based on mainly paleontological studies and reveals how sensitive our globe has been in past for the changes in the temperature.
Mike B // March 13, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Bill,
Although it appears that you wish to talk to deniers with you post, you are implying things about AGW that aren’t really accurate.
Let’s take this statement:
When stated as such it tends to imply some sort of equivalence in the warming and the cooling. This is not even remotely true. In fact globally the period of cooling at the middle of the century was quite short, from about 1944 to 1951. After that and until the late 70’s, global temperatures were more or less flat.
Here is another statement of yours that seems just a little too convienantly loose:
The use of the word primary is a too ambiguous, it suggests a secondary albeit smaller cause. There is strong evidence which shows that virtually all the increase is due to human activity and there is no significant secondary cause.
Others will challenge your claims about CO2 sensitivity for the obvious reasons. There is no way it is only 0.5 C
Nobody is making the MWP and LIA go away, what most of the research has shown is that they were not nearly as prominent globally as they were in Europe and like the warming is today.
Gavin's Pussycat // March 13, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Bill Bodell,
Yes I see there is a problem with labels like “pro-this” and “pro-that”. Nobody in his right mind is “pro-abortion”, and also “pro-AGW” feels wrong.
The point is that acknowledging the reality of AGW is not a value judgment — so “pro” doesn’t work. But behind it is a value judgment, namely that science is the best way humanity knows for figuring out factual truths about the real world, to base policy on. Against the denial of that, “pro-science” is the appropriate label.
You don’t appear to be “anti-science” in that way, and the few stitches you drop in representing the current state of the science have other reasons. Others wrote already about those.
About what is the best way to address and mitigate the problem, there are many different opinions also among “AGW-acknowledgers”. This belongs to the field of economics and technology more than climate science. But if you really believe that we can get away with doing nothing and just continue burning up our fossil fuels to exhaustion — “naive” would be my label for you.
As for your argument that mitigation will hit poor people disproportionately, you (a) didn’t invent this yourself :-) , and (b) don’t seem to grasp how fake it is: the effects of climate change will also hit poor people disproportionately. Think, e.g., how a shortfall in agricultural production capacity due to adverse regional climate changes would affect food prices or even cause famine. Same with coastal flooding. Those that can afford to will move away, those that cannot will take whatever hits them, cf. Katrina.
Our ineffectiveness at addressing poverty nationally and internationally shouldn’t become an excuse for not solving other urgent problems either… there are policy solutions if we give them proper priority.
Bill Bodell // March 13, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Lee, Mike B, Petro,
In general I was stating those things that I agree are scientific facts. Namely; the Earth has warmed, there is a greenhouse effect and humans are responsible for putting most of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere. I also said that, in my opinion, most reasonable AGW skeptics would stipulate the same points.
Often AGW “believers” (Gavin’s Pussycat has not yet told me what to call them), spend a good deal of time acting as if “deniers” are disagreeing with the above. I don’t think they are (at least not those who post on blogs such as this). My hope is to move the conversation past these points so that we can focus on those points where there is disagreement.
My listing what I believed, which was a secondary point, I opened myself up to having to defend my points. This may involve a good deal more work than I had in mind, but I’m willing to give it a try. I’ve been trying to engage those with the opposite view in a rational discussion for a long time. If I have actually succeeded (and all three of you seem ready to discuss the issue rationally), I guess that’s the price I’ll have to pay for actually achieving my goal.
I am not a scientist and have, obviously, not done any original research of climate change issues. I’ll have to argue from a “informed civilian” viewpoint. I’ll probably concede any point that doesn’t seem to be central to my argument and, when your expert disagrees with my expert, I’m not going to be able to definitively decide who’s right.
1st up: Lee, “On what grounds do you assume the time constants for response to CO2 to be effectively instantaneous?”
Good point. Is there a generally accepted lag time between an increase in CO2 and it’s effect on tempurature? If it’s less than 60 years, shouldn’t we seeing an increasing trend in CO2 by now? If x is the year of a CO2 increase and y is the lag time, shouldn’t we be seeing a temperature increase in year x + y to match the CO2 increase in year x?
“I haven’t seen any evidence that such a positive feedback exists.” By this I mean that if we are 40% of the way to a doubling of CO2 (from 280ppm to 560ppm) and the CO2 effect is logarithmic (so we get more than 40% of the temperature effect) than I would have expected to see a larger tempurature increase if positive feedback made the climate sensitivity greater than 1.5 C. What I’ve seen is a 100ppm increase in CO2 and a .6 C increase in temperature.
Petro,
I never claimed that all my views agreed with “mainstream science”, I was just noting some that did.
I believe that there would be very negative effects from a 6 C warming. However, I don’t think even the IPCC agrees with Mark Lyna’s forecast of a 6 C increase. In fact I don’t think Mark Lyna believes that is a reasonable forecast and just showed an extreme example.
That’s all for now, I’ll check in again tonight respond to Mike B.
Patrick Hadley // March 13, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Bill Bodell , thank you for your advice. I always try to be polite in my posts even when being somewhat provocative - and especially when others are far from polite to me. I have no hope whatever of changing the mind of anyone who posts as an AGW enthusiast, but consider that there are probably many more readers than posters, some of whom might be given pause for thought, if I am arguing in a polite and reasonable way and the AGW crowd are being abusive and illogical.
I have enjoyed reading your posts on other threads and boards, and I shall try to follow your advice to be a little more gentle in future.
chriscolose // March 14, 2008 at 1:59 am
Bill,
the 6 C rise is a possibility for business-as-usual emission scenarios out to 2100. The IPCC gives a climate sensitivity of 2 to 4.5 C per doubling of carbon dioxide. But a doubling of carbon dioxide and “by 2100″ are different things; the latter is far more uncertain because of where economic development will take us (alternative fuels, deeoped-developing world interactions, etc), whereas the uncertainty in the “2x CO2″ estimate is purely scientific, and is mainly due to questions on cloud feedbacks.
CO2 concentrations will grow higher than 560 ppmv on a “do nothing” path, and so the climate response would be higher than a doubling of CO2. 6 C is not totally unreasonable.
Of course, in “projection talk” 2100 seems to be the end of the world, but there is nothing to stop CO2 and temperature from rising after 2100 either. The simple fact is that more CO2 will go up if we do nothing, and that will mean temperature rise. Getting a reasonable climate sensitivity out of today is very tricky, on several grounds. For one thing, aerosols are offsetting a lot of greenhouse warming, and although we know they have a strong negative effect, there is a lot of uncertainty. We also know that the climate is not at a 380 ppmv-like temperature, since it must take some decades to respond. IF you simply use the logarithmic relationship from 280 to 380 then you’re assuming that all the 280 to 380 temperature rise has occurred.
Barrington // March 14, 2008 at 4:55 am
Barton Paul Levenson:
I’m told Global temperatures are currently running below even the low end of the model projections from the 1992 IPCC report - even after correcting for the Southern Oscillation effects. Where do you go for reliable projections or predictions of Global Temperatures ?
Bill Bodell // March 14, 2008 at 5:07 am
Chris,
This is a good point. You say that “We also know that the climate is not at a 380 ppmv-like temperature since it must take some decades to respond”. That’s exactly the point. We haven’t SEEN it. That means, to me, that it isn’t KNOWN. So, to me, that doesn’t seem like “settled science”. I am not saying that there may not be good theories that predict a delayed impact that may result in excessive warming. If it cost nothing to prevent the possibility, I’d be all for drastically curbing CO2 emissions on the chance these theories were correct. But I believe the costs are very large and the potential benefits are small.
The best “mind experiment” that I’ve seen on this (I believe it is from ClimateSkeptic) is the following: In 1900 there was a very real fear of an invasion from Mars (and I am NOT equating AGW with Mars Attacks!, just try to put yourself in that mindset, difficult though it may be). One choice may have been to divert GNP growth for the purposes on building defenses against an invasion from Mars, just in case. So, say we had as much economic growth by 2020 as we’d actually achieved in 1960. Another choice may have been to wait, do nothing, and keep studying the issue. Let’s say that in 2010 we become convinced that the threat is real and undeniable. Should it turn out that Mars actually attacks in 2020, imagine the difference in our ability to defend ourselves using 1960 weapons in the first case and 2010 weapons in the second. In short, economic growth is, in many ways, our best defense against the unknown.
Bob North // March 14, 2008 at 7:05 am
to all - What are the current estimates for the “lag time” for full climatic response to a change in CO2 concentrations. Above, Mr. Colose suggests that the lag time must be on the order of decades (I presume to the thermal capacity of the ocean), yet that seems excessively long to me since we know that climatic response is very quick for certain other forcings such as seasonal changes in solar input or forcings from volcanic eruptions, which come and go within a year or two. Why is therebelieved to be such a greater lag time for GHG increases than these other forcing mechanisms?
regards,
Bob North
Barton Paul Levenson // March 14, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Bill Bodell writes:
[[I believe the Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 (from 280 to 560) to be between .5 and 1.5 C. ]]
You get 1.2 K from CO2 alone by the radiative effects.