Roger Pielke Jr. linked to an old post today. In February 2009 he made these comments.
The political consensus surrounding climate policy is collapsing. If you are not aware of this fact you will be very soon.
…
The current shrillness that has been put on display by many politically-active climate scientists and the feeding-frenzy among their skeptical political opposition can be explained as a result of this looming collapse, though many will confuse the shrillness and feeding-frenzy as a cause of the collapse.
…
The climate scientists (and their willing allies) have taken their battle to the arenas of politics, waging a scorched earth campaign of bullying, name calling, threats, and obnoxiously absurd appeals to authority. The skeptics participate in similar fashion, and the result is an all out brawl that we see escalating still before our eyes.
The Australian installment of that debate was a five-part essay by Clive Hamilton published by the ABCs The Drum. This week, for some balance, The Drum is publishing some climate change sceptics. Yesterday Alan Moran was on and today Tom Switzer had the honours.
This is not good enough for Crikey’s Bernard Keane. It seems that Alan and Tom are not climate scientists; although neither is Hamilton so I don’t know how far that line takes us.
Spare a thought for Keane though – he had the task of writing something to a tight deadline. So he went for the fisk. That probably explains the broken links (this is the link you want) and vague and breathless references to peer-reviewed literature. Like the peer-review process itself hasn’t been damaged by this whole scandal.
The biggest problem with the Crikey story is that Keane clearly didn’t follow the breaking news out of the UK. He claims
Peer-reviewed evidence shows no noteworthy impact of factors such as urban warming, and NASA adjusts its data to remove any impact anyway – although a large minority of readings show urban records are cooler than rural records because many monitoring units are located in parks.
This is how Fred Pearce at the Guardian reports some Phil Jones testimony.
Nobody asked if, as claimed by British climate sceptic Doug Keenan, he had for two decades suppressed evidence of the unreliability of key temperature data from China.
But for the first time he did concede publicly that when he tried to repeat the 1990 study in 2008, he came up with radically different findings. Or, as he put it, “a slightly different conclusion”. Fully 40% of warming there in the past 60 years was due to urban influences. “It’s something we need to consider,” he said.
I wonder if that paper is going to appear in a peer-reviewed journal anytime soon. To be fair to Jones, I would like to see the actual transcript on that question.
Keane raises, again, the issue of Jones’ BBC interview and whether or not there has been statistically significant warming since 1995. My take on that question is here, here and here. There may be more coming on that front soon. I haven’t been able to track down a paper but I have seen reports on this
Professor Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University in England, looked at the same data as the IPCC and found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills findings are to be published in Climatic Change, a peer-reviewed environmental journal.
In a paper published in the Journal of Data Science Terry Mills concludes
Indeed, examining much longer records of temperature reconstructions from proxy data reveals a very different picture of climate change than just focusing on the last 150 years or so of temperature observations, with several historical epochs experiencing temperatures at least as warm as those being encountered today: see, for example, Mills (2004, 2007b) for trend modelling of long-run temperature reconstructions. At the very least, proponents of continuing global warming and climate change would perhaps be wise not to make the recent warming trend in recorded temperatures a central plank in their argument.
I should point out that Mills is not a climate scientist either, he is an econometrician and author of magnificent book on modelling time series. It might be a bit hard claiming that he doesn’t understand first year stats.
What I don’t understand is why the AGW lobby pursue this kind of tactic.
a scorched earth campaign of bullying, name calling, threats, and obnoxiously absurd appeals to authority
It clearly isn’t working for them.
Update: The Australian debate is at stage two.
Cartoon by Josh.
I note that Terry Mills had an article in Climate Change with this abstract (published on line in late 2008, but in paper in 2009):
This paper examines the robustness of the long-run, cointegrating, relationship between global temperatures and radiative forcing. It is found that the temperature sensitivity to a doubling of radiative forcing is of the order of 2 ± 1?C.
This result is robust across the sample period of 1850 to 2000, thus providing further confirmation of the quantitative impact of radiative forcing and, in particular, CO2 forcing, on temperatures.
Doesn’t sound like wildly damaging stuff to AGW to me…
http://www.springerlink.com/content/4l71047t3175826h/
steve from brisbane
2 Mar 10 at 7:52 pm
Steve, I can send you a copy if you like.
Sinclair Davidson
2 Mar 10 at 8:41 pm
I noticed it too, post COP15 debacle and post-Climategate, and I’m actually surprised that the warm earthers did so quickly return to their customary “scorched earth campaign of bullying, name calling, threats, and obnoxiously absurd appeals to authority.” I thought that basic PR – even of the ludicrously obvious Rudd/Beattie mea culpa variety – would dictate a more nuanced, more (faux)-civilised approach. A certain unmentionable economics professor who blogs in Australia joined the livid Luddite lemmings with his recently re-postulated thesis about evil conservatives promoting thought crimes. It seems they simply know no other m.o.
C.L.
2 Mar 10 at 8:53 pm
Yes. Somebody sat down and worked out every combination of time period to find one, the most latest, that doesn’t have a statistically significant warming trend at the 95 percent level and then asked Phil Jones the question. Would you imagine, he just ‘yes’ to that falling right into the evil denialists trap. {sarcastic}. Mind you, Phil Jones might be in a spot of trouble if the allegation in this post is correct.
Sinclair Davidson
2 Mar 10 at 9:02 pm
Sinclair, your slip is showing.
Try to put your emotional attachment to delusion aside.
JM
2 Mar 10 at 9:33 pm
What is he being delusional, Mr. Lysenko?
JC
2 Mar 10 at 9:34 pm
JC, I’m the one defending conventional science here, no Lysenkoism in my corner.
JM
2 Mar 10 at 9:46 pm
JM – whle there are good arguments on both sides, the casual arrogance of the AGW lobby really annoys. Talk about de haut en bas – they think everybody else is stupid.
Sinclair Davidson
2 Mar 10 at 9:47 pm
Lysenko also said he was defending “conventional” science too, JM.
I’ll ask again. What is he being delusional about, Mr Lysenko?
JC
2 Mar 10 at 9:48 pm
I’m the one defending conventional science here, no Lysenkoism in my corner.
.
Well that’s true, since you’re not a climate researcher. So, absolutely there’s no Lysenkoism in “your” corner.
But climate science is rotten, JM. It needs to be expunged. The longer everyone keeps defending it, the worse the damage to the rest of science.
daddy dave
2 Mar 10 at 10:00 pm
Dad’s:
Sinc wrote an interesting piece about the latest goings on in science’s equivalent of the World Wrestling federation.
Jm says he’s being delusional without offering any reason why.
Perhaps Lysenko is the apt description instead of saying there’s no lysenkian is JM’s corner when his swimming in it.
JC
2 Mar 10 at 10:08 pm
Sinclair there are not good arguments on both sides.
The denialist side has a lot of nonsense that has been repeatedly debunked, and yet it continues to be spread by a bunch of loons and crazies.
People who don’t have a background in the underlying science are then very confused and raise what look like prima facie reasonable objections.
But those objections are garbage. They have been refuted and debunked many times. By people who know what they’re talking about.
On the other hand accepting them would require a wholesale rewrite of the corpus of the physical sciences going back at least 150 years and possibly longer.
You accuse me of casual arrogance? Well yeah, I’ll cop to that, everything except “casual”. There’s nothing casual about my participation here.
I’m getting sick of hearing the same rubbish again and again no matter how many times it is refuted. The denialist blogosphere for example is a cesspit of innuendo and irrationality (There’s some guy over on JoNo’s site who just denied the reality of nuclear fusion – as existent in the sun and H-bombs – for example.)
My contributions to this so-called debate are very small, but it is telling that a layperson like myself can spot this shite and knock it on the head from a mile off.
I don’t do this for fun, I only do it because I think it is a very important issue and urge, absolutely urge the political and economic professionals who frequent this place to stop rubbishing other professionals who know the science far better than you do and trying to substitute your own delusion “folk science”.*
And engage in the real debate. Which is the response.
What do we do about it.
* Just on this point. What would you say to me – a person without any education in economics – if I raised repeatedly false and mistaken objections to your views on Say’s Law?
JM
2 Mar 10 at 10:10 pm
JM:
What is delusional about this thread?
JC
2 Mar 10 at 10:18 pm
Obscurantism defined:
“…there are not good arguments on both sides.”
C.L.
2 Mar 10 at 10:26 pm
On the other hand accepting them would require a wholesale rewrite of the corpus of the physical sciences going back at least 150 years and possibly longer.
.
Thats incorrect. It’s just spin.
If it was true, then we wouldn’t need the temperature record, ice extent measurements, or any of the other ongoing data that contributes to the “science.” We’d derive global warming as a necessary result from first principles.
If AGW is debunked, the rest of science will keep going just fine.
daddy dave
2 Mar 10 at 10:33 pm
You can question the recent warming as AGW and accept greenhouse theory at the same time JM.
I do.
Semi Regular Libertarian
2 Mar 10 at 10:39 pm
The treatment of Lomborg years ago was enough to signal that the scientific fear mongers were prepared to get in the gutter to resist and debunk work that challenges their prejudices. Now we are just getting to find out a whole lot more more about the gutter politics of science and the tarnished image of science will be very hard to repair.
Rafe
2 Mar 10 at 10:40 pm
JC:
JM is a good dude. If I had to guess, I’d say he’s a talented, successful, hard working scientist in pure physics. Probably astronomy.
.
JM is coloured by his own experience as they say. He’s seen the good side of science. However, he has little experience of the following:
* labs that deal with huge, messy, noisy data sets (no sorry JM, solar radiation doesn’t count) with multiple sources of noise and error
* research labs dealing with heavily politicised topics
* research areas that attract activist personalities rather than geeks
* fields that rely heavily on iterative simulation
* scientific corruption
* data manipulation
If he did, he wouldn’t be donning his armour and sword and rushing onto the battlefield with such gusto.
daddy dave
2 Mar 10 at 10:43 pm
I think science is fine. I’m not sure if we can extend the tarnished image of climate science to other areas of science.
The reason climate science has been brought to so much disrepute is that a number of these so- called scientists are no longer scientists at all but have instead crossed the Rubicon into advocacy.
The climategate scandal the IPCC issues, the IPCC chairman basically being a crook. These aren’t doing this area of science any good.
JC
2 Mar 10 at 10:45 pm
The warming cult’s best known salesmen are not any kind of scientists.
Gore (failed divinity student)
Dr Patch (railwayman, porn novelist, embezzler)
Flannery (pebble fancier and petrified poo specialist)
Etc.
C.L.
2 Mar 10 at 10:50 pm
Dave: We’d derive global warming as a necessary result from first principles.
That’s exactly what the radiative physics part of my argument does (when combined with thermodynamics)
It says – from first principles, provided you accept radiative physics (20thC) and thermodynamics (19thC) – that if you increase the concentration of GHG’s in the earth’s atmosphere that the earth will warm
There’s no dispute about this at all. And disputing it requires a rewrite of 19thC and 20thC physics.
Climate science then deals with what happens to the extra heat. Does it melt long term ice? Does it increase cloud cover?
That’s the only place where there is any genuine scientific debate of any kind.
And the preponderance of evidence is that the atmosphere warms, ice melts and we have a real frigging problem.
JM
2 Mar 10 at 11:45 pm
JM
As Richard lindzen said, We’re dealing with such minute incremental changes in global temps that it is virtually impossible to ascertain where this small amount of heat is coming from.
The physics is pretty well understand and despite the alchemists… er sorry the alarmists protestations people like Monckton do pay heed to the physics.
However in multi-variable universe such as the atmosphere it would be virtually impossible to account for the entire envelope when it such a tiny difference.
The best argument for mitigation is that there is the broad physics that would lend support to slow and uneconomically un-damaging action.
The temp increase doesn’t really offer a good argument at all.
JC
2 Mar 10 at 11:58 pm
oops economically
JC
2 Mar 10 at 11:59 pm
They had a “real frigging problem” with warmth several centuries ago and it doesn’t seem to have made much difference. Modern warmenism is mostly hysteria from Luddites who hate modernity and/or love Mother Earth with varying degrees of intensity.
Over at JoNova’s, is that an actual drawing of Tim?
Lambert, victim of his own spin?
C.L.
3 Mar 10 at 12:03 am
I can’t believe he tried that shit on. So freaking brazen it it’s amazing.
JC
3 Mar 10 at 12:11 am
Jo also nails the issue of the new warmenist PR campaign designed to tell the public that they – “scientists” – have examined Climategate (you know, as scientists) and found there’s nothing to see here.
Good post that one, too.
C.L.
3 Mar 10 at 12:15 am
Former CRU chief: Hiding data is a critical part of science!
C.L.
3 Mar 10 at 4:20 am
JM nails it and this is why I’m not a sceptic.
The physical chemistry has been pretty much well established from the 19th Century onwards. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and anyone who disputes this is welcome to win the next Nobel prize in Physics. The next step in the argument is that we’ve added to the stock of CO2 substantially.
The rest are details to do with what happens to the excess heat that this CO2 traps and what the net effects of it are and this is where the small details matter.
Jason Soon
3 Mar 10 at 8:02 am
JM – to be sure, not all the arguments are good, and that is not what I said, but there are good arguments on both sides of this debate (for example, see Jason’s comment immediately above and that is before we get to philosophical and economic arguments). I urge you to stop rubbishing the intelligence of people who don’t agree with you.
Sinclair Davidson
3 Mar 10 at 8:17 am
Popular weatherman John Coleman ran this program on global warming which prompted Scripps to issue this statement
My money is on Scripps
rog
3 Mar 10 at 9:02 am
C’mon Sinclair, be fair – urge CL et al to do the same
rog
3 Mar 10 at 9:02 am
You try
Sinclair Davidson
3 Mar 10 at 9:08 am
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and anyone who disputes this is welcome to win the next Nobel prize in Physics.
.
nobody is disputing that.
.
The next step in the argument is that we’ve added to the stock of CO2 substantially.
.
Nobody is disputing that either. Although, your characterisation of CO2 as “stock” is a clue as to where the thinking might then go awry.
Since you and JM are telling us facts that everybody agrees on, including skeptics, I can only conclude that you don’t understand the skeptical case.
daddy dave
3 Mar 10 at 9:19 am
Jason, you might still be a ‘skeptic’ in the sense that the alarmists use the word.
Lindzen, Michaels, Lomborg and Pielke Jnr accept what you accept but are regularly called skeptics.
As to the impact of AGW exaggeration on science it’s worth noting that mainstream science has regularly been wrong and changed. Tectonic plates, Quantum Mechanics, regrowth of neurons, thalidomide, many ulcers being caused by infections. C02 emissions not greatly affecting global mean temperatures would have little impact on most of science.
Karl Kessel
3 Mar 10 at 9:19 am
“Jason, you might still be a ’skeptic’ in the sense that the alarmists use the word”
Indeed – the term and it’s more extreme variants has long lost meaning and has become a term of abuse for anyone on the other side.
It’s interesting the abuse Lomborg cops – though on all (I think) the issues he has gone on about he accepts the mainstream view of the science. My criticism of him is that he recommends a very large state financed research project for alternative energies.
ken n
3 Mar 10 at 9:44 am
Well not quite, there is also a question of how much extra heat, additional water vapour , aerosols, or clouds etc.
I do think the certainty in the estimates of the magintude of warming has been overstated. The case I think should always have been one made in terms of risk in my opinion.
Steve Edney
3 Mar 10 at 9:45 am
bugga – stray apostrophe “its”
ken n
3 Mar 10 at 9:45 am
Why stray? It’s = It is?
[I didn't do English grammar at school, so this is a genuine question]
Sinclair Davidson
3 Mar 10 at 9:49 am
Doesn’t sound like wildly damaging stuff to AGW to me…
Wonderful, isn’t it? Steve from B believes an estimate, 2 ± 1?C, that puts climate sensitivity right at the bottom of the canonical IPCC error range, 2-4.5 C, and a full 1 C below its standard figure of 3 C, is not “wildly damaging stuff”. It is certainly “damaging” to catastrophic AGW and its boosters. within climate science.
JC, I’m the one defending conventional science here, no Lysenkoism in my corner.
JM, have you been reading the reports to the UK Parliamentary Committee hearings on climategate by the Royal Statistical Society, Institute of Physics, and the Royal Society of Chemistry? I don’t think they think the scientific goings-on in climate science are by any means conventional.
JM nails it and this is why I’m not a sceptic.
The physical chemistry has been pretty much well established from the 19th Century onwards. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and anyone who disputes this is welcome to win the next Nobel prize in Physics. The next step in the argument is that we’ve added to the stock of CO2 substantially.
The rest are details to do with what happens to the excess heat that this CO2 traps and what the net effects of it are and this is where the small details matter.
The problem with this argument is that climate science isn’t physical chemistry. The climate scientists can be wrong without the physical chemistry being wrong; in other words, physical chemistry does not exhaust the field of climate science. And it is no small detail determining the relationship of GHGs to climate or of clouds to climate, and so on; that is precisely what distinguishes climate science from physical chemistry, etc. If, anyway, you want to pretend that climate science is just physical chemistry than we know purely from the physical chemistry that a doubling of CO2 would increase temp by 1.2 C and no more. If you are going to pig-back more warming on to this then you are going to need more than physical chemistry.
dover_beach
3 Mar 10 at 9:50 am
If, anyway, you want to pretend that climate science is just physical chemistry than we know purely from the physical chemistry that a doubling of CO2 would increase temp by 1.2 C and no more. If you are going to pig-back more warming on to this then you are going to need more than physical chemistry.
.
Smackdown by Dover Beach.
daddy dave
3 Mar 10 at 10:04 am
I meant the first “it’s” Sinc – possessive.
Dunno why stray apostrophes bother me – I’m not usually a language/punctuation pedant.
Tho I do have a problem with “ultimate”. I heard an ad the other day about the “ultimate potato chip” meaning, I assume, the one that gets stuck in your throat and chokes you.
ken n
3 Mar 10 at 10:06 am
ken – yes.
Sinclair Davidson
3 Mar 10 at 10:32 am
Rog was right to describe warmenists as “the contemptible CO2 rabble.”
Hear hear, Rog!
C.L.
3 Mar 10 at 12:28 pm
Great point here by Rog. The industrial revolution was really focused in northern Europe.
Hi Geoff
The facility is called ICELAB and ANSTO did some work on the cores rvealing CO2 changes over the years.
Not sure about the industrial revolution link as it shows a decrease to 1600 then back to the median ~1800 followed by a rapid increase to now.
The industrial revolution was confined to Europe and the US, rest of world remained agrarian.
The first Industrial revolution was around 1750-1830 and the second wave when they started burning coal for steam for power generation.
http://www.ansto.gov.au/nugeo/ams/ams_ngacbroc5P.pdf
Posted by: rog at October 4, 2005 03:30 PM
Another result from studying ice cores;
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/News_and_Information/Press_Releases/story.php?id=99
JC
3 Mar 10 at 12:32 pm
It had to come. Someone had to tie whaling to agw.
A century of commercial whaling has released around 100 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — that’s equivalent to burning more than 50,000 square miles of temperate forest or 128,000 large sport-utility vehicles driving for 100 years.
Those are the findings of a study by U.S. scientists from the Gulf of Maine Research Institute unveiled by Andrew Pershing from the University of Maine at the Ocean Sciences meeting this week…
When a whale dies of natural causes, its body sinks to the seabed, transporting the carbon stored in it to the deep sea, away from the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Harpooning one, however, can release the carbon directly into the atmosphere, thus intensifying climate change…
Whales, which Pershing says are the “forests of the ocean,” store carbon in their bodes and the gas can be released when they are killed.
JC
3 Mar 10 at 12:35 pm
You know, one of the most creative ideas for bringing people together was put forward by rog. He thought the whale-watching and whale-slaughtering fraternities should join forces:
“It is quite possible to admire an animal before and whilst it is being killed. In fact, in a perfect world that is how it should be.”
C.L.
3 Mar 10 at 12:40 pm
So why the fuck can’t we have iron seeding?
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Mar 10 at 12:43 pm
Really? hahahahahahhaha So he thinks you’d want to go whale watching while someone is harpooning the blubber.
Yea, right Rog. Good marketing idea. Love to see the ad pics with all the blood in the water. That would sure get Daisey and Malcolm from Northern California out on a boat for your version of “whale watching”.
You idiot.
JC
3 Mar 10 at 12:45 pm
It says – from first principles, provided you accept radiative physics (20thC) and thermodynamics (19thC) – that if you increase the concentration of GHG’s in the earth’s atmosphere that the earth will warm.
If only they’d known this in the medieval warm period. They could have set up an Oxen Flatulence Trading Scheme and saved the planet from drowning. Alas – as we all know – there’s now only a few “breeding pairs” left. We really can’t afford for Penny Wong to be a lesbian.
C.L.
3 Mar 10 at 12:52 pm
JC, the resident hypocondriac (ooh, my finger hurt), excels in blubbering.
rog
3 Mar 10 at 1:16 pm
Rog:
Stop trying to re-frame. Please explain you business plan of combining whale watching with whale harpooning as frankly I just don’t see it.
Just pretend we’re all private equity dudes and you’ve walked in off the street pitching the idea of harpooning and tourism as frankly I don’t get it.
Pitch it to us , Rog.
JC
3 Mar 10 at 1:22 pm
The ultimate in game fishing!
Join the Daimaru ultimate game fishing expedition to the South Seas, all trips are guaranteed at least one enormous sustainably fishable* whale. First admire the vast beasts and read Moby Dick.
Also the tour may include some mock naval combat with fundamentalists. Water cannon can be sprayed by all on tour.
*certified by Tim Flannery
Karl Kessel
3 Mar 10 at 1:32 pm
You’re being narrow, JC. I think the whale watching/slaughtering combo could really work.
Picture the arc:
You boat around a friendly whale – oohing and ahhing at the majesty of these gentle giants of the ocean. Then come the Japs – ‘boo’, ‘hiss’, hahaha – and the thwack of harpoon hitting our formerly cavorting old friend. From a discreet distance, we watch the blubber men carve out the whale steaks and all the other saleable parts of this highly useful creature. Nothing goes to waste – which all the recycling-conscious viewers could respect. Later, picture this: fresh blubber burgers and whale steaks.
Slogan: “You’ve seen the whale, now eat the whale!”
Rog’s plan could work.
C.L.
3 Mar 10 at 1:33 pm
Actually when you put it like that, Cl. Rog is now starting to look like entrepreneurial genius.
He could also take a leaf from some of the Chinese restaurants where you can choose your own fish to eat.
Instead of the fish in a tank it will be the Japanese harpooning a whale of your choice for breakie.
Rog, you’re a business genius.
JC
3 Mar 10 at 1:40 pm
Once there was a book and film about rabbits called “Watership Down” Someone opened a restaurant under the same name using the selling proposition:
“Read the book, see the movie, eat the stew.”
Same idea really, rog.
ken n
3 Mar 10 at 2:52 pm
Rog, owned the restaurant. Tell Ken, Rog.
JC
3 Mar 10 at 2:53 pm
Whales the “forests of the ocean,” say warmenists!
C.L.
3 Mar 10 at 3:04 pm
I’m glad that you are recognising talent in Rog, JC.
I’ve been thinking for a while that we should do more to honour those who help sharpen our thoughts by taking different views to most of us here.
At many blogs – especially the leftward leaning ones for some reason – intruders who challenge anything said by the blogmaster are chewed up, spat out, stomped on and chased away. In some the blogmaster does this himself (it is always a male) in others he has a team of acolytes to do the really rough stuff.
As a result there are few regular dissenters at such sites.
By contrast, we have quite several who return again an again to give us something to practice our skills on.
We should honour them.
I suggest a “Be kind to the Cockamamists Day” (I’ve coined that term. Much nicer that denialist or delusionist or any of the other terms used on the lefty sites) once a month.
We can say things like “Is that so, Homer?” “How insightful, Rog”. Well, maybe not a whole day but an hour of two should be possible.
And we can have an award for the Cockamamist of the Month.
Whoever has been most consistent in their arguments and has provided the most amusement to the rest of us. For the following month we could give them a special logo that would appear with their comments.
Do I have a seconder?
ken n
3 Mar 10 at 3:21 pm
The spam filter eats comments like that.
Sinclair Davidson
3 Mar 10 at 3:25 pm
Spam filters can be changed, Sinc.
Well, for one hour a month.
ken n
3 Mar 10 at 3:30 pm
“pretend we’re all private equity dudes”
Now you are really stretching it
rog
3 Mar 10 at 3:36 pm
Yeah DB, I’m supposed to worry that AGW is nothing to worry about because one statistician comes up with an estimate of climate sensitivity at the lower end of the IPCC estimate, but with a range that is still mostly overlapping with the IPCC’s?
steve from brisbane
3 Mar 10 at 8:05 pm
Yeah DB, I’m supposed to worry that AGW is nothing to worry about because one statistician comes up with an estimate of climate sensitivity at the lower end of the IPCC estimate, but with a range that is still mostly overlapping with the IPCC’s?
If it was any lower it would have fallen outside the error range, Steve? BTW, 2 C is nothing to worry about; it certainly isn’t “catastrophic” but then there is no pleasing some people.
dover_beach
3 Mar 10 at 8:19 pm
Correction: sub . for ?
dover_beach
3 Mar 10 at 8:19 pm
Karl: C02 emissions not greatly affecting global mean temperatures would have little impact on most of science.
Karl, this would have dramatic effects – all bad – on nearly all of the physical sciences.
Let’s take several possible meanings for this statement, ie. what would happen if it were true:-
1. That CO2 doesn’t absorb and re-emit in the infra-red.
This is the big one. If CO2 doesn’t do this all experiments and measurements showing that it does are wrong and need an alternative explanation.
That alternative explanation requires junking quantum physics, atomic physics, nuclear bombs, semiconductors, silicon lamps over freeways (they’re the old yellow ones), flourescent tubes. Everything would go.
2. That CO2 is not increasing and has not increased since pre-industrial times.
This also bad. It means all the measurements showing a man-made increase in CO2 of about 40% over the last 100 odd years and will have to be reevaluated.
Also we’d have to explain why the instruments that measure CO2 – such as spectroscopic methods – are wrong. Guess what? That requires the same rejection of radiative physics (quantum physics, atomic physics etc) and replacement with something else.
3. That the earth has not warmed.
This requires that we reject the notion that thermometers measure temperature and they’ve been fooling us all this time. I don’t know what alternative hypothesis you could have – Phlogiston perhaps? The magical fluid of “heat”?
4. That the radiative balance argument – which despite containing the word ‘radiative’ is actually thermodynamically based – is wrong.
This requires rejection of thermodynamics, heat engines and so on. Which means we have to give up our understanding of steam engines, internal combustion engines, fiberglass insulation, etc, etc
None of these things are at all likely.
And yet denialists trot out arguments that lead directly to those conclusions time and again, and because they have no background in the sciences don’t understand the stupidity and impossibility of what they’re saying.
Both Jason and Steve Edney summarized the point very well.
a. The above is irrefutable.
b. There’s some uncertainty in the magnitude and the details but here’s the important bit:- there are reasonable estimates, not always great, but reasonable and defensible – for the magnitude of those effects.
ie. we have a pretty good idea of where the extra heat goes and the “work” (in the technical sense) its doing.
The earth is getting warmer and the climate is changing.
A paper that nails another bit of detail down more tightly is not going to change the basics. And all the shouting and screaming from the loons and crazies in the peanut gallery isn’t going to amount to a hill of beans in the end.
Unless they succeed in preventing a sensible response by screwing up the politics.
Then they can have the (bitter) satisfaction of knowing how badly they stuffed up.
JM
3 Mar 10 at 9:47 pm
“Both Jason and Steve Edney summarized the point very well.”
That’s true. Jason mentioned the physical experiments in the 19th century that pretty well explains what happens in a lab and in isolation the warming effect it would have in the atmosphere.
Before the debate I never knew that Monckton for instance essentially agrees with this too. He agrees there has been warming and fully accepts the 19th century experiments. However one could never hear what he said because of the loud noise in the background.
However he makes a pretty compelling case that the logarithmic rate of C02 doubling is nowhere near as high as that IPCC suggested and gave the reasons why. It’s pretty damn shocking that the guy gets called all sorts of names is abused to kingdom come because he seem to think the rate of change per extra unit of C02 is not as effective a heating agent as what other say.
I also agree with him that in that context “da” science is far from settled. Have you listened to the Lambert/Moncton debate? You have to ignore the Pinker part though as Lambert basically lied and misrepresented Pinker and she was not the voice of the tape. It was someone else on the tape although Shiny never alerted the audience to that fact.
That aside Monctkon suggests that the Co2 effect is around 1/7 the estimate given by the IPCC. If he’s correct then the century warming that takes place is around .7 degrees extra rather than the IPCC 2 to 6 degrees.
This now brings us back to this point you make:
Unless they succeed in preventing a sensible response by screwing up the politics.
Please specify your response to this.
JC
3 Mar 10 at 10:14 pm
JC, if Monckton is going to suggest that Climate Sensitivity is only 0.7 degrees per doubling of CO2 he should do the hard yards and produce a defensible and justifiable estimate and get it at least peer-reviewed.
Climate scientists aren’t obliged to agree with him, but if he can meet the minimum professional standard he could get published.
He’s not capable of it. So he just makes a lot of noise instead.
My response? I thought that was obvious, we have to get off a fossil fuel based economy. (We have to do that anyway in the case of oil at some point.)
Doing that is not just a technical fix, there has to be some political action to enable or encourage the transition.
JM
3 Mar 10 at 10:45 pm
JC, if Monckton is going to suggest that Climate Sensitivity is only 0.7 degrees per doubling of CO2 he should do the hard yards and produce a defensible and justifiable estimate and get it at least peer-reviewed.
He did, JM. He stated his calculations and also referenced several papers in support.
Climate scientists aren’t obliged to agree with him, but if he can meet the minimum professional standard he could get published.
I don’t think he needed to as he quoted from several sources and various peer reviewed papers.
He’s not capable of it. So he just makes a lot of noise instead.
I’m not sure of that after seeing him in the debate. Have you seen it? It’s not the Sydney morning Herald site and it’s warmers friendly, as Lambert there, so you don’t have to wear a silver cross.
My response? I thought that was obvious, we have to get off a fossil fuel based economy. (We have to do that anyway in the case of oil at some point.)
details please and now generalized bullshit. Explain your plan.
Doing that is not just a technical fix, there has to be some political action to enable or encourage the transition.
Again details please. No slogans bullshit either.
JC
3 Mar 10 at 10:58 pm
Sorry… should proof read.
JC
3 Mar 10 at 11:06 pm
JM
Monckton is not a scientist but a aggregator of other people’s theories who is able to put those views in a way that the general public can understand.
I think you’re trying to criticize and apply double standards here. Gore isn’t a scientist either but a simple failed politician and drop-out divinity student.
Doc. Pach is an outright crook.
The point I’m making is that you should look at arguments at their face value not who is behind them.
JC
3 Mar 10 at 11:11 pm
He stated his calculations
If you’re referring to the stuff in his letter to Rudd his calculations are wrong.
and also referenced several papers in support.
Just referencing puts him in the same category as me – an amateur commenter. It doesn’t make him an authority.
Explain your plan.
As I said, economics and politics are not my strong points. What is efficient and possible is for others.
As a voter, an ETS sounds like the best and most practical option of those available – I said that the other day. But I’m open to persuasion, particularly by people better able to judge.
My point is that those others should stick to their knitting, accept the science and stop disparaging the professionals.
Have I ever rubbished your trading decisions?
JM
3 Mar 10 at 11:29 pm
I’m not sure about his calcs in a letter to Rudd as I don’t know anything about the letter. I’m simply referring the the debate.
I agree it doesn’t make him an authority, however it doesn’t make Gore any sort of authority and Doc Pach the former railway engineer and soft porn novelist seems like he ought to be in jail.
I can’t help but feel there a lots of opportunists in this thing.
Do you accept though Monctkon does not deny warming and that he’s basically in the camp that thinks the degree of warming is not as bad as made out? This doesn’t make him any sort of “denialist”, seeing that side of things is not settled.
Here’s an IPA conference that is actually worth listening to where they had Richard Tol on the conference line basically pointing out that the vast bulk of predictive literature about AGW going out 100 odd years suggests a warming of 2 degrees with a doubling of CO2.
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1751/how-much-emission-reduction-would-be-justified-
He’s really worth listening to.
This doesn’t sound like its the end of the world as we know it.
My point is that those others should stick to their knitting, accept the science and stop disparaging the professionals.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that, JM. There are more than a few uppity scientists that have now ventured into the territory of advocacy. They ought to know their place, which is to give us untainted, honest facts and that let the professionals on the economics side figure it out. The moment these idiots venture into the advocacy area is when they become legitimate targets as they have little understanding of the world beyond their own narrow confines and are more likely to pollute the discussion than help it along. How about scientists actually behaving and sometimes saying they don’t have the answers in terms of how the world ought to organize itself? Hansen is talking about jailing people that disagree with him. Gore is putting it in a moral context.
I look at emissions and see it as a form of success in the sense that previously dirt poor countries now have a decent bulk of their population climbing out of grinding poverty.
The emissions problem isn’t difficult to solve over the next 30 odd years if we embrace technology (nuclear) and simply move ahead with it. Nuclear could eventually produce energy cheaper than coal if we don’t try and damage its re-introduction and allow economies of scale to do its work.
Have I ever rubbished your trading decisions?
You can any time you like. I really don’t have an issue with that sort of thing.
Look JM, I think we should try to move away from carbon-based power if only because it could be a threat longer term. However the way to do that is to find ways that produce energy at cheaper rates than coal and to be frank the only energy form that would provide that in large scale is nuclear. We don’t have a problem if we don’t allow trogs and anti-science types to hobble the re-introduction of nuclear energy.
JC
3 Mar 10 at 11:59 pm
Fme. God must have really had in for this dude.
Has an accident,then while waiting for assistance takes a slash and gets electrocuted
Authorities believe a Washington man was killed by accidentally urinating on a downed power line after a car crash.
Grays Harbor County sheriff’s Deputy Dave Pimentel said Monday 50-year-old Roy Messenger was not seriously hurt after he collided with a power pole Friday and called a relative to pull his car from a ditch.
However, family members found Messenger electrocuted when they arrived.
Pimentel says Messenger apparently urinated into a roadside ditch but didn’t see the live wire. The urine stream likely served as a conductor, allowing the electricity to reach his body.
Pimentel says there will be an autopsy but burn marks indicated the way the electricity traveled through Messenger’s body.
Messenger is a very apt name.
I always wondered what would happen and now I know.
JC
4 Mar 10 at 12:08 am
Sorry wrong thread.
JC
4 Mar 10 at 12:08 am
JC, I’ll have to get back to you later as I’ve got something important on t/row.
But from listening to the debate my impression is that Monckton is indulging in a tactic borrowed from creationists called the Goss Gliss (after a US creationist who uses it a lot)
Throw out a lot of technical jargon, (largely) unrelated facts and concepts often derived from different fields and disciplines and use them to draw bogus conclusions.
It then becomes so hard for your opponent to even follow your argument that they have virtually chance of refuting even a single phrase of your argument.
They end up sounding knowledgeable and fluent while you sound like a stumbling fool as you try to forensically take apart the one or two points you’ve managed to catch on the way through.
(You must be familiar with this phenomomen – when a trader is bullshitting you they speak faster and throw out all sorts of nonsense that you can’t quite follow.)
I was not impressed by Monckton’s calculation of the logarithmic relationship. Maybe I didn’t hear his values and description correctly, but I think even on his own representation he may have been wrong. (My calculator gives a different result to him.)
In any case, the central point is that he admits that 40 years of CO2 emissions at the current rate will produce 1C of warming.
That implies a Climate Sensitivity of 3C and all the channelling of Magnus Magnussen’s wonderful voice won’t save Monckton from the fact that in that statement he admits the IPCC is right
A further century of Business As Usual will cause around a 2C temperature increase. Which is the IPCC result.
(BTW – I’m surprised you that you are surprised about Monckton’s claims re. the House of Lords when he claims to be a member twice in this debate)
JM
4 Mar 10 at 1:05 am
JM.
==========
Karl: C02 emissions not greatly affecting global mean temperatures would have little impact on most of science.
Karl, this would have dramatic effects – all bad – on nearly all of the physical sciences.
=================
Not at all. The impact of C02 on temperature estimated by Lindzen, Michaels, Spencer and Christy is smaller than that of the IPCC and accepts Quantum Mechanics and so on.
They accept that C02 absorbs radiation. Without any other feedback the scientists mentioned and the IPCC agree you get say, about 1-2 K of feedback.
It’s the positive or negative feedback after that which changes the level of temperature change critically with modelling water vapour. If water vapour feedback is negative then you could have even lower figures.
No effect on the rest of science. I’ve spoken to physicists who have read through AGW warming stuff and put forward this propositon. They don’t want to enter the debate publicly.
Here’s a quick post on this issue:
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/howmuch.htm
Presumably this is why Lambert and Quiggin go after Lindzen, Michaels, Christy and Spencer so much. They are aware they would be correct and have strong arguments.
The measurements stuff, excluding paleoclimatology is over rated. The correlation between the satelite and the surface record is pretty strong, even if the magnitude is different.
Karl Kessel
5 Mar 10 at 10:24 am
[...] March this year I had a post that reported on some forthcoming research into the econometrics of climate change. I haven’t [...]
Shrill Debate: Update at Catallaxy Files
30 Jun 10 at 11:25 pm