Today the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO released a six page document purporting to provide more evidence that climate change is to inflict damage on Australia.
The first four pages show some trends from 1960 to 2009. The fifth page shows trends in global CO2 concentrations (over different periods).
The final page shows a giant leap in logic (or rather, absence of logic) by asserting:
- Australia will be hotter in coming decades;
- much of Australia will be drier in coming decades;
- it is very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming observed since 1950; and
- climate change is real.
I need make only three points. First, past trends are not evidence of the future. Second, correlation is not necessarily causation. And finally, the data just shows that the climate fluctuated between 1960 and 2009. That doesn’t prove that “climate change is real” for all periods.
I am distressed that these two once august institutions are willing to compromise their integrity to push a political point – AGW.
Belief in climate change has been sold to the intelligentsia as the modern version of evolution. That is, it’s been touted as a signature cause of science and reason. It has been touted as, like evolution, something that uneducated and superstitious people reject, but that enlightened people understand. It’s a badge of honour that shows your commitment to science, rejection of superstition, and the enlightenment.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.
daddy dave
15 Mar 10 at 7:57 pm
That’s right DD. But at least evolution is a falsifiable theorem which is backed by evidence.
Samuel J
15 Mar 10 at 8:00 pm
Whenever anyone utters the phrase, “climate change is real,” you know you’re in for a sermon. It isn’t an argument. It’s a declaration of faith. It’s the warm-earthers’ equivalent of the Nicene creed.
Fleeced
15 Mar 10 at 8:08 pm
According to the report I read in the paper, this has all be proved by climate models. How embarrassing.
pedro
15 Mar 10 at 8:37 pm
Dont forget the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO are recieving extra funding from Pennys department for climate change….
Oh sorry I forgot its only evil oil company money that can corrupt the science eh?
Mole
15 Mar 10 at 8:50 pm
Notice also they never talk about the fifty years before 1960 either. Would tend to put a dent in their theory.
entropy
15 Mar 10 at 8:53 pm
These three points are absolutely trite:
First, past trends are not evidence of the future.
No, if you’re only data mining and you have no underlying physical model I’d agree. But we do have a physical model, and trends are evidence that it is correct.
Second, correlation is not necessarily causation.
No, if you’re only data mining certainly not. But if you do have a physical model then correlation is evidence of causation.
And finally, the data just shows that the climate fluctuated between 1960 and 2009.
Ahh, weather fluctuated. Climate is a 30 year period and last time I looked you’ve only got one complete 30 year period inside those 50 years.
JM
15 Mar 10 at 9:35 pm
There’s a reference in the report that states that they can say with 90% certainty that the warming over the last 30 years was caused by GHGs. I would simply like to see the reasoning and evidence behind this claim.
•Australia will be hotter in coming decades;
•much of Australia will be drier in coming decades
At least we can empirically test these two claims. The second claim is a little ambiguous; ‘much’ is too general, and it counters the present trend everywhere except south-east Australia.
dover_beach
15 Mar 10 at 9:58 pm
Ahh, weather fluctuated. Climate is a 30 year period and last time I looked you’ve only got one complete 30 year period inside those 50 years.
Climate has fluctuated over multidecadel timescales in the last century; and it has done so over centennial and millenial timescales over the last three thousand years as well. Nothing about the present warming is in fact unusual.
dover_beach
15 Mar 10 at 10:00 pm
Thank goodness we have the brilliant minds of Catallaxy to show the way
rog
15 Mar 10 at 10:43 pm
But, JM, it is data mining. There is no underlying physical model – only an underlying invention.
Samuel J
15 Mar 10 at 10:52 pm
There is no underlying physical model – only an underlying invention.
What invention?
I’m going to borrow a word here from Sinclair. B*******
Haven’t you been following what I’ve been saying? Are you using a computer? How the hell did you think that got designed and built without an understanding of the atom?
Our understanding of the effects of infra-red on CO2 is built on the very basics of atomic physics.
Prove me wrong.
I double dog dare you.
JM
16 Mar 10 at 1:43 am
JM, its been suggested to you already that radiative physics only gets you 1.2 degrees C per doubling ceteris paribus. So every fraction of a degree C above 1.2 C per doubling relies upon something other than radiative physics.
dover_beach
16 Mar 10 at 8:38 am
“correlation is not necessarily causation”
Wasn’t this formerly basic rule of statistics repealed in the mid-nineties?
whyisitso
16 Mar 10 at 9:19 am
JM, are you saying that the simple increase in CO2 and other GHGs will necessarily lead to an increase in temperature in proportion to the radiative balance changes resulting from the increase in the gases? Is that you claim?
Or are there other elements that impact on the climate effects of the gas increase? In which case, please explain the physics of those other elements or point to where someone has.
Pedro
16 Mar 10 at 6:26 pm
“JM, its been suggested to you already that radiative physics only gets you 1.2 degrees C per doubling ceteris paribus.”
Dover, I thought the effect reduces as the CO2 level increases?
Pedro
16 Mar 10 at 6:27 pm
Dover, I thought the effect reduces as the CO2 level increases?
That’s right, Pedro, but above I’m only talking about the doubling of CO2 since the industrial revolution. The other thing that JM elides is the fact that the canonical figure reported by the IPCC of 3 C per doubling involves not just ‘physics’, i.e. radiative physics, but the use of feedbacks and since we don’t even know the sign of the feedbacks it really is rich having JM strut the floor of this blog crowing that AGW is just simple physics.
dover_beach
16 Mar 10 at 6:50 pm
Pedro: Is that you claim?
Yes.
Or are there other elements that impact on the climate effects of the gas increase?
Yes, but are they negative? Water vapour is a positive feedback. So are most of the others.
If there are negative feedbacks you have to do two things to disprove the AGW case:
(i) identify them
(ii) quantify their effect and show that it outweighs the positive known positive effects.
Until then you got nothing.
JM
16 Mar 10 at 10:08 pm
If there are negative feedbacks you have to do two things to disprove the AGW case:
(i) identify them
(ii) quantify their effect and show that it outweighs the positive known positive effects.
Here is one: clouds.
dover_beach
17 Mar 10 at 10:12 am
Ok Dover, clouds. That’s step 1, identification.
Now try step 2, quantification.
JM
17 Mar 10 at 8:25 pm
If there are negative feedbacks
.
If? You serious?
Let’s flip this around. Why don’t you go on the record as believing that there are no negative feedbacks. Then we can all have a good laugh.
daddy dave
17 Mar 10 at 8:40 pm
Now try step 2, quantification.
I’m supposed to quantify the effect of clouds? We know from the AR4 that cloud albedo can potentially on its own cancel the effect of C02.
dover_beach
17 Mar 10 at 10:40 pm
Dover, are you promoting the Gaia thesis now? That we can keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and the earth’s climate system will automatically balance its effects with increased clouds?
That’s a pretty big claim, particularly since the effect of clouds is very uncertain – apart from increasing albedo they are also water vapour and positively increase the effect of warming.
JM
18 Mar 10 at 6:18 pm
….. they are also water vapour and positively increase the effect of warming.
Not entirely true, JM. Lindzen was presenting arguments from others that high level cirrus clouds act as cooling agents.
In other words there’s a lot of shit we don’t know about clouds and cloud effects to be able to say with any level of confidence what the fuck is going on. That’s why people that say the science is settled are really tugging at their old fella.
By the way, have you looked at the Judith Curry interview. She’s really good. She also makes Mick Mann appear like a really nasty little phony… not that I ever had any doubts.
JC
18 Mar 10 at 6:33 pm
The Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO are not presenting anything that’s new in the world. They are basically regurgitating the same shit that gets peddled around the globe when things don’t look good for the political allies of the debate.
If these two layabout bodies were really fucking serious about climate change they would be arguing for a plan to introduce nuclear energy and debunking the essentially left-wing anti-science shit that get peddled by these trogs.
But they won’t of course, because they were de-balled ages ago and walk around as neutered zombies.
JC
18 Mar 10 at 6:43 pm
Dover, are you promoting the Gaia thesis now? That we can keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and the earth’s climate system will automatically balance its effects with increased clouds?
No, I’m not. So your second paragraph is redundant, as well as being ‘positively’ misleading.
dover_beach
18 Mar 10 at 6:47 pm
Dover it is a very claim to say that increased warming by CO2 leads to increased cloud that exactly balances the warming of CO2.
Particularly when the role of clouds – warming or cooling – is ambiguous.
JM
18 Mar 10 at 7:11 pm
Sorry: “Dover it is a very big claim to say that increased warming by CO2 leads to increased cloud that exactly balances the warming of CO2.”
(Why isn’t there a preview here?)
JM
18 Mar 10 at 7:13 pm
Sorry: “Dover it is a very big claim to say that increased warming by CO2 leads to increased cloud that exactly balances the warming of CO2.”
But I never made that claim. This is what I said:
We know from the AR4 that cloud albedo can potentially on its own cancel the effect of C02.
Emphasis added for your benefit.
dover_beach
19 Mar 10 at 9:06 am
Particularly when the role of clouds – warming or cooling – is ambiguous.
But it is more than likely that they cool, otherwise, if every potential forcing or feedback was positive the climate wouldn’t have had the relatively stable history that it has had.
dover_beach
19 Mar 10 at 9:17 am
JM,
what’s your theory as to how CO2 stays in balance? For instance, why does animal (and other) production exactly balance plant (and other) absorbtion? Seems like a pretty big coincidence.
daddy dave
19 Mar 10 at 9:39 am
Dave I don’t really understand your question – CO2 stays in “balance” with what? CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of something like centuries, essentially if we add more of it, it doesn’t go anywhere (at least not on the timescale of human lifetimes)
Dover, the implication of your comment (and follow up) was clear. You asserted that:-
a.) there is enough uncertainty in the role of clouds for increased cloud cover to totally cancel the effect of increased CO2
b.) because there is room to accept a Gaia-like analysis – that it doesn’t matter what we do, the earth will still be cool and we can happily do what we want to it – that we should bet that you are right
Sorry, can’t do that. You’re looking at the extremes of uncertainty on one side, I’m looking at the whole picture.
JM
19 Mar 10 at 7:57 pm
DB says that clouds could cancel the effects of CO2, but they havent – temps and sea levels are up
rog
19 Mar 10 at 8:13 pm
JM your bottom line is that given the risk, we must assume AGW regardless of uncertainty; in fact even if we were to agree AGW is “probably” wrong, you would still want to assume it’s right.
daddy dave
19 Mar 10 at 8:26 pm
No Dave. My position is that basic physics says CO2 increases (which have happened and been measured) lead to temperature increases (which have happened and been measured) and that those increases are due to the burning of fossil fuels (which has happened and been measured).
Basic physics then says that temperature will increase as a result of fossil fuel burning. Geophysics is then quite clear that climate change will result.
If you want to claim the contrary…….
Prove it.
The onus is on you.
JM
19 Mar 10 at 8:33 pm
But I accept all that. None of it is remotely important to humans. So now, the onus is on you to show that the temperature rise will be more than modest, and that the effect will be undesirable.
That’s the strong claim.
That’s the extraordinary claim (that lacks extraordinary evidence).
daddy dave
19 Mar 10 at 8:51 pm
JM
As an aside, did you support the invasion of Iraq as a result of the fear that it had WMD?
Don’t bullshit or obfuscate by suggesting that the argument is mute, as we later found out they didn’t have any.
Answer honestly with yes or no.
JC
19 Mar 10 at 9:06 pm
As an aside, did you support the invasion of Iraq as a result of the fear that it had WMD?
.
Nice analogy.
daddy dave
19 Mar 10 at 9:17 pm
Dave, the magnitude of the change is arguable – I accept that – but it can be determined in a number of ways, including observation. There is consensus now that it is around 3C per doubling of CO2. (My personal view is that may be too conservative, which is given force by the fact that several measures such as ice extent are at the high end of the IPCC consensus, but that doesn’t matter. The consensus for climate sensitivity is 3C and that’s what I’ll stick with in public debate.)
There’s uncertainty in the magnitude but that uncertainty can be quantified. There’s also uncertainty in the outcome, but that that also be quantified (to a much lesser accuracy). Now here’s the thing.
Business makes decisions under uncertainty all the time. Why can’t we do that as a society?
JC I didn’t support the invasion of Iraq at the time because I thought that the claims of WMD were BS. And I also thought the geopolitical aims were lunatic (at least until I understood that the only way to explain Dick Cheney’s behaviour was “peak oil”)
JM
19 Mar 10 at 9:38 pm
Oh I should also add that I thought the claims of Saddam’s alleged association with Al Quida were complete garbage.
JM
19 Mar 10 at 9:47 pm
JC I didn’t support the invasion of Iraq at the time because I thought that the claims of WMD were BS.
That’s interesting JM. So you overlooked CIA intel, the UN’s chief delegate arguing there was, French intel, UK Intel, Algore, Bill Clinton, Clinton DoD chief, NSA intel, Saddam himself, as well as surrounding countries intel because you thought it was “bullshit”. However if he did have WMD and it got into the wrong hands as many people warned both before and after the war it could have devastated an major American city.
Yet, you’re arguing here that people rely on predictive models and if they don’t they are belong denialists.
A little bit of consistency please.
What I find interesting about this is that the very same people that argued against Iraq intervention to stop WMD are also for the most part the very same people telling us the world will end if we don’t stop carbon emissions.
And here I was thinking risk is risk mitigation.
JC
19 Mar 10 at 9:47 pm
they are beling denialists.
JC
19 Mar 10 at 9:48 pm
Oh I should also add that I thought the claims of Saddam’s alleged association with Al Quida were complete garbage.
You thought? Like you had better evidence than the intel apparatus of all the states and the UN who thought he did.
JC
19 Mar 10 at 9:50 pm
I didn’t support the invasion of Iraq at the time because I thought that the claims of WMD were BS.
.
That’s fine. However – you didn’t know absolutely that it was BS. It was just your hunch. If you wanted to do risk mitigation, surely you should follow the “precautionary principle?” Actually I think not (I don’t adhere to the precautionary principle), but it highlights the weakness of the ‘precautionary’ line of argument.
.
Business makes decisions under uncertainty all the time. Why can’t we do that as a society?
.
absolutely. And that’s where we are at, right now… debating (a) the relative probabilities; and (b) what to do about them.
daddy dave
19 Mar 10 at 10:03 pm
JC I didn’t overlook the French President, Jacques Chirac, opposing the invasion. I didn’t overlook his response to a question “what if after the invasion, Saddam is shown to have WMD’s?” which was:
That would be completely different, but I don’t expect that to happen
Let’s not rehearse history.
JM
19 Mar 10 at 10:03 pm
Dave you didn’t know absolutely that it was BS.
What is this? The 1% syndrome? That’s a “precautionary principle” if I ever saw one.
But yeah I did, nobody apart from Cheney thought it was true.
Never mind, get back to my substantive point. JC asked me a fair question, I answered it fairly, but it’s off topic.
JM
19 Mar 10 at 10:07 pm
It’s not really off topic, JM. It displays selective reasoning on your part. You had no evidence on which to base your decision, in fact you ignored the best evidence there was and decided it was bullshit, but yet you argue against those who think the AGW scare campaign which has a remarkable similarity to the WMD scare was bullshit.
JC
19 Mar 10 at 10:15 pm
JC I had plenty of reason. I had the French opposing the invasion, I had the UK Foreign Minister resigning in opposition to the invasion, I had most of the countries in Europe refusing to participate.
I had the fact that Iraq had the life inspected out it and nobody could find a thing.
There was no evidence beforehand of any WMD’s at all.
Prove me wrong.
AWG, WMD. Same standard. I’ll stick to it. Will you?
JM
19 Mar 10 at 10:23 pm
nyuk, nyuk, nyuk
Sinclair Davidson
19 Mar 10 at 10:32 pm
Richard Butler in 2002.
Sinclair Davidson
19 Mar 10 at 10:37 pm
I’m so over the climate.
tal
19 Mar 10 at 10:38 pm
Thats real funny, JC says that the BOM should be promoting nuclear power.
JC says that cause he is long on nukes and wants to make a buck
rog
19 Mar 10 at 11:09 pm
Rog:
Of course I want to make a buck. In fact I hope this stock can end up at 80 bucks a share and possibly 160 bucks a share if they get the American centrifuge project up and running.
But, you freaking moron, the fact that buying nuclear service stocks (not uranium) and having a belief that it really is the answer are not mutually exclusive. In fact it’s reinforcing.
Lastly who am I going to influence, you pathetic dill?
You really have venom running through your veins.
JC
19 Mar 10 at 11:20 pm
JM:
Prove you wrong about what exactly? I don’t need to prove anything except that you took a position that went against best available evidence at the time and now you’re giving people a hard time.
There’s nothing better than the US and European intel services-as good or bad as they are. we simply don’t have any better than that known to man. It’s essentially as good as it gets, yet they were wrong.
There was no evidence?
Of course there wasn’t. It was speculative and virtually identical tom the sort of speculative evidence we have now on AGW.
You can’t be selective on risk and risk mitigation.
JC
19 Mar 10 at 11:27 pm
JC you took a position that went against best available evidence at the time
I dispute that, I think the best available evidence at the time went the other way. And the behaviour of major players who were in a position to know supports that conclusion.
But it’s irrelevant and off-topic.
JM
19 Mar 10 at 11:35 pm
I read a book that was released in the lead up to the invasion by a guy called Scott Ritter who was a former weapons inspector. He said Saddam had no real weapons capability left. Turns out he was right. I suppose they just should have asked him.
As for Saddam being hooked up with AQ, no one ever really believed that
sdfc
19 Mar 10 at 11:38 pm
JM
Every major intel operation was saying there was WMD.
Gore, Clinton and senior officials in the former administration said there was.
The western intel services including the French were saying there was.
Hans Blix said there was.
The mid east countries thought there was.
Yet you had evidence there wasn’t. Interesting.
JC
19 Mar 10 at 11:56 pm
Anyways tal is right. I’m so fucking bored with this climate stuff that I hope temps jump a few notches just to make it interesting.
Hey, on that topic, JM. Some group of scientists have recently suggested that the way the world is going we’ll reach tipping point 450 PPM by 2035 as the poorer wrold is going to be burning up a relative feast.
At least it will be interesting.
JC
19 Mar 10 at 11:59 pm
I read a book that was released in the lead up to the invasion by a guy called Scott Ritter who was a former weapons inspector.
Amazing he had time to write that book in between jacking off to children on the internet and trying to lure them to Burger King for his depraved pleasures. But hey, a paedophile’s word is his bond.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/01/ex-un-nuke-inspector-ritter-arrested-in-online-child-sex-sting/1
Infidel Tiger
20 Mar 10 at 12:45 am
As for Saddam being hooked up with AQ, no one ever really believed that.
On the contrary, it was not only believed but was the strategic rationale for Bill Clinton’s attack on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in August 1998. Clinton’s Department of Justice made the connection legally official two months later for the November 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden for the US embassy bombings in Africa.
C.L.
20 Mar 10 at 12:59 am
“There will be no catastrophic/dangerous AGW”
“There aren’t any WMD’s in Iraq.”
.
CIA = IPCC
Jacques Chirac = Richard Lindzen
daddy dave
20 Mar 10 at 7:38 am
This is what I said:
We know from the AR4 that cloud albedo can potentially on its own cancel the effect of C02.
JM, although I think your point (i) is a fair paraphrase, to say that (i) implies (ii):
is not. Firstly, I’m not putting forward a Gaia-like analysis, I’m simply arguing that the climate is a system that exhibits stability. Secondly, I’m not arguing that we can introduce any amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and this would be compensated by changes in cloud cover. I’m suggesting that the climate system has more than enough stability to absorb expected increases in CO2 over this century without encountering any ‘tipping points’.
Basic physics then says that temperature will increase as a result of fossil fuel burning. Geophysics is then quite clear that climate change will result.
JM, basic physics doesn’t get you more than 1.2 C for a doubling. We’ve already had 0.8 C over the last century. So were likely to experience another 0.4 C this century. Doesn’t appear catastrophic to me. You are going to have to stop behind the skirt called ‘basic physics’ if you’re going to argue that a doubling of CO2 is going to be catastrophic.
Dave, the magnitude of the change is arguable – I accept that – but it can be determined in a number of ways, including observation. There is consensus now that it is around 3C per doubling of CO2. (My personal view is that may be too conservative, which is given force by the fact that several measures such as ice extent are at the high end of the IPCC consensus, but that doesn’t matter. The consensus for climate sensitivity is 3C and that’s what I’ll stick with in public debate.)
JM, so the consensus has moved beyond the ‘basic physics’, and your personal view is not merely beyond the ‘basic physics’ but also beyond the ‘consensus’ view? How instructive.
Oh, and lets not forget rog:
DB says that clouds could cancel the effects of CO2, but they havent – temps and sea levels are up
Let me rephrase my initial remark a little better. The point about changes in cloud cover is not principally that minor changes in global cloud cover directly cancel out any changes that CO2 purportedly make even if we accept the IPCC line regarding CO2, but that if your involved in detection and attribution studies were you attempt to discern which or what precise forcings/ feedbacks are the cause of the present warming you need to now all of the changes in values for the terms that comprise the climate system. Now let me return to your comment, rog, firstly, the point is that in the circumstances where we have a low state of understanding, as the IPCC admits, of the role of clouds, statements such as yours are injudicious because you’re already attributing the changes in temp and sea level to CO2. And secondly, are any of the changes in temp or sea level beyond internal natural variability anyway? I think not.
dover_beach
20 Mar 10 at 11:55 am