With the axing of the CNN Science News team, most science stories at CNN are now being given to general assignment reporters who don’t necessarily have the background to know when they are being taken for a ride. On the Lou Dobbs show (an evening news program on cable for those of you not in the US), the last few weeks have brought a series of embarrassing non-stories on ‘global cooling’ based it seems on a few cold snaps this winter, the fact that we are at a solar minimum and a regurgitation of 1970s vintage interpretations of Milankovitch theory (via Pravda of all places!). Combine that with a few hysterical (in both senses) non-scientists as talking heads and you end up with a repeat of the nonsensical ‘Cooling world’ media stories that were misleading in the 1970s and are just as misleading now.
Exhibit A. Last night’s (13 Jan 2009) transcript (annotations in italics).
Note that this is a rush transcript and the typos aren’t attributable to the participants.
DOBBS: Welcome back. Global warming is a complex, controversial issue and on this broadcast we have been critical of both sides in this debate. We’ve challenged the orthodoxy surrounding global warming theories and questioned more evidence on the side of the Ice Age and prospect in the minds of some. In point of fact, research, some of it, shows that we could be heading toward cooler temperatures, and it’s a story you will only see here on LOU DOBBS TONIGHT. Ines Ferre has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
INES FERRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Will the day after tomorrow bring a deep freeze like that shown in the movie? Research more than 50 years ago by astrophysicist Milanchovich (ph) shows that ice ages run in predictable cycles and the earth could go into one. How soon? In science terms it could be thousands of years. But what happens in the next decade is still up in the air. Part of the science community believes that global warming is a man-maid threat. But Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute predicts the next 20 to 30 years will actually bring cooling temperatures.
Dennis Avery is part of the ‘science community’? Who knew? And, while amusing, the threat of ‘man-maids’ causing global warming is just a typo. Nice thought though. Oh, and if you want to know what the actual role of Milankovitch in forcing climate is, look at the IPCC FAQ Q6.1. Its role in current climate change? Zero.
DENNIS AVERY, HUDSON INSTITUTE: The earth’s temperatures have dropped an average of .6 Celsius in the last two years. The Pacific Ocean is telling us, as it has told us 10 times in the past 400 years, you’re going to get cooler.
For those unfamiliar with Dennis Avery, he is a rather recent convert to the
bandwagonidea of global cooling, having very recently been an advocate of “unstoppable” global warming. As for his great cherry pick (0.6º C in two years – we’re doomed!), this appears to simply be made up. Even putting aside the nonsense of concluding anything from a two year trend, if you take monthly values and start at the peak value at the height of the last El Niño event of January 2007 and do no actual trend analysis, I can find no data set that gives a drop of 0.6ºC. Even UAH MSU-LT gives only 0.4ºC. The issue being not that it hasn’t been cooler this year than last, but why make up numbers? This is purely rhetorical of course, they make up numbers because they don’t care about whether what they say is true or not.FERRE: Avery points to a lack of sunspots as a predictor for lower temperatures, saying the affects of greenhouse gas warming have a small impact on climate change. Believers in global warming, like NASA researcher, Dr. Gavin Schmidt disagree.
I was interviewed on tape in the afternoon, without seeing any of the other interviews. Oh, and what does a ‘believer in global warming’ even mean?
DR. GAVIN SCHMIDT, NASA: The long term trend is clearly toward warming, and those trends are completely dwarf any changes due to the solar cycle.
FERRE: In a speech last week, President-elect Obama called for the creation of a green energy economy. Still, others warn that no matter what you think about climate change, new policies would essentially have no effect.
FRED SINGER, SCIENCE & ENV. POLICY PROJECT: There’s very little we can do about it. Any effort to restrict the use of carbon dioxide will hurt us economically and have zero effect on the Chicago mate.
Surely another typo, but maybe the Chicago mate is something to do with the man-maids? See here for more background on Singer.
FERRE: As Singer says, a lot of pain, for no gain.
Huh? Try looking at the actual numbers from a recent McKinsey report. How is saving money through efficiency a ‘pain’?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FERRE: And three independent research groups concluded that the average global temperature in 2008 was the ninth or tenth warmest since 1850, but also since the coldest since the turn of the 21st century.
DOBBS: It’s fascinating and nothing — nothing — stirs up the left, the right, and extremes in this debate, the orthodoxy that exists on both sides of the debate than to even say global warming. It’s amazing.
This is an appeal to the ‘middle muddle’ and an attempt to seem like a reasonable arbitrator between two opposing sides. But as many people have previously noted, there is no possible compromise between sense and nonsense. 2+2 will always equal 4, no matter how much the Hudson Institute says otherwise.
FERRE: When I spoke to experts and scientists today from one side and the other, you could feel the kind of anger about —
That was probably me. Though it’s not anger, it’s simple frustration that reporters are being taken in and treating seriously the nonsense that comes out of these think-tanks.
DOBBS: Cannot we just all get along? Ines, thank you very much.
Joining me now three leading experts in Manchester, New Hampshire, we’re joined by Joseph D’Aleo of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project. Good to have with you us.
JOSEPH D’ALEO, CO-FOUNDER WEATHER CHANNEL: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: He’s also the cofounder of The Weather Channel. In Washington, D.C., as you see there, Jay Lehr, he’s the science director of the Heartland Institute. And in Boston, Alex Gross, he’s the cofounder of co2stats.com. Good to have you with us.
Well that’s balanced!
Let’s put a few numbers out here, the empirical discussion and see what we can make of it. First is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has very good records on temperatures, average temperatures in the United States, dating back to 1880. And here’s what these numbers look like. You’ve all seen those. But help us all — the audience and most of all me to get through this, they show the warmest years on record, 1998, 2006, and 1934. 2008 was cooler, in fact the coolest since 1997. It’s intriguing to see that graph there. The graph we’re looking at showing some question that the warming trend may be just a snapshot in time. The global temperatures by NOAA are seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001. The ten warmest years have all occurred since 1995.
So let me start, if I may, Joseph, your reaction to those numbers. Do you quibble with what they represent?
D’ALEO: Yes, I do. In fact, if you look at the satellite data, which is the most reliable data, the best coverage of the globe, 2008 was the 14th coldest in 30 years. That doesn’t jive with the tenth warmest in 159 years in the Hadley data set or 113 or 114 years in the NOAA data set. Those global data sets are contaminated by the fact that two-thirds of the globe’s stations dropped out in 1990. Most of them rural and they performed no urban adjustment. And, Lou, you know, and the people in your studio know that if they live in the suburbs of New York City, it’s a lot colder in rural areas than in the city. Now we have more urban effect in those numbers reflecting — that show up in that enhanced or exaggerated warming in the global data set.
D’Aleo is misdirecting through his teeth here. He knows that the satellite analyses have more variability over ENSO cycles than the surface records, he also knows that urban heat island effects are corrected for in the surface records, and he also knows that this doesn’t effect ocean temperatures, and that the station dropping out doesn’t affect the trends at all (you can do the same analysis with only stations that remained and it makes no difference). Pure disinformation.
DOBBS: Your thoughts on these numbers. Because they are intriguing. They are a brief snapshot admittedly, in comparison to total extended time. I guess we could go back 4.6 billion years. Let’s keep it in the range of something like 500,000 years. What’s your reaction to those numbers and your interpretation?
JAY LEHR, HEARTLAND INSTITUTE: Well, Lou —
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’m sorry.
DOBBS: Go ahead, Jay.
LEHR: Lou, I’m in the camp with Joe and Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, and I think more importantly, it is to look at the sun’s output, and in recent years, we’ve seen very, very low sunspot activity, and we are definitely, in my mind, not only in a cooling period, we’re going to be staying in it for a couple decades, and I see it as a major advantage, although I think we will be able to adapt to it. I’m hopeful that this change in the sun’s output will put some common sense into the legislature, not to pass any dramatic cap in trade or carbon tax legislation that will set us in a far deeper economic hole. I believe Mr. Obama and his economic team are well placed to dig us out of this recession in the next 18 months to 2 years, but I think if we pass any dramatic legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, the recession will last quite a few more years and we’ll come out of it with a lower standard of living on very tenuous scientific grounds.
DOBBS: Alex, the carbon footprint, generation of greenhouse gases, specifically co2, the concern focusing primarily on the carbon footprint, and of course generated by fossil fuels primarily, what is your thinking as you look at that survey of 130 — almost 130 years and the impact on the environment?
ALEX WISSNER-GROSS, CO2STATS.COM: Well, Lou, I think regardless of whatever the long-term trend in the climate data is, there a long- term technological trend which is that as time goes on our technology tends toward smaller and smaller physical footprint. That means in part that in the long term we like technology to have a smaller environmental footprint, burning fewer greenhouse gases and becoming as small and environmentally neutral and noninvasive as possible. So I think regardless of the climate trend, I think we’ll see less and less environmentally impactful technologies.
Wissner-Gross is on because of the media attention given to misleading reports about the carbon emissions related to Google searches. Shame he doesn’t get to talk about any of that.
DOBBS: To be straight forward about this, that’s where I come down. I don’t know it matters to me whether there is global warming or we’re moving toward an ice age it seems really that we should be reasonable stewards of the planet and the debate over whether it’s global warming or whether it’s moving toward perhaps another ice age or business as usual is almost moot here in my mind. I know that will infuriate the advocates of global warming as well as the folks that believe we are headed toward another ice age. What’s your thought?
Curious train of logic there…
D’ALEO: I agree with you, Lou. We need conservation. An all of the above solution for energy, regardless of whether we’re right and it cools over the next few decades or continues to warm, a far less dangerous scenario. And that means nuclear. It means coal, oil, natural gas. Geothermal, all of the above.
DOBBS: Jay, you made the comment about the impact of solar sunspot activity. Sunspot activity the 11-year cycle that we’re all familiar with. There are much larger cycles, 12,000 to 13,000 years as well. We also heard a report disregard, if you will, for the strength and significance of solar activity on the earth’s environment. How do you respond to that?
Is he talking about me? Please see some of my publications on the subject from 2006, 2004 and 2001. My point above was that relative to current greenhouse gas increases, solar is small – not that it is unimportant or uninteresting. This of course is part of the false dilemma ‘single cause’ argument that the pseudo-skeptics like to use – that change must be caused by either solar or greenhouse gases and that any evidence for one is evidence against the other. This is logically incoherent.
FEHR: It just seems silly to not recognize that the earth’s climate is driven by the sun.
Ah yes.
Your Chad Myers pointed out it’s really arrogant to think that man controls the climate.
This is a misquoted reference to a previous segment a few weeks ago where Myers was discussing the impact of climate on individual weather patterns. But man’s activities do affect the climate and are increasingly controlling its trends.
90 percent of the climate is water vapor which we have no impact over and if we were to try to reduce greenhouse gases with China and India controlling way more than we do and they have boldly said they are not going to cripple their economy by following suit, our impact would have no — no change in temperature at all in Europe they started carbon — capping trade in 2005. They’ve had no reduction in groan house gases, but a 5 percent to 10 percent increase in the standard of living. We don’t want to go that route.
What? Accounting for the garbled nature of this response, he was probably trying to say that 90% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour. This is both wrong and, even were it true, irrelevant.
DOBBS: Alex, you get the last word here. Are you as dismissive of the carbon footprint as measured by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
GROSS: No, not really. But I think in the long term, efficiency is where the gains come from. I think efficiency should come first, carbon footprint second.
DOBBS: Thank you very much. Alex, Jay, and Joe. Folks, appreciate you being with us.
FEHR: Thank you.
In summary, this is not the old ‘balance as bias‘ or ‘false balance‘ story. On the contrary, there was no balance at all! Almost the entire broadcast was given over to policy advocates whose use of erroneous-but-scientific-sounding sound bites is just a cover for their unchangable opinions that nothing should ever be done about anything. This may make for good TV (I wouldn’t know), but it certainly isn’t journalism.
There are pressures on journalists that conspire against fully researching a story – deadlines, the tyranny of the news peg etc. – but that means they have to be all the more careful in these kinds of cases. Given that Lou Dobbs has been better on this story in the past, seeing him and his team being spun like this is a real disappointment. They could really do much better.
Update: Marc Roberts sends in this appropriate cartoon:
.jpg)
FYI Hank, JCH, and others out of touch with what is being written in popular press about SLR and climate:
Hansen on climate change in July 2007:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_2.pdf
Joe Hunkins (200) — Unfortunately the web is chock-a-block with misinformation.
There have been three recent studies (mentioned on reliable web sites) which all seem to indicate about 80 cm to 1 m sea level rise by century’s end. One of these papers is the subject of a previous thread here on RealClimate.
That said, somewhere I picked up that the Dutch, english and California engineers are all using about 1.3–1.5 m by century’s end to make plans for inproved dikes and the like; engineering conservatism.
Anne van der Bom #176 accuses me of hypocrisy for using the term “new religion” in a post in which I am lamenting the use of derogatory comments in discussions on climate change. She is, of course, entirely correct and I apologise unreservedly for using the term. That said however, there does seem almost an element of faith in comments such as “the science is in” or the “science is settled” in relationship to anthropogenic global warming particularly as the IPCC reports use the term “very likely” when referring to AGW. Similarly comments from those such as James Hansen suggesting imprisoning the CEOs of fossil fuel companies are hardly those of the average “serious scientist”. Many deniers” are also “serious scientists”. I am a biochemist/molecular biologist not a climate scientist and recognise my own limitations in discussions on global warming. I do however know enough about science to appreciate points of view from both sides and as I said in my previous comment, the data from the deniers are more persuasive than those who categorically state, without definitive evidence that humans are responsible for global warming.
Re Joe Duck @200, Yes, as a matter of fact, I have read a transcript of AIT. VP Gore states quite clearly that if the Greenland ice sheet should melt, or if the West Antarctic ice sheet should melt, or if half of both should melt, we’d see around 20 feet of sea level rise. How is that in any way not factual? His only failing was not framing that melt with a timescale, but then that timescale is very much in question today. Never the less, I’ve seen no shortage of climate change hecklers willing to attribute a range of time scales to Gore in AIT, despite the verifiable fact that he did not mention any timescale.
And several posters here wonder why those who boldly and repeatedly demonstrate their willingness to bend and invent the “truth” and even outright lie are met with dismissive derision. Gee, I can’t imagine why.
Captcha observes: re- hammer, as in over and over and over
No, Joeduck, I know what Hansen wrote there, I checked my recollection now, looking at that New Scientist article. The several possible worst cases, attributed to several sources, don’t match the depth and time numbers you wrote, that you claim that someone here made.
The number you used is — exactly — the mistaken number that the Associated Press distributed and subsequently corrected, too late; it was widely reprinted and not well retracted. It was a typo.
You’re quoting it as fact and now you’re seemingly misattributing it to Hansen.
Look at the numbers you wrote above. Set them side by side with the several possible scenarios and the past experience Hansen describes, and you’d see the differences for yourself. Nothing Hansen wrote matches what you claim. Seriously, don’t just point to something and say it supports your numbers. Look at ’em.
Kevin B., think of it this way. The insurance company can predict how many will die; but not who.
Analogously, ensembles of model runs can give us a very good idea of future trends, but not predict exact “turning points” due to natural variability. (And of course, external forcings can differ from what was expected–for instance, large volcanic eruptions such as Pinotubo are not currently predictable, and affect climate quite significantly.)
PS, here’s where, in my local paper, that AP mistake first appeared — in the headline and at least twice in the text of the article.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/24/MNG22HTITV1.DTL
OCEANS RISING FAST, NEW STUDIES FIND
Melting ice could raise levels up to 3 feet by 2100, scientists say
David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor
Friday, March 24, 2006
This story has been corrected since it appeared in print editions.
E-mail David Perlman at dperlman@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A – 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
They don’t tell you that was the correction they made — and I know it because I exchanged several emails with David Perlman while he persuaded their editors to change, first the headline, then slowly over several days to also change the repetitions of the mistake in the text of the article, which they finally did.
You can look it up. Lots of places where you can still read the error, a few of which will cite the Associated Press.
http://www.google.com/search?q=“San+Francisco+Chronicle”+”sea+level+rise”+”20+feet+by+2100”
The AP has taken their copy of the mistaken wire story offline.
So there ya go, Joeduck. Willing to help correct the record?
You know where to go to do that– anywhere you’ve posted the error.
Joe Hunkins wrote: “It is very clear that *most* of the people reading here at RC are ‘very worried’ about SLR in this century.”
Personally, I am more worried about drought. Even in the worst-case scenarios, it will likely take decades for sea level rise to make the heavily populated coastal regions of the world uninhabitable. That’s an enormous challenge, but at least it’s conceivable that we can adapt.
However, intense, widespread, prolonged drought could begin suddenly, in any given year — maybe this year — and last indefinitely. We are already observing what appear to be trends towards increasing, long-term aridity in parts of the world.
Imagine continent-wide megadroughts wiping out harvests in the world’s most productive agricultural regions for a decade. And combine that with the loss of glacier-fed fresh water supplies for hundreds of millions of people worldwide. And combine that with the collapse of most or all oceanic fisheries, due to overfishing and pollution (including anthropogenic acidification). Imagine a global famine that kills hundreds of millions of people within a few years.
To me that’s a scarier prospect than gradual sea-level rise over the course of a century.
David, the 1.5 m figure is supposed to be the high end of estimates, but as discussed elsewhere on this site, 2.0 m might be a safer estimate.
And although no-one claims Hansen is infallible, he seems to have a really good track record when it comes to estimates.
Personally, I wouldn’t want to be the government official who planned for 1.5 m and then found out the estimate was a half meter low.
John and Barton, NASA is launching the Orbiting Carbon Observatory in February, and then we’ll get some very nice maps of CO2 concentrations around the world, especially point sources.
Maya (208) — The decision makers working on the planning for improving dikes and the like are very unlikely to still be active by 2100 CE. However, if the 1.3–1.5 m estimate is proving to be too small by, say 2060 CE, there is still time for weathy countries to make appropriate adjustments.
There are still many questions to be answered about what proportion of climate change is due to mankinds’ activities and what isn’t.
CO2 levels have risen due to our activities, what effect this will ultimately have is, shall we say “Hotly” debated?
The GHG effect is a logarythmic scale and without various, often unspecific & unquantified (Unquantifiable?) ” Forcings” we’re not going to have a boiling planet within a century.
There’s no real argument about the need to move away from fossil fuels, simply on the grounds of diminishng supply and having Vladimir Putin’s hand upon the on/off valve of Europe’s major gas supply, isn’t reassuring.
For those who argue that wind power can fulfill or needs, sorry, but you’re full of wind.
A letter printed in my local, UK, paper made me do a quick calculation.
The writer bemoaned the looks of a coal-fired power station he’d passed and compared it to the beauty of a group of wind turbines near his holiday home.
I knew which power station he’d cited, output 2,000MW.
I didn’t know which Welsh windfarm he’d seen, but a big one at Cefn Groes, produces, no, sorry, doesn’t produce but has an “Installed Capacity” of 58MW from its 39 turbines.
I believe that the optimum windspeed for turbines is 33mph. In the UK, average upland windspeed is 22mph, lowland a mere 11mph.
So to replace this 2,000MW station, we’ll need 1,345, 2017 or 4,034 turbines, depending on what windspeed is factored in.
I wonder what area of ground is needed to erect 4,000 turbines on?
We don’t have hundreds of thousands of square miles of empty desert in the UK to hide similar numbers of turbines in.
We’ll also need back-up for when the wind doesn’t blow.
I suggest this rules out wind power as a viable substantial replacement for fossil-fuel powered electrical generation.
I doubt if the UK is going to ever get much power from photo-electric cells and storing that overnight could be a major issue too. At least the wind does still blow at night.
And how much Gallium will be needed to produce enough photo-voltaic cells?
So, solar power is not a viable, large scale replacement either.
Tidal power is interesting, but I’m unaware of any functional tidal powered generator, worldwide, let alone UK.
Also, the effect upon wildlife would be highly adverse, if we were to build a tidal barrage across the Severn Estuary, as an example.
Until commercial nuclear fussion becomes possible, that leads us with nuclear fission.
Now, that really stirs the greens up, they cry about Chernobyl & TMI.
Chernobyl has killed hundreds of people for certain, maybe thousands. Not a patch on deaths in coal mining over the centuries.
TMI killed nobody.
We’re not likely to build a 1960’s tech Russian nuclear reactor or to turn off safety features so an experiment can be carried out.
So, nuclear fission it is.
One other question, is if the developing nations, be they India & China, or should Africa manage to shake off its tyrants and start to industrialise in a major way, won’t curtail their emmisions, should we go back to a dawn to dusk existance, shivering in winter & half starving, limited to our immediate neighbourhood, when it’ll have precious little effect on global CO2 output?
Also, “Dangerous” global warming.
What dangers are we talking about at to whom?
By the way, Joeduck, if you’d checked, you’d have found PiekleJr made the same mistake, attributing it to Hansen, pointing to the same source:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/how-much-will-sea-level-rise/
Ah, for the record — this belongs in the earlier Sea Level Rise thread, which is closed:
Here’s a press clip archive that caught the SF Chron mid-correction, I’d guess it was captured online a day or two after the print run; this clip shows the headline as corrected, but is still showing the error one place in the text of the article:
“Oceans Rising Fast, New Studies Find— Melting ice could raise levels up to 3 feet by 2100, scientists say
San Francisco Chronicle (March 24, 2006) circ. 391,681
Times Argus (Montpelier, Vermont) (March 25, 2006) circ. 12,014
Glaciers and ice sheets on opposite ends of the Earth are melting faster than previously thought and could cause sea levels around the world to rise as much as 13 to 20 feet by the end of the century, scientists are reporting today. . . . The teams, which Overpeck led together with Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., analyzed climate and polar ice records from 130,000 years ago. . . . ”
As found here, as of the date of this posting:
https://www.ucar.edu/news/pressclips/archive/06/tp_0603.shtml
Facts are tricky things, and as the Chron example shows, sources will say “errors were corrected” without specifying what the error was, let alone who made it or who corrected it or when. Ya gotta look.
Anne van der Bom #174 quite rightly accuses me of hypocrisy for using the term new religion in a post lamenting the use of derogatory terms in discussions on climate change. I unreservedly apologise. That said I would suggest to Anne van der Bom that statements such as “the science is settled” and “the science is in” seem more articles of faith than of science particularly as the IPCC uses the term “very likely” in relation to human caused global warming. I would also note that there are many “serious scientists” in the r4anks of the “deniers”. I’m a biochemist/molecular biologist not a climate scientist and I am aware of my limitations in discussions on climate change. However, scientifically speaking, the data from the “deniers” seem more credible than those from the alarmists. Although there is some correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature (although not in recent years) correlation is not causality and there is, as far as I am aware, no conclusive evidence that human produced CO2 is causing increased global temperatures.
Adam Gallon says, “The GHG effect is a logarythmic scale and without various, often unspecific & unquantified (Unquantifiable?) ” Forcings” we’re not going to have a boiling planet within a century.”
You know, Adam, somehow I think I’d trust your assessment a bit more if you could spell the word “logarithm”. But alas the rest of your reasoning is as confused as your spelling. You’re at the right site to learn this stuff. Take advantage of it.
“Arctic Heats Up More Than Other Places: High Sea Level Rise Predicted”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090116111135.htm
USGS lead study. The article doesn’t state how high is high.
Ian 203: chaperones,sigma factors,transesterification of the spliceosome, Two forms of SN2 reactions?
Well, Ian (215), what evidence, conclusive or otherwise, are you aware of that suggests that CO2 stops absorbing and emitting infrared light when it’s atmospheric concentration reaches well below 286 ppm? Because that is what you would have to have to make the case that rising levels of human-produced CO2 are not causing higher global temperatures.
Ian Lee (215) — It is easy to find articles about effects so far, for example “Top 10 Places Already Affected by Climate Change”
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=top-10-places-already-affected-by-climate-change
In addition, by going to the ‘Start Here” button at the top of the page on this site, by starting there you can find reliable inofrmation about climate, including the fact that extra carbon dioxide warms the planet.
Ian Lee claims “such as “the science is settled” and “the science is in” seem more articles of faith than of science particularly as the IPCC uses the term “very likely” in relation to human caused global warming.”
Do you feel similarly about the Universal Law of Gravitation?
How about conservation of Energy?
You do realize that very likely equates to 95% confident, and you do understand that 95% confident doesn’t equate to 5% uncertain, right?
Then Ian chimes in: “However, scientifically speaking, the data from the “deniers” seem more credible than those from the alarmists.”
Do tell, Ian, where is this data from the deniers? What peer-reviewed journal is it published in? Uh, you do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, don’t you?
David (211) – Right you are, of course, but the dikes and so forth that are being planned now should still be in use in 2100. I was thinking about some poor urban planner, 80 or so years from now, contemplating the dike that is about to get swamped, going “But why didn’t they make it just a couple feet higher??”
Adam, most of your questions are addressed in prior writing.
I’d suggest the “Start Here” link at the top of the page, and the first link under Science in the sidebar on the right hand side.
This also may help — but I’d recommend the “Start Here” link first.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=50&q=Dangerous+global+warming&as_ylo=2009
“there is, as far as I am aware, no conclusive evidence that human produced CO2 is causing increased global temperatures.”
There is an enormous amount of evidence, a vast weight of it. Where to even start? I’m at a loss to even know where to begin to address a statement like that. What, pray tell, would you consider “conclusive evidence”? What is this credible data from the deniers? I have yet to find ANY argument from the deniers camp that cannot be debunked. If you could please give some specifics, we can give specifics in return. Thanks.
“Maybe one day I’ll stop being anonymous about it.”
Please do. And as soon as you get a peer-reviewed article published in a respectable journal, please post the link on this site – I’m sure lots of folks would like to read it.
“no conclusive evidence” is one of the flypaper quotes:
Results: about 563 for +”no conclusive evidence” +human +CO2 +warming
Or do I mean litmus paper?
#212 Adam Gallon Says:
Tidal power is interesting, but I’m unaware of any functional tidal powered generator, worldwide, let alone UK.
Well there’s one just next door in France (Rance River, in Bretagne) operating at an average of 68MW for the last 40+ years!
Maya #224 says “There is an enormous amount of evidence, a vast weight of it. Where to even start? I’m at a loss to even know where to begin to address a statement like that. What, pray tell, would you consider “conclusive evidence”?” Well Maya, this is a bit of a non-response as none of this plethora of evidence is provided. Surely it would be the work of only an instant to retrieve some evidence that categorically proves the point and would silence those such as myself who are continually seeking this evidence. Although it wouldn’t be conclusive evidence one way or another it would be instructive to discover why, in this decade, CO2 concentrations have continued to increase but global temperature has not. If CO2 has such a significant role one would expect the correlation to be maintained. That it is not suggests the role of CO2 in global warming may be less than is suggested.
With regard to “credible evidence fro deniers”, the following extract from a recent article in Pravda (Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age January 11 2009) provides data that are persuasive for the “deniers” viewpoint. “Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its present form by the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science” published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth’s orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages”.
[Response: That’s extremely amusing. You think this contradicts mainstream climate science? – gavin]
Ray Ladbury #221 says “You do realize that very likely equates to 95% confident, and you do understand that 95% confident doesn’t equate to 5% uncertain, right?” A touch patronising perhaps? I was unaware that”very likely” had a probability value of 95%. Can you advise what experiments were performed to show this? If the IPCC mean 95% probability when they say “very likely” why not write 95% probability to make it quite clear. And yes Ray Ladbury I am aware that 5% uncertainty means a 1:20 probability that the results were due to chance alone. Ray Ladbury then goes on to say, in typical alarmist ad hominem fashion, “Uh, you do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, don’t you?”. Yes Ray Ladbury I do indeed but knowing that and knowing global warming is due primarily to human action are very different entities. Aren’t they? And see my response above to Maya re peer reviewed material. Last time I looked “Science” and “Nature” were vying for top spot for scientific journals. And this “peer reviewed” mantra is a bit overdone as the allegiances of the “peer-reviewers” is entirely unknown. The editors of most journals have a panel of scientists to whom they refer submitted papers and it is improbable that articles from alarmists are reviewed entirely by scientists who are sceptics. If they were (and of course vice-versa) then peer reviewed might indicate a much more stringent approach.
[Response: Where’s the beef? Where are tha hundreds of serious papers that have been inappropriately rejected? Instead, we have dozens of papers whose elementary errors should have meant that they were never published (Chilangar anyone?). Peer review is a just a first cut, and getting past that is not much of a challenge. – gavin]
Try this one, folks.
Spin the other way.
It’s an hour. It’s worth listening to. Tell a friend:
Kim Stanley Robinson at Google on climate change
… googletechtalks, copyright 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-jz86gMiHw
Brief excerpts/paraphrases below I typed while listening; all errors mine. Notes are presented merely to encourage you to listen. Don’t argue with them, they’re likely wrong and certainly fragments. Go to the real video if you want to think about it.
at 38 min:
38: geoengineering
The unintended consequences of the biological methods are really scary …. and we don’t know what will happen. We already have … a problematic enough situation in the ocean. …. let’s not do the Google Terraforming … that’s for another time and all it does is leach energy away from the decarbonization project ….
Not “affluence” but “appetite” because you can live a very affluent life with very little expense and very low carbon. …. hyperconsumption, …. perpetually trying to keep up ….
Questions that come out of sociobiology — what are we as social creatures, and what would make us happy?… You can find aechulian hand axes for half a million years … and yet the brain was growing like a balloon blowing up ….. this is what we did:
(Screenshot) The Paleolithic Life
… Spending the day outdoors
walking and running
looking at fire
seeing by moonlight
throwing rocks
cooking and eating
talking and listening
singing and music
dancing and sex
finding a mate …
Terry Bisson says what people really want to do … is sit in the dark together and look at flickering in front of them ….[maybe that’s what movies are, you don’t care what you’re watching ….]
The things that we do in ordinary life, our primate brains are freaked out by them.
Beauty+terror equals the sublime (Edmund Burke) …
A lightning storm, drink something and goo down into the cave with the shaman …
Those were supposed to be the exception to the rule, but in the technological sublime our ordinary life is in the sublime all the time and the daily activities that made us human … you pay money to go off on vacation and do these things that feel good … because that’s what made us this way.
“Enough is as good as a feast” — English proverb (before printing)
The hyperconsumption … the 25 percent of natural resource consumption for 5 percent of the population has not made us happy.
Going back to these activities as often as possible, … many of them are free…
Appropriate Technology, a phrase out of the Seventies that has almost goine away, because we are so inappropriate …. as primates with a certain set of biological habits that we have.
How do we get forward to a sustainable civilization … permaculture, permutation and culture
Thoreau — one day at a time, every day … not in the heroic mode of John Muir.
Thoreau is perfect for that … a full natural life
—————
Q: Do you really think there is any hope?
A: Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will. … We don’t have the luxury of being pessimistic. … it’s not the good question. What you want to say is “how much can we save?” and that becomes a relative thing.
Q: Corporations don’t fear climate change
A: They should … this goes back to the economic question…. if you put the real cost on carbon it’s fifty dollars a ton … thirty-five dollars a barrel … beyond what’s charged. …. predatory dumping. Who are they predating? … our grandchildren. That’s what we’re doing systemically…. If you have a carbon tax … some corporations will say … we can finally figure out what things cost … corporations can participate
Q: I’m a physicist …
A: Where does technology and society reach hard points and contradictory moments? … It fits into the class of windows of opportunity … that come and then they go. … we’ve got about fifty years in which we might be able to go to Mars …
a sustainable balance with Earth’s natural biological infrastructure … a sufficiency, then at that point it’s going to be a stable population … the natural replacement rate of about 2.2 for human beings is achieved in all prosperous countries…. then you could build, you could get out into the solar system … we might have some recovery work, some carrying capacity work to do. … What people fear I think is the general systems crash …. we simply aren’t that stupid and … are mostly democratic, and once 51 percent of the population agrees we are to do these things they will get done.
…
Is this just an imaginary relationship to a real situation, and the real situation is that we’re screwed? Or …
Q: … do you see any steps toward a different economics happening anywhere?…
A: … cooperatives … not taking away the surplus value …. Open source … shouldn’t just be about computer code … all expertise could be open source … the commons … there were working commons where everybody used the commons…. the government is the virtual reproduction of the commons, … all of us gathering together a whole bunch of capital and saying we’re going to do this, we’re going to do that …. open source is somewhat mysterious but … it might be taken as an economic model…. Enough is as good as a feast, even better than a feast because a feast makes you sick …. then you go into a gift economy …. This is not profit-loss thinking, this is non-capitalist thinking …. still has a commons that is embattled by privatization …. you can make a profit and still not feel good, but giving almost always feels good. What they need is narratization … it also needs theory.
More people like Krugman … Stiglitz …
Why when I Google post-capitalism … why don’t I get five fat textbooks that are being taught ….? There are always alternatives …. Margaret Thatcher said there are no alternatives … she also said there is no society ….
… Capitalism has bought up the next 30 years in the forms of con-tracts, d-e-bts, mort-ga-ges, and supposedly those are …. the idea that the future is already bought … is a powerful notion that people want you to believe …. new and better economic models I hope will come out … you can’t get out of climate change without better economic models.
Folks:
The strong cooling trend since 1998, the switch in the long term (30-40 years) cooling trend of the Pacific, the lack of strength in cycle 24, the dimished strenth of the solar winds, (23% in fact), we are in for a bumpy ride to colder temps.
jcbmack #218 I’m uncertain why you ask about chaperones and transesterification of spliceosomes etc. perhaps because I said I was a biochemist/molecular biologist. Rather than answer each term you mention (I could get the information off the net quite easily couldn’t I?) it is more evidential that I am what I say I am to point you to the most recent paper I had published in a peer reviewed journal. It is at
http://tinyurl.com/7g3eww. You will note I am corresponding author.
Jim Eager #219 says”Well, Ian (215), what evidence, conclusive or otherwise, are you aware of that suggests that CO2 stops absorbing and emitting infrared light when it’s atmospheric concentration reaches well below 286 ppm? Because that is what you would have to have to make the case that rising levels of human-produced CO2 are not causing higher global temperatures”
The point is well covered inter alia by Professor Johns at http://globalwarming.chemcept.co.uk/index.htm who from a comparison of 5 models commented:
“For those unswervingly committed to the Carbon Hypothesis, the explanation for the above findings is obvious. Carbon dioxide is causing the observed temperature rise. Its concentration is increasing reasonably uniformly over time. Hence, any other parameter that increases reasonably uniformly with time will coincidentally also give a good fit with the observed temperature rise. However, this argument is two-edged. If global temperatures are being driven to rise roughly uniformly by some other factor, any factor that increases steadily with time will also correlate with the rising temperature. Carbon dioxide concentration is one such factor. Hence, statistically any correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and temperature may be purely coincidence.
We can conclude that, from statistics alone, there is no reason to believe that the correlation between global warming and increased carbon dioxide concentrations is other than coincidence. It follows that this coincidence cannot form part of the science supporting the Carbon Hypothesis”.
In the absence of the scenario you describe, Professor Johns does at least provide some data that addresses the significance of the correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperature. Oh by the way, why 286ppm? There is comment that the pre-=industrial CO2 concentration (which is what I assume you are referring to) was 335 ppm (Jaworowski http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/ and references therein). Jaworowski also goes on to say “Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. In peer reviewed publications I exposed this misuse of science [3, 9]” and
“the basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning.
[Response: Garbage all over again. Jaworowski was simply wrong. – gavin]
So the last 100 years: CO2 from 290 to 385 ppm,
Temperature increase? Yes, minimal!
Droughts, hurricanes? Nothing unusual!
Sea level rise? Minimal, and easy to manage!
Then, according to RC, the forecast for the next
100 years with CO2 at (perhaps) 500 ppm?
Unequivocal, undeniable, unarguable apocalypse!
Sorry, that’s religion!
[Response: No, it’s garbage. If you are going to criticise us, at least do it with a reference to something someone here has actually said. Making up stuff to point fingers at is extremely juvenile. – gavin]
David B Benson #220 in my comment #215 I wrote “Although there is some correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature (although not in recent years) correlation is not causality and there is, as far as I am aware, no conclusive evidence that human produced CO2 is causing increased global temperatures”
You then kindly point me to an article in Scientific American that states
“It’s still difficult to confidently trace any given phenomenon directly to greenhouse gas emissions from our cars, factories and power plants. The computer models used by climate scientists lack resolution and certainty.”
As you obviously realised, this is exactly the point I was making. Thank you for reinforcing it. Your assistance is much appreciated
I have serious doubts Ian is a biochemist or molecular biologist let alone him showing solid evidence from the so called “denialist scientific argument.”
lulo Says:
16 January 2009 at 11:22 AM
Jeff Masters: Point taken. Thin, winter sea ice builds each year to almost the extent that it used to, but we have lost a lot of the permanent pack. This explains why Arctic sea ice deviations from normal are greater in the winter than in the summer.
You appear to have that backwards!
However, reporting on Arctic conditions all the time, with nary a mention of the fact that Antarctic concentrations are on the increase (so that global sea ice has barely budged downward) is also misleading.
What’s misleading is your statement! Antarctic sea ice extent is not increasing, also global sea ice area anomaly has been significantly below -2 Mm^2 three times since 1979, all within the last 18 months.
I mentioned this before, but go to the NSIDC and take a look at how much more easily accessible and emphasized the Arctic data are than those for the Antarctic. I think many of us subconsciously apply spin to our public dissemination of information, and it goes both ways.
http://www.nsidc.org/
Eventually, you’ll find the Antarctic graphs and I’ll bet that a few of you would be very surprised.
Eventually? They’re on the same page: http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
No surprises there,over the last 3 decades NH Minimum decreasing at 11%/decade, SH Minimum no significant change!
From reading this RC comment list and others it’s clear that Denialism is taking a new tactic – accepting global warming, but fighting the association of CO2 with any of that warming.
That’s a delay tactic.
After inevitable and serious warming to come, the next tactic will be diversionary. The denialist argument will be to accept that CO2 may be one cause but certainly not the main cause (water vapor, methane etc.) And that it is not the main cause and it is not possible to know exactly what percentage of the cause can be assigned to CO2 – with absolute certainty of course. The denialist goal here is to prevent any reduction carbon combustion.
Then with higher CO2 levels and warming the obstructionist tactic will be to accept a CO2 cause, but stridently reject a CO2 cure – at that time saying things are so bad that curtailing CO2 emissions would do very little to actually reduce advanced warming. A nice plausible argument.
This all fulfills the denialist’s implicit goal: to protect the commerce of carbon fuel. Especially coal – right now the most pressured – so now start seeing the ghost of the Joe Camel ad campaign
http://action.thisisreality.org/content/joecamel
Gavin, I think you are astoundingly tolerant. You are far too nice, too accommodating, to what you choose to see as honest scientific skepticism. Where others might see this as see denialist/obstructionist zealotry.
Re sea level rise – OK that Bangladesh may still be here by 2100 – thats a ‘rate’ thing. But if we accept that we are unlikely to have less than 385ppm CO2 for the next millenia and we are therefore going to get the warming that is in the pipeline to stabalise surface temperatures, then what is to stop the ice that exists today continuing to melt until it is all gone? It might take a while, but as a prognoses for civilisation, it will all go, wont it?
As Hansen has indicated:- “…no stable coastline for longer than humans can conceive.”
???
#215 Ian,
Read page 4 of the IPCC uncertainty guidance
When the IPCC uses the term “very likely” they mean to express a certainty of more than 90%. Because the assessment reports are targeted for a broad audience, they decided to replace mathematical certainties with expressions that make the reports more readable by ordinary humans.
#183 Barton,
I think you misunderstood EL. It’s worse than you think. I think (s)he is questioning the fact that the rise in CO2 levels is caused by the burning of fossil fuels and instead might be attributed to volcano’s.
#219 Jim Eager:
I suppos you meant: “reaches well above 286 ppm”
Adam Gallon,
Despite the alleged problems of setting up substantial amounts of wind power, Denmark seems to be getting 16% of its electricity from wind. How did they do that if it’s impractical?
And as for the sun — solar thermal plants store excess heat from the day in molten salts and use it to keep the turbines running at night. Some STC plants achieve nearly 24/7 operation.
With a wide-area grid, solar and wind can provide very reliable power. Add in geothermal and biomass and you’re all set. Nuclear not necessary.
Ian Lee writes:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859).
2. CO2 is rising (Keeling et al. 1958).
3. The new CO2 is mainly from burning fossil fuels (Suess 1955).
4. Temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley CRU, UAH, RSS, etc.).
5. The increase in temperature correlates with the increase in CO2 (76% for temp. anomaly and ln CO2 for 1880-2007).
Which of the above do you dispute?
James 193, no you have not tried reason. You’ve tried lying, you’ve tried misinformation and you’ve tried information that you haven’t checked because it bolsters what YOU want to hear.
ps to reply to #193, Hansen is in a country that has a lot of money available to be taken by building complex nuclear stations, part of a superpower who says who can make nuclear fuel and who can’t.
He’s part of that country. I would say that gives him a bias on the view.
Find a kallahari bushman then. They aren’t going to need nuclear power and they aren’t going to be able to profit from its use.
THAT is a neutral POV.
Someone with a degree in nuclear physics doesn’t have a neutral point of view either (and is most definitely a wrong choice if you don’t believe AGW because “the scientists just want to get their grant money”).
It is strange that you DEMAND a neutral POV but only neutral when you consider it neutral. A REALLY neutral POV is not wanted because it doesn’t tell you what you want to hear.
RodB #184.
NEARLY right. The right *idea* but you should put more thought into the application.
99.99% of the population if asked would say KP is bad. There would be a very small faction saying it is good.
Do we give 15 minutes each of “Talk Time Today” time to espouse their views?
That, after all, is “equal time”.
No? Why not?
Geoff Bacon boasts:
“Had I read your piece earlier, I could have been been better informed when asking questions of government ministers, members of parliament, government department officials, members of the UK Climate Change Committee, climate scientists, journalists (especially at the BBC) etc. Through hard work and significant personal expense I do get to talk to or email these people.”
Had you put the hard work and significant personal expense to EDUCATE YOURSELF first, then you would not seem so foolish.
Quite often the problem with queries on RC is that the person asking the question doesn’t even know what they are asking, leaving the answering person trying to figure out what the question was and answer it.
And complaining that someone didn’t point you to a link ON THE SAME PIGGING SITE in a reply when with very little personal expense or effort, you could have, oh, I dunno, READ UP ON THEM yourself it seems your hard work is just spent on getting to hobnob with “important people”. Actual education is very much a tertiary issue.
Learn thyself, young man.
Barton Paul Levenson #242 says:
“1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859).
2. CO2 is rising (Keeling et al. 1958).
3. The new CO2 is mainly from burning fossil fuels (Suess 1955).
4. Temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley CRU, UAH, RSS, etc.).
5. The increase in temperature correlates with the increase in CO2 (76% for temp. anomaly and ln CO2 for 1880-2007).
Which of the above do you dispute?”
None of them. But which one conclusively shows human produced CO2 increases global temperature? Read the (peer reviewed) paper by Lowell Stott et al (Science 318 (5849)pp 435-438) who claim temperature increases precede increases in CO2 by about 1000 years. Which part of that paper do you dispute? There is no reason to assume that the points you make show CO2 increases temperature. Equally they could be taken to show temperature increases CO2 as Stott claims. There is a considerable difference between correlation and causality. Incidentally, as I mention in #233 the article in Scientific American has a similar position to mine. Perhaps you should send your points to Scientific American also.
Gavin -I don’t have any beef about peer review. I mentioned it in response to a (rather snide) comment from Ray Ladbury # 221 who said “Do tell, Ian, where is this data from the deniers? What peer-reviewed journal is it published in? Uh, you do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, don’t you?” Essentially I have the same view as do you about peer review and was trying (unsuccessfully it seems) to make that point
jcbMack says #234 “I have serious doubts Ian is a biochemist or molecular biologist let alone him showing solid evidence from the so called “denialist scientific argument.”
Why should you disbelieve me? I’m not in the habit of telling lies and certainly not lies that could easily be disproved. You could have a look at http://www.biomedexperts.com/Profile.bme/790160/Ian_R_Lee and from there have a look at the papers listed. Of course you might say “well how do I know that is you”. If so you could contact Sharyn Pope my PhD student or Dr Fiona Baxter my previous PhD student or Dr John Gustafson with whom I collaborated and see what they say. If, when you’ve read the web page, you’re satisfied I really am a biochemist and a molecular biologist it would be nice to hear from you. The papers with Pope and Baxter are in the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biochemistry (2001 and 2005 Google will bring them up for you) Note the journal is not given in the web page I’m referring you to.
Is the continuing trend: marginal cooling or at least static temps not giving the following “””pause in global warming” forecast in Nature by Keenlyside et al”” a bit more weight?
Global warming does indeed appear to be taking a pause and Kennlyside et al were hardly deniers. We were just worried about the press misusing/misinterpruting their conclusions.
How many years on non-increasing temps do we need before it stops being noise and starts becoming a trend?
Marcos.
There are are apparently some people who are of the opinion that the earth is cooling – that we are currently experiencing global cooling.
Some even think the NASA website contains clear proof of global cooling.
So BPL. they clearly should be able to tell you which items in your list are in dispute:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859).
2. CO2 is rising (Keeling et al. 1958).
3. The new CO2 is mainly from burning fossil fuels (Suess 1955).
4. Temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley CRU, UAH, RSS, etc.).
5. The increase in temperature correlates with the increase in CO2 (76% for temp. anomaly and ln CO2 for 1880-2007).
Obviously, one they think is in dispute is #4.
Comment #149 incorrectly reports on my Physics Today paper
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55. http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-334.pdf
I have posted a comment on this, this morning, at Climate Science [http://climatesci.org/].