Some parts of the blogosphere, headed up by CEI (“CO2: They call it pollution, we call it life!“), are all a-twitter over an apparently “suppressed” document that supposedly undermines the EPA Endangerment finding about human emissions of carbon dioxide and a basket of other greenhouse gases. Well a draft of this “suppressed” document has been released and we can now all read this allegedly devastating critique of the EPA science. Let’s take a look…
First off the authors of the submission; Alan Carlin is an economist and John Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental Quality. Neither are climate scientists. That’s not necessarily a problem – perhaps they have mastered multiple fields? – but it is likely an indication that the analysis is not going to be very technical (and so it will prove). Curiously, while the authors work for the NCEE (National Center for Environmental Economics), part of the EPA, they appear to have rather closely collaborated with one Ken Gregory (his inline comments appear at multiple points in the draft). Ken Gregory if you don’t know is a leading light of the Friends of Science – a astroturf anti-climate science lobbying group based in Alberta. Indeed, parts of the Carlin and Davidson report appear to be lifted directly from Ken’s rambling magnum opus on the FoS site. However, despite this odd pedigree, the scientific points could still be valid.
Their main points are nicely summarised thus: a) the science is so rapidly evolving that IPCC (2007) and CCSP (2009) reports are already out of date, b) the globe is cooling!, c) the consensus on hurricane/global warming connections has moved from uncertain to ambiguous, d) Greenland is not losing mass, no sirree…, e) the recession will save us!, f) water vapour feedback is negative!, and g) Scafetta and West’s statistical fit of temperature to an obsolete solar forcing curve means that all other detection and attribution work is wrong. From this “evidence”, they then claim that all variations in climate are internal variability, except for the warming trend which is caused by the sun, oh and by the way the globe is cooling.
Devastating eh?
One can see a number of basic flaws here; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.
But it gets worse, what solid peer reviewed science do they cite for support? A heavily-criticised blog posting showing that there are bi-decadal periods in climate data and that this proves it was the sun wot done it. The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor Landscheidt, who also thought that the rise of Hitler and Stalin were due to cosmic cycles), a classic Courtillot paper we’ve discussed before, the aforementioned FoS web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi etc. etc. I’m not quite sure how this is supposed to compete with the four rounds of international scientific and governmental review of the IPCC or the rounds of review of the CCSP reports….
They don’t even notice the contradictions in their own cites. For instance, they show a figure that demonstrates that galactic cosmic ray and solar trends are non-existent from 1957 on, and yet cheerfully quote Scafetta and West who claim that almost all of the recent trend is solar driven! They claim that climate sensitivity is very small while failing to realise that this implies that solar variability can’t have any effect either. They claim that GCM simulations produced trends over the twentieth century of 1.6 to 3.74ºC – which is simply (and bizarrely) wrong (though with all due respect, that one seems to come directly from Mr. Gregory). Even more curious, Carlin appears to be a big fan of geo-engineering, but how this squares with his apparent belief that we know nothing about what drives climate, is puzzling. A sine qua non of geo-engineering is that we need models to be able to predict what is likely to happen, and if you think they are all wrong, how could you have any faith that you could effectively manage a geo-engineering approach?
Finally, they end up with the oddest claim in the submission: That because human welfare has increased over the twentieth century at a time when CO2 was increasing, this somehow implies that no amount of CO2 increases can ever cause a danger to human society. This is just boneheadly stupid.
So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. Seriously, if that’s the best they can do, the EPA’s ruling is on pretty safe ground.
If I were the authors, I’d suppress this myself, and then go for a long hike on the Appalachian Trail….
My money says GD is a wattbot fishing for his “deleted at RC” merit badge.
On energy to human success, energy is important to modern society, and I don’t think anyone can create successful arguments to the contrary.
Doug Bostrom
I’m not optimistic about any bills going through congress. I would also like to point out that the biofuel industry is little more then complete bullshit. Ethanol is a hype not a reality.
“As he says, until we deal with corruption it really ain’t happening for us”
Two things are working against government intervention in the USA. The design of the government prevents rapid changes, and the USA is in a state of decline.
J. Bob Says: “The basic rule we used in evaluating a statistical analysis was “The more complex the analysis, the more suspicious the results”. That’s why “How to Lie with Statistics” is still being sold.“
Models of complex systems have to be built from the ground up. When you model something complex, you have to start small, and you have to continue adding to it while checking each simple step. As you progress, you build a model of the complexity while being sure of yourself. People make errors when they attempt to model the complex directly instead of starting small and building up into the complex. Many people wrongly assume that they can prove global warming as bogus with an ad hoc model of a extremely complex system.
If people wish to make meaningful contributions to the science, they should work on small things.
GD Says:
“Humans are a blessing to this planet, and the CO2 we release is only going to invigorate all life and its diversity. I emit as much CO2 as I possibly can, as I am an environmentalist and I want to do the right thing for the future of this planet and our species. “
I never did fully understand environmentalist. Once upon a time, I watched environmentalists hand out paper fliers while they screamed save the trees. I just shook my head and walked on.
John Mashey Says:
Science is not creative writing or political campaigns. In fact, I wince if I see any sign of persuasion in a scientific document because it does not belong there. One good piece of advice to anyone, all good scientific documents are written so that the evidence speaks for itself. Most scientific documents attempt to remove the author from the writing as much as possible.
Marion Delgado – I personally attempt to avoid name-calling expressed or implied. The entire “your an alarmist” and “your a denier” is a complete waste of time. I can only think of Albert Einstein when he remarked “If you truly understand something, you can explain it to your grandmother.”
Francis Massen – “without being THE world authority in statistics, programming etc.”
Mathematicians are already involved in global warming, and they are increasingly pushing into it as a community. Programming does not really require authority. If computer scientists were physicists, then programmers are plumbers. You can rest assured however, computer scientists are involved as well.
“The “normal” physicist (or simple “scientist” should be able to understand the climate debate, and should not be silenced or denied voicing his opinions, just because he is not the full blown..”
The simple scientist? If you are implying layman, I’m afraid global warming may be out of his or her reach because global warming is extremely complex. The best method of explanation is to simply call global warming the “Coat Effect” or perhaps the “Colored Coat Effect” for a more in-depth explanation.
When scientists suggested the possibility of nuclear bombs, people thought the scientists were crazy. Even Albert Einstein failed to gain any ground. It was only after the explosion that many layman accepted the science. Can we afford to wait for the explosion of global warming? Just a thought…
“but it does not give you the authority to deny other scientists or educated women/men speaking out.:”
Nobody has been stopping people from speaking out, and scientists are well within their rights to refute propositions of other people.
John P. Reisman – PBS is a good program.
Ray Ladbury
“Sure, after all, physicists are born knowing this climate stuff, right? No need to actually, oh, crack a book and become familiar with the methods and literature of a field. Just jump right in! And engineers?“
Mathematicians, for example, do not read climate science, but they can still impact it in major ways. Physicists have an important role to play in climate science as well, and they can also impact climate science in major ways with their work. Engineers are also very important for any kind of real solution to occur. Computer scientist are more or less mathematicians with a new name (except for those gay programming schools who name their degrees computer science). I would use Donald Knuth as an example of a computer scientist.
I would also like to point out that the father of electromagnetism and one of the most important scientist of all time was an uneducated librarian. Michael Faraday….
I can also give examples in mathematics if you would like? Ramanujan, for example…! That boy walked all over phd’s without a college education.
Edward Pope
The mathematics behind global warming will take hundreds of years to map out so that you can describe interactions on a detailed level. The trend basically says that we don’t have that kind of time.
However, I agree with you in general. I personally find the debates a waste of time, but they are entertaining waste of time nevertheless.
tamino (429), and you can’t answer the question yes or no. That’s O.K.
Does there exist a video debate on global warming which I can view. It sure seems like both sides have some good arguments. I doubt that any of our legislators understand this issue, yet they vote to make vast changes to our way of life. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.
Thanks,
Edward Pope wrote @450: “All sides of the debate, taking what you consider bad data or science along with your data and learning from them both.”
What is it about one side feels perfectly free and justified to just make stuff up and lie do you not understand?
How is “debate” possible in that case?
What is there to learn from made up stuff and lies?
(Other than some people make stuff up and lie, that is, but I think most people already know that.)
I agree with Mr. Mashey, in sum and in detail. A spoken debate over a period of a few hours or less will not communicate science, and the format lends itself to demagoguery. A written debate over a period of no less than a month might be slightly more effective, yet ultimately futile, outpaced by the real debate in the peer reviewed literature.
We can’t do so for general problems in computation, either.
Therefore, no program you’ve ever written works, and none are useful. You never fly on airplanes, right?
Which is, of course, why none of us can communicate using computer programs.
Can’t you narrow-minded people *think*? (and for the record, I made my living as a compiler writer from roughly 1972 ’til 1998, so I have computer shit chops myself).
#407 SecularAnimist
Sounds like more facts out of context. Just to name a few, the 3% GDP cost is if we took meaningful action now, not in 5 or 10 years (not taking into consideration methods in line with the McKinsey report which indicate rapid action may be economically positive rather than negative, Switzerland is full force on this now and working fast to get off fossil fuel). Since the problem is exponential in nature the costs will increase in kind as well as the effects of course.
You may be right, and Mr. Thomas Fuller is obstructing, but it may also be his transition for his market base. If he is starting to learn a little bit then he can’t just shock them. But of course that is all just arrogant assumption on my part. Maybe he will come back in RC and take a chance at learning the contexts.
——-
Mr. Tom/Thomas Fuller, I suspect you are still reading this thread. To get an idea of the future, check out:
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/summary-docs/2009-may-leading-edge
Sea level rise (SLR):
Post glacial SLR
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/sea-level/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png/view
1880-2005
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/sea-level/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png/view
And a general summary assessment
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise
You can of course find CDC assessments regarding Malaria and related changes, some of which I wrote about here:
http://www.uscentrist.org/news/2007/hot-air-in-media
But you are a journalist, right? You verify your facts before you report, right? Call the CDC and get the skinny from them.
http://www.cdc.gov/
CDC
800-CDC-INFO
Also, being a ‘lukewarmer’ is contrary to being a journalist. Think about it. ;) Journalists are not supposed to be lukewarm, they are supposed to check the facts. Call the CDC and ask them about what is expected with AGW climate change.
My offer remains, feel free to contact me through the OSS contact form. I would be happy to discuss contexts with you.
So reports from the EPA that insist the earth is flat and only 6,000 years old, should be presented as *science* to those in political power?
Is that what you’re saying?
Anything any random employee of the EPA should be presented as *science*, even when the person isn’t a scientist?
If so, God give me a rational dictatorship to live under, because democracy that can’t distinguish between crap and good work is going to be a failure.
#450 Edward Pope:
“Let me just say that neither side is correct. At this stage in the game we simply don’t have a full grasp of the picture.”
Not 100%, true. But there appears to be an overwhelming preponderance of evidence from multiple independent branches of scientific theory accompanied by ample empirical evidence to support one “side”.
“I think we need to step back and work together. All sides of the debate, taking what you consider bad data or science along with your data and learning from them both.”
Sounds reasonable, except there’s an extreme paucity of theory and fact on one side, and again a comparatively bulky amount of theory and fact on the other.
“History has shown that Government will only support the reports that currently further its agenda. Unfortunately, real science and real reporting is second .. no more like fourth fiddle to the real issue at hand. Money, Power, and Influence.”
Again and again we see this focus on government as the “other”, and what’s more that it somehow is uniquely prey to the seductions of “Money, Power and Influence”. Government (here in the U.S. at least) is far more accountable to its “shareholders” than are large private sector entities. Meanwhile, as opposed to the public weal, the portion of the private sector concerned with this “debate” is exclusively focused on “Money, Power and Influence”. That’s the reason for being of big business, after all. In fact, the fiscal responsibility of big business demands that the public good be secondary to “Money, Power and Influence”, as opposed to the explicitly stated and somewhat adhered to mission of most governments.
“At this stage in the game we simply don’t have a full grasp of the picture.”
At this stage in the game we can certainly see what appears reasonably likely to be something akin to a brick wall emerging into our view from a bank of fog. Two groups are struggling for control; one thinks it prudent to hit the brakes, the other is hellbent on plunging ahead. If the latter group is wrong, we go splat. If the former group is wrong, we’ve inconvenienced certain business interests while gracing others with new markets. Meanwhile, time to struggle over a decision is short.
It would be wonderful if we had the time to perfect our knowledge before making a decision to change the direction of our cash flow from one industrial segment to another. A reasonable conclusion is that we don’t have that luxury.
If CO2 causes global warming, how can additional CO2 cause the temperatures to go down for 10 years? What is causing the temperature to go down?
[Response: Temperatures have not gone down in the last ten years. But even if they had, temperatures are controlled by many more things on the short term than just the level of CO2. For an analogy. does your bank account show a monotonic increase in wealth even if you salary increases year by year? – gavin]
Response to EL.
Regarding the sun, that’s not exactly the point. Instead, even if the theory that man-made CO2 emissions cause the earth to warm is true, the size of the effect is paramount. Because if other factors dwarf the man-made CO2 effect, then not only do you have the scientific challenge of teasing out the effects of man-made CO2, but you also have the more important issue of relevance. If the temperature were to rise from 100 to 103 degrees without the emissions, and to 103.1 with them, then the important issue is putting the 0.1 degrees in context. In addition, sticking with your clothes metaphor, if the temperature were to rise from 100 to 103 degrees, you’d peel a layer of clothes off. If it rose to 103.1 degrees, you’d peel the same layer off.
James (413), I apologize if I am beating this into the ground, but I think its important.
Lets say anthropogenic CO2 and human life expectancy have risen together to levels unprecedented in history – just for argument’s sake. Someone comes along and wishes to decrease CO2. If this person were actually concerned with human welfare, wouldn’t he want to provide strong evidence that his actions would not decrease human life expectancy?
Re #440, Cristy (John) I am presuming has a track record in some dubious science so its a pinch of salt type post I am presuming. RC has mentioend him several times in articles here and demonstrated that his ideas are incorrect and demonstrated to be so under the scienctific process.
Rod writes:
No. The fact that you could revive the “global warming stopped in 1998!” idiocy after it has been debunked so many times on this very blog has made me lose all residual respect for you. Either you know better and are trolling, or you are dumber than a post. Either way, I can’t take you seriously any more.
Well, I tried to engage with Tom Fuller over at the Examiner, but it seems he just is not interested in listening. It’s pretty obvious he is not interested in the science, given that he think Watts is a more credible scientist than Gavin or Mike. He even told me that “you can’t reject a null hypothesis”, which was news to me.
He described his position as a “lukewarmer”, which sounds to me like someone who believes you can get a little bit pregnant. According to Fuller, 2C is all the warming we’re ever going to get, and no more ice is going to melt. So then, no need to worry.
Jim Bullis,
A really really last try: Let’s stop reinventing the wheel (after all, the ice-albedo feedback discussion has a long history). I found this 1979 paper by Cogley very instrutive (and not paywalled). Cogley tabulated monthly and annual means for open water albedo as a function of latitude, based on 1950s work using either
1) the Fresnel equations (like the graph you point to) or
2) observations,
and weighting for incoming radiation: when the sun is low, much of the direct radiation will be reflected (approaching 100%), but there will be little radiation to reflect, and we are interested in the total energy budget.
Selected results at latitudes of 80-90 deg N were as follows: With Fresnel – max monthly mean albedos of 76% in February/October, min 11% in June, annual weighted mean 18%. In the 70-80 deg N band the annual mean was 16%. This well matches the other source I cited. So your argument is clearly wrong even under ideal conditions.
In realistic conditions you get diffuse radiation due to clouds etc, and the range narrows. For example, by extrapolating observations to thigh latitudes Cogley got 13% in June and a much reduced 30% max in February/October, but the same annual mean. Of course after 1979 there have been direct measurements and improved methods (see SHEBA), so I mention this just for the sake of illustration.
Before I make my comment, a few facts for clarity:
I am not a scientist
I have looked at both sides of the AGW issue
I am of the opinion that the “science is not settled” and that more verification of the climate models is necessary
I am concerned that, in our rush to reduce CO2, we may pass a climate bill that devastates our country’s economy
Now, to my observation and question…
After reading your post, Gavin, I thought I would point out a flaw in your logic when you addressed the flaw in Carlin’s logic. Concerning Carlin’s assertion that the earth has been cooling for the past decade, you said:
“One can see a number of basic flaws here; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales…”
If you are of the opinion that temperature variability on a short time scale is insignificant, how can we declare as fact that the rise in global temperature over the past 50 years is incontrovertibly tied to the increase in CO2 levels? Isn’t 50 years a short enough time span, historically speaking, to be affected by natural variability?
And, a simple but sincere question: Has the earth been cooling for the past decade, and how does that fit into the climate models?
These are honest questions that many people have (and I do not believe the earth is flat, or deny the Holocaust).
Todd
[Response: The planet hasn’t been cooling for the last decade. But even if it had, there are short term variations in temperature associated with El Nino and La Nina events and other ‘weather’ which imply that CO2 is not the only factor. As for longer trends, there are of course other factors that could play a role, but you perhaps don’t realise that the association of the trends over the last few decades with human forcings (which include other GHGs, aerosols, land use, ozone depletion etc.) are not just based on a correlations. Instead, we have a very good idea of what GHGs do to radiation, we have a reasonable idea of what aerosols and land use changes do, and we can look for fingerprints in the real world observations that match what we expect to have happened. When we include all these effects, we get a good match to what has been seen in the stratosphere, troposphere, Arrtic, oceans, surface, snow cover etc. If we leave them out, then we don’t get a match at all regardless of what we assume for the natural variability. – gavin]
Freudian mistype: that should be high latitudes, not thigh latitudes…
“What better way to make sure the ideas are properly presented then in debate form” – steve
Just about any way you can imagine. Verbal debates favour those who are willing to play fast and loose with the truth in order to “win” in the eyes of an uninformed audience. Just as in the debates creationists are so keen to have with evolutionary biologists, in a debate on AGW the denialists would simply raise so many canards that there would be no time to pin them all down. That’s why the AGW denialists, like creationists, and denialists of other varieties, are forever pressing for verbal debates. On a blog, thrice-refuted points can be shown to be such. However, the real place for the scientific debate on AGW is in the scientific literature – where, so far as the basics point are concerned – that greenhouse gases are responsible for most 20th century warming, and curbing emissions is urgent – it’s long been settled.
Please disregard the last question about the earth cooling. I went to woodfortrees.org where you reference a temperature graph. I have no idea if this is an accurate data set, but I will assume you believe the earth has not cooled.
Todd
Yes Nick I agree that a verbal debate is a weak method. My comment you quoted was based on an earlier post where I supported the idea of a written debate.
Re: #468, #471 (Todd)
Todd, you began by expressing your opinion that the “science is not settled.” Then you asked, “Has the earth been cooling for the past decade, and how does that fit into the climate models?”
Gavin pointed you to a graph of temperature data for the last 10 years, with the trend line upward. This doesn’t show that the earth has been warming for the past decade — that trend isn’t statistically significant — but it does show how mistaken is the claim that the earth has been cooling. Now you say you have no idea whether that is an accurate data set.
Clearly you don’t know enough about global temperature measurements to know what’s accurate and what isn’t, let alone what the trend has been for the last 10 years. Clearly Gavin knows a lot about temperature measurements, as well as a lot about the physics which causes temperature to change (he is, after all, a professional climate scientist).
You obviously didn’t get that “globe is cooling” idea from studying temperature data!
Most of us who read here regularly, do know where you got it. This is your opportunity for an epiphany: to realize that you got that idea from people who are either likewise ignorant of the data and its proper analysis, or who are outright lying to you. And that is the real reason you believe the science is not settled: you’ve been a victim of propaganda.
Michael @463, please, please, please tell me that you aren’t arguing that rising CO2 levels are actually causing an increase in human longevity. Because if you are, you should really consider giving power of attorney to somebody who is competent to manage your affairs.
To all those calling for both “sides” to come together, how ’bout this. Let’s have the denialists go off and come up with a coherent position based on peer reviewed science. Go ahead. We’ll wait.
[crickets chirping]
In the mean time, mind if we get on with basing policy on established science. Because there are only two options: We can base the policy on the science or we can go against the science. There’s no middle ground. Science or anti-science. Choose!
WRT to the (alleged) correlation between CO2 and human longevity: correlation is not, as our denialist friends like to stress–on alternate days, anyhow–causation.
Otherwise the following would be a compelling argument:
The increase in human longevity strongly correlates with money spent on armaments; hence, let’s spend everything on guns & bombs so we can all live forever.
RE: 467
Hey CM,
I kind of like the experiments being carried out by Dr. Jason Box (OSU) and team, ( http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/discovery-project-earth-wrapping-glaciers-in-a-nutshell.html ) when it comes to looking at the effect of sun on ice. As recently as last year in association with research of Dr. Hall of NASA, they were reviewing the creation and drainage of Greenland Ice Melt Ponds via moulins.
Part of the experiment was to employ a white polypropylene cover or canvas of nearly 1 acre in coverage to see if this has any effect on the ice surrounding the melt pond.
This was similar to an experiment carried out in the Swiss Alps in regards to a glacier associated with a ski resort. It was clearly demonstrated by insulating and protecting the ice with a partially solar reflective cover it was possible to prevent much ice melt and contributed to a hardening of the slushy ice that had surrounded the melt pond.
The real interesting thing was that the slushy ice would have been devoid of dark aerosols, as these would already have washed out of the ice. This left the formation of of nodules of ice where the snow had partially melted and then refroze. Apparently these nodules were enough to concentrate solar insolation to increase melting.
There were also questions regarding the warming of the surface atmosphere and the possibility that warm air was participating in the advancing of the melting. If we look at the air temperature on a micro scale it was more likely that there would be a temperature inversion layer within feet of the surface which would have reduced the cool to warm convection in the absence of wind.
Generally, in this region you may have several melt re-freeze cycles, with a blanket of new fallen snow with a reflectivity in the UV range of near 90% versus something in the area of 50% of ice within the first foot. (Keeping in mind that even absorption and re-emission is in essence reflection as nearly all reflective phenomena includes a value of the depth of penetration and then a possible transfer of penetrating energy to the reflecting body.) So this then begs the question, if the experiment had been done with a simple aluminum foil sheet or a white painted aluminum foil painted sheet would they get the same results?
I suspect that solar insolation is a primary driver of snow and ice melt above 60 Deg., even to the point of sublimation due to changes in vapor pressure. (Though 540 calories/gm versus 80 calories/gm would indicate a very high level of input energy…) However, the possibility of warm winds also contributes to the equation. (We also have the issue of LW radiation, hence a new experiment with a spectrally selective conductive cover would be a worth while follow up experiment.) Sad to say that is unlikely to occur this year, or in time for the IPCC model design.
In essence, rather then argue the issue, why not fund the experiment, it would go a lot further to proving a point as opposed to debating the possible outcome…
Cheers!
Dave Cooke
EL says, “I would also like to point out that the father of electromagnetism and one of the most important scientist of all time was an uneducated librarian. Michael Faraday….”
Um, I wouldn’t exactly call Faraday uneducated. His education was mostly informal, but at the time, that was not an insurmountable handicap.
Also, note that I didn’t claim that those from scientific disciplines could not contribute–merely that they would have to educate themselves prior to making meaningful contributions.
Re #471:
Doctor: You have been shot in the leg.
Patient: No, I haven’t.
Doctor: Here is the entry wound in your thigh, and here is an x-ray showing the bullet lodged in your femur.
Patient: I doubt the accuracy of that x-ray, but I will *assume* that you *believe* that I have been shot in the leg.
CTG, I tried too. Even showed them Barton’s excellent “How to estimate planetary temperatures,” but they had none of it. First they said the Mars and Venus measurements weren’t measured, just computed; then they said we couldn’t measure temperatures on other planets; then they said we’d need billions of measurements to estimate average surface temperature.
Willful ignorance may be one of the strongest and most inert substances on Earth.
pete best Says:
30 June 2009 at 4:20 PM
“Oh yes, the deniers are getting more and more desperate as their nonsense is failing and president Obama at least takes the first tentative steps for the USA to tackle thier oil imports as a good proxy for dealing with their fossil fuels usage. Its not so easy for coal and gas but it could all come under the umbrella of this legislation.
Gavins patience is astounding on this site and I really hope it is not interupting his more important work of science, something that the denialists have no idea about, nor being courteous and intelligent either.”
No wonder they chucked you out of The Beatles whith these sorts of opinions.
#439’s comment on Francis 419
So what are your qualification Ray? As a physicist Francis would have a good grounding in basic science & math. Even more important, the ability to take a realistic look at things being presented to him.
Darren – The misunderstanding you have with my analogy is that you cannot simply peel off the greenhouse gases as you can with your clothing; however, you are correct that it does have to come off through reduction in emissions.
Scientist have already done much of the relationship work to put the CO2 problem into context. If you review some of the literature, you can see what the temperature rise is expected from the greenhouse gas problem. The literature involves the work of an army of scientist and mathematicians.
You are correct that the global warming problem is complex. The CO2 problem spawns new problems that effect the CO2 problem. For example, the melting of the ice in the arctics. Although you may have heard about sea level rise, you have most likely heard less about other major issues that are involved. When ice forms, it traps gases inside of it. When ice melts, it releases the gases back into the atmosphere. One major problem with the arctics, it has a large storage of methane trapped in the ice. Methane is twenty times more effective at trapping heat than CO2. So as our CO2 emissions continue to melt the ice, it worsens the problem through the release of methane. It’s a cascading effect.
There is also some CO2 reduction in the natural world. For example, trees feed upon CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste. So scientist have to account for how much of the CO2 the trees are able to remove from the atmosphere. Regretfully, deforestation has worsen the problem because there are fewer trees to help us take care of the CO2.
The large bulk of CO2 reduction is coming from our oceans. The oceans are absorbing the CO2, and the added CO2 is causing the PH level in our oceans to drop; as a result, our oceans are becoming acidic. The acidification of our oceans is a huge problem, and I would go as far as to say it is our largest problem. Even if all other problems of CO2 disappeared, we could not ignore the acidification of our oceans.
Scientist are not suggesting that people go back into the ancient world; instead, they are asking for new technologies to replace older ones so that we do not emit as much CO2. The reduction would help solve some of our problems while people would enjoy cleaner air.
For Ed Bradford @461 and Todd @468:
Look at the temperature this plot:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/trend
Notice that temperatures went down in 1883, 1891, 1904, 1917, 1929, 1950, 1964, 1976, 1992, 2000.
But also notice that every drop in temperature was followed by a rise that wiped out that drop and took us higher than it was before before the drop.
That means the underlying long term trend in climate is up. It’s up due to carbon emissions.
Capthcha provides the reason: “Fouled Development”
“Dennis Rogers Says:
30 June 2009 at 22:58
Does there exist a video debate on global warming which I can view”
Google for the Youtube videos “crock of the week”.
“On energy to human success, energy is important to modern society, and I don’t think anyone can create successful arguments to the contrary.”
I have several times.
Port Talbot Steelworks.
Insulation/airflow vs Air Con.
It’s what you get OUT of energy that’s important. Not the energy
“Phew, now that at least is out of the way. Let me just say that neither side is correct. At this stage in the game we simply don’t have a full grasp of the picture. How does everything work?”
A) You’re wrong. One side is correct and the other side lying.
B) We don’t need to know how everything works to work out how to safely park a car. So why must we know EVERYTHING here?
At the very basis we have two absolutely inviolate truths:
Energy is being retained by a blanket of gas and that retention is increasing.
If energy is retained, heat increases.
If nothing else, this shows there is global warming.
But one side keeps saying it isn’t happening.
Steve 440 says: “A recent paper by Douglas and Christy seems to claim that either 2C02 would lead to less than 1C or if 2C02 leads to greater than 1C then some forcing other than aerosols must be “masking” CO2’s effect….”
And does that level of increase fit with the paleoclimate?
No.
So what is the source of the warming excess seen in the records then?
Or has physical reality changed dramatically in the last 10,000 years?
Ray 474, I’m trying to logically define our relationship with fossil fuels. Given the idea that hairless apes are very energy dependant, what would restricting access to certain energy choices do to their welfare?
Technically speaking, until you have established this relationship you can’t make statements like “a worldwide migration to energy alternatives will actually benefit mankind.” Correct?
[Response: “welfare” calculations include downstream costs. You might as well question restricting factories choices to dump pollutants in streams since that can cost them money. The issue is that right now, no price is being paid for future damages due to climate change and that will directly effect welfare. – gavin]
I have been saying — and occasionally commenting here — since the November 2008 election, that now that the new administration and the new majority in Congress are moving to take action — however belated and inadequate — to reduce CO2 emissions, which necessarily means action to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, that the fossil fuel corporations and their political allies would kick their campaign of deceit and denial into overdrive.
That’s exactly what’s happening. And it is reflected in the media coverage — both the so-called “mainstream” media and the so-called “conservative” media — as well as the onslaught of cut-and-pasted, scripted denialist drivel comments being posted by Ditto-Heads on blogs everywhere.
And it’s only going to get worse now that legislation has passed the House and the legislative effort moves on to the Senate.
To the admirable hosts of RealClimate: brace yourselves.
(By the way, the suggestion that CO2 emissions in themselves are causally connected to human well-being, and that reducing CO2 emissions in itself threatens human well-being, is just about the stupidest denialist drivel-point I have ever heard, and that’s saying a lot.)
“According to Fuller, 2C is all the warming we’re ever going to get, and no more ice is going to melt.”
It should be obvious that increasing temperatures cannot melt ice. There’s no physics behind it.
“So then, no need to worry.”
Also note that 1000 ppm will not be much of a problem…I feel so much better now.
Jim, save those quotes. They’ll come in handy when Fuller tells us that Martian warming proves that Terrestrial warming is solar-driven.
BPL, unable to answer a simple yes or no either then. That’s O.K. (btw, none of your retort (465) had any bearing on the sample question.)
Al Gore spoke out for action on global warming (starting with Earth in the Balance) because virtually no one else was. Same reason Janeane Garofalo spoke out against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Both were completely correct. Neither were selected by some sort of ballot process. Climate scientists did not elect Senator or Vice President Gore as a spokesperson for action on carbon and climate change. The millions of people in the US did not hold a secret election and say, “that Janeane Garofalo never offends anyone, let’s make HER the face of anti-invasion!” She was relatively well-known and willing to go on any show that would have her and hold her ground.
The people pegging sensible, reality-based policies on celebrities are the opponents of sensible, reality-based policies, not their advocates. And being long DEAD doesn’t save you from this cynical ploy, as Rachel Carson could tell you, if she was not in fact dead lo these many years.
RodB stated:
“BPL, unable to answer a simple yes or no either then. That’s O.K. (btw, none of your retort (465) had any bearing on the sample question.)”
Rod, you are [edit]. The [edit-lets keep this civil] question has been explained like a hundred times to you, and you still keep harping on. Go figure!
Re: #493 (Rod B)
Rod, your attempt to insinuate cooling from 1998 to 2008 is infantile. You’ve been corrected, you’ve been informed, you can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse. I conclude that you’ll grasp at any straw to hold on to your misconception. Rest assured of this: you’re not fooling anyone except yourself.
Guess we’ll all have to learn how to eat jellyfish and squid.
Gavin 489, I totally agree calculations must include downstream costs. My argument is that you can’t even calculate downstream costs until you define the human/energy relationship.
Is there a link between energy availability and welfare? How significant is it? Is it so sensitive that any disruption would be disastrous? Or maybe its such an insignificant link that we can write it off as non-existent?
Marion: And being long DEAD doesn’t save you from this cynical ploy, as Rachel Carson could tell you, if she was not in fact dead lo these many years.
Indeed — Over on the SF Examiner blog, Tom Fuller recently invoked Carl Sagan against climate science: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Kevin, good thinking. But I’m done with feeding that particular troll.