Global Warming Question

[themadhair]

This is a bit of a tangent but it has relevance to this issue. I’m a huge fan of using the tax systems as a means of incentivising good behaviour . A good example of such on a personal level is the ability to get tax deductions on charitable donations. In the EU the entire customs levy system is geared towards encouraging trade in more environmentally friendly fuels with most of them being zero rated.

(Off topic but I thought the Obama plan to give a tax break to US companies for every US job they create was a masterstroke. I’ve sent plenty of messages to my TD’s trying to get them to table that idea.)

It is in this context that I see Kyoto. By artificially creating an economic incentive for countries to meet targets (targets that will get progressively more stringent as time goes on) the incentive for good behaviour is created (as well as discouragements for bad behaviour).

 

[Alceste]

This is a bit of a tangent but it has relevance to this issue. I’m a huge fan of using the tax systems as a means of incentivising good behaviour . A good example of such on a personal level is the ability to get tax deductions on charitable donations. In the EU the entire customs levy system is geared towards encouraging trade in more environmentally friendly fuels with most of them being zero rated.

(Off topic but I thought the Obama plan to give a tax break to US companies for every US job they create was a masterstroke. I’ve sent plenty of messages to my TD’s trying to get them to table that idea.)

It is in this context that I see Kyoto. By artificially creating an economic incentive for countries to meet targets (targets that will get progressively more stringent as time goes on) the incentive for good behaviour is created (as well as discouragements for bad behaviour).

I agree - tax incentives for good behavior and prohibitive taxes for bad works great, but it's still an uphill battle on this issue, because there simply is no cheap, abundant replacement for fossil fuels that will allow us to continue with a growth-based, consumer-driven economic model. And so far, almost nobody is suggesting we kick this ill-conceived model to the curb. All the R & D is aimed at maintaining the status quo using something else. For example, my dad just told me they've invented a fridge-sized battery that can power a house for a couple of days with everything going full-tilt. I'm not pooh-poohing this development, but I think it betrays a very unimaginative approach to problem solving. It's like building a shed in the back yard to store an inflatable bed because it just hasn't occurred to you to let the air out and shove it under the steps when you're not using it. I could run a house on a battery the size of a microwave if I had the opportunity to start from scratch.

 

[yossarian22]

If global warming skeptics were even half as rational as they pretend to be, they would notice the disturbing similarities that agw skepticism has to the tobacco companies' misinformation campaigns during the 1960s.

 

[themadhair]

If global warming skeptics were even half as rational as they pretend to be, they would notice the disturbing similarities that agw skepticism has to the tobacco companies' misinformation campaigns during the 1960s.

Funny you mention this since there does appear to be folks who were involved in both.

 

[Alceste]

Funny you mention this since there does appear to be folks who were involved in both.

Yeh, it's kind of a small club, really. Somewhere I saw a great blog by a guy who spends his spare time digging up the money trail funding the most influential free market propaganda outfits and publishing rackets, and naming names. I was kind of surprised to find out it's not uncommon for one dude funded by one industry to launch numerous apparently independent companies, think tanks, policy groups, "grassroots" movements, editorials... In fact it's the rule, not the exception. And since these guys are "opinion-makers for hire" they'll say anything if the price is right. To them, there's no difference between denying tobacco causes cancer and Climate Change denial - not to mention claiming single-payer health care is ineffective - it's all just money in the bank to them. The same people are involved in all of these misinformation campaigns because if you are willing to say absolutely anything for money, and you are really good at it, you rise to the top of the industry quickly.

I think it should be a standard part of any education curriculum to study the history and modern practice of propaganda. I don't remember doing any media analysis at all, which goes a long way to explain why Joe Public is generally so very easily manipulated by these folks.

 

[Oberon]

I was going to quit this thread because it was going nowhere, but too much bad information keeps being spouted. So I am going to prepare a lengthy response on why Kyoto is such a bad idea. Before I do that, however, themadhair keeps shoving this graph of reconstructed temperatures in our face. But how accurate is it?

The graph is a reconstruction of temperatures prepared primarily by Michael Mann. Looks very scary. But how did he arrive at these figures? And are they accurate? Mann’s work was reviewed by Dr. Edward Wegman per the request of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s. His report found numerous flaws with Mann’s reconstruction. In other words, the real past temperatures were more like this:

Not anywhere near as impressive as Mann’s model, is it?

Here is the full report Wegman Report

 

[Oberon]

Of course, these are both reconstructions. What if we look at actual temperature data in various cities around the world? If we look at New York City, we see a dramatic rise in temperature. But how much is due to global warming versus the heat island effect? What if we look at a nearby city? Syracuse.

Here we see the temperature has gone down since 1930. Why such a dramatic difference between New York City, where the temperature has risen dramatically, and Syracuse, only a few miles away? And there are many other places I can show with the same type of temperature change as Syracuse.

Now, this doesn't mean the earth isn't warming, or even that we aren't contributing. But the fact that there are so many places on the globe where the temperature hasn't risen or has gone down in the last hundred years, and that some models of reconstructed past tempuratures show that the earth was hotter before, indicates that perhaps disaster isn't as imminent as is commonly supposed.

I will be posting more on Kyoto and the supposed disasters that will result from warming later.

 

[Alceste]

Wow, what a surprise, another statistician.

 

[Oberon]

Wow, what a surprise, another statistician.

How do you suppose the original graph was constructed? Statistics are VITAL here. Mann, the head of the team that created themadhair's graph, used them as well. Ancient climate reconstructions use sophisticated statistics. Why do you think Wegman was asked by the Energy and Commerce Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives?

And heck, again screw reconstructions, how about looking at temperature data records from the US, the country which has kept some of the best records for the longest period of time:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

When we look at the temperature records as far as they go, they really haven't changed much since 1895.

 

[themadhair]

Not anywhere near as impressive as Mann’s model, is it?

You do know that Wegman’s work wasn’t formally peer reviewed? You do know that the graph I linked to was part of Mann’s and the NAS’s follow up paper after Wegman? Was this an oversight on your part, a lack of familiarity with the material or an act of dishonesty on your part? Not off to a good start.

If we look at New York City, we see a dramatic rise in temperature.

I linked to a paper that looked a biological signs independent of UHI that displayed the same temperature rise measured elsewhere. Drop the UHI argument. Unless of course you really don’t have anything better which wouldn’t surprise me.

Also:
IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other

But the fact that there are so many places on the globe where the temperature hasn't risen or has gone down in the last hundred years, and that some models of reconstructed past tempuratures show that the earth was hotter before, indicates that perhaps disaster isn't as imminent as is commonly supposed.

This is your argument? And you will happily batter other folks in the Jesus’s threads for not accepting the overwhelming consensus of scholarship? Hypocrite.

Why do you think Wegman was asked by the Energy and Commerce Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives?

Why did you not mention that the graph I linked to was produced after Wegman’s report (and actually incorporated some of his report’s recommendations)?

When we look at the temperature records as far as they go, they really haven't changed much since 1895.

The trend is clearly visible.

 

[Alceste]

How do you suppose the original graph was constructed? Statistics are VITAL here. Mann, the head of the team that created themadhair's graph, used them as well. Ancient climate reconstructions use sophisticated statistics. Why do you think Wegman was asked by the Energy and Commerce Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives?

So, in your opinion, what difference does it make if one of dozens of models, all of which lead to the same or similar conclusions, the sum of which actual climate scientists unanimously agree indicates a steep, recent, unprecedented upward swing in global temperatures, uses flawed statistical methodology? I mean, even if this particular statistician is correct about this particular flaw in this particular methodology?

I'm sure you've heard the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". You are apparently claiming the unanimous consensus of virtually all the climate scientists in the world is wrong with respect to their specific area of expertise. I'm afraid to back up your opinion, a single critique of a single outdated graph by a single academic who is not even a climate scientist himself doesn't cut the mustard.

Maybe it does for you, since your sole criteria for accepting the findings of academics appears to be that it agrees with what you wish to believe. It doesn't for me, because I read the academic opinions of relevant scientists first, before formulating my own opinion. My sole criteria for considering academic opinions is that the academic in question have legitimate credentials in the field on which he is commenting. So, if I am interested in climate, I read the findings of climatologists, not statisticians and economists.

 

[Oberon]

You do know that Wegman’s work wasn’t formally peer reviewed?

Right. It was a government sponsered work and utilized a panel of statisticians.

You do know that the graph I linked to was part of Mann’s and the NAS’s follow up paper after Wegman? Was this an oversight on your part, a lack of familiarity with the material or an act of dishonesty on your part? Not off to a good start.

No. I don't think Mann's later work was any better. My point is, these are MODELS! One team can get a very different result, yet you cling to Mann's model like gospel, while I get criticized for using a journal of several models for the economic effects of Kyoto.

I linked to a paper that looked a biological signs independent of UHI that displayed the same temperature rise measured elsewhere.

Yes, again reconstructions. Again, models. Again, not actual temperature data.

This is your argument? And you will happily batter other folks in the Jesus’s threads for not accepting the overwhelming consensus of scholarship? Hypocrite.

Again, I'm not dissenting from the overwhelming consensus. There ARE plenty of scientists who agree with me that global warming is happening and we are most likely contributing but that the dangers have been exaggeratted.

And as for Jesus' historicity, there is only one scholar in the field who doubts it. Not the same.

Why did you not mention that the graph I linked to was produced after Wegman’s report (and actually incorporated some of his report’s recommendations)?

Because it doesn't matter to the point I was making. His report still differed from Mann's later report. Moreover, my point was that these are reconstructions. Two teams got very different results.

The trend is clearly visible.

No, it isn't. If you look at the actual temperature data for the US over the past century, the average has been pretty much the same. We had two spikes, one in the 30s and on much more recently, a long dip in the 70s with a big low in the 80s, and so forth.

 

[themadhair]

I don't think Mann's later work was any better.

Because it doesn’t confirm to opinion?

One team can get a very different result, yet you cling to Mann's model like gospel, while I get criticized for using a journal of several models for the economic effects of Kyoto.

So the fact that Mann’s later work as part of the NAS weighing in on the issue, and incorporated the Wegman criticisms, is lost on you?
Also, where did I criticise the economic models? I criticised your complete and utter ignoring of what Kyoto was intended to do and what it has accomplished.

Yes, again reconstructions. Again, models. Again, not actual temperature data.

And what are those models based on? Pulled out of climatologists’ arses?

Again, I'm not dissenting from the overwhelming consensus.

Yes you are. You are deliberately twisting the current state of scientific research, you are deliberately attempting to divorce Kyoto from its recognised accomplishments and as a foundation for future global efforts and you are still trying get mileage out of the UHI despite it being the consensus view that UHI is not a contributing factor in any sense.

There ARE plenty of scientists who agree with me that global warming is happening and we are most likely contributing but that the dangers have been exaggeratted.

They don’t disagree with the IPCC so I don’t see the point with this red herring.

And as for Jesus' historicity, there is only one scholar in the field who doubts it. Not the same.

So not worthy of analogy at all to point out the blatant hypocrisy of relying on overwhelming consensus in one debate while ignoring it in another.

Because it doesn't matter to the point I was making. His report still differed from Mann's later report.

You presented something that you thought would cast doubt without realising the relationship between the two sets of research. The problem is that the later research incorporated the criticisms, while including much more data from more sources, and confirmed the results. As one person put it, ‘it went from being a hockey stick to a whole hockey team’.

Moreover, my point was that these are reconstructions. Two teams got very different results.

see above.

If you look at the actual temperature data for the US over the past century, the average has been pretty much the same.

It puts a green line on the graph to show the trend. But hey, isn’t the global trend what we are interested in?
From the same website you linked for the US data:

 

[Oberon]

Because it doesn’t confirm to opinion?

Because it doesn't fix all the problems Wegman found with Mann's first model.

So the fact that Mann’s later work as part of the NAS weighing in on the issue, and incorporated the Wegman criticisms, is lost on you?

He didn't "incorporate" Wegman's criticisms. Why do you think the model of Wegman's is so vastly different? Paying lip service does not equal "incorporating the criticisms."

Also, where did I criticise the economic models? I criticised your complete and utter ignoring of what Kyoto was intended to do and what it has accomplished.

It was Yossarian. And I intend to fully address how foolish your position on kyoto is tomorrow.

And what are those models based on? Pulled out of climatologists’ arses?

No. But they are not as solid as actual temperature readings, which is why climatologists still use temperature data. It is the most accurate measurement. Unfortunately, nobody knows exactly how we should adjust for the heat island effect. Which is why we can examine the temperatures of plenty of places and see that they have either remained virtually unchanged or have gone down in the last century. The link I provided earlier can give you the average temperature for the US over the last century. It has remained fairly constant.

Yes you are.

No, I'm not. Not from the "overwhelming consensus." There are plenty of experts who believe in global warming, and believe we are probably contributing, who also are skeptical of the more radical claims and of kyoto. The IPCC is a political organization.

You are deliberately twisting the current state of scientific research

Wrong.

, you are deliberately attempting to divorce Kyoto from its recognised accomplishments

It hasn't and won't accomplish anything. The costs FAR outweigh the gains. Again, I will address this in depth tomorrow.

despite it being the consensus view that UHI is not a contributing factor in any sense.

I have provided several peer-reviewed articles stating the opposite. Too many models do not take this into account adequately enough.

They don’t disagree with the IPCC so I don’t see the point with this red herring.

They do disagree with the IPCC on several points. Nice try.

So not worthy of analogy at all to point out the blatant hypocrisy of relying on overwhelming consensus in one debate while ignoring it in another.

I know of dozens of experts who share my views with global warming, as opposed to one in the field of historical Jesus research. Nice try.

You presented something that you thought would cast doubt without realising the relationship between the two sets of research. The problem is that the later research incorporated the criticisms, while including much more data from more sources, and confirmed the results. As one person put it, ‘it went from being a hockey stick to a whole hockey team’.

Can you read? This was an entirely seperate link. Go to the link I provided from NASA's GISS temperature data for the US. The average temperature has barely risen in the last century.

If you link to this site, and simply press submit, you can see the graph of temperatures in the US from the last century (and shortly before). The average temperature has remained the same for a century.

Here it is:

 

[Alceste]

If you link to this site, and simply press submit, you can see the graph of temperatures in the US from the last century (and shortly before). The average temperature has remained the same for a century.

Here it is:

Look at your own graph. The black line ("average") quite obviously represents the average of all the points on the graph - it is not subject to the "Year" axis, it is a reference line. The Green Line (clearly labeled "trend") shows that temperatures in the US have increased about one and three quarters of a degree over the time scale represented.

Furthermore, the fact that the green line happens to be straight does not mean the increase has been uniform. From simple visual inspection of its position in relation to the scatter points, you can plainly see that if a curved line were selected (or a line with the ability to curve if required), there would be a fairly sharp upward curve in the last 20 years.

You should probably either refresh your memory on how this stuff works or avoid posting graphs.

Anyway, now that we've cleared that up, what do US average temperatures in January have to do with Global warming?

 

[Oberon]

The Green Line (clearly labeled "trend") shows that temperatures in the US have increased about one and three quarters of a degree over the time scale represented.

In over a hundred years, we have about a degree of warming. In addition, we have periods of cooling which correspond to increases in carbon emissions. Hmmm....

Furthermore, the fact that the green line happens to be straight does not mean the increase has been uniform. From simple visual inspection of its position in relation to the scatter points, you can plainly see that if a curved line were selected (or a line with the ability to curve if required), there would be a fairly sharp upward curve in the last 20 years.

Only carbon emissions have been increasing far longer. There was an extensive dip in temperatures while greenhouse emissions were rising.

You should probably either refresh your memory on how this stuff works or avoid posting graphs.

You should probably actually look at the data before posting junk.

Anyway, now that we've cleared that up, what do US average temperatures in January have to do with Global warming?

Who said anything about January? These are the average yearly temperatures over the last century in the US, perhaps the most accurate place where temperatures where recorded.

 

[Alceste]

In over a hundred years, we have about a degree of warming. In addition, we have periods of cooling which correspond to increases in carbon emissions. Hmmm....

That's not what your "January in the US" graph says, I'm afraid.

Who said anything about January?

You did. Click your own link, and don't bother with a retort - I know I'm right, and anybody can click your link, look at the January graph, compare it to your graph and see that I am right. You're not doing your credibility any favours by pretending otherwise.

 

[Oberon]

That's not what your "January in the US" graph says, I'm afraid.

You did. Click your own link, and don't bother with a retort - I know I'm right, and anybody can click your link, look at the January graph, compare it to your graph and see that I am right. You're not doing your credibility any favours by pretending otherwise.

Sorry, I linked to the wrong picture. Here is the annual one:

Again we see in a period of over 100 years barely a degree of warming.

 

[Oberon]

Climate Consensus

I have been called a hypocrite because I have criticized those non-experts who challenge the idea that their was a historical Jesus because after nearly 400 years of critical inquiry into the historical Jesus there has been virtual unanimity among experts for over a century. The hypocrite part is because supposedly I am doing the same thing with respect to climate change. Let’s examine this claim.

First, I believe there is good evidence that the earth is warming and that humans are contributing to this. Apparently, however, I am still a hypocrite because I challenge the IPCCs position on Kyoto (among other things) which represents a consensus.

Now, I would like to point out first that the unanimity positing a historical Jesus in Jesus research comes after the existence of a historical Jesus was questioned nearly 4 centuries ago and has held for over a century. The theory of global warming isn’t nearly that old.

Also, what is the consensus, and what has it been?

Let’s take at what the “consensus” has been over the years since the theory was first proposed.

In 1992, we have a statement from about 100 experts challenging the global warming theory and restraints on emissions.

http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/statment.html

In 1996, the “Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate change” also received around 100 signatures questioning Kyoto and anthropogenic climate change

http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDrevised.html


A survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (“Climate science: An empirical example of postnormal scienceClimate science: An empirical example of postnormal science” 1999 Vol. 80 Issue 3) also found a significant number of experts were not convinced that global warming is a future prospect and even more were unconvinced that it is happening now.

In 1997, a conservative group (yes, those lying b@st@rds) surveyed U.S. State Climatologists

http://web.archive.org/web/19980525144333/http://www.cse.org/surveyenviroreg100897.htm

They found a significant number of experts who denied that humans are the cause of global warming.

 

[Oberon]

In 2001, the American Association of State Climatologists made this statement:



“Climate prediction is complex with many uncertainties – The AASC recognizes climate prediction is an extremely difficult undertaking. For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such predictions – called “verification” – is simply impossible, since we have to wait a decade or longer to assess the accuracy of the forecasts.
Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system. These components include the oceans, land, lakes, and continental ice sheets, and involve physical, biological, and chemical processes. The complicated feedbacks and forcings within the climate system are the reasons for the difficulty in accurately predicting the future climate. The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends.”

In 2003, the german environmental scientists (responsible also for the 1999 article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) Bray and von Storch conducted another survey. They found that nearly HALF of experts disagreed with the statement that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.”

http://www.stateclimate.org/publications/files/aascclimatepolicy.pdf


So it appears that the position of experts on anthropogenic climate change and Kyoto cannot be compared with the unanimity of historical Jesus research.

But what about the IPCC?

For starters, deception and fraud have plagued this organization since its inception. See, for example, F. Seitz, “Major Deception on Global Warming,” Wall Street Journal, 12, June 1996. The “Summary for Policy Makers” in 1995 stated that there is “a discernible human influence on the global climate” although this statement was NOT approved of by the actual scientists. It was added after the fact. The expert-approved chapter 8 draft actually stated “When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is we do not know.”

One of the lead scientists involved in the IPCC, Dr. Lindzen, has been highly critical of the politicized an unscientific approach of many aspects of the IPCC. In testimony before congress, he made this statement:

Summary of Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen
before the Senate Commerce Committee on 1 May 2001.
The public presentation of the issue of global warming over the past 12 years, has, by the very nature of the presentation, forced confusion and irrationality to dominate the discussion. On the one hand, the issue is presented as a complex, multifaceted problem involving atmospheric composition, heat transfer, weather, temperature, ocean dynamics, hydrology, sea level, glaciology, ecology and even epidemiology – all topics that are individually filled with uncertainty. On the other hand, we are assured that ‘the science is settled.’ What exactly this ‘settled science’ is, is never explained, but whatever it may be, it is claimed to be supported by the thousands of ‘outstanding’ scientists involved in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and is presumed to imply a wide array of catastrophic scenarios endangering the very existence of future generations. Finally, solutions like those envisaged in the Kyoto Protocol are proposed that have almost no practical connection to the putative problem. To question this situation is to be marginalized as a ‘skeptic,’ while no degree of counterfactual exaggeration is held to be out of the ‘mainstream.’ The testimony explains that facts that are universally agreed upon in this field are usually qualitative, trivial, and without policy implications, that numerous other areas of widespread agreement are not supportive of catastrophic scenarios and that large computer models of the climate are broadly unsuccessful and unreliable. However, in the world of the ‘precautionary principle,’ it is only required that catastrophic computer simulations be ‘possible’ in some ill-defined sense in order to call for action. This situation is abetted, implicitly and explicitly by the self-serving IPCC procedure, where the biased but unspectacular contents of the full reports are selectively summarized in such a manner as to encourage popular misuse, and the misuse need only be defended by the claim of support by thousands of scientists whose support was never, in fact, solicited or given. That this can lead to policies that are detrimental to the economy and even the environment has often been noted. Less frequently noted, but perhaps more important, is the fact that the present situation is also detrimental to science and its ability to soundly answer important questions to the benefit of society.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/Lindzen_McCainSummary.pdf

More to follow.