Let's Cut to the Chase
This is not rocket science. The Earth is warming; there’s an important human contribution, and it’s something to worry about. This is the scientific consensus. Earth scientists are substantially split only on whether the warming is potentially catastrophic.
A nice distillation by John Nielsen-Gammon on where we stand.
but the issue?
contribution equals
5% ?
ten % ?
fifteen % ?
twenty % ?
etc,etc
Ultimately Dr. Nielsen-Gammon’s statement hits the nail on the head. As the original article points out, however, the “human component” is never adequately described. In my mind there are at least two major areas of legitimate uncertainty in the debate:
1) What is the sensitivity of climate to increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases (not just CO2 but the whole range of gases spewed forth by our industrial societies) and:
2) What policy alternatives can have a realistic effect on reducing the anthropogenic effect on climate
Ultimately it will come down to cost-benefit analyses since the answers to Question 1 will feed directly into Question 2. If the anthropogenic component of the heating is substantial and the sensitivity is high then many of the extremely costly policy alternatives posited by the Al Gore’s of this world may be justified. If the sensitivity is low and anthropogenic inputs will have a limited or negligible effect then more focussed, less-costly policy approaches would be warranted.
What I find most troubling is that the folks who should be answering Question 1 are skipping right over to Question 2. Personally, I am unconvinced that the current state of information being presented to answer Question 1 warrants the economically punishing proposals being put forward by the policy people. While I am confident that the current direction of research will move us towards a better understanding of the feedbacks inherent in the climate system I cannot fathom totally re-tooling our economies based on the state of the current science. I feel more resources should go into the research and serious money should be put into reducing our dependence on fossil fuels but cannot justify, in my head, inflicting that much economic hardship without a firmer grasp of the basic science.
Nielson-Gammon’s article is unpersuasive. Gone are the days when a climate scientist can cite an opinion poll of his fellow scientists and be listened to.
It is now general knowledge that Lindzen, Spencer (L&S), and their colleagues have mounted a very serious scientific challenge to the positive feedback tenet of AGW theory. If, as L&S’s data shows, there is no positive (or even a slightly negative) feedback to the slight temperature increases caused by a doubling of CO2 (around 1 degree C) then CO2 increases cannot cause harmful warming. Time will tell who is right on this (although I believe it will be L&S).
Svensmark’s theory that solar effects on incoming cosmic rays have an important determinative effect on climate looked good even before the recent CERN findings were announced. It provides an alternative explanation for the late 20th century warming (the solar “modern maximum” period) and the flat-cooler temperatures so far in the 21st century.
From the perspective of one with some background in computer modeling/data mining the climate models used so often to justify AGW theory are atrocious. Models where variables are assigned theoretically (rather than empirically derived) coefficients, where all important drivers are not even known or included, and where there is little or no successful out-of-sample testing are not worth the cost of the CPU time it takes to run them.
Anyone who has been around the block for any length of time in scientific work knows full well that theories come and go with great regularity. Not too long ago less than 1% of medical scientists would have said that ulcers were caused by bacteria. Since then a Nobel Prize has been awarded for finding that the cause of ulcers is bacteria.
For a climate scientist to try to support his point of view with an opinion poll and with claims of a “scientific consensus” is very weak. It plays on the credulity and naivete of those without front-line research/scientific experience.
and it’s something to worry about.
Earth scientists are substantially split only on whether the warming is potentially catastrophic.
The “potentially” doesn’t follow from his survey, which address the question of “will” it pose a “very great danger”, a yes/no question. I don’t know of too many qualified scientists (other than the usual fringe) who believe strongly that the warming is not potentially catastrophic. Perhaps not all are convinced it will be, but the uncertainty range makes the possibility real.
In addition, why worry about something if it’s not potentially catastrophic?
“Catastrophic” is also a highly subjective. For some, it means the end of the world (and we see deniers make this characterization of the mainstream most frequently). For others, it means water supplies will be threatend for millions of people.
So wording is important, also a point JNG’s post. Introducing or changing a word or two can change the meaning of a statement or question substantially. Examine two von Storch surveys, the first from 2003. In it, he asks respondents to rate their agreement with the statement:
“Climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.”
The caveat to this survey is that it was fairly open access, and the username and password had been pushed around to skeptic groups.
That aside, obviously this statement is highly ambiguous. There’s no time period given on climate change. Throughout most of Earth’s history, the answer would be No. So the survey had plenty of disagreement, with 21% answering in the 6-7 range (although the caveat above is important). Ambiguity tends to weaken support levels, and such surveys are spun by denier groups.
So von Storch removed some (but not all) ambiguity in his 2008 survey.
“How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?”
Only 1.3% answered “not at all” to this question, with an additional 15.1% “to a small extent” with the rest having high confidence in the statement. Still, it’s best to separate this into 2 questions. Also, while “most” is pretty straightforward (>50%), it’s best to clarify what time period is “recent” or “near future”. Internal variability plays a much stronger role at the decadal level, not so much over a century or several decades.
This may surprise some folks here, but I agree with Nielson-Gammon.
I would say, let’s cut to the chase- efforts to scare people into accepting expensive and ineffective policies based on an problem with a highly uncertain degree of seriousness aren’t working. If you believe this is a serious issue, treat it seriously and push for solutions that work and are cost effective. My opinion is that it’s pretty obvious those are nuclear and natural gas and it’s clear that the GOP isn’t blocking either of them.
But just so I’m not a one-note charley Here are some other topics that are a hell of a lot more relevant than whether you are “anti-science” if you don’t want your 12 year-old vaccinated for sexual diseases:
– electrifying transportation requires more electricity than is produced now at a price at or below what is produced now. Envisioning a future with less power at higher cost is a waste of time unless you see a world that is both dark and horse-drawn (which produces a lot of GHGs).
– People won’t spend $45,000 for a small electric car that goes 100 miles, but they might spend $1k to $5k for electric bikes and carts they can drive on surface streets to the store and back. What do you need to do to local and federal laws to encourage that? (hint- speed limits and bike lane rules locally and safety standards federally)
– Battery tech is clearly not there for long-range electric cars so, how do you power an electric car from the grid once it gets to the highway? (note, this is likely to be really inefficient so it means something that produces a truckload of electricity (pun intended) at a really low price. This is also something that could be really fun to read about- an exciting vision of the future whether you know who Joe Romm is or not).
– Even if you assume that 60% of warming is man-made, you still have to adapt to a warming world, no? What does that mean? (hint – I don’t think it means blowing billions on windmills in a vain effort to delay that which is happening anyway.)
NewYorkJ, would you consider Ivar Giaevar ‘fringe?’ How about Freeman Dyson? Richard Lindzen? John Christy? Judith Curry?
Where does the fringe begin for you? and what defines the border?
The linchpin – CO2 is causing accelerated warming due to positive feedbacks in the climate – the CO2 forcing.
CO2 has continued on as business as usual, and the temperature and sea levels are not showing accelerating increases as predicted by climate models with large CO2 forcings. They are in fact decelerating over the past several decades.
This matters.
I care a lot more of what the actual measurements show than what the climate establishments believes the answers should be. Their lack of introspection of their science when faced with this jarringly obvious contradiction is valid cause for concern that they have an agenda other than pure science.
Fred – My post doesn’t argue that the consensus is correct, only that it exists and is often mischaracterized.
I’m not aware of any climate scientists who have been persuaded to change their views by L&S*, in whole or in part.
*except that the work L&S have “inspired” has shown it to be unlikely that CO2 is not a problem.
Jeffn – In Texas, windmills are ideal because they serve both mitigation and adaptation purposes. When generating electric power, they reduce CO2 emissions. When driven by electric power, they provide a soothing breeze during the summer.
Interesting mix there, TF. The first 4 have signed skeptic petitions, which represent a tiny fraction of scientists. The 5th is kind of an oddball, but when you start venturing into conspiracy theories, you’ve become quite fringe.
Giaever is sort of funny. He isn’t really convinced it’s warming, but if it is, as long as he expresses the “claim” of warming in Kelvins, it means it’s not at all significant. That’s pretty fringe. But he seems to be the new Denier Einstein, although his general skeptical views have been known for awhile, but largely unknown among your crowd until he spoke Truth to the world.
And another thing…
Have you ever asked yourself the question exactly how long do these GCM based climate models closely match existing weather patterns?
Obviously the models attempt to reproduce things other than temperature like ENSO events (El Nino, etc.). My guess (I don’t know) is that they would be very hard pressed to be near accurate a year out. Once the models have diverged from reality, it seems they have little useful value.
And then averaging a lot of these model outputs as the IPCC does seems to be of little additional help in convincing me they generate something better than the sum of just one part. Random data + random data = random data.
To me, it is difficult to justify this cause for concern, which is real but quite impossible to quantify, as more worthy of my attention than wondering if I will be KIA today from a DUI or will be a victim of a home invasion.
I think real quantifiable threats are much more prominent in the public consciousness than this vague global apocalypse which isn’t directly observable in anyone’s back yard.
Face it, it is rocket science to predict the future of the climate, and I am not convinced any consensus has better answers than a random number generator.
Convince me otherwise. Show me when and where the next droughts, floods, etc. or any of the alleged model based extremes will happen. More rain in some places, less in others doesn’t cut the mustard. The models are simply wrong much more often than they are right, and until that changes I simply don’t care what the consensus *** believes ***.
@8
windmills are for grinding flour or tilting at. wind turbines are for producing electricity. just sayin’ 😉 nice mitigation+adaptation example nevertheless!
John N-G:
Thank you for your response. While you may not, believers in AGW often cite the “scientific consensus” to bash those of us not persuaded by AGW. The existence of such a consensus of climate scientists, which I do not deny, is unpersuasive to me. I have, unfortunately, personally seen incontrovertible evidence of how funding can corrupt science. It is widely known that due to concern about global warming climate scientist’s salaries have significantly increased and generous research funding is available to them. Post-Climate Gate I think it is unreasonable to believe that climate science has not been tainted. I am concerned that all this funding may be causing an unconscious bias in favor of belief in AGW among climate scientists. If L&S are acknowledged to be correct, is it not true that a large part of the funding currently available to climate scientists will dry up? Thus, it is not surprising to me that climate scientists have not been moved by L&S’s results. In the end, physicists may contribute more to this debate than climate scientists.
Now for a simple question. Briefly, what evidence is there that CO2 can cause harmful warming? (I accept humans cause urban heat island effects and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely caused by man.)
John N-G:
To the above reasons for not accepting climate scientist’s predictions of global warming in years to come can be added research results indicating that experts’ predictions are very often wrong. In particular, predictions by the IPCC and climate scientists have systematically violated critical principles of forecasting (Green and Armstrong, 2007). See:
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf
I think that Nielson-Gannon has neglected an important piece of data developed by the Pielke Sr. – Annan poll.
They asked active publishing climate scientists whether they agreed with the IPCC report, thought that they understated the problem or thought that they overstated the problem. The results show about 50% agreed that the IPCC got it right, 20% said they understated the problem and about 20% said they overstated the problem.
http://www.centralcoastclimatescience.org/poll-annan.pdf
So based on this poll, it seems that the overwhelming majority of active climate scientists believe that humans are responsible for global warming and the results will be ugly, and action is warranted.
Oops!. I misspelled Gammon.
Perfect quote. It begins with the admission that it is not ‘rocket science.’
In other words, it is not real hard science at all.
Any warming since ca 1880 can be explained by the ending of the Little Ice Age.
Whether or not the human contribution is “important” is highly debatable… particularly with the mush word “important.”
It only something to “worry about” if you believe in this fairy tale. Then again, some Chicken Littles and other variations of hypochondriac worry about everything all the time.
The scientific consensus also agreed on Piltdown Man, the false cause of ulcers, and many other things, and is irrelevant.
The real question is not whether climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ because that depends on who you ask. There are winners and losers in every change. The real question is whether the human contribution really is “important” enough to matter at all.
All looks like natural variation to me.
P.S. Just read that the Obamite’s Storm troopers, the EPA, have stalled on their CO2 legislation. That says more than anything.
Ed G, @16
You are begging the question with your statement about the end of the ice age.
How do you explain the end of the little ice age? How did the energy budget of the earth change? What makes you think that industrial emissions of GHG’s which began in the 19th century and increased greatly with time played no role?
What are the natural forces that are causing climate change?
In fact scientists have tried to explain the recent warming using natural forcing only and have failed. Without GHG emissions one cannot explain the evolution of temperature since 1970.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Eric Adler Says:
September 16th, 2011 at 8:39 pm I think that Nielson-Gannon has neglected an important piece of data developed by the Pielke Sr. ““ Annan poll.
They asked active publishing climate scientists whether they agreed with the IPCC report
I think an enquiring mind would want to know who exactly these “active publishing climate scientists are”.
Would they, for example, be largely the same ones whose livelihood depends on them accepting the IPCC dogma?
EdG, I warned yesterday about injecting gratuitous partisan and off-topic junk into the thread. Yet you felt compelled to cough this one out (16):
“P.S. Just read that the Obamite’s Storm Troopers, the EPA, have stalled on their CO2 legislation. That says more than anything.”
Are you someone who objects to the “denier” allusion? If so, yet you have no problem referring to a U.S. govt agency as “storm troopers”?
Regardless, welcome to the land of moderation, for disregarding my warning.
If that offends you, too bad. You can make all the storm trooper equations you want over at the sites where that kind of talk is not only tolerated, but applauded.
Foxgoose @18
So you are claiming AGW is a hoax by climate scientists perpetrated on the public to get money from the IPCC. So anything that scientists say can now be ignored, and we don’t need any government regulation of emissions or any other measures that are inconvenient.
In fact almost no scientists are paid by the IPCC. Almost all contribute their services to it.
When all other arguments against AGW are knocked down, this conspiracy theory is what we get from AGW deniers.
There is a total lack of evidence for this argument, but of course AGW deniers like you don’t need any evidence to support what they believe in. Since this is a conspiracy theory, one wouldn’t expect to find any evidence, so it is almost impossible to refute this argument.
However, even the infamous “ClimateGate” emails, in which climate scientists express their thoughts in private, to friends and colleagues, don’t show any evidence, that climate scientists who wrote them are “in it for the gold”, and don’t believe the papers that they have written.
I guess one could also believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution, the basis of biology is all a hoax by scientists to get grant money. The paleontologists are lying about the age of the earth so they can get paid for collection rocks.
EdG and Eric Adler, you two do realize you are mirror images of each other, right? Just change a few nouns and you could be arguing the other side just as vehemently.
Why on Earth would anybody object to the EPA taking a pause to make sure they are implementing their regulations correctly and fairly? Or that legislators would take a minute to see if they’re actually accomplishing what they want?
Similarly, why would anyone think it is absurd to note that the broad direction of institutional policy has been heavily weighted to support research into climate change and that this would result in proposals that at least salute the concept as they make their way into the decision mix of what gets funded?
AGW is not a hoax. People may well be taking advantage of AGW to get money for their pet studies.
The EPA has been charged with regulating CO2 emitted from large entities. They are not the villains. Legislators in the U.S. are reflecting the soft support for remediation held by their constituents, who believe in AGW but do not want large and expensive initiatives to counter it–large and expensive in relation to citizens, that is. They don’t mind sticking it to large emitters, rationally enough.
There is nothing in the U.S. domestic landscape regarding energy and climate change that requires either a conspiracy or foul play to explain what is going on. This is how our country works. And it does work. It just takes us a longer time to get to the desired end-state than other countries.
But we’ll get there.
@ Eric (17)
Thanks for linking the poll/ It’s quite interesting:
A significant minority (15-20%), in contrast, conclude that the IPCC overstated the role of human additions of CO2 relative to other climate forcings.
Is this what they call “consensus” these days? Are you guys now trying to say that 15-20% is a fringe whose opinions don’t count as much?
In fact scientists have tried to explain the recent warming using natural forcing only and have failed. Without GHG emissions one cannot explain the evolution of temperature since 1970.
No. Not “one cannot explain”. They cannot explain. Big difference. There are other things that they cannot explain.
Eric and Sashka:
Eric writes:
In fact scientists have tried to explain the recent warming using natural forcing only and have failed. Without GHG emissions one cannot explain the evolution of temperature since 1970.
However, Sashka makes an excellent distinction between “one cannot explain” and “they cannot explain.”
The Israeli physicist Nir Shaviv explains 20th century temperature change with the effects of the sun. Such solar effects include x-rays, UV rays, solar wind, as well as solar irradiance. The sun was in a “modern maximum” during the late 20th century and it correlated with the warming climate. See his video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI
For a three part written series by Shaviv explaining 20th century global warming by solar changes see:
http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun-I
http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun-II
http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun-III
I especially appreciated a comment Shaviv makes in Part 3:
“I am not the enemy of the environment movement. I believe that humans should take full responsibility over their activity and the damage they inflict on the environment. However, I claim that global warming is not a real issue. The are many pressing problems which do deserve our immediate attention, which because of global warming are neglected. Many people with good intentions are acting out of emotion and gut feeling, not out of reason, and as a result, they waste precious resources without doing any substantial good.”
Eric.
Nobody with any intelligence argued that the climategate mails showed that scientists were in it for the gold. Nobody with any intelligence argued that the mails showed they didnt believe what they wrote. In fact we called it noble cause corruption. They believed in their cause to such an extent that they engaged in behavior that does not meet what I would call best practices.
We argued, following david michaels argument that funding changes the the questions asked, not the answers given. Scientists are not in it for the gold, but the gold is provided to answer certain questions and ignore other questions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/14/AR2008071402145.html
You might know him as the author of “Doubt is Their Product” We devoted a small chunk of the book to this. Specifically, we can see how certain questions don’t get asked. Peter Webster and Judith Curry for example would like to see more questions asked about modes of natural variability. Steve McIntyre has a question as well, what do the tree rings of BCPs look like, they have not been updated in decades. The answer to that question might shed light on some interesting matters. The question about GCRs has finally been asked after years. The failure to follow certain lines of inquiry does not entail that you get bad science from the lines of inquiry you do follow, but as Michaels points out the funding effect does distort the comprehensiveness of our understanding. The medical science community has a mechanism for dealing with this and we suggest something similar for climate science.
And we didn’t argue that some scientists wrote things they didnt believe. What we tried to show was they failed to document clearly the uncertainty that was in the record, even when they were urged to by others. Their product was certainty and consensus.
BCPs are bristle cone pines, if anybody is wondering what Mosher is talking about.
Fred @23,
I am familiar with all the arguments made by Shaviv.
The fact is that his position on the causes of warming since the mid 20th century being due to the sun is not shared by experts in solar influences on the earth’s climate. In fact the evidence that solar cycles are mirrored in the earths temperature with a short delay of a few years, shows the sun cannot be the cause of the trend in global warming since the 1970’s. There has been no uptrend in solar irradience since 1950. The same is true for cosmic rays, to which Shaviv also attributes the recent global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm
Steve Mosher @24,
I didn’t claim anyone said that the so called Climategate emails proved that scientists were in it for the gold in post number 20. I pointed out that there is no evidence ever given for that argument, and even private communications between these scientists, which could provide evidence for such a theory show no hint of this.
In fact there are some scientists at universities who make a good living writing papers debunking global warming. Not all the opposition comes from right wing think tanks like Heartland, Cato, Heritage, and SPPI.
The argument about scientists being corrupted is an excuse given by many AGW deniers to bypass the scientific arguments.
Steve Mosher @ 24,
I am not familiar with what Curry and Webster are asking for. I do know that there is a lot of research on solar influences on climate, and also El Nino, which are the two major natural influences on short term fluctuations on climate. It is important to note that the long term trend, based on the earths orbital and axial precession at the present time would be cooling. The earth has also remained warm recently despite the solar minimum.
It is interesting that you mention “Doubt is Their Product”. I haven’t read it, but here is what the book seems to be about:
Steve Mosher @ 24,
I am not familiar with what Curry and Webster are asking for. I do know that there is a lot of research on solar influences on climate, and also El Nino, which are the two major natural influences on short term fluctuations on climate. It is important to note that the long term trend, based on the earths orbital and axial precession at the present time would be cooling. The earth has also remained warm recently despite the solar minimum.
It is interesting that you mention “Doubt is Their Product”, which I haven’t read. Here is what its message seems to be, according to a reviewer:
http://www.defendingscience.org/Doubt_is_Their_Product.cfm
“The Orwellian strategy of dismissing research conducted by the scientific community as “junk science” and elevating science conducted by product defense specialists to “sound science” status also creates confusion about the very nature of scientific inquiry and undermines the public’s confidence in science’s ability to address public health and environmental concerns Such reckless practices have long existed, but Michaels argues that the Bush administration deepened the dysfunction by virtually handing over regulatory agencies to the very corporate powers whose products and behavior they are charged with overseeing.”
The history of opposition to AGW is similarly told by in Naomi Oreskes book “The Merchants of Doubt”, which deals with an earlier time, but has the same theme, and deals more extensively with climate change than medical research.
I don’t see how you can apply this to scientists who work at universities not funded by industry and funded by the government. Certainly in the US, politicians don’t gain from funding climate research that shows that AGW is happening. This is not an issue that American politicians are fond of. The impetus for this idea came from the science, and the opposition came from industry aided by conservative politicians opposed to government regulation. That is the history beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Your comment indicates that you wrote a book with Michaels. Is
Sorry for the sloppy editing of my previous post.
I unwittingly duplicated my first paragraph, and concluded my post with an unfinished thought.
I am in a hurry to get out of here and enjoy what is left of the afrernoon.
Steve,
I am not familiar with a book that you seem to have coauthored.
EdG Says:
September 16th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
the EPA, have stalled on their CO2 legislation. That says more than anything.
There are good other reasons for stalling at EPA on their CO2 legislation.
Whether or not I believe in AGW doesn’t stop me from questioning whether a policy that should be focused on producing a long term result doesn’t end up simply end up creating a short term fix at the expense of a long term fix.
I.E. The stated goal of the Obama Administration is an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2035.
Closing all of our coal fired plants and replacing them with windmills and natural gas plants isn’t going to get us to an 80% reduction if the natural gas plants are running 70% of the time.
It might be better to delay closing the coal fired plants until we have a viable solution to replace them with something that will reduce CO2 emissions by 100%.
We don’t at this moment have an approved nuclear power plant design and the cost of building said nuclear power plant is as best a SWAG and we don’t have any ‘proven’ utility scale storage options other then pumping water uphill which carries with it it’s own environmental penalty.
Sometimes, when all the options are lousy the thing to do is put off a form decision until you have better options.
Fred –
You said, “It is widely known that due to concern about global warming climate scientist’s salaries have significantly increased and generous research funding is available to them. Post-Climate Gate I think it is unreasonable to believe that climate science has not been tainted. I am concerned that all this funding may be causing an unconscious bias in favor of belief in AGW among climate scientists.”
Rats. I don’t know about the widely known people, but in my own case my salary has not significantly increased and to date I have received no funding for climate change research. Maybe if I don a tunic and stand outside my building on campus with a sign saying “the world will end tomorrow” I’ll get some funding.
Also note that my summary is of Earth scientists. Only about 5% of those responding to the survey were climate scientists. The rest were merely experts who are in a better position than most to evaluate the evidence, but who have no horse in the race.
You ask: “Now for a simple question. Briefly, what evidence is there that CO2 can cause harmful warming?”
That’s actually one fairly simple question and one complicated one. The complicated one is, “How much warming is harmful?” The simple one is simple because the change in (equilibrium) temperature is the product of the climate sensitivity per doubling of CO2 and the number of doublings. The climate sensitivity is not known, and existing evidence (ice core, direct observations, model simulations) doesn’t pin it down any better than roughly 1.5 to 4.0 C/doubling.
So it’s an arithmetic exercise now. Pick a value for harmful warming, decide how much CO2 we will produce (with possible limitations on supply, but see Keith’s more recent post), and solve for the value of sensitivity necessary to produce harmful warming. The closer the value is to 1.5 rather than 4.0, the greater the amount of evidence you must ignore in order to hope that CO2 cannot cause harmful warming.
I haven’t directly answered your question yet. Give me the two numbers (harmful warming temperature, CO2 production capacity), and I’ll supply examples of evidence (if any, depending on the values) that say that climate sensitivity is or might be larger than that.
Green and Armstrong’s comments are as relevant to climate (and weather) forecasts as the brand of beer is to a good party. For example, http://blog.metasd.com/2009/07/unprincipled-forecast-evaluation/
Eric – You misspelled “Nielsen”, too! 🙂
Thanks for mentioning the Annan survey. It’s not as robust as the other two I relied on, but it’s helpful.
The statement the majority of scientists agreed with in the Annan survey was: “The scientific basis for human impacts on climate is well represented by the IPCC WG1 report. The lead scientists know what they are doing. We are warming the planet, with CO2 as the main culprit. At least some of the forecast consequences of this change are based on robust evidence.”
There’s some distance from there to “the results will be ugly, and action is warranted”, especially if one assumes that if you believe only some of the forecast consequences, you’re more likely to believe the milder consequences than the more extreme ones.
Keith,
Message from purgartory, ‘moderation’ that is. No problem. It is your site.
That said I must note that I missed the warning, and don’t really see what was so ‘off topic’ about my comment.[Reread the last part of your comment.//K]
If you really want to ‘cut to the chase’ just ignore all the talk and look at the walk… and Obama is walking quickly away from the whole AGW line at the moment due to obvious political reasons. I doubt if he will even say the words’ climate change’ in public anymore.
As for the partisan aspect, there seems to be a lot of that here these days.
[As I’ve previously said, when the subject of the posts focuses on statements by leading Republican Presidential candidates, that is somehow viewed as partisan. But what really put you in ‘purgatory’ was your use of “stormtroopers” to describe the EPA.//KK]
#21. Tom Fuller Says:
“EdG and Eric Adler, you two do realize you are mirror images of each other, right? Just change a few nouns and you could be arguing the other side just as vehemently.”
Yes indeed. In fact, on one thread I simply responded to a comment by just changing one word to present the opposite argument… which Keith then used an a topic point to moan about polarization.
In reality the truth is ‘in the middle’ and the world is gray, not black or white. The problem here is that AGW is now founded more on ‘religious’ belief than evidence, and gray commentary is either summarily dismissed or eagerly accepted depending on ones’s beliefs.
Where I see the ending of the Little Ice Age and natural climate variation, others see AGW – and I have yet to see any credible evidence to convince me that the AGW effect is significant – to the actual climate – at all.
Sashka @22
Legislative decisions are commonly made by a majority rule.
Looking carefully at the poll respones , the number of scientists who answered 5, 6 or 7 it amounts to 78% of those who responded.
15% of the responents said that the closest statement to their opinion was
“4. There is warming and the human addition of CO2 causes some of it, but the science is too
uncertain to be confident about current attributions of the precise role of CO2 with respect to other
climate forcings. The IPCC WG1 overestimates the role of CO2 relative to other forcings, including
a diverse variety of human climate forcings.”
The more extreme dissenters , who picked statement 2 or 3 were a small minority at 7%.
John N-G @ 31,
If you buy a product and 78% of experts on the product say there is a small probability that it could hurt you very badly, would you keep it? We don’t need certainty that climate change could be a dangerous problem for much of mankind in order to take action. It is like buying auto insurance. Avoidance of climate change will not cause catastrophic expenses. In addtion, fossil fuels are eventually going to run out anyway.
John N-G writes in response to my request for evidence that CO2 increases can cause harmful warming:
The climate sensitivity is not known, and existing evidence (ice core, direct observations, model simulations) doesn’t pin it down any better than roughly 1.5 to 4.0 C/doubling.
So your “evidence” is an imprecise estimate of the climate sensitivity. And even your imprecise estimate is coming under challenge. Plenty of very smart scientists are saying that the response of climate to changes in the energy budget is on the low side. They contend there are no positive feedbacks to amplify CO2-caused temperature increases. Some are even claiming negative feedbacks. And without positive feedback there will be no harmful warming from CO2 increases.
Billions have been spent in pursuit of evidence for AGW theory. AGW theory inspired regulations restricting the development and use of fossil fuels have cost this nation greatly. And proposals are before us to completely revamp our energy infrastructure due to this theory.
The cost of AGW theory even gets personal. For the many years I believed in it I experienced some anxiety and depression thinking that the forests I loved to hike and ski through would be decimated by climate change. My favorite sport (X-C skiing) would be no more.
Even now that I don’t believe in it the cost continues. It has caused a president I had hopes for to follow regulatory policies that I believe have harmed our nation’s economic prosperity. And if the draconian energy cuts mandated by a cap-and-trade system were ever put into place the economy would be devastated throughout my children’s lifetime unless some miraculous new sources of energy were found.
My kids have come home from school worried about what their science teacher said would happen to the environment due to global warming. I try to reassure them but their teacher has told them that to “not believe in global warming is like not believing that man landed on the moon.” I want to lessen their fears without undercutting their rapport with their science teacher. Not easy.
As for predictions, the steady march upwards for temperature called for by believers in AGW is not coming to pass. Around 2001 a British climatologist said that by 2010 snows there would become a thing of the past. Several years ago, a lot of my friends who were ardent believers in AGW would talk about how whatever season was upcoming would be unseasonable warm. Invariably they were wrong. And the last several years have been great ones for X-C skiing.
It looks like the solar theory of Svensmark and Shaviv is correct. It fits what we have seen in the 20th century (warming during the solar “modern maximum”) and steady to cooling in the 21st century as solar activity has decreased. As further work is done, I’ll predict Spencer and Lindzen will be proven correct about climate sensitivity being low.
Seeing the fall of Communism was remarkable. I am looking forward to seeing AGW theory tossed into the dustbin of scientific history as well. Two very foolish and harmful theories.
@ John N-G
You seem like a nice guy.
It bothers me that you and your fellow climate scientists use the term “equilibrium temperature” in regards to the GMT. Either you have not been schooled in thermodynamics and heat transfer or you are trying to perpetuate a misleading interpretation for political purposes. Quasi-steady state I can buy; equilibrium, give me a break.
@ John N-G
Another thing that bothers me is the assumption that a degree or two of warming will lead to dire consequences. You know full well that there is not one spec of evidence that this is the case. The only relevant evidence we have is that a thousand years ago it was much warmer and societies all around the world thrived.
Fred @ 36,
You said,
“It looks like the solar theory of Svensmark and Shaviv is correct. It fits what we have seen in the 20th century (warming during the solar “modern maximum”) and steady to cooling in the 21st century as solar activity has decreased. As further work is done, I’ll predict Spencer and Lindzen will be proven correct about climate sensitivity being low. ”
It doesn’t look like Svensmark and Shaviv have a prayer of being right. There is no evidence of a trend in cosmic rays that matches the trend of increasing temperature that we have been seeing.
The noise due to internal variation of global temperatures is too small to claim any kind of warming or cooling trend for the past 11 years with any confidence.
Spencer and Lindzen’s methods have been shown to be incorrect and unscientific. It is foolish to predict that they will someday be vindicated.
Tom C @ 38,
I don’t know who is claiming a degree or 2 is a problem.
In the opinion of most climate scientists, keeping the increase in global average temperature below 2C will avoid serious problems and more than 100 countries have this as a maximum target.
Tom C @38,
You are quite wrong about your criticism of the use of thermal equilibrium. Thermal equilibrium means that the incoming and outgoing energy is the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium
John N-G.,
If sensitivity is the midpoint 2.75C/doubling of CO2 and the value of the harmful temperature increase is 2.1C, how much CO2 is needed to produce harmful warming?
This also is not rocket science:
80 % of the world energy production is based on fossil fuels. Developing countries subsidize use of fossil fuels. Renewable energy is far from being competitive with fossil fuels and nuclear has been stalled.
The main cause of casualties and suffering in natural catastrophies is poverty. See earthquakes of equal strength in Chile and Haiti; drought in Texas and in Somalia; floods in Australia, the US and floods in Pakistan. Wealth reduces vulnerability. Hence the policies of China and India and all the rest are rational: no to emission cuts, yes to coal-powered cheap energy and economic growth.
Regardless of climate science, emissions will grow. 1400 million people without electricity will not be denied.
Eric,
Multiple lines of research have shown strong relationships between solar activity and climate. This includes the most recent period over the last few decades. Start your exploration of this topic by watching Shaviv’s video linked to above.
The ice core data shows that CO2 levels followed, not preceded temperature changes by 800 years. CO2 levels are an effect, not a cause of temperature.
During an ice age period CO2 levels were 10X what they are today.
Billions have been spent on research and our economy hamstrung by high energy prices all in thrall of the CO2 theory of climate change. When I ask a climate scientist for evidence that CO2 can cause harmful warming what he produces is an estimate that climate sensitivity is between 1.5 and 4.0. I am very well aware that multiple researchers have produced data showing that the sensitivity is out of this range on the low end where increases in CO2 will cause no harmful warming.
No evidence here, just senseless surveys showing “consensus.” Reminds one of Lysenkoism.
Fred, @43
Shaviv’s claim that the sun is responsible for the warming of the past 40 years is quite wrong. Solar radiation has not increased, on average it has decreased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiance
@ Eric
(34)
Thanks, I am familiar with the democratic process. However majority decisions made under limited or factually incorrect information are not necessarily good ones. Think of Senate vote on Iraq war for example.
The important result of this poll is that consensus is a myth, like I’ve been saying all along. Response #4 is not fringe, or unreasonable and is not even skeptical WRT anything that can be called established science.
@ 35
We don’t need certainty that climate change could be a dangerous problem for much of mankind in order to take action.
Not certainty but we need to know the odds. We don’t.
It is like buying auto insurance.
No it isn’t, not even close. Insurance is a statistical concept whereby large but unlikely losses individual risks are redistributed and replaced by a certain small loss (premium) by the insurer.
Avoidance of climate change will not cause catastrophic expenses.
Depending on what you call catastrophic.
In addtion, fossil fuels are eventually going to run out anyway.
So why worry then? As fossils near depletion the prices will skyrocket and nobody will use them anymore.
@ 39
Spencer and Lindzen’s methods have been shown to be incorrect and unscientific.
Really? Care to supply a reference?
Fred @43
In the past 1 million years of Ice Ages, CO2 has been a feedback mechanism for climate change, which is triggered by the axial and orbital precession of the earth. That explains the delay. The carbon was emitted by the oceans and intensified the warming, and as the motions of the earth started the cooling phase, the oceans took CO2 out of the atmosphere as they cooled, cooling the earth further. CO2 has not been as high as today for a few million years.
http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh2.html
Today’s increase in CO2 is of a different nature. It is due to human industrial activity. Since human civilization began CO2 has not been at this level.
The theory of AGW may remind you of Lysenkoism, but it is actually nothing like that. The idea that human use of fossil fuels will cause global warming is 116 years old. No political coercion was applied to scientists, by a totalitarian regime, to induce them to believe that AGW is happening. It came from basic physics and atmospheric research.
Actually, politicians and much of the population would like this problem to go away to avoid the changes in life style needed to avoid it. This explains why such bogus arguments against AGW can gain adherents from opponents of AGW. It motivates your opposition to the scientific theory. Historically the opposition originates not from the peer reviewed literature but rather from right wing think tanks funded by industry, to oppose regulation of all kinds, from cigarette smoke to greenhouse gas emissions. The cast of characters behind the denial that cigarette smoke is dangerous, and AGW is happening has a lot of overlap.
Sashka @ 45,
A poll of the general public can certainly reflect an uninformed opinion. However the poll I referenced included the most informed people on climate change, publishing climatologists.
I think 78% represents very strong agreement that there is a problem. Unanimity should not be required to make a decision.
@ Eric (47)
The Senate was, in theory, well informed on Iraqi WMDs. Did it work well?
Sure, 78% is a strong majority. But this is not a consensus. Consensus is a myth.
Unanimity should not be required, I agree. Calculation of probability distribution of losses due to GW vs. economic loss due to attempted mitigation of CO2 emissions vs. effectiveness of the mitigation program – these are required but are currently at a rudimentary level.
So, no back-up on Spencer and Lindzen? I thought so.
@Eric. Part of the problem is that AGW theory heads us to some sort of “Thermageddon” (I think the term is funny) with an increase of a couple of hundred ppm, but does not explain why this did not happen in the distant past when CO2 levels were an order of magnitude higher than today.
If 500ppm is so dangerous then why didn’t the planet boil dry with levels of 4,000ppm? More to the point, how could you have a stinking Ice Age with levels at 4,000 ppm?
In the climate debate we talk about ppms and what currents might or might not do and a whole heap of other forcings. However if we look at the long term temps v CO2 there no relationship.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm
Or if you prefer something from PNAS
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full
Now look at how the continents have changed in 600 million years
http://www.bevpease.force9.co.uk/ki.maps.Cont-Drift.htm
Regardless of how the continents moved and regardless of what the CO2 levels were, the temps were either around the 20-22 degree mark or there was an Ice Age. The correllation simply isn’t there.
If you want me to challenge the orthodox view I will. It is not forcings that govern the limits of climate, it is the feedbacks from the hydrological cycle. From this POV it doesn’t matter how many W/M-2 of forcing goes into the system, what matters is what the feedbacks do after the initial impetus.
Climate science views the nett feedbacks as positive but this simply cannot be. A system with nett positive feedbacks is inherently unstable and the world would have either burned or frozen. The evidence is that climate is inherently stable (within limits) and therefore the nett feedbacks must be negative.
Eric (44) states:
Shaviv’s claim that the sun is responsible for the warming of the past 40 years is quite wrong. Solar radiation has not increased, on average it has decreased.
Could you please simply watch his video linked to above and learn about this theory and the data behind it rather than making obviously ill-informed posts?
Eric (46) says that the 800 year delay between temperature changes and CO2 levels going into and out of ice ages is because something other than CO2 triggered the climate change but then CO2 provided a feedback mechanism that accentuated it.
There is no proof whatsoever that any of the warming coming out of ice ages was caused by CO2. All we know for sure is that CO2 lagged the temperature change by 800 years. Normally a cause precedes, not follows an event it causes. A much more plausible explanation is that whatever initiated the climate change in the first place simply continued and CO2 played no role.
If such a feedback took place why did it ever stop? If heating oceans gave off more CO2 and that increase in CO2 led to further warming what would reverse it? What a nonsensical notion.
Keith if ever you do decide to setup a troll hole Fred might be a candidate for you to consider…
Sashka,
There is no analogy between WMD and the Senate Vote on the authorization given to Bush to invade Iraq, and the IPCC report on climate change.
In fact the provisions of the Senate Resolution allowed Bush to invade if the UN failed to get inspectors into Iraq, and Iraq refused to give up its WMD as a result of diplomatic initiatives. In fact, the inspectors were on the verge of certifying that Iraq had no WMD and said they only needed a few more months to be absolutely sure. Bush flouted the intent of the Senate resolution by invading.
Fred @ 50,
I read Shaviv’s stuff and watched the video. I am not convinced.
The data on solar radiance that I linked to shows that there was a slight decrease in solar radiation for the last three cycles, while global average temperature declined. One can track the influence of the 11 year sunspot cycle on global temperature and see that it lags by only a few years. There is no way the sun could be responsible for the warming of the last 35 years. He doesn’t address this argument at all in his writings.
The change in energy flux resulting from the axial and orbital changes is not enough to explain the amplitude of the temperature oscillations during the ice ages. The two major factors have been determined to be changes in ice and snow cover affecting the reflectivity of the earth, and CO2.
The CO2 increase and the temperature increase were not impulses, they are continous curves. Some of the temperature increase did come after the CO2 increased. That would be expected if CO2 is a feedback mechanism.
When the earth’s orbit and axis initiated cooling the temperature started to decrease. Feedback operates in both directions. the cooler ocean surfaces will absorb the CO2.
Your argument that any positive feedback makes the system explode is incorrect. Feedback within limits is not inherently unstable. Audio amplifiers operate by using feedback. A feedback audio amplifier oscillates spontaneously only when the feedback is set too high.
Fred (#36) – Nice dodge. You’ve earned two troll points.
Paul (#41) – I’ll assume all other anthropogenic and natural effects manage to balance out (unlikely but it makes the math easier). I’ll also assume that we don’t have to concern ourselves with the final extra few tenths of a degree of surface warming that gradually emerges as the deep oceans warm, so I’ll use an equilibrium temperature of 2.4 C over pre-industrial. Lastly, I’ll assume that once we hit the peak CO2 value we stay there (again for math simplicity’s sake), though it’s more likely that CO2 levels would decline after their peak. Using 285 ppm for preindustrial CO2, I get 522 ppm for harmful warming.
JohnB @49,
It is clear that the earth has undergone changes over the past few hundreds of millions of years. The intensity of the sun has been increasing at a rate of 10% for each billion years of life. So a few hundred million years ago, when CO2 concentrations were much higher, the sun was fainter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Possible_long-term_cycle
In addition, the land forms of the earth which help to determine the climate by impacting global atmospheric circulation have changed drastically.
So to assume that temperatures millions of years ago would be simply a function of CO2 concentration, which is what your counterargument against global warming implies is clearly wrong.
This sort of argument may fool the ignorant, but it is not a valid objection to the theory of AGW.
Eric, not quite. If you want to use the argument that you do, you must believe that since the long term temps were relatively stable for 100 million years + at a time then the combination of CO2, warming sun and continental drift all magically varied in exactly the right way to give a stable temp.
You require that as the sun warmed the CO2 went down and the continents moved at exactly the right rate as to give a constant answer. I don’t believe in that sort of coincidence, certainly not ones that last for hundreds of millions of years.
My argument is that the feedbacks from the hydrological cycle define the answer to a changing climate. It doesn’t matter whether the initial forcing is from the sun, or changing currents or moving continents. These are the input forcings into the system, but it is the feedbacks that govern what the climate actually does. (Within limits)
Consider the period from 350-25 million years ago. Except for a dip in the Mesozoic, the temps were reasonably stable at around 22 degrees for over 300 million years. For your idea to work if we call solar forcing A, CO2 B and continental drift C then A+B+C=22 degrees. So if A changes then B and/or C must change in a reverse fashion to keep the answer at 22 degrees.
My argument adds “D”, the feedbacks and I assume that “D” is a proportional function of A,B and C. So my maths becomes A+B+C+D =22 degrees.
My argument is that the climate system has two preferred states temps around those of today (give or take a degree or two) and an Ice Age. Anytime forcings attempt to move the climate system from either of these states the negative forcings increase so as to return it to stability. Should the forcings be too large then the climate moves from one state to the other.
This is consistent with the long term climate record whereas warming much above todays level is not.
See what I’m getting at?
JohnB,
@56
You say,
“My argument is that the climate system has two preferred states temps around those of today (give or take a degree or two) and an Ice Age. Anytime forcings attempt to move the climate system from either of these states the negative forcings increase so as to return it to stability. Should the forcings be too large then the climate moves from one state to the other.
This is consistent with the long term climate record whereas warming much above todays level is not.
See what I’m getting at?”
I see what you are getting at. But actually we know exactly what has caused the oscillation of temperature between ice ages and a warm period. It is the Milankovitch cycle, which is related to the wobble of the earth’s axis, and the precession of its orbit. This is the driving force which varied the solar radiation received in the Northern Hemisphere summers.
It is known that the variation in radiation arriving at the earth due to this effect is insufficient to create the variation in the earth’s temperature on its own. There are two effects which it causes which create amplify the small change in temperature as feedback. One is variation in ice and snow cover, and the other is CO2. As I pointed out these effects provide feedback to augment a change caused by the Milankovitch cycle in either the upward or downard direction of temperature. That is the cause of the oscillations you have noted.
There is no inconsistency between the oscillations seen during past million years and the explanation of global warming given by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. In modern times we have a new source of CO2, which is human industry, which is driving the temperature increase on its own, instead of being a feedback mechanism due to natural sources and sinks. It is clear that the emissions due to human activities have been about twice what the natural world has been able to absorb.
John B,
In my last post, I forgot to include the methane which was also emitted during the warm period of the ice ages along with CO2.
Eric, I’m not ignoring the Milankovitch cycles, they are a forcing.
You mention the ice and snow cover as feedbacks. Fair enough, but are you trerefore saying that those feedbacks have always had the same value regardless of the Continental patterns?
Whether we look at the last 500 million years or just the last 400,000 the evidence is that there are two preferred states, Glacial or interglacial and note that all the interglacials are at roughly the same temps. The climate is stable in these two states but is not stable at a point halfway between, the evidence tells us this.
I think that you are still missing my point so I’ll try it a different way.
If there was only one forcing for the climate system (the Sun) and it was constant, then the climate would remain constant. Correct? If the forcing varied then the climate would vary.
Now let’s say there are two forcing, the Sun and CO2. If one varies and the other is constant, then the climate would vary. The only way for the climate to remain constant is for them both to vary in such a way as to cancel each other out.
But we have 3 main ones, CO2 the Sun and Continental drift. We know the Sun warmed and we know that CO2 went up and down. We also know that Continents moved in a random fashion. But we also know that the climate remained stable for hundreds of millions of years. The only way that the climate can remain stable for long periods in the face of random forcing changes is either pure chance or there is a mechanism that modifies the forcings to make the climate remain stable.
What is required for your theory to be true is for the random changes in these three major forcings to cancel each other out, constantly, for long periods of time. If you believe that the forcings control the climate you must believe this, there is no other option. It is the only explanation for the climate remaining stable for long periods in the face of random changes in the forcings.
My argument is that there is a fourth factor, the feedbacks. It is the feedbacks that are the mechanism that forces the climate to take one of it’s two preferred states. If this is correct, then the only logical possibility is that feedbacks are cumulatively negative and resist change rather than amplifying them
It’s like having a very complex equation that can only produce one of two answers, either 12 or 22 degrees. Have the Sun warm or cool a few percent, have CO2 ot 300 or 4,000 ppm and arrange the continents any way you want to, and any combination of these, but the equation will still only return one of two answers.
If the climate remains stable in the face of randomly changing forcings over a long period of time then there are only two possibilities for explanation. Either it was pure random chance or there was a mechanism. Your argument is that was pure random chance, mine is that there is a mechanism.
Why does the long term record show that temps didn’t go much above 20 degrees? Chance? Or the negative feedback mechanism prevented the rise?
Why were the temps the same when the CO2 was at 4,000 ppm and 2,000 ppm? You say it was because the Sun, totally randomly and by pure chance warmed enough to cancel out the lessening greenhouse effect. I say it was because the feedbacks wouldn’t let it change.
Why wasn’t there runaway warming at 4,000 ppm? You say it was because the Sun just happened to be exactly the right amount cooler so that runaway couldn’t occur. I say it is because the negative feedback mechanism of the hydrological cycle wouldn’t allow it to happen.
At bottom, for your theory to be right, you have to believe in an amazing number of coincidences, that various forcings by random chance and totally by accident changed in such ways as to exactly and constantly cancel each other out. I don’t believe in coincidence, I believe in science and physical mechanisms.
JohnB,
@59,
You didn’t mention the Milankovitch cycles, and seemed to consider the oscillations as some kind of unknown factor.
I mentioned the feedbacks in connection with the oscillations between ice ages and warm periods that have taken place during the last 400,000 years. There has been no significant continental drift during that period.
I don’t konw where you get the idea that the climate over hundreds of millions of years ago was constant, and all the forcings cancelled. That is nonsense. There were periods which were warmer, and periods which were colder than today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
You have no real evidence for you magical negative feedback. In fact the climate sensitivity calculated by climate scientists based on the ice ages is consistent with what is estimated based on models which explain the current period of global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Sample_calculation_using_ice-age_data
JohnB @59,
There is no evidence for 2 preferred states if you look at the temperature graph in the link I provided. In fact most of the time that CO2 was high, in the Ordovician period, the temperature was extremely hot. The ice age is a mystery, but doesn’t prove anything about CO2. It is thought by some to have resulted from the motion of the supercontinent Gonwanda to the South Pole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician%E2%80%93Silurian_extinction_event
One paper explains it as the result of a Gamma Ray Burst which triggered a global cooling event.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004IJAsB…3…55M
Eric, the idea came from the graph I linked to. I hadn’t seen the one from Wiki as I don’t generally use it.
If you don’t mind, I’ll read your links and do some extra reading and get back to you.