Tim Lambert told his blog audience he will be debating Christopher Monckton (The Viscount); the title of the debate will be, “Does Anthropogenic Global Warming Endanger Mankind?”
The moderator will be Alan Jones.
Location: The Grand Ballroom at the Sydney Hilton Hotel
Time: 12.30pm to 2.30pm on Friday 12 February 2010.
Tim described the structure of the debate:
Each speaker will present a 10-15 minute Synopsis of his argument
The Moderator, Alan Jones, will ask a sequence of say four (4) relevant questions with the order of speaking being reversed each question.
Questions will be received from the floor, again with the order of speaking being reversed each question.
Each speaker will be given a five (5) minute summary time at the end of the question time
If I lived in Sydney, Australia, I’d be phone the hotel to learn whether I could reserve seats. Heck, I might try to persuade a van-full of friends to attend with me. Since I live in Chicago, I’ll be trying to learn whether there will be a live video cast or YouTube version of the debate available. If no video cast is planned, I bet someone will record surreptitiously and post to YouTube anyway!
At least I hope so, because I’m eager to see what questions are asked and how both men answer.
Update Feb. 8JoNova:
Friday February 12th, MC, Alan Jones
12:30 – 2:30 Grand Ballroom, Hilton Hotel, 488 George St Sydney
$30 at the door, cash payment for admission, You must PRE REGISTER so final numbers can be arranged and people won’t have to be turned away. Venue capacity is 1200. (But that’s how many came to the first event in Sydney!) No food or drinks included.
“his” blog audience – doh!
If you send me some $ I’ll travel down for it and tape it for you.
I’m sure Tim will have lots of fun pointing out the terrible maths errors Monckton makes. Monckton should just ask when was the last science paper published by Tim. Does he need to take his socks and shoes off to answer that one?
Lambert, for his part, could have picked an easier-and less political-question to defend. Monckton might even have accepted a debate on something more difficult to criticize.
The question:
“Does Anthropogenic Global Warming Endanger Mankind?”
Could only reasonably be answered in the negative, IMAO. Let’s think carefully about all the various things that could make this the case.
More people could die from increasing weather disasters. Nope, this just isn’t the case. The historical record shows the opposite has happened so far.
Regional changes in the hydrological cycle could lead to “water wars” and international instability. Negative. Those are a myth.
Sea Level changes could displace people in large numbers. Highly unlikely that the large increases cited would actually occur, but supposing they did. History has already proven that people are capable of dealing with changes in sea level-not to mention climate-scarcely even noticing they needed to do so.
A shut down of the THC could trigger a new Ice Age: Ain’t happenin’-Greenland was warmer for thousands of years after the end of the last ice age by several degrees and it didn’t slide into the ocean.
I really don’t see how you could argue that humanity is actually “endangered” by AGW…
Wouldn’t that be Sydney, Australia?
Would love to be there but live in Melbourne.
Each in their own way, both Lambert and Monckton make free and easy use of scorn and mockery to rally their respective Faithfuls. I’m sure it will make for an amusing evening. Enlightening? Perhaps not so much.
If you lived in “Sidney” you may like to spell it “Sydney” 😉
This should be a hoot! Are the speakers allowed to throw pies during rebuttal?
Does global warming endanger mankind.
Ah.. 1,5C increase by 2100? dunno
5C increase by 2020? probably.
What an ill posed question. It instantly devolves into an argument about how much warming, how certain of that level are we and what are the damage mechanisms for that level of warming.
Damage “mankind” what about the polar bears!
So question: What is the most important question in the climate debate?
All of Moncktons events have been sold out. Extra 2 have been added (was supposed to go back home today, Monday) He even gave an impromptue 15min talk to 350 people locked out of the Noosa (Sunshine Coast Queensland) event whereupon those people gave him an ovation.
He has been very very well received. Even got to have a private meeting with the opposition leader Tony Abbott.
Jo Nova has lots details and pics and vids
In one sense, AGW has already endangered if not mankind, at least a great many men and women. When we convert food production into gasoline, we raise food prices and we diminish emergency food stocks. This means hunger, and makes for worse famines than would otherwise be the case.
We are subsidizing the conversion of food production to gasoline in the name of AGW. You can thus say that conduct based on a belief in AGW has already done enormous damage to human beings, and promises to do more in future. Those killed will be, as usual, the poor, who we are basically killing in large numbers out of, as usual, the hysterical religious conviction that it is right to do so in order to achieve today’s greater good.
This time around, the greater good is cooling the planet, of all things! In the last great man made famine, the Chinese one, it was to bring about some sort of socialist heaven on earth, or at least in China. Before that we had the Ukrainian holocaust, where the man made famine was supposed to cement the victory of the proletariat over anti-party elements. There is always a reason.
An asteroid/comet impact could easily threaten mankind, ditto sufficiently local supernovae or gamma ray bursts… the notion that we, as a whole, being eliminated (as is implicit in the definition of ‘mankind’) is nonsense. Monckton is gifted a flying start if that is the basis of the debate.
The subject is a trap. It assumes global warming and allows no debate except on its potential impact.
The subject should be focused on the data. Lambert in a nerd and would have no defense against that but the debate he is proposing is totally defensable no matter what either side says. The subject is an opinion and not a scientific debate.
Lord Monckton, don’t bother with this clown he is unimportant in the scheme of things.
Details from JoNova:
Friday February 12th, MC, Alan Jones
12:30 – 2:30 Grand Ballroom, Hilton Hotel, 488 George St Sydney
$30 at the door, cash payment for admission, You must PRE REGISTER so final numbers can be arranged and people won’t have to be turned away. Venue capacity is 1200. (But that’s how many came to the first event in Sydney!) No food or drinks included.
Re: steven mosher (Feb 7 23:38),
It will be interesting to see Lambert’s and Monckton’s approaches. Monckton’s been traveling around, so we should expect he will either tweak his presentation slightly to match the question or won’t change it at all. He knows that he can, to a large extent, treat the debate as a chance to get out talking points. Based on his blog, I suspect Lambert will be good at this too. But it will depend a bit on whether Lambert can be light and a bit of humorous in person , and also whether or not he shoots himself in the foot like Gavin did. IF he has a tendency to arrogance or foot-in-mouth disease, he should repeat “I will not insult the audience” over 100 times each night before bed.
What an ill posed question.
.
i agree 100%.
.
IF he has a tendency to arrogance or foot-in-mouth disease, he should repeat “I will not insult the audience†over 100 times each night before bed.
.
that is pretty difficult. we have people who applaud every word uttered by a clown and liar. (see the member of the house of lords thing.)
people applaud a person, who keeps repeating obviously false DDT claims and who wanted to imprison everyone with AIDS.
.
keeping cool is a good idea anyway. but people applauding Monckton are lost to rational argument. not making fun of them is only a good tactic, because outsiders might not have fully understood that.
Sod–
Sometimes, grownups must do things they find difficult. He should remember the wider youtube audience, swallow hard and behave well. If Lambert thinks he manages to behave well and gets an unedited video clip on YouTube, the debate will be useful to Lambert.
If he blows his top he’ll gnash his teeth every time it shows. If he behaves badly, but in a way he doesn’t recognize as bad, he’ll keep wondering why he lost despite having done everything right (from his point of view.)
Insulting the audience is the wrong thing to do no matter what.
The advice at his blog seems to run the gamut from very, very bad, to very good and in between.
Confidence, hence ones demenour, comes from knowing the subject matter intimately. My quatloos on the monck.
sod,
“we have people who applaud every word uttered by a clown and liar.”
.
Sure, but who the audience honestly believes is a clown and a liar will depend at least in part on how the debaters act towards each other and (more importantly) towards the audience. If Lambert, in even the very slightest of ways, disparages the audience’s capacity to judge the issue (a la Gavin’s sad efforts) he will do very badly. Humility, grace, and respect for the public will help Lamber’s cause more than any technical argument he makes.
at the end of the day, it is the job of the “sceptics” to get rid of Monckton. the reason that he can fill rooms is, that you folks don t shoot him down.
.
the sceptical blogosphere is playing a very dangerous game. they don t attack liars like Monckton or his really crazy followers, because it buffs your numbers. you don t cut ties with insane groups like the tea baggers, because they are a powerful group.
.
at the end of the day, you risk that those crazy people and ideas that you allow to develop, might affect real politics.
.
we might end up ruled by people, who have to write the word “energy” on their hand, when giving a political speech.
.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/sarah-palin/7189694/Sarah-Palin-caught-with-crib-notes-on-her-hand.html
“at the end of the day, it is the job of the “sceptics†to get rid of Monckton.”
No, it’s not. It’s the job of “sceptics” to question/expose the AGW fraud.
And they are doing a fairly good job at the moment. 😉
Andrew
…he stated ‘boldly’. 😉
Andrew
No, it’s not. It’s the job of “sceptics†to question/expose the AGW fraud.
And they are doing a fairly good job at the moment. 😉
Andrew
no, they are not. satellite temperatures are soaring high. “sceptics” would do a good job, if they had theories to explain this, under a spotless sun and a cold PDO phase.
.
at the moment “sceptics” are drunk with a success among the uninformed, which is based on a non-event. this will backfire not too far in the future.
Re: sod (Feb 8 12:28), Get rid of him? I’ve already criitcized him several times. I have no more power over him than I do over Schmidt or Jones. I can present my arguments, and then that’s that.
Other than that, shat are skeptics supposed to do? Off him? I’m not into sending death threats to those with whom I disagree.
Re: Andrew_KY (Feb 8 12:51),
Sod, I don’t agree with your description of a job assignment. There isn’t some single job assignment for any group one might label “skeptic”. As for me personally, I look at questions of interest to me, and blog about those. I comment on things that strike me right or wrong and blog about those. I don’t think it’s my “job” to specifically expose AGW as opposed to other fraud.
I’ve criticized some specific things Monckton’s. I’ve criticized some things Chiefio claimed. I’ve criticized things Gavin or Tamino have posted. I try to keep my criticisms specific where possible and apply them to specific things.
“satellite temperatures are soaring high”
Oh, you mean the ‘scorching’ ‘hot hot hot’ ones’?
Yawn.
Andrew
So Sod. You are happy to accept IPCC 2007 report as published? Not worried about all the ‘revelations’ about poor practice, non-peer reviewed statements, inclusion of statements known to be false etc as is now emerging, particularly in the UK press?
lucia,
It is the duty of science to seek the truth about the world. If the truth is that AGW is a fraud, then science is on my side. 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
AGW is not a fraud.
“Andrew_KY–
AGW is not a fraud.”
Really? Measured it (AGW) lately?
Andrew
Sod,
Is it the job of skeptics to get rid of Monkton?
Is it your job to get rid of Mann and Jones?
We will toss our bad apples when you toss yours. I’ll be a
gentleman, you go first.
But seriously, This tendency on both sides to protect ones’ own
no matter what is something that I find troubling. For me
The best I can do is call out those people who don’t abide by
my principles. Scarfetta, for example, when he refused to share
code with Gavin. WRT Monkton, I seriously cannot finish reading
a single thing he writes. I usually get put off in the first paragraph or so. Same for Lambert. Attacking either one of them
or defending either one of them doesnt appeal to me very much because they are wheels that dont turn in my view of the debate.
What they say just doesnt matter. Unless of course they make a mistake in an area I care about. So, if Monkton were to say something silly about the Global temp index or hockey stick studies I would have no problem calling him out on that. Same goes for Lambert. If Lambert were to say “open data and open code” like Judith Curry or like Micheal T, then I would praise them, overlook our differences and try to broaden that common ground.
steven mosher (Comment#32585),
Sure Mosh, but you are clearly reasonable. What makes you think AGW extremists are ever going to be reasonable?
lucia (Comment#32578) February 8th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Ditto.
I think the focusing on “ousting” individuals rather than simply examining issues and correcting errors is a huge problem.
steven mosher (Comment#32548)
So question: What is the most important question in the climate debate?
How ’bout (considering the participants) – Is the current level of climate science robust enough to justify proposed actions?
Personally I think it’s a yawner but I think this will be showmanship instead of knowmanship.
The question I would like to see debated – What hard evidence (if it could be produce) would truly signify that AGW is of little significance in all the factors of climate change?
Clawga,
“The question I would like to see debated – What hard evidence (if it could be produce) would truly signify that AGW is of little significance in all the factors of climate change?”
I have a better one… what hard evidence would truly signify that AGW exists?
Andrew
If Monckton makes a valid point that Lambert cannot rebut, will Lambert edit the recording of the debate and delete that point, like he does at his blog?
Re: Living_Right_in_CA (Feb 8 14:33),
As someone wanting to judge arguments, one of the advantages of live debates recorded on tape is that the debaters can rarely edit their presentations. They also can’t control the questions.
I’m eager to see how this goes!
Andrew,
I’d like to see that debate also but I wonder if we could point to ONE thing and say “Because of (insert evidence here), AGW is a non-issue” and everyone (consensus) agrees.
Re: lucia
February 8th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
I know. I was trying to make a point about Tim’s moderation technique with a little humor.
Andrew_KY (Comment#32576)
…he stated ‘boldly’.
Everyone seems to be going boldly forth….
Re: Living_Right_in_CA (Feb 8 14:46),
I don’t visit his blog often enough to notice his moderation technique!
Get rid of him? I’ve already criitcized him several times. I have no more power over him than I do over Schmidt or Jones. I can present my arguments, and then that’s that.
Other than that, shat are skeptics supposed to do? Off him? I’m not into sending death threats to those with whom I disagree.
.
sending no death threats is a good start.
.
but yes, i would expect you to completely diss him. you could show strong disdain, every time he is brought up. you could have done the research, that showed that he lied about the member of the house of lords claim. you could post that he is a fraud, and that you think that he does harm to the sceptic cause.
.
but other “sceptics” are much worse than you, and show basically no criticism of him at all. and instead post his presentations and videos, often even with positive comments.
.
Sod, I don’t agree with your description of a job assignment. There isn’t some single job assignment for any group one might label “skepticâ€.
.
i disagree. if you call yourself “sceptic” you simply can NOT agree with Monckton.
that is just impossible. so it obviously follows that “sceptics” should either avoid him completely, or contradict him.
So Sod. You are happy to accept IPCC 2007 report as published? Not worried about all the ‘revelations’ about poor practice, non-peer reviewed statements, inclusion of statements known to be false etc as is now emerging, particularly in the UK press?
.
i am still happy with IPCC 2007. everything that was brought up, is at best a minor issue. in real science, most of those “great revelations” would have been passed with a quick e-mail or a post it sticker.
.
Is it the job of skeptics to get rid of Monkton?
Is it your job to get rid of Mann and Jones?
We will toss our bad apples when you toss yours. I’ll be a
gentleman, you go first.
.
i am sorry Steven, but the comparison between Janes and Mann and Monckton is simply insane.
WRT Monkton, I seriously cannot finish reading
a single thing he writes. I usually get put off in the first paragraph or so.
.
i agree 100%.
.
Same for Lambert.
.
again, a really horrible comparison. so here is my challenge:
find a better account of the Monckton house of lords episode on the web.
.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/moncktons_fantasy_world.php
sod,
Seems to me you are getting a bit desperate here ( like Tamino now commenting on newspaper editorials).
If you want a website that criticises Monckton why not set it up yourself?
Yeah Sod set up your own website and delete comments you do not like, even days after they have been posted like your buddy Tim.
Dave, you are a little bit confused.
.
If you want a website that criticises Monckton why not set it up yourself?
.
because i would not reach his followers. i thought i had made that point clear. neither will Tim reach them, in the debate. they rea lost to my side of the argument.
no amount if facts will convince a person, who is seriously listening to Monckton.
it would be the same outcome, if i speak tio the tree in outr garden.
Seems to me you are getting a bit desperate here ( like Tamino now commenting on newspaper editorials).
.
if you think that “Readers might be interested in” is a comment…
.
Tamino has some very interesting posts about station data up. take a look, instead of sticking your head into sand..
Sod:
“but yes, i would expect you to completely diss him. you could show strong disdain, every time he is brought up. you could have done the research, that showed that he lied about the member of the house of lords claim. you could post that he is a fraud,”
I could change that just a little to make it apply to, say, Jones or Gavin. Would you apply the same standards? If not, why not?
Sod–
I mostly discuss testing models against data. Monckton’s resume puffing is irrelevant to this. I’m not going to devote alot of time to it because a) it doesn’t interest me, b) it’s irrelevant to the important stuff, c) I’d prefer to invest my time inspecting his technical arguments (which are often bad) and c) background checkes are the sort of thing Deep Climate or Eli does, so it’s just duplication of effort.
The guy seems to resume puff. I don’t see why I need to re-show what others have shown.
I’ve seen Tamino’s recent posts on station data. It looks like the sort of stuff interested in Chiefio/Watts stuff would be interested. Lots of people seem to think that area ought to interest me; I’ve always told people is not something that interests me hugely. I’m content to let other people dive into those details and only comment every now and then. (If you recall, I criticized Chiefio for a claim about rounding daily values causing certain types of problems in the climate data. I’d seen the bogus claim pop up in my blog, it was wrong, the source for that claim turned out to be Chiefio.)
I think it’s going to turn out that, while there are some station issues, we will still see warming in the observations, it will still be statistically significant, and all these station siting things will have a minor effect on the observed 20th century trends. That is: I think Menne will be shown correct when he repeats his analysis after Anthony releases all stations. But I don’t know this for sure– I could be wrong.
Sod
I’ve specifically criticized him.
That doesn’t mean it’s my job to discuss him every day. Sorry, but, no.
Sod,
“i am sorry Steven, but the comparison between Janes and Mann and Monckton is simply insane.”
Well its not insane. What is insane in my view is that anybody needs to be “gotten rid of” Mann made mistakes. You just say that. you fix the mistakes. they are not devastating to the case. You acknowledge those errors. you Thank WHOEVER pointed out the error and you dont repeat the error. Mann is man again and ceases to be SYMBOLIC. no need to prosecute him for academic misconduct ( I think its a really bad move to go this route as it settles NOTHING one way or the other ) you fix the errors. You give credit. you say thanks. you get back to work. But we are well beyond that. We are in a place were an ex president cannot be seen making errors about climate science in a damn film.
It really has become overly politicized. With you calling for Monktons head and people calling for jones head. My view of Jones. He probably needs to admit his errors with FOIA. Step down from his advisor role to NOAA on data archiving. Get on board with publishing data and code and move on.
WRT to Lambert. I cant think of a single contribution he has made to the debate. Not one. he’s a NOP.
I’ll just take his early take on the CRU mails as an example:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/on_those_stolen_cru_emails.php#more
On Nov 22, Lambert was wondering if the “thief” had altered the mails. What a tool. I mean seriously. I went through a whole series of supposition about the texts in about 2 seconds of brain time and that was the supposition that made the least sense.
Still as we debated the texts on the evening of Nov 18th we did
contemplate that. “some idiot warmer will suggest that one of the mails is wrong in some critical detail” Well, glad to see that Tim did just as I predicted some idiot would. So Why would I read a predictable writer? He’s the u, after q. Zippo information.
Second, he argues that “Since there isnt anything incriminating” its likely that they are genuine” Huh. Within a couple hours
getting the mails and reading them I’d found a pile of juicy things. But then I am curious and Lambert is not. It was an easy matter to go directly to those times in the timeline ( around the FOIA crucial points ) and find jones telling people to delete mails. I’m mean seriously, by Nov 22 Lambert had had 3 days to
read the mails himself..but he would never. AND YOU WOULD NEVER. It really would be good if you and he aquainted yourself with the facts so that you could A) stop making stupid arguments
and B) make better arguments. I say that because I want to face
better counter arguments. I want somebody to read the mails
and counter my arguments. It’s pretty simple.
But he would rather parrot a stupid “taken out of context meme” You see sod, as somebody with years of experience in PR, I know the initial spin we TRAIN PEOPLE to use. Lambert is a trained dog. It works like this:
If you are caught in bed with another woman, you need to buy time: First attack the person who caught you. Second claim its a private matter; third argue that its taken out of context. 4th if you can turn it into a legal matter and refuse to take questions till the whitewash is done.
(What’s the context? ahh ahh quick tiger go get into a sex addict program. ) So, when Lambert parrots these kind of shallow stupid pet tricks I just turn the page. Nothing there. No original thought. Crap, in flash after getting my hands on them I knew what the party line would be: “the science still stands” Of course it does, you tools. That’s not the issue. The issue is trust. the issue has always been trust. and the mails erode it. Hiding data erodes it. avoiding debates erodes it. refusing to admit errors erodes it.
Steven Mosher…
I think you are the tool
Here is what Lambert wrote:
[We don’t know whether or not the thief altered the emails, but since there isn’t really anything incriminating it’s likely that they are all genuine.]
So actually he claimed they were most likely ALL GENUINE.
He didn’t go throgh some tortured debate, he most likely did it in the few seconds it took you.
[But he would rather parrot a stupid “taken out of context memeâ€]
Ohhhhhhhh the irony of it all! Exactly what you did in your post above.
You can’t resist taking statements out of context, can you? I guess it’s all your PR training, yes?
You found ‘juicy things’ so you could write a book, nothing in those emails has changed anything about the science of AGW. They don’t change any response we should take. What they do, is present a cheap opportunity for people like yourself to throw mud, and score a book deal.
[The issue is trust. the issue has always been trust. and the mails erode it. Hiding data erodes it. avoiding debates erodes it. refusing to admit errors erodes it.]
No, the issue is not trust, the issue here is people like you MAKING STUFF UP and taking them out of context, as you clearly did above. As a trained PR guy you should know that context is everything.
Out of interest, how many times did you contact the writers of the emails to ask why they wrote what they wrote.
sod (Comment#32574)
February 8th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
at the end of the day, it is the job of the “sceptics†to get rid of Monckton. the reason that he can fill rooms is, that you folks don t shoot him down.
show me where you’ve shot down Gore
.
the sceptical blogosphere is playing a very dangerous game. they don t attack liars like Monckton or his really crazy followers, because it buffs your numbers. you don t cut ties with insane groups like the tea baggers, because they are a powerful group.
what’s insane about tea partiers? they don’t like big government tax and spend policies, me neither
.
at the end of the day, you risk that those crazy people and ideas that you allow to develop, might affect real politics.
SOD…deciderer of which ideas are crazy
.
we might end up ruled by people, who have to write the word “energy†on their hand, when giving a political speech.
hmmm, we’re already “ruled” by the Teleprompter in Chief
Nathan
Your first sentence is:
“I think you are the tool”
then later you wrote:
“a cheap opportunity for people like yourself to throw mud”
I guess you guys are just alike, then. 😉
Andrew
Nathan. Please
“You found ‘juicy things’ so you could write a book, nothing in those emails has changed anything about the science of AGW. They don’t change any response we should take. What they do, is present a cheap opportunity for people like yourself to throw mud, and score a book deal.”
1. I found juicy things which were incriminating within 30 minutes of reading the mails.
2. I did not find them so I could write a book. the decision to write a book was made on Nov 29th. I found them as a result of trying to verify the mails.
3. I’ve said all along the mails in and of themselves could not change the science. Its’s stupid to believe that a mail could
“change” “the Science” whatever that stupid phrase means.
4. They DO in fact change what we should do. As more people are coming to our view of things, you will see, hopefully, more openness in data and code.
They have already changed things. Nothing in the science yet, but hopefully in the way climate science is done and communicated.
Your Question:
“Out of interest, how many times did you contact the writers of the emails to ask why they wrote what they wrote.”
For the most part I did not try to impute motives. I cared more about WHAT was said and the chronology, the CONTEXT, than what was in the mans soul. Plus, author’s have no priority when it comes to reporting motives. We dont witness motives. We witness behaviors.
Andrew_Ky
You forgot to add “and score a book deal”… 🙂
Nathan,
You got a book deal too? When does it come out? 😉
Andrew
Nathan (Comment#32610) February 8th, 2010 at 5:13 pm —
Well, I’m not sure about that precis of Climategate.
For instance, being interested in the Consensus community’s response to Mann’s inverting the Lake Korttajarvi proxies, I did a cursory search and pulled up the hacked emails where Nick McKay and Darrell Kaufman corresponded briefly on that subject. (Search “September 03, 2009” here). They didn’t tell me anything new about the science. Anybody who had followed the Tiljander story should have already surmised that something along those lines had transpired.
And yet this sort of issue was contested when skeptics and Consensus advocates discussed the matter in those Stoat threads, back in October/November.
So perhaps the hacked emails helped by making it easier for people to move past “nuisance” debating points with little truth value. That’s useful in a way that throwing mud isn’t.
Me thinks sod the crusading anti-war monger is a bit unhinged.
I think that the best thing to do with people who are over the top is to ignore them and let other over the top people complain in an over the top manner about how over the top the other person is.
So I generally ignore Monckton and and really should ignore sod.
“that’s a bad comparison”-oh my friend, no it isn’t. You are the only crazy person around here…
off!
LOL. I thought Lambert was smarter than that. LOL.
AndrewKy
So I guess you agree with me that Mosher spun Lambert’s comments way beyond what they actually said?
AMac
Well I guess you could view it in that way. But you can’t deny that climategate hasn’t been a used as an opportunity to throw mud. In fact mostly used to throw mud.
“…Lambert parrots these kind of shallow stupid pet tricks I just turn the page. Nothing there. No original thought.”
Dude, YOU ARE A FANBOI OF ANTHONY WATTS! Are you serious with this garbage?
Oh, sorry, Anthony’s just posting interesting things to his internet web log and is a curious little scamp with a good head on his shoulders and a fine, comfortable mustache. But enough of this…
Boris (Comment#32626)-Dude, you are obsessively hateful of a man you’ve never even met!
I’ll ask you again, are you under the impression that Anthony wants to eat your children???
I’l just add one more comment on Lamberts thinking.
On the assumption that the mails are “stolen” you realize that the thief took a risk. In their mind took a risk to expose something that was significant. What would be sillier than stealing a bunch of mails that showed nothing? Stealing a bunch of mails that showed something and then “forging” or faking one of them. That was a possibility you could rule out almost apriori. I’ll repeat what I said before, I don’t think Lambert adds anything of interest to the debate. Not an interesting position, not an interesting defense, nothing original or insightful. NOP.
Boris (Comment#32626) February 8th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Boris I am a fan of Anthony’s for several reasons,first and foremost
Because he organized a volunteer effort. Same reason I am a fanboy of Clear climate code for volunteer efforts. Its a pretty clear principle.
WRT his view on the whole solar question. I am not a fan. Have said so several times.
WRT his views on UHI. I’m on record saying that I think the effects
are smaller than he thinks. I await a full analysis of the data.
WRT his editorial policy, he posts according to his interests. All the cold weather stuff amuses me because of the contrast with all the warm weather stuff the MSM pushes.
i’m also a fan of Tamino, but I dont post there anymore because of his banning of certain people. Heck I’m a fan of you. Im a fan of Atmoz and suggested to Anthony that he add Atmoz to his blogroll.
Arrg
One of my previous posts got eaten.
“You found ‘juicy things’ so you could write a book, nothing in those emails has changed anything about the science of AGW. They don’t change any response we should take. What they do, is present a cheap opportunity for people like yourself to throw mud, and score a book deal.”
No. I got the mails on Nov17th in the evening. By the time I called McIntyre I already had juicy bits to go over with him.
It wasnt that hard. On the 18th I discussed the legal issues involved and read more mails. One thought I had was just to find a journalist to turn this all over to and walk away. My work was
basically done. On the 19th It was clear that the mails were out in the open. So I pointed to them around noon. I then sent a note to Andrew Revkin. I told him his mails were in the files. The mails showed that he was not a “made man” of the climate scientists and I told him to follow the FOIA. In the end, since the ICO has confirmed that UEA did not follow proceedure, I’d say I predicted the storyline pretty well. between the 19th and the 29th of Nov I continued to read the mails and the online reports, basically correctling people who got things wrong. On the 29th Tom Fuller asked me if I would write a book. So, I didnt find the juicy bits in order to write a book. I found the juicy bits as part of my investigation into whether the files were real or not.
As to nothing changing the science. Well, since I believe in AGW I could hardly go into this with an expectation of finding anything that would overturn radiative physics. I suspected that mails would show process problems. corroboration of what we actually se in the public record. For example, Briffa nd Wahl communicating outside the IPCC process. Heck we knew that happened. That is why Holland did the FOIA. The lame excuses they proffered gave strong indications to follow the FOIA.
Finally, I did not score a book deal. Please aquaint yourself with the facts. The book is self publsihed. In my mind having a publisher offered no benefit. I dont want any corporation or individual telling me what I can or cannot say. I dont want their marketing department having any say. As for throwing mud. If quoting Jones’ mails in full, if placing those mails in a chronology of other texts is throwing mud, then I guess Jones’ words are mud. If saying that AGW is real and that we need to do something about it is throwing mud, then I guess I threw mud.
Mosher
You didn’t read my reply to your “Lambert is tool” comment, [Comment#32610]
You blatantly misrepresented what he said on his blog.
Mosher
Did you bother to get Jones’ response? Did you interview him, or question him?
The way you misrepresented a fairly simple sentence on Tim Lambert’s blog doesn’t bode well for you ability to properly interpret a select group of emails.
Mosher
Sad to hear you didn’t get a book deal. My point still stands though. You have profited from finding ‘juicy bits’. When Lambert wrote about there not being anything juicy in there, he was talking about there being nothing that would change AGW, which you have acknowledged.
“The issue is trust. the issue has always been trust.”
.
This is very important.
.
It might have been the issue for you, Steven Mosher, but it wasn’t and it still isn’t on practically all the skeptic/denialist blogs (especially WUWT). McIntyre’s personal vendetta didn’t start because there was a trust issue, it was all centred on discrediting/debunking the Hockey Stick. That’s why McIntyre got so popular in certain circles. Apparently the discrediting/debunking didn’t stick enough despite a not so independent panel (see DeepClimate’s latest) that enabled a political PR theatre. Subsequently the focus has been shifted on the trust issue, in other words smear the scientists and the process of science to sway public opinion.
.
If the issue is trust, then why do so many people all of a sudden think AGW is a scam? Now that the objective has been reached (gaining and keeping the attention of the scandal-hungry MSM to sway public opinion and thus diminish support for mitigation/adaptation), I see a lot of skeptics/denialists suddenly emphasizing that their opinion is that AGW is real. I find this suspect, to say the least. It could be my interpretation, but perhaps the overwhelming PR success of the -Gates has made a few of them realize that now they bear responsibility for the consequences of this PR success. The irony is that while the denialists/skeptics have the upper hand, their satellite of choice is breaking record after record, 2010 having a reasonable chance of becoming the hottest year on record, and who knows what the Arctic sea ice has in store?
.
But the main focus of denialists and the ideological/financial interests backing them has never been on trust, it was on debunking the science of AGW. Apparently this tactic wasn’t deemed effective enough to delay whatever has to be delayed.
.
All in all ClimateGate might have some positive effects, if we discount the devastating effects it have on the possibility of a rational policy that isn’t political suicide:
-Most denialists/skeptics all of a sudden claim to always have had the opinion that Global Warming is being observed and that CO2 probably has some influence on that.
-The last few % of the data will be released, so no more need for dozens of FOIA requests, no more waste of time.
-Hopefully no more influence from organisations like Greenpeace on the IPCC reports, though Workgroup I is for me the only interesting part of the IPCC.
.
But if AGW does become a problem faster than anticipated (for which there might be signs already), then ClimateGate could very well prove to be extremely noxious and the people who pushed it will have committed an ethical crime of considerable magnitude. That includes you, Steven Mosher, whether you mean well or not, though on the scale of a Watts or a Monckton.
Nathan, the agenda driven folks already changed “AGW” awhile ago. They don’t call it that anymore. They call it “Climate Change” and blame everything under the sun they find “unusual” (and perfect propaganda) on fractions of one degree of temperature. They even scare people with their “facts” on purpose.
The citizens and scientists in this country who find everything about “Climate Change” suspect and see the science as heavily flawed; sort of-religious, agenda driven, politically inspired, may call it a HOAX at worst; and junk science/group think at best. Do you think the content of these emails surprised any one? Or influenced what they already thought all that much? Ha ha!
Why are these scientists (dedicating there lives on this horrible condition of the planet caused by man) and their research (that is so “well understood” and so “settled”) getting stimulus money and maybe a whole new regulatory body to “further our understanding” of “Climate Change”? If the science isn’t going to change for any reason? Why is Tim Lambert bothering to debate at all?
What I see is a lot of folks finding “Life” and “Purpose” AND “Profit” with a “cause” called Climate Change. So lukewarmers and skeptics aren’t allowed to?
Nathan, typical! you are angry because adults (who you probably consider dumb and mislead) are buying Mosher’s book with juicy bits on the internet? Sheesh. that is nothing. My kids were required to watch Al Gore’s movie in school and he’s a bazillionaire now! You want to know how angry that makes me?
You want to know how angry my husband the earth scientist is about this mess, and that and the untold taxes and financial burdens that maybe placed upon us all might be? You want to know how angry I get when after I read comments online and I ask questions and they are ignored? How about comments and questions that are censored, blocked or edited by people on the Team et al like Lambert? Take your silly feelings and x1000 or more!
“their satellite of choice is breaking record after record”
Oh please.
Neven,
if you think “record after record” in the time span of satellite technology is a representation of “earth climate and condition over time” and we should be “alarmed” you are a loon. That is pretty much 0 data!
Re: Neven (Feb 9 06:10),
Huh? A saw a lot of people you call skeptics emphasize they think AGW is real before climategate. Are you suggesting some only did so afterwards? In which case, who are you talking about?
Re: Neven (Feb 9 06:10),
You’re having a little problem with tense. UAH showed the warmest January in the record. That’s one record. Next month, it may show the warmest February, but that would be the future. It may then continue to break records, but that would also be the future.
You might want to say “This year, I predict UAH will break lots of records!”
Nathan,
“AndrewKy
So I guess you agree with me that Mosher spun Lambert’s comments way beyond what they actually said?”
No. My position is that we live in the Age of Lies and we’ll be living in spin for the rest of our lives. The ‘he said, she said’ stuff is not very important.
Andrew
You’re having a little problem with tense. UAH showed the warmest January in the record. That’s one record. Next month, it may show the warmest February, but that would be the future. It may then continue to break records, but that would also be the future.
You might want to say “This year, I predict UAH will break lots of records!â€
well, looking at AMSU-A channel 5, with the 20 years record highs plotted in, it looks like temperature broke about 30 day records.
i am also pretty sure that temperature broke at least one other monthly record in 2009 (or am i confusing it with RSS?)
looks like November 2009 was the last monthly UAH record.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979.83/to:2010/every:12
and September 2009 was second highest september in the dataset.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979.66/to:2010/every:12
looks to me like past tense (actually Neven was using a present continues form?) makes some sense. but grammar isn t my strongest side…
Sod–
Second highest is not a record! Two records isn’t “record after record”. Moreover, breaking monthly records in a series that is roughly 30 years long isn’t even a big deal. There are 12 months a year. If monthly temperature were random and nothing was happening, we’d still expect to break monthly records fairly regularly!
UAH is showing very hot temperature in the record now. The overall trend is for warming– and that feature is distinctive. But you need to be a little patient before you characterize this as breaking as breaking record after record.
UAHprobably will break quite a few monthly records in the first 6 months of this year and may very well have a record annual temperature. But it has not yet broken record after record, and until the record breaking months are in the pocket, some need to be careful not to claim what we predict has been observed.
Lucia,
.
“Huh? A saw a lot of people you call skeptics emphasize they think AGW is real before climategate. Are you suggesting some only did so afterwards? In which case, who are you talking about?”
.
It’s something I noticed, so again, it could be me.
.
For instance Jeff Id recently, in between his rants against the commies: “My opinion is: CO2 is more absorbent of heat in longwave than shortwave radiation. Because sunlight absorbed and re-emitted, the energy is converted from short to long wavelength, there is necessarily a warming effect. The questions in my mind are how much, how dangerous and what can we do about it. My answers are dunno, but less warming than IPCC rubbish, likely beneficial and can’t be changed with today’s technology. Does that make me a lukewarmer, a denier, a skeptic or what?”
.
Perhaps I should go and look for other statements of this kind by Jeff and see when he made them?
.
The good Lord Monckton in his opening speech in a recent debate: “We are going to concede, that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which possess or mimic a dipole moment, cause warming if you add them to the atmosphere. We concede also, that human kind is adding CO2 to the atmosphere at about the rate that the NOAA figures mention. So we are not trying to pretend, that we are not the cause of the CO2 in the atmosphere increasing, we are not going to try to pretend that that CO2 will cause no warming.”
.
Did Monckton always say this before the damage of ClimateGate was done? Somehow I think he omitted that part. AGW was a fraud to install a one world government, remember? If adding CO2 causes warming, how can AGW be a fraud?
.
.
.
As for UAH, perhaps I’m exaggerating, but it’s the combination of eyeballing the ch05 graph and seeing much of the trace for the second half 2009 and 2010 so far way up there above 20 year record territory (which of the other years since 1998 have done that, I wonder) and reading this recently:
.
“I am interested in the projection that the January ‘10 UAH anomaly will exceed 0.70 (turned out it was 0.72). I checked the UAH data, and this would be the highest Jan anomaly in the data, beating 0.59 in Jan 07 and 0.58 in Jan 98.
.
In addition, the UAH anomaly hit 0.50 last November, the highest Nov anomaly in the records. The runner-up was Nov ‘05 with 0.40 and only two other Nov anomalies exceeded 0.30.
.
And the September UAH anomaly hit 0.42, the second highest for that month. The record was Sep ‘98 with 0.43, and only other September reading to exceed 0.30 was Sep ‘05 with 0.35.
.
And the July UAH anomaly was also 0.42, the second highest in the record. The record was Jul ‘98 with 0.52, with the third place going to Jul ‘05 with 0.33. Only one other July exceeded 0.30.
.
Notice that all the other years were El Nino peak years following the January El Nino, and 2010 will be the El Nino peak year, following this January El Nino peak.”
.
Either it’s a record or it’s just behind ’98 and a stretch above the other years. With low to no sunspot activity, a negative PDO and an El Niño I’m led to believe isn’t nearly as strong as the one in ’98, these graphs worry me a bit. But hey, I’m a warmist after all (and much more besides).
.
.
.
“UAH is showing very hot temperature in the record now.”
.
Anyway, my point was that it’s ironic that global temperature anomalies are very high while the skeptics/denialists are celebrating their union with the MSM.
.
Perhaps my use of tense/grammar was deficient (I’m not a native speaker of English), but if February – just like January smashes – the previous record, then in retrospective I accidentally was right when stating that “their satellite of choice is breaking record (Feb.) after record (Jan.)”. That should earn me some quatloos, eh? 😉
I thought it would take me longer, but here’s Monckton:
.
“Monckton is critical of the theory of anthropogenic causes for climate change and the stated scope of it, which he regards as a controversy catalysed by “the need of the international left for a new flag to rally round following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989″.[12] He has expressed doubt about the reality of global warming in a number of newspaper articles and papers.”
.
Notice the ‘critical of the theory of anthropogenic causes for climate change’?
.
Another one: “In two Sunday Telegraph articles published in November 2006, Monckton disputed whether global warming is man-made, ”
.
Is man-made? Hmmm, and now he opens debates by stating the opposite? Where did all that generosity all of a sudden come from? Could it be that ClimateGate has done sufficient damage, so there’s no need to deny global warming or humans being the cause, because the ‘issue of trust’ is now enough to derail and delay action? Blimey!
.
I still have to look a bit more into Jeff Id which won’t be as easy (unless he has a Wikipedia entry). Anyone else come to mind? Has Steve McIntyre lately felt the sudden need to reiterate his sparsely iterated view that warming is real and most probably man-made? Has Watts posted blog entries on other energy efficient measures in his house, as opposed to you know who?
.
.
.
You see, that bothers me about that whole ‘debate is over’-righteous indignation. The ‘debate is over’ was referring to the denial by skeptics/denialists that the globe wasn’t warming and it sure as hell wasn’t caused by humans. Everyone knows that the debate about the consequences were and are still open. Nobody but the most rabid environmentalists (who BTW are not ruling the world and never will be) would claim that.
.
But here you have denialists/skeptics claiming for years that there was no warming – in fact, during the ENSO neutral/Niña episodes the globe was actually entering a new ice age, right? – and that it wasn’t caused by human emissions, who now suddenly go: ‘Yes, the globe is warming a bit, humans are emitting a lot of CO2, but no one knows what the consequences will be. So the debate is not over, you arrogant, cheating scientists with your fraudulent scientific methods!!!’
.
Put yourselves in the shoes of a warmist like me and try to understand the frustration. 🙂
Re: Neven (Feb 9 08:06),
I don’t know what Jeff said before– but my impression is he always said warming is real.
I’m pretty sure if you looked hard enough, you could find Monckton saying warming is real before climate gate. For example near minute 1 in this youtube he admits CO2 does cause the basic greenhouse effect. He then denies it could cause a 6C change. That interview is after climate gate, but I think this has been his usual claim:
The tough part about finding M. claims is the words spoken in speeches don’t show up in Google searches.
Well.. the answer to that question is easy enough! It could be a “fraud” in the sense that he thinks the level and consequences are wildly exaggerated– and I think he still thinks so.
Once again: Stop counting being the second hottest temperatures as breaking records. It just isn’t. Also, the Channel 5 AMSU is not UAH and isn’t even used for UAH. I post it as an indication. So, quotes that Channel 5 AMSU is hitting daily record anomalies is not telling us that UAH is hitting daily records!
I think UAH will probably break a lot of monthly records this year. But it hasn’t happened time after time yet.
I don’t know if this counts, but Jeff had a guest blog in May 2009 called “Disproving The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem”.
.
Quote from the piece: “The final question that arises is what prediction has the AGW made that has been demonstrated, and that strongly supports the theory. It appears that there is NO real supporting evidence and much disagreeing evidence for the AGW theory as proposed. That is not to say there is no effect from Human activity. Clearly human pollution (not greenhouse gases) is a problem. There is also almost surely some contribution to the present temperature from the increase in CO2 and CH4, but it seems to be small and not a driver of future climate. Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!”
.
I suppose Jeff wouldn’t have put it up on his blog if he didn’t agree with it in some way. It looks to me like questioning the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming served a purpose, but now the ‘trust issue’ is serving this purpose much better, so we can go and look neutral/rational by stating AGW is happening, but the consequences will be positive. From a warmist point of view this is the last stage of delaying denial.
Neven–
If you mean Monckton has changed tunes, say that. Don’t try to turn that into plural, unnamed “skeptics/deniers”.
Oh? How do you know this is what it meant? That phrase is one of the many free-floating sound bites swirling in political climate circles. It is sufficiently ambigious that it could mean anything. As far as I can tell, it is used that way, by different people in different conversations.
There are plenty of people “out there” who want to wave to the existence of a general consensus on something and then use it to support warming claims that are way out on the fringe. Not every one does this–but some do. “The debate is over” gets used the same way.
As a stand alone sound bite unconnected with a precise claim could be true or false. To figure out which we need someone to add “The debate about this very specific scientific claim is over.” Then they can add “We now know ‘X’.” I’m pretty sure Gore didn’t do that when interviewed by Stephanopolis.
Once again, nameing who you consider to be a denialist/skeptic making this claim would be useful. In your opinion am I an “denialist/skeptic”? Well…If I am on your list, then your claim about what “denialists/skeptics” claimed is false: I certainly never claimed there is no warming nor have I claimed we are entering a new ice age! I don’t even think Monckton claimed we were entering a new ice age. If I’m not on your list, is the category of “denialists/skeptic” really just “a guy named Monckton?” Why not just say Monckton if you mean Monckton?
None of these people speak for me!
(You aren’t kidding about the lies and spin Andrew!!!)
Neven
It must be frustrating to be such a fuzzy thinker who can’t even figure out that different people say different things. There is nothing contradictory about 10 people having 10 different opinions. The fact that they disagree with you doesn’t mean the are all simultaneously 1 person holding a bunch of contradictory thoughts!
“Also, the Channel 5 AMSU is not UAH and isn’t even used for UAH. I post it as an indication. So, quotes that Channel 5 AMSU is hitting daily record anomalies is not telling us that UAH is hitting daily records!”
Sure, but you understand when I say I find it ironic to see that graph way out there while the MSM are doing the hatchet job the denialists/skeptics have craved so long for?
.
.
.
“I’m pretty sure if you looked hard enough, you could find Monckton saying warming is real before climate gate.”
.
By not looking particularly hard (meaning I found quotes in no time) I found Monckton questioning the warming and the man-made aspect of it. Monckton will say anything that pushes his ideological and financial agenda. That was my whole point. He can act all graceful and generous now that the -Gates are thoroughly swaying public opinion and delaying action. The argument has turned to ‘the scientists cannot be trusted, so AGW won’t be bad at all’. Disgusting, IMO.
“the denialists/skeptics have craved so long for?”
Craved? How dramatic!!!
You don’t speak for me or anyone I know. I haven’t craved a thing but adherence to the scientific method, attention to detail; respect for my reasonable concerns and alternate ideas and LESS DRAMA by scientists, believers and politicians in regards to studying this planets climate whether it is getting “warm” or not!
“the denialists/skeptics have craved so long for”
The only thing I have craved recently is White Castle. They have really good coffee too, BTW. 😉
Andrew
Andrew 🙂 If Neven actually believes what he says he surely might find an interesting self examination by asking himself why he craves the AGW hypothesis to be so darn real. (So much so that the behavior of the main heavy players, like not sharing data or figuring out how to skirt FOI requests; or not acknowledging errors or the folks who find them; is excused. And then we are told “nothing to see here move along” and something is wrong with us if we’d like to read the “juicy tidbits” in Mosher’s book ! lol
liza,
Agreed! 🙂
Andrew
There may be three broad narratives of “how we got here”.
Warmists, Alarmists, Adherents to the AGW Consensus — “The past couple of decades of scientific work has given us a clear picture of the Earth’s general temperature trend since the Industrial Revolution, which is unprecedented warming. This is driven by the addition of CO2, CH4, and other greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere by human activities. These changes have been modeled and understood, and thus the consequences of future rises in greenhouse gasses can be predicted–and it’s dire. Further, paleoclimate reconstructions confirm that the planet is warmer than it has been over the past 2,000+ years. While Science is a never-ending process, as far as policy goes, “The Science is settled.”
Skeptics, Lukewarmers — “There’s clear evidence of post-Little-Ice-Age warming of the planet, although deficiencies in the instrumental record mean that the extent isn’t precisely known. The physics of CO2 and similar gasses are clear, human production of them is contributing to warming. The lion’s share of anthropogenic warming will come via changes in water vapor and albedo; these are poorly understood. There are also natural causes of climate change, also poorly understood. Knowing the temperature record of the past few thousand years would provide helpful perspective, but that work is not generally reliable.” Policy should be informed by the large uncertainties that accompany AGW projections.”
Denialists — “There has never been a strong case for pronounced recent warming of the planet. To the extent there has been warming in the past few decades, there’s no compelling case that it’s been caused by human activities.”
A couple of notes.
1. It seems to me that Denialists are for the most part a fringe presence in the ongoing public policy debates, and in discussions on informed blogs.
2. Adherents to the AGW Consensus often label Skeptics as Denialists. The taunting has two benefits: it changes the terms of the debate (“Hey, I am not a Denialist!”), and it leads bystanders to see anybody with non-Consensus views as a denier of science.
3. “Alarmist,” same general strategy, though the word has fewer perjorative associations.
4. Neven, sod — it’s frustrating for you Consensus adherents to discuss AGW with Skeptics because you believe that the science is settled. Settled enough to prove the need for immediate, expensive, far reaching policy and lifestyle changes for most people. It’s hard for you to understand that informed folks of good will can dissent from your belief.
I think this is what leads passionate Consensus advocates to the corollary that Skeptics must be wicked. But I’d rather discuss proxy selection and computer code than sinfulness. I’ve ended up thinking that many of the people shouting “The Science is Settled!” do not know very much about the form or substance of scientific argument.
There are a number of precedents for this, y’know. It’s a mixed bag: sometimes the Settled!s were right, while other times they were wrong. My own view is that it would be poor practice to rush into policy on the basis of what’s clearly known and understood at this point
Sorry if this is a double post, I’ve been getting errors.
.
Lucia, you asked me this: “Huh? A saw a lot of people you call skeptics emphasize they think AGW is real before climategate. Are you suggesting some only did so afterwards? In which case, who are you talking about?”
.
You asked, so I gave two examples: Monckton and Jeff Id. I think it would be possible to put Morano, d’Aleo, Watts, Spencer, Plimer in the same category. If they would be interviewed right now, they would probably say AGW is happening, but that the debate is still open on the consequences. Whereas not too long ago they featured a lot of articles on their blogs saying it is cooling, an ice age is coming, man cannot be responsible etc. I think the same can be said for CEI, Marshall Institute, Heartland, SPPI, etc.
.
The only people I’m sure never said AGW wasn’t happening and now play the ‘trust issue’ card are Christy and perhaps Pat Michaels who warned his fellow skeptics/denialists at the Heartland Conference. Maybe more people. Steve McIntyre?
.
Perhaps when the need arises, for instance when the fickle MSM does another about-face when alarmism sells again, the people I name will unflinchingly regress to a previous state of denial? But for now, they can safely state that AGW is real, probably no problem whatsoever, no action necessary until we know more etc and the very grave ‘trust issue’ (in which they had no part, no responsibility whatsoever) has been resolved. This last bit cannot be emphasized enough, -Gate, -Gate, -Gate, -Gate.
.
You asked me who I was talking about, I gave you two examples. Do you want me to look up some more? Will you in exchange help me categorize skeptics/lukewarmers/denialists? Because now it seems like all three are one big happy family, with nutty uncles and snake oil cousins and all.
.
As for you, Lucia, I wrote what my take on you was recently on In It For The Gold: http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/02/lemonade-or-responsibilities-of.html
.
One quote: “So Lucia might be a lukewarmer when it comes to the science, but somehow that doesn’t prevent her from being in the denialist camp when it comes to all other aspects of AGW. And there’s a bit of an illogical disconnect there, in my opinion. It could be that she unwittingly is a denialist in disguise.”
.
To me you seem like a nice person, Lucia, but I’m just not so sure about some aspects of your lukewarminess.
Neven–
And you didn’t show either acted as you claimed and conceded you don’t even have any idea what JeffId claimed about CO2 prior to climate gate. After that, you went back to “skeptics/deniers”.
You are claiming people changed positions on AGW. Have any of them changed positions since Nov 19? I don’t think so. I think if they all say exactly what the previously said.
I don’t want to categorize people at all.
But you keep presenting claims about what “skeptics/denialists” think do etc. No one can know whether what you say is right or wrong unless we know who you think you are referring.
Given the list you are given, it appears your original claim that this group has all changed positions on the reality of AGW appears to be false. None of those people you actually name seem to have changed their positions since climategate. It’s hard to tell with Monckton– but I don’t think he even changed!
Neven (Comment#32679) February 9th, 2010 at 11:58 am —
I recall being unimpressed by your analytical skills (and mind-reading abilities) when you first posted that comment at Michael Tobis’ blog (direct link here. Alas, it’s no better on a re-read. For instance: if you’d take a break from railing against the moral failings of those with a less-certain view of AGW, you’d realize that just about everyone wants to take “action, as long as it is done the right and proportionate way, based on proper risk management etc.”
Not only those select people who share your particular perspective.
As far as your examples of skeptics who didn’t think AGW was real prior to Climategate, you mention Jeff Id. Er. You should read his blog before listing him, unless you’re certain you know his thoughts better than he does.
At Tobis’ blog, you mock Roger Pielke Jr. He’s another skeptic who explicitly accepts the mechanism of AGW. Perhaps not devoutly enough for some, but still.
That horned bete noir, Steve McIntyre, has written along the same lines.
Neven–
As long as you linked your silly analysis, I’ll discuss it here. Over at InIt, you mused:
This would make me a lukewarmer.
I’ve criticized Monkton more than once. I’ve criticized Chiefio recently. I’ve said that I think the ultimate result of Anthony’s investigations is that we are going to find the siting issues don’t affect the record all that much. (I don’t have anything against him looking into the issue. ) I’ve told readers I don’t spend time on that because I don’t think the surface records are going to change much.
I’ve had long discussions contradicting people like “jae” or “Andrew_KY” in comments.
I’ve criticized others- but I don’t tag posts “criticized someone Neven thinks I should criticize”.
I’m not quite sure what level of critcism I’m supposed to do. Am I supposed to slam Spencer (or is it Christy) for being religious when I’m atheist? Or Roger Pielke for traveling more than Eli Rabbet likes? What’s your standard? (Not that I’m actually going to try to meet it.)
I don’t investigate financial ties, period. That exercise would bore me.
In any case, it doesn’t seem to bother you that Tamino or Gavin don’t devote much time to investigating financial ties. So if you don’t require everyone to do that, why should I be required to look at that? I really don’t see why any sane person would think that any individual lukewarmer HAS to investigate these.
That said, to the extent that I’ve examined the arguments and claims about tactics and ties forward by Rabbett etc. the evidence for strong ties to skeptics as a whole seems exceedingly thin. If one reads the linked documents, footnotes etc. the claims always come down to …well… nothing.
Sorry you don’t see it this way, but I do. I’m not going to concoct fake evidence just to convince you, Neven, that I would criticize people for taking pay offs if they did so.
You may find this odd, but I don’t care whether people believe I’m a lukewarmer, a stone cold denialist or an AGW alarmist. I certainly don’t care what they think I would do based on what they think a person who believes “a” would do. Everyone’s heard idiots say things like “She couldn’t have been raped because a rape victim wouldn’t do ____”. (Fill in their personal theory for an odd list of thing they think a rape victim would not do– be it, take a shower, not take a shower, be calm, be depressed, get drunk, whatever.) Those proof-by-you claiming you know what a person who thinks ‘a’ would do are stupid.
Here’s my view: I say what I think and discuss topics I enjoy. I’m not getting into arguments about whether or not someones tactics are “like” tobacco company tactics because those are stupid arguments. They are just dumb.
If they paid me, you’d take that as proof I was expressing opinions because I was paid.
However, it appears that you also consider the fact that they don’t pay me is proof that I don’t believe what I say I believe. Wow!
Oh…well…
I’ve mostly been crocheting the past week. 🙂
Lucia,
It appears Neven is intent upon (has a craving for) making you a political opponent.
Welcome to the list. 😉
Andrew
Lucia, as long as you are entertaining complaints on your blogging:
Some of your posts aren’t technical enough. They don’t make me feel special, because anybody could understand them.
But your writing can also be too technical. For instance, I don’t know enough about satellite measurements to offer an opinion or bet quatloos. Other times, I can’t follow your math. These posts make me feel dumb, you should stop them.
Also, your opinions rarely match my own. Please adjust them until they are Just Right.
— AMac
AMac (Comment#32687),
You are absolutely right! I often have to actually learn something new to follow Lucia’s more technical posts (ARMA(1,1) models for example). That’s just not fair to me or the the masses. And I don’t like how she sometimes agrees on specific issues with people I really don’t care for (like Tobis!). She just needs to be more politically pure; I think Neven could probably give her some pointers.
Frankly the financial ties argument is a red herring. If Exxon wants to fund a bunch of scientists to come up with a climate model with low CO2 sensitivity then all the power to them. The only requirement is the financial interest must be disclosed.
The same goes to alarmist scientists. If they are getting grants from Shell or Siemens (as revealled in the CRU Emails) those grant sources should be declared when they publish research.
At the end of the day the people with the best science will be proven correct and it really does not make a difference who paid for it.
SOD
you don t cut ties with insane groups like the tea baggers, because they are a powerful group.
at the end of the day, you risk that those crazy people and ideas that you allow to develop, might affect real politics.
oh oh, looks like crazy people are affecting real politics
Independents disapprove of him (Obama) on the economy, 50%-25%, and health care, 57%-23%. The intensity gap is worse. Just 3% say he’s doing a great job on the economy vs. 29% who say it’s awful. Only 6% give him an A on health care vs. 41% who strongly disapprove.
Seventy-five percent of independents have a favorable view of the tea party movement.
Independents’ split from Democrats can be seen in the past few elections. In November, the GOP won off-year gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia.
Then on Jan. 19, Republicans won the Massachusetts special Senate election to fill the seat of the late Ted Kennedy. Scott Brown won in part by making the race a referendum on ObamaCare. The defeat cost Senate Democrats their filibuster-proof majority.
I hardly find people like Neven worth even the minimum effort of a reply but I can confirm definitively that Lord Monkton ALWAYS said that global warming through CO² enhancement was possible, in fact, the calculation of this warming was a fandamental part of his presentations and in particular a presentation he made on FOX last autumn. There, does that help?
SteveF and Amac
I like Lucia. You can have a right ‘ole argument, scientific of course, and then get on with the rest of your life. Great fun.
Debates, live or recorded, are not something that interest me at all. I prefer to read the scientific papers and assess their validity myself then I can be reasonably certain that the info I have is of sufficient quality for me to make my own decisions. That is why I find the debate over data, method and metadata release the most important debate to be had but not live or recorded (in print please).
“It appears Neven is intent upon (has a craving for) making you a political opponent.”
.
Not at all. I’m trying to categorize people so I can ascertain who is trustworthy and who isn’t. This goes for bloggers as well as commenters. I’m much more interested in ethics and responsibility (everyone’s, including mine) than in the mess of politics, where the left/right polarization is a means to divide and conquer. Not only the AGW scientists and activists bear responsibility. The denialists and even the lukewarmers do too.
.
“I don’t investigate financial ties, period. That exercise would bore me. […] That said, to the extent that I’ve examined the arguments and claims about tactics and ties forward by Rabbett etc. the evidence for strong ties to skeptics as a whole seems exceedingly thin. If one reads the linked documents, footnotes etc. the claims always come down to …well… nothing.”
.
I know you believe this. That’s why I doubt your lukewarminess outside of the science, and that’s why the bunny doesn’t like you. There’s a whole category of people on the denialist side who simply cannot be trusted, and your shutting your eyes to it, is what I meant with the words ‘illogical disconnect’. It’s like you’re not even aware what your confirmation bias (and all of us have one) might be.
.
AMac, thanks for the categorization. If I have time I’ll go into it tomorrow a bit.
.
BTW, I don’t mind you guys bashing me, I won’t be playing the victim (I hate it when people do that). This is normal Internet protocol, and it happens a lot on blogs like Deltoid too.
> There’s a whole category of people on the denialist side who simply cannot be trusted
Agreed. E.g. those who don’t accept that CO2 rising at the level it’s been doing will cause average surface temps to go up. I’m not interested in overthrowing established physics. The questions are, how much, what are the uncertainties, and what is the historical context.
> it happens a lot on blogs like Deltoid too.
The blogger has to be committed to the “honest broker” role, and refrain from using his (her) powers of moderation to weaken the other side’s arguments. I don’t know of any Consensus bloggers who do that (maybe MT?). Lambert has a sarcastic, feud-prone online personality that wouldn’t likely map well onto that role. Plus, ‘conversations’ are inherently more difficult on high-traffic blogs.
“those who don’t accept that CO2 rising at the level it’s been doing will cause average surface temps to go up”
I’m one of those.
I haven’t seen it established anywhere that it’s true, so I don’t accept it.
Andrew
Neven–
What does lukewarmness outside the science even mean? Is it like my atheism outside religion? Or my taste for pizza outside the general area of food and eating?
Lukewarming has to do with interpretation of evidence for and against AGW. That’s inside the science. The term means nothing outside ‘the science’.
When have I denied there the category of untrustworthy denialists exists?Since when have I claimed to trust all denialists? Or believe them?
Of course, we can draw a venn diagram with categories like “Trustworthy”,”Untrustworthy”, and also “Denialist”, “skeptic”, “AGW Alarmist” and we can discover that neither “Untrustworthy/ Denialist”, “Untrustworthy/ skeptic”, or “Untrustworthy/ AGW Alarmist” are not the empty set.
The fact that the category of “Untrustworthy/ Denialist” exists does nothing to advance the more specific cases of financial interests doing something unknowable untraceable nefarious thing in climate science you seem to want me to bother my purty’ lil’ head about. It took the Climategate letter to provide evidence to demonstrate some specific nameable AGW alarmists were untrustworthy, and to show they did some very specific things. But even with that evidence, I don’t jump to weird claims like “All of AGW is a fraud”. If I don’t accept that stupid claim, why would I accept your and Eli’s weird conspiracy theories for which you have pretty much no evidence?
Why do you think I’m not aware of my confirmation bias? If you do, that merely shows you don’t read my comments because I’ve admitted that a) I am as subject to it as anyone and b) I know it would apply particularly to things I have claimed and posted.
Neven,
“I don’t mind you guys bashing me”
.
No bashing involved, just poking a little (well deserved) fun at you. Lucia comes across a pretty rational and intelligent person, admits mistakes when she makes, them and even tolerates comments (on both sides!) that many well known bloggers would never tolerate. That you seem bent on characterizing her motives as being “not lukewarmist outside of science” is just plain silly.
Why would anyone care if Neven finds them trustworthy?
Well even though I don’t, I wonder what Neven would have to say about:
Someone who has never received a dime from anyone for anything-except gifts from family and maybe friends, for birthdays etc., who doesn’t drive and takes the train and bus, who is a right wing ideologue, is opposed to action on AGW of any form that involves: New/higher taxes, Subsidies, Regulations, Fake Commodities (“offsets†or “allowancesâ€), New or existing government Agencies apart from basic Executive and Legislative bodies i.e. the Congress and existing regular law enforcement bodies, All expenditures must come out of the existing budget AND NOT ADD TO IT, Raise energy prices, Restrict imports/exports, Create any extra-national body with any kind of extra-Federal authority (No “global governmentâ€), No attempting to alter people’s behavior, Nothing stupid that does not work (that is, which does not accomplish the task at hand), Geoengineering, but is not a priori opposed to any “action”, believes that AGW is “real” but exaggerated and more complex than protrayed, and happens to think virtually all claims of negative effects are bunk.
Because that would pretty much accurately describe me.
Mosher
Very cowardly of you not to admit you misrepresented Lambert’s words. It’s very sad that you expect everyone else to ‘fess up when they are wrong, but you won’t.
Lucia
“Lukewarming has to do with interpretation of evidence for and against AGW. ”
Actually it’s just a kind label, not based in ‘science’. Where is you Lukewarming science?
Lukewarming can’t explain the ice ages, nor the high temps for most of the Phanerozoic. You need a higher climate sensitivity.
You also have never explored what it means to be a Lukewarmer. How is being a Lukewarmer different from the standard interps of AGW? What does it mean for us? What is different about how we need to act if climate sensitivity is 1.5 or 3C?
Nathan–
No one has claimed lukewarming explains the ice ages. Neither does alarmism or denialism.
As usual, you have difficulty parsing english. Interpretation of evidence is not, in and of “a science”. However, since AGW is a scientific claim, interpretation of evidence for or against AGW touches on science, but not, for example, the culinary arts.
The speed, urgency and degree of restriction of CO2 differ a very large amount bit depending on whether sensitivity is 1.5 or 3C for a doubling of CO2! If a doubling of CO2 results in 1.5C, then we need a quadroubling to get to 3C. That’s a big difference.
I think we need to act in either case– but there is a big difference between 1.5 C and 3C!
Nevin
this is from an I phone and therefore short. More tmrw.
I have posted many things I don’t agree with. Agreement is not a rqrmt at tav. Climategate did not change my opinion of agw in any way. My opinion is firmly that co2 does affect the thermal balance but the magnitude and dangers are exaggerated systematically. It took several minutes to write this so I can’t say more until tomorrow
Lucia
So what is your evidence? I have never seen you ever derive your climate sensitivity. My understanding is that a climate senstivity of just 1.5 doesn’t allow the Earth to enter Ice Ages, nor experience the high temps that it did during the Phanerozoic.
“I think we need to act in either case– but there is a big difference between 1.5 C and 3C!”
What is it? What is the difference? For example at the moment the best case in Australia is a reduction of emissions by 25% of 2000 levels. That’s if the rest of the developed world follows suit, if your Lukewarmer theory was correct, would the target actually change?
Nathan (Comment#32707)-“Lukewarming can’t explain the ice ages, nor the high temps for most of the Phanerozoic. You need a higher climate sensitivity.”
This statement, out of hand and categorical, is unwarranted. Mosher will disagree with me, but I believe noone has determined what sensitivity values “lukewarmers” find plausible. So you really can’t say that the value they believe in (what value?) is consistent or inconsistent with anything.
However, the statement is also false. You do not need a high sensitivity to explain those phenomena. In the case of the Ice Ages, in fact (actually glaciation and interglacials) all you need is a negative feedback in the tropics and alteration of equator to pole heat fluxes (as would, in fact, happen as a result of Milankovitch forcing) to cause large temperature changes. In the case of the Phanerozoic, the temperature fluctuations clearly aren’t explained by variations in CO2, so clearly there are other forces at work, and it is hardly a stretch to suggest that such an unknown forcing could be sufficient to cause large changes even if the sensitivity was fairly low. We know some effect must exist.
Finally with regard to paleoclimate, consider the early faint sun. The forcing was similar, yet negative, to ten or fifteen doublings of CO2. Yet the oceans didn’t freeze, and temperatures were probably not that different from today. So people want a greenhouse solution. Sagan’s proposal, Ammonia, doesn’t work, due to the relatively small lifetime of NH3 to photolysis in an anoxic atmosphere, CO2 would require such large amounts as to be an order of magnitude out of line with paleosols and other evidence, Methane doesn’t quite jive with the evidence either. The most plausible solution is heighten concentrations of some of these and enhance cirrus coverage in the tropics (hey, sounds like the iris effect!).
Rondanelli, Roberto & Lindzen, Richard S. 2010, Can thin cirrus clouds in the tropics provide a solution to the faint young sun paradox?
Nathan (Comment#32713)-“What is it? What is the difference? For example at the moment the best case in Australia is a reduction of emissions by 25% of 2000 levels. That’s if the rest of the developed world follows suit, if your Lukewarmer theory was correct, would the target actually change?”
First, if the high sensitivity is right, then those reductions may be a realistic target, but they aren’t by any stretch of the imagination a target which considers what is “needed”. The targets are not connected to sensitivity in any way, since if the were and sensitivity is believed to be high, Australia (and everyone) need something more like 125% reductions. Yes, they will need net NEGATIVE emissions!
Nathan,
“lukewarming can’t explain the ice ages, nor the high temps for most of the Phanerozoic. You need a higher climate sensitivity.”
Actually Nathan, I think that that is not a fair description. While there is clearly a strong correlation in the ice core data between temperatures and atmospheric CO2 (and methane), that correlation does not prove the ice ages can be explained by high sensitivity to CO2. CO2 and methane concentrations obviously rise and fall with temperatures, but those changes in concentration are likely as much an effect of changing temperature as a cause. After all, very reasonable estimates of temperature driven adsorption/desorption suggests a long term change of at least ~9 PPM in atmospheric CO2 for a 1C change in sea surface temperature. Even very short term (year-on-year) sea surface temperature changes move atmospheric CO2 by about 5 PPM per degree C. If the average temperature changes by ~5-6C in the depth of an ice age, then the atmospheric CO2 could reasonably be expected to fall to very close to where the ice core data says it fell to.
.
But even if you assume that the CO2 and methane changes were in no way caused by temperature changes, and if you assume the highest IPCC climate sensitivity to radiative forcing, and then calculate the response to the forcing from changes in CO2 and methane, you can account for not more than ~20-25% of the temperature increase at the end of the last ice age.
.
So no matter what climate sensitivity you assume, you are forced to accept that other things (isolation at 60N in summer, albedo feed-back from snow/ice, sea level changes, ocean circulation changes, etc.) account for the vast majority of ice-age-interglacial temperature shifts. And you don’t really need to invoke CO2 at all. So sure, CO2 forcing certainly causes some temperature change, but the ice core record does not really help determine what the climate sensitivity is.
Milankovitch-based insolation changes are insufficient to bring the Earth out of an ice-age. You need a secondary driver, CO2.
Do you people actually read the literature on this? Where are you models supporting your case?
You do realise you will be over-turning a significant amount of science with your theories, you really should be publishing them. You ned to get your truth out there…
SteveF
“…but the ice core record does not really help determine what the climate sensitivity is.”
So all the people who actually attempt to calculate climate sensitivity are wrong? They do actually use data from ice cores about the two last interglacials to calculate the sensitivity. You really should be publishing SteveF, if you can overturn all the earlier science you will be hailed a hero.
AndrewF
“In the case of the Phanerozoic, the temperature fluctuations clearly aren’t explained by variations in CO2, so clearly there are other forces at work”
Well, given the vast amount of literature that claims the opposite, I’d be interested to know what you are reading…
AndrewFL
I should note that I assumed Lucia’s LukeWarmer value for climate sensitivity is 1.5
Mosher certainly parades that number around, and Lucia has never indicated to me that she disagrees with the figure (but then again she never said what she actually DOES think it is).
This is part of the problem, Lucia claims that being a Lukewarmer is defined by evidence and science. But then never actually details what a Lukewarmer is. It’s just some vague term.
Nathan,
.
A cleaver backdoor appeal to authority.
.
You raised the issue of ice ages proving high sensitivity. I was simply addressing the issue you raised, and pointing out the situation is much more complicated than you suggested, and in fact under no circumstances does CO forcing come close to accounting for ice age changes. .
.
And yes, I have done some reading on the subject, and no, the case is anything but open-and-shut. One thing is clear: ice ages/interglacials have rapid and extreme shifts in temperature and rapid sea level changes (like 5-10 cm a year!), while the preceding several million years (with relatively high CO2) show stable climate conditions…. sensitivity appears lower at high CO2 levels, with no significant response to Milankovitch forcings.
SteveF
Appealing to authority doesn’t mean I am wrong. What it means is that your theory is not supported by the people who have actually done the work. They have collected data, made the calculations and proposed a figure (or range of figures), if you think you have a better solution you should publish it, becuase it IS important. If you can prove that sensitivity is low, and that we don’t need to address CO2 emissions then that would be quite a significant finding, no?
It is the quick response out of an ice-age that demands higher climate sensitivity. Changes in Insolation are not great enough to warm the Earth that quickly, you need an additional feedback.
Nathan,
“you need an additional feedback.”
.
Yup, you certainly do, and here are some: snow/ice albedo, sea level driven changes in total albedo (exposed land from lower sea level has higher albedo than the ocean), and yes, even some help form rising CO2, methane, and NO2 and water vapor. There are a host of broadly accepted important feed-backs, as well as several that have been mostly speculated on (like changes in ocean circulation and weather patterns). I am only pointing out that none of these feed-backs is well enough defined to put a meaningful constraint on the contribution of CO2. If you image this then I suggest that you really go and read some of the original literature.
.
And heck, if the sensitivity could be so well defined, then why the heck would the IPCC range cover 1.5C to 4.5C? Honestly Nathan, I think you have been listening to Jim Hansen too much. There is enormous uncertainty in climate sensitivity.
Nathan–
I’ve never claimed I’ve derived climate sensitivity, nor that I can point to specific evidence that it’s on the lower end of the IPCC range. I’ve just said I think that’s more likely– but there is no specific thing.
Nathan–
1) I don’t have a specific number. I’ve said lower range.
2) I’m not required to interrupt discussions between you and Mosher.
3) You are hallucinating about what I claim.
SteveF
So what happens when you model all that? Yet again I suggest that if you have doen the work your paper will be a major breakthrough.
Becuase you will be refuting all this:
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023542.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JD005557.shtml
And on it goes.
1.5C is the barest possible minimum senstivity, and is less likely than a sensitivity up around 4.5.
“And heck, if the sensitivity could be so well defined, then why the heck would the IPCC range cover 1.5C to 4.5C? Honestly Nathan, I think you have been listening to Jim Hansen too much. There is enormous uncertainty in climate sensitivity.”
I never said there wasn’t any uncertainty, It’s just that of all the choices, low figures like 1.5 are either extremely unlikely or are not high enough to account for the climates the Earth has experienced.
As a side issue, and one that no one here wants to adress, is what is the actual difference in our response to a climate sensitivity of 1.5C or 3 C?
Lucia
You claim to be lukewarmer, but cannot even define what that means… That’s not science, it’s marketing.
You can’t even say what the difference between Lukewarmers and Alarmists are.
I didn’t claim you derived sensitivity, in fact the opposite.
Nathan–
I think the climate sensitivity will likely be on the lower end of the range in the IPCC AR4. That’s it: I believe the preponderance of the evidence points to the lower end of the range and that much of the upper range is based on some distortions. That’s my definition.
As for your concern labels are vague: Of course they are. Duh.
Nathan,
The first paper shows that the authors believe they can set an upper bound on climate sensitivity of under 6C and almost certainly 4.5C per doubling or less, based on ice age data. They make absolutely no claim about a lower bound for sensitivity.
.
The second and third paper have nothing whatever to do with analysis of ice ages. These papers are about modeling simulations of aerosol forcings. Why do you suggest these are at all relevant to a discussion of how ice age data better defines climate sensitivity? A bit bizarre to bring up papers from a completely different field.
Lucia
fair enough.
So do you think there will be any difference in the process of adressing this problem. Given that targets are currently being discussed and assessed (I heard there is a broad agreement between Govts that a 16% reduction on 2000 levels for first world countries is about what we can expect) do you think that a lower sensitivity will change that response. If they are currently working off a climate sensitivity of 3C, will they change their plan if it’s somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5 (assuming that fits you lower end scheme)?
SteveF
The first paper is by James Annan, and he’s pretty convinced climate sensitivity is around 3.
The other two do use recent events to test climate sensitivity, and actually also come to an ‘about 3’ conclusion.
I thought it might be useful for you to see the variety of ways that climate sensitivty is tested.
Do you want just the papers that deal with ice ages?
“As a side issue, and one that no one here wants to adress, is what is the actual difference in our response to a climate sensitivity of 1.5C or 3 C?”
.
That was already addressed by Lucia, but I will address it again: 3.0C per doubling is twice as urgent as 1.5C per doubling. The actions/investments that can be justified and the speed with which those actions may be needed depend entirely on how much warming will take place and over what period.
.
A very normal analysis of risks, costs, and benefits. What do you not get?
.
Boa noite para tudo.
Nathan (Comment#32733),
Wow.
Nathan, you really do not need to try to educate me on this subject; I had already seen those three papers, and I have read many others as well, including several on the more relevant subject of what ice age data tells us about climate sensitivity.
.
I suggest that you lighten up a bit when you do not know the background of the people you communicate with.
Mais uma vez, boa noite.
Nathan–
I’m not sure I understand your question. All other things being equal, if the sensitivity to CO2 is lower, then “amount X” has a lesser effect than if the sensitivity is hither.
Currently, governments must act based on uncertain knowledge. I have no idea what political entities might do if tomorrow uncertainty magically vanished and the climate sensitivity was suddenly know to be 1.76543 C instead of thought to fall in a broad range. I also don’t know what they would do if the uncertainty vanished but they discovered it was 4.198473 C. Presumably the political entities would do different things based on the difference in climate sensitivities– but politics being what they are, they might not.
But if someone asked me if the climate sensitivity would make a difference, I don’t interpret that to be asking if political entities would make rational decisions based on the number. What I know is that if the value turns out to be the lower number, then climate change would generally be slower, and we could breath easier while people enacted solutions to the warming because the changes themselves would be slower, we could better adapt and we could have more time to develop better technologies to avoid rapid changes. If the sensitivity is higher the problem is more difficult. If the sensitivity is enormous– and above the IPCC range, the problem may already be intractable.
So, what the number is matter.
Steve F
Here’s a good one to start with
http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf
Details how ice cores are used to determine how much of the glacial-interglacial warming can be attributed to CO2
An early effort (one of the authors is Hansen)
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2006Q2/211/articles_required/Lorius90_ice-core.pdf
Top of page 140 clearly states that a climate senstivity of between 3 and 4 is required.
That’s one from 2006, which has the range slightly lower than the IPCC. The thing to remember here is that the most likely response will be somewhere in the middle.
http://pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/Schneider_etal_ClimDyn_2006.pdf
There are heaps of papers, here’s the search I did
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=10&q=climate+sensitivity+last+glacial+maxima&hl=en&as_sdt=2000
Nathan (Comment#32720)-“given the vast amount of literature that claims the opposite, I’d be interested to know what you are reading…”
Veizer, J., Godderis, Y. and Francois, L.M. (2000) Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon. Nature 408, 698-701.
and CR Scotese has some extensive work :http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm References therein, should give you a start on temperatures.
More or less, it is widely accepted that temperatures went up and down and up and down during the phanerozoic. However, the CO2 recons, as given by:
Bergman, Noam M., Timothy M. Lenton, and Andrew J. Watson (2004). “COPSE: A new model of biogeochemical cycling over Phanerozoic time”. American Journal of Science 301: 182-204.
Berner, RA and Z. Kothavala (2001). “GEOCARB III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time”. American Journal of Science 304: 397–437.
among others are COMPLETELY out of line with this pattern, having at best two distinct decreases. The Ordovician Ice Age (and we are talking about the BIG Ice Ages, not the glaciations) is completely inexplicable given the high CO2 that is indicated at that time.
The literature saying that these two variables are NOT tightly coupled over the Phanerozoic is what’s vast.
Nathan (Comment#32719)-“Milankovitch-based insolation changes are insufficient to bring the Earth out of an ice-age.” Actually, they are insufficient to explain anything. And yet they do…
Alright, here’s a suggestion. Go back to meteorology 101 and ask what would happen if you changed the latitudinal distribution of radiation received from the sun and tropical temperatures were strongly constrained by changing cloud cover or something. Guess what? You’ll get big mean temperature changes!
“Do you people actually read the literature on this? Where are you models supporting your case?”
You mean do we read the literature where people use methods that don’t work over and over again so they can prove they have the right answer? Yes. Where are the models? Well, your problem is that you think a model of something is evidence. A MODEL (not just GCM but ANY EXPLANATORY MODEL) is a HYPOTHESIS!
“So all the people who actually attempt to calculate climate sensitivity are wrong?”
Just the ones who do it wrong.
Nathan,
Thanks for the link to Annan and Hargreaves, 2006 in Comment#32728 (It’s the first of the three, repeated here; JD Annan & JC Hargreaves, “Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, 2006. It’s an interesting read, their Figure 1 (at the end of the MS) strongly suggests that a sensitivity of 1.5 C is likely too low.
Googling around, I stumbled on this web-accessible interactive discussion, hosted by “Climate of the Past.” Clim. Past Discuss., 5, 2343-2349, 2009.
This discussion neither favors nor disfavors a given band of likely sensitivities. But it is useful to note what sorts of analyses are generally accepted, and which are considered open to challenge (e.g. Annan and Hargreaves particular implementation of their Bayesian idea of combining disparate lines of evidence).
Lucia
“…breathe easier..”? hmmmm I guess I don’t share your optimism.
All of the reasonable climate sensitivites demand that we take action now, they don’t enable us to breath easier and take a bit of a break.
Nathan,
We’ve been through this before. The only thing I’ve said about warming is this. The IPCC “forecasts” 2C per century under a given scenario ( damn I used to know them by heart, sorry)
I’m in for 1.5C to 2C. I’ve explained why before. I don’t have a number for sensitivity.
Oh Nathan,
Sorry about the Lambert thing. I went a little overboard on interpreting his words. On your view that he was talking about
Juicy bits WRT AGW, i’d say my reading was unfair.
Andrew FL
Do a Google Scholar search.
Heaps of papers about how the Phanerozoic cliamet can be explained as a function of events during the time period, coupled with CO2 (and other greenhouse gases).
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/GSA_Today.pdf
Oh look, one of the Geocarb modellers, Robert Bernier, is quite happy with CO2 as a driver of climate change. Also note that they address the Veizer paper here.
By Royer, again
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=Phanerozoic+climate+change+CO2&hl=en&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on
Check em out.
I don’t think you can claim the CR Scotese thinks CO2 is not a driver of climate in the Phanerozoic.
Steven Mosher
Fair enough.
So with your 1.5 – 2 C do you think that the present attempt to get a reduction of CO2 emissions of about 16% (that’s the number I heard on the grapevine) are a good start to deal with the problem? Or do you think they’re too high? too low?
AndrewFL
Seems Veizer had a change of mind
http://www.roberts.cmc.edu/165/10_04_07.pdf
“Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric
CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era”
The problem they had earlier was that during Paleozoic (including the Ordovician as you pointed out) It looke like CO2 uncoupled, but here they argue against that
“Our results are consistent with the proposal that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive or amplify increased global temperatures1,6”
AMAC
I just jumped straight to James Annan’s blog and grabbed his paper. He has been looking at climate sensitiity for a while now and there does seem to be a narrowing of the favoured range in the literature. They seem to focus around 3C per doubling…
nathan I have no idea if 16% is a good number. here is what I know. in 1979 when GHGs were identified as a problem people feared Nuclear more than AGW. they were wrong then they are wrong now. There would appear to be a host things we can do that are good for us locally and good for the globe. i suggest we get to those things.
Steven
So people are wrong to fear AGW, as they were wrong to fear nuclear?
Because AGW is safe?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm… Somehow I find your ‘argument’ less than convincing. For example, I am not sure that Hansen is anti-nuclear. Barry Brooks, a Professor in Adelaide, Australia, devotes his blog to promoting nuke power to avert climate change… What about Michael Mann and Al Gore? Are they rabidly anti-nuke? How about Phil Jones, is he anti-nuke?
“There would appear to be a host things we can do that are good for us locally and good for the globe.”
Anything in particular? Eating well? Doing some exercise each day? It’s kind of amusing that neither you, nor Lucia, can actually articulate what would be different in our preparations for AGW because of a lower climate sensitivity or a lower projected temp to 2100. I don’t think you’ve even really thought about it.
Steven Mosher
“in 1979 when GHGs were identified as a problem people feared Nuclear more than AGW. they were wrong then they are wrong now.”
I think I have deciphered this weird sentence.
What you are actually saying is that people should fear AGW more than Nuclear, which is a really strange thing to say. It leaves me thinking ‘what the?’
I get the feeling you are more interested in playing word games than anything else.
Nathan, now you are just being arrogant. I don’t need to do a google scholar search, and you need to learn that an inability to detect nuance on your part does not translate to me being wrong.
Don’t tell me what people SAY or THINK about the Phanerozoic. That doesn’t matter. What matters is the actual evidence.
Veizer and Royer may both now say that they think CO2 perfectly explains the Phanerozoic, the problem you seem to be having is distinguishing their beliefs from the data. The data do not suddenly show that CO2 wasn’t high or the temps weren’t low during the Ordovician. That Royer and company say that the Phanerozoic is consistent with CO2 does not mean it is the ONLY factor. Remember my original claim was not “CO2 had no effect back then” it was “In the case of the Phanerozoic, the temperature fluctuations clearly aren’t explained by variations in CO2, so clearly there are other forces at work”. If other forces are at work, and they haven’t been quantified, they will screw up the calculations of sensitivity.
With regard to Royer, his pH correction is essentially guaranteed to introduce a signal of CO2 even if one isn’t present. This was spelled out in a reply by Veizer and Shaviv:
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RoyerReply.pdf
With regard to Veizer’s “change of mind” (again, opinion is irrelevant) all that they have shown is that using one method they can get a vague estimate of paleoclimate that completely disagrees with the old Oxygen isotope and sediments. Big deal.
Nathan
Your reading comprehension really is impaired, isn’t it?
AndrewFl
Who cares if I am being arrogant.
You are just waving your hands around shouting “no one knows” – that’s the sum of your argument.
“What matters is the actual evidence.”
No, what matters is how you interpret the evidence.
” “In the case of the Phanerozoic, the temperature fluctuations clearly aren’t explained by variations in CO2, so clearly there are other forces at workâ€.”
Yes, which is what they examined. CO2 is part of the system, and by modelling the system you can get an estimate of the cliamte sensitivity to CO2. This all started because you claimed that climate sensitivity wasn’t limited by the known events of the Phanerozoic. Actually, it is.
Lucia
Whatever you say…
Nathan,
“All of the reasonable climate sensitivites demand that we take action now, they don’t enable us to breath easier and take a bit of a break.”
You are delusional. The ‘reasonable sensitivities’ demand nothing. It is YOU who are demanding action. Action on global warming is in the end a political as much as a scientific issue. The kinds of actions you and many other AGW activists support are based on Club of Rome type predictions, but dressed up for 2010 in a new (global warming) suit. People are not going to support drastic action that lowers their living standard and damns the poorest of people to continued poverty based on what is known today. They just won’t.
Nathan–
I’m not going to waste my time discussing with you when your response to “we could breath easier while people enacted solutions to the warming” is “All of the reasonable climate sensitivites demand that we take action now, they don’t enable us to breath easier and take a bit of a break.”
Anyone who can understand English would recognize that “while people enacted solutions” does not mean taking a break from action.
You constantly exhibit these dramatic lapses in reading comprehension resulting in your ‘rebuttals’ having nothing to do with what the person you are engaging claimed or argue. I think discussing with you is a waste of time because your reading comprehension is abysmal. I’ll gladly let other people who engage you if they wish, but I find you pointless.
In future, please do not suggest the fact that I don’t jump into conversations between you and other people means that the person you are arguing with speaks for me as you did earlier on this thread. No one else on the thread speads for me ever. In the case of conversations involving you, I’m mostly going to ignore them (unless they reach a lever that requires moderation.)
AndrewFl, Mosher,
I agree with Lucia; it is a waste of time to discuss anything with Nathan.
AMac, William Connolley is probably the best in terms of not censoring, and you know how that is. Chris Colose doesn’t do much, but he has a low volume blog to begin with.
Nathan,
All of your references to climate sensitivity presume that (a) for estimation purposes, it is invariant under different types of forcings and (b) that the nature of all of the contributing forcing elements are known. The first assumption is unsafe, and the second is just not credible on the evidence available. Andrew FL gave you one clear example indicating the existence of an “unknown” forcing. I believe that the JGR paper by Shaviv “On Climate Response to Changes in the Cosmic Ray Flux and Radiative budget (2005, corrected 2006)” offers more general evidence of the existence of at least one such unknown. Shaviv demonstrated that the inclusion of CRF gave a highly significant (and consistent over different time periods) improvement in a statistical fit between temperature and TSI. This does not per se prove a causal relationship between CRF and temperature change, since they may both be controlled by variation in something else. However, it does definitively suggest at least one “unknown” forcing which may autocorrelate with TSI. We cannot entirely rule out the presence of others which don’t correlate with TSI. In any event, any estimate of climate sensitivity that does not account for the additional unkown (positive) forcings will at best put an upper limit on the sensitivity, and at worst be simply wrong.
I can’t believe how rude Nathan is using papers on the Phanerozoic to support his campaign. He hasn’t demonstrated he understands what Earth looked like; what the resolution of the data is (margin for errors…plus or minus millions of years!) nor what the “evidence” even is exactly. Does he know where this data comes from ( the continents were not even formed).(?) Nor has he shown that he understands vast amounts of geologic time ; or what the composition of the atmosphere was at the time…and much much more. I certainly know he doesn’t know what the Earth’s wobble and orbit looked like back 500 million years ago; or how many volcanoes were erupting (if any) or how many meteors hit (if any); or exactly how close the moon was to Earth compared to now…on infinity!
He should know this stuff in detail before he reads ANY paper coming to conclusion based on a model. He would have to spend a vast amount of time in school taking some geology courses to be “trustworthy” to me.
I think it’s funny that word Phanerozoic means “revealed life”!
He didn’t mention that either!
Regarding the Phanerozoic, we all know that the Royers, Annans, Alleys and Hansens like to distort the data and/or it torture it into conforming to the 3.0C per doubling proposition.
If you use the actual CO2 and temperature estimates in the Phanerozoic, you’ll find their math is off by the usual factor of two. For large parts of the record, there is no correlation at all between CO2 and temperature (although there are some short periods of time when 3.0C per doubling matches okay).
Bill Illis (Comment#32768)
Those “large parts” are millions and millions of years too; and C02 content in the atmosphere were in the thousands of ppms (and a global ice age occurred despite this)
Lucia,
My congratulations on your blog. I have long been a hidden lurker. In reading Nathan’s untargeted broadsides about skeptics changing their opinion, I was once again struck by just how loosely defined the vocabulary is when we talk about climate science, and how easily inexact use of language can lead to the impression that an individual has had a change of heart. The MSM, a lot of blogs and a number of public surveys now use the following terms apparently without any clear distinction:
i global warming
ii climate change
iii anthropogenic global warming
iv anthropogenic climate change
v global warming caused by CO2
vi catastrophic global warming caused by CO2
If I were surveyed and asked if I believed in each of the above, my answers would be:-
i yes, since the LIA
ii of course, beyond any shadow of doubt
iii don’t know (balance between aerosols, land use change and GHGs)
iv yes
v probably
vi no
I haven’t changed my opinion on any of these questions since Climategate, but it’s easy to see how my answers could be misinterpreted simply because of differences in the attribution of meaning to the different terms. It would be really good if we could establish an unambiguous vocabulary to cover at least the title of the main topic of conversation!
UGH, Never mind Nathan, there is no talking with you.
You know, I think many here are neglecting the fact that the CO2 as an externality shifts from negative to positive when you cross below a certain amount of warming, and is rather small even at “large” warmings.
Neven,
“I’m trying to categorize people so I can ascertain who is trustworthy and who isn’t.”
followed by
“I’m much more interested in ethics and responsibility (everyone’s, including mine) than in the mess of politics”
To categorize people is a political act. Obviously, you are interested in the mess of politics. Of course, once people are categorized, they can be treated differently, according to category.
Disturbing.
Andrew
Lucia,
“unless they reach a lever that requires moderation”
.
I have not been aware of any moderation of threads at The Blackboard. What kinds of comments would be moderated?
Not that I plan on making any that need moderation! 🙂
SteveF–
I use a moderation plugin that lets me moderate people case by case. Then I approve only if they behave. A while back I put TCO in that plugin. He got grumpy and left. I moderated Andrew_KY after warning him that I don’t permit argument by endless rhetorical question. I want people to tell us what their argument, not ask rhetorical questions that appear to make a unrebuttable point.
I took him out after 24 hours when he stopped that practice.
“in 1979 when GHGs were identified as a problem people feared Nuclear more than AGW. they were wrong then they are wrong now.â€
I think I have deciphered this weird sentence.
What you are actually saying is that people should fear AGW more than Nuclear, which is a really strange thing to say. It leaves me thinking ‘what the?’
I get the feeling you are more interested in playing word games than anything else.”
Its pretty simple.
in 1979 you have a wonderful coincidence.
A WMO conference
Three Mile Island.
Global policy is almost always a fear driven enterprise. Hmm I just made that up, so somebody will check me on it. Anyways,
In 1979 ( lets just pick that year) pick a group> enviromentalists: The got a fear of man driven Climate change and they have a fear of three mile Island. Their fear of three mile island is probably greater than their fear of climate change.
Today, we burn more fossil fuels than we have to because of that fear. And today, when it seems the right thing to diminish our dependence on oil, they still fear nuclear more than climate change.
I just point that out as an example. We don’t need a copenhagen to start down a path that will be better for us in the end, come global warming or not. I guess I’m saying I dont buy into the “targets” approach for GHGs. personaly I’d shit can the global action crap, I would not burden our industry with any carbon based taxes. I’d push nuclear, investment into solar, wind, geothermal, upgrade the grid. Decarbonizing is a good thing. Oh and dont build any new stuff in New Orleans or other places that are prone to damage under a worst case sea level rise scenario.
basically, while the world debates what to do, do the things that we know will benefit us. Like India we should withdraw from the IPCC. Our science money to our scientists to study our problem.
Anyways. That’s an interesting position. Let’s see how people argue against it. ( its a test idea nathan)
My, the comments go fast here, I can’t keep up. Where do you people get all that time from? 😉
.
One of these days I’d like to go into AMac’s categorization and try to categorize as many of the players in these Climate Wars. I’m curious what you lukewarmers think of it. I’m sorry if I can’t react to everyone right now.
.
@Jeff Id: Why, if you believe AGW is happening (just not so dangerous), would you allow a guest blog that asserts that there is ‘NO real supporting evidence and much disagreeing evidence for the AGW theory as proposed’? This is something I just don’t get, unless someone believes that doing this serves a purpose (like, I don’t know, stopping the commies taking control over our lives).
Neven,
I cant speak for jeffid, but if I ran a blog I would allow most views to be published. Its called liking an argument.
Steven Mosher, would you allow an alarmist view to be published? Just curious.
Neven (Comment#32824)-Mosher? Probably, provided they would oblige. Lots of people invite that side to give their views and they decline.
neven. Yes.
You have to remember I studied philosophy. I’d publish an alarmist view. I think its good to debate. You gotta remember I’m used to arguments that go on for centuries. Nothing to be afraid of.
Now, I do have some sympathy for those who don’t want to argue with the irrational. But even there its good theater and most reasonable people get to see the irrational tied into knots.
StevenM
“I would not burden our industry with any carbon based taxes. I’d push nuclear, investment into solar, wind, geothermal, upgrade the grid. ”
So you prefer Central Planning to market-based action? The market won;t change unless we burden them. No way are solar, wind etc going to be ever cheaper than coal. So the only way you’ll get investment in other energy is by direct govt action…
I don’t think you actually believ any of the stuff you just said except :”I would not burden our industry with any carbon based taxes. ”
That’s your real agenda.
Liza
I am a geologist. Point is that the Phaneroozoic is fairly well understood in terms of continental arrangements and in terms of paleoclimate. Solar evolution is far more important than orbital forcing for the Phanerozoic as the sun was cooler in the past. The problem is that most posters here don’t like the results that the scientists have discovered and so just say they’re wrong, or it’s a model or whatever.
Lucia
“Anyone who can understand English would recognize that “while people enacted solutions†does not mean taking a break from action. ”
Sure, point taken.
I guess the problem is that your posts constantly attempt to undermine any drive for action. Hence the prevalence of posters here supporting little or no action on climate change. Your blog is constantly referred to by skeptics as proof we need to do nothing, or need do nothing. If you serioously think we need to take action of AGW, why does you blog never reflect that? If you are supportive if action on AGW you are going about it all wrong.
Nathan–
My posts don’t attempt to undermine any drive for action — that is, unless you think the only way to not undermine the drive for action is to exaggerate the evidence for AGW.
I think that if Rabett, Tobis, Real Climate, Tamino and Romm in particular are supportive of action on AGW they are going about encouraging all wrong. Why should I imitate them when I think posts like theirs inhibits people from getting together and taking actions?
In anycase, RC, and Tamino almost never discuss action. Is it a problem they don’t? Or just a problem that I don’t?
Either way, I disagree with you that it’s a problem of any sort at all. My blog is my blog. It’s not your blog.
If you want to discuss actions, go right ahead. Comments aren’t moderated. If you ever manage to propose anything remotely interesting and coherent about action, I’ll elevate it above the fold. But mostly, you just post incoherent whines and non sequiturs. So mostly, I plan to ignore you.
Nathan,
Here is Royer and Berner’s data from the paper you linked to above:
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/GSA_Today.pdf
Short version of the data is here:
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/1354/phanerozoic20climate20a.png
When you put both together (which they do not do in this paper, I think you are just supposed to imagine that the correlation works) and compare the actual Temperature estimate data versus the actual CO2 estimate data at 3.0C per doubling (and taking into account the lower solar irradiance over deep time), this is what the actual calculations show.
Using just Berner’s GeoCarbIII CO2 data first:
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/7097/royerbernertempvsco2.png
And then All CO2 estimates next (a little different but not much).
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/579/royerbernertempvsallco2.png
So yeah, off by half for the most part.
Now compare the easy to understand charts I produced above to the chart produced by Royer and Berner in their next paper (I’ve rarely seen such a convolution).
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf
So this is what this science has forced people to do – one has to actually download the data yourself and double-check everything.
Nathan-have you ever asked yourself why you want “action” so badly? Is it really because you think that your field has “proven” that there is a problem, or do you just like the idea of action? What?
For someone who likes to suggest that other people hold erroneous views for ideological reasons, I can’t help but wonder if maybe you aren’t holding yourself to the same standard.
Nathan,
” No way are solar, wind etc going to be ever cheaper than coal.”
When so much CO2 is generated developing and building these boondoggles out, why do them again?? When you will still need Nuclear, NG, or Coal to back them up, why do them again??
Like the rest of your arguments, this is “self censored”.
Andrew_fl
yes, there is a problem. It’s is ‘proven’ to the extent that anything is proven in science. Like Evolution, Gravity etc.
Kuhnkat
Sure, I don’t have a problem with allwoing the market to decide which power type we should use, the point is that you need to make it less desirable to use coal and gas. If you use a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme then at least you have set in place a scheme that is market-based and discourages high emissions.
“It’s is ‘proven’ to the extent that anything is proven in science. Like Evolution, Gravity etc”
Nathan,
This is a joke, right?
Care to share with us how ‘it’ (whatever you are talking about)was ‘proven’?
I predict you won’t. I’ll go get a cup of coffee, maybe you’ll have something for me when I get back. 😉
Andrew
Nanthan, “I am a geologist. Point is that the Phaneroozoic is fairly well understood in terms of continental arrangements and in terms of paleoclimate. Solar evolution is far more important than orbital forcing for the Phanerozoic as the sun was cooler in the past. The problem is that most posters here don’t like the results that the scientists have discovered and so just say they’re wrong, or it’s a model or whatever..”
500 million plus years ago on Earth is ” Fairly well understood”? This is a foggy statement! These types of claims about the field of geology only popped up at the birth of the AGW agenda. All your comments are based on some big “ifs” plugged into a computer model.
Explanations for glacials and interglacials were also “fairly well understood” before the AGW hype came along. The farther back in time you go the less understood the geology is and so are the orbital parameters. You don’t know orbital parameters didn’t matter. And half a billion years is a long long long long time ago. There are not that many exposures on the planet which are that old to study and make such statements.
The solar influence worked just fine for millions upon millions of years when it was warm in the Phanerozoic yet I think you are explaining the glacial periods on a “cooler sun” and also saying orbital parameters don’t matter? You’ve got to be kidding!
(And I know this “sun was cooler” excuse during the Phanerzoic is based on ONE PAPER by a team member named Crowley and it is written on one data set. and it claims: “The sun’s power is 5.5% lower than today”. Crowley, T.J., 2000a. Carbon dioxide and Phanerozoic climate.)
Using this logic the sun is “hotter” (now) or “solar influence” is stronger could also explain some of the “global warming” in the present time we see in these very small time periods (decades) we live in called “Now”. C02 ppms are thousands of magnitudes smaller now also.
I don’t believe you are a geologist at all ( one reason is because you are bringing up the same old talking points from warmers I’ve read online!)
Nathan, that’s not what I asked. I asked why you want action so much. What convinces you there is a problem? What gives you the gall to compare it to Gravity is tangential, although revealing. Why do you think warming constitutes a problem?
I want to know since I suspect that every reason you think it is a problem (never mind the sensitivity issue) is wrong.
I would like to know, as a matter of fact, what anyone here who thinks AGW is a “problem” actually thinks makes it a problem. This goes for Nathan, Lucia, anybody.
Liza you’re mixing a lot of stuff up.
The Faint early sun hypothesis is just standard solar evolution theory. It’s not some ‘excuse’ – it’s from a separate branch of science. The ‘life’ of stars tends to follow the same track, they get hotter with age, until they get to a critical point where they either explode or puff off their outer layers…
“500 million plus years ago on Earth is †Fairly well understoodâ€? This is a foggy statement! These types of claims about the field of geology only popped up at the birth of the AGW agenda. All your comments are based on some big “ifs†plugged into a computer model.
Explanations for glacials and interglacials were also “fairly well understood†before the AGW hype came along. ”
You do understand that the Greenhouse Effect, as a theory has been around for some time, and so it’s use as an explanation of climates in earlier times has also been around a while. As to the timing of understanding of glacial cycles, they weren’t actually that far apart. Remember Milankovitch got his theory going early in the 20th Century, plate tectonics arose in the 1960s. So you characterization that the Glacial cycles (in the distant past) were fairly well understood before the ‘AGW hype’ is not really accurate. To get a good handle on the early Phanerozoic we needed plate tectonic theory and the ability to reconstruct the paleolatitude that rocks formed at. So they happened more or less concurrently.
“You don’t know orbital parameters didn’t matter.”
I said that compared to a loss of several percent due to the sun being cooler, the orbital parameters were insignificant. The resolution of the data is also too low to see the orbital changes, because they happen on a tens of thousand year time scale.
“I don’t believe you are a geologist at all ( one reason is because you are bringing up the same old talking points from warmers I’ve read online!)”
Who cares if you don’t think I am a geologist. Remember, the ‘talking points’ I am bringing up are published science. The reason people bring them up is because it’s been published.. The faint early sun, the use of greenhouse gases to explain early climates etc. is not contraversial.
AnderewFL
I guess I get the gall from my gall bladder…
We live in a relatively cool time for the Earth. This is actually oone of the coolest periods in the Earth’s history. Our species evolved in that cool period. Most of the species we depend on for food have also evolved through this cool period. In the geological record when we see periods of rapid change (any sort of rapid change) in environmental conditions there are extinctions. This is a good indicator that rapid changes are generally difficult for life.
The geological record also indicates that the Earth, as a climate system, has two dominant states; ice-house and greenhouse. There are variations in the climate in these two states (like our present interglacial) but it does seem that the Earth swings from one state to the other. There is the potential here for Humans, through AGW, to push the Earth back into that greenhouse state. As I indicated before rapid changes in climate or any other conditions generally results in mass extinction. These two climate states are also characterized by the presence of land ice or the absence of land ice. The loss of land ice, will result in a rather large sea level rise. Most humans live near coastal areas, not so good for them.
Also with a higher Global mean temp, you will see longer and more severe heatwaves. The heat wave in Melbourne in 2009 killed about 400 people. There’s the propensity for higher SSTs to generate stronger storms (see Judith Curry’s work). Rising CO2 will also lower the pH of sea water and inhibit the ability for sea life (especially foraminifera) to create skeletons. We will (in Australia) expect longer droughts in some areas (where we grow our food and live), and higher precipitation in other areas (in the far north, where they already suffer regular flooding). I know there is a new study being published showing a direct link between increased snowfall in Antarctica and the reduction in rainfall in the southwest of Australia, perhaps the first climatic shift that can be directly attributed to AGW. The southwest of Australia is a major grain producer and used to experience reliable winter rainfall, it’s dropped by around 30% since the 1970s. We also need to consider the effects on our food sources too, how well will cows do in a much warmer world? Very few of our present food sources are from species that didn’t evolve in an icehouse world.
Remember, rapid changes are not good for life. Tends to kill things.
“I want to know since I suspect that every reason you think it is a problem (never mind the sensitivity issue) is wrong.”
Every reason? That’ll be hard for you. You can’t say that sea levels won’t rise, for example. That’s absolutely as good as the theory of Gravity.
“Remember, rapid changes are not good for life. Tends to kill things.”
Your problem is that most people don’t see any rapid changes.
Not even Lucia when she plots data against just average predictions from climate models, let alone those at the “extremely alarming” end.
alan Wilkinson
So now we start an endless debate over what ‘rapid’ means? Remember I was discussing geological events, so rapid is in the order of thousands of years to millions. Species take time to adjust to changes in the environment, and in the geologic record the rapid changes in climate happened over geologically rapid time scales.
Or do you mean that in our lifetime (another 40 or so years) we are unlikely to see ‘rapid’ changes? I don’t think that AGW will kill me, if that’s what you’re getting at.
Nathan, 60 years ago there were no TVs, no transistors, no computers, no jet passenger planes, no internet, no high-speed trains, no deep sea drilling, no mobile phones, no GPS, ….
That is rapid change. Why do you think we will not be far more likely to have the knowledge and technology to deal with any climate problems that turn out to be real within that very short time in the future?
Alan
You are confusing different things. You can define rapid change however you like, I don’t care. It’s not the definition that causes the extinction, rather the rapid (or kind of slow but much faster than ‘normal’) changes to the environment that species are unable to adapt to.
Our ability to create new technologies rapidly won’t stop the sea levels rising… UNLESS the technology is developed to combat AGW. But in that case you will need to assume that we need to act on AGW, and the only reason you’d act on AGW is if you think that it’s a rapid change to the climate that will (as it did every other time) cause the extinction of large numbers of species.
“Also with a higher Global mean temp, you will see longer and more severe heatwaves. The heat wave in Melbourne in 2009 killed about 400 people.”
Let’s put aside whether the claim of more heat waves, longer heatwaves, etc. is substantiated. It’s funny to cite anecdotes but it really makes more sense to actually ask about trends.
At least in the US, as cities have gotten warmer, fewer people have died from the heat.
“The geological record also indicates that the Earth, as a climate system, has two dominant states; ice-house and greenhouse. There are variations in the climate in these two states (like our present interglacial) but it does seem that the Earth swings from one state to the other. There is the potential here for Humans, through AGW, to push the Earth back into that greenhouse state. As I indicated before rapid changes in climate or any other conditions generally results in mass extinction. These two climate states are also characterized by the presence of land ice or the absence of land ice. The loss of land ice, will result in a rather large sea level rise.”
So apparently there are only two climates possible: vaguely hot and vaguely cold. I would like to introduce you to my good friend Lord Kelvin
“I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”
Now, really, do you actually think that on any reasonable time frame, all the land ice on Earth will melt? Don’t be ridiculous.
“There’s the propensity for higher SSTs to generate stronger storms”
I believe you must mean Tropical Cyclones. With respect to extratropical storms this is simply not the case and indeed likely opposite the truth.
However, let’s look at TC’s. Studies have suggested that there could be small increases in their intensity, on the order of 6%. This is difficult to even measure, especially given the propensity of data for errors and inhomogeneities. Nevertheless, the claim is there. But whether it is supported by evidence is a very different matter. In this regard, again, reliable data are hard to come by. nevertheless, if our concern is with storms that actually effect people, we can look at trends in the damages done, and if we account for inflation, increased coastal population with more valuable property in the firing line, we should get an idea whether the storms are getting worse. And this was done for the US. Wouldn’t you know it, no trend was found!
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/NormalizedHurricane2008.pdf
“Rising CO2 will also lower the pH of sea water and inhibit the ability for sea life (especially foraminifera) to create skeletons.”
Now see this, is totally unrelated. But, if you really want to go there, be a bit more, I don’t know, specific? How much of a difference to these organisms do you think a small change in pH would really make? Do you really think making the ocean a little less basic is going to be disastrous?
“I know there is a new study being published showing a direct link between increased snowfall in Antarctica and the reduction in rainfall in the southwest of Australia, perhaps the first climatic shift that can be directly attributed to AGW.”
Okay, A I know for a fact that there aren’t adequate snowfall data to actually determine trends in Antarctica and B the logic here is really odd. A study claims a bizarre teleconnection which can only mean AGW? Okay…
Well, regarding trends in rainfall in Australia, I am unfamiliar with the situation there exactly but I would point out that A the presence of a change is hardly adequate to claim that the changes is related to AGW and B that if we are talking about a “global” issue, then presumably it is also fair game to point out that whatever the “bad” trends are where you live I know of plenty of places experiencing good trends, or no trends like those.
“how well will cows do in a much warmer world? Very few of our present food sources are from species that didn’t evolve in an icehouse world.”
So? The climate humans evolved in was tropical and we spread to the farthest reaches of the world, up beyond the Arctic circle, down to the tip of South America, and we’ve either brought or found food just about everywhere. Cows evolved in climates very different from places they often live now, thanks to the fact that being hangers on with humans has certain benefits. Do you really think the human food supply is threatened by hot weather?
“You can’t say that sea levels won’t rise, for example. That’s absolutely as good as the theory of Gravity.”
Hey, goly, I think Lord Kelvin could help you again. It’s not the change it’s the amount. Just a case in point is the fact that human beings living on coasts dealt quite well with the last century’s rise. The long term rate is about 1.6 mm per year and there is no indication that it is going to suddenly become much greater. Sure the altimeter data picks up a higher rate, but that is a very short record we are talking about in a variable where multidecadal variability in the rate is substantial. Meanwhile the rate the altimeter data shows is actually declining.
“Remember, rapid changes are not good for life. Tends to kill things.”
Really, why do you think it is “rapid” change? The changes that have been observed so far indicate no such thing.
Andrew
I am not sure what strange world you live on, but on planet Earth when the environment changes rapidly (and this is on geological time scales) life struggles to cope. If you cannot accept this simple fact then we have no reason to argue.
Holy cow what a mess.
Nathan says:
The Faint early sun hypothesis is just standard solar evolution theory. It’s not some ‘excuse’ – it’s from a separate branch of science.
I know that. But you get your reason for ONE period of glaciation in the vast Phanerzoic from the paper by a team member named Crowley, who calculates with a weak sun along with a data set of only a small part of the Phanerzoic plus C02. And you call 500 million yrs of time well understood after that. (and the resolution of that data could be off by millions and millions of years; comparing these data in a computer model against each other could be comparing data completely OFF by millions of years and assuming they represent the same “time”) A geologist would understand what I am saying and I wouldn’t have to explain what I mean. Bill Illis (Comment#32863) does a good job explaining and working out how the numbers are tweaked to fit. I notice you ignored his comment.
“You do understand that the Greenhouse Effect, as a theory has been around for some time, and so it’s use as an explanation of climates in earlier times has also been around a while”
I don’t know what “around a while” means to you but my husband has been out of school for about 10 yrs and he is a published state certified Environmental Geologist; and NONE of this was in his text books as you see it; and his very liberal professors warned him about this new hype coming out of the IPCC scientist crowd and their computer models; and how flawed the science is.
BTW How long have computers been around?
” So you characterization that the Glacial cycles (in the distant past) were fairly well understood before the ‘AGW hype’ is not really accurate.”
Yes it is. Milankovitch wrote his theory in the 1800s. These cycles are confirmed by what is written in the rock and soil from the tops of the mountains to the bottom of the sea and they match. Sea level high stands also match the Milankovitch cycles all over the world. The theory has stood up for one hundred years and IF you are a geologist you would know this too.
Then you say.. “plate tectonics arose in the 1960s”…
Yes and Alfred Wegener proposed the continental drift theory in 1912 (he pointed out the continents look like a jigzaw puzzle) I think your comments are funny since the “man made global warming theory” is so young and the “evidence” for it comes from running a computer model not from large sets of physical data or observed conditions over mass amounts of time that would make it actually mean anything. Even the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, previously accepted events in human history and geologic evidence (lots of people died during the LIA! Not so for the MWP when advances were made by civilizations) are dismissed and minimized as insignificant by your new science of AGW. However, but but but, the Phanerzoic is “well understood”
Certainly the animals and plants in Florida are evidence of “global” warming by fractions of one degree is a big big big threat to life:
FLORIDA’S WILDLIFE FREEZING TO DEATH
Manatees, sea turtles and fish in the Sunshine State are dying in record numbers because of the unusually long cold snap.
http://news.discovery.com/animals/florida-wildlife-cold-weather.html
As for the Green House Effect… it is exactly what it is; an effect from a tiny gas that makes up less then one percent of the atmosphere. I do not believe it is stronger then orbital forcing and other drivers of the climate on the earth and neither do folks like my husband and his peers that we know. I also do not believe that “global average temperature” is a real number; and neither does he and or his peers.
then you say:
“I said that compared to a loss of several percent due to the sun being cooler, the orbital parameters were insignificant. The resolution of the data is also too low to see the orbital changes, because they happen on a tens of thousand year time scale.”
Like I said, the resolution of the data going back that far in time could be off by millions of years; yet; as long as the data plugged into a computer spits out C02 as the driver of all things global millions upon millions of years ago, for millions and millions of years at a time you accept it as fact. Here’s a clue: Just because you can’t “see” orbital parameters doesn’t mean they do not matter or don’t have an effect. 5,000 yrs ago the Sahara was a green place.
Nathan,
I predicted you wouldn’t answer my question and you didn’t.
Happy Friday. 😉
Andrew
Liza
Your dates are all wrong:
Plate tectonics wasn’t accepted by the geological community until the 60s (Wiki actually says 1950s).
Milankovitch wasn’t born until 1879, he published in 1920. Not in the 1800s.
“But you get your reason for ONE period of glaciation in the vast Phanerzoic from the paper by a team member named Crowley, who calculates with a weak sun along with a data set of only a small part of the Phanerzoic plus C02. ”
What does this have to do wih anything? Sounds very sciency but is meaningless. How many major glaciations were there in the Phanerozoic? 3? Now, Permian, Ordovician… That’s about it. If Crowley thinks the weaker sun was part of the reason for the Ordovician glaciation then good for him. All the other glaciations (2) occurred when CO2 was very low. You say the data are fuzzy and inaccurate, and this is true, they get less accurate the further back you go so it’s no wonder that the oldest Phanerozoic glaciation is the one that is the most problematic. You certainly can’t use this period as evidence AGAINST the idea that CO2 is a major driver of climate change. The fuzziness doesn’t make it wrong.
As to Bill Illis’ work. Well he created a few graphs. Nice for him. If he thinks he has overturned Royer and Berner then he ought to publish it. Shouldn’t hide it here on this (or his) blog. Their models claim that climate sensitivity is 2.8, ranging from 2.3-3.0… What does he think? Does his sensitivty estimate work?
“A geologist would understand what I am saying and I wouldn’t have to explain what I mean.”
What? What a load of nonsense. You write garbage and then claim that a geologist would know what you were on about. Don’t be daft.
“Sea level high stands also match the Milankovitch cycles all over the world. The theory has stood up for one hundred years and IF you are a geologist you would know this too.”
His theories weren’t widely accepted until the 1960s.
And I am not disputing the Milankvitch cycles at all. They very nicely explain the movement in and out of the recent ice ages, with the assistance of CO2.
“I do not believe it is stronger then orbital forcing and other drivers of the climate on the earth”
So what?
“I think your comments are funny since the “man made global warming theory†is so young and the “evidence†for it comes from running a computer model not from large sets of physical data or observed conditions over mass amounts of time that would make it actually mean anything. ”
This is just silly talk. There is physical evidence of global warming, from the poleward movement of species, the loss of ice, the temp record… heaps. And your skepticism is you just running a model in your head, apparently using a very old Milankovitch theory from before he was born.
“I also do not believe that “global average temperature†is a real number; and neither does he and or his peers. ”
Do you believe in the rate of inflation? How can it not be a real number?
“As for the Green House Effect… it is exactly what it is; an effect from a tiny gas that makes up less then one percent of the atmosphere. ”
What? Well, I guess all gases are tiny, but… What does this have to do with anything? Is it some rule of the Universe tht if you only represent 1% of something you have no or little effect? That’s just madness. Go and eat a sandwich with 1% plutonium.
“Like I said, the resolution of the data going back that far in time could be off by millions of years; yet; as long as the data plugged into a computer spits out C02 as the driver of all things global millions upon millions of years ago, for millions and millions of years at a time you accept it as fact. ”
This is just hyperbole. My whole point is that you need CO2 as a driver, not as the sole driver. And yes I would rather accept a study based on a model that is published than some model you ran in your head.
AndrewKY
I thought they were all rhetorical.
“Now, really, do you actually think that on any reasonable time frame, all the land ice on Earth will melt?”
What’s ‘reasonable’? It doesn’t ALL need to melt to be a problem.
“How much of a difference to these organisms do you think a small change in pH would really make? Do you really think making the ocean a little less basic is going to be disastrous?”
“A I know for a fact that there aren’t adequate snowfall data to actually determine trends in Antarctica and B the logic here is really odd. A study claims a bizarre teleconnection which can only mean AGW?”
you can read papers in the future now can you? I just mentioned this in passing as I thought it was interesting. Sorry you are interested.
Well, you’ll have to read the literature to get the exact numbers. Yes it is a problem as these animals are the bottom of the food chain. They also act as a soak for CO2 and if they can’t build their shells properly CO2 will accumulate faster.
“Do you really think the human food supply is threatened by hot weather?”
Well, hot climate yes. And it’s a bit more complex, it means we will have to move our agriculture. Something the Govt in Australia is investigating now.
“It’s not the change it’s the amount.”
Actually it’s the rate of change that’s important. And if you seriously think sea levels are falling you are deluded.
“Really, why do you think it is “rapid†change? The changes that have been observed so far indicate no such thing.”
The CO2 increase this century has been rapid, by any measure. The increase in global temps is also rapid. The loss of ice from glaciers etc, has been rapid. Remember the word ‘rapid’ is a relative term, don’t try and give it some formal, absolute meaning.
Messed up my formatting a bit in the previous post…
“A I know for a fact that there aren’t adequate snowfall data to actually determine trends in Antarctica and B the logic here is really odd. A study claims a bizarre teleconnection which can only mean AGW?â€
you can read papers in the future now can you? I just mentioned this in passing as I thought it was interesting. Sorry you areN’T interested.
“How much of a difference to these organisms do you think a small change in pH would really make? Do you really think making the ocean a little less basic is going to be disastrous?â€
Well, you’ll have to read the literature to get the exact numbers. Yes it is a problem as these animals are the bottom of the food chain. They also act as a soak for CO2 and if they can’t build their shells properly CO2 will accumulate faster.
Nathan,
This is the other Andrew!
Anyway I asked about the ‘it’ you said was ‘proven’. You get another chance!
Andrew
Nathan,
First sorry about the date- I meant the 1900’s… Milankovitch thought about his theory as a POW in WW1 by the way. It is still almost 100 yrs ago give or take 9 yrs!
Second, all your spin is making me angry. And angry with the University system!
So C02 concentration in the past just fluxes up or down all by itself right on time to assist those orbital cycles etched in the rock and soil? Wow. Except for those inconvenient times when the C02 concentrations were really low and it still got warm or when they were really high and it still got cold right?
“There is physical evidence of global warming, from the poleward movement of species, the loss of ice, the temp record… heaps…”
Heaps? You mean natural warming since the last ice age I hope.
“Is it some rule of the Universe that if you only represent 1% of something you have no or little effect?”
I said LESS then one percent of the atmosphere. C02 makes up less then one percent of the “other gases” of our atmosphere and all life on Earth would die if it was not there. Maybe you have a degree in politics or religion too?
“My whole point is that you need CO2 as a driver, not as the sole driver.”
See the inconvenient truths above. Apparently according to the Believers we must stop these small ppm concentrations now! (However in the past; those ppms did not matter much even though the concentration levels were thousands of magnitude higher and life thrived)
Apparently the university system you attended doesn’t teach uniformitarianism which the field of geology is rooted in …sheesh.
I sent the link to this discussion to my husband. Hopefully he has time to respond to you…I read him parts of your comments this morning and he agrees with me that you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
“if you seriously think sea levels are falling you are deluded.”
Never said that. I said the rate decreased over the altimeter data period.
“The increase in global temps is also rapid.”
No, it isn’t. If we are to define rapid relatively it should be relative to what is/was expected. So far the projections of “rapid” change aren’t materializing.
“What’s ‘reasonable’? It doesn’t ALL need to melt to be a problem.”
No, but it would need to be a significant amount. For Greenland, the supposedly “rapid” rate is a fraction of a percent per century.
“Yes it is a problem as these animals are the bottom of the food chain. They also act as a soak for CO2 and if they can’t build their shells properly CO2 will accumulate faster.”
So CO2 NOT accumulating faster would be evidence of this NOT being a problem so far, right? Because the airborne fraction has been stable.
I notice you completely dropped the heat wave crap. Nice.
Nathan, I’m not confusing anything re “rapid” change. The only issue you have raised is that our species cannot adapt to rapid (climate) change. In fact our species is changing in knowledge, capability and adaptability much faster than the climate is likely to on even the most alarmist models. (Of course, from Aborigines to Inuit our species has actually survived the millennia in a stunning range of climatic extremes already.)
The likelihood that we cannot detect and manage threats from climate change in the future is vanishingly small as far as I can tell – even smaller than the possibility that the Kyoto and Copenhagen agreements will make any observable difference to climate change.
ANdrewFL
” if we are to define rapid relatively it should be relative to what is/was expected.”
err no, it should be relative to what the Earth would normally experience. The only way to do that is model it, we can’t build a second Earth. If you don’t like the results of the present models, build a better one. Your results may be slower than the presently expected results, but they could still be ‘rapid’.
As to whether or not you think it is rapid, well that’s just a stupid game of semantics. You may think the projections are wrong, because they are higher than what we expected over the last 10 years, but this is just you running some model in your head, it is certainly not sufficient to counter the many models that have been created. Does your head model continue the same trend over the last 30 years? into the future, or does it increase? The physics suggests it should increase.
Ok, so you admit sea levels are rising, good. That alone is sufficient to act. The projected 40cm rise by the end of the Century is rapid. A 1 cm vertical rise is roughly equivalent to a 1m lateral shift in the coast line. This is a serious issue and they’re having to deal with it in many countries already.
“So CO2 NOT accumulating faster would be evidence of this NOT being a problem so far, right? Because the airborne fraction has been stable.”
Well, no as we can’t say because the airborne fraction is stable right now it won’t change in the future. What we have observed so far s a reduction in their ability to construct shells. The real problems would start when the animals begin to die out. Remember this is about expected changes in the future. If the forams have trouble breeding or surviving because of the lowering of the pH this would have serious consequences for life higher on the food chain. And it’s not without precedent. During the PETM there was massive loss of foraminifera.
“I notice you completely dropped the heat wave crap.”
Well you didn’t ask any semi-rhetorical questions about it. The modelling by the CSIRO in Australia indicates we should expect more heat waves in southern Australia. That’s what we have experienced recently, and those heat waves have killed a lot of people.
Alan
I was talking about species in general. When you alter the environmental conditions faster than the species can adapt to them, the species will suffer and probably go extinct. I wasn’t suggesting we couldn’t adapt to a changing climate, more that it would be difficult. We may be kings of adaptation, but there is a lot of life on Earth that isn’t.
How do we ‘manage’ a 40cm sea level rise by 2100… And a sea level that will just keep rising if you we don’t limit emissions of greenhouse gases? You want to keep shifting our infrastructure inland? Doesn’t sound that smart to me. If we take the time to limit emissions we won’t have to deal with that, we’ll take an economic hit in the short term, but once we get through it (and we will) it will be plain sailing. The only thing we need to do is reconfigure our power production, not rebuild entire cities.
Nathan, I guess we will manage the same way as we’ve managed the small sea rise over the last century. In my seaside town the beach is exactly where it was in 1840, despite the steady sea rise since which has shown no sign at all of accelerating and actually levelled off over the last few years.
In case you haven’t noticed there is infinitely greater diversity and density of life in the tropics than in the arctic. And there are far more pressing and powerful causes of extinctions than global warming.
In any case, as I said, by the time any change is an issue I have little doubt we will have effective tools to deal with that change either by reversing it directly or adapting if that is the better option.
Nathan-I can’t be bother with such nonsense any longer. Anything justifies action in your mind, whether real or imagined.
I only want to ask you one more thing, one last time. Why do you want action so badly?
I don’t buy that you actually think you know that the impacts will be bad. Not as a justification, by itself, for action.
“If the forams have trouble breeding or surviving because of the lowering of the pH this would have serious consequences for life higher on the food chain. And it’s not without precedent. During the PETM there was massive loss of foraminifera…”
Liar liar pants on fire.
Half truths are still lies…
wiki completes this statement:
…Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time [PETM]
The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota. Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[29] – which may (perhaps?) have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders – including the Artiodactyla, horses, and primates – appeared as if from nowhere and spread across the globe 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM.[29]
Liza
Rapid speciation after an extinction event is very common. In fact it’s expected. The loss of other species created niches available for exploitation.
I note you gave up on your attempts at geology. Heck even WUWT got the Milankovitvh and Wegner timeline better than you did.
Nathan, are you seriously arguing those deep sea single-celled shelled critters “made a niche” for horses and primates?
You are making stuff up. (I just got dates wrong!)
There were no mass extinctions during the PETM. There is no evidence of mass extinction in the fossil record for that time.
Everything you say is just AGW propaganda.
Liza
I didn’t suggest that the extinction of forams made niches for Horses. I suggested that the extinction of other animals, made new niches available.
Your date mistake made your argument redundant.
I know you’re not interested in the science, more in calling people liars, but here is a paper about the PETM that just came out. Amazingly enough it backs up what I was saying about the potential for damage to marine ecosystems with the lowering of ocean pH. Do you think they’re lying too?
http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2010/6835.html
And for Andrew_FL, who can’t refute an argument, here’s the paper on the relationship between Antarctic snowfall and rainfall in SW Australia.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo761.html
If you don’t like it take it up with the authors…Oh wait, you don’t need to do you? You just need to decalre some nonsense about how you know it’s wrong and hey presto, it’s wrong. It’s Andrew_FL’s magic theory.
BTW ‘I don’t buy that you actually think you know that the impacts will be bad.’
That’s a pretty dumb sentence. Why would it matter to me what you think that I think? I told you why I wanted action, then you say ‘I don’t buy that’ and then ask the same question again.
Ooh you sneaked this comment in.
“I didn’t suggest that the extinction of forams made niches for Horses. I suggested that the extinction of other animals, made new niches available.
Your date mistake made your argument redundant.”
I typed 1800’s instead of 1900’s Nathan. Big woop. My statement that the Milankovitch theory has stood solid for almost 100 years; and these orbital cycles are etched in the rock and soil; matching data from sources all over the world from the bottom of the sea to the tops of the mountains ; still makes sense and is not redundant. I find it fascinating and quite disturbing that as a geologist you dont care about any of that; and you seem to put more confidence in computer models that push a gas called C02 as the driver of all things global.
You can suggest anything you want Nathan. However, the fossil record of the PETM doesn’t show mass extinction except MAYBE forams in the deep ocean. Mammals appeared to have thrived at this time, including primates and horses; animals that are still on earth today. That’s not extinction. And as a matter of fact some mammals returned to the sea at this time…. some the earliest whales and other sea mammal fossils are dated in the Eocene.
“”I know you’re not interested in the science, more in calling people liars, but here is a paper about the PETM that just came out. Amazingly enough it backs up what I was saying about the potential for damage to marine ecosystems with the lowering of ocean pH. Do you think they’re lying too?
http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2010/6835.html“”
Well you know wrong. I am interested in GOOD science not religion. That paper is based on another computer model. YAWN. Since when are computer simulated Earth models “the truth”????
Again, it is fascinating a “geologist” believe that!
CO2 concentrations 1,0000s of magnitudes higher in the atmosphere. Deep sea critters and corals came into being with that kind of atmosphere. Read these sentences again. CO2 concentrations 1,0000s of magnitudes higher in the atmosphere. Deep sea critters and corals came into being with that kind of atmosphere. Husband says that whole “ocean acidification” stuff is just more fear mongering and AGW propaganda.
500,000,000 yrs ago the ocean was full of fish and mammals; it still is now. 500,000,000 years ago; C02 ppm concentrations were in the 1,000’s compared to now. These are facts. You offer up models developed during the Reign of AGW full of maybes and fudged numbers; not to mention the terrible resolution of using data going back that far (data that could be off by 10s of millions of yrs.) as “truth” and claim to be a geologist? Mmm. mm. mm.
You know something else? This weekend there was a program on; a new one about North America and how the Ice Ages shaped the continent and drove animals to extinction and migration. (Did you know that the all the camels on Earth began and evolved in North America?) I can’t remember what cable channel it was. Anyway; the geologists in the program did not mention C02 once. They did talk about rapid climate change though. At the onset of the ice ages temperature dropped 1 degree per YEAR not decade. We were thinking of all you folks when they said that. LOL All you folks that chart fractions of one degree “from the record” and focus on temperature changes per decade. 🙂
They also showed how the coastlines looked because of the water being trapped in the ice. Florida was much bigger. How the continent was weighed down with miles thick of snow and ice how the land bulged and bent and how right now the continent is still readjusting from the ice retreat.
Very interesting GEOLOGY stuff that matters and not one mention of C02 or AGW once. How refreshing!
Nathan-you are a real piece of work. The problem with the Antarctic and Australian connection thing is that it has no obvious relationship with AGW specifically. It’s just an example of an interesting alleged teleconnection.
I just noticed the paper Nathan linked saying 65 million years and I typed 500,000,000 not 55,000 000 million years in my previous post. UGH. So many yrs so little time. I’ve never been good with numbers!!! Anyway, here Nathan. Here’s another paper that applies to right now (this is a paper my husband suggested I share before when this subject came up and I remembered it):
Modern-age buildup of CO2 and its effects on seawater acidity and salinity ,Hugo A. Loáiciga
Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026305.shtml
“This paper’s results concerning average seawater salinity and acidity show that, on a global scale and over the time scales considered (hundreds of years), there would not be accentuated changes in either seawater salinity or acidity from the observed or hypothesized rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.”
So read that page and read the news article you linked and see who is interested in science or is interested in fear mongering.
CO2 emissions are both natural and man-made. According to Dr Fred Singer natural emissions are 30 times as large as man-made so reducing man-made emissions will have absolutely no effect on the greenhouse effect. See Dr Singers analysis at
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Harold Richman
Here is an article that I have written and submitted to the Prime Minister of Canada before the Copenhagen conference. It may be too large for this Message.
WHEN DID GLOBAL WARMING MORPH INTO CLIMATE CHANGE?
It seems that Global Warming has been downgraded and we now are told to worry about Climate Change. The leaders of the apocalyptic environmental movement should have placed a full-page ad in the Globe and Mail and the New York Times to advise every one that Climate Change was now the world’s most serious problem. Maybe I was out of town when this happened but I don’t think anyone else noticed this change either.
It seems to me that the environmentalists are hedging their bets because Global Warming is no longer a sure bet. The inconvenient truth is that the Earth has been cooling since 1998 based on satellite measurements of temperature. The Earth is also projected to be cooling for the next ten years. The main argument by Al Gore and David Suzuki is that greenhouse gases reflect the heat back to the earth causing it to become warmer and that CO2 is the culprit. There are three main gases in the air that are called greenhouse gases, water vapor (95%), CO2 (3.62%) and methane (0.36%). Isn’t it strange that, even though water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gases, it is never mentioned? All the rhetoric concentrates on CO2, which is only 3.62% of the greenhouse gases. Though methane is only 0.36% it is twenty times more effective than CO2 in reflecting heat back to the earth.
Global Warming has received so much negative press that many people believe that it is destroying the Earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the planet would not have warmed enough to allow life to form and we would not be here to worry about a nonexistent problem. The average temperature, without the greenhouse affect, would be -15C instead of +15C.
Global Warming is a very complicated issue. However, let’s consider only what we can control that could possibly affect Global Warming. We will ignore, for the moment, whether Global Warming is happening or not, whether Global Warming will have a positive or negative effect on mankind, whether glaciers are retreating or not, whether Polar Bears are heading for extinction or not and whether burning fossil fuel causes pollution.
The only thing that we can possibly control is man-made CO2 emissions caused by burning fossil fuel, such as coal, oil and gas.
Lets make a few simple calculations to explain how reducing man-made CO2 emissions would have no noticeable effect on the climate.
All water vapor is natural, whereas CO2 is partly natural and partly man-made (anthropogenic). The man-made part of CO2 amounts to only about 0.117 % of the total of greenhouse gases (See reference web site below). This is so insignificant it could not possibly affect Global Warming. The Kyoto Protocol calls for a 30 % reduction from developed countries like the United States. Even if this reduction of CO2 emissions could be accomplished it would only reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere by 0.035%. Imagine spending 150 billion dollars a year to reduce CO2 emissions by this tiny amount when this would have no noticeable effect on Global Warming. Most of the developed countries have subscribed to this idiotic idea. (The US Treasury Department now estimates that Cap-and-Trade costs could hit $300 billion a year)
The U.S. House of Representatives has passed The American Clean Energy and Security Act that mandates a 17% cut in CO2 emissions by 2020 and 83% by 2050. Even if this were accomplished, it is estimated to reduce the Earth’s future temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degrees C by 2100, an amount too small to notice. They have even mandated that the temperature must not increase by more than 2F. This is very similar to the story about King Canute who placed his throne at the edge of the ocean and demanded that the water should not rise. After he got his feet wet he declared that he does not have dominion over the ocean.
No one has been able to show any direct relationship between rising temperature and the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Carbon dioxide has increased by about 18 percent since 2000 and yet the temperature has not increased accordingly.
The environmentalists claim that Global Warming has been proven by science. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) base their projections of temperature rise on a number of computer climate models. Since none of the models agree with each other they total the results of 18 models and take an average. Not only do the 18 models not agree with each other but the same model run twice will produce different results. How can the government decide to spend billions of dollars based on computer climate models, which are known to be inaccurate?
There have been projections of an increase of one to two degrees in 100 years. Right here in Winnipeg, we have temperatures which range from 40C degrees below to 30C above in one year so how could a one or two degree increase over 100 years be noticed?
There has been so much publicity about the increase of carbon dioxide in the air, that many people believe that it is almost a poison. All plants grow by photosynthesis, which use carbon dioxide as the main source for the creation of food. Many greenhouses introduce additional carbon dioxide because the plants will grow more vigorously. Incidentally, one of the by-products of photosynthesis is oxygen, which all animals, including you and I, require to live.
To put this discussion into perspective I would like you to consider the following:
In 2004 an organization was formed called the Copenhagen Consensus. The basic idea was to prioritize the numerous problems the world faces. There are many problems: 800 million people are starving, one billion lack clean drinking water, two billion lack sanitation, two million are dying from AIDS each year, 175 million International migrants, 940 million illiterate adults.
The Copenhagen Consensus produced a list of the10 most important problems and a possible solution for each, based on recommendations by scientists who are experts in each area. Each problem was then assigned to three economists who were to determine the costs and benefits for solving a particular problem and determining the cost per year. The 10 problems were then prioritized starting with the least cost and most benefit.
NO. PROBLEM
1 Malnutrition and Hunger
2 Subsidies and Trade Barriers
3 Diseases
4 Education
5 Women and Development
6 Sanitation and Water
7 Terrorism
8 Conflicts
9 Air Pollution
10 Global Warming
As you can see Global Warming was rated as #10 because the cost was estimated as $150 billion a year and the benefit very little. In fact, they could attack problems #1 to #9 for $75 billion a year or half the cost. The results would be immediate instead of in 100 years.
This is actually the choice we have to make. Should we spend 150 billion dollars on something over which we do not have any control or spend half the amount and see immediate results? I don’t think anyone would make the choice to allow millions of people to die while spending huge amounts of money to accomplish absolutely nothing.
Reference Material:
Man-made CO2
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Copenhagen consensus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs
HAROLD RICHMAN
PHONE 1-623-546-0787
E-MAIL hrichman@jrwire.com