Climate Skeptics vs Scientific Consensus
By Barry Ritholtz - December 8th, 2009, 2:30PM
I love information, and I especially appreciate a good depiction of information.
This ginormous graphic, from Information is Beautiful, does an excellent job conveying a lot of info in an easily digestible manner:
Global Warming Skeptics versus Scientific Consensus
click for ginormo chart
December 8th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
The solution to pollution is dilution . . . er . . . uh . . .
Never mind.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
My only beef with the graphic is that it is constructed in such a way that whatever on the left side is shown to be wrong. I could easily reverse the process – global warming assertion, skeptic rebuttal, and the illustration would support the other side.
Really, you should have 2 separate graphs – each with one side’s assertion and the other side’s rebuttal.
That said, I appreciate the effort involved.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Perhaps, it’s like with the debt crisis that increasing the greenhouse gas emission makes the problem go away?
rc
December 8th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Unfortunately, science is not a popularity contest. It doesn’t matter whether 90% of people believe the earth goes around the sun or 90% believe the sun goes around the earth. It is what it is…
The problem is that climate science has become a popularity contest, which means it’s being debated on its political merits and not on scientific merit. Either side of the issue can skew the data in their favor. There are a few salient questions to ask:
1) Is there climate change?
2) Is climate change caused by human behaviors?
3) If #1 and #2 are true, what are the economic, social, etc. costs imposed on society?
And most importantly
4) Who benefits from propagating climate change issues and who benefits from denying climate change? [i.e. V.C.s funding alternative energy vs. big oil companies]
As with all issues, if you follow the money, everything becomes more clear…
HCF
December 8th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Well hey, what’s the problem here?
The situation is incredibly simple. There are too many people on the planet. Too many Americans on the planet.
Any volunteers to ease the problem?
Ooops. Capitalism needs growth to succeed. Otherwise it becomes overt slavery to the elite.
So it’s just a debate about how to keep the sheeple lined up for their daily milking. Or bleeding.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Here is a good explanation also:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
~~~
BR: I never understand why people cite opinion in rebuttal to facts.
I am with the Scientific, peer reviewed consensus on this one
December 8th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
This chart is priceless. “Most of the info for this image is sourced from Realclimate.org. It’s an amazing blog staffed tirelessly by some of the world’s leading climatologists.”
Unfortunately Realclimate.org happens to be run by the climatologists who are being revealed as frauds in the Climategate scandal. It’s as if you created a chart about investing advice and the Pro side was sourced from Bernie Madoff.
~~~
BR: Bernies returns were fraudulent — he never invested in anything and made up numbers.
That is not he case in the data referenced above. Data and facts trump opinion.
Science, Bitches. It Works.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
global warming is real- check it out-
http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/polarbear-450.jpg
obvioulsy the last piece of ice- anywhere- lol
December 8th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Part of my problem is that the biggest backers of the climate debate and the agenda makers in Copenhagen goes inherently against how science has historically operated. Science operates on the following fundamental principle: have a theory on why something is the way it is, try to disprove it. I think people aren’t trying to disprove it, and anyone that does just shout barbs at anyone that tries to disprove it as if they’re Holocaust deniers. It’s like the field of economics in that respect. There are models that are setup but no one ever attempts to improve or test the models, they just accept them as fact.
I’m not a scientist, I’m an engineer, but if I ever tried to approach my job the way these people do, my position would always be marginalized because I’m not following the problem solving method. If I believe I have a solution to a problem or why some problem is occurring, I am required to show proof for why it would work or improve things.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
@ahab: Looks like a bear humping some cauliflower. Or maybe I just need to post my turtle video again?
December 8th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
A good chart. Far more objective than most presentations. Ther will be a much better understanding of which side is generally more correct once the repositories release their data and code and it has been subjected to scrutiny.
A big issue is that climate science is based on models. Anyone who has worked with models should understand their propensity for error. There are simply too many variables and too many unknowns for models to be precise or oftentimes for that matter even close to accurate. Certain Rating Agency models come to mind…….
December 8th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
The denialists’ reliance on the stolen emails to ‘prove’ their case is just hilarious.
To paraphrase a line from a favorite movie of mine “Leave it to English major to bring a dictionary to a Statistics fight”
December 8th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Excellent presentation of data, well balanced, fact based.
Ritholtz, you have no future in politics . . .
December 8th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I believe the skeptics hold that ice core data IS reliable, as opposed to what is said in cell 7. After all, the argument in cell 8 relies on ice core data. Along with the arguments in 2, 3, and 5.
However, it seems both sides say why ice core data doesn’t tell the whole story.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
arogersb Says:
December 8th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Here is a good explanation also:
I agree with you. Dr. Lindzen is a well respected professor at MIT. He lends credibility to the skeptics views on global warming.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I’m convinced at this point that this is just a proxy war for religion (and religion power money); it’s not really about climate change. Religion and corporatism have made convenient bedfellows for a while now, so it fits nicely into the mold. Religion needs a villain, and science is basically the antithesis of religion. It’s consistently been the villain since enlightenment. I guess fighting over evolution has gone by the wayside; too many people, even religious ones, realize that we didn’t come from Adam and Eve. I guess it’s hard for all but the most ardent supporters to argue against something (evolution) that basically defines modern medicine. And there’s really no corporate benefit to denying evolution. So a new, more universally palatable, proxy war has emerged.
Slick words make the skepticism sound so believable, as long as you have faith. But as soon as you scratch the surface, the cracks form and it all falls down. Take for example CO2 staying in the atmosphere for only 5-10 years. You can only make that claim if you ignore the partial pressure of CO2 and ionization constants, concepts that are just above high school level chemistry. As long as there are enough people ignorant to these facts (basically anyone who didn’t take a chemistry class beyond high school – which is most people), you can continue preach something that so clearly is not true. Entire industries are built on this knowledge (water treatment, soft drink an beer manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, etc.), it’s not something that’s up for debate. Like the fact that genes mutate (evolution occurs), this is an essential fact that is utilized in everyday science and industry without most people giving it a thought. People are less ignorant about evolution today, so the war needs to move onto turf where people are more ignorant. That turf is, apparently, climate change.
And the email thing is stupid. Even if the people involved were involved in the most illicit conspiracy in the world, they don’t prove that everyone else studying the climate, unrelated to these people, are part of the same conspiracy. It’s like saying if ACORN (another favorite villain) registered a few fraudulent voters for the D side of the ticket, then every voter registered D must be a fraud. If you sincerely believe that, you need your head checked.
~~~
BR: Interesting views re: proxy war for religion — thanks for posting
December 8th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
If they can prove that the ocean is no longer acting as the sponge and then prove that the consequences of that are ………….. then who the F cares if it is man made or man enhanced or not. I do not personally care but support all efforts to get the F off imported oil, and therefore support alternative energy.
What I do get a chuckle out of is when Drudge or a similar site posts the fact that Houston had the earliest snow ever as to insinuate that the globe is not warming at all.. so there you tree huggers.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
This is chock full of facts.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
December 8th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
tz-
or chilln’ his balls- lol
all global warming aficionados out there-
the earth’s going to make it- i promise
December 8th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Have you noticed when the raw data conclusively disproves the argument for the alleged link between CO2 and global warming, the proponents “adjust” the data to make it fit with their theory?
There are also multiple logical fallacies in the global warming proponents reasoning.
For example, they say, “CO2 did not cause the first 16% of warming” (there is 800 years lag between increase in temperature and CO2) — 800 years of global warming that they admit was not secondary to CO2 (most likely secondary to increased solar activity).
So even the global warming boneheads agree that the earth was warming for 800 years without CO2 level rising in the past.
Increased solar activity => warmer earth temperature => warmer oceans => more CO2 released from the oceans => higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
The global warming theorists/alarmists have completely ignored the SUN.
In addition, humans are only responsible for 3-4% of total CO2 released to the atmosphere (96% of CO2 is from biologic activity in earth’s oceans, from volcanoes, and from decaying land plants/animals). Human activity produces only three per cent of the world’s CO2 emissions each year. One volcanic belch can emit as much as that in a day.
Even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting or completely eliminating industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have no effect on global climate.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Lindzen “clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He’ll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen#On_Tobacco
December 8th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
If you accept the scientific consensus, then we should be focusing on using energy responsibly and efficiently for the sake of our own survival.
If you reject the scientific consensus, then does that mean that we should be free to use energy with wild abandon? No. Energy is expensive, and every carbon molecule we use benefits societies that would like nothing better than to wipe us from the face of the Earth. If you reject the scientific consensus, then we still should be focusing on using energy responsibly and efficiently for the sake of our own survival.
~~~
BR: I can accept the consensus, but then still choose to drive 600 HP V12s.
I never said I was going to change my behavior.
I would rather be honestly selfish, but not hypocritical . . .
December 8th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
“the earth’s going to make it- i promise”
Which is not to say all it’s inhabitants will.
But then, phuck’em I’ve got mine. Right.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I’m just waiting for the Rapture.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
freejack:
Here is the 2001 article you are referring to so you and others can read and determine for yourselves if Dr. Lindzen is a crackpot or not. Many of the issues that he raises are still unresolved.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/78772/output/print
December 8th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
“…Science is not a popularity contest”
Interesting, the fact that scientists are not 100% unanimous on climate change has always been used by the Climate Deniers as “proof” that global warming does not exit.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
franklin411,
In my opinion we should raise the cost of petroleum as they do in Europe. But for economic reasons, not for (in my mind) yet to be resolved environmental reasons.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I’ve seen it.
Lindzen is not a crackpot. Just one guy, with some interesting ideas. Good luck to him in using existing data to convince the scientific community that CO2 plays no role in global warming.
Did you know Einstein thought Quantum Theory was crappy Physics?
December 8th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
@BR
Re: “I never understand why people cite opinion in rebuttal to facts. I am with the Scientific, peer reviewed consensus on this one”
The “peer reviewed consensus” process was corrupt.
42 individuals who are receiving government grants (have strong material motivations to support the global warming theory in order to continue receiving taxpayer funds) and having similar political affiliations (all are liberals) “peer reviewed” among themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac
~~~
BR: And you respond with more opinion.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
freejack-
well- not sure what phuck is- but if by chance you meant fuck- please elaborate-
specifically- how does someone who doesn’t buy into the global warming scare- mean in your mind that he “has his” and fuck everyone else?
and how can global warming effect only the people that “don’t have theirs” but all good for he who “has his?’
but in reality- don’t bother responding- because I just don’t really care-
you’re just boring
December 8th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
@ freejack
“Lindzen is not a crackpot. Just one guy, with some interesting ideas.”
One guy?
How about 700?
Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe
challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.
This new 2009 255-page U.S. Senate Minority Report — updated from 2007’s
groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called
global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent
international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have
now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 300 (and
growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007.
The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52)
who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
December 8th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
And here are five of those dissenting scientists:
http://orangecow.org/pythonet/linus/photos/noparrot/gumbys.jpg
December 8th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
but in reality- don’t bother responding- because I just don’t really care-
Obviously.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
How about 700?
I’ve seen that list. My proctologist is on it, but I don’t ask his for investment advise either.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Stop using facts. It’s about ideology.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
@ BR:
“I am with the Scientific, peer reviewed consensus on this one”
You have always confused me with your stalwart and unwavering support of this “consensus” that the “science is settled” on this matter. I have long regarded you as someone who prides himself on prying through the layers of bullshit, carefully choosing (or not choosing) sides, and whose opinion I generally respect on a variety of matters. Have you even ventured to read the NIPCC report that has been endorsed by over 30,000 scientists that completely rebuts the IPCC report – generally heralded as the “settled science, peer reviewed consensus” everyone refers to? If there were a handful of academics who stood in opposition against thousands on a given issue, I would consider that a “consensus”. This is clearly not. And it frustrates me to hear you state the same.
The dismissive “I’m with the consensus, peer reviewed, it’s settled and you’re just crazy and in denial” attitude from so many in the AGW camp is becoming tedious, and starting to ring hollow. It is not “settled” – and you know it. Chalking those who disagree up to “deniers” won’t make it any more so. I’ve come to expect more out of your writings, and your rigid encampment on that side of the debate has confounded me for quite a while.
http://www.nipccreport.org/
The download is free. Exponentially more scientists have penned their name in support of this publication than have in support of the IPCC that’s considered the “settled science, peer reviewed consensus”.
Why are you so quick to consider this a “foregone conclusion?
December 8th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Dave J,
First of all the appropriate term is “skeptics” not deniers. Very few deny the Earth has been getting warmer and for that matter very few deny that CO2 plays a role in global warming. The question is how much?
Many are skeptical of the magnitude of warming assigned to this relatively rare atmospheric molecule ( 380 ppm = <4 CO2 per 10,000 molecules of atmosphere), the "positive forcings" that the models use to triple the temperature increase over that which CO2 physically is capable of generating, concerns over the manipulation of raw temperature data and/or using faulty data (urban heat island effects) that distort the historical temperature record. A major question is: How much of global warming (and recent cooling) is due to natural variation, how much is due to other variables such as changes in solar intensity, land use changes, urbanization and how much is due to CO2? Finally there is skepticism with respect to assertions that the Earth has never been warmer than today. If this is so, then how in the world were they able to once grow wheat on Greenland and grapes in the northern UK?
There is also skepticism with respect to impacts should the planet warm. Why was it OK to be warmer 1,000 years ago but today it is catastrophic? Are we really going to have floods, desserts, disease and more prostitution (as on report states) or are we going to have greater land masses in temperate zones producing more food and with more capacity for biodiversity? Just look at a map. The center of the North American Continent is in North Dakota. Much of the land mass of Eurasia is in Siberia.
The Great Lakes were formed by glaciers that covered almost all of North America 10,000 years ago. Much of the ongoing warming and glaciers receding are because the Earth is in a long term warming phase after that last glacial period. Nearly every living thing today survived through that period of time. Climate will always change and plants and animals will always adapt and migrate. They have in the past and will in the future.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
“Climate will always change and plants and animals will always adapt and migrate. They have in the past and will in the future.”
no goddammit- i want everything to remain exactly the same-
if not i get frantic- and start wetting myself-
i am certain the Inuit were dousing campfires to keep the Bering Land Bridge from being submerged under water
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_land_bridge
December 8th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Craig Idso of NIPCC has a PhD in Geography. WTF?
He “lectured in Meteorology at Arizona.” So he taught Atmospheric Science 101 as a gut-course requirement at a state university. Wow. I am floored.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
BR: I am with the Scientific, peer reviewed consensus on this one
Barry, you are very logical and rational. Just keep an open mind, read and think through the positions on both sides and draw your own conclusions over time.
Here are the best web sites (settled and skeptic)
Real Climate (settled)
http://www.realclimate.org/
Whats Up With That (skeptic)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
December 8th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
My local Weatherman, who thinks he’s a Climatologist (confused by the whole probability vs. statistics/math thingy) sent me this link to prove how reality has a well-known ideological bias.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/650_international_scientists_e.php
December 8th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Climategate,
The sun is currently at a solar minimum. Bill O’ got the facts backwards, and you are just parroting his guest rather than looking up the facts. Climate scientists are most definitely not ignoring the sun. 2009 is on track to be one of the top 5 hottest years in record keeping history (probably #2 or 3). See http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091208_globalstats.html Meanwhile we’re getting the least total solar radiation in over 50 years. Go to NASA’s site. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/03sep_sunspots.htm This means we’ve been getting less heat from the sun, not more, as you claim. See http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
Carbon levels are about 35% higher than pre-industrial levels, not 3-4%. Get your facts straight. 96% does not come from animals and volcanoes. This isn’t how the carbon cycle works. The (historic) carbon cycle dictates that under circumstances where no fossil fuels are burned, CO2 roughly stays constant due to things like volcanoes spewing CO2 being balanced by carbon sinking (primarily burying of non-decomposed life). Virtually all CO2 from animals comes from atmospheric CO2 and CO2 dissolved in water. Plants and algae use CO2 in photosynthesis to create sugars, etc., animals eat plants (or other animals that ate plants) and covert the sugars, etc. back to CO2. Some die and get buried. Volcanoes and vents more-or-less replace this carbon. Most decompose back into CO2. As a result, CO2 has stayed pretty steady for all of human existence, with the last 100 years being a notable exception. There is no net gain from animals (unless you’re accounting for petroleum based fertilizers adding carbon to the food cycle). This is simple science – conservation of mass.
Everyone,
This ignorance of simple science should be noted by every skeptic. These are the people skeptics are trusting. They don’t even understand middle school biology or physics, but you trust them more than NASA or NOAA when it comes to science. It’s like trusting a 12 year old to handle your money. As questionable as they are, I’ll still take my chances handing my cash to the banks over the kid in 6th grade. Why? Because most economists will still agree banks are a safer place to put money than giving it to 6th graders. Though, I’m sure I can find 700 who disagree (and a few scientist who will tell you smoking is safe). The bottom line is that I’m not an economist. I can dig deeper, but only after I study up on the basic material. The difference is that there are so many people that think they’re a climate expert without even knowing how to balance the carbon cycle (the equivalent of how to balance a checkbook). People ignorant of chemistry commenting on climate changes should be laughed off the stage like people who don’t understand something as basic as supply and demand commenting on finance; yet for some reason, they aren’t. This baffles me.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/12/07/science/07climateg.html
December 8th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
freejack Says: “…to prove how reality has a well-known ideological bias…”
No doubt about it, which is why the science is not settled. The skeptics are just as convinced that the climate science is ideologically biased.
Lets get the data and the code out on the open, scrutinize it, separate the ideology from the facts and move forward. Sure there will still be camps at the extremes but most people are in the middle and they will decide what is right if they have confidence in what they are being told, understand the alternatives and are allowed to make an informed decision. It is still a democracy (sorta).
December 8th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
“I’m convinced at this point that this is just a proxy war for religion”
ludicrous assumption-
i’m about as atheist as they come- and yet- do not believe in the global warming scare-
you are projecting your idea about skeptics of global warming and making a blanket statement based on that-
my guess- this will turn out like the Woody Allen movie Sleeper- when he finds himself in the future and learns that steak and eggs are actually good for him-
or Gilda Radner turning to the camera and saying “nevermind”
December 8th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Science not being settled… Reminds me of the Creationist position that evolution is just a theory and not a law. Skeptical inquiry is the engine that drives science and is unceasing across disciplines. Pointing out skeptical scientists is redundant.
Maybe this is a proxy for religious war.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Lets get the data and the code out on the open, scrutinize it, separate the ideology from the facts…
Sure, that’s how I decided whether or not the water in my basement was from a busted wall pipe like that ‘expert’ the plumber said or from rainfall like my brother-in-law the lawyer said.
But first I gotta double check with my next door neighbor the Sanitation truck driver about having my appendix removed like my Surgeon want me to do (my neighbor says it’s just agita).
December 8th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
bsneath,
I have no problem with true skeptics: those who demand strong evidence for a claim. This is the scientific method and they go a great service. My criticism was reserved for the hard-core Deniers: those afflicted with Confirmation Bias who ignore any evidence that does not match their ideology. They hide behind the label “skeptic” when they are no such thing. This does a great disservice to the true skeptics.
The claim by those people that scientists have some kind of vested interest in global warming does not match the facts. (I’m not accusing you of holding this view). If it were true, the idea of global warming would never have got off the ground. Twenty years ago it was widely believed in the scientific community that we were slowly moving into another ice age. According to the big conspiracy theory, scientists would have suppressed any evidence for man-made global warming because they built their careers on the theory that the earth was cooling.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
@BR
“And you respond with more opinion.”
What was your opinion after reading the emails? Did you read the emails?
December 8th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
@Brendan
You got all your “facts” WRONG! Even the links that you have provided prove my point.
For example, the temperatures have been decreasing since late 1990’s (even the global warming theorist were concerned about this fact in their emails, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”)
Now look at the chart in your link (the solar activity has been also decreasing during the same period, while CO2 was increasing)
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/03sep_sunspots.htm
Here is the Solar Activity (note the sharp increase in solar activity since 1900)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
________________________________________________________________________________
~186 billion tons of CO2 enters earth’s atmosphere each year from three
main sources:
~90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans
~90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants
~6 billion tons are from human activity
Only 3% of earth CO2 can be attributable to human activity. (it is too small to play any role).
December 8th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
@tuck:
“Unfortunately Realclimate.org happens to be run by the climatologists who are being revealed as frauds in the Climategate scandal.”
Wishful thinking. Unsubstantiated accusations. If the results of the research aren’t convenient, discredit the researcher.
@Climategate:
“Have you noticed when the raw data conclusively disproves the argument for the alleged link between CO2 and global warming, the proponents “adjust” the data to make it fit with their theory?”
No, I haven’t noticed. I am afraid I only notice that you are spreading lies. Again, if the results of the research aren’t convenient label them as “manipulated”, “forged” and discredit the scientists. And so the climate contrarians present a totally paranoid view on the world, according to which hundreds or thousands of scientists from research groups all over the world are part of a big climate conspiracy, which allegedly invented global warming for their own benefits. It’s always amazing what absurd nonsense people are willing to believe.
“There are also multiple logical fallacies in the global warming proponents reasoning.”
Which one? You haven’t shown any. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere during the glacial/inter-glacial cycle depends on the ocean temperatures. CO2-concentration shows a cyclic behavior during these cycles, too. When Earth’s climate warmed after an glacial period, the CO2 lagged the temperature by several hundred years. However, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which itself has an effect on the temperature. Thus, the warming during the inter-glacials was even enhanced by the increasing CO2-concentration. It’s called a positive feedback. The maximum CO2-concentration in the inter-glacials during the last 650,000 years didn’t exceed 290 ppm, though.
Now, for the last 150 years or so, CO2-concentration has been increasing from about 270-290 ppm to 385 ppm today, significantly higher than the highest concentration during any of the inter-glacials over the last 600,000 years. There hasn’t been any temperature increase preceding the CO2- increase, which could explain this. Consider how large the temperature increase was from a glacial to an inter-glacial, and the CO2-concentration didn’t exceed 290 ppm in the warm period, nevertheless. Additionally, the CO2- flux is directed from the atmosphere to the ocean in present day. This has been studied as well. There isn’t any logical fallacy here.
“Increased solar activity => warmer earth temperature => warmer oceans => more CO2 released from the oceans => higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
The global warming theorists/alarmists have completely ignored the SUN. ”
This statement isn’t founded on facts, either. How much of the warming over the last 150 years can be attributed to increased solar irradiance has been considered in the climate studies. Read the IPCC report.
“In addition, humans are only responsible for 3-4% of total CO2 released to the atmosphere (96% of CO2 is from biologic activity in earth’s oceans, from volcanoes, and from decaying land plants/animals). Human activity produces only three per cent of the world’s CO2 emissions each year. One volcanic belch can emit as much as that in a day.”
There is a global carbon cycle. The amount that is being released naturally is being absorbed by the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere. In addition to that, about 40% of the anthropogenic CO2 is being absorbed by these climate components as well. The excess CO2 blown into the atmosphere is the one that matters. An increase from 270-290 ppm natural CO2 in the atmosphere to 385% and further increasing today, means that 30 to 40% of the CO2 in the atmosphere today is due to human activity, not just 3-4%. If the oceans and the biosphere didn’t absorb a large amount of the anthropogenic CO2 it would be even higher.
rc
December 8th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
@ rootless_cosmopolitan
Re: “No, I haven’t noticed.”
But the “scientists” have shifted the data by 800 years to fit with their theory. (they not even hiding it)
Re: “The amount that is being released naturally is being absorbed by the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere.”
CO2 is CO2
Small amounts (relative to other souses) of CO2 released from human activity are ALSO absorbed by the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere.
This is a normal natural cycle that has been going on on earth for billions of years.
Why all of the sudden it is a concern for Al Gore, Obama, and Pelosi?
December 8th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Here’s an older, but I’d say better back and forth over the issue.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/uploads/pdfs/IdeastoGo/Climate_Change-To-Go_2009.pdf
December 8th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
@Climategate:
“Now look at the chart in your link (the solar activity has been also decreasing during the same period, while CO2 was increasing)”
Yes! What’s your point? Is the fact that the solar activity has decreased since the last sun spot maximum and that it is lower this time than during the minimums of the previous cycles, so counteracting the effect of the increasing greenhouse gases to a certain degree supposed to falsify the effect of the greenhouse gases? I think not. Why would it? Sometimes solar activity, when it is at a maximum during its a little bit irregular 11-year cycle, it acts at the same direction as the greenhouse gases, sometimes it counteracts latter effect somewhat. Just wait what is going to happen to the global temperatures, when solar activity increases again, when it goes toward the next cycle maximum.
“Only 3% of earth CO2 can be attributable to human activity. (it is too small to play any role).”
One has to distinguish between the CO2-flow between the various climate components and the CO2-budget in the atmosphere.
rc
December 8th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
I agree with 50% of Ritholz’s position. I reject the scientific consensus but will continue to drive like hell in my Veyron
December 8th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Bergsten, I may want to break out the “Does Obama annoy you?” mtheme after all.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/10/friday-reading-3/comment-page-2/#comment-231136
Does Obama annoy you? Do I annoy you?
December 8th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
While the debate on global warming has its merits the real idiocy is in the solutions proffered by the Enron/Al Gore’s of the world.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
@Climategate:
“But the “scientists” have shifted the data by 800 years to fit with their theory. (they not even hiding it)”
You are talking nonsense. No one has “shifted” any data by 800 years “to fit” the theory. Who is supposed to have done this where? Where do you get this nonsense from? I really think all the scientist who are being maliciously and falsely accused of forgery and other forms of scientific misconduct by so called “climate skeptics”, who try to destroy the professional reputation of the scientists whose results are inconvenient, should think about libel suit against the accusers.
“Small amounts (relative to other souses) of CO2 released from human activity are ALSO absorbed by the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere.”
This statement doesn’t make any sense. I mentioned a number how much is being absorbed. (I switched the numbers in the posting, though. 60% of the anthropogenic CO2 is being absorbed by oceans and biosphere, 40% stays in the atmosphere and increases the CO2-concentration in the atmosphere. Sorry about that.) What part of my argument is your statement supposed to contradict?
rc
December 8th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
@rootless_cosmopolitan
Re: “Yes! What’s your point?”
During this period, CO2 increased, sun activity decreased, global temperature decreased.
If CO2 was causing the “global warming” , then the temperature should be increasing (not decreasing).
Also, look at the solar activity since 1600 (note the sharp increase in solar activity since 1900)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
It is the sun stupid, not CO2 (as Bill Clinton would say if he were not a liberal).
December 8th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
as the late great Kurt Vonnegut said prior to his death-
the sooner we’re all gone the better off the planet will be- and that the seeds of our destruction was the invention of fire- probably true i guess-
so if that’s how we feel- let’s get on with it-
as the “brother” said in “Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle” when he was reminiscing about tasty White Castle sliders and upset about the burger shack he was working in-
“let’s burn this mother fucker down” *
* this is pardoy- ahab does not condone violence of any kind- and is basically just a big nancy man
December 8th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
@rootless_cosmopolitan
Re: “Where do you get this nonsense from?”
Did you read the “ginormous graphic”?
December 8th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Kurt Vonnegut’s brother was a meteorologist.
Also, I knew a chick who went with a friend to knock on his door many years ago. Her story became vague at that point so I’m thinking threesome. Brainy girls can be groupies too, you know. What were we talking about?
December 8th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
gotta roll-
will check in later-
tz-
fame and $$$$- women like that- ask Tiger- the dude (Tiger) looks like a bit of a dork to me- but hey- when you’re tripping over a billion dollars a lot is forgiven
December 8th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Sorry BR, the climate alarmists are more like Madoff than you imagine – reporting fabricated numbers.
Can you take the following process seriously? http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/
How about these outcomes:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_how_one_human_caused_darwin_to_warm/
Facts trump theory. Please don’t turn into a sheep just because you are looking at climate rather than economic data.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Climategate – can you say “liberal” one more time for us? I don’t think everyone is catching your motives correctly.
Seriously though, who gives a shit whether or not humans are causing the climate to warm up. Can we really know this with 100% certainty? The bottom line is that we MIGHT be. If we act as if we are, and act accordingly, in the end, we will all be better off for it (if only to not be buying oil from the middle east). If we’re wrong, and do nothing, we’re screwed.
Clearly you have some serious political motivation behind your opinion. You’ve made that achingly clear.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
BR, you need to read up on the Climategate scandal. The Climate Research Unit cooked the books as surely as Madoff. Unlike Madoff, they started with real numbers, but then they’ve modified them to make their case. The data released not only included emails that described their desire to falsify numbers, but the programs that they actually used to do it, and the programmer’s notes as he embedded “fudge factors” and “HIGHLY ARTIFICIAL” adjustments. That’s not science, and it’s the reason the Climate Research Unit’s head has had to step aside.
“That is not he case in the data referenced above. Data and facts trump opinion.” Yes, the data and the facts say that the numbers on the RealClimate.org website have been cooked.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Tuck – oh excuse me, I wasn’t aware that CRU was the only game in town with regard to climate research.
Let me guess, everyone involved in climate research (NASA, NOAA, etc) is also cooking their books. . . .
December 8th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Thor – have a look at http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/ .
It predates Climategate and makes clear that CRU is not an anomaly.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
freejack,
Go for it: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
The data is not being hidden, though it would make a better story if it was.
Climategate,
Read the text in the link. I am referring to the global statistics. We’re talking about global warming, not North American warming.
Regarding the proxy’s, I was simply trying to disprove the the sun was increasing warming, not prove that it was a significant contributor. We only have accurate (non-proxy) records for a relatively short period of time. I think that you also forget that those emails are from the early 2000’s. The last solar maximum was in the late 90’s. A lot has happened since then. Since then, we’ve been in the hottest decade on record while solar irradiance has been steadily decreasing throughout the 2000’s. The above average irradiance 90’s were cooler than the below average irradiance 2000’s. If there was a significant link, it would have been seen in the last 20 years. Instead we’re having some of the hottest years during times of low irrandiance. The bottom line is that, if you’re trying to prove the solar cycles are a significant enough factor to account for GW, we have accurate data from the last 20 years that shows otherwise. The proxies are just that, approximate. On top of that, the magnitude of change over the last 40o years is approximately only half of the magnitude of the 11 year cycle. So, today’s 11 year minimum (as in the year 2009) is about the same as the 1600’s average (based on proxy). If this were the primary factor, then 2009 should be similar to an average year from that era, not on track to be one of the top 5 hottest years ever recorded. This is hardly a smoking gun. Something else must be at play.
When talking about surface temperatures, you also need to account for contrails, which are known to have a net cooling effect, as estimated by models and evidenced by measurements taken on 9/11/2001 and the following days (the only time it could be empirically tested). On average, air travel has been increasing during the industrial age. The ozone hole, which is anticipated to have peaked last year and is expected to continue to get smaller into the future, has also helped to push surface temperatures lower, but will contribute to additional (relative) warming in the future. The bottom line is that all of these things are relatively small compared to the effect of CO2, and probably mostly cancel each other out. Again, something else must be at play.
And as for the CO2 numbers themselves, as rc said, you only have half of the equation. You can’t ignore what’s being taken out.
What you’re doing is looking for every piece of noise in the data that fits your preconceived notion and using that as evidence, while ignoring the vast majority of evidence to the contrary. That’s opportunistic, not scientific. Then again, I guess that’s all the AGW denial community has to work with, besides some criminally obtained decade-old emails and some weathermen who claim that forecasting local weather gives them credentials to be climate scientists.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
@Climategate:
“During this period, CO2 increased, sun activity decreased, global temperature decreased.
If CO2 was causing the “global warming” , then the temperature should be increasing (not decreasing).”
First of all, globally averaged temperature hasn’t been really decreasing. It just has increased less or stayed about the same at maximum. Secondly, your statement is not correct. It only would be correct, if someone said CO2 was the only factor that determines the temperature. No one says global warming means it has to be warmer every year than the previous one, or every five years than the previous five ones. There even could be a few decades during which temperature doesn’t change so much or with some cooling again. Look at the 20th century data, because this has happened then. Global warming is a long-term trend of the temperature over many decades and centuries coming, which is overlaid by temperature changes due to other factors. There is, of course, solar activity as one of the factors. There are also man made aerosols in the atmosphere and there are other climate forcings. And there is internal natural variability in the climate system from inter-annual to inter-decadal time scales as well. All these other factors modify the temperature trend which would be observed, if greenhouse gases were the only factor.
“Also, look at the solar activity since 1600 (note the sharp increase in solar activity since 1900)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png”
Yes, solar activity has increased, but just from showing this graphic you can’t conclude it accounts for the whole temperature increase. This would be a non-sequitur.
The solar radiative forcing increase since the Maunder minimum is estimated in recent studies to amount between 0.12 and 0.3 W/m^2 (see IPCC-report, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 2, pg. 188pp, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf). This is small compared to the radiative forcing by greenhouse gases of about 2.6 W/m^2.
Here is a figure with the solar activity for the recent 30 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png
If the sun had mainly been responsible for the observed temperature curve as you claim temperature would have had to follow this cyclic pattern w/o the observed increase for the last 30 years, wouldn’t it? I even see a slight trending down in the solar activity.
So, the decrease in the solar activity would rather contradict the hypothesis that the sun is the main contributor to the temperature increase over the last decades.
As for the other post:
“Re: “Where do you get this nonsense from?”
Did you read the “ginormous graphic”?”
There isn’t anything in the graphic that says scientists shifted data “to fit” their theory.
rc
December 8th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
“Let me guess, everyone involved in climate research (NASA, NOAA, etc) is also cooking their books. . . .”
i would venture to say- they don’t know what they are doing- they are trying to understand- and making models- but has anyone considered that all the assumptions are incorrect-
anyway- you have a good point thor- in that- why don’t we just sell the clean air, water, environment idea-
that’s something everyone should agree on
December 8th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Tuck,
For one, the BP really isn’t the right outlet for exploring climate science controversies. Financial ones, yes.
Secondly, it’s too bad nothing was found when the University of Victoria was broken into. See:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-conspiracies-stolen-emails-used-to-ridicule-global-warming-1835031.html
It also emerged yesterday that computer hackers have repeatedly tried to steal files from a prominent climate change expert in Canada. Professor Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria, said: “One of the sad realities of being a scientist working in this area is you get targeted. I have had no end of nasty emails and phone calls.” His office has been broken into twice and hackers have tried to break into his computer system several times during the past year. “They were trying to find any dirt they could, as they have done in the UK,” said Professor Weaver, a member of the IPCC. “If they can’t find ‘dirt’, they manufacture it from out-of-context emails or skewed statistics,” he added. “
I guess, as suggested by Thor, CRU is the only game in town, at least if you want emails with questionable language. I guess you don’t want to admit that out of thousands of emails, break ins, etc., a few CRU emails, when taken out of context, are the only things that really support the theory that climate science is based on cooked books. Not one thing could be found after multiple break-ins in Canada. Doesn’t do much for the theory that there’s a global conspiracy. Better not let that one get out. Oops, that’s too bad.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Thor,
“Let me guess, everyone involved in climate research (NASA, NOAA, etc) is also cooking their books. . . .”
Exactly like this. A gigantic conspiracy, in which hundreds or thousands of scientist from all over the world are involved. They do this to enrich themselves (as it is said, follow the money!) with precious tax payer money, because academic jobs provide the best income in this society, as you know, and to party all night long and laugh at the stupid public that is so gullible.
Even the Japanese Meteorological Agency is part of it:
http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/indexe.html
rc
December 8th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
A little Occam’s Razor goes a long way.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
This is a smoking gun.
I suspect many more examples like this one will be uncovered once the climate data is made public. (for more details you can click through to WUWT)
http://joannenova.com.au/
December 8th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
“A gigantic conspiracy, in which hundreds or thousands of scientist from all over the world are involved. They do this to enrich themselves (as it is said, follow the money!) with precious tax payer money, because academic jobs provide the best income in this society, as you know, and to party all night long and laugh at the stupid public that is so gullible.”
exactly RC- now you’re catching on- lol
but really- who cares- this whole subject makes me laugh- i can’t even take it seriously
December 8th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Trolls win! Trolls win!
Climategate: If you were a hotdog and you were starving, would you eat yourself?
Trolls win! Trolls win!
December 8th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
If the books are cooked then why isn’t China claiming foul?
December 8th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
@Bsneath:
“This is a smoking gun.
I suspect many more examples like this one will be uncovered once the climate data is made public. (for more details you can click through to WUWT)”
Really? As if the climate data haven’t been available for a long time.
And here is the GISS temperature analysis. The plot shows the global distribution of the temperature change in the period 1999-2008 compared to the period 1880-1889:
http://tinyurl.com/ygux658
which you can get using this tool:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
What does it show? A cooling for Northern Australia. Global warming isn’t globally uniform. Of course, one can deliberately choose a certain region where there has been little warming or even a cooling to spread the rumor the data have been forged. A smoking gun? Yes, maybe for the dishonesty of the whatsupwiththat-blog or the cognitive bias of “climate skeptics”.
rc
December 8th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Before citing the GISS or any other long term termperature series please read:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/
It rather makes a mockery of them.
The fact of insufficient and inconsistent temperature data points has to hold for each of the major time series. Climategate confirms the author’s hypothesis, expanded upon in his reply to comments.
If you have an open mind, it might actually make you change it.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
@Robert Carruthers:
“Before citing the GISS or any other long term termperature series please read:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/
It rather makes a mockery of them.”
Sure, mockery is supposed to replace any serious argument based on facts. The results of the science aren’t convenient, so they must be forged. World-wide. “Climate skeptics” don’t have much more to offer.
rc
December 8th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
I think rc must be Gavin Smith over at Real Climate.
Anyways, there will not be a meeting of the minds on an issue as contentious as this one. There is without doubt much emotion behind the comments of many.
It is similar to how I react every time I think about how Wall Street has ruined this nation. The good news for the AGW crowd is that after the collapse of our economy, meeting the new CO2 targets won’t be all that difficult.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
The following commentary is by Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane forecasting specialist Dr. William Gray. Gray is the renowned hurricane forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU).
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/4369/Hurricane-Expert-Rips-Climate-Fears-There-has-been-an-unrelenting-quarter-century-of-onesided-indoctrination
December 8th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
@bsneath:
I feel honored, but it’s not him.
rc
December 8th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
http://blogs.chron.com/nickanderson/archives/2009/12/post_118.html
December 8th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Ahab – agree with you. I don’t really have an opinion on global warming one way or another – unlike bsneath here, I realize that I could not possibly understand the science behind global weather. I do, however, think we should strive to live in the cleanest world we can technologically obtain. As I said, whether we are the cause of the Earth warming or not, does anyone here actually think it’s a good idea for us to be importing oil from the very same people who turn that money around and stab us in the back with it?
December 8th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
“Go for it: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
The data is not being hidden, though it would make a better story if it was.”
I’ve frequented the site, seen a lot of what you’ve linked to. However, much like the printout of an EKG for a person admitted to a hospital for an M.I. , I’ll leave it to the experts for interpretation.
Now…. if the issue at hand has been identified and we all agree upon the problem needing to be addressed, then the question … from a cost/benefit perspective … is ; ‘what is the best way to proceed?’
I’m open to a ‘democratic’ process in resolving these policy question.
But the facts? They’re not open to popular vote.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
BR,
Humans account for only 3% of all annual C02 released into the environment. Wipe humanity from the face of the earth and you will only be able to reduce C02 by 3%. What is the point of spending trillions to reduce C02 by a very small fraction? See the data at: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
December 9th, 2009 at 2:07 am
rootless_cosmopolitan Says:
December 8th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
@Robert Carruthers:
‘“Before citing the GISS or any other long term termperature series please read:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/
It rather makes a mockery of them.”
Sure, mockery is supposed to replace any serious argument based on facts.’
Since you obviously have not read the piece, I’ll copy key comment below. Read the article to see the basis for the comment:
“I must admit, it has turned out to be more (and worse) than I expected when I started this journey. But a job once started must be carried to a conclusion…
As to motive and goal of the GIStemp “designers”. On the one hand, I cherish Hanlon’s Razor and try desperately to find a way to attribute this mess to stupidity rather than malice. For a long time I could make it fit. It just took a lot of stupidity.
Lately, and most especially with the world wide thermometer deletions, seeming timed in just such a way as to continue a warming trend in the product even in the face of a cooling reality, peaking just as Copenhagen looms… I find the quantity of stupidity needed to “do the deed” and the exquisite timing of the arrival of that stupidity, first in the code, then in the thermometer counts after the code was released and could no longer be ‘tuned’; I find it begins to approach infinity…
And frankly, given the extreme views publicly expressed by Hansen as a public person and NASA ranking manager; and his blatant advocacy for breaking the law, trespass, vandalism, and civil disobedience to promote that agenda: I find it increasingly hard to presume he would be above putting bias into his work product in the furtherance of his stated political goals when he has stated vandalism is a viable moral behaviour.
And finally, the places in the code that are parameterized and show clear tuning (places where a knob can be turned and the result observed, that now have the knob pegged at a position that shows more warming…) those places are ‘footprints in the snow’ showing what the designers were thinking and doing.
So, reluctantly, and against my will, I find myself forced to inspect ALL of Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
And I find stupidity inadequate. And more so every day and every page of code examined and every change of thermometer locations discovered.
“The truth just is. -emsmith”
And there is only so much you can ignore before you must decide that the truth just is, and accept it. However reluctantly.
BTW, I think you have come to have a decent understanding of GIStemp, given your comment. And that is why I call GIStemp “A Data Fabrication Program”. It must create data where there are none. It has no other choice. The data are not there at the start, and are there in the product.
And the way it fabricates those data are tuned. The code has clear parameters chosen to do that tuning. (In the code listings, look for the FORTRAN key word PARAMETER. Also look at the values passed in at run time from the scripts to the programs – like variously 1000 km or 1200 km; or sometimes 6 zones, sometimes more…)
Hansen wrote most of it (and manages all of it); and he has a stated public agenda promoted with vigor and has advocated for folks doing public malicious acts in promotion of that agenda.
Motive. Capacity. Opportunity. Behaviour. Effects.
It’s all there but the email logs and meeting notes. And there is no moral compass to prevent “the deed”.
So while I’d want to subpoena some records and do a formal investigation before bringing charges, I think there is plenty of probable cause to support doing that investigation.”
December 9th, 2009 at 2:19 am
I should probably add that the problem with corrupted base data is it makes all models built on it suspect. Given climategate for CRU and http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/ for GISS we know the data is corrupted in a manner that will result in apparent warming.
If the data series used as the basis for the models are biased to produce warming, then so will the models using this data and those relying on them. It does not take a massive global conspiracy, just the effects of
CS Lewis’ The Inner Ring (Making good men do bad things) http://ridedirt.com/mb/index.php?topic=170.0
December 9th, 2009 at 2:39 am
“I am with the Scientific, peer reviewed consensus on this one”
Too bad – this is actually pretty similar to the ‘academic’ consensus around securitisation that was one of the proximate causes of the credit boom and collapse. In both cases, there has been an over-reliance on ‘whizz-kids’ using computer models to predict outcomes. As you have alluded to wrt the financial crisis computer models, GIGO. Same applies here
The real trouble with AGW is it is not a falsifiable hypothesis. Not by measuring surface or atmospheric temperatures anyway or their proxies. While you can fashion a historical record for this and for CO2 atmospheric concentrations, and look for correlations, correlation is not causation.
Maybe we should release 20 billion tonnes of CO2 all at once into the atmosphere over, let’s say Washington DC – and measure the change in local temperature and CO2 concentration this causes at multiple weather stations simultaneously over days and weeks. This would give us a clearer idea of the radiative effect of CO2 on the atmosphere. That would be real science
The (failing) hunt for correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature is not really science.
You should check out Eschenbach’ ’smoking gun’ article at wattsupwiththat
You will learn that there are 3 global temperature records, CRU, GISS and GHCN. All get their raw data from GHCN. All adjust the temperature record for local factors by their own methodologies. This is the set of databases upon which the ‘peer-review consensus’ is made.
The Climategate emails and computer code, coupled with denial of FOIA requests to others – these mean something – that we can no longer rely on their methodologies without checking them first. The peer-review process failed to check this out. We have to look at what they have done to the raw data, openly and transparently, for every weather station used. And whether or not there has been fraud/ falsification of data
If their records still stand after this process, so be it. But it needs to be done
December 9th, 2009 at 3:13 am
Well said anjan. I could not agree more.
December 9th, 2009 at 5:11 am
That most uncommon of qualities, common sense, yields the completely ascientific conclusion that (like smoking) persistently abusive CO2 emission levels must have severe eco-system (bio-system) consequences. The village fool knows as much and finds the scientific conclusions merely affirmative to that common sense. Actions have consequences–duh! The denialists of climate change and of its human origins must do more to convince the rest of us of the rightness of their ostrich-like approach than quote unreviewed, pseudo-scientific-sounding “findings.” They must address directly the underlying difficulty with their polemics: common sense flies in the face of it.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:25 am
This is identical with the federal debt controversy, where the majority tell you “debt bad, surplus good,” while their voices drown out the well-documented hypothesis that “debt necessary, surplus disaster.”
There are a significant number of respected economists who propose that were the government to fund universal health care and Social Security, while eliminating FICA, the economy quickly would emerge from recession to prosperity — but these scientists are written off a kooks, not by evidence but by intuition.
Perhaps these scientists are wrong, but the debt hawks never want to evaluate. They just know in their bones, “debt bad, surplus good and please don’t bother me with facts.” Even worse, many debt hawks (for instance the Concord Coalition) owe their salaries to this belief. For certain, they don’t want to hear counter evidence. Again, this is similar to the climate controversy, where many scientists owe their salaries to the “man-causes-global-warming” point of view.
Rather than talking about a scientific “consensus” (which sounds so settled), we could refer to a “majority,” which leaves open the opinions of the minority. In science, the minority often is proven correct.
A chart, motivated by the above graphic (though not as pretty) can be found at http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/the-federal-deficit-debate/
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
December 10th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
There is a good online debate on the Climategate at MIT Today
http://web.mit.edu/webcastnow/2/
http://globalchange.mit.edu/news/event-item.php?id=218
Best,
Alejandro