Guest essay by Dr. Matt Ridley
![20101109_abraham_33[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/20101109_abraham_331.jpg)
And here’s his piece: http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/16/john-abraham-slams-matt-ridley-climate-denial-op-ed-wall-street-journal.
It’s a poor response, characterized by inaccurate representation of what I said, even down to actual misquoting. In the whole article, he puts just four words in quotation marks as written by me, yet in doing so he misses out a whole word: 20% of the quotation. Remarkable. If I did that, I would be very embarrassed.
He directly contradicts the IPCC’s report on extreme weather, which found no link between current storms and man-made climate change; he is apparently unaware that the rising costs of extreme weather are entirely caused by rising investment and insurance values, not rising quantities of extreme weather, as even a small amount of research would have told him ( http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/follow-up-q-from-senate-epw.html ); he falsely claims that I say rising sea levels will be beneficial, when I wrote no such thing; and he wholly ignores the benefits of mild climate change, even though I was careful to say that the key thing is to compare costs and benefits. It is possible that he does not know the meaning of the word “net”: he certainly shows no understanding of the concept.
“General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media,” said climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently. “It’s this popular perception that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even though if anyone thinks about that for 10 seconds they realize that’s nonsense.”
Mr Abraham’s main point is that up to 2 degrees C of warming is likely to do net harm. For this surprising claim, he produces noevidence. None. The evidence suggest the opposite – that less than two degrees of warming will cut excess winter deaths, increase average rainfall, extendgrowing seasons and increase rates of photosynthesis in wild and agricultural ecosystems. “A global warming of less than 2.5°C could have no significant effect on overall food production,” says the UNFCC website.
See links here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165188913000092%00 and here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/winter-kills-excess-deaths-in-the-winter-months/.
And yet it is he who accuses me of “non-science nonsense”. It’s truly disgraceful that a tenured academic, as I assume Mr Abraham to be, should make so many mistakes and yet feel free to hurl unsubstantiated abuse at another human being, however desperate he may be. In writing about climate change I am careful not to make unprovoked ad-hominem attacks – until attacked in this way.
I always play the ball, not the man. Mr Abraham, if he wishes to be taken seriously, should try to do likewise.
Abraham is clearly a fool with delusions of political grandeur.
Thanks, Matt.
Fact filled and fun. “I always play the ball, not the man.” Pretty soon it’s going to be the only way to argue in climate. The voters and energy bill payers will make sure of that.
So, we have a specific statement from the UN – the first I have read – that up to 2.5 degrees warming will cause no harm. (That is, no loss of food production – I assume some one is projecting/predicting/thinking/propagandizing that somehow a temperature rise of greater than 2.5 degrees would cause a “Sahara desert” effect of destroying crops.) Thank you.
2.0 degrees is considered “acceptable” as well for their CO2 control schemes, I would assume that those who fear sea level rise believe that 2.0 degrees warming will not flood those “ever-so-precious” few square km’s of sea islands that are threatened by a 20 cm rise. (All of this assuming that sea level rise is proportional to air temperature rise and that both could be controlled by harming human life by controlling human-released CO2, of course. )
But what was not stated was his assumed baseline of where the 2.5 degrees warming would be marked from: Is that from the natural warming of our recovery from the LIA? Or from today’s 2000-2010 Mann-made peak?
“For this surprising claim, he provides noevidence.” There should be a space between ‘no’ and ‘evidence’.
Otherwise, good response to a poor response to a good Wall Street Journal article.
Well put Matt. You have the best thing in your article that Mr Abraham completely dismisses. Evidence, with links, from reputable sources.
In the whole article, he puts just four words in quotation marks as written by me, yet in doing so he misses out a whole word: 20% of the quotation.
What were the four quoted words?
What should have been the five word quote?
What should have been the five word quote in context?
“General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media,” said climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently. “It’s this popular perception that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even though if anyone thinks about that for 10 seconds they realize that’s nonsense.”
Gavin better be careful. He was likely unaware that this was under development from NOAA’s NCDC a few weeks ago. I think the title says it all:
New analyses find evidence of human-caused climate change in half of the 12 extreme weather and climate events analyzed from 2012
I guess Schmidtty didn’t get the memo on the Weather Extreme meme. As I noted the other day, these guys are inspirational. 1912, I mean, 2012 was a banner year for extreme weather.
Mr. Abraham will never play the ball because it does not bounce to his viewpoint.
Stephan Rasey makes a good point and there should be a reply.
Dr. Ridley, Desmogblog is funded by a PR firm led by Hoggan. This Hoggan is chairman of the David Suzuki Foundation that is on the payroll of US green billionaires and their allies that are holding the Province of British Columbia and the City of Vancouver under their flow of money and policies. Hoggan has made huge amounts of money in his greenwashing campaign for the Province owned utilities company BC Hydro.
With only a slight vertical cranial extension he could pass for one of the Coneheads. (Definitely not playing the ball.)
Original by Matt: “Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage.”
Quote by Abraham: “…no net and ecological damage.”
There’s a reason the more politically savy warmists avoid debate.
In the quote, the missing word was “economic”. He wrote “no net or ecological damage”, when I had written “no net economic or ecological damage”. Whoops! — my quote was six words, his 5! that reduces his inaccuracy to 16.67%.
I just went to DeSmog and they popped up with another Abraham missive about Lord Monckton responding or reresponding to something Lord Moonckton posted on WUWT…
Abraham refused to link the WUWT article and suggested that people “Google” it for themselves.
GGIH…doesn’t want to expose the “less inclined” to the influence of WUWT
(Apparently a bunch of “scientists” want to put up more money in Lord Monckton’s wager
Abraham: All hat; no cattle.
When they have nothing left to arguet they must invent something or other to try and make some irrelevant point. Academics are unfortunately living in their very own cloistered environment where they deliberately choose to read or study their own interests in order to plan their next self-promotion. Sadly, they display the ignorance nd bias that one would hope they should dispel in their students. So much for that dream!
He needs a lesson in how to wear a tie. (Definitely not playing the ball.)
Huh. There don’t seem to be any comments on John Abraham’s article. Obviously there are bunches here, and quite a few on Dr. Ridley’s original post. Makes one wonder which articles are actually being read and comprehended. Or perhaps anonymous commentators are wising up. Could be both.
Stephen Rasey at 8:16 am asks:
> What were the four quoted words?
> What should have been the five word quote?
> What should have been the five word quote in context?
Even I could figure that out from the two sources prominently linked at the top of the article.
The quote: “no net or ecological damage”
The original: “no net economic and ecological damage”
The context of the quote: “Second, Mr. Ridley makes the unsubstantiated claim that warming of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit will result in ‘no net or ecological damage’.”
The context of the original: “Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.”
Gavin’s statement is also a bit of a catch-all..just because we aren’t seeing extremes (hurricanes, tornados, ice loss, etc) doesn’t mean climate change isn’t happening.
Page rank of Desmogblog. 174 K.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/desmogblog.com
Just for comparison, one man, no budget, operation notrickszone bests them with 163 K.
Stephen Rasey@8:16
Here’s Ridley’s sentance with the 5 word Quote:
Here’s Abraham’s sentance with the adjusted quote:
Just looked at the Abraham article. He claims that Ridley is talking about the lower limit but all the studies talk about the median. I linked to this WSJ article the other day specifically because it references (not links) about 6-8 recent Nature, GRL papers. So Abraham’s claim that he does not reference things is misleading at best.
mark wagner says:
September 17, 2013 at 8:44 am
Abraham: All hat; no cattle
yeah – and on a dead horse that he is flogging like bill-o !
Michael Jankowski says:
September 17, 2013 at 8:55 am
Gavin’s statement is also a bit of a catch-all..just because we aren’t seeing extremes (hurricanes, tornados, ice loss, etc) doesn’t mean climate change isn’t happening.
Good grief. WHO ON EARTH is saying, or ever said, climate doesn’t change?! OF COURSE it changes.
1) How much, and in what direction(s), is it changing?
2) How much of the change is attributable to human activity?
3) Is the change dangerous, beneficial, neutral, or a little of everything?
4) Does the change need to be stopped? How in hell do you do that?
From John Abraham’s response:
“By using energy more efficiently, we save money and the planet at the same time. By investing in smart, renewable energy, we can create the economy of the future. That is the message that should be heard, not non-science nonsense from persons like Mr. Ridley.”
There is so much wrong with this closing comment that I can only describe it as multi-dimensionally wrong! Being more efficient with energy will save money, but not have a great deal of impact on global CO2 emissions. The planet is absolutely fine either way and is in no need of ‘saving’. That is a scientific reality. Using renewable energy is far less efficient and contradicts his first sentence. It is not ‘smart’ to use renewables accept in specific, localized circumstances, so there is very little ‘smart’ renewable energy to invest in. Certainly, his advise, if taken, will create the ‘economy of the future’. It is called poverty, and I don’t think that anyone wants to pay that price to fix something that is not broken.. Mr. Abraham had to ignore a lot of science to write such a stupid statement. His entire response ignores the available science and promotes fear mongering. No wonder he had to call Mr. Ridley names. There were no scientific arguments he could make. In fact, there haven’t been any for a long time.
The mere idea that a rise of 2 degrees could cause any harm whatsoever is ludicrous. It was a fair bit warmer in the Mediaeval Warm Period and that’s when culture and agriculture flourished.
I realize that Dr. Abraham is likely just providing PR fodder for the political machine, however, he should adhere to the same level of “reason” he is requiring of Lord Ridley. We should deconstruct his closing paragraph and deal with it in terms of economics, as is his preference. Though, I don’t think he is an economist, so perhaps he isn’t suited to discuss the economic
“…there are already economic costs”
Two things:
1) What costs might those be? Are they raised insurance premiums? A loss of employment due to a natural disaster “wiping” out your place of employment? We need specifics, not generalities.
2) Can you produce evidence that global warming caused the increase in these costs? And more specifically that global warming of the “human induced” kind was the exact cause?
You see, costs imply a payment. Usually those costs are born by the victims of a disaster or those that willingly “prepay” for such eventualities in the form of insurance premiums (so as to “spread the risk around”). In this instance, you cannot charge “mother nature” for the costs. However, you can require that EVERYONE pay for the “alleged” eventualities through intimidation by force (e.g. taxation by government agencies) of law.
“By using energy more efficiently, we save money and the planet at the same time.”
There are a lot of assumptions upon which this quote rely as support. Dr. Abraham assumes that by using energy more efficiently, we would save both money and the planet.
1) What does he mean by “efficiently”? Since his statement previous to the one I quoted above rules out “futuristic technology”, he cannot rely upon better AC or Heating unit designs (e.g. those that require less amperage to establish its BTU rating than the contemporary designs), as that would require future technology. The same would be true when discussing power generation. Therefore, I suggest that he is referring to the behavior of the marketplace participants. In which case I suspect he is attempting to influence the marketplace to favor more energy efficient technologies (which presumably have already been developed) over those that perform the same function at a higher cost of energy input. Perhaps he means that we should accept a more “reduced” standard of living for the sake of efficiency. We should voluntarily elect to use fewer electric devices than we currently use. We should elect to live in a warmer climate during the summer months than previously elected by setting our thermostat to a higher threshold on the AC system. Similar, we should elect to live in a colder climate during the winter months than previously elected by setting our thermostat to a lower threshold on the heating unit. I think a clarification on what he means by “By using energy more efficiently…” would solve a lot my questions. However, that could be a whole other can of worms as they say “the devil is in the details…”.
2) “we save money” — Save money on what? The electric bill or fuel oil bill? I would suggest that there are other concerns to the marketplace that might be more compelling than simply energy efficiency. Can the substitute products (more energy efficient) be obtained at an individual level? What good is an AC unit that will reduce your annual electricity costs by $25 USD a year if it costs $5000 USD more to purchase than similar, less energy efficient models (assuming the same service life). Are the costs associated with system replacement worth the savings from the efficiency? In the case of power generation (an input to so many other market place participants production cycles), is the cost of using “green power” at or below the cost of switching from power generated by non-green sources. Perhaps the most fatal of the assumption is that even with a net savings in the cost of using electricity (end cost to consumer), the end user would not spend that money elsewhere resulting in a “net” zero money saved. You see “saving money” is not the same as a particular “cost savings”. You can still save money without using more efficient systems. The two are not so dependent upon each other.
3) “…and the planet at the same time” — Really? How so? He assumes that global warming will destroy the planet? How does he know this? I think he is wanting to say that we would be saving significant portions of biological life currently residing on the planet. Outside of this simply being a “PR headline”, I fail to see what benefit that such a statement have one way or the other. You cannot promise something you cannot control. We could all adopt a wonderful, sufficiently “green” power generating source only to find out that we have doomed the planet to destruction (physical destruction, or extinction of all life forms from its surface) in the end.
“I can inform the readers that this isn’t necessarily the case” Can anyone quantify this ? does it mean yes, no, possibly, unlikely or what? “It aint’ necessarily so………..”
It’s amusing that the more the world warms the less extreme weather we will have as the jetstream range variation or longitudinal amplitude is decreased in a warmer earth, and the temperature gradient from the tropics to the Arctic Circle is less steep creating less convective turmoil.
Apparently Abraham is unaware of the most basic principles in climate science.
David says:
September 17, 2013 at 9:20 am
The mere idea that a rise of 2 degrees could cause any harm whatsoever is ludicrous. It was a fair bit warmer in the Mediaeval Warm Period and that’s when culture and agriculture flourished.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This era ( MWP) is known to historians as the High Middle Ages because of the relative prosperity of those times, which were followed by the double whammy of global cooling and the plague of the fourteenth century. Cooler climate brought decreased agricultural production and consequent economic contraction and the plague was an added misery. The CAGW alarmists are wrong on all counts, for a warmer world is a better world.
DirkH,
Thank you for the link to the alexa stats for desmogblog. Forgive my Eurocentric bias here, but am I the only one who finds it suspect that a full 17.7% of the visitors to desmogblog are from the Philippines and India? Really? Kind of has that Al Gore Climate Reality Project stank to it. I also find it pretty funny that “GWPF” and “Marc Morano” are two of the top four keywords directing traffic to the site (more than “desmogblog” itself). Channeling Nelson Muntz.
Quick follow-up to my last comment, sure enough when you search “Marc Morano” on google, the first link that comes up is to desmogblog (fourth link when searching “GWPF”). Such a tolerant bunch.
“If I did that, I would be very embarrassed.”
There is and will be no embarassment from the alarmists. In fact they will become yet more shrill and belligerent as their edifice collapses. We need to keep up the pressure on them lest they morph into some other imagined disaster that they will use to establish their agenda.
Dr. Matt Ridley says: “extend-growing seasons and increase rates of photosynthesis”.
First, you should laugh at any criticisms ‘Team climate moron’ have to say, since they are the ones who are wrong with all the doom-mongering.
But, Since when did Co2 or temperature get the ability to change the Earths Axial tilt of 23.4° since it is the Axial tilt that causes the seasons. Photosynthesis is a process based on light and not temperature. 😉
Sorry, one more follow-up as I thought this was worth sharing. desmogblog comes up on the second page on google when searching “Anthony Watts” so somehow our gracious host keeps the AGW hordes at bay (page 4 for “WUWT”). But our friends at SkepticalPseudoscience do make the front page when searching “Anthony Watts.” Me thinks your having honored them exclusively with the title of Unreliable has gotten under their skin a bit. Mr. Cook has had a bit of a PR nightmare as of late so I can see why.
“…I am careful not to make unprovoked ad-hominem attacks.”
Ah, but Dr. Ridley, you did say, “…a tenured academic, as I assume Mr Abraham to be…” In today’s world, if anyone applied the contemptuous epithet “academic” to me, I’d be highly insulted and would strenuously deny the allegation.
/s²
Thanks, Dr. Ridley. You wrote a good article.
Sparks says regarding “extending growing seasons”: “…Since when did Co2 or temperature get the ability to change the Earths Axial tilt of 23.4° since it is the Axial tilt that causes the seasons. Photosynthesis is a process based on light and not temperature. ;)”
Growing seasons are different from seasons.
Sorry once again. Don’t know how I missed this, but the link right above the SS, sorry SkS, link (though in light of their photo gallery…) that come up on google when searching “Anthony Watts” was this hilarity. LOL! I admit I did a triple-take when I read the headline. And I thought football was a tough game!
“Photosynthesis is a process based on light and not temperature. ;)”
it’s also based on… CO2, the most important consequence of more CO2 is that it stimulates plant growth, temperature is just a side issue
Sparks at 10:14 am said “Since when did Co2 or temperature get the ability to change the Earths Axial tilt of 23.4° since it is the Axial tilt that causes the seasons. Photosynthesis is a process based on light and not temperature.”
Look up the concept of Growing Degree Days. Yes, light is a necessary input for photosynthesis. So are water and CO2. Plant growth and maturation, however, is a far more complex phenomenon. Growth can be constrained if one or more of the necessary inputs is below a required threshold but within a fairly broad range of “normal” growing conditions, there is a strong and direct correlation between cumulative temperature and cumulative growth.
@sparks: Photosynthesis rate is based on light intensity, temperature and CO2 concentration. Commercial greenhouses increase temperature and some increase CO2 in the greenhouse to increase seedling growth rate.
jorgekafkazar says:
September 17, 2013 at 10:21 am
Sparks says . . .
seasons
specific example – fruit set temperature for tomatoes
general example – ‘growing degree days’
The bit about “axial tilt of” suggests that Sparks was thinking very narrowly. Still, I wonder?
jorgekafkazar says:
September 17, 2013 at 10:21 am
“Growing seasons are different from seasons.”
Of course growing seasons vary in length, they are not caused by Co2 or temperature, sometimes a farmer will have a long sunny summer and autumn/fall which will extend the growing season and result in a late harvest, and sometimes a farmer will have a long wet summer and autumn/fall which will reduce the growing season and result in an early harvest. Long sunny summers have warmer temperatures than long wet summers which are cooler, extended sunny conditions also increase rates of photosynthesis, it is not temperature or C02 that increase the rates of photosynthesis.
Higher CO2 levels are great for plants and they do grow much better, but without plenty of sunlight it doesn’t matter how much CO2 there is, the plants will not grow.
If you put a seed in a dark room and increase the amount of CO2 and increase the temperature the seed will not grow. Even if you put a potted house plant into a dark room raise CO2 levels and keep the temperature warm, the plant will eventually die off.
I guess Abraham is one of the “climate fighters” his friends Cook and Nucitelli ramble on about. However, he’s fighting from the site of the chairman of the David Suzuki foundation. It doesn’t have anything to do with science, nor does it bother much with fact.
In one of the Climategate emails, Desmogblog’s Richard Littlemore contacted Mann to ask some temperature questions.
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=34
The money quote from Littlemore in describing himself and Desmogblog is . . . “but I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we’re all about PR here, not much about science). . .”
Says it all really.
John F. Hultquist says:
September 17, 2013 at 10:48 am
jorgekafkazar says:
September 17, 2013 at 10:21 am
Sparks says . . .
seasons
specific example – fruit set temperature for tomatoes
general example – ‘growing degree days’
The bit about “axial tilt of” suggests that Sparks was thinking very narrowly. Still, I wonder?
John F, One of my many talents is that I am a qualified horticulturalist, 😉
I’m not criticizing Dr. Matt Ridley, I’m just pointing out a myth that he may not be aware of.
For all the gloom and doom about increasing global temperatures and our intemperate use of fossil fuels it is interesting to note that with both of these, in general, the average life expectancy has increased globally. Increased availability of relatively inexpensive energy, new technologies and increasing global wealth seems to have negated the Ehrlich doomsday predictions of 40 years ago. Norway was best in 1960 with an average life expectancy of ~73.6 years, in 2011 it was Japan with ~82.7 years. The US increased from 69.8-78.6. Afghanistan went from 31.3-59.6, Sierra Leone went from 32.3-46.5. http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/history-of-life-expectancy
Why do folks like Abraham believe that we should now make energy more expensive and less available? You’d think those folks out to save the plant would have more regard for the third world.
“Dr. Matt Ridley says: “extend-growing seasons and increase rates of photosynthesis”.
…
But, Since when did Co2 or temperature get the ability to change the Earths Axial tilt of 23.4° since it is the Axial tilt that causes the seasons. Photosynthesis is a process based on light and not temperature. ;)”
An interesting proposition that implies that the growing season on the top of Mount Whitney and in Fresno are the same length
(hint: it is warmer in Fresno)
Meh… He’s talking nonsense; why get too upset about it?
That would be a reasonable response, IF the nonsense he is talking was not foisting a truly enormous financial and ecologic burden upon us. Perhaps the sheeple will only wake up to it when they realise that nearly ALL their taxes are being spent supporting such loonies, while the weather continues what is has always done – surprising (and embarrassing) us. It is not the first time that a hurricane, like Sandy (actually, the other 3 were stronger!), has teamed up to batter New York, nor will it be the last time. What amazes me is that, having had it happen 3 times in the 19th C., there were no defences it against it happening again – at least the British had the nous to erect the Thames barrier after the floods in the 1960s.
Climates change – live with it! Let’s face it, there is absolutely NOTHING we can do to alter that fact.
painter says:
September 17, 2013 at 9:38 am
…
Cooler climate brought decreased agricultural production and consequent economic contraction and the plague was an added misery. T…
Just an observation. While it is become quite fashionable to blame many things on climate change, there’s little justification in attributing the plague to it. Instead, the plagues might well be the result of the High Middle Ages themselves. Increased trade and increased distances traveled in order to trade exposed many “naieve” populations to each other both directly and indirectly through stowaways such as rats and their accompanying pests. The fact that outbreaks of the plague coincided with climate shifts may simply be the difference between correlated and causal. There really isn’t adequate evidence to evaluate the idea.
If you look deep enough, you will usually find that the people that are persistent in pushing climate change fear mongering, are making money from the scam, in one way or another. They are fighting like hell to hang on to the dream, but only the least intelligent among us, will continue to offer to foot the bill for their useless agenda.
Sparks says:
September 17, 2013 at 10:14 am
…
But, Since when did Co2 or temperature get the ability to change the Earths Axial tilt of 23.4° since it is the Axial tilt that causes the seasons. Photosynthesis is a process based on light and not temperature. ;)…
Plainly you aren’t a gardener. Neither am I, but the wife is. You can look up maps of “hardiness areas” fairly easily. You’ll note they are rated by temperature ranges: e.g.
http://www.growinginmygarden.com/hardiness-zones/.
Nothing to do with light per se. Climate warming or cooling moves the borders of of the those zones. During the last glacial epoch, typical geographic shifts were, IIRC, about 1,200 km southward.
There must be a point where we all realise (as I have done) there is absolutely no point in either reading, analysing or replying to anything Dr. A and his climate-change catamite , Dana Nuccitelli, have to say. They have become as irrelevant as Al Gore in the realms of scientific argument.
The only way forward here IS playing the man and not the ball. To further mix metaphors, the gloves are off.
This is yet another example of the bogus nature of Abraham’s “Climate Science Rapid Response Team.” Instead of climate scientists engaging in respectful face to face debate where such falsehoods can be immediately countered, global warming advocates like Abraham are orchestrating “drive-by intellectual shootings”
Matt, he is aware of all that he does. Every aspect of his writing is done with full awareness of its faults and distortions. Surely you understand this?
AlecMM says:
September 17, 2013 at 7:55 am
Abraham is clearly a fool with delusions of political grandeur.
……………
No. He is an expert (!) reviewer of IPCC AR5.
This tells us a lot.
About the report. And IPCC.
@mpainter 8:27 am
@Mike Rossander 8:54 am
@Canman 9:02 am
Thank you for filling in the hole I thought was in the post. Yes, I could have looked it up, and many other people could have spent the time, too. But why give DeSmogBlog the clicks and attention they don’t deserve?
The context was important, too. Not only did Abraham sloppily misquote Ridley, but sets up a strawman at the same time.
Ridley writes of
“less than 2 degrees Celsius
from preindustrial levels”
Abraham misquotes with
“warming of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit”
without mentioning from when or what.
This leads the reader to fill in, “from today.”
“Dr. John Abraham Professor of Thermal Sciences University of St. Thomas”
What, pray tell, is a “professor of thermal sciences”? If he were a physicist, I presume he would so claim, eh?
And, Sparks, living here on the prairie of Alberta, I can tell you that temperature does indeed have a crucial role in determining growing season. You cannot plant your garden “until all danger of frost has passed”, and your crops will cease growing (or be destroyed, depending upon the crop) after the first frost of Fall. Which is why, sweet corn, for example, can only be grown in a fairly restricted area in southern Alberta, near Taber, and in some tiny microclimates in northern Alberta in the deep canyons of the Peace and Smoky rivers.
tty says:
September 17, 2013 at 11:02 am
An interesting proposition that implies that the growing season on the top of Mount Whitney and in Fresno are the same length
(hint: it is warmer in Fresno)
A hardy plant growing on Mount Whitney which has an elevation of 14,505 would have a year-round growing season, there are also holoparasitic plants that do not use photosynthesis, and freezing temperatures would kill-off any species of plant planted on Mt Whitney that has adapted to the conditions of Fresno.
The point is temperature and CO2 do not increase the rate of photosynthesis, Plants can control the amount of CO2 it uses through stomata and it controls the rate it uses all other nutrients it needs, plants do not control the amount of sunlight they receive, this implies that CO2 does not extend-growing seasons, temperature does not extend-growing seasons, it is either beneficial for maintaining the health of a plant or kill it.
Sparks says:
September 17, 2013 at 10:53 am
“Higher CO2 levels are great for plants and they do grow much better, but without plenty of sunlight it doesn’t matter how much CO2 there is, the plants will not grow.”
For photosynthesis light and CO2 are both required. Plants deplete the air of CO2 around them.
More CO2, more photosynthesis until CO2 is depleted to the level that the plant can (C3 plants about 150 ppm, C4 plants down to 0 ppm).
See also Liebig’s Law.
Stop the sophistry.
galileonardo says:
September 17, 2013 at 9:48 am
“DirkH,
Thank you for the link to the alexa stats for desmogblog. Forgive my Eurocentric bias here, but am I the only one who finds it suspect that a full 17.7% of the visitors to desmogblog are from the Philippines and India? Really?”
India has 1.2 bn people of which many speak English as their lingua franca; an active agitation arm of Greenpeace is there – and one in the Phillipines as well, as Nonoy Oplas told us on notrickszone.
So, I don’t find it surprising.
Gord Richmond says:
September 17, 2013 at 12:23 pm
I can tell you that temperature does indeed have a crucial role in determining growing season. You cannot plant your garden “until all danger of frost has passed”
The temperature favorable to a specific plant is due to the adaptation to the environmental conditions it evolved in, temperature does not extend-growing seasons, try growing sweet corn in a dark room with warmer temperatures than it is used to.
GWPF?
Dr. Matt Ridley, just ignore these fools. They have very few comments. The piece by Abraham has ZERO comments. The one on Lord Monckton has TWO comments. This thread has 61 and rising. Don’t give them more importance than they deserve.
Look here, and explain the ‘problem’.
In fact, there is no problem. The planet has stopped warming for more than 200 months now. Extreme weather events and global temperatures have steadily moderated.
In short, Abraham is wrong about everything. Nothing he writes has any scientific credibility. He will never debate the science, because all of the scientific evidence directly contradicts his alarmist narrative.
Abraham is the sort of pseudo-scienist that the catastrophic AGW nonsense attracts in droves. He is an alarmist propagandist, nothing more; a shameless, self-serving grant chaser. In a rational world, Abraham would be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail along with Gleick, Mann, and the rest of the climate alarmist shills who shamelessly defraud the taxpaying public based on a completely fabricated runaway global warming scare. They have zero integrity, and they lie through their teeth. And those, I think, are their good points.
TomR,Worc,MA:
GWPF?
The Global Warming Policy Foundation, one of desmog’s primary targets.
As a fellow Mass. resident, I offer you my Tollbooth Willie: Welcome to Worcester. Dollar twenty-five please…I’m sure you haven’t heard that a 1,000 times.
DirkH says:
September 17, 2013 at 1:00 pm
For photosynthesis light and CO2 are both required. Plants deplete the air of CO2 around them.
More CO2, more photosynthesis until CO2 is depleted to the level that the plant can (C3 plants about 150 ppm, C4 plants down to 0 ppm).
See also Liebig’s Law.
Stop the sophistry.
DirkH, There is no sophistry, CO2 or temperature do not extend-growing seasons, more CO2 will increase crop yield if that’s where your confusion is, the earths axial tilt controls the seasons which is how the temperature fluctuates from unfavorable conditions to favorable condition for a growing season.
Duster says:
September 17, 2013 at 11:25 am
Plainly you aren’t a gardener. Neither am I, but the wife is.
Clearly you didn’t bother reading other comments I made
Nothing to do with light per se. Climate warming or cooling moves the borders of of the those zones. During the last glacial epoch, typical geographic shifts were, IIRC, about 1,200 km southward.
Geographical shifts are a good point about changing temperatures and the movement of borders of certain plants, but this process happens over many years it has nothing to do with extended-growing seasons, when the temperature favorable to a specific plant is due to the adaptation to the environmental conditions it evolved in.
DirkH,
Thank you for the clarification. I suppose I judged the numbers from what I see with skeptic audiences where probably 90% of visitors are in Europe, NA, and AUS/NZ. I will take your word that it is NGO-driven though I wouldn’t put inflationary tactics past them…their ilk do seem to have a penchant for exaggeration.
If you extend the number of frost-free days in a given area, you will extend the growing season. Full stop. Hours of daylight and darkness do influence the growth cycle of perennials, especially trees, but many, if not most, of the crops of commerce are annuals, and frost is the limiting factor.
There’s a reason we don’t grow bananas, pineapples, or citrus in Alberta, and it has nothing to do with hours of daylight.
Incidentally, in the Chinook zone of Alberta, and that certainly includes the city of Calgary, plants can fooled into budding by a prolonged chinook in late winter, only to have the buds killed off by frost, once the chinook ends.
in my recent journey of (lack of) climate change enlightenment i have tried to maintain a balance in reading information from both sceptics and warmists.
during this journey i have read some pretty nasty stuff,funnily enough,so far it has all been on pro warmist sites. i have spent a fair bit of time on sites like sks and real climate,which is very hard going at times. but after one look at desmogblog i point blank refuse to go there.
if mr graham is indeed a tenured academic,i believe that casts serious doubt on the criteria required to achieve such a position today.
bit chilly says:
September 17, 2013 at 2:40 pm
Jeez – no wonder you are a bit cold if you visit such sites! Out of curiosity (as I haven’t been to such sites for a good few years now!) – have you managed to post querying or even heretical type questions???
Since you said ‘a fair bit of time’ – I must tip my hat to you for stamina! (I managed very liitle time before my stomach involuntarily regurgitated it’s contents – causing immense distress to my computer – and indeed, the dog)
Another question springs to mind – have you seen the light yet?
regards
Kev
Jim Steele says:
September 17, 2013 at 11:53 am
This is yet another example of the bogus nature of Abraham’s “Climate Science Rapid Response Team.” Instead of climate scientists engaging in respectful face to face debate where such falsehoods can be immediately countered, global warming advocates like Abraham are orchestrating “drive-by intellectual shootings”
Which prompted me to…
Items Ordered
1 of: Into the Dustbin: Rajendra Pachauri, the Climate Report & the Nobel Peace Prize [Paperback]
By: Laframboise, Donna
Condition: New
Sold by: Amazon.com LLC
1 of: Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism [Paperback]
By: Steele, Jim
Condition: New
Sold by: Amazon.com LLC
The good doctor obviously finds these (his) agnotological responses to be a cathartic
experience.
I cannot think of any better explanation for such a display of ignorance of the facts.
The quality of the response also tells us something about his presumption of the
level of intelligence of his readers.
When I saw the picture of Abrahams, I thought it was the Hood from Thunderbirds! Scary.
Abraham is a mechanical engineering professor. Does that make him a climate scientist?
Michael Jankowski says: @ September 17, 2013 at 8:55 am
Gavin’s statement is also a bit of a catch-all..just because we aren’t seeing extremes (hurricanes, tornados, ice loss, etc) doesn’t mean climate change isn’t happening.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The climate is always changing. All you have to do is look at the O18 derived temperatures of the ice cores. link 1 and link 2
However it is pretty obvious that there is a top and a bottom value and the climate tends to hug either the top or the bottom. In Chaos theory these are called Strange Attractors. (as explained by Dr. Robert Brown of Duke University)
Bob Greene says: @ September 17, 2013 at 10:59 am
…Why do folks like Abraham believe that we should now make energy more expensive and less available? You’d think those folks out to save the plant would have more regard for the third world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have it incorrect. It is the PLANET they want to save FROM the nasty humans. They just keep changing the excuse for killing off the poor.
Sounds like someone farming cattle…. or was that chattel?
This is not an isolated case either.
painter says: @ September 17, 2013 at 9:38 am
…
Cooler climate brought decreased agricultural production and consequent economic contraction and the plague was an added misery. T…
>>>>>>>>>>
Duster says: @ September 17, 2013 at 11:13 am
Just an observation. While it is become quite fashionable to blame many things on climate change, there’s little justification in attributing the plague to it. Instead, the plagues might well be the result of the High Middle Ages themselves. Increased trade and increased distances traveled in order to trade exposed many “naieve” populations to each other both directly and indirectly through stowaways such as rats and their accompanying pests. The fact that outbreaks of the plague coincided with climate shifts may simply be the difference between correlated and causal. There really isn’t adequate evidence to evaluate the idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually Duster seems to be correct.
H/T to George E. Smith says on July 22, 2010 at 9:36 am
FROM WUWT: Global warming is making monster marmots
Abraham’s misquote completely changes the meaning of Ridley’s original quote.
This suggests the misquote was not accidental.
If you haven’t read Ridley’s The Rational Optimist, please do.
Absolute nectar for contrarians.
His talk to the Long Now Foundation is good too.
This is the same John P. Abraham who foolishly tangled w/ m’Lud Moncton a few years ago and got his ass handed to him, so no, don’t expect any embarrassment. The rhinoceros hide of the utterly clueless.
Ph.D. Mech Engineering + tenured academic (alth. not sure about the latter) says it all: If he was any good he’d be in the private sector and making min. 3x an academic’s salary. I used to think that a Ph.D. in Engineering or the exact sciences counted for something. Until I discovered that Joe Romm has one.
Any Ph.D. scientists or engineers out there? I’d really like to know what the standards are these days.
You must realise that the in group of climate scientists are seeing their future collapsing. They are discredited and basically unemployable in a non AGW world. They are desperate.
The “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (TECS) is a scientifically bogus concept in view of the fact that the global equilibrium temperature is not an observable. It follows from the non-observability that when a numerical value is asserted for TECS, this assertion cannot be tested.
Also, the purported existence of the “pause” is a consequence from unsupportable assumptions that include that include the linearity of variations in the global temperature with time.
Matt, you wrote “He directly contradicts the IPCC’s report on extreme weather, which found no link between current storms and man-made climate change;”
And what does the IPCC say about a posible link between current storms and natural climate change? – 🙂
Gord Richmond says:
September 17, 2013 at 2:07 pm
If you extend the number of frost-free days in a given area, you will extend the growing season. Full stop. Hours of daylight and darkness do influence the growth cycle of perennials, especially trees, but many, if not most, of the crops of commerce are annuals, and frost is the limiting factor.
There’s a reason we don’t grow bananas, pineapples, or citrus in Alberta, and it has nothing to do with hours of daylight.
Temperature and CO2 do not extend-growing seasons and increase rates of photosynthesis,
The reason you don’t grow bananas, pineapples, or citrus in Alberta is because there is less sunlight.
Alberta’s Latitude is 54°40’N and has four distinct seasons caused by the axial tilt of the sun, the axial tilt also regulates how much sunlight reaches Alberta during a growing season, due to the seasonal amount of sunlight that reaches Alberta temperature will fluctuate from unfavorable conditions to favorable condition for a growing season.
If you travel down the Latitude towards the equator where they grow bananas, pineapples, or citrus there is more sunlight and longer growing seasons, you will also notice the temperatures are warmer nearer to the equator than higher latitudes, this is also a result of the earths axial tilt and the result of the equator being exposed to more sunlight.
To grow grow bananas, pineapples, or citrus artificially in higher latitudes you will need to simulate the natural environment of these plants, the first piece of equipment (besides the obvious) you will need is the sun lamps to increase the amount of light the plants will receive all year round, you will also need to artificially regulate the temperature, this is not done by increasing or decreasing CO2 levels.
Sparks… greenhouses. If you’re really a horticulturalist you should know how a greenhouse works. For that matter most climate skeptics should understand how a greenhouse works by now as it comes up fairly often. And they obviously don’t work by increasing the amount of sunlight, that’s a constant. So by definition a greenhouse increases growing season by maintaining a warmer environment.
Gail Combs says:
September 17, 2013 at 4:54 pm
The two major bubonic plague epidemics in Europe (part of an Old World pandemic) did happen to coincide with climatic decline, ie The Plague of Justinian during the Dark Ages Cold Period & the Black Death at the beginning of the Little Ice Age. Historians have hypothesized that a worsening climate in the early 14th century weakened a European population already too high, having flourished during the fat years of the Medieval Warm Period. In France, of course, the 100 Years’ War was also raging.
Then the plague arrived into this stressed population from the East, presumably on ships, the Silk Road being closed by the Mongols. The most likely route of microbial invasion was from the Crimea in 1346, to Constantinople & Sicily in 1347, thence to the rest of the western Mediterranean the next year & on north & west in Europe.
The extent to which the Mongol siege of the Italian trading city of Caffa played a role is debatable, but credible evidence suggests a role for biological warfare.
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/8/9/01-0536_article.htm
However, the pestilence probably would have spread westwards across the Black Sea to the Med even had this battle not taken place.
The third plague epidemic was limited largely to Asia, & occurred when climate was improving, ie during the 1890s.
milodonharlani :
At September 18, 2013 at 2:50 pm you conclude
In my opinion you could have added the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919 which estimates suggest killed between 20 and 40 million people; i.e. it killed more people that the Great War (1914-1918).
Richard
richardscourtney says:
September 18, 2013 at 3:06 pm
I could have, along with the cholera pandemics, but was dealing just with the bubonic plague infestations. The 1918 Flu occurred during an ameliorating climate, but of course after a terrible global conflict. The 1830s & 1850s cholera outbreaks came at the end of the LIA, but were also aided by expanded commercial routes around the globe (a la AIDS). Sometimes War, Famine, Pestilence & Death from Climate ride together, but not always.
PS: Apropos of “climate science” prognostications, Nostradamus was a 16th century plague doctor in Provence. Santer, Schmidt & Mann could learn a lot from him.
Misquote! MIsquote! Heh. What was said, remarkably, was actually “no significant effect”
“A global warming of less than 2.5°C could have no significant effect on overall food production,” says the UNFCC website.
The 2°C figure is pure PR invention in the first instance, but it is clearly false a global rise of 2.5° would have no positive or negative effect on food production, as it would lengthen growing season and expand arable territory considerably. So it appears the claim/admission is a prophylactic pronouncement to try and fend off real world welcoming of warming by farmers and planners of food provision.
PS;
As for “netting” of said improvement against drought, etc., droughts are more associated with cooling/drying than warming/humidifying of the atmosphere, it seems. Viz. the Sahel.
Sounds like Sparks is the reincarnation of RGates, n’est ce pas? Same invincible ignorance.
Just to clear the issue up a little, because I’ve been getting some grief for pointing out in a comment something which is incorrect.
If you believe CO2 controls the earths climate and your proof is “extend-growing seasons and increase rates of photosynthesis” I will say that you are wrong, which is what I’ve been commenting about, it’s the amount of sunlight that a plant receives which determines the rate of photosynthesis not CO2, CO2 increases the yield of a crop at higher levels not the growing season or the rate of photosynthesis.
Sigh. Sparks, this is a climate skeptic blog. The only ones here who think “CO2 controls the earths climate” are the visiting warmists. What the article says is that warming of 2º or less will do no net harm because it will increase growing seasons. And several of us have given evidence for how warming or the control of temperature can effect growing season. And you ignore it, while repeating that plants needsunlight for photosynthesis, a fact no one here argues.
Well, it’s been fun, but there are newer articles too read.
schitzree, I understand what the article says and I agree with Dr Matt Ridley’s view that there will be no net harm from ‘2°C’ warming, What I have an issue with is, a rise in temperature of ‘2°C’ causing “extend-growing seasons and increase rates of photosynthesis”.
CO2 doesn’t control temperature and it does not control the amount of sun light a crop receives, therefor does not extend-growing seasons and increase rates of photosynthesis.
This is well known, If you grew wheat in a greenhouse with CO2 levels at 400ppmv and measured Wheat’s growing season, then repeat with a new crop with CO2 levels at 500-600ppmv there will be no change in the growing season of the Crop, but there will be a greater Yield due to the higher CO2 levels, Sun light controls photosynthesis Not CO2 or temperature. Higher levels of CO2 are beneficial, plants control CO2 and optimize how much they will use over a growing season, this also depends on other available resources, nutrients, water etc…