A guest post by Roy. W. Spencer
While a politician might be faulted for pushing a particular agenda that serves his own purposes, who can fault the impartial scientist who warns us of an imminent global-warming Armageddon? After all, the practice of science is an unbiased search for the truth, right? The scientists have spoken on global warming. There is no more debate. But let me play devil’s advocate. Just how good is the science underpinning the theory of manmade global warming? My answer might surprise you: it is 10 miles wide, but only 2 inches deep.
Contrary to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth – not one peer-reviewed paper. The reason: our measurements of global weather on decadal time scales are insufficient to reject such a possibility. For instance, the last 30 years of the strongest warming could have been caused by a very slight change in cloudiness. What might have caused such a change? Well, one possibility is the sudden shift to more frequent El Niño events (and fewer La Niña events) since the 1970s. That shift also coincided with a change in another climate index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
The associated warming in Alaska was sudden, and at the same time we just happened to start satellite monitoring of Arctic sea ice. Coincidences do happen, you know…that’s why we have a word for them.
We make a big deal out of the “unprecedented” 2007 opening of the Northwest Passage as summertime sea ice in the Arctic Ocean gradually receded, yet the very warm 1930s in the Arctic also led to the Passage opening in the 1940s. Of course, we had no satellites to measure the sea ice back then.
So, since we cannot explore the possibility of a natural source for some of our warming, due to a lack of data, scientists instead explore what we have measured: manmade greenhouse gas emissions. And after making some important assumptions about how clouds and water vapor (the main greenhouse components of the atmosphere) respond to the extra carbon dioxide, scientists can explain all of the recent warming.
Never mind that there is some evidence indicating that it was just as warm during the Medieval Warm Period. While climate change used to be natural, apparently now it is entirely manmade. But a few of us out there in the climate research community are rattling our cages. In the August 2007 Geophysical Research Letters, my colleagues and I published some satellite evidence for a natural cooling mechanism in the tropics that was not thought to exist. Called the “Infrared Iris” effect, it was originally hypothesized by Prof. Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
By analyzing six years of data from a variety of satellites and satellite sensors, we found that when the tropical atmosphere heats up due to enhanced rainfall activity, the rain systems there produce less cirrus cloudiness, allowing more infrared energy to escape to space. The combination of enhanced solar reflection and infrared cooling by the rain systems was so strong that, if such a mechanism is acting upon the warming tendency from increasing carbon dioxide, it will reduce manmade global warming by the end of this century to a small fraction of a degree. Our results suggest a “low sensitivity” for the climate system.
What, you might wonder, has been the media and science community response to our work? Absolute silence. No doubt the few scientists who are aware of it consider it interesting, but not relevant to global warming. You see, only the evidence that supports the theory of manmade global warming is relevant these days.
The behavior we observed in the real climate system is exactly opposite to how computerized climate models that predict substantial global warming have been programmed to behave. We are still waiting to see if any of those models are adjusted to behave like the real climate system in this regard.
And our evidence against a “sensitive” climate system does not end there. In another study (conditionally accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate) we show that previously published evidence for a sensitive climate system is partly due to a misinterpretation of our observations of climate variability. For example, when low cloud cover is observed to decrease with warming, this has been interpreted as the clouds responding to the warming in such a way that then amplifies it. This is called “positive feedback,” which translates into high climate sensitivity.
But what if the decrease in low clouds were the cause, rather than the effect, of the warming? While this might sound like too simple a mistake to make, it is surprisingly difficult to separate cause and effect in the climate system. And it turns out that any such non-feedback process that causes a temperature change will always look like positive feedback. Something as simple as daily random cloud variations can cause long-term temperature variability that looks like positive feedback, even if in reality there is negative feedback operating.
The fact is that so much money and effort have gone into the theory that mankind is 100 percent responsible for climate change that it now seems too late to turn back. Entire careers (including my own) depend upon the threat of global warming. Politicians have also jumped aboard the Global Warming Express, and this train has no brakes.
While it takes only one scientific paper to disprove a theory, I fear that no amount of evidence will be able to counter what everyone now considers true. If tomorrow the theory of manmade global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests.
About the only thing that might cause global warming hysteria to end will be a prolonged period of cooling…or at least, very little warming. We have now had at least six years without warming, and no one really knows what the future will bring. And if warming does indeed end, I predict that there will be no announcement from the scientific community that they were wrong. There will simply be silence. The issue will slowly die away as Congress reduces funding for climate change research.
Oh, there will still be some diehards who will continue to claim that warming will resume at any time. And many will believe them. Some folks will always view our world as a fragile, precariously balanced system rather than a dynamic, resilient one. In such a world-view, any manmade disturbance is by definition bad. Forests can change our climate, but people aren’t allowed to.
It is unfortunate that our next generation of researchers and teachers is being taught to trust emotions over empirical evidence. Polar bears are much more exciting than the careful analysis of data. Social and political ends increasingly trump all other considerations. Science that is not politically correct is becoming increasingly difficult to publish. Even science reporting has become more sensationalist in recent years.
I am not claiming that all of our recent warming is natural. But the extreme reluctance for most scientists to even entertain the possibility that some of it might be natural suggests to me that climate research has become corrupted. I fear that the sloppy practice of climate change science will damage our discipline for a long time to come.
Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. His book, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor, will be published this month.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OCrush (08:32:21): Sorry, I missed this sentence:
Even a radical and successful Kyoto II will only reduce the CO2 concentration 25 ppm in the end of this century, and the temperature with a few tenth of a degree, according to IPCC and the models they support. So you can’t retreat with the argument that simply the AGW hype did the job if the coming decades wont be warm. That’s jast way too non-scintific! …
AGWscoffer (08:35:19) : “We are only 0.5°C from bringing this house of cards down. Already there are scientists who say we are entering a cooling phase.”
I think the climate of the coming decades will much depend on the strength of sunspot cycles. I guess — but don’t like it, but it’s fine if the house of cards falls — it’s not unlikely we’ll have no warming (20th century average) or a little ice age (distinctly cooler climate) than a warm period.
“Much of nature goes in cycles.”
I guess astronomy makes the climate cyclical. (The milankovitch cycle etc, and sun activity, cosmic rays and clouds.)
The scientific research (including research made by AGW supporters as Hedi Cullen 😉 ) which after analysis of the climate history suggests a climate cycle with a period of 1500 year makes it likely that we have beween 150 and 250 years of global warming left before the next temperature decline. But Fred Singer and Dennins Avery say “1500 years give or take 500 years”, so I guess it can happen that we’ve seen the warming peak. But I hope not! I would prefere a new MWP.
Sorry Evan but that is the cost when the people of this planet reproduce in irresponsible numbers.
Ocrush, I also disagree with you here. Modern tech houses and feeds many, many times more people on far less land–with far more individual elbow room than at any point in the past. For example, New York was intensely more overcrowded with 1 million people in it than today with 8 million. India’s cities are far more populated yet far less crowded than 50 years ago.
Not only that, but birthrates are down drastically since 1990 all over the world.
Furthermore, as countries become more affluent, their birthrates plummet. If you want lower populations you must not be in favor of continuing poverty, but must favor an economy of “full steam ahead”.
I dont want to see any humans suffering any more than anyone else does but I also understand that raping the planet is only going to ensure much more suffering in future generations.
Then be at ease. we are NOT “raping the planet”. You have been misinformed. You must unlearn what you have learned. We have, in practical terms, an unlimited supply of every resource, and natural systems are protected as never before IN THE AFFLUENT AREAS. It is only in the impoverished areas that the environment is under significant pressure.
I also don’t buy your version of Pascal’s conundrum. it is only by modernizing and greatly increasing wealth that the environment can be saved. Following Kyoto will not only kill 10s or 100s of millions, but will doom the environments of Africa and Southern/Central Asia. Only affluent countries ever clean up their acts.
Furthermore, if AGW is a severe crisis, we cannot dodge it via Kyoto. We can beat it with huge wealth and high tech. Co if we shut down industry we will lose every way possible, and if climate change is real, we will be unable to cope with it or reverse it.
Sure, we will eventually leave fossil fuel behind us. But we must not kill the wealth while doing it. It must (and will, if allowed to) happen normally and profitably.
I believe my way will save us all and I fear your way will harm us all and possibly doom us. I realize you believe the reverse is true, but I urge you to consider both sides of the coin.
Pablo is right.
Rico is too fatalistic. If temps drop or do not rise, there will be a Great Reevaluation, mark my words. What I fear is the loss of life in the poorest countries during th lag time. The World Health Org. now stridently and actively promotes the intelligent use of DDT. Unfortunately that is too late for around 40 million souls, most of whom died utterly needlessly.
I strongly wish to avoid another silent, unremarked die off of an equal or even greater number of people. The lack of concern and publicity will not make them any less dead, or their survivors any less impoverished and condemned to shorter, more miserable lives.
It is only savvy, educated people like you who can raise a sufficient hue and cry to avert this tragedy. Every year earlier this is done, innocent lives will be saved. If you could halt the unreason by a single day, you. personally, will have saved innocent lives. I appeal to your humanity: Join us.
A hat tip to Stan. FYO, I did not mention to him (I’m pretty sure about that, though it’s hard to keep track) that I joined the conversation here. I do recall telling him I might, though. I also recall him saying I might be a voice worth adding to the mix. So if you’re pissed off at me, you should be even more pissed off at Stan, lol! I’m kidding about that. I don’t think anyone should be pissed off at anyone. I think both he and I are looking for an objective glimpse at “the truth”. Our paths may differ somewhat, but I would hope the goal is shared by just about everyone. And from the reactions I’ve gotten from my first few comments, it appears that might be true. Anyway, what Stan says in my defense is largely true: I am largely an agnostic, assuming “agnostic” can be defined as driven by the power of “the dollar” (or whatever currency is preferable — but currency in general). In other words, while I do believe “words matter”, I believe they only matter insofar as they affect the economy. I don’t believe any proposed solution can be based on words alone. Words do matter, but they are not the only thing that does (on any issue). Ultimately, any solution has to make sense economically — in the long term anyway. My friend Stan suggested that “politicians who continue to support government subsidies to making fuel out of food crops should all be lined up against a wall and shot.” I wonder where he got that idea, hehe. As I recall, that was almost word-for-word my eighth point on a seven-point plan (lol!) I proposed on another site. You might gather from that that if I’m agnostic, I’m defiantly so. And despite the apparent oxymoron, I suppose it’s true — I am a defiant agnostic. The one thing I absolutely hate is bowing to the law of unintended consequences. But that’s another rant for another time.
To be fair to the politicians who might be lined up though (and arguably, GW Bush is that faction’s biggest ethanol cheerleader), they’re largely betting that ethanol out of food crops will ultimately work out as a bridge technology. Okay, that’s being charitable — they’re also counting on the campaign contributions gleaned from their support. To think otherwise would be, well, idiotic. However idiotic, though, it’s not illegal. It just is as it is. And any attempt to change it is likely to delve deeply into the law of unintended consequences. But that’s another rant for another time — and that rant has a lot to do with the relative responsibility of the electorate: you can only expect to get that which you vote for, in other words. Further, I will also say that my scanning of the political landscape leads me to think that support for any solution on any level is unlikely to follow any sort of traditional left/right ideological divide. But while that’s almost certainly true, that is again another rant for another time.
Personally, I’m very skeptical about any ethanol-based liquid fuel, even if it’s cellulosic-based. But it’s a skepticism that is built up from a multitude of considerations. In short, you really need to look at the entire “life cycle” of ethanol technology — both in terms of where it stands today and where it might stand, say, ten years from now. IMO, you also have to consider what is likely to happen with other technologies in the mean time. And that could very well be considerable. Thus, it seems to me you have to consider not only the cost structure, but the overall economic trajectories, and how each consideration for each technology might fit together into a complete whole. E.g., what about the supply/refining/distribution/point-of-sale infrastructure? The internal and/or external costs associated with each step along the way for each technology, and how they might compare on a similar time scale to other technologies could be very significant. It’s not a simple problem to be sure. But as complex as it is, it is also a very important one. As such it cannot be neglected. But again, I’ll leave the details for another time.
My friend Stan accuses me of not expressing myself well. I think that’s a fair criticism. I fully acknowledge that I don’t express myself well. I further confess that I rarely proof-read what I post as a comment on a blog — because, well, it’s a comment on a blog. Why bother? On the other hand, it should also be noted that my intent is not to make “you” (collectively speaking) agree with me, but to make “you” think — i.e., to challenge the facts and logic underlying “your” own assumptions, and to have “you” do the same to me. I have no interest in writing propaganda pieces (I have no propaganda to peddle). Rather, I try to write thought pieces. As such, all I ask is that “you” don’t label me as something mindless. Attack what I say, not who you think I am. I promise the same in return. Let’s talk about issues first and foremost. How about that?
So, getting back to the science… or not. I mean really, who cares at this point? Through yeoman’s work — the kind of work anyone should be proud of — Tony and Steve, et. al., have uncovered inaccuracies in the measurement of basic data. That’s very cool. But at the same time, those inaccuracies account for… what? I mean seriously… what in the grand scheme of things? Like I said in a previous post, I’m not a climate scientist. But you don’t have to be one to recognize that most of the criticisms of the mainstream viewpoint (the “consensus”, if you will) are either very much off-scale, very speculative, lack any sort of coherency, or some combination therein. I am very much willing to be corrected if I’m wrong, to the extent that I’m wrong. But either way, it is becoming time to put your money up. Literally or figuratively, that’s what it boils down to, doesn’t it? It all becomes a risk management equation, doesn’t it? In that regard, I should mention that the insurance company, Allstate, has recently become something less than all state. The reason has very much to do with the risks they see associated with GW. And that very much sucks on a humanitarian scale. But as Raven (14:29:50) said, “wealth is the difference.” Yup. And allow me to add… Duh.
So anyway, we’re confronted with the situation where some believe the science in and of itself can’t point us anywhere, and no matter where one turns there are huge “IFs” associated. Okay fine. So let’s ignore the science. Just in terms of technology and the economy, it’s really obvious to me which way the wind is blowing. Considering that, I’m not about to stand in the way. And it really is incumbent upon anyone who thinks the way I do to stand up and be counted. I think it’s a good thing — not only a good thing, but a necessary thing — and a money-making thing. That’s the bottom line for me. And frankly, I don’t see much on the down-side. To me, the only down side is the drag those who think there is a down side might have on the up side. After all, money spent on one thing precludes it from being spent on another.
The other thing is that, as Stan indicated, I’ve been working on him for the better part of two years. Actually though, that’s not entirely true. It is true that he’s the one that got me thinking about things the better part of two years ago. Back then the questions were most specifically about climate science. After months of study I came to the conclusion that yeah, maybe we do have something to worry about by way of the science (that’s my conclusion, not Stan’s). At that point my libertarian instincts kicked in (I can pinch a penny till it bleeds), and thus I started asking questions about whether any solutions made economic sense. That, to me, is the bottom line. It always is. Both lefties and righties can wax rhetorical about the best approach until the cows come home. But no matter how perceived, the cows will, ultimately, come home. Period. That’s the bottom line. And so, ultimately, the matter becomes a question of risk assessment. Any of you mathematically inclined “non-AGWers” care to weigh in on that point? I’d say the odds are decidedly stacked against you. Then again, if you’re right, you could make some seriously big bucks. To paraphrase Inspector Callahan (Dirty Harry)… “Do you feel lucky, punk?”
Simple, Rico, if we are cooling long term, unnecessarily encumbering carbon will freeze and starve millions of people. The unlucky ones.
======================================
Evan Jones (16:17:23): Pablo is right. Rico is too fatalistic.
Actually, Rico (me) doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the GW science. Not any more anyway. Rico (me) cares about the bottom line. And all of the vectors largely converge on the same numbers down there on the bottom line. That seems to me a rather important point.
It also seems to me that all of the “non-AGRs”s here — including you, Evan — preface their remarks with a big “IF”, as if to avoid the obvious. In your case, the very next sentence after the first big “IF” includes the phrase, “intelligent use” in a way that implies only you knew the most intelligent response before it happened. I think it’s fair to ask… can you document that? If not, then I think it’s fair to ask, where were you beforehand?
Okay, maybe it’s not all that fair. It is still relevant though. Even more relevant is to get you on record, in the here and now, as to what, exactly, conforms to your conception of “intelligent use” of DDT? That’s not a trivial question. Rather, assuming you actually attempt to answer it with the knowledge it deserves, I think you’ll find it to be a highly nuanced question. In fact I’m sure of it. We could go on and on citing study after study, and in the end I’m sure we’d end up where we started — neither one of us could “prove” anyhing.
And that’s the general problem I find with the debate regarding such issues — in order to be solved effectively they require more nuance than most people are inclined to allow. Wouldn’t you say? Yet you say I’m too fatalistic. To that I ask… (a) relative to what metric? And (b) on what time scale? And (c) what are you offering as alternatives? And (d) how specific can you be?
Assuming you are actually interested in solving problems, all of those are very important question, wouldn’t you say? Granted, we’re not going to solve the world’s problems on this or any blog. But whatever we say here is a start. So give me your best shot and I will give you mine. I just hope that my point of view will ultimately be allowed to be seen here. I’m new, but so far it seems that any comment I make has to be bounced off Uranus before it makes it to this blog (no reference to your personal, or any other, gastrointestinal system is intended, by the way). I’m not complaining really. In fact, if the apparent bucolic pace is real, it suits me rather well. Maybe I’ll actually get around to proof-reading stuff I post, lol!. But in the mean time I’m wondering… wattsupwiththat?
Crap. You express yourself just fine. And I’ll throw a tought piece back at you.
Here is your risk assessment:
In my mind and in my car,
We can’t rewind we’ve gone to far.
What you yourself have said has riven your middle ground. It will no longer safely bear your own weight. Do not stand upon it. To be an agnostic on this issue is, in effect, to be an atheist. Those who panic speak through their hats, thinking they are halos. Same as last time. Same as time before last. You know what cows to watch. You know their destination. And you know in what direction they are headed, though you will not say it.
We cannot carry the piano back downstairs. The only way to go is forward. You know this to be true. Like Stan, you are obviously too intelligent and too well educated to believe otherwise.
You are also well aware that the real issue is more than mere money; I can read that between your lines. The real issue is wealth, itself. You therefore must know that wealth equals power (in a positive sense). A huge amount of wealth stands to be destroyed, or never to be created. You also know full well the human tragedy that would entail, that loss of wealth is the equivalent of loss of life.
Those who oppose us stand in the way of mankind’s Childhood’s End. You are in a position to have a hand in preventing this.
More risk assessment:
Our lives are at stake, too. Yours, mine, and Stan’s; the others, too, though they may not realize it fully. If our opponents win out, they will kill the wealth, they will kill the tech. Not only the tech that may be necessary to thwart GW if it is a real concern, but the tech that will keep you and me and Stan alive in the decades to come. Do you love life? If they win, they will kill you and not even know it. Those are the stakes.
Your libertarian instincts will serve you well if you let them. I have turned by back on my liberal brethren and find I must now fight them. Fortunately I have an intimate knowlege of their weaponry and have been trained in its use. Yet my kind cannot afford to waste its efforts and resources fighting the likes of you. It is required that we fight on the same side.
I think it’s fair to ask… can you document that? If not, then I think it’s fair to ask, where were you beforehand?
Well, I have been screaming about DDT ever since around five years after the malaria rate in India and Ceylon skyrocketed out of all proportion (1970 or so). One of my first great exposures to unintended consequences. Reintroduction (as I advocated) would have saved a lot of lives.
I have blogged on the subject on consimworld.com on and off since around 1998 (meeting with considerable abuse).
On a more amusing personal note, my folks got ahold of a big bottle of DDT spray back in the 60s, and we had absolutely no cockroaches for three years. Then the company took the DDT out of the spray, the roaches came back (in swarms) and it wasn’t until the late 1980s that they finally got rid of them. Mostly.
Okay, maybe it’s not all that fair. It is still relevant though. Even more relevant is to get you on record, in the here and now, as to what, exactly, conforms to your conception of “intelligent use” of DDT?
Modern usage. Careful application. Not spraying it over all creation like in the old days. It’s very persistent (which, of course, is why it works so well). A little goes a long way. It also turns out it is an extremely effective repellant–mosquitos avoid it–which makes it very valuable indeed.
Jimmy Carter (based on his experience as a peanut farmer) was a staunch advocate of DDT and tried to get it reintroduced, alas, to no avail. It’s no threat to bird eggs or anythng else but insects if it isn’t insanely overused. And much less threat than its less effective alternatives.
Like with non-DDT use after 1970, I can easily see what the effects of the prevention of modernization in the third world will have.
Yet you say I’m too fatalistic. (
Well, yeah!
You talk aobout angling for money. You could create WEALTH!
You talk about the inevitablility of the powers that be and your limited political choices. You could STEER that power!
You talk about finding an advantage. Man! You could have an EFFECT!
And don’t give me any crap about how one man can’t make a difference or how you don’t have it in you! Yes, you are too damn fatalistic by half. And it is unworthy of one of your obvious capabilities.
(a) relative to what metric? And (b) on what time scale? And (c) what are you offering as alternatives? And (d) how specific can you be?
a.) The metric of your knowledge, education, and capabilities. It can take one voice to sway the world. Or a chorus. But unless a man sings out, there ain’t gonna be no music, nohow. Look at how much Anthony Watts has done with his–one–voice! You could be part of the solution. The counter-revolution needs good men.
b.) Immediacy. Already the upwards of a trillion clams have been dumped down the rathole, mostly on publicity to encourage the halting of development. That is wealth that could have been doing good in this world instead of harm. To say nothing of whatever wealth already prevented by the success of said publicity. There is no time to waste. No time!
c.) The alternative of rapid economic growth by any means necessary. There will be plenty of time for the cleanup once the third world has become affluent. Every first world country in the world has cleaned up and protected its environment. No third-world country has.
There is no alternative, really. If you want to clean up the earth, the only option is for India and Africa and China to burn coal and oil like mad for the next two or three decades, to be followed by a massive, inevitable cleanbup. Like every other developed country. That’s all there is to it. The “alternative” to the “horrors of development” is the 3 d’s: death, destruction, deforestation.
That is the lesson of history. It is invariable and without any exception that I know of.
d.) Pretty darn. As you can probably tell.
To outline: Full speed ahead with economic development and wealth creation. Cleanup to follow on the historically typical model in the 3rd world countries. Problems acquired to be dealt with by massive wealth acquired. There is no way to dodge the future. We must outrun it.
To be more GW-specific: If GW proves a problem (which I doubt), I recommend the “huge-sheet-of-hi-tech-tinfoil-reflector-in-space” method. Variable, adjustable, retractable, affordable (in future terms, not today’s. We don’t yet have sufficient tech to do it and can’t afford it yet. We will be able to do so–easily–in 30 years. IF we do not destroy the wealth!
Assuming you are actually interested in solving problems, all of those are very important question, wouldn’t you say?
Like wild on rice I am. Durn tootin’, I would.
whatever we say here is a start. So give me your best shot and I will give you mine.
Hell, yeah. But for crying out loud, we should be shooting in the same direction! All of us here.
Those who would halt our progress and destroy the wealth will destroy our future and our lives if we allow them. The fact that they do not themselves see this reality adds immeasurably to the danger.
And if AGW is true, stopping them in their tracks is that much more imperative, for they will destroy our capability and power to deal with it.
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot, but he’ll remember, with advantages, what feats he did that day . . . We few, we happy few, we band of brothers . . .
Rico,
You make good sense … I’m with you on this.
I know this is going off on a tangent, but I think that a post dedicated to the recent findings about ocean temperatures would be very interesting.
I did not know until I started looking into the Argo results, that it was established by Gouretski and Koltermann (American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Research Letters 2007) that 62% of the claimed warming of the oceans since the 1950s was caused by errors in the XBT measurement systems.
The belief that the oceans are storing vast amounts of extra heat caused by AGHG is fundamental to the climate models. If the increase in stored ocean heat is only 38% what was believed this must have a big effect in the calculations for the climate sensitivity and forcings following an increase in CO2.
Also the amount of heat in Hansen’s pipeline – which is described as the “smoking gun” of climate change – i.e. the extra heat in the ocean which will eventually cause the catastrophe expected by the alarmists, must also be greatly reduced.
The Argo results show a small decline in deep ocean temperatures over the last five years – proving that no extra heat landing on the planet due to rising CO2 has been stored recently. It is up to the alarmists to explain where this heat (if it really existed) has gone.
It is required that we fight on the same side.
And fight we will. In order for technology to move forward in the most productive and, dare I say, profitable way, bad science is going to have to be defeated. Otherwise, as Evan has noted on numerous occasions, billions, perhaps trillions of dollars of wealth is either going to be wasted or never realized in the first place. That would, IMO, be a sin that future generations would (and should) have a hard time forgiving.
Welcome aboard Rico. I have only one piece of advice, and please take it in the friendly spirit in which it’s offered:
<blockquote”The most valuable of all talents is that of never using
two words when one will do.”
Thomas Jefferson
Stan
I’m in.
Rico says
“That suggests we should do what we can to ensure that America remains a wealthy society”
Perth, Austrialia has recently committed to building a desalinization facility powered by wind turbines. This was a incredibly expensive project to build and maintain – a cost only wealthy societies could afford. People living in Africa could never afford such luxeries and will likely die of thirst first. Any restrictions on carbon will make poor societies even poorer and reduce the amount of charity which the rich countries can afford to give. In other words, we should not sacrifice economic growth in the name of reducing CO2 emissions.
Rico says:
“But I think that if you really look into the economics of building, say, wind farms, or concentrated solar (solar thermal), or geothermal, maybe even solar PV or wave generation, I suspect you may find yourself wondering whether drilling in ANWR, or deep off shore, or building nuclear instead really does make economic sense”
The hydrogen fuel cell car has been the holy grail for 30+ years. Massive investments have been made by governments and private industry yet we are still decades from an affordable fuel cell car. The key players are now focusing on hybrids. The fuel cell car illustrates why it is folly to assume that the only thing stopping ‘alternate’ technologies is the will and money to make it happen. Sometimes the technical limitations of a technology make it impratical no matter how much money is spent on R&D. This means we need to go with what we know works in the short and medium term (fossil fuel and nuclear).
If major technological improvements wind and solar power allow them to compete with existing technologies then they will gain market share as the price of oil rises naturally. No special government intervention is needed other than support for R&D.
Evan: You are also well aware that the real issue is more than mere money; I can read that between your lines. The real issue is wealth, itself.
Yes it is more than mere money (although I fully intend to cash in on that level too). Yes, the real issue IS wealth. And that IS what I’m really talking about.
You therefore must know that wealth equals power (in a positive sense). A huge amount of wealth stands to be destroyed, or never to be created. You also know full well the human tragedy that would entail, that loss of wealth is the equivalent of loss of life.
I can agree with everything you say above as well. However, I suspect we may have very different opinions about how wealth stands to be destroyed or never created. You apparently agree with Pablo, to wit: Instead of wasting resources on “solving” mythical problem we’d be better employed drilling for oil and building nuclear and coal fired power plants. I say that on the basis of this comment of yours: There is no alternative, really. If you want to clean up the earth, the only option is for India and Africa and China to burn coal and oil like mad for the next two or three decades, to be followed by a massive, inevitable cleanbup.
No alternative? Really? Are you sure? First of all, you might want to check with China and India on that. But more generally, the long and the short of it is that if you believe what you say, it’s not me who’s selling the potential of technology short, it’s you. And that’s an important point. Economic assessments offered up by the likes of Bjorn Lomborg, Steve Milloy, and others either implicitly or explicitly presume that (a) prices of fossil fuels will remain essentially the same as they are now, and (b) prices of alternatives will remain essentially the same as they are now. The important question is, how realistic are those assumptions? My opinion is… not very. The technologies related to extracting fossil fuels cannot benefit much from the innovations that are virtually always associated with bringing technologies up to scale, because they are already at scale. It’s not quite as simple as that, but it nonetheless remains the case that fossil fuels will almost certainly continue to get more expensive. On the other hand, many alternatives are very likely to benefit from such innovations. Hardly a day goes by without a new report about a new technique that could potentially be a breakthrough technology. I keep up on those things pretty heavily. And the ones that I think hold particular promise I pass on to Stan and others. Nonetheless, I fully realize that that sort of stuff is very difficult to assess. One reason for that is most start-up companies operate in deep stealth mode. The only time you get a glimmer of what they’re up to is when (a) they are granted an important patent, or (b) when they partner up with a big player, or (c) when they actually go commmercial and start distributing product. The last is, of course, the biggie. But still, there’s a significant difference between “going commercial” and “going commercial big time”. In other words, it’s an economy of scale question. Most alternative energy technologies are just starting to climb that ramp — i.e., they are on the very nacent end of the economy of scale s-curve. But even so, several alternative technolgies are already pretty close to competing directly with traditional technologies on a sheer cost basis. The only thing holding them back is lack of capital investment — in manufacturing and/or deployment and/or infrastructure and/or worker training. Those are all very solvable problems — especially if the government decides to get involved in a significant, reliable, and effective way. Needless to say, there are going to be bubbles, and mistakes, not to mention a variety of special interests who will try to get their fingers in the pie. That being said though, I vehemently disagree that the “alternative” to the “horrors of development” is the 3 d’s: death, destruction, deforestation. That, to me, is fatalistic. Quintessientially so, in fact. I am much more inclined to agree with Stan when he said, “the stone age didn’t end due to lack of stones.” Interestingly (and I’m sure much to Stan’s horror), the Goracle himself employed the very same phrase a couple of years back. I suppose if Al Gore said it, somehow it must be wrong, right? Then again, Al Gore didn’t invent it either. But the etiology of the phrase is beside the point.
By the way, Stan (09:55:18) posed the question: If you were King of the World and had complete control over everything and everyone, what past climate would you attempt to duplicate, what policies would you implement to achieve that climate, and what empirical evidence can you present to show that those policies would achieve the desired results?
It’s a very good question — one that I think each of us should try to answer, because it goes to the heart of what Evan phrased as “steering power”. He says, You talk about finding an advantage. Man! You could have an EFFECT! Well gee, that’s the whole point behind my being here. But I want to do it by stirring thought, not spreading propaganda. I’m not necessarily saying you trade in the latter, but when you issue edicts such as, “There is no alternative, really” as if they can’t be questioned, then I have to wonder.
Anyway, Stan’s question is a very good one. It is also one he has posed before. See here for how I answered it (comment #78) the first time I encountered it. He didn’t want me to play, but I answered it anyway. After all, how often to you get to pretend you’re King of the World? Lol! Anyway, I continue to stand by every word I said there — except maybe the summary execution of grain-based ethanol advocates. I’m still contemplating that one, lol! I should also note that as of the present, to my knowledge no one except me has attempted an answer — not even Stan. Nonetheless, it is a question I think everyone should seriously consider — including the price-tags for every facet of the entire “life cycle” associated with every potential alternative.
By the way, how would you answer it, Evan? What about Tony? What about Steve? In the end it is all about this: Man! You could have an EFFECT! IMO, truer words were never spoken. Along the same lines people have used the word “wish” abundantly, and sometimes rather loosely, throughout this thread — including me. But I think An Inquirer (21:27:15) said it best when he said, “I really wish that more people could understand what is at stake here.”
Right on, Stan. Basing energy policy on C02 emissions is sheer idiocy, and madness. It is attacking a phantom menace, to the tune of huge amounts of money. The poor and middle class will suffer the most (and already are) from it. The madness must stop.
There is a bill in Congress now, called The Climate Security Act.
People need to let their members of Congress know that this bill needs to be defeated, and they will be held to account if it isn’t. The site above has an easy way to do so. I’ve been a long-time Democrat, but for me, this is a litmus test issue. No one gets a pass on this.
No alternative? Really? Are you sure? First of all, you might want to check with China and India on that. But more generally, the long and the short of it is that if you believe what you say, it’s not me who’s selling the potential of technology short, it’s you. And that’s an important point.
Technology must fit in with wealth creation, not be pursued at the expense of wealth creation. If a technological solution is found that will replace coal and oil without a hideous loss of wealth (biolfuels providing the poster-child example), then the market will carry it forward without any coersive laws whatever.
Economic assessments offered up by the likes of Bjorn Lomborg, Steve Milloy, and others either implicitly or explicitly presume that (a) prices of fossil fuels will remain essentially the same as they are now, and (b) prices of alternatives will remain essentially the same as they are now. The important question is, how realistic are those assumptions? My opinion is… not very.
I will be explicit about it. If the fossil fuel industry had not been strangled by regulation, fuel would be cheaper in real dollars today than it was twenty years ago, when prices were at rock-bottom. The strangulation of industry and the consequent rise in prices to meet inceasing demand is the perfect example of the wealth-destruction of those who are against progress for the very sake of anti-progress.
As for “asking” India and China, I say don’t ask them anything. Let them do as they wish in this regard. It is China and India which represent the bulk of the increased demand for fossil fuel: and THAT is their true answer to the question you ask.
That, to me, is fatalistic.
It is merely observation of an invariable pattern in human history and behavior. Look at the continent of Africa. The one place which has shown the least economic progress has wrought (by far) the greatest destruction of the environment.
On the flip side, I’ll throw in Latin America as an example of what happens when economic development is largely successful: Look at how the destruction of the Amazon basin has abated over the last decade, defying all of the dire predictions we had been hearing.
Every time a nation becomes affluent, it protects the environment. There is no counterexample that I know of. It is, after all, human nature.
I have heard alternatives to the continuation of progress and affluence. We hear them all the time. They all make me shudder in horror at the potential unintended consequences. That they are well meaning causes me all the more worry, for it makes their disastrous implementation all the more likely.
And I will fully embrace the propaganda of progress. Propaganda is what it is. Very often plain truth is the most effective propaganda going. False propaganda can be refuted just as easily as anything else.
By the way, how would you answer it, Evan?
I would set up a series of representative republics and then abdicate. The world has to hold its own head up. It cannot have an outside party hold its head up for it. Only freedom and autonomy can produce the progress I advocate. Freedom can destroy it as well, but without it we have no chance whatever. For better or for worse, man must manage his own affairs.
“I really wish that more people could understand what is at stake here.”
And that’s where WE come in!
I should also note that as of the present, to my knowledge no one except me has attempted an answer — not even Stan.
Rico, the whole purpose of the question was to make people stop and think about how impossible it would be, even with absolute power, to achieve the perfect climate. For starters, I doubt that any two people could agree on what the perfect climate would be, but even more to the point, I don’t believe it’s within Man’s capacity to affect global climate much, let alone custom design it. And, BTW, you never did answer the last part of the question: “provide empirical evidence that the policies you advocate would achieve the desired results.” Besides, I told you you were ineligible to participate and you totally ignored my instructions, LOL.
We have some very smart people who read and comment on this blog, most much smarter than I. Unlike on so many science and climate forums, the majority of Anthony’s smart legions avoid the tendency to get bogged down in minutia, the recent posts involving statistics being the exception to that. I see and read a lot of common sense here with very little of the name-calling and derision so common elsewhere. The future of this debate lies not in the argument, “my algorithm is better than your algorithm”, but in the common sense of common people. (IMHO)
However, before I abdicate I shall decree one mid-May week at 75F, sunny, light breezea, scattered clouds, zero precip.
(Sorry if that screws up the negative anomalies for which we are all currently rooting.)
Sounds like a normal May day where I live!
You know all this scientific stuff you guys keep posting, it’s really strange but it sounds a lot like something that the world used to possess in the old pre-global warming days, some people called it “logical” alla Mr Spock. I think it also was known as “common sense”, or something like it! We don’t seem to have it any more for some peculiar reason, but have to have sensational stories to spread around the globe of immenent disaster, like lieetle green men from outer space in the 30’s, then nuclear disaster in the 50’s, biological warfare disater in the 60’s, then aliens yet again in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s 00’s, along with anything else that might just make a dammend good Hollywood movie blockbuster! .
To echo what seems to be a minority position in the above thread: The fundamental issue is truth seeking science rather than social policy driven or “Soviet” science. We may well end up with high fossil fuel taxes as a result of a political debate – what that debate should not be allowed to do is to corrupt the science in favor of one political position over another. If it turns out that the science indicates that AGW is catastrophic then so be it. The great benefit that this site and CA have contributed is to focus on the quality of the data and its analysis.
Dr. Spencer’s point is that the contamination of the scientific process is far reaching and that reasserting the values of “objective” science is going to be a long and arduous battle primarily because those interested in causes have been reinforced so significantly by their recent successes. Tobacco, drug and energy companies who distort and hide data are no better (or worse) than the WWF, Greenpeace, SIerra Club who distort and hide data.
I fight back with a 2 minute elevator speech format. I stick to facts and calmly pick the Alarmists major arguments apart.
There’s been enough written already to enable just about anyone to do that, lets get to it, one person at a time if necessary !
We also need to give financial help as needed to Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre and others who are self financed and in the front line.
Yes, the essential arguments will fit on a filecard.
REPLY: The real test will be if you can fit it all into a one minute TV news story.