Key degrees of difference
Cameron Stewart, Associate editor | August 09, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24148862-11949,00.html
HAS global warming stopped? The question alone is enough to provoke scorn from the mainstream scientific community and from the Government, which says the earth has never been hotter. But tell that to a new army of sceptics who have mushroomed on internet blog sites and elsewhere in recent months to challenge some of the most basic assumptions and claims of climate change science.
Their claims are provocative and contentious but they are also attracting attention, so much sothat mainstream scientists are being forced torespond.
The bloggers and others make several key claims. They say the way of measuring the world’s temperature is frighteningly imprecise and open to manipulation. They argue that far from becoming hotter, the world’s temperatures have cooled in the past decade, contrary to the overwhelming impression conveyed by scientists and politicians.
As such, they say there should be far greater scepticism towards the apocalyptic predictions about climate change. Even widely accepted claims, such as that made by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong that “the 12 hottest years in history have all been in the last 13 years”, are being openly challenged.
“She is just plain wrong,” says Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs. “It’s not a question of debate. What about the medieval warming period? The historical record shows they were growing wine in England, for goodness sake; come on. It is not disputed by anyone that the Vikings arrived in Greenland in AD900 and it was warmer than Greenland is now. What Penny Wong is doing is being selective and saying that is a long time ago.”
But selective use of facts and data is fast becoming an art form on both sides of the climate change debate now that real money is at stake as the West ponders concrete schemes to reduce carbon emissions. So what is the validity of some of the key claims being made by these new blogger sceptics?
Their first claim is that the most basic aspect of climate change science – the measurement of global warming – is flawed, imprecise and open to manipulation.
The earth’s temperature is measured using land-based weather stations – in effect, a network of thermometers scattered unevenly across the globe – as well as via satellites and ocean-based weather sensors. There are four agencies that measure the world’s temperatures and each has different methodology and produces varying, although not dramatically different, results.
Sceptics accuse climate change believers of always quoting the agency that shows the highest level of warming, the US National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies run by prominent climate change scientist and activist James Hansen.
An independent study by Yale University in the US shows GISS says the earth has warmed by 0.025C a year during the past eight years while the other best-known measurement agency, London’s Hadley Centre, says it warmed by only 0.014C a year during the same period. Not surprisingly, the Hadley figures are the most quoted by climate change sceptics while the GISS figures are most popular with climate change believers.
David Evans, former consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office, says Hansen’s GISS is unreliable because it is the only measurement agency that relies almost wholly on land-based data instead of satellites.
“Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the urban heat island effect,” he says. “Urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars and houses.”
As such, he alleges that the GISS figures – which are enormously influential in the climate change debate – are “hopelessly corrupted” and may even be manipulated to suit Hansen’s views on global warming.
A group of weather buffs in the US also has attacked GISS’s methodology, putting together an online photo gallery of US weather stations at website www.surfacestations.org that shows some thermometers situated next to asphalt runways and parking lots where they would pick up excess warming.
But GISS says the distorting impact of this urban warming is negated because data from these stations is modified to remove these effects and give a true reading. Hansen acknowledges there may be flaws in the weather station data because temperature measurement is not always a precise science. But he says this does not mean big-picture trends can’t be drawn from the data.
He says: “That doesn’t mean you give up on the science and that you can’t draw valid conclusions about the nature of earth’s temperature change.”
Hansen has been infuriated by the attacks on GISS by climate change critics. Last year Canadian blogger and retired businessman Stephen McIntyre exposed a minor mistake in Hansen’s figures that had caused GISS to overstate US temperatures by a statistically small 0.15C since 2000.
Sceptics were energised. “We have proof of man-made global warming,” roared conservative American radio host Rush Limbaugh. “The man-made global warming is inside NASA.”
Hansen struck back, saying he would “not joust with court jesters” who sought to “create a brouhaha and muddy the waters in the climate change story”.
What the bloggers have succeeded in doing is to highlight that measuring climate change is an evolving science. But their success has been at the margins only. So far they have failed to prove that these discrepancies negate the broader core arguments about the trends of global warming.
However, the second argument being put forward by blogger sceptics is more accessible to the public and therefore is having a greater impact. They argue that, contrary to the impressions given about global warming, the earth’s temperatures have plateaued during the past decade and may have cooled in recent years. This, they argue, should not be happening when carbon emissions are growing rapidly. This was not what the climate change modellers predicted. Their conclusion therefore is that carbon emissions are not the driver of warming and climate change and that the earth is not heading for a climate change apocalypse caused by greenhouse gases.
“All official measures of global temperature show that it peaked in 1998 and has been declining since at least 2002,” says climate change sceptic Bob Carter, a science adviser to the Australian Climate Science Coalition. “And this is in the face of an almost 5 per cent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1998. Spot the problem?”
A careful analysis of global temperature graphs from each of the measurement agencies confirm that – despite variations between them – there has not been any notable warming since 2000. Depending on which graphs you use, global temperatures since 2000 have been more or less flat. Some, such as the GISS data, show a modest rise, while others show negligible movement and even a small fall in recent years.
Sceptics like to use graphs that date from 1998 because that was the hottest year on record due to El Nino influences and therefore the temperature trends for the decade look flattest when 1998 is the starting point.
But ultimately this is a phony war because most mainstream scientists do not dispute that global temperatures have remained relatively flat during the past decade. Where they differ with the sceptics is on how this outcome should be interpreted.
“The changes in temperature over the past 10 years have basically plateaued,” says Andy Pitman, co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW. “But scientists did not anticipate a gradual year-by-year warming in temperature. What matters is the long-term trend. This outcome does not change any of the science but it does change the spin climate deniers can put on it.”
The sceptics are having a field day with this trend. The IPA’s Marohasy says: “In the last 10 years we have seen an increase in carbon dioxide levels yet temperatures are coming down. That, if anyone looks at the actual data, is not disputable. Carbon dioxide is not driving temperatures because there are other important climatic factors at play.”
Most scientists are adamant that any assessment of climate change based on only 10 years of data is not only meaningless but reckless.
“From a climate standpoint it is far too short a period to have any significance,” says Amanda Lynch, a climate change scientist at Melbourne’s Monash University. “What we are seeing now is consistent with our understanding of variability between decades. If we hung about for another 30 years and it kept going down, then you might start to think there is something we don’t understand. But the evidence at this point suggests this is not something we should hang around and wait for.”
Climate change scientists say we must go back much further than the past decade and pay attention to the longer-term trend lines that run through the temperature data and clearly trend upwards. Lynch says other factors beyond temperature are also relevant. “In the last 10 years there has been a catastrophic and massive Arctic sea ice retreat. We’ve seen glacial retreat, permafrost thaw and ocean thermal expansion, so temperature is not the whole story.”
But the sceptics are undeterred. “It is widely alleged that the science of global warming is settled,” says the US-based Science and Public Policy Institute. “This implies that all the major scientific aspects of climate change are well understood and uncontroversial. The allegation is profoundly untrue … even the most widely held opinions should never be regarded as an ultimate truth.”
Matthew England, from the Climate Change Research Centre, describes the latest blog war by climate change sceptics as an amazing phenomenon. “Climate change is a robust area of science and there is plenty that is still being debated and new discoveries are still being made,” he says. “It is a topic (that) will keep attracting different opinions from enthusiasts and from bloggers. They are a minority but they are proving to be a very vocal group.”
Janama –
Steven Talbot: Dr David Evans is a scientist with 6 degrees. He has a PHD and two masters from Stanford and a masters and two bachelors from Sydney – in Math/Physics/Statistics and Electrical Engineering.
Dr James E Hansen also has a maths/physics/statistics background and like David Evans has no degree in climatology.
Fair enough, but Evans has still made a false statement, has he not? Or do you think otherwise?
When we’ve won this ideological war, I suggest we nominate MacIntyre and Watts for the nobel Peace prize.
Steven Talbot, the writer used ‘land’ when he should have said ‘surface’. As journalistic errors in GW go, a minor mistake.
GISS and Hadley: The important distinction between these measures and the satellite data is the inclusion of surface temperature measurements. Whether they also include satellite data is secondary, because it is clear that the differences in the datasets is due to surface measurements versus satellite measurements.
And I’ll note in passing that neither you nor I know the relative weighting of surface and satellite data, because the algorithm is secret. One must admire the GISS for pioneering the ground breaking scientific breakthrough of secret science. /endsarcasm
It looks to me like you are muddying the water for the purpose of obfuscating the real issues. This is a standard tactic AGW Believers use in order to avoid substantive debate on the science. Perhaps I’m tarring you with the wrong brush, but I doubt it.
Steve Talbot,
It is good to see somebody who is clearly a believer in GW ( whether it is GW, or AGW it is not totally clear from your comments ) and have a rational, fact based discussion on the subject. It is also interesting that a lot of the discussion is about small changes in reporting of temperatures, Arctic ice cover, or whatever the current topic of interest is. Regardless of the outcome of these discussions, none of these observations provide support for the existence of catastrophic global warming, as predicted by the IPCC, Al Gore and James Hansen. This, coupled with the theoretical incoherence underlying the prediction of catastrophic global warming, one would have to conclude that catastrophic global warming – the emphasis is on the word ” catastrophic ” – not a proven scientific theory. Given this assumption, discussions about results, interpretations and importance of various climate science observations is wholly beneficial and having a contributor whose views are at variance – I do not know to what extent – with the majority of this blog’s contributors, is a welcome development.
It wasn’t just that wine was produced in Britain in the MWP, it was a major economic activity and this was documented in the Doomsday book (unfortunately text not available online).
Wine production then dissapeared from Britain for 600 or 700 years. The fact it reappeared in the 20th century due to improved technology and grape strains is irrelevant.
I wonder how many of the quotes are newly elicited from article specific interviews and how many are re-hashed from elsewhere? Sometimes not too accurately I suspect, certainly in terms of context.
Interesting the read that the ‘scientists’ – implying only the warmists it seemed to me on a third reading – all recognise that a 10 year record is not really very informative. I seem to remember that such periods were once thought very informative by the scientists, or at least their press releases, but now opinion seems to flipped the other way.
I also note, more strongly each time I read it, that on the one had are reported ‘the scientists’ though of course many people pushing the warming message are nothing of the sort or certainly not directly related to climate studies any more than the ‘bloggers’ who, by inference in the phrasing in most cases, are not speaking as ‘scientists’ but merely ‘bloggers’.
I guess it is all a matter of how one manages to ‘frame’ the piece. Also maybe how much one can say by leaving stuff out – effectively saying nothing.
It’s quite a subtle piece of writing in that respect. It repays several readings to fully understand what seems to be the underlying message.
Take this paragraph:
“What the bloggers have succeeded in doing is to highlight that measuring climate change is an evolving science. But their success has been at the margins only. So far they have failed to prove that these discrepancies negate the broader core arguments about the trends of global warming.”
Paraphrased it reads:
The non-scientists keep pointing out that we still need to invest in more research, which we all knew anyway. Even then they have no influence at the heart of the matter (so you can safely ignore them). Not even enough influence to get anyone, especially the ‘scientists’ to try to work towards theorising and then proving the hypotheses that are put forward without anything more to support them than a vague idea related to not yet researched science.
That seems to be to be, inter alia, inverting the role of who should be seeking the proof.
Grant
“The temperature is not the whole story”
But wait… isnt the temperature supposed to be the force melting the ice?
And good job Australian!!!
Thank you very, very much for reporting this. We have few in the MSM willing to give us the time of day and every outlet means a lot.
Thanks again!
Janama, the number of degrees someone has is not a very good measurement of their intelligence, and in many cases, of their expertise in a certain subject. Instead, what matters is the work performed throughout their professional career and their contributions to science. However, just for the record you can see Dr. Hansen’s CV here. To gloss over a few things, Dr. Hansen holds a PhD in Physics, has been employed and doing professional research for over 40 years, and according to that CV, has been an author of at least 57 published research papers.
You can disagree with the man and hate him for the politics he plays on occasion, but it’s downright inappropriate for anyone here to denigrate him for his achievements.
We’ve been waiting a long time over here in Australia for any kind of a debate on the ‘actual’ level of AGW, instead of the endless self-fulfilling dogma from the “true believers” which has filled our media almost exclusively for the last decade.
Perhaps this article is the start of just such a debate and, as a consequence, will herald the rise of science over blind faith once more.
An interesing exposition on the state of the consensus. With the persistence of skeptics steadily chipping away at the foundations of AGW there may come a time that such a more balanced approach will even find its way into American MSM (ABC, CBS, Fox, and yes, even NBC). Who knows — in time a new consensus may emerge to the effect that temperature changes are a result of forces other than CO2. Climatology has a long way to go in its process of maturation.
OK the story is disappointing in some ways but it wouldn’t even have been written only 6 months ago I believe. It is a response to the application of logic by internet sceptics, so great job I say. The msm faces a decision here as they have to jump off at some point. I can see them looking around at each other wrestling with it. At what point does it become convenient or even essential for us to dump this crap? That day is coming!! Matty, Perth, Western Australia
And the beautiful thing about all this? This year will be cooler than last on all data sets so we’ll be able to beat em over the head with this for another year! At Least!!!
I realized recently that we really need to know one very important detail about the earth before a case can be made for AGW or GW. That is simply we must know what the normal ideal temperature of the earth.
After all any warming or cooling trend should be tracked relative to that shouldn’t it? Without knowing what the ideal temperature is how can we say that warming is a problem?
Of course this comes back to the problem that temperature is not a constant but a range. After all what was the temperature where you live yesterday? Not the high or the low or the mean, no what was the one temperature all day? There wasn’t a single temperature but instead a range from the day’s low to the days high.
Snow in Austrailia!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/10072008news.shtml
counters (17:01:23) :
You make an excellent point on Dr. Hansen’s credentials.
I don’t care for the grandstanding he engages in, but I don’t doubt for a moment his sincerity and public spirit.
Only time will really tell how history will ultimately judge the AGW hypothesis.
Personally, I’m seeing some problems with it.
In any event, I would like to recommend a gem of a book a friend very graciously loaned to me. He told me about it and then cruelly held on to it until he had a chance to finish it. Every week he would tantalize with hints of its contents.
The book? The Scientist As Rebel by Freeman Dyson.
Freeman is a most generous man in his assessments of others. Even those you would expect him to be strongly critical of. Even when there is a strong difference of opinion, Freeman endeavors to understand why the person has formed the opinions they have of others.
Until I read his chapter on Edward Teller, a somewhat controversial figure in science of the 20th century, I had a strong dislike of Edward Teller. This was due mostly to what I had read in Richard Rhodes’ portrayal of him in The Making of the Atomic Bomb. After reading Freeman’s discussion, I’ve changed my mind. Edward Teller was caught up in some very difficult times and had to make a lot of decisions under a lot of pressure. I’ve come to the conclusion Teller just made a mistake in his testimony regarding Oppenheimer and I believe came to regret it.
Dyson is really good at portraying some of these fellow scientists as the human beings they were. As humans, subject to all the failings membership in our exasperating race is prone to.
Two things have really bothered me about this debate on AGW.
One: The attacks on personalities. Does nothing for your point view except demonstrate your impatience and perhaps, lack of an argument for your position.
Two: Reliance on credentials. Credentialism is not a proof. During the race to elucidate the structure of DNA, Linus Pauling published a paper containing an error a first year chemistry student would not have made. Watson and Crick spotted this error, but were in such awe of the man’s credentials, there was the possibility Dr. Pauling had discovered a new, fundamental principle in chemistry, overriding his obvious blunder. Upon further reflection, they decided it really was just a mistake. If Linus Pauling had discovered a new principle of chemistry, he would have written that up first, then showed how it allowed him to determine the structure of DNA.
I’m a great fan of Linus Pauling, but he made a mistake. In his own field no less.
I seem to recall even John Elway threw the occasional interception.
Also, saying someone doesn’t have a degree in climate science somehow negates their opinion is not an argument either. If the non-specialist has made a mistake in climate science, it should be easy to point it out.
One of the people highlighted in Freeman’s book is Thomas Gold, another one of my heroes. Thomas Gold made a career out of invading other people’s sandboxes and usually being right. He was famous for suggesting petroleum came from non-living processes, not, as is generally accepted, from plants and animals that have since died off. I still think the jury is out on this last question. It is possible petroleum could still possibly trace its origin to a cold earth genesis.
In any event, everyone deserves a fair hearing. We don’t get it all the time, but perhaps we should be willing give it.
When the Dot Earth crowd decided I was a paid representative of the energy industry, it only proved they were capable of serious mistakes.
Well I’ve rambled enough. Get the book. It’s a delight.
There have been a few summaries of the debate now, and this one, like the others, does not extend beyond the boundaries set by the warmists – that CO2 is making the Earth into a giant greenhouse.
As a lay person reading this blog I am getting a more subtle message – yes the Earth is a sort of greenhouse, yes CO2 is only one of the (lesser) components of the mixture of gases that keep the earth warm, nothing to disagree with between the two sides here.
But then things diverge: The sun is a variable star, it gets bigger / it gets smaller and the sun spots cycles are erratic. Whilst the physics of why this is happening is not well advanced it is certain that the sun is a variable heat source.
And the oceans, not the air, is the biggest influence on how heat is distributed. These oceans are on top of another heat source – 400,000 (?)active volcanos!
We need a summary that combines sceptism of the data and of the models (which are naive) and of the physics which fails to address big influences on climate. This blog has doen a wonderful job of bringing this debate together amongst the scientists, but I have not seen such a summary for lay people like myself. It must be easy to put together, maybe on wikipedia?
One of the AGW arguments that bothers me most is the one where they say, waiting until every last doubt is resolved may very well be too late..
Yet every year, without fail, the local officials around San Diego pretend that fire season has never happened before… and after it happens, they pretend it will never happen again. Fire season in San Diego has been happening since the last major ice age ended. Governments often do not respond to provable, cyclical threats, but devote every ounce of energy to phantoms. Which would almost be cute, but… “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia”.
“In the last 10 years there has been a catastrophic and massive Arctic sea ice retreat. We’ve seen glacial retreat, permafrost thaw and ocean thermal expansion, so temperature is not the whole story.”
—Amanda Lynch, a climate change scientist at Melbourne’s Monash University.
Umm, Amanda (or perhaps counters could address this), how about record sea ice PRODUCTION in the southern hemisphere and the recent downtrend in ocean levels which suggests ocean thermal contraction.
[…] on Watts Up With That? 09 August, 2008 The Texas Sharpshooter – or – When do we get serious? Steve McIntyre […]
The article mentions Jennifer Marohasy (also on your blogroll); she appeared on the ABC (Australia) TV show “Lateline”. There is a video of that here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2008/07/29/2318074.htm Note that one of the blogger sites shown a couple of times is Watts Up With That 🙂
What really interests me, is the fact that Journalism has pretty much lost it’s ability to seek out and investigate the shenanigans of society…. Where once they would have thrived on the exposure of such obvious deception…. They are now engaged in participating with the deception….
There is malaise upon journalism and academia. It is a sick and pale imitation of what was once boisterous and vibrant…..
Sorta sad to watch really.
counters
: I wasn’t attempting to denigrate Dr Hansen – I was supporting Dr Evans from the typical attacks he consistently receives from the warmers.
Counters, Hansen’s degrees, who cares, Hansen seems to believe that we should listen, obey and shut up. When I ask a government official for information that should be public I want the information. I don’t think he should be denigrated for his education, he should be castigated for his actions. He is unwilling, (maybe incapable) to debate/defend his positions but is quite willing to use wild, inflammatory, insulting remarks describing those who disagree with him. I think his “achievements” will be judged by history, and if you are wrong history is a most harsh critic. If he is right he will be a forgotten footnote.
Someone seemed surprised at snow in Australia. The normal Australia winter ‘Snowies region ‘ covers a greater area that that of Switzerland!