UPDATE: 11/10 From the Sydney Morning Herald
Michael Duffy
November 8, 2008
Last month I witnessed something shocking. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was giving a talk at the University of NSW. The talk was accompanied by a slide presentation, and the most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply.
As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told his large audience: “We’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]”.
Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those temperatures have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there’s been a sharp cooling. These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure, interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary greatly, but the facts are clear.
Satellite derived lower troposphere temperature since 1979 – Click for a larger image
Reference: UAH lower troposphere data
So it’s disturbing that Rajendra Pachauri’s presentation was so erroneous, and would have misled everyone in the audience unaware of the real situation. This was particularly so because he was giving the talk on the occasion of receiving an honorary science degree from the university.
Below: find out how you can tell Mr. Pachauri directly what you think – he has a blog!
Later that night, on ABC TV’s Lateline program, Pachauri claimed that those who disagree with his own views on global warming are “flat-earthers” who deny “the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence”. But what evidence could be more important than the temperature record, which Pachauri himself had fudged only a few hours earlier?
In his talk, Pachauri said the number of global warming sceptics is shrinking, a curious claim he was unable to substantiate when questioned about it on Lateline. Still, there’s no doubt a majority of climate scientists agree with the view of the IPCC.
Today I want to look at why this might be so: after all, such a state of affairs presents a challenge to sceptics such as me. If we’re right, then an awful lot of scientists are wrong. How could this be?
This question was addressed in September in a paper by Professor Richard Lindzen, of the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, probably the most qualified prominent global-warming sceptic, suggested that a number of changes in the way science is conducted have contributed to the rise of climate alarmism among American scientists.
Lindzen believes another problem with climate science is that in America and Europe it is heavily colonised by environmental activists.
Here are just two examples that indicate the scale of the problem: the spokesman for the American Meteorological Society is a former staffer for Al Gore, and realclimate.org, probably the world’s most authoritative alarmist web site, was started by a public relations firm serving environmental causes.
None of this is necessarily sinister, but the next time you hear a scientist or scientific organisation warning of climate doom, you might want to follow the money trail. Sceptics are not the only ones who have received funding from sources sympathetic to their viewpoint. (And yes, Lindzen did once receive some money from energy companies.)
Lindzen claims that scientific journals play an important role in promoting global warming alarmism, and gives a number of examples.
Someone else who’s looked closely at scientific journals (although not specifically those dealing with climate science) is epidemiologist John Ioannidis of the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. He reached the surprising conclusion that most published research findings are proved false within five years of their publication. (Lest he be dismissed as some eccentric, I note that the Economist recently said Ioannidis has made his case “quite convincingly”.)
Why might this be so? Later work by Ioannidis and colleagues suggests that these days journal editors are more likely to publish research that will make a splash than that which will not. They do this to sell more copies of their publications and of reprints of papers in it. Ioannidis believes these publication practices might be distorting science.
It’s possible the forces described by Lindzen and Ioannidis have imbued climate science with a preference for results that involve (or seem to involve) disastrous change rather than stability. Rajenda Pachauri’s recent Sydney lecture suggests that in this relatively new field, inconvenient truths to the contrary are not welcome.
I have just finished watching the youtube video Pachauri presented in at the University of NSW. I was absolutely amazed at what i heard and model data that has been well an truly bought int0 disrepute is being preached as fact. For those that do not know better will be misled by such lies. I am really over this crap, and hope that wisdom will have it’s day soon.
Atleast the Canadians voted against such rubbish. But the US has now got one in Obama (Let’s hope the economic downturn keeps him busy enough to not focus on such rubbish). And I hope Australia with Kevin 747 Rudd, people overtime will realise his folly along with his minster of doom Penny Wong.
Anne (10:12:28) :
“Come on, get real. Even the most aggressive mitigation proposals cost less than a few percent of GDP.”
If I might say so I find the casual dismissal of “a few percent of GDP” to be quite extraordinary. I believe the latest figures available show US GDP in 2006 at $13.13 trillion. Each percentage is $131,300,000,000. That is the total amount earned in a year by 2,626,000 people each earning $50,000 (if I’ve got my sums right).
“A few percent” of anything isn’t much when it’s someone else’s money. But put it in real terms and you see just how expensive it is. More than 2 1/2 million people working all year
If you are to justify something that will cost the amount 2,626,000 earn in a year I would have thought you would want rock solid proof that it is worthwhile.
And, lest you are tempted, please don’t waste time citing what other things cost. They cost what they cost, they are already a drain, whether they are or are not justified is not relevant. You are proposing, with glibness, the expenditure of utterly vast sums of money and dismissing it as “a few percent”. What is more you put that argument forward as your defence when people suggest the evidence does not justify your concerns. In effect you say “ok, even if you’re right and there isn’t a huge problem, it will only cost a few percent of GDP. Better safe than sorry.”
When dealing with these sorts of sums, better safe than sorry is not a rational option.
Leif (18:50:27) Thanks for this very useful comment. It is nice to worship the sun without blaming it so much. Still, clouds might be a factor which can give hypersensitivity without instability. Look upon their effect as a system with boundaries.
====================================
Anne, that was an excellent comment by Mr FatBigot, and I eagerly await your response.
In addition to FatBigot’s other points, please specifically explain how your statement ‘better safe than sorry’ is a rational response in dealing with this unproven non-problem.
Thanx,
Your skeptical pal,
~Smokey
leebert,
Thank you for that interesting chart in your link. It provides excellent perspective.
I might also add that any putative global warming due to increased CO2 is conjectural [although there may be a very slight amount of warming due to the greatly increased atmospheric — and very beneficial — carbon dioxide].
In fact, all purported warming due to carbon dioxide comes only from always-inaccurate computer models; any actual empirical evidence can not be extracted from the natural background noise, and is therefore suspect.
That means that CO2 forcing, if it even exists, is so very minor that almost all other forcings, such as soot [mainly from developing countries], solar influences, the AMO/PDO, la nina, el nino, etc., completely overwhelm any [very tiny] effect of increased CO2.
Yet the conjecture that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming, with concomitant effects such as a disastrous rise in the sea level and the continued widespread use of the Michael Mann/IPCC’s “hockey stick” chart continue, despite being repeatedly falsified.
The goron contingent still insists that to save humanity from the evil “carbon” [from which we are made] will cost $trillions. Elmer Gantry would be proud.
Most of us here know a scam when we see one.
So what about this ‘distribution of sunlight’ in the new Nature article? I can’t find out about the significance of that from what I’ve read.
==============================================
Smokey (11:43:01) :
You can discard #1 and #2 above, and replace them with:
If you propose a hypothesis, then you have the burden of proof.
In science there is no ‘burden of proof’, this is a moral concept. It can only be used in a political debate. My #2 is known as the precautionary principle, well established in many other areas. No you can not simply discard that.
As for the falsification of the AGW hypothesis, you apparently know more than I do. I hope it is founded on more than the temperature trends over the last 10 years.
Maybe the backlash will mean that the next generation of professors will teach their science students some sort of ethics and public relations course. I don’t think it is a deliberate scam, rather, the stuff that is of academic interest–the possible future scenarios–has been taken up by people who feel a moral purpose in life that is about human balance with nature, and because that moral purpose is in itself a principle, a fundamental principle, then the science of future scenario projection has come to be promoted to the public with heavy principled moral force. Maybe Anne would like to give her impression, as she mentioned her principled outlook, which I happen to feel is a good thing. In short:
The problem has perhaps been the combination of an absolute moral principle, joined with a statistical spread of possible perhaps likely scenarios based on various scientific assumptions.
I think that honors and preserves intact both sides of the debate in general.
Had “likely scenarios” been the forefront of the message from the community, then I would never have become a skeptic because skepticism is already implied. I take great interest in the stories and scenarios from Futurist think tanks, but they are clear about these being scenarios and clear that they should not be misused. I think the people who value the moral principle of human balance should drop the biblical damnation and flood approach and just talk about hte moral principle as it’s own justification. Converting people who don’t want to be converted is not a great way to make the world better, one would think.
G Alston (14:58:40) :
The first engineer who can figure out how to get 200 mpg out of a standard car is going to make a great deal of money.
Did you do the math on that? An average car does 30 mpg with an engine that has a ~20% thermal efficiency. As an engineer you should be able to calculate the necessary thermal efficiency to achieve 200 mpg.
The first team who can figure out how to power a home full time for a $10k investment is going to likewise make a lot of money.
nanosolar seems to be pretty much on track to make $1/W solar panels a reality. In a more or less sunny location (say Texas, Florida, California), those panels can generate around 1 kWh per rated W per year. $ 10.000 is therefore enough for 10.000 kWh per year. Not at all as impossible as you think.
Surely you’re not suggesting that you simply mandate that these technologies that need developing and we wake up and poof them into existence, are you?
As for nanosolar, indeed poof, there they were. Without government initiative. Human inventivity is pretty much like magic.
(”Yeah, we could have made vehicle batteries that can power a Chevy Volt 1000 miles for 5 cents years last year, but gee, we didn’t knew it was required. That surely makes all the difference. Let’s build that battery, boys.”)
Exaggerating a bit is ok, but this is pretty ridiculous. Stay a little close to reality please.
Must be nice to have that much faith that government can do what the lure of riches beyond the dreams of avarice cannot.
Where did you get the idea from that I have total faith in governement to solve all our problems? I never suggested anything even remotely resembling that. Do you think I am the standard leftist-long-live-the-government-and-let’s-regulate-the-hell-out-of-everthing
stereotype? Gee, that surely helps a meaningful debate.
Kum,
You have an odd way of calling a signed business deal a subsidy
“As for oil subsidies? Well, they never have taken away that provision that exempts them from paying $13 Billion/yr in Royalties for oil produced on some rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. And, then there was, what, about $3 billion for exploration of deep water in the gulf? ”
I have to assume that you know full well that the leases were let during the Clinton Administration at a time when oil was cheap and the cost for drilling in deeper water was high. The Clinton administration decided to not include royality escalation clauses in the lease to provide incentives for the Companies to take the risk. Also I assume you know that the companies still paid huge sums for the leses and still pay royalities on the production. I don’t know which producers took the risk and in hindsight got a good deal but the Companies did provide jobs for the construction of the rigs and the operation of the platforms. Also any oil from the production did reduce the amount of oil we imported (sending $$$ overseas.
Now Nancy Pelosi wants to renegotiate those contracts and retroactively add an esclation clause when oil prices are above a certain level, under the threat of not allowing the lease holders to bid on any future leases. Sounds a lot like Putin’s appproach to running a government and how private business is treated.
I really surprised that you fell for the socialist spin on signed contracts and claim this to be a subsidy.
I don’t know what you are talking about with the 3 billion dollars, but I do know that the government needs to conduct surveys of potential oil rich lease areas in order to maximize the government return on selling the leases. There are currently new technologies that provide a significantly definition than older outdated surveys thus providing the best knowledge of where oil reserves may be found. Any good business would conduct an appraisal of their assets if they plan to sell/lease them to maximize the the bids? Is that the subsidy you are referring to?
I also know that Obama has a pending bill in the Senae to prevent such surveys using latest technology. I can only assume he does not want you to know how much oil and gas resources they are holding back from the pubilc while we get ripped off by OPEC.
[…] to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the […]
Smokey, I don’t relish repeating myself; however Dyson’s figure of twelve years for residence of CO2 clearly relates to a hypothetical scenario…
This calculation is arithmetically correct, in that hypothetical situation, with enough carbon-eating plants to do the job of sequestration. Since we are discussing the effect of carbon-eating plants, my use of the short residence time without replacement is correct …
Pete … Maybe there is a definition issue involved. Quite possibly. Carbon is in constant flux between atmospheric, ocean and geologic reservoirs, which is why the relevant metric is for how long and by how much a pulse of CO2 raises the net atmospheric concentration. The curve for this has a sharp initial drop off then a long tail, you can see the graph in the paper published in Journal of Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry that May refers to [figure 9b]. I note that after your literature search the only paper you quote appears to be unreviewed and unpublished in any academic journal, would this be correct?.
In addition to the cite above I refer you to the US EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory which uses an average figure of 50-200 years for the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 (Table 1.1), or David Archer’s paper published in J. Geophys. Res. Oceans, which found that 7% of anthropogenic carbon is still resident after 10,000 years and concluded In fairness, if the fate of anthropogenic carbon must be boiled down into a single number for popular discussion, then 300 years is a sensible number to choose, because it captures the behavior of the majority of the carbon.
cheers,
JP
REPLY: The simple fact is this: nobody knows for certain. It’s all models and calculations, because there is no way to track CO2 molecules from emission to atmosphere to sequestration. There’s no measurement for this. Since we can’t empirically prove the various projections, stop arguing about it.
I can say this statement “7% of anthropogenic carbon is still resident after 10,000 years” is absolute twaddle because its purely a projection, there is no measurement to support it nor could there be. The idea that we undertsand earth’s climate systems, oceans, and respiration of CO2 and all the feedbacks, biomass, etc. well enough to predict 10,000 years ahead is absolutely ludicrous.
Now both of you – not one more word on this. I’m tired of moderating it. The argument here between you two won’t change anything (except to waste more of my and other moderators time). It’s OT. Move along.
– Anthony
Anne (05:58:50) :
“As for the falsification of the AGW hypothesis, you apparently know more than I do. I hope it is founded on more than the temperature trends over the last 10 years.”
The AGW hypothesis’ only justification comes from the computer models, GCMs, used extensively in the AR report of IPCC.
As you noticed, temperatures do not follow IPCC projections. But that is not the only measure that is not following projections. Here is a plot to remind you of this:
icecap.us/images/uploads/ipccchart.jpg
A model/theory falls even if one datums disproves it, and there are more:
1) The fingerprint of CO2 in the tropical troposphere as set out in the AR4 report is absent in the data. Here are the links
for models:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
data:
icecap.us/images/uploads/GHGModsvsReality.jpg
2) The oceans are cooling instead of warming and setting off a feedback loop of greenhouse warming: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
The spin is: global warming missing heat. The truth is, nature does not follow the GCM IPCC models.
3) the specific humidity is not rising as it should in order to create the runaway feedback loop predicated in the models:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/Timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Specific+Humidity+(up+to+300mb+only)&level=300&lat1=90&lat2=-90&lon1=-180&lon2=180&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&iarea=0&typeout=2&Submit=Create+Timeseries
The basic premise of the models, that the tiny, (anthropogenic CO2 is a tiny fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere:
http://www.co2web.info/Icecap_CarbonDioxide.pdf) anthropogenic CO2 is the straw that breaks the camel’s back and starts runaway greenhouse warming is absolutely NOT SUPPORTED BY THE DATA.
And do tell me if you think there is any driving correlation between the rise in CO2 and global temperatures in this plot: icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_of_Carbon_Dioxide_with_Temperatures_Negative_Again.pdf
Thus, imo, all this AGW business is a production set up to stampede the masses into supporting policies they would never consider otherwise.
( sorry for the capitals, I have no way of writing bold here).
Maybe they should have tried “the aliens are coming”.
Don, I typed “energy bill/oil subsidies” into google, and here’s the 3rd, or 4 th article to pop up.
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13980
Looks like $6 Billion, not $3 Billion.
Anna V, nice summary of reality versus modeling. It would be nice to sticky that somewhere or build a new blog post around it. It is a dry, unemotional (thus ripe for reasonable discourse around scientific principles) look at model climate versus observations that should be posted conspicuously.
Well done.
anna v (08:22:58) :
( sorry for the capitals, I have no way of writing bold here).
<b>bold</b>
OK, here are all the links in my previous so that they are clickable ( I hope)
:
temperatures:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ipccchart.jpg
1)tropical from AR4:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
data:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GHGModsvsReality.jpg
2) cooling oceans:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
3) specific humidity, copy and paste it, it works.
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/Timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Specific+Humidity+(up+to+300mb+only)&level=300&lat1=90&lat2=-90&lon1=-180&lon2=180&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&iarea=0&typeout=2&Submit=Create+Timeseries
antrhorpogenic versus natural CO2
http://www.co2web.info/Icecap_CarbonDioxide.pdf
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_of_Carbon_Dioxide_with_Temperatures_Negative_Again.pdf
[…] how’s the excelerating global warming going? Er, not so good, as Anthony Watts points […]
FatBigot (01:04:50) :
If I might say so I find the casual dismissal of “a few percent of GDP” to be quite extraordinary. I believe the latest figures available show US GDP in 2006 at $13.13 trillion. Each percentage is $131,300,000,000. That is the total amount earned in a year by 2,626,000 people each earning $50,000 (if I’ve got my sums right).
If I were a citizen of Luxembourg, the result of your calculation would be a measly 5000 people. This only to show how absurd your math is. The right way to go about this is saying that each % GDP equals $500 for your average $50.000 earning citizen.
Go over to the CIA world factbook, look up a random country and scroll down to the data on economy. All amounts are expressed as a percentage of GDP. That is the best measure of the effort required from a country. Expressing it as an absolute number is meaningless as my Luxembourg example showed.
Secondly you should not take my words out of context, they were a reply to the exaggeration by Katherine, suggesting we’ll have no money left to buy food if we want to mitigate climate change. You should perhaps challenge her instead where she got such wonderfully alarmist ideas.
“A few percent” of anything isn’t much when it’s someone else’s money.
Who says I’m not paying taxes?
If you are to justify something that will cost the amount 2,626,000 earn in a year I would have thought you would want rock solid proof that it is worthwhile.
Rock solid proof is never available. Ask any military commander or business man or politician if they only make decisions based on rock solid proof. They’ll immediately tell you thats the surest way to defeat because the real world seldomly offers you this rock solid proof, and when it does it’s probably too late. Do you think the budget proposals are made on rock solid proof? Can you show me the proof?
And, lest you are tempted, please don’t waste time citing what other things cost. They cost what they cost, they are already a drain, whether they are or are not justified is not relevant.
What happened to your demand for rock solid proof? Suddenly, when that suits your argument, you are not so critical anymore about what we spend our tax money on and whether it is justified or not. You have some explaining to do.
You are proposing, with glibness, the expenditure of utterly vast sums of money and dismissing it as “a few percent”. What is more you put that argument forward as your defence when people suggest the evidence does not justify your concerns.
You misinterpreted my statement. I dropped that number as an upper limit to the cost of mitigation, not what I think we should spend. And, as I said before, it was my defense against someone suggesting mitigation will cost 100% GDP (because there’s no money left even for food).
In effect you say “ok, even if you’re right and there isn’t a huge problem, it will only cost a few percent of GDP. Better safe than sorry.”
Correct. Although the exact percentage is open for debate.
When dealing with these sorts of sums, better safe than sorry is not a rational option.
All insurances are sold on the rationality of better safe than sorry. As are airbags, fire alarms, etc. All based on the notion of protecting yourself against known and unknown risks. Something might go wrong. For me, the same applies to the uncertainties of climate change. In my opinion it is a risk worth spending money on. You have your own opinion about it. We’ll have to trust democracy that it will find a compromise that does justice to the two of us.
Thanks Leif,
I am getting really bold
or italic ?
Smokey (03:50:14) :
In addition to FatBigot’s other points, please specifically explain how your statement ‘better safe than sorry’ is a rational response in dealing with this unproven non-problem.
Spending money on non-problems is stupid. As is replacing half of my opinion by yours and then attacking me on the resulting contradiction.
I have seen no piece of evidence that a majority of the climate scientists agree with the views of IPCC, so I do doubt that this is true. IPCC, of course, wants the world to believe that a majority of the climate scientists are on their side, but that is no evidence. A majority of the climate scientist do not oppose the views of the IPCC, at least not in public, but that is neither an evidence that they agree with those views.
Anne (09:43:15) Yes it is stupid to throw money at non-problems. So you’ve got to be able to show that CO2 is a problem. That is not so easy to do when temperatures are falling while CO2 rises, and when evidence that the expected water vapor feedback to CO2 forcing is empirically absent.
===========================================
It is worse than stupid. It is fatal.
I would like to thank Anna V. for doing a fine job in illustrating how Anne’s whole argument has zero foundation.
….not that Anne will admit it.