From Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. Climate Science Weblog
There is a letter to the President published by the Cato Institute that headlines [thanks to ICECAPand Dr. Patrick J. Michaels to alerting us to it];
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
The letter is signed by over 100 scientists.
Climate Science wants to comment on the specific statements of science in the letter which is reproduced below:
“We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”
Comments by Climate Science
- “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.”
This is correct using the global average surface temperature. An effective analysis of this issue has been presented at the weblog http://rankexploits.com/musings/category/climate-sensitivity/. However, using the global average upper ocean heat content changes, the warming in the 1990s and early 2000s ended in 2003, so the more rigourous metric for global warming indicated “no net global warming” for 6 years.
- After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.
This is a correct statement which has been extensively discussed and summarized at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/category/climate-change; see also Chapter 2 in Pielke, R.A., Jr. and R.A. Pielke, Sr., 1997: Hurricanes: Their nature and impacts on society.
- The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.
This is a robust conclusion both on the global scale (e.g. see) and on the regional scale (e.g see and see).
The dismissive response on Real Climate and on Grist to this letter do not provide the objective scientific rebuttal to these science claims. This is unfortunate and is misleading policymakers, but, as we have learned and reported many times on at Climate Science and elsewhere (e.g. see and see), this is the way the IPCC and CCSP community deals with solid science that disagrees with their perspective.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly Lance (18:07:20) :
Indeed, however, it is very difficult scientifically to argue a for a young earth. YEC is based on the idea first, and looking for the evidence second. If a person is happen to embrace that model for doing science with one aspect, why should I believe that they don’t use the same model for all their science?
Should I believe that he understands his YEC views are errant, and he can be objective about other aspects of science?
Ben
Dave D (12:41:08) :
….
The really sad commentary is that rational people are left hoping for cooling effects that hurt all of mankind, to reverse the progress of these scoundrels who are leading this Green Movement.
Environmentalism, think about the word. Every sane person should be a champion of the environment. In today’s World, it stands for liars, cheats and greedy people. I don’t know that much about GreenPeace, maybe some other readers do – are they misguided or simply as corrupt and lazy as the UN?
Sorry if I went on – sometimes it does seem that hope is far away.
Dave
Refer to Greenpeace Founders Patrick Moores take on those who now run Greenpeace (Apparently he left in disgust). Ref: http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues.cfm?msid=34
Pay attention to his take on “The Rise of Eco-Extremism” on page 3 above.
Cheers G
sod (11:44:04) :
Thanks for the bold print. If you shout that means people start to listen? Or is that you whistling louder as you pass the cemetery?
The earth is in a cooling trend. It is cooler on earth now that it was during the Medieval Warming Period, and that includes 1998. And, it was even warmer on earth during the Roman Wring Period than during the Medieval Warming Period.
The earth is cooling sod. The recent warming ended in 1998. And there is a clear cooling trend since 2004. This cooling was never predicted by Al Gore.
Tim McHenry: “You attempted to show that the criticism was on target by saying that what someone believes about a past, non-repeatable, non-observable event is germain to a discussion of present temp. readings and testable near-future models!”
An understanding of paleoclimate is a necessary background for understanding current climate change. If a scientist believes that the paleoclimate record can be encapsulated into 10,000 years, he will have a profoundly different – and incorrect – understanding of the way the world works from that of accepted science.
Since the creationist regards creationism/ID as scientific knowledge, his religious beliefs are indistinguishable from his scientific claims. Therefore, his religious beliefs – or at least those that pertain to creationist scientific claims — can justifiably be submitted to scrutiny.
Burch Seymour:
“BH: It doesn’t take a climate scientist to understand that the credibility of the persuasion depends on the credibility of the names listed.
BS: Two words: Al Gore”
If Al Gore were to use his background in government or law to support his scientific claims, then you would have a case. Otherwise, not.
The issue here is the credibility of the scientists named in the Cato ad. The fact that Cato has used these scientists to support a claim that President Obama is wrong means that the credibility of those scientists is a legitimate issue.
If the credibility of the names didn’t matter, Cato could simply have used the names of 100 sceptics picked at random. It didn’t do so because it was banking on the force of the names it chose. Since the Cato ad is based on the credibility of its named scientists, it is legitimate to examine their credentials.
Just Want Truth… (21:31:43) Thanks for saving me the effort of typing something similar.
What’s climate? Perhaps 400 BD is “climate”?
climate is average weather, over a longer period. 30 years is a number often mentioned.
Nonsense. Results are results, they live or die on their own merit. It does not matter if he thinks God told him how to work the formulas used to obtain his results, if they are correct, they are correct, if they are wrong, they are wrong.
i pointed out that the claim about “no net global warming for over a decade now” is false.
i have noticed, that nobody has brought up any evidence to support this claim.
so Blick has signed a false claim. no surprise, as he also thinks that earth is only 10000 years old.
someone with such a believe can be right on any climate issue, only by chance.
somebody who believes that earth is flat, can NOT understand the climate of our planet. neither can a person, who thinks that it is only 10000 years old.
sod claims that there is no proof of global cooling. Maybe not on his planet.
The Earth is cooler now than a decade ago. To rational people, that means a net cooling. The proof is in the 5 links I posted above [and I have plenty more if five aren’t enough].
Yet with the evidence staring sod [interesting name there. Self-esteem problems?] right in the face, he still claims that there has been no net cooling over the past decade. That’s the difference between skeptical climate realists and globaloney warmists.
Skeptics are simply saying show us your real world, convincing evidence that an increase in CO2 will cause runaway global warming. Because that is the central issue in the whole debate, isn’t it? If CO2 is not a problem, then there is no reason to spend new tax money “fighting global warming”. Especially during a recession, when more taxes are seriously counter productive.
There’s a reason the warmist contingent avoids the question above like the plague. Because the answer is clear: CO2 is not a problem. And since CO2 is not a problem, the whole “climate change” debate becomes irrelevant. Except to the fanatics who can’t let go.
Benjamin P.:
There. Fixed it for you.
sod (04:36:30) :
What’s climate? Perhaps 400 BD is “climate”?
climate is average weather, over a longer period. 30 years is a number often mentioned.
That’s the definition forged by the IPCC and spread out by ehow.com and wikipedia. I have the scientific description on what climate is:
Statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of meteorological elements, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characterize the general conditions of the atmosphere over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.
Thus the period from which Smokey concludes the Earth is cooling is scientifically valid.
That number of years (“30 years is a number often mentioned”) is no more than an attempt on downgrading climate.
Scientists consider the climate of a region during lapses much smaller than one decade; although, we extend our researches over periods longer than 30 years. For example, to understand the last negligible warming, which concluded in 1998, we must analyze the climate over at least the last 2000 years or, better, over the last 12000 years.
If you evaluate the temperature fluctuations during the last 20 thousand years, you’d easily confirm that the Earth is not only cooling, but actually it is getting glacial.
@ur momisugly Smokey (05:41:42) :
For some, it seems, reality is a subjective thing.
Smokey its hard to deny that there has been not been some cooling in the last decade, the proof is in the data. The exact mechanism to explain that cooling , i’d argue, is not fully understood. Like a lot of things in climate science!
It will be interesting to see what folks will be saying if temperature starts heading up again. Since we all know a decades worth of data is “proof” for climate science.
What I really want to know is what caused the cooling form 1980-1985?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1985/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1985/plot/wti/from:1980/to:1985
That should have spot this whole climate conversation from ever happening.
Short term trends trump everything, right Smokey?
Ben
Not sure what a “Deiner” is 😉 But your single phrase “I think the science is NOT settled on the climate discussion” makes you a denier by AGW standards.
Welcome to the club!
Brendan H (22:37:46) :
Since the creationist regards creationism/ID as scientific knowledge, his religious beliefs are indistinguishable from his scientific claims. Therefore, his religious beliefs – or at least those that pertain to creationist scientific claims — can justifiably be submitted to scrutiny.
Sure, subject to scrutiny, but in the end, you still need to come up with a legitimate – scientific – reason his views on climate science are incorrect, else you are still using an argumentum ad hominem.
You wrote this all well enough to sound credible, but you really still suffer from the same problem: the only reason you have to dismiss this guy is his religious beliefs.
The definition of an ad hominem fallacy does not make any distinction about how closely a person’s beliefs are to the subject of his argument. Simply saying “you are ignorant, therefore you are wrong” is an argumentum ad hominem. Likewise, saying your religious beliefs have an impact on your credibility, therefore you are wrong, is also an argumentum ad hominem fallacy.
I should point out that the simple fact that you used a fallacious argument to discredit Blick does not mean you are wrong: Blick could be. It would be a fallacy on my part to make that assumption. However, the onus on you is still to provide a legitimate reason he is wrong. You cannot, else you would have.
Mark
Benjmain P. (07:33:43) :
Short term trends trump everything, right Smokey?
Strawman alert. Smokey never said that, nor did he imply that.
Mark
It’s also hard to deny that there was a Roman Warm Period and a Medieval Warm Period that were at least as warm as today, and at least as global as any warming we’ve seen today, but many still do so.
The definition of an ad hominem fallacy does not make any distinction about how closely a person’s beliefs are to the subject of his argument. Simply saying “you are ignorant, therefore you are wrong” is an argumentum ad hominem.
this is not what we say. we say: your (false) believes have an effect on this topic. you shouldn t be on a list of supporting scientists, if the list is supposed to generate credibility.
It’s also hard to deny that there was a Roman Warm Period and a Medieval Warm Period that were at least as warm as today, and at least as global as any warming we’ve seen today, but many still do so.
both your claims are false, of course. the MWP was NOT as warm as “today”, and the claim that it was global is weak at best.
sod (12:22:32) :
this is not what we say. we say: your (false) believes have an effect on this topic. you shouldn t be on a list of supporting scientists, if the list is supposed to generate credibility.
You just don’t get it… it does not matter if his beliefs have an effect on this topic. Either he’s right or wrong about GW. Put up a legitimate failure in his GW work, and you’ll have a case. Do you have one? Thought so…
both your claims are false, of course. the MWP was NOT as warm as “today”, and the claim that it was global is weak at best.
Actually, nobody knows because we did not have thermometers back then. The global claim is not weak at best, given that it has been reported on nearly every continent. You can ignore the reports, calling them anecdotal, but all we have is anecdote to begin with. Go ahead, try to make a claim about the tree ring recons, you’ll look as silly as Mann and Schmidt.
Mark
Because you say they’re false doesn’t make them so. Prove them false. I can provide links to the contrary if you like. Of course, I did not claim the RWP or MWP were “global” I said they were at least as “global” as today’s “global warming”, which is far from global.
Hehe, no kidding. Today’s “global” warming is primarily above the arctic circle and otherwise concentrated around heavily populated areas, aka, cities. Curious little factoid, eh? 😉
Mark
@ur momisugly Mark T (09:41:58) :
Well what is smokey implying? Smokey? You are saying the earth is cooling over the last 8-10 years right? A short term trend? You said “The Earth is cooler now than a decade ago. To rational people, that means a net cooling. The proof is in the 5 links I posted above [and I have plenty more if five aren’t enough].” And of those 5 links most show only the last decade.
So what am I supposed to take Smokey’s argument as? If I look at the last 100 years I see a different trend, but it seems shorter scale trends are more important to some folks. Tell me what I am missing.
@ur momisugly Jeff Alberts (09:44:33) :
I’ve never denied it.
@ur momisugly Jeff Alberts (09:39:04) :
Thanks for having me! I am in the club that we just don’t know enough to claim for certain one way or another. There are some folks who say the end is near because of CO2, others who say they are crazy and some folks who think climate science is in its infancy.
Read this article:
http://spaceweather.com/glossary/spotlessdays.htm?PHPSESSID=npro4vb0gq040hra7p0tgifhj2
I’m in the same club, hehe. I’m not into the “See! It’s cooling now!” club, since our level of measurement capability is still pretty bad. And again, there’s no such thing as a “global mean temperature”.
Benjmain P. (13:48:28) :
So what am I supposed to take Smokey’s argument as?
Exactly what it was: the earth has been cooling recently, which is absolutely correct. He never said or implied that “short term trends trump everything.”
Tell me what I am missing.
It’s not what you’re missing, it’s what you’re adding. That makes your argument a strawman. Whether it continues on this trend, or if longer term trends are different, is immaterial.
Mark
* quite frankly, the whole trend business is a farce because it is arbitrary. Tell me what the trend of a sine wave is.
Benjamin P.,
Whenever the discussion devolves like this it’s always the same. If I post a chart of a longer period, people complain that they’re talking about the short term, and vice-versa.
I have lots of charts. Here’s one that covers the past 425,000 years, and it should make you feel good about the fact that we’re in one of the Earth’s infrequent hospitable climate periods: click
Smokey,
Just wanted to say how much I appreciate the way you answer so many questions with your timely, appropriate and sometimes funny links.
It seems like you are playing a big important game of whack-a-mole. As soon as they pop up with some ill-considered remark, you are always waiting there with your hammer… WHACK!!!
Thanks,
Mike
Mark T (09:39:40) :
“Brendan H… the onus on you is still to provide a legitimate reason he is wrong. You cannot, else you would have.”
Score!