My New Paper On The Economics And Science Of Climate Change
Guest Post by Alan Carlin
On Friday my new paper on climate change science and economics was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, a peer-reviewed journal. The paper is unusual from a number of different perspectives.
From a policy perspective, the paper’s conclusions include the following:
· The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting.
· The costs of CO2 emissions reductions are perhaps an order of magnitude higher than usually estimated because of technological and implementation problems recently identified.
· CO2 emissions reductions are economically unattractive since the few benefits remaining after the corrections for the above effects are quite unlikely to economically justify the much higher costs unless much lower cost geoengineering is used.
· The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.
From a historical perspective, the paper builds on my Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act, prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency in early 2009, by presenting an expanded version of a few portions of that material in journal article format, incorporating many new or updated references, and explaining the implications of the science for the economic benefits and costs of climate change control.
It is also particularly noteworthy for appearing in a peer-reviewed journal rather than the “gray literature,” such as a report to EPA, where many skeptic analyses end up—something that warmists never fail to point out. Although this article was not written for EPA, it has major implications for the scientific validity (or lack thereof) of the December 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding and the economics that EPA and many economists have used to justify current efforts to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, cap-and-trade schemes, and other approaches to controlling climate change.
From a scientific perspective, the paper starts with a detailed examination of the scientific validity of two of the central tenets of the AGW hypothesis. By applying the scientific method the paper shows why these two tenets are not scientifically valid since predictions made using these hypotheses fail to correspond with observational data. (See primarily Section 2.).
From an economic perspective, the paper then develops correction factors to be used to adjust previous economic estimates of the economic benefits of global warming control for these scientifically invalid aspects of the AGW hypothesis. (See primarily Section 2.) It also briefly summarizes many of the previous analyses of the economic benefits and costs of climate control, analyzes why previous analyses reached the conclusions they did, and contrasts them with the policy conclusions reached in this paper. (See primarily Section 5.) It also critically examines the economic costs of control. (See primarily Section 3.)
From a methodological perspective the article argues that economic analyses of interdisciplinary issues such as climate change would be much more useful if they critically examine what other disciplines have to say, insist on using the most relevant observational data and the scientific method, and examine lower cost alternatives that would accomplish the same objectives. (See primarily Section 1.) These general principles are illustrated by applying them to the case of climate change mitigation, one of the most interdisciplinary of public policy issues. The analysis shows how use of these principles leads to quite different conclusions than those of most previous such economic analyses.
Additional background and access information can be found at carlineconomics.com.
A CEI press release on it can be found at http://cei.org/news-releases/epa-whistleblower-criticizes-global-warming-science-and-policy-new-peer-reviewed-study . My 2009 report to EPA can be downloaded from http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1
See also:
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
April 4, 2011 at 2:35 pm
eadler says:
April 4, 2011 at 1:07 pm
“Climate Scientists are struggling to determine how much to attribute damage from floods, and droughts to CO2 induced climate change that has occurred to date associated with temperature rises ~ 0.7C.
Even if there are winners and losers (as always) from a rise in temperature, in general with not too extreme outliers, the benefits of an increase in temperature by far outweigh the drawbacks. The hottest places on earth, around the equator, don’t increase much in temperature and the extra water vapour translates into more rain in dry countries (see the Sahel greening in the past decade). The colder places up to the poles benefit from longer, warmer summers… There are no more extreme weather events found in the VS (neither in Europe) because of warmer temperatures.
Your statement is contradicted by the prevailing opinion of climate scientists, and here is an example.
http://acacia.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/EHShsa211.pdf
There is a direct influence of global warming on changes in precipitation and heavy rains. Increased heating leads to greater evaporation and thus surface drying, thereby increasing intensity and duration of drought. However, the water-holding capacity of air increases by about 7% per 1 ◦C warming, which leads to increased water vapor in the atmosphere, and this probably provides the biggest influence on precipitation. Storms, whether individual thunderstorms, extratropical rain or snow storms, or tropical cyclones and hurricanes, supplied by increased moisture, produce more intense precipitation events that are widely observed to be occurring, even in places where total precipitation is decreasing. In turn, this increases the risk of flooding. Patterns of where it rains also have been observed to change, with dry areas becoming drier (generally throughout the subtropics) and wet areas becoming wetter, especially in mid to high latitudes. This pattern is simulated by climate models and is
projected to continue into the future. Since more precipitation occurs as rain instead of snow with warming, and snow melts earlier, there is increased runoff and risk of flooding in early spring, but increased risk of drought in deep summer, especially over continental areas.
The main problem for politicians is that they should plan for the future, but the current climate models are far too uncertain to be based on, and as is meanwhile proven, way to alarmist: the real temperature increase is less that the lower no-CO2-emissions-increase scenario, while the real CO2 emissions follow the “bussiness as usual” scenario of increasing emissions (despite the economic crisis).
Thus based on reality until now (less huricanes, no water vapour feedback in the upper troposphere, hence no hotspot in the tropics, no accellerated sealevel increase, no heat in the pipeline in the oceans) doing nothing currently is the best and most economical option. Of course it is prudent to invest a lot in research for alternatives for fossil fuels (and massive storage of power), but CO2 reduction today is only a waste of money.
The reality the you discribe is contradicted by a lot of evidence that is easy to find.
I don’t think your prognosis about tropical storms is in agreement with the scientific concensus.
The IPCC (2007) also concludes that future tropical
cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will likely become more
intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy
precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical
SSTs. Since an intense tropical cyclone takes heat out of the
ocean and mixes the ocean, leaving behind a much stronger
cold wake than a more modest storm, there may be fewer
tropical cyclones as a whole. Possible increases in static
stability also lead to fewer tropical cyclones. Nonetheless,
increased risk of flooding is a likely outcome from landfalling
tropical storms.
Also water vapor measurements in the upper troposphere are still problematic and require substantial corrections and checking to avoid underestimation of moisture in the upper troposphere, according to recent studies:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JAMC2250.1?journalCode=apme
…Comparisons showed that Vaisala RS80-H radiosondes and Meteolabor Snow White chilled-mirror dewpoint hygrometers are systemically drier in the upper troposphere by 30%–40% relative to the GOES-8 measured upper-tropospheric humidity (UTH). By contrast, two ground-based Raman lidars (Cloud and Radiation Test Bed Raman lidar and scanning Raman lidar) and one airborne differential absorption lidar agree to within 10% of the GOES-8 measured UTH. These results indicate that upper-tropospheric water vapor can be monitored by these lidars and well-calibrated, stable geostationary satellites with an uncertainty of less than 10%, and that correction procedures are required to rectify the inherent deficiencies of humidity measurements in the upper troposphere from these radiosondes.
Overall there is strong evidence for positive feedback due to water vapor in clear air situations:
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2008/2008GL035333.shtml
Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA’s satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response. RH increased in some regions and decreased in others, with the global average remaining nearly constant at most altitudes. The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of λ q = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models. The magnitude is similar to that obtained if the atmosphere maintained constant RH everywhere.
Looking at 20 year averages, it is found that sea level increased at an accelerating rate since 1980, from 1mm/yr to 3mm/yr, after a deceleration of the rate sea level increase due to global dimming that started in the 1950’s and was checked by regulation in the late 1970’s. Check out figure 3B in the following paper.
http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf
Finally the ocean heat has been accelerating since 1980 as well, despite some temporary pauses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Ocean_Annual_Heat_Content_%280-700m%29.png
eadler,
You’re putting words in my mouth that I never said, eg: “If you want to argue that all professional scientists are charlatans, seeking to make a dollar and don’t care about the validity of what they are doing go ahead. That is the logical argument that you are making.”
I never said that, or anything like it. I was referring to your heroes as scientific charlatans who ignore the scientific method. They are the people found in the Climategate emails, and the Harry_Read_Me_File — in which the programmer stated as a matter of fact that he was fabricating the climate data as he went along. Years of data! That is the kind of “data” that the global warming alarm is based on. Recall that Phil Jones ‘lost’ the original raw data.
Climategate is the primary reason the Copenhagen plan to redistribute the world’s wealth based on the “carbon” scare was derailed. It became clear to everyone overnight that the great global warming swindle was based on smoke and mirrors.
And now your fallback position is that the supposed damage from CO2, which has never appeared as repeatedly predicted, is still lurking somewhere out there in the misty future. Well, so are pink unicorns. But we don’t waste $billions every year chasing them.
Smokey,
I’m afraid you are casting your pearls before swine…trying to reason with eadler.
That person is incapable of reason [Hey eadler….prove me wrong!]
But Smokey, you are better off taking the fight to those with skin in the game….and those who actually want the TRUTH without presupposition [like Ferdinand].
Ferdinand is a true scientist, and when he speaks, he commands attention and those rational are inclined to listen.
Some of these others on here, however, with their incessant bleats [no names named lol]…achieve the opposite effect.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Whoops dear mods I am afraid my last post might have gone to spam because it disappeared. Please check. Thank you.
Smokey says:
April 4, 2011 at 6:54 pm
eadler,
You’re putting words in my mouth that I never said, eg: “If you want to argue that all professional scientists are charlatans, seeking to make a dollar and don’t care about the validity of what they are doing go ahead. That is the logical argument that you are making.”
I never said that, or anything like it. I was referring to your heroes as scientific charlatans who ignore the scientific method. They are the people found in the Climategate emails, and the Harry_Read_Me_File — in which the programmer stated as a matter of fact that he was fabricating the climate data as he went along. Years of data! That is the kind of “data” that the global warming alarm is based on. Recall that Phil Jones ‘lost’ the original raw data.
Your claim was that their motivation was money, for instance your phrases, . “keeping the gravy train on track” and “grant trolling paper”.
The main problem brought out in the climate gate emails was that the researchers were being pestered by frivolous FOIA requests that were time consuming and in some respects were asking for data that was already publicly available.
Your claim, that some data that Phil Jones allegedly lost, but is actually still archived, was the underpinning of global warming, and that the whole idea of global warming would fall apart, if the lost data was brought to light, is clearly ludicrous. The researchers at BEST have 1.6 billion pieces of data from 39,390 stations, are analysing it, and the preliminary results look just like GISS, CRU and NCDC. It seems that no argument is too stupid for you to try, if it claims to deny the existence of AGW.
Eadler
“Your claim was that their motivation was money, for instance your phrases, . “keeping the gravy train on track” and “grant trolling paper”.
The main problem brought out in the climate gate emails was that the researchers were being pestered by frivolous FOIA requests that were time consuming and in some respects were asking for data that was already publicly available. ”
Its always said for those who don’t believe in CAGW to follow the money and see where they are getting it. The same applies to the believers in the religion. They don’t wish to lose their gravy train.
As for data that was publicly available it is not all available. There were no frivolous requests. The CRU continues to deny they have certain data even after it was said they didn’t delete information.
Bob says:
April 5, 2011 at 9:38 am
Eadler
“Your claim was that their motivation was money, for instance your phrases, . “keeping the gravy train on track” and “grant trolling paper”.
The main problem brought out in the climate gate emails was that the researchers were being pestered by frivolous FOIA requests that were time consuming and in some respects were asking for data that was already publicly available. ”
Its always said for those who don’t believe in CAGW to follow the money and see where they are getting it. The same applies to the believers in the religion. They don’t wish to lose their gravy train.
As for data that was publicly available it is not all available. There were no frivolous requests. The CRU continues to deny they have certain data even after it was said they didn’t delete information.
Whatever the merits of the FOIA kerfuffle at the CRU, BEST was able to get data from 39,390 statitions and a total 1.6B readings. You don’t hear them complain about not having the data that they need.
How much can some data that was supposed to have been withheld or lost by Phil Jones, really matter? How many stations and readings are involved? Can we expect that data to have made a difference in how much warming there has been?
So far BEST has validated the analysis of CRU, GISS and NCDC. Why not concede that the earth has warmed by about 0.74C and discuss the real questions about global warming.
Anthony, Thanks for your courteous reply to my comment. I didn’t mean to split hairs, and I hope you and your readers can accept that my motivation was genuine concern that there was confusion. You’re right that it is quite possible that an average colour charge fee of about $1000 (based on 3 colour figures) has been quoted somewhere. Anyway, for those who are interested, here’s the link to the instructions for authors to confirm: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/authors/gta/submit/index.html
I’ll check about the subscription and come back to you.
I can’t comment on editorial policy, as I’m not an editor, but I will flag your questions and those from Smokey to my colleagues.
In reply to Grace Baynes, regarding Nature Climate Change publications this note:
I did trace the $1000 fee back to its origination point, and it is from an email discussion group I subscribe to. The author of that particular email did say “flat fee” but the way it was phrased was misleading.
It was this:
“If you are publishing in the new Nature Climate Change then you can figure on basic fees around $1000 for a typical paper with the color figures and other add on charges. They ought to just make that a $1000 flat fee since most papers are going to have at least a couple of figures….” So it was the key words and a munged recollection.
I should note that she was very helpful in helping to rescue my application for a subscription to Nature Climate Change. I have access, and I thank her for her efforts. – Anthony
Ferdinand Engelbeen makes the following valid points:
“…the benefits of an increase in temperature by far outweigh the drawbacks…. the current climate models are far too uncertain to be based on, and as is meanwhile proven, way too alarmist…. based on reality until now (less huricanes, no water vapour feedback in the upper troposphere, hence no hotspot in the tropics, no accelerated sea level increase, no heat in the pipeline in the oceans), doing nothing currently is the best and most economical option… CO2 reduction today is only a waste of money.”
Those facts argue strongly against a continuation of the $6 – $7 billion currently being spent every year promoting AGW climate alarmism. Everything occurring today is fully explainable by natural variability; the exact same [very mild] temperature rises, trends, and rates of increase have happened repeatedly in the past. This is not to argue that CO2 has no effect, but the claimed effect of AGW is certainly exaggerated. And there is absolutely no evidence for catastrophic AGW. None at all.
Also, eadler preposterously claims that the recent [mostly natural] temperature rise can actually be measured to a hundreth of a degree [“0.74C”]. The fact that many rural temperature records show essentially no increase makes even the claimed 0.7°C rise questionable. There is very little supporting evidence for that number that has not been somewhat to completely corrupted, but by incessantly repeating it, the number has come to be unquestioningly accepted by most people.
Even so, more warmth is clearly beneficial: in the geologic past, a decline of 5°C has caused mass extinctions, while a rise of 5° has never caused an extinction event. In fact, the biosphere has flourished whenever global temperatures have risen several degrees.
Next, eadler once again attempts to re-frame this debate, because he cannot refute what I actually wrote. Adler says:
“The main problem brought out in the climate gate emails was that the researchers were being pestered by frivolous FOIA requests that were time consuming and in some respects were asking for data that was already publicly available…. It seems that no argument is too stupid for you to try, if it claims to deny the existence of AGW.”
That is not “the main problem.” The main problem concerns the admission by Harry the programmer that they were fabricating years of temperature station data, and that Mann’s clique was bullying and threatening climate journals, causing mass resignations. He is quoted as saying that to keep skeptics from being published, he would re-define what peer review means, and he threatened to blackball journals that didn’t toe his CAGW line.
Finally, I have never ‘denied the existence’ of AGW. That is eadler’s constant misrepresentation, for which I have corrected him in the past. My position has always been that AGW is vastly overstated. Muller claims that 0.6°C out of 0.7°C is due to AGW. I strongly disagree with that because it ignores the fact that the planet is still emerging from the LIA, and it discounts other cyclical causes of [beneficial] global warming. The much more serious concern, as always, is global cooling.
Smokey says:
April 5, 2011 at 11:04 am
Ferdinand Engelbeen makes the following valid points:
“…the benefits of an increase in temperature by far outweigh the drawbacks…. the current climate models are far too uncertain to be based on, and as is meanwhile proven, way too alarmist…. based on reality until now (less huricanes, no water vapour feedback in the upper troposphere, hence no hotspot in the tropics, no accelerated sea level increase, no heat in the pipeline in the oceans), doing nothing currently is the best and most economical option… CO2 reduction today is only a waste of money.”
Those facts argue strongly against a continuation of the $6 – $7 billion currently being spent every year promoting AGW climate alarmism. Everything occurring today is fully explainable by natural variability; the exact same [very mild] temperature rises, trends, and rates of increase have happened repeatedly in the past. This is not to argue that CO2 has no effect, but the claimed effect of AGW is certainly exaggerated. And there is absolutely no evidence for catastrophic AGW. None at all.
I have already pointed to the evidence that what you call Ferdinand Englebeen’s valid points are not correct. The recent rise in average global temperature is not explainable by natural variation when real models are used, rather than handwaving. Most climate scientists and even the good professor Muller, who attacked Mann and the Hockey Stick accepts that.
Also, eadler preposterously claims that the recent [mostly natural] temperature rise can actually be measured to a hundreth of a degree [“0.74C”]. The fact that many rural temperature records show essentially no increase makes even the claimed 0.7°C rise questionable. There is very little supporting evidence for that number that has not been somewhat to completely corrupted, but by incessantly repeating it, the number has come to be unquestioningly accepted by most people.
I never made any claims about an accuracy of 0.01 degree.
In fact studies of the temperature records show rural temperatures have gained as much as city temperatures.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-Urban-Heat-Island-effect-add-to-the-global-warming-trend.html
Even so, more warmth is clearly beneficial: in the geologic past, a decline of 5°C has caused mass extinctions, while a rise of 5° has never caused an extinction event. In fact, the biosphere has flourished whenever global temperatures have risen several degrees.
Another incorrect non factual statement. It seems you are an inexhaustible fountain of incorrect, non factual statements, which you constantly recycle to support your beliefs. The Permian Extinction, 250 Million years ago was a result of CO2 emissions from volcanoes in Siberia, which over a long period of time, warmed the earth’s oceans, causing additional release of CO2 and methane which were sequestered in colder parts of the ocean. There was loss of ocean oxygen, and 95% of all species became extinct.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48776605/The-Siberian-Traps-and-the-End-Permian-mass-extinction-by-Andy-Saunders-Marc-Reichow-2009
Next, eadler once again attempts to re-frame this debate, because he cannot refute what I actually wrote. Adler says:
“The main problem brought out in the climate gate emails was that the researchers were being pestered by frivolous FOIA requests that were time consuming and in some respects were asking for data that was already publicly available…. It seems that no argument is too stupid for you to try, if it claims to deny the existence of AGW.”
That is not “the main problem.” The main problem concerns the admission by Harry the programmer that they were fabricating years of temperature station data, and that Mann’s clique was bullying and threatening climate journals, causing mass resignations. He is quoted as saying that to keep skeptics from being published, he would re-define what peer review means, and he threatened to blackball journals that didn’t toe his CAGW line.
Finally, I have never ‘denied the existence’ of AGW. That is eadler’s constant misrepresentation, for which I have corrected him in the past. My position has always been that AGW is vastly overstated. Muller claims that 0.6°C out of 0.7°C is due to AGW. I strongly disagree with that because it ignores the fact that the planet is still emerging from the LIA, and it discounts other cyclical causes of [beneficial] global warming. The much more serious concern, as always, is global cooling.
In fact you said the following:
“..the Harry_Read_Me_File — in which the programmer stated as a matter of fact that he was fabricating the climate data as he went along. Years of data! That is the kind of “data” that the global warming alarm is based on. Recall that Phil Jones ‘lost’ the original raw data.
This claims that global warming alarm is based on fabricated and lost data. I used the word underpinning, which is a synonym for “based on”. In fact, the BEST data base, consisting of 1.6B measurements of 39,390 measurement stations, has shown on the basis of a 2% sample, and is expected to show when all is said and done, the same amount of warming that has been shown by the GISS, CRU, and NCDC data bases. The kerfuffle over purloined emails is a diversion.
There is no meaning to the phrase “emerging from the Little Ice Age” unless you show that the forces which lead to the emergence are continuing at the present time.
This has not been shown, and the situation is precisely the opposite. We are no longer emerging from the little ice age, because the forces governing that emergence are no longer operating.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm
The main driver of the warming from the Little Ice Age to 1940 was the warming sun with a small contribution from volcanic activity. However, solar activity leveled off after 1940 and the net influence from sun and volcano since 1940 has been slight cooling. Greenhouse gases have been the main contributor of warming since 1970.
Having gone through most of the above exchange re CO2 residence time, I would like to say that I think this is the biggest red herring in a field swarming with red herrings. Both sides are correct within their own narrow definitions, and what they are really arguing about is which matters, residence time (for a single anthropogenic molecule) or persistence (of elevated CO2 levels in general).
Well I say, WHO CARES?. We know what the current CO2 level is, and for the past 54 years thanks to Dr Keeling, and it seems to be rising, slowly but steadily. The question should be, so what? As is well documented, increased CO2 levels are positively beneficial for the biosphere, whereas the supposed dangers of increased CO2 are entirely hypothetical, and at increasing apparent odds with observed reality.
This is the important “take home message” from this part of Carlin’s report, and is utterly unaffected by all this petty quibbling about how long CO2 levels will take to fall again, should we cease all emissions tomorrow. We won’t, CO2 levels will continue to rise, and only good will come of it.
Isn’t eadler cute? If it weren’t for psychological projection, he wouldn’t have much to say. But I enjoy deconstructing his rants, so herewith:
Adler says: “The recent rise in average global temperature is not explainable by natural variation when real models are used…” heh <—[sufficient deconstruction of model use versus reality.☺] What is the difference between "real" models and other models? And of course the question is regarding evidence, and models are not evidence.
Next, Adler says: "I never made any claims about an accuracy of 0.01 degree." Of course he did, by quoting an impossibly precise "0.74°C" temperature rise — without giving a starting date.
Next, Adler quotes the propaganda blog Skeptical Pseudo-Science, which he runs back to in order to load up on the latest globaloney talking points, which he brings back here and expects intelligent, educated WUWT readers to blindly accept. As if.
Next, in response to my obvious point that warmer temperatures have never caused an extinction event, eadler once again moves the goal posts, saying: "Another incorrect non factual statement. It seems you are an inexhaustible fountain of incorrect, non factual statements, which you constantly recycle to support your beliefs. The Permian Extinction, 250 Million years ago was a result of CO2 emissions from volcanoes in Siberia, which over a long period of time, warmed the earth’s oceans, causing additional release of CO2…" & blah, blah, etc.
Who said anything about CO2 suffocation? That's just an evasion. My comment was specifically that warmer temperatures have never caused an extinction event, but cold temperatures have. Re-framing the argument like this, with an invented strawman such as volcanic activity does nothing to negate my assertion that warmer temperatures have never caused an extinction event [Bill Illis chart]. Strawmen are the basis of eadler’s responses.
Next, I stated that Harry the programmer admitted that he was fabricating the temperature data as he went along. That is a fact that the fact-challenged eadler cannot refute. So what does he do? Why, move the goal posts, of course, by changing the subject. Adler’s response: “I used the word underpinning, which is a synonym for “based on”. In fact, the BEST data base, consisting of 1.6B measurements of 39,390 measurement stations…” & blah, blah, etc.
Next, eadler says: “The kerfuffle over purloined emails is a diversion.” Misrepresentation at best. The Climategate emails and the Harry_Read_Me file were not a minor “kerfuffle,” they were a major revelation that singlehandedly derailed COP-15, and showed the world that the climate clique identified in the Wegman Report were petty connivers corrupting climate journals, threatening to “re-define peer review,” assassinating the characters of honest scientists who didn’t go along with their schemes, threatening to blackball journals that didn’t go along, and gaming the system for their own benefit and aggrandizement by fabricating years of temperature data.
Next, Adler incorrectly says: “There is no meaning to the phrase ’emerging from the Little Ice Age’ unless you show that the forces which lead to the emergence are continuing at the present time.” Wrong. To make it that sentence factual, Adler’s wording would have to be changed to: “…unless you show that the forces which led to the emergence
are continuinghave stopped…” Adler believes he’s entitled to make up his own facts.Finally, eadler opines: “Greenhouse gases have been the main contributor of warming since 1970.” Oh, really? It all started in 1970? I wonder what the color of the sky is on Adler’s home planet.☺
Adler’s rants really make these deconstructions is too easy.
Smokey says:
April 5, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Isn’t eadler cute? If it weren’t for psychological projection, he wouldn’t have much to say.
===================
No. Not cute. Even in the face of projection.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Smokey says:
April 5, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Isn’t eadler cute? If it weren’t for psychological projection, he wouldn’t have much to say. But I enjoy deconstructing his rants, so herewith:
Adler says: “The recent rise in average global temperature is not explainable by natural variation when real models are used…” heh <—[sufficient deconstruction of model use versus reality.☺] What is the difference between "real" models and other models? And of course the question is regarding evidence, and models are not evidence.
Models are the way science is done. Models are the only method by which it is possible to attribute a cause to an effect. You have no evidence without real models, only nonscientific ranting.
Next, Adler says: “I never made any claims about an accuracy of 0.01 degree.” Of course he did, by quoting an impossibly precise “0.74°C” temperature rise — without giving a starting date.
Quoting a figure does not imply accuracy at all.
Next, Adler quotes the propaganda blog Skeptical Pseudo-Science, which he runs back to in order to load up on the latest globaloney talking points, which he brings back here and expects intelligent, educated WUWT readers to blindly accept. As if.
I expect intelligent well educated readers to examine it seriously and look into the peer reviewed literature which backs up their statements if they have any doubts.
If they have other sources or arguments to contribute, I welcome it.
If people refuse to do that, they are not intelligent or well educated.
Next, in response to my obvious point that warmer temperatures have never caused an extinction event, eadler once again moves the goal posts, saying: “Another incorrect non factual statement. It seems you are an inexhaustible fountain of incorrect, non factual statements, which you constantly recycle to support your beliefs. The Permian Extinction, 250 Million years ago was a result of CO2 emissions from volcanoes in Siberia, which over a long period of time, warmed the earth’s oceans, causing additional release of CO2…” & blah, blah, etc.
Who said anything about CO2 suffocation? That’s just an evasion. My comment was specifically that warmer temperatures have never caused an extinction event, but cold temperatures have. Re-framing the argument like this, with an invented strawman such as volcanic activity does nothing to negate my assertion that warmer temperatures have never caused an extinction event [Bill Illis chart]. Strawmen are the basis of eadler’s responses.
That is right.Who said anything about CO2 suffocation. It is the warming due to GHG emissions that caused the extinction. You just didn’t read my link:
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Essays/wipeout/default.html
Oxygen isotopes are used as a palaeothermometer. Oxygen occurs in two forms, oxygen-16 and oxygen-18. These are incorporated into the calcite skeletons of marine creatures at different rates depending on the water temperature, more oxygen-18 at low temperatures, and more oxygen-16 at high. At the base of bed 25, the main mass extinction level, there was a sudden shift in the oxygen isotope ratios indicating a worldwide rise in temperature of 6 °C. This may not sound much, but it would have a profound effect on the world’s ecology. Climatologists have been getting very excited recently about a half-a-degree rise in global temperatures.
The carbon isotopes suggest what might have caused the temperature increase. They show a massive shift towards the light isotope, carbon-12, exactly at the time of the big extinction. Pulses of carbon-12 in the geological record are usually indicative of a volcanic eruption or a large die-off (plants, animals and bacteria concentrate carbon-12 in their bodies and release it when they die). Both certainly happened at the end of the Permian. But the carbon-12 pulse is far too big to be explained by these mechanisms alone. Calculations of global carbon budgets have suggested that, even if every plant, animal, and microbe died and was buried, altogether they would only account for about one-fifth of the observed carbon shift. The Siberian Traps would have added another fifth. Where did the remaining three-fifths come from?
The extra carbon-12 was probably buried, frozen deep under the oceans in the form of gas hydrates. These are extraordinary accumulations of carbon-12-rich methane locked up in cages of ice at very high pressure. If the atmosphere and oceans warm up sufficiently, these gas reserves can suddenly melt and release their contents in a catastrophic way. The explosion of gas through the surface of the oceans has been termed a “methane burp”. A very large methane burp at the end of the Permian could have produced enough carbon-12 to make up the deficit.
The cause of the burp was probably global warming triggered by huge releases of CO2 from the Siberian Traps. Methane is a greenhouse gas too, so a big burp raises global temperatures even further. Normally, long-term global processes act to bring greenhouse gas levels down. This kind of negative feedback keeps the Earth in equilibrium. But what happens if the release of methane is so huge and fast that normal feedback processes are overwhelmed? Then you have a “runaway greenhouse”. This is a positive feedback system: excess carbon in the atmosphere causes warming, the warming triggers the release of more methane from gas hydrates, this in turn causes yet more warming, which leads to the release of more methane and so on. As temperatures rise, species start to go extinct. Plants and plankton die off and oxygen levels plummet. This is what seems to have happened 251 million years ago.
Next, I stated that Harry the programmer admitted that he was fabricating the temperature data as he went along. That is a fact that the fact-challenged eadler cannot refute. So what does he do? Why, move the goal posts, of course, by changing the subject. Adler’s response: “I used the word underpinning, which is a synonym for “based on”. In fact, the BEST data base, consisting of 1.6B measurements of 39,390 measurement stations…” & blah, blah, etc.
I don’t think it is worth my time getting into a side issue regarding emails and comments in software, which have little bearing on the scientific issues. There is plenty of data in the public domain which allows people to do their own analysis of and the BEST project is a demonstration of that.
Next, eadler says: “The kerfuffle over purloined emails is a diversion.” Misrepresentation at best. The Climategate emails and the Harry_Read_Me file were not a minor “kerfuffle,” they were a major revelation that singlehandedly derailed COP-15, and showed the world that the climate clique identified in the Wegman Report were petty connivers corrupting climate journals, threatening to “re-define peer review,” assassinating the characters of honest scientists who didn’t go along with their schemes, threatening to blackball journals that didn’t go along, and gaming the system for their own benefit and aggrandizement by fabricating years of temperature data.
No one has been cited for scientific misconduct as a result of impartial investigations arising from the “ClimateGate” emails.
It has been demonstrated that the Wegman report was a sloppy piece of crap. The right wing administration of George Mason U is dragging its feet on the investigation of Wegman’s conduct in the preparation of his report.
Next, Adler incorrectly says: “There is no meaning to the phrase ‘emerging from the Little Ice Age’ unless you show that the forces which lead to the emergence are continuing at the present time.” Wrong. To make it that sentence factual, Adler’s wording would have to be changed to: “…unless you show that the forces which led to the emergence are continuing have stopped…” Adler believes he’s entitled to make up his own facts.
There is no logic to your argument. The opposite of “continuing” is “have stopped”.
Finally, eadler opines: “Greenhouse gases have been the main contributor of warming since 1970.” Oh, really? It all started in 1970? I wonder what the color of the sky is on Adler’s home planet.☺
Adler’s rants really make these deconstructions is too easy.
Declaring victory is what is easy for you. You do it all the time. It is your substitute for real arguments.
REPLY: OK – BOTH of you, kindly just stop. Eadler, stop baiting people with your SS stuff, Smokey, stop responding to him. Any further posts on this argument from either of you will be deleted. Eadler, learn to make shorter posts, the lengths of your post is becoming ridiculous. You are on the fast track for permanent deletion anyway, since you’ve now had two strikes. Don’t give me reason for a third. – Anthony