Guest post by David Middleton
William D. Nordhaus is an economics professor at Yale University. He recently published this essay in the New York Review of Books…
Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong
March 22, 2012
William D. Nordhaus
The threat of climate change is an increasingly important environmental issue for the globe. Because the economic questions involved have received relatively little attention, I have been writing a nontechnical book for people who would like to see how market-based approaches could be used to formulate policy on climate change. When I showed an early draft to colleagues, their response was that I had left out the arguments of skeptics about climate change, and I accordingly addressed this at length.
But one of the difficulties I found in examining the views of climate skeptics is that they are scattered widely in blogs, talks, and pamphlets. Then, I saw an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal of January 27, 2012, by a group of sixteen scientists, entitled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” This is useful because it contains many of the standard criticisms in a succinct statement. The basic message of the article is that the globe is not warming, that dissident voices are being suppressed, and that delaying policies to slow climate change for fifty years will have no serious economic or environment consequences.
My response is primarily designed to correct their misleading description of my own research; but it also is directed more broadly at their attempt to discredit scientists and scientific research on climate change.1 I have identified six key issues that are raised in the article, and I provide commentary about their substance and accuracy. They are:
• Is the planet in fact warming?
• Are human influences an important contributor to warming?
• Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?
• Are we seeing a regime of fear for skeptical climate scientists?
• Are the views of mainstream climate scientists driven primarily by the desire for financial gain?
• Is it true that more carbon dioxide and additional warming will be beneficial?
[…]
Source: New York Review of Books
Professor Nordhaus then proceeds to address his six strawmen answer his own questions.
Is the planet in fact warming?
First off, the “planet” hasn’t warmed. The atmosphere has warmed and cooled throughout the planet’s history. And, apparently, the ability to conjugate verbs is not a prerequisite for Ivy League economics professors. Professor Nordhaus’ answer is that the lower atmosphere (AKA planet) is warming because it did warm from 1978 to 1998…
It is easy to get lost in the tiniest details here. Most people will benefit from stepping back and looking at the record of actual temperature measurements. The figure below shows data from 1880 to 2011 on global mean temperature averaged from three different sources.2 We do not need any complicated statistical analysis to see that temperatures are rising, and furthermore that they are higher in the last decade than they were in earlier decades.3
One of the reasons that drawing conclusions on temperature trends is tricky is that the historical temperature series is highly volatile, as can be seen in the figure. The presence of short-term volatility requires looking at long-term trends.
Yes! By all means, let’s have a look at some long-term trends. Let’s take the long-term trend back to a time when mankind wasn’t burning much fossil fuel…
From Ljungqvist, 2010…
The amplitude of the reconstructed temperature variability on centennial time-scales exceeds 0.6°C. This reconstruction is the first to show a distinct Roman Warm Period c. AD 1-300, reaching up to the 1961-1990 mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. AD 300-800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. AD 800–1300 and the Little Ice Age is clearly visible c. AD 1300-1900, followed by a rapid temperature increase in the twentieth century. The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961-1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself.
[…]
The proxy reconstruction itself does not show such an unprecedented warming but we must consider that only a few records used in the reconstruction extend into the 1990s. Nevertheless, a very cautious interpretation of the level of warmth since AD 1990 compared to that of the peak warming during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period is strongly suggested.
[…]
The amplitude of the temperature variability on multi-decadal to centennial time-scales reconstructed here should presumably be considered to be the minimum of the true variability on those time-scales.
[…]
Ljungqvist is recommending caution in comparing the modern instrumental reconstruction to the older proxy reconstructions because the proxy data are of much lower resolution. The proxy data are showing the “minimum of the true variability on those time-scales.” The instrumental data are depicting something closer to actual variability.
Even then, the instrumental record doesn’t exceed the margin of error for the proxy data during the peak of the Medieval Warm Period…
Since someone is bound to chime in with, “But Ljungqvist isn’t a real climate scientist!”… Let’s compare Mann et al., 2008 (EIV) and Ljungqvist, 2010…
Apart from the 20th century hockey stick, they are very similar. Here’s a blow up of the above from 1950 with HadCRUT3 (NH)…
The entire blade of the hockey stick is post-1995.
Now, on to the verb conjugation. The lower atmosphere is not currently warming, irrespective of what it did from 1978-1998, or what it has done since the 1850’s, or what it has done since 1600 AD…
There has been no global warming for more than a decade. To paraphrase Paul Revere, “None if by land”…
“None if by sea”…
All of the anomalous warming occurred between 1995 and 1998. This, amazingly, is what the satellite data indicate…
Are human influences an important contributor to warming?
Maybe. Urban heat islands are “human influences.” Most other land-use changes are “human influences.” Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are “human influences.” Are they important? It all depends on the model.
This model says, “Not very important”…
Although, the authors seem to have concluded that “human influences” related to global cooling were masking the “human influences” related to global warming.
Models are great heuristic tools; but they cannot and should never be used as substitutes for observation and correlation. I can build a valid computer model that tells me that an overpressured Cibicides opima sandstone at depth of 15,000′ should exhibit a Class 3 AVO response. If I drill a Class 3 AVO anomaly in that neighborhood, I will drill a dry hole. A little bit of observation and correlation would quickly tell me that productive overpressured Cibicides opima sandstones at depth of 15,000′ don’t exhibit Class 3 AVO anomalies.
Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?
I thought about answering with a treatise on plant stomata, but this was “easier”…
JPL-Developed Clean Energy Technology Moves Forward
A team of scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory originally developed this 300-watt engineering prototype of a Direct Methanol Fuel Cell system for defense applications. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
May 26, 2011
A team of scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., in partnership with the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, developed a Direct Methanol Fuel Cell technology for future Department of Defense and commercial applications. Recently, USC and the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, which manages JPL for NASA, awarded a license to SFC Energy, Inc., the U.S. affiliate of SFC Energy AG. The non-exclusive license for the technology will facilitate the expansion of the company’s methanol fuel cell products into the U.S. market.
This novel fuel cell technology uses liquid methanol as a fuel to produce electrical energy, and does not require any fuel processing. Pure water and carbon dioxide are the only byproducts of the fuel cell, and no pollutants are emitted.
[…]
If NASA and the JPL say carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, that’s good enough for me. The plant stomata treatise will follow along shortly.
Are we seeing a regime of fear for skeptical climate scientists?
“Fear” is probably not the right word. However, this kind of attitude from government officials is somewhat disconcerting…
“When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that’s a crime.”
It’s of particular concern when the self-appointed inquisitor takes pride in influencing “the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained” (AKA “Torturing the data until it confesses”…
It’s also a bit disconcerting when the people who make our laws are threatening skeptics with tobacco-style inquisitions. The recent Fakegate shows that the Warmists are quite willing to engage in fraud in order to bring about such an inquisition. Concerned: yes. Afraid: no.
Are the views of mainstream climate scientists driven primarily by the desire for financial gain?
No, all “mainstream climate scientists” are unpaid volunteers. (/Sarcasm).
Is it true that more carbon dioxide and additional warming will be beneficial?
Yes, Professor Nordhaus, more carbon dioxide and additional warming will be beneficial…
The Little Ice Age was quite possibly the coldest part of the Holocene since the 8.2 KYA Cooling Event…
The climate has oscillated between warming and cooling throughout the Holocene with a period of ~1,000 years, with an underlying secular cooling trend. This millennial-scale cycle is clearly present in the Greenland ice cores…
The millennial-scale cycle is also painfully obvious in non-hockey stick climate reconstructions…
The polynomial trend line simulates a Gaussian filter. It is not intended to be predictive of the magnitude of future climate changes. Its purpose is to highlight the cyclical nature of the climate reconstruction.
If “more carbon dioxide and additional warming” prevent the next “Little Ice Age” from being as cold as the last “Little Ice Age,” it will be very beneficial. If it slows our inevitable transition into the next Quaternary glacial stage by a few hundred years, it will be very beneficial. Although, elevated CO2 levels didn’t make much difference in the Eemian. If CO2 was such a potent forcing mechanism, this shouldn’t be possible…
Sangamonian CO2 levels didn’t start falling (and possibly kept rising) until the cooling into the most recent glaciation had progressed 20,000 years.
The models can’t account for any of the observed cyclicity using only solar forcing. So they assume that CO2 forcing must be about 3-6 times greater than the instrumental data suggest. Funny thing: recent papers have concluded that solar forcing has been underestimated by a factor of six and CO2 forcing is much lower than the so-called consensus estimate.
As promised: A plant stomata treatise!
The so-called consensus will continue overestimating CO2 forcing until they accept the fact that ice core temperature estimates are at least an order of magnitude of higher resolution than ice core CO2 estimates. The ever-growing volume of peer-reviewed research on the relationship between plant stomata and CO2 will eventually force a paradigm shift.
Wagner et al., 1999. Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration. Science 18 June 1999: Vol. 284 no. 5422 pp. 1971-1973…
In contrast to conventional ice core estimates of 270 to 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), the stomatal frequency signal suggests that early Holocene carbon dioxide concentrations were well above 300 ppmv.
[…]
Most of the Holocene ice core records from Antarctica do not have adequate temporal resolution.
[…]
Our results falsify the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. SI-based CO2 reconstructions may even suggest that, during the early Holocene, atmospheric CO2 concentrations that were .300 ppmv could have been the rule rather than the exception.
The ice cores cannot resolve CO2 shifts that occur over periods of time shorter than twice the bubble enclosure period. This is basic signal theory. The assertion of a stable pre-industrial 270-280 ppmv is flat-out wrong.
McElwain et al., 2001. Stomatal evidence for a decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the Younger Dryas stadial: a comparison with Antarctic ice core records. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 17 pp. 21–29. ISSN 0267-8179…
It is possible that a number of the short-term fluctuations recorded using the stomatal methods cannot be detected in ice cores, such as Dome Concordia, with low ice accumulation rates. According to Neftel et al. (1988), CO2 fluctuation with a duration of less than twice the bubble enclosure time (equivalent to approximately 134 calendar yr in the case of Byrd ice and up to 550 calendar yr in Dome Concordia) cannot be detected in the ice or reconstructed by deconvolution.
Not even the highest resolution ice cores, like Law Dome, have adequate resolution to correctly image the MLO instrumental record.
Kouwenberg et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis o fTsuga heterophylla needles . Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 33–36…
The discrepancies between the ice-core and stomatal reconstructions may partially be explained by varying age distributions of the air in the bubbles because of the enclosure time in the firn-ice transition zone. This effect creates a site-specific smoothing of the signal (decades for Dome Summit South [DSS], Law Dome, even more for ice cores at low accumulation sites), as well as a difference in age between the air and surrounding ice, hampering the construction of well-constrained time scales (Trudinger et al., 2003).
Stomatal reconstructions are reproducible over at least the Northern Hemisphere, throughout the Holocene and consistently demonstrate that the pre-industrial natural carbon flux was far more variable than indicated by the ice cores.
Wagner et al., 2004. Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO2 records based on stomatal frequency. Quaternary Science Reviews. 23 (2004) 1947–1954…
The majority of the stomatal frequency-based estimates of CO 2 for the Holocene do not support the widely accepted concept of comparably stable CO2 concentrations throughout the past 11,500 years. To address the critique that these stomatal frequency variations result from local environmental change or methodological insufficiencies, multiple stomatal frequency records were compared for three climatic key periods during the Holocene, namely the Preboreal oscillation, the 8.2 kyr cooling event and the Little Ice Age. The highly comparable fluctuations in the paleo-atmospheric CO2 records, which were obtained from different continents and plant species (deciduous angiosperms as well as conifers) using varying calibration approaches, provide strong evidence for the integrity of leaf-based CO2 quantification.
The Antarctic ice cores lack adequate resolution because the firn densification process acts like a low-pass filter.
Van Hoof et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 during the 13th century AD: reconciliation of data from ice core measurements and stomatal frequency analysis. Tellus 57B (2005), 4…
AtmosphericCO2 reconstructions are currently available from direct measurements of air enclosures in Antarctic ice and, alternatively, from stomatal frequency analysis performed on fossil leaves. A period where both methods consistently provide evidence for natural CO2 changes is during the 13th century AD. The results of the two independent methods differ significantly in the amplitude of the estimated CO2 changes (10 ppmv ice versus 34 ppmv stomatal frequency). Here, we compare the stomatal frequency and ice core results by using a firn diffusion model in order to assess the potential influence of smoothing during enclosure on the temporal resolution as well as the amplitude of the CO2 changes. The seemingly large discrepancies between the amplitudes estimated by the contrasting methods diminish when the raw stomatal data are smoothed in an analogous way to the natural smoothing which occurs in the firn.
The derivation of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to atmospheric CO2 is largely based on Antarctic ice cores. The problem is that the temperature estimates are based on oxygen isotope ratios in the ice itself; while the CO2 estimates are based on gas bubbles trapped in the ice.
The temperature data are of very high resolution. The oxygen isotope ratios are functions of the temperature at the time of snow deposition. The CO2 data are of very low and variable resolution because it takes decades to centuries for the gas bubbles to form. The CO2 values from the ice cores represent average values over many decades to centuries. The temperature values have annual to decadal resolution.
The highest resolution Antarctic ice core is the DE08 core from Law Dome.
The IPCC and so-called scientific consensus assume that it can resolve annual changes in CO2. But it can’t. Each CO2 value represents a roughly 30-yr average and not an annual value.
If you smooth the Mauna Loa instrumental record (red curve) and plant stomata-derived pre-instrumental CO2 (green curve) with a 30-yr filter, they tie into the Law Dome DE08 ice core (light blue curve) quite nicely…
The deeper DSS core (dark blue curve)has a much lower temporal resolution due to its much lower accumulation rate and compaction effects. It is totally useless in resolving century scale shifts, much less decadal shifts.
The IPCC and so-called scientific consensus correctly assume that resolution is dictated by the bubble enclosure period. However, they are incorrect in limiting the bubble enclosure period to the sealing zone. In the case of the core DE08 they assume that they are looking at a signal with a 1 cycle/1 yr frequency, sampled once every 8-10 years. The actual signal has a 1 cycle/30-40 yr frequency, sampled once every 8-10 years.
30-40 ppmv shifts in CO2 over periods less than ~60 years cannot be accurately resolved in the DE08 core. That’s dictated by basic signal theory. Wagner et al., 1999 drew a very hostile response from the so-called scientific consensus. All Dr. Wagner-Cremer did to them, was to falsify one little hypothesis…
In contrast to conventional ice core estimates of 270 to 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), the stomatal frequency signal suggests that early Holocene carbon dioxide concentrations were well above 300 ppmv.
[…]
Our results falsify the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. SI-based CO2 reconstructions may even suggest that, during the early Holocene, atmospheric CO2concentrations that were >300 ppmv could have been the rule rather than the exception (23).
I merged the data from six peer-reviewed papers on stomata-derived CO2 to build this Holocene reconstruction…
The plant stomata pretty well prove that Holocene CO2 levels have frequently been in the 300-350 ppmv range and occasionally above 400 ppmv over the last 10,000 years.
The incorrect estimation of a 3°C ECS to CO2 is almost entirely driven the assumption that preindustrial CO2 levels were in the 270-280 ppmv range, as indicated by the Antarctic ice cores.
The plant stomata data clearly show that preindustrial atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher and far more variable than indicated by Antarctic ice cores. Which means that the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the 1800’s is not particularly anomalous and at least half of it is due to oceanic and biosphere responses to the warm-up from the Little Ice Age.
As the Earth’s climate continues to not cooperate with their models, the so-called consensus will eventually recognize and acknowledge their fundamental error. Hopefully we won’t have allowed decarbonization zealotry to bankrupt us beforehand.
Until the paradigm shifts, all estimates of the pre-industrial relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature derived from Antarctic ice cores will be wrong… Because the ice core temperature and CO2 time series are of vastly different resolutions. And until the “so-called consensus” gets the signal processing right, Professor Nordhaus will continue to get it wrong.
References
Alley, R.B. 2000. The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.
Davis, J. C. and G. C. Bohling. The search for patterns in ice-core temperature curves. 2001. Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change, AAPG Studies in Geology No. 47, Gerhard, L.C., W.E. Harrison,and B.M. Hanson.
Finsinger, W. and F. Wagner-Cremer. Stomatal-based inference models for reconstruction of atmospheric CO2 concentration: a method assessment using a calibration and validation approach. The Holocene 19,5 (2009) pp. 757–764
Fischer, H. A Short Primer on Ice Core Science. Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern.
Garcıa-Amorena, I., F. Wagner-Cremer, F. Gomez Manzaneque, T. B. van Hoof, S. Garcıa Alvarez, and H. Visscher. 2008. CO2 radiative forcing during the Holocene Thermal Maximum revealed by stomatal frequency of Iberian oak leaves. Biogeosciences Discussions 5, 3945–3964, 2008.
Jessen, C. A., Rundgren, M., Bjorck, S. and Hammarlund, D. 2005. Abrupt climatic changes and an unstable transition into a late Holocene Thermal Decline: a multiproxy lacustrine record from southern Sweden. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 20 pp. 349–362. ISSN 0267-8179.
Kaufmann, R. K., H. Kauppi, M. L. Mann, and J. H. Stock (2011), Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, PNAS 2011 : 1102467108v1-4.
Kouwenberg, LLR. 2004. Application of conifer needles in the reconstruction of Holocene CO2 levels. PhD Thesis. Laboratory of Palaeobotany and Palynology, University of Utrecht.
Kouwenberg, LLR, Wagner F, Kurschner WM, Visscher H (2005) Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. Geology 33:33–36
Ljungqvist, F.C.2009. Temperature proxy records covering the last two millennia: a tabular and visual overview. Geografiska Annaler: Physical Geography, Vol. 91A, pp. 11-29.
Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010. A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia. Geografiska Annaler: Physical Geography, Vol. 92 A(3), pp. 339-351, September 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0459.2010.00399.x
Mann, M.E., Z. Zhang, M.K. Hughes, R.S. Bradley, S.K. Miller, S. Rutherford, and F. Ni. 2008. Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 105, No. 36, September 9, 2008. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805721105
McElwain et al., 2001. Stomatal evidence for a decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the Younger Dryas stadial: a comparison with Antarctic ice core records. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 17 pp. 21–29. ISSN 0267-8179
Rundgren et al., 2005. Last interglacial atmospheric CO2 changes from stomatal index data and their relation to climate variations. Global and Planetary Change 49 (2005) 47–62.
Van Hoof et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 during the 13th century AD: reconciliation of data from ice core measurements and stomatal frequency analysis. Tellus 57B (2005), 4
Wagner F, et al., 1999. Century-scale shifts in Early Holocene CO2 concentration. Science 284:1971–1973.
Wagner F, Aaby B, Visscher H, 2002. Rapid atmospheric CO2 changes associated with the 8200-years-B.P. cooling event. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:12011–12014.
Wagner F, Kouwenberg LLR, van Hoof TB, Visscher H, 2004. Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO2 records based on stomatal frequency. Quat Sci Rev 23:1947–1954
Norman Page says:
March 3, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Sea Surface Temperature data is the best metric for the following reasons
____________________________________________________
There is a sound logical argument for weighting sea surface temperatures in accord with the thermal energy content of the oceans (~94%) compared with land surfaces (~6%.) because this takes into account what i will call the “thermal inertia” of each.
So, if you have a measurement which weights land by 30%, give that measurement a 20% rating (20% of 30% = 6%) in order to get the land component, and weight the ocean-only measurement 80%.
Doug Cotton says:
March 3, 2012 at 7:36 pm
“There is a sound logical argument for weighting sea surface temperatures in accord with the thermal energy content of the oceans (~94%) compared with land surfaces (~6%.) because this takes into account what i will call the “thermal inertia” of each.
So, if you have a measurement which weights land by 30%, give that measurement a 20% rating (20% of 30% = 6%) in order to get the land component, and weight the ocean-only measurement 80%.”
======================================
Spewing nonsense will get you nowhere, here.
Wow! This is the one! I’m going to print it out and post it over my desk.
Neither will an absence of any physical reasoning get you anywhere with myself. So please explain whatever you recommend regarding weighting, supported by cogent reasons.
Then maybe you’ll like to start debunking my peer-reviewed published paper later this week, whoever you are, Dr Anon?.
DWR54 says:
March 3, 2012 at 6:30 pm
That graph shows that the warming trend in global land surface temperatures over the past 10 years according to UAH is currently +0.15 C/decade.
On the other hand:
RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_v03_3.txt
#
#Time series (rss) from 1979 to 2012.08
#Selected data from 2002.08
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00554226 per year
Granted, the UAH is more positive than the RSS is negative, so how confident can we really be that warming has occurred? I suppose it can also be debated whether the lower troposphere over the land is the same thing as just land.
Furthermore, Dr. Spencer also says:
“Progress continues on Version 6 of our global temperature dataset. You can anticipate a little cooler anomalies than recently reported, maybe by a few hundredths of a degree, due to a small warming drift we have identified in one of the satellites carrying the AMSU instruments.”
@DWR54,
The Paul Revere bit was meant to be satirical and I was actually paraphrasing Longfellow…
“One if by land, and two if by sea” was the warning signal for the approach of the British army.
In this case “None if by land, and none if by sea” is a satirical “warning” for the approach of global warming (or lack thereof).
Not according to Britisher Fowler’s classic Modern English Usage :
Here is a rebuttal I made on Skepticblog: Note carefully that Nordhaus’ conclusion is simply the “insurance argument”.
William D. Nordhaus (Professor of Economics!!!!!) wrote a rebuttal of climate skeptic claims:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/
(questions in bold and direct quotes in italics .. I hope)
1.Is the planet in fact warming?
Answer: A chart starting at a chosen point.
2. Are human influences an important contributor to warming?
Answer: Models (need I say more?) (but perhaps very useful things ( – see that with only two cases over 31 years we can explain unforecast extreme snow falls in the Northern hemisphere as caused by melting arctic ice – by modelling)
3. Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?
A. He simply quotes definitions.
4. Are we seeing a regime of fear for skeptical climate scientists?
A. I’d agree with him that “a regime of fear” is certainly extreme, perhaps its just a fear of cessation of tenure and/or funding.
But some direct quotes from the article help:
“….Indeed, the dissenting authors are at the world’s greatest universities, including Princeton, MIT, Rockefeller, the University of Cambridge, and the University of Paris…. (my note: consensus, anyone?)
I can speak personally for (my note: in favour of, I presume?) the lively debate about climate change policy. There are controversies about many details of climate science and economics.
While some claim that skeptics cannot get their papers published, working papers and the Internet are open to all…”
Sounds to me that a discussion seems warranted, and that the web is the place to do it.
5. Are the views of mainstream climate scientists driven primarily by the desire for financial gain?
A. He notes that IPCC editors/authors and those sitting on NAS panels are unpaid – true, but… some are making millions out of speaking appointments, and almost without exception they are relying on research funding, which ain’t peanuts – see posts above.
And to quote directly: “…they are subject to close scrutiny for conflicts of interest….”
Yes, the climategate emails indicated they were indeed very closely scrutinized in regard to where their ‘interest’ lay.
And further: “ …the argument about the venality of the academy is largely a diversion. The big money in climate change involves firms, industries, and individuals who worry that their economic interests will be harmed by policies to slow climate change…..”
Probably incorrect; I think we all agreed above re the relative scale of the funding.
6. Is it true that more carbon dioxide and additional warming will be beneficial?
Perhaps not really dealt with here, as he goes on to say “…A final point concerns economic analysis….”, then discusses the economics of the matter. But, that is of great interest also:
….One might argue that there are many uncertainties here, and we should wait until the uncertainties are resolved. Yes, there are many uncertainties. That does not imply that action should be delayed.
Indeed, my experience in studying this subject for many years is that we have discovered more puzzles and greater uncertainties as researchers dig deeper into the field. ……..
…… Moreover, our economic models have great difficulties incorporating these major geophysical changes and their impacts in a reliable manner. ….
….. Policies implemented today serve as a hedge against unsuspected future dangers”
But of course he goes on to say this strengthens his case for “action now”.
I guess we often look at the same things and see different answers.
“…in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. ….”
This last paragraph above starts to look like an idea to me, perhaps we don’t need to delay 50 years, say by 10 to 20 years, if the ‘modellers’ can convincingly show forecasting instead of “hindcast remodelling to explain every single climatic perturbation” it should be pretty darn clear by then!
While I agree with the general thrust of your article, it would be helpful if you were able to get you running averages in the right place. Numbering figures would also be nice.
re. the un-number figure under the text “Here’s a blow up of the above from 1950 with HadCRUT3 (NH)…”
Your running average has an offset, which anyone able to view their work with some objectivity would see instantly. That’s why it’s lower than the non averaged data (red flag no.1), that’s why it does not match Mann’s hockey stick.
You have made the basic error of plotting the mean at the end point of the window not the middle, hence introducing a phase shift of half the window. Also running mean is about the crappiest filter you could chose as can be seen by the amount of high freq changes left by your 10y average, try a gaussian , binomial or some real freq filter.
Once you have a correctly plotted line with a decent filter you will find you are quite close to *this part of* Mann’s Hockey stick. That does not mean the hockey stick was in any way valid, just that you have no idea how to point out it’s flaws.
“The polynomial trend line simulates a Gaussian filter. ” WTF? In what way does a polynomial “simulate” a gaussian filter ???
“Its purpose is to highlight the cyclical nature of the climate reconstruction.” In what way does a polynomial (ie a power series) tell us anything about cycles ???
There’s enough bullshit science and incompetent data processing behind AGW. Adding to it is probably not an effective way forwards.
Economic isn’t junks science- the problem is that people actually pay attention to economics and so if you do come up with a way to take advantage of the markets, people will adjust. For issues not directly related to making money, economics get much better predictive power.
I’m not qualified to discuss the science, but there are economic items that I can cover:
–“The first problem is an elementary mistake in economic analysis. The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary cost-benefit and business economics teach that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits (that is, the difference between, and not the ratio of, benefits and costs).”
What Nordhaus wrote is correct, but not complete. If you have a limited amount of money, than you spend it to recieve the best cost/benefit ratio. Spending until marginal benefit is zero is only an option when you have enough money for all programs.
Nordhaus book, A Question of Balance is available online:
http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf
It is worth reading, if only for the section on the Stern report if only so you can see Nordhaus methodically demolish it. Best line-
–“In fact, if we use the Stern Review’s methodology,
more than half the estimated damages “now and
forever” occur after the year 2800.”
pg 182
I can’t comment on the rest of it as I haven’t gotten around to reading it yet. However, I’d like to point out that even if you accept that global warming is human caused and a net harm, carbon taxes are not necesarily a sufficient responce. Nuclear power is quite possibly one of the best carbon-free power sources and its price is almost entirely politically determined given that low overall cost of fuel for nuclear power plants. Unnecesary AND necesary regulations control the price of nuclear power and altering them could easily make it more affordable. The latter might seem surprising, but if you believe that global warming is a net harm, than the damage done by redneck atomics- aka “flushing the river through the core” might be acceptable.
Edit- looking at “No Need to Panic” it is unclear what they are implying by referencing benefit to cost ratio. It is a bit vague- I think they are trying to imply that by waiting you can get more bang for your buck, and Nordhaus is saying that ignores the benefits of dealing with CO2 in the interium.
–“A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. ”
I think they are trying to say that we should wait until we have cheap solar panels before installing them because otherwise we will have to replace them a couple times, and Nordhaus is saying that they are ignoring the benefits of reduce the interium amount of CO2, even though you have to replace obselete gear a couple of times.
I think Nordhaus is correct- he is basically saying that in the trade off between waste (higher energy costs make recycling less profitable) and CO2 emissions, we should increase waste to decrease CO2 emissions. Of course, if you believe that there is a limited supply of rare earths we can extract (peak cadmium anyone?) or that the mining process’s carbon emission is too high, than it is a bad trade off. I’m not qualified to make any definitive statements on that.
David Middleton says:
March 3, 2012 at 8:26 pm
@DWR54,
The Paul Revere bit was meant to be satirical and I was actually paraphrasing Longfellow…
=========================
David, typically they think too literal to get satire. We got it, but they won’t. I scanned through your post, and I think it very well done. I apologize, but I’ve had too many beers to read such a lengthy post in detail. I do promise to absorb it on the morrow.
However, this may have been a bit of overkill. The way I see it, Nordhaus invalidated himself. All one has to do is look at the last graphic offered at the book review place. He’s stating GHG’s had no effect prior to about 1964……. It isn’t clear what all the graphs were stating, presumably, his graph without GHGs doesn’t mean extracting H2O, but even so…… this flies in the face of all convention of current theory to my knowledge. It’s not that I buy all of the CO2 meaning much, but it can’t mean nothing for 64 years and then suddenly mean something for the last 40.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/super-sciency-guy-stands-cli-sci-on-its-ear/
The stomata analysis is very interesting, however, there is clearly a difference in level (>300 vs 280) that is not explained by time constant averaging.
Your point about averaging time is valid and a major problem ice core CO2 levels and their dating. However, this issue does not really relate to your core point the correct pre-industrial CO2 concentration.
Since this is your main point you need to address why stomata give consistently higher levels and why stomata should be regarded as being more reliable. Having a better response time does not by itself show them to be better or worse than ice core CO2 with longer averaging.
Interesting information though, thanks.
Here is a plot that derives pre-industrial CO2 levels from economic data.
CO2 emissions are found from economic data, then the emitted amount is scaled by a fixed ratio derived to match the recent atmospheric readings from Mauna Loa.
It is an approximative method that does not account for out-gassing due to temp rise over last 200y (I’ve seen that estimated as 7ppm total). Also does not account for different rate of absorption due to temp but that is also probably small for the short M.L. period that determines the scaling.
http://i44.tinypic.com/1zn4uud.png
Fitted pre-industrial level is about 296ppm . That would seem to closely support the stomata data.
The biggest absurdity is that he claims CO2 is pollutant on the basis of US law.
So in countries where the law does not call CO2 a pollutant, it isn’t a pollutant.
Really? Do you have a ‘p’ value for that? How about a single anecdote of a precedent? None come to mind offand.
😀
Carbon (CO2) laws are the actual dangerous pollutant that must be scrubbed and deep-sixed. They are extremely, fatally, toxic.
Maybe Nordhaus would care to address this issue …
There are two broad classes of radiation from the atmosphere. ..
(1) That which results from spontaneous emission after a molecule has ended up in a warmer (maybe excited) state due to radiative absorption or from molecular collision. Any of this radiation which heads to warmer targets (lower atmosphere or surface) will by the first half of a standing wave and the second half comes back to it from the warmer target it hit.
(2) That which emanates from the surface. This heads into the atmosphere and strikes cooler targets at various altitudes. Some of its energy thermalizes, and some just forms the first half of a standing wave which comes back to it. The cooler the target was, the more it will be warmed and the less will be the effect of the standing wave on the rate of cooling of the surface. So molecules closer to the surface have more effect on the rate of cooling, but each CO2 molecule is no more effective than each water vapour molecule.
[In contrast, the IPCC models assume CO2 sends far more photons back per molecule than water, so they claim the overall effect of only about 4% as much CO2 as WV is that each contributes similar amounts in total. But the concept of standing waves puts each molecule on an equal footing, so CO2 has nowhere near the effect of WV.
A physicist, an engineer and an economist were shipwrecked on the beach surrounded by flotsam and jetsam including cases of canned food. They were hungry.
The engineer said, “I can make a can opener from this stuff in a couple dof days work, then we can have all the food we need.”
The physicist replied, “I can’t wait 2 days. I’ll starve. We’ll build a fire and put some cans on it. The water will boil in the cans, they will burst and eject the contents. I’ve calculated the trajectory. We’ll stand over there and catch the food in our hats.”
The economist said, “My hat is filthy. I’m not doing that. Tell you what; let’s assume we have a can opener.”
There is no “greenhouse effect” – the whole myth is predicated on the supposed difference between observed suface average temperature and the “effective temkperature of Earth.
But that is simply wrong – solar constant x albedo = ~960 W/sq m over illuminated disk balanced by observed ~ 240 W/sq m over sphere of Earth.so 240 x 4 out = 960 x 1 in – so what ? Simply verifies the geometry used to achiveve radiative balance. The Earth doesn’t need to emit more than 240 W/sq m over the 4 times spherical output area to balance the input disk area @ur momisugly ~960 W/sq m.
What’s all the fuss about ???
There are many laughable claims made by “climate scientists” about “powerful greenhouse gases” but the one “Inconvenient truth” they have to explain is why our atmosphere actually reduces the heating effect of the Sun.
The temperature reached on the Moon during the lunar day and experiments showing the solar radiation can indeed raise temperatures on Earth very quickly clearly show our atmosphere does NOT add heat – rather it cools the surface thus explaining why the Earth never reaches extreme temperatures the solar radiation is capable of producing.
Why do they continually refer to the albedo effect of the atmosphere whilst claiming it adds more energy to the surface heating than the solar radiation ?? I also think someone should explain to them that”averages” of 170 W/sq m 24/7 aren’t really appropriate as ther is actually such a thing as night when there is no incoming solar radiation.
Zac says:
March 3, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Well to be honest until you Amerians learn how to spell skeptics correctly, you are pissing against the wind. It is sceptics. 🙂
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That doesn’t bother me at all.
But I would like to have the “hockey stick” question cleared up.
Is the “hockey” part referring to the game played on grass fields, similar in size to soccer fields — the game the Indians, Pakistanis, Dutch, Germans, Spanish, Aussies and Kiwis (occasionally) excel at?
Or does it mean the violent Canadian game, the Lord Stanley’s Cup game, the one Americans get all misty-eyed over when some long-ago winter Olympics match-up with the Soviet Union is mentioned?
If it’s the former, OK.
If it’s the latter (which seems more likely), how about, for the international audience, calling it the “ice hockey stick”?
Nowhere in their article do the sixteen scientists claim that the planet is not warming. Nordhaus begins his rebuttal with a straw man, an argument set up to be defeated. The sixteen scientists rightly point out that there has been no statistically significant warming for “well over 10 years”.
Nordhaus then uses an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam ) to claim that because the models cannot simulate the warming “especially…after 1980” using only known natural forcings then human influence must account for the rest — as if the climate is a fully understood system (which is of course absurd).
He then claims CO2 is a pollutant because some government agency says it causes dangerous warming, which is begging the question (petitio principii).
“Are the views of mainstream climate scientists driven primarily by the desire for financial gain?” probably; and his veering off onto some tobacco comparison is an attempt at guilt by association (ad hominem fallacy).
The only reason that a bit more CO2 in the atmosphere would not be beneficial is if it led to catastrophic consequences — it never has before otherwise we wouldn’t be here wasting time and money arguing about it.
Nowhere in his piece does Nordhaus factor in the economic and human costs of CO2 emissions restrictions on the developing world.
David Middleton says:
“The Paul Revere bit was meant to be satirical and I was actually paraphrasing Longfellow…”
I see. So when you introduced the BEST graph with the phrase: “There has been no global warming for more than a decade. To paraphrase Paul Revere, “None if by land”…” you were using ‘poetic license?
We were meant to take the subsequent graph, which shows 8-1/2 years’ data that terminates nearly two years ago, as ‘satire’? It’s odd, because you introduced the next graph as “None if by sea”… and proceed to show a graph of HadSST2 sea surface temperatures?
The subtlety escapes me. Sorry.
David,
Is the planet in fact warming?
Pick the right cherries; you can make a nice pie. Pick some other cherries; your pie will taste completely different.
Now, on to the verb conjugation. The lower atmosphere is
notcurrently warming, irrespective of what it did from 1978-1998, or what it has done since the 1850′s, or what it has done since 1600 AD…HadCRUT3 variance adjusted global mean (Wood for Trees)
There has been no stopping global warming for more than a decade. To paraphrase Paul Revere,
“None if by land”…
BEST global land mean preliminary since 2000 (Wood for Trees).
“None if by sea”…
HADSST2 global sea surface temperature anomaly since 1998 (Wood for Trees).
All of the anomalous
warmingcooling occurred between19951997 and19982000. In fact there has been an increase in the rate of warming since 2000. This, amazingly, is what the satellite data indicate…UAH lower troposphere global mean (Wood for Trees).
mmmm cherries…..
Typhoon says:
March 3, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Economists should focus on improving their track record of prediction in the field of economics rather than pontificating on fields requiring a knowledge of physics.
Show some respect please, don’t you know that economists have successfully predicted 8 of the last 3 recessions.
Oh wait…