Global Warming backdown

TimG · July 7, 2010

Consider an ice cube sitting in a room where the temperature is -0.1 C. That ice cube will last a very very long time. Now warm that room up to 0.1 C and the ice cube will be gone in short order.

I think you misunderstand the dynamics of the ice sheets.

Basically, ice sheets are a dynamic systems were new snow is constantly being added while ice on the edges is constantly melting. If the sea/air temperature rises that will increase melt but is also increases snowfall. These competing processes mean that an ice sheet could remain extremely stable even as temperatures and melt rates rise.

The melting point of ice also does not enter into picture since the temperatures rising from -30 to -20 is not going increase melting in the interior.

The other data point which waldo ignores is the temperatures and melt rates were much higher than today during the 30-40s. This is strong evidence that there is a cyclical aspect to the melting and simply extrapolating the melt rates from the last few years is a pretty dubious exercise.

Edited July 7, 2010 by TimG

WIP · July 7, 2010

As I said, I didn't think that would alter your thinking - you've been drinking Waldo's water. Yes, 50 years ago CO2 PPM was going up at half the rate it is today. The fact is, it's not going up by 3% every year as you so boldly stated.....it's going up by about 2 parts per million - 6 times less than what you claimed! And yet you are somehow very disturbed by that. By your calculation of 3%, we would have gone from 380 to 500PPM in 10 years while the reality is that even if we increased it to 3 PPM per year it would take 40 years to get to 500PPM! You could at least show some humility and admit that your claim was incorrect.

Just as I figured... you are only interested in playing gotcha, not learning anything new. And that's why you keep repeating the same propaganda endlessly. So the 3% number came from elsewhere, so !@#$$%% what! Most rational thinking people would see the increase, especially the doubling of the rate of increase in the last half century, as the takeaway; an indication that we are bringing about change at an ever accelerating rate. And even at the present 1% a year means we will be over 400 in less than two years. It is still a number far higher than the planet has experienced during human history.

This isn't a game! This is life or death for future generations. But some people are only concerned about their immediate gratification, and would rather roll the dice on the survival odds of those who will follow us in the next few generations.

Keepitsimple · July 7, 2010

Just as I figured... you are only interested in playing gotcha, not learning anything new. And that's why you keep repeating the same propaganda endlessly. So the 3% number came from elsewhere, so !@#$$%% what! Most rational thinking people would see the increase, especially the doubling of the rate of increase in the last half century, as the takeaway; an indication that we are bringing about change at an ever accelerating rate. And even at the present 1% a year means we will be over 400 in less than two years. It is still a number far higher than the planet has experienced during human history.

This isn't a game! This is life or death for future generations. But some people are only concerned about their immediate gratification, and would rather roll the dice on the survival odds of those who will follow us in the next few generations.

All most people would ask is that you get your facts right. Your 3% figure did not come "from elsewhere" - it was simply wrong - by a factor of 6. Your post clearly explains why it is senseless to try and have a rational debate with your ilk. What you have said is the epitomy of alarmism. Waldo, Wyly, and WIP.......and then there were three.

WIP · July 7, 2010

We have all the evidence we are going to get. As far I am a concerned it is not enough to justify the policies being proposed. Now that does not mean would have to do nothing.

Ever hear of the concept of 'erring on the side of caution'.

A strategy focused on R&D into new energy production techniques without any prejudice against nuclear would work. I don't have a big issue with carbon taxes either. What I absolutely reject are emission targets/timetables, carbon inventories/trading, renewable mandates and subsidies for energy production. As long as any of those economically damaging policies are on the table I will say the doing nothing is a better response.

Right now, the International Energy Agency estimates that global subsidies to oil, coal and natural gas industries, tops 550 billion dollars per year! Imagine if that money was taken away from the energy giants and their lobbyists, and dedicated to clean sources of energy. Meeting carbon targets would be easy if carbon sources were taxed, instead of being subsidized. The most economically damaging policies are the ones funded by oil, gas and coal, that are going after tar sands and deep sea oil deposits.

Not unless there is evidence that it is actually bad.

There is evidence that carbon dioxide absorbs radiant energy....it's an experiment that can be done in any grade 9 science class. On the planetary scale, warming the Earth to levels that we have never dealt with before is crazed indifference to likely consequences....sort of like drinking a case of beer and seeing if you can drive home without getting in an accident and killing someone.

The average person has never had it so good and the wealth and technology that we have today is entirely thanks to fossil fuels.

And how long have we been in the fossil fuel age? Fossil fuels are stored, concentrated solar energy. Right from the time we started burning coal and oil, it was a temporary source of cheap abundant energy that could not last more than a few centuries.

It may even be worth debating sometime how much this is the best of all possible worlds. Certainly most people in the world have not had their lives made significantly better by this new wealth. How many people still live on less than a dollar a day! Aside from China and India, the quality of life for most people in the Third World has gotten worse since globalization....which has only been possible since the Oil Age began.

An end to the oil age will bring a collapse in the over-specialization of today's economies, and a return to localization. That alone would eliminate a major key source of carbon emissions -- agribusiness and factory farming. Before WWII, farms had a mix of crops and animals, rather than using oil-based fertilizers to grow corn and soybeans to transport to giant feedlots filled with sick animals pumped with steroids and antibiotics. The modern livestock industries are not only ethical abominations, they are also a source of almost one fifth of the total greenhouse gas production....a system that only exists as long as the total costs of its oil supply is subsidized.

The claims that the oil industry is "heavily subsidized" are largely BS. The tax "breaks" are largely tax breaks that every corporation gets. For example, oil companies are global corporations so they claim the foreign tax credit which adjusts their income to take into account taxes paid to foreign governments. This break is absolutely necessary for any country that wishes to keep global corporations and has nothing to do with "subsidizing" fossil fuels. Another example are the tax deductions for capital investments which all companies get and the oil companies only qualify for more because the spend billions in capital investments. The fact that CO2 obsessives do not understand basic tax economics is one of the reason why they have zero credibility when it comes to estimating the costs of get rid of fossil fuels.

Well oil companies also get special exploration and development credits that were designed for an era when the oil industry was new and pollution wasn't a consideration. The capital cost allowances for tar sands development are supposed to begin phasing out next year, and won't completely end until 2015! And how exactly are these subsidies and incentives available to every corporation again?

And there are many other special considerations that the oil industry has been able to take advantage of, that have benefited them directly and indirectly over the years:

Why such a large margin of error? The exact number is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels. For instance, the U.S. government has generally propped the industry up with:

* Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free

* Research-and-development programs at low or no cost

* Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead

* Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions

* Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire

* Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods

* Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)

* The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve

* Construction and protection of the nation's highway system

* Allowing the industry to pollute - what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people's lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?

* Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below)

http://cleantech.com/news/554/oil-industry-subsidies-for-dummies

Because we are mammals. We succeed because we are damn good at adapting and we will continue to do so as long as we do not deny ourselves access to essential tools like fossil fuels.

In geologic time, we have been on Earth for the blink of an eye! Rats and cockroaches are more adaptable than we are. Alligators and crocodiles survived the rise and fall of the dinosaurs, and the Age of Mammals, so they have also proven their resiliency; but what have we proved? All we have proven, is an ability to make great changes to the environment to suit our purposes, and to grow exponentially to almost 7 billion in population. Our present population, and the amounts of energy and resources we wish to consume, are already way past a level of sustainability. There will either be an orderly decline in our population and resource consumption levels, or we will hit the wall...have a massive die-off, and the survivors will either claw their way back, like our ancestors 70,000 years ago, or the cascade towards species extinction will continue.

And we won't be around to verify the accuracy of the claims from the plunder-the-environment lobby, and if the human race becomes extinct, there won't be anyone around to shake their fists at the assholes who despoiled the planet. So it's the ultimate tautology to proclaim how adaptable we are. We'll find out if we either survive or go extinct.

There is no evidence that supports the claim of massive extinctions to date - the claims are nothing but the unverifiable extrapolation based on limited evidence. The world did not come to an end when the mammoths and sabre tooths died out.

The Sixth Extinctionis based on the accelerating disappearance of plant and animal species. Sure there are always species becoming extinct as the environment changes and new species compete with the entrenched groups; but a noticeable increase in extinction patterns that began 100,000 years ago, accelerated 10,000 years ago when humans really began taking control of their environment and expanding into new territories....if you check into the end of mammoths, sabre tooth cats, giant ground sloths and other mega-fauna, you'll find that they closely coincided with the arrival of humans. It is possible that hunting was part of the cause of their demise, but the introduction of new diseases, agriculture, and setting fires, probably had a greater impact. But, the loss of these large animals was only the beginning of "phase two" of the sixth extinction.

Indeed, to develop agriculture is essentially to declare war on ecosystems - converting land to produce one or two food crops, with all other native plant species all now classified as unwanted “weeds” — and all but a few domesticated species of animals now considered as pests.

The total number of organisms within a species is limited by many factors-most crucial of which is the “carrying capacity” of the local ecosystem: given the energetic needs and energy-procuring adaptations of a given species, there are only so many squirrels, oak trees and hawks that can inhabit a given stretch of habitat. Agriculture had the effect of removing the natural local-ecosystem upper limit of the size of human populations. Though crops still fail regularly, and famine and disease still stalk the land, there is no doubt that agriculture in the main has had an enormous impact on human population size:

* Estimates vary, but range between 1 and 10 million people on earth 10,000 years ago.

* There are now over 6 billion people.

* The numbers continue to increase logarithmically — so that there will be 8 billion by 2020.

* There is presumably an upper limit to the carrying capacity of humans on earth — of the numbers that agriculture can support — and that number is usually estimated at between 13-15 billion, though some people think the ultimate numbers might be much higher.

This explosion of human population, especially in the post-Industrial Revolution years of the past two centuries, coupled with the unequal distribution and consumption of wealth on the planet, is the underlying cause of the Sixth Extinction.

Though it is true that life, so incredibly resilient, has always recovered (though after long lags) after major extinction spasms, it is only after whatever has caused the extinction event has dissipated. That cause, in the case of the Sixth Extinction, is ourselves — Homo sapiens. This means we can continue on the path to our own extinction, or, preferably, we modify our behavior toward the global ecosystem of which we are still very much a part. The latter must happen before the Sixth Extinction can be declared over, and life can once again rebound.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

I would rather see money spent directly on the honeybee issue than piss way billions on a hypothetical problem.

See above! Do you actually think that honeybee die-off can be fixed with some strategy specifically targeted towards bees? There is no clear cause of bee colony collapse, and it's more likely that it is a combination of factors associated with pollution and environmental degradation that are at fault. The consequences for our food supply are serious: http://www.naturalnews.com/021724.html

There is risk no matter what we do. It is a question deciding what risks can be reasonably dealt and what risks must be ignored. We cannot do anything meaningful about CO2 emissions so targets/timetables are a waste of time and simply an excuse to expand the power of government and push people to come up with creative scams that circumvent the rules instead of actually producing useful innovations that will help humanity.

And BP's Gulf disaster tells us that deep ocean drilling for the last remaining reserves of oil, is not a worthwhile risk...especially when the environmental impact of their product is factored in.

WIP · July 7, 2010

All most people would ask is that you get your facts right. Your 3% figure did not come "from elsewhere" - it was simply wrong - by a factor of 6. Your post clearly explains why it is senseless to try and have a rational debate with your ilk. What you have said is the epitomy of alarmism. Waldo, Wyly, and WIP.......and then there were three.

You have continued to post claims that you can't back up with evidence, and you do not address the fact that we have helped to raise CO2 to a level that has never been experienced in human history. Still, we are just supposed to take your word for it that no harm will come as the growing human population increases its rate of carbon production with no clear end in sight....except when civilization hits the wall.

TimG · July 7, 2010

Ever hear of the concept of 'erring on the side of caution'.

Sure and I would rather err on the side of caution and not trash the economy by imposing an expensive and largely useless regime to monitor and reduce CO2 emissions.

Right now, the International Energy Agency estimates that global subsidies to oil, coal and natural gas industries, tops 550 billion dollars per year!

Almost all of those subsidies are subsidies to consumers in developing countries. The relevant figures:

The IEA estimates that in 2008 the latest year for which data are available 37 large developing countries spent about $557bn in energy subsidies, according to a draft seen by the Financial Times. Previous estimates put it at about $300bn. Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India and China top the ranking, according to the report.

The subsidies in rich countries are non existant and the subsidies in developing countries go to consumers - not oil companies.

There is evidence that carbon dioxide absorbs radiant energy....it's an experiment that can be done in any grade 9 science class.

So? Warming is not necessarily bad and even if there are some bad effects people can adapt to changes.

How many people still live on less than a dollar a day! Aside from China and India, the quality of life for most people in the Third World has gotten worse since globalization....which has only been possible since the Oil Age began.

BS. Almost every person on this planet is better off than they would have been 400 years ago. Even peasent farmers in Africa benefit from modern technologies.

An end to the oil age will bring a collapse in the over-specialization of today's economies, and a return to localization.

Specialization is what brings wealth. Eliminate that specialization and standard of living goes down.

And how exactly are these subsidies and incentives available to every corporation again?

Every corporation gets CCA deductions. Even a the hot dog vendor on the street corner. The only difference is some types of expenditures can be deducted faster than others but even if the speed of deduction is decreased companies are still entitled to the deduction! IOW - there are no lost tax revenues with CCA deduction and no subsidies.

we have proven, is an ability to make great changes to the environment to suit our purposes, and to grow exponentially to almost 7 billion in population.

Exactly. We have succussfully adapted to virtually every climate on the planet. One can argue that climate change will likely cause disruptions to a largely stationary population but over time people will adapt to these disruptions and humanity will continue. The premise that humanity might become exintict is simply absurd.

See above! Do you actually think that honeybee die-off can be fixed with some strategy specifically targeted towards bees? There is no clear cause of bee colony collapse, and it's more likely that it is a combination of factors associated with pollution and environmental degradation that are at fault.

Or it could be a virus or parasite. The problem is we do not know and we should be focusing on these kinds of problems instead of CO2.

And BP's Gulf disaster tells us that deep ocean drilling for the last remaining reserves of oil, is not a worthwhile risk...especially when the environmental impact of their product is factored in.

Why? There are 14,000 wells in the Gulf of Mexico alone. There was one blow out. In 10-15 years the ecosystems will recover and the experience will teach oil companies how to ensure such a disaster never happens again. Edited July 7, 2010 by TimG

Michael Hardner · July 7, 2010

UEA Report was released

The scientists are cleared of charges of dishonesty - no surprise there IMO - but were admonished for not being open with their data. I'm hoping that this episode provides inroads to speaking to reasonable skeptics who can also (hopefully) lead public opinion to rebuilding trust here.

Pliny · July 7, 2010

most refreshing to see you acknowledge a longer-term timeframe for, as you say, “climatic significance”. Perhaps that might actually rub off on the usual cast of MLW numnuts who regularly trot out their 4-to-7 year cherry-picked short-term temperature trending nonsense…

Your usual snubbing of arguments without really addressing them.

The argument presented was that computer climate models from the late '90's predicted higher warming trends than what occurred in reality. According to those models the warming trend was slowing and obviously if warming is slowing down then that is often termed "cooling".

Politicians have ordered a slowing down of the global warming rhetoric and have decided that global cooling is the trend. Scientists will soon present the peer reviewed data to back them up. It will take some time before you get the word from Pope Gore.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Pliny

Keepitsimple · July 7, 2010

UEA Report was released

The scientists are cleared of charges of dishonesty - no surprise there IMO - but were admonished for not being open with their data. I'm hoping that this episode provides inroads to speaking to reasonable skeptics who can also (hopefully) lead public opinion to rebuilding trust here.

Indeed, the last couple of paragraphs said:

"The release of the emails was a turning point, a game-changer," Mike Hulme, a professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, told the Guardian newspaper before the Russell report was released. "Already there is a new tone. Researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties, for instance."
Bob Ward, the policy director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, agreed that openness was the now the order of the day.

"There is a need to re-establish trust," he said.

Expanding on that was this story a couple of days ago in the Guardian. Many of these quotes would have been blasphemous as recently as a year ago. I have the utmost confidence that our resident three W's will still see no room for debate - and no additional uncertainty other than what they read in the IPCC Summaries but indeed, the emails were a needed and welcome game-changer. I've bolded a particular quote that says some kind things about Phil Jones that deserve mentioning.

"The release of the emails was a turning point, a game-changer," said Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia. "The community has been brought up short by the row over their science. Already there is a new tone. Researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties, for instance."
And there will be other changes, said Hulme. The emails made him reflect how "astonishing" it was that it had been left to individual researchers to police access to the archive of global temperature data collected over the past 160 years. "The primary data should have been properly curated as an archive open to all." He believes that will now happen.

Bob Watson, a former chair of the IPCC and now chief environment scientist for the British government, agreed. "It is clear that the scientific community will have to respond by being more open and transparent in allowing access to raw data in order that their scientific findings can be checked."

In addition, Bob Ward, policy director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, said: "Researchers have to accept that it won't just be their science that is judged but also their motives, professionalism, integrity and all those other qualities that are considered important in public life."

"Trust has been damaged," said Hans von Storch of the KGSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany. "People now find it conceivable that scientists cheat and manipulate, and understand that scientists need societal supervision as any other societal institution."

The climate scientist most associated with efforts to reconciling warring factions, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said the idea of IPCC scientists as "self-appointed oracles, enhanced by the Nobel Prize, is now in tatters". The outside world now sees that "the science of climate is more complex and uncertain than they have been led to believe".
Some IPCC scientists are in denial on this issue, she said, arguing that they would like to see the CRU incident as "an irrelevant blip" and to blame their problems on "a monolithic denial machine", but that won't wash.

Curry exempted from this criticism Phil Jones, CRU director and the man at the centre of the furore. Put through the fire, "Jones seems genuinely repentant, and has been completely open and honest about what has been done and why... speaking with humility about the uncertainty in the data sets," she said.

The affair "has pointed out the seamy side of peer review and consensus building in the IPCC assessment reports," she said. "A host of issues need to be addressed."

The veteran Oxford science philosopher Jerome Ravetz says the role of the blogosphere in revealing the important issues buried in the emails means it will assume an increasing role in scientific discourse. "The radical implications of the blogosphere need to be better understood." Curry too applauds the rise of the "citizen scientist" triggered by climategate, and urges scientists to embrace them.
But greater openness and engagement with their critics will not ensure that climate scientists have an easier time in future, warns Hulme. Back in the lab, a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate, he says – rather, the reverse. "This is not what the public and politicians expect, so handling and explaining this will be difficult."

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatechange-hacked-emails-muir-russell

Edited July 7, 2010 by Keepitsimple

waldo · July 7, 2010

Just as I figured... you are only interested in playing gotcha, not learning anything new. And that's why you keep repeating the same propaganda endlessly. So the 3% number came from elsewhere, so !@#$$%% what! Most rational thinking people would see the increase, especially the doubling of the rate of increase in the last half century, as the takeaway; an indication that we are bringing about change at an ever accelerating rate. And even at the present 1% a year means we will be over 400 in less than two years. It is still a number far higher than the planet has experienced during human history.
This isn't a game! This is life or death for future generations. But some people are only concerned about their immediate gratification, and would rather roll the dice on the survival odds of those who will follow us in the next few generations.

All most people would ask is that you get your facts right. Your 3% figure did not come "from elsewhere" - it was simply wrong - by a factor of 6. Your post clearly explains why it is senseless to try and have a rational debate with your ilk. What you have said is the epitomy of alarmism. Waldo, Wyly, and WIP.......and then there were three.

ya WIP, Simple has rarely (if ever) substantiated anything he's blindly parroted... in this case he pompously ignores the salient point concerning the most significant rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. No biggee, hey Simple? For what it's worth, not to presume for you, but there is the oft referenced figure that reflects how fast CO2 emissions have grown over the last decade... 3% per year, on average, during 2000-2009 (notwithstanding the slowing recessionary influence within the 'western world' during that period). But ya, Simple would rather presume to play gotcha - cause he's got no real game!

TimG · July 7, 2010

The scientists are cleared of charges of dishonesty - no surprise there IMO - but were admonished for not being open with their data. I'm hoping that this episode provides inroads to speaking to reasonable skeptics who can also (hopefully) lead public opinion to rebuilding trusthere.

It was a whitewash. Some of their findings were quite absurd. For example, UEA researchers broke the spirit and the letter of the FOI law and the report describes it as 'unfortunate'.

The climate science establishment has repeatedly failed to uphold acceptable professional standards and this undermines credibility of all science. The report will simply increase cynicism and do nothing to rebuild trust.

Here are more details about how the report failed to address the subversion of the IPCC process:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/07/lord-russell-of-holyrood/

Edited July 7, 2010 by TimG

waldo · July 7, 2010

most refreshing to see you acknowledge a longer-term timeframe for, as you say, “climatic significance”. Perhaps that might actually rub off on the usual cast of MLW numnuts who regularly trot out their 4-to-7 year cherry-picked short-term temperature trending nonsense….. or even those Shady practices that allow one particular MLW numnut to idiotically, to this day, quote the Phil Jones response concerning statistical significance and post1995 warming of CRU data, within his MLW signature.
Your usual snubbing of arguments without really addressing them.
The argument presented was that computer climate models from the late '90's predicted higher warming trends than what occurred in reality. According to those models the warming trend was slowing and obviously if warming is slowing down then that is often termed "cooling".

Politicians have ordered a slowing down of the global warming rhetoric and have decided that global cooling is the trend. Scientists will soon present the peer reviewed data to back them up. It will take some time before you get the word from Pope Gore.

huh! Pliny, if you had a point to make you certainly didn't need to reply to a quote that had no bearing on some "argument" you would presume to make - as you've attempted to make, in the past. That actual quote was in regards TimG's highlighting, in his view, that ~20 years of Greenland ice sheet melting data isn't sufficient to separate signal/noise. When you've made this same bone-head play in the past I've simply asked you to substantiate it... put it in context, state 'which models', what timeframe, etc. Even if we give you credit for parroting some denier blog, your 90's reference puts you smack into the numnut category that attempts to cherry-pick short-term trends. Of course, even if it were true (which it's not), the real howler is that you would presume to categorize "less warming"... still warming, but at a lesser warming rate... as, wait for it, wait for it...... "global cooling"! :lol:

waldo · July 7, 2010

It was a whitewash. Some of their findings were quite absurd. For example, UEA researchers broke the spirit and the letter of the FOI law and the report describes it as 'unfortunate'.
The climate science establishment has repeatedly failed to uphold acceptable professional standards and this undermines credibility of all science. The report will simply increase cynicism and do nothing to rebuild trust.

Here are more details about how the report failed to address the subversion of the IPCC process:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/07/lord-russell-of-holyrood/

climateaudit? You've got to be kidding - hey? Wait now... is TimG the reinvented Riverwind? :lol:

ya ya, standard... all the reviews... all half-dozen of them - that have exonerated CRU, Jones, Mann, etc.;... they're all whitewashes (/snarc). Ya ya, whitewashes cause scientists were exonerated of such specious claims as deleting data, manipulating data, fabricating research, obstructing peer-review, blah, blah, blah.

really, nothing to see here... just another nail in the Hackergate wet dreams of skeptics/deniers.

edit to add: c'mon... there's a dedicated thread for Hackergate - let's not sully the purity of this thread with related Hackergate hand wringing, gnashing of teeth, whining, etc. :lol:

Edited July 7, 2010 by waldo

Michael Hardner · July 7, 2010

It was a whitewash. Some of their findings were quite absurd. For example, UEA researchers broke the spirit and the letter of the FOI law and the report describes it as 'unfortunate'.

The climate science establishment has repeatedly failed to uphold acceptable professional standards and this undermines credibility of all science. The report will simply increase cynicism and do nothing to rebuild trust.

Here are more details about how the report failed to address the subversion of the IPCC process:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/07/lord-russell-of-holyrood/

From what I read it's unclear, though, whether they were aware of their obligations on that, which is an institutional problem.

More to the point is that the science itself and the scientists were honest and their findings are not fabrications, as they were depicted by the hog callers in the mass media.

waldo · July 7, 2010

Some of their findings were quite absurd. For example, UEA researchers broke the spirit and the letter of the FOI law and the report describes it as 'unfortunate'.
From what I read it's unclear, though, whether they were aware of their obligations on that, which is an institutional problem.
More to the point is that the science itself and the scientists were honest and their findings are not fabrications, as they were depicted by the hog callers in the mass media.

yes, exactly Michael - the FOI concern reflects upon UEA proper (not CRU), reflects upon the relationship and dealings UEA had with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), the advice/direction received from the ICO, reflects upon distinctions within UK FOI law, and, of course, since the climateaudit blog was mentioned a couple of posts back... it truly reflects upon the gong show climateaudit instigated in bringing forward the multitudes of outright malicious intended FOI requests (particular highlight to the POS Mosher over at climateaudit - oh ya).

TimG · July 7, 2010

From what I read it's unclear, though, whether they were aware of their obligations on that, which is an institutional problem.

The ICO issued a statement saying that the emails represented prima facia evidence of a violation of the law but they would not proceed because of 6 month statute of limitations. Even then there is no doubt that the violated the spirit of the law and they were perfectly aware that they did. A much stronger rebuke of this behavoir was necessary for this report to be considered anything but a whitewash. The UEA FOI officer (not Jones) should be fired/demoted/disciplined.

More to the point is that the science itself and the scientists were honest and their findings are not fabrications, as they were depicted by the hog callers in the mass media.

Such a finding was beyond the scope of the inquiry which did not look at the science so people making such a claim are misreprenting the report. The claims of whether they dealt honestly and were unbiased are largely subjective. I do not feel that such a conclusion can be justified given the evidence which was submitted to the inquiry. Edited July 7, 2010 by TimG

waldo · July 7, 2010

interesting… not sure which IPCC reports you’ve been reading… the one’s I’m familiar with state a very unlikely ‘likelihood’ of sensitivity being <1.5°C… with a best estimate of ~3°C (including only fast feedback processes). So… you would choose to target the most optimistic low-end of the offered study estimate ranges. Only in that you’re the one emphasizing to, as you say, “try looking at the IPCC reports”, one wonders why you choose to ignore the stated best estimate value of ~3°C.
You are the one who keeps saying I need to show evidence that the CO2 effect is exaggerated. I pointed you to the optimistic low end of the IPCC estimates that shows that BAU could be nothing to worry about. The probabilities assigned by IPCC are nothing but subjective guess estimates that have no known connection to reality.

in actuality, you’re referencing back to the TAR era report where a sensitivity of 1.5°C was within the ‘likely’ 1.5°C-to-4.5°C range… but, again, at the low-end. With advances between TAR and AR4, the ‘likely’ range is now expressed as 2.0°C-to-4.5°C. So, your choosing a sensitivity of 1.5°C is quite telling. Notwithstanding, of course, that you’re also prepared to reference the IPCC report, yet ignore it’s quoted best estimate value of a sensitivity of ~3°C. As for the assigned probabilities, IPCC guidelines advise that, ‘Likelihood may be based on quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views’.

more interesting… standard discussions of CO2 doubling reflect upon the starting reference point @280ppm… which puts the target doubling emphasis at the 560ppm level. Does your reference to doubling to 800ppm (which presumes to begin at today’s ~400ppm CO2 level), allow you to simply ignore the related 0.7°C temperature rise… along with the 0.5°C rise (associated with existing warming) expected to come forward from the within the slow feed-back pipeline… and consequently, to ignore all the effects of 0.7°C temperature warming as seen today and those yet to come forward associated with the 0.5°C temperature warming slow feed-back pipeline?
That is why I said 1.5 to 2degC. The logarithmic nature of CO2 response means that going from 560 to 800 is equivalent to going from 280 to 400. i.e. 280 to 560 = 1.5 + 560 to 800 = 0.6 = 2.1 degG. You also need to remember that the 2degC limit was plucked out of hat so it is not a 'hard' limit.

logarithmic - of course; but thanks for clarifying how you actually arrived at your number, which, obviously… presumes on the absolute low-end of sensitivity. Which, of course… ignores the ‘best estimate’ value of ~3°C. Of course, if climate sensitivity is high(er), say a 4.5°C increase for every doubling of CO2 (which is outside of your own stated example range of 6°C “catastrophic”), then we’ve probably gone past the point where the 2°C increase will be inevitable, some decades ago. As for the 2°C limit, you most certainly know it wasn’t, as you suggestively denigrate it, “plucked out of a hat”… you may not like or agree in how it was arrived at, but it most certainly has a foundation in terms of policy, vis-a vis 2000-to-2050 CO2 emission reduction, vis-à-vis comparisons to pre-industrial times.

since you seem quite accepting to what the IPCC reports state, in the context of how you’ve just thrown out the ‘CAGW’ label, just who is it you ascribe that acronym to… is it anyone who doesn’t accept your read on the 1.5°C low-end range of sensitivity… as distinct from the best estimate of ~3°C (including only fast feedback processes)?
There is a huge difference between what is actually in the IPCC report and the public arguments presented. Just the other day I heard some pundit claim that 6degC of warming is a 100% guaranteed. Complete BS as far as the science is concerned but that does not stop them. That is why I call those people CAGW advocates.

well, without knowing the specifics of your stated example… and the pundit… I might suggest that 100% guaranteed 6°C figure could have been in reference to this science: Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? (oh look, there’s that Hansen guy again... ever wonder where 350.org sprung from?)

Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes.
Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6 deg-C for doubled CO2
for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.

emphasis added

that’s a whole lotta >30 time period Greenland ice sheet shrinkage… that you’ve chosen to ignore – hey? So… in acting to reinforce the conclusions of that study, over the latter part of that studies period of investigation (1958-to-2007), I guess you also will choose to ignore the preciseness of the GRACE satellite measurements showing Greenland’s mass loss is increasing at an accelerated rate… for the latter part of that studies time period focus – hey? Notwithstanding this recent study, albeit short time period, that seems to be the first study combining analysis of the recently installed Greenland GPS Network (GNET) with GRACE satellite measurements - Greenland ice loss continues to accelerate: Observed by GPS and GRACE
The IPCC 'ignored' that data as well when it stated that it could be a short term effect that cannot be extrapolated into the future. I don't reject the possibility - I just find it implausible that melt rates would increase exponentially with a couple degrees of warming.

no – we’ve been over this already – here: Again, the IPCC is viewed as being too conservative in not including ice sheet melt in sea-rise calculations… principally related to the unknowns in quantifying given the dynamics of ice-shelves. However, it’s not discounting the actual melt of the ice sheets. In terms of the post-AR4 study I linked to to (‘Mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet from 1958 to 2007’), when you say, “ignored that data as well”… well, of course, that post-AR4 study wasn’t included (so couldn’t have been ignored) – it occurred post-AR4! It’s a study that meets your >30 year climatic significance. You simply choose to ignore/discount it.

TimG · July 7, 2010

in actuality, you’re referencing back to the TAR era report where a sensitivity of 1.5°C was within the ‘likely’

As I said. The probabilities assigned in the IPCC documents are subjective guesses that may or may not have an connection with reality. What is more important is the range of plausible values. From the AR4:

It is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded

So 1.5 is still within the range of plausible values even though they did not assign a subjective probability to the 1.5-2.0 range.

“plucked out of a hat”… you may not like or agree in how it was arrived at, but it most certainly has a foundation in terms of policy, vis-a vis 2000-to-2050 CO2 emission reduction, vis-à-vis comparisons to pre-industrial times.

This topic came up when you asked if I had any scientific basis for believing that no action is required. I demonstrated that basis which depends on where reality falls within the uncertainties set out by the IPCC. The big question is how much weight does one put on purely subjective estimates of probability by the IPCC. I personally put little weight on them because there is no objective scientific justification for the numbers.

I might suggest that 100% guaranteed 6°C figure could have been in reference to this science:

I am sure it come from some paper but my point was the 100% claim is blantent propoganda that does not reflect the full range of scientific possibilities.

It’s a study that meets your >30 year climatic significance. You simply choose to ignore/discount it.

Because there is no reliable data on ice sheet mass prior to the GRACE satellite. If the paper is like others I am seen it probably uses a computer model to estimate the mass balance prior to GRACE. I do not consider estimates with computer models to be evidence of anything. Edited July 7, 2010 by TimG

Michael Hardner · July 7, 2010

Such a finding was beyond the scope of the inquiry which did not look at the science so people making such a claim are misreprenting the report. The claims of whether they dealt honestly and were unbiased are largely subjective. I do not feel that such a conclusion can be justified given the evidence which was submitted to the inquiry.

Out of curiosity, when they named the independent inquiry were you convinced that it would be a whitewash ? Or did you wait until they didn't get the findings you wanted ?

How can the honesty of what they're doing be subjective ? It's good science. There have been at least 4 investigations now. Nobody has found anything like 'fraud' or even incorrect conclusions.

I agree that the scientists need to be more open, and furthermore need to reach out to the hog-callers in the loudmouthed media in order to make them understand what they're saying. Of course, I doubt it will do much good.

TimG · July 7, 2010

Out of curiosity, when they named the independent inquiry were you convinced that it would be a whitewash ? Or did you wait until they didn't get the findings you wanted?

This inquiry choose a number of members who had blatent conflicts of interest. One had to resign because of public statements which indicated bias. There is also the history with the Iraq War inquiries in the UK which were all whitewashes so there was no reason to be optimistic.

Part of the problem with these inquiries is sceptics like McIntyre are much more informed about the complex issues than the panel members which means the panel members can be easily swayed if they only get one side of the story. That is what happened in this case since the panel did not interview anyone other than the defendents.

That is why I think a Canadian style judical review like the Braidwood inquiry is the only way to really get to the bottom of these issues.

How can the honesty of what they're doing be subjective?

How can you know what someone's true motivations were? Briffa claims he had good scientific reasons for the choices of proxies but there are valid scientific reasons that suggest his selection was biased. If he made the selections in good faith then he was 'honest'. If he deliberately choose the proxies he did because they gave him the answer he wanted then he is guilty of 'fraud'. No one except Briffa knows the truth. Whether you choose to believe Briffa's claims about his motivations is purely subjective.

Keepitsimple · July 7, 2010

TimG - you are unfit for this forum - you make far too much sense....you're much too rational.

Pliny · July 7, 2010

huh! Pliny, if you had a point to make you certainly didn't need to reply to a quote that had no bearing on some "argument" you would presume to make - as you've attempted to make, in the past. That actual quote was in regards TimG's highlighting, in his view, that ~20 years of Greenland ice sheet melting data isn't sufficient to separate signal/noise. When you've made this same bone-head play in the past I've simply asked you to substantiate it... put it in context, state 'which models', what timeframe, etc. Even if we give you credit for parroting some denier blog, your 90's reference puts you smack into the numnut category that attempts to cherry-pick short-term trends. Of course, even if it were true (which it's not), the real howler is that you would presume to categorize "less warming"... still warming, but at a lesser warming rate... as, wait for it, wait for it...... "global cooling"!

It doesn't help your cause to not address the issue. This thread has many references that you ignore and think you are finished with it. If you can recall the thread at all, if it is not just a blur of conquests and put downs in your own mind then you must remember the references that were cited in regards to the above. My reciting or requoting old material on the thread is not really productive.

The only thing that you serve a purpose for is in reminding us to keep on track and seek better and cleaner energy sources, deal with our garbage and keep things clean. But let's forget being a disciple of, "The sky is falling!" alarmist political rhetoric from your High priests and Pope Gore.

Pliny · July 7, 2010

I do not consider estimates with computer models to be evidence of anything.

Even scientific peer reviewed computer models of estimates? :rolleyes: :lol:

Bonam · July 7, 2010

Even scientific peer reviewed computer models of estimates?

Yet such models and estimates are used to correctly predict a variety of other very complex phenomena, from combustion inside jet engines, to airflow over complex bodies, to the mechanics of the shockwaves in nuclear explosions, to the evolution of stars and galaxies.

Dismissing computer models off hand, when they now form the backbone of scientific and engineering work, is somewhat silly.

TimG · July 7, 2010

Yet such models and estimates are used to correctly predict a variety of other very complex phenomena, from combustion inside jet engines, to airflow over complex bodies, to the mechanics of the shockwaves in nuclear explosions, to the evolution of stars and galaxies.

1) Engineering models are validated with thousands of real life tests in the lab before they are ever used to make predictions. There are no lab experiments that can validate climate models.

2) Engineering models are not used outside of the range where they have been validated. i.e. an engineering model 'trained' with data over the last 100 years cannot be used to predict changes if key parameters go outside their ranges for the last 100 years. Climate models are routinely used to extrapolate way outside their 'training range' which means their output is largely meaningless.

3) Engineering problems such jet engines and nuclear explosions are actually much simpler than climate because they do not need to incorporate the effects of poorly understood biological systems.

4) Engineering models are put through a formal V&V process. This ensures that the software actually does what the designers claim it does. Climate models are ad hoc developments by people who are not software engineers and have no concept of proper software test procedures.

5) Engineering models are run 1000s of times to generate a true probability density field for each set of model parameterizations. Climate models are run only a couple of times with the same parameterizations. To compensate they combined the outputs of different models with different parameterizations to create the PDF. This has the effect of making virtually any outcome 'consistent with' the models which makes the models impossible to falsify with real data.

IOW - I am not dismissing climate models out of hand. I am dismissing them because they do not live up to the standards that any aircraft/nuclear engineer would require before they would use a model to make any decisions with serious economic implications.