On Monday Benny Peiser quoted from the teachings of Marcus Aurelius: “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
Benny Peiser publishes CCNet, an e-newsletter with links to various opinion pieces, reports and new technical papers .
Yesterday there was more food for thought:
What is the optimal climate change policy – the one that sets future emissions reductions to maximize the economic welfare of humans? Yale University economist William Nordhaus, perhaps the world’s leading expert on the economics of climate change, has just released a new study, The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy, which estimates the costs of various proposed trajectories for limiting carbon dioxide over the next couple of centuries. So what did Nordhaus find? First, the Stern proposal for rapid deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the future damage from global warming by $13 trillion, but at a cost of $27 trillion dollars. That’s not a good deal. For an even worse deal, the DICE-2007 model estimates that the Gore proposal would reduce climate change damages by $12 trillion, but at a cost of nearly $34 trillion.
–Ronald Bailey, Reason Online, 14 August 2007
Today, the peer reviewed process of funding and validation of scientific research in climatology is equally controlled by the modern equivalent of the Collegium Romanum (the Vatican’s Institute of Research), the Inter-government Panel of Climate Change (IPCC). They in turn answer to the equivalent of the Inquisition, the Green ideologists, who, mercifully, can only torment through derision or denying the heretics research funding, and not the frightening instruments of torture.
–Deepak Lal, Business Standard, 15 August 2007
Some of the hysteric and extreme claims about global warming are also a symptom of pagan emptiness, of Western fear when confronted by the immense and basically uncontrollable forces of nature. Belief in a benign God who is master of the universe has a steadying psychological effect, although it is no guarantee of Utopia, no guarantee that the continuing climate and geographic changes will be benign. In the past pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today
they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
–Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, 2006
Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific hypothesis, not an article of religious or ideological dogma. Skepticism and doubt are entirely appropriate in the realm of science, in which truth is determined by evidence, experimentation, and observation, not by consensus or revelation. Yet when it comes to global warming, dissent is treated as heresy — as a pernicious belief whose exponents must be shamed, shunned, or silenced. The issue of global warming isn’t a closed book. Smearing those who buck the “scientific consensus” as traitors, toadies, or enemies of humankind may be emotionally satisfying and even professionally lucrative. It is also indefensible, hyperbolic bullying.
–Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, 15 August 2007
But the overriding reality seems almost un-American: We simply don’t have a solution for this problem. As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale — as Newsweek did — in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society.
–Robert J. Samuelson, The Washington Post, 15 August 2007
To subscribe to CCNet send an e-mail to listserver@livjm.ac.uk (“subscribe cambridge-conference”).
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I don’t know about your R J Samuelson of the Washington Post but we would be fools or cranks to let all our industry go to China. On this matter I truly dissent.
I’m sceptical of their claim. I reckon the alarmism over alarmists being alarmed is alarming and is actually manufactured by the denialists. When I was down the shops before noboy seemed alarmed. I asked the girl at the checkout what she thought about AGW – and she said it was on special in aisle 3.
Look at the framing above “symptom of pagan emptiness” – perhaps penned by someone of faith themselves. And it’s not AGW as a pagan subsitute – it’s football and Australian Idol (now that BB is over) – plenty of people at the footy not alarmed but crazy with sports lust.
Looks like there’s plenty of dissent to me – endless amounts here – almost every climate post in fact. Plenty in the papers, renegade pollies, blogs galore.
So the denialists are now saying that “return of fire” is outrageous? Come on?
Now that NASA has revised its dataset, “global warming” is revealed as junk.
So therefore by Schiller’s logic any temperature higher than 1934 from now on proves it. Goodie.
No Luke, by the logic of reasonable men and women, IF THE MEAN TEMPS EXTEND THE HISTORICAL RANGE, a case may begin to be made, subject to considerable further scrutiny, that AGW might be one of a number of agents of change.
But not according to Schiller. Surely if we’re going to insist on simple logic we need to be consistent. Unless of course our simple logic is … um .. .. how you say in Oz .. . bloody silly.
Benny Peiser’s quotes are spot on. In the midst of this climate hysteria the “heretics” to the religion are casting doubt on fundamental issues.
Schiller’s comment is a tad generous(?) when he says that the NASA correction means that the AGW hypothesis. It was after all, a correction only to US data but not for the first time Steve McIntyre has highlighted problems with basic issues in the AGW creed.
The US, theoretically at least, has some of the best maintained weather stations. Apart from the recent correction it turns out that many observation stations are very poorly sited and very susceptible to man-made heat. This should make us question the credibility of all near-surface temperature data. If this data, the ultimate foundation of claims of warming, is wrong the the hypothesis goes belly-up.
In my book the heretics are doing society a huge favour by identifying these problems. The way things are going you might have to thank them for saving trillions of dollars being spent on something entirely unnecessary.
We also get a regular dose of Australia’s Andrew Glikson on CCNet. Here’s yesterday’s gem:
COMMENTS ON “THE GREAT GLOBAL CLIMATE SWINDLE” FILM
Andrew Glikson [geospec@iinet.net.au]
The omission of climate records of the last 20 years or so from the film “The Great Global Climate Swindle” invites a comparison with a flat earth view based on omission of all post-Columbus records.
According to the film, broadcast on the UK Channel 4 and the Australian ABC, human-triggered climate change is merely a conspiracy theory, designed by over 2000 climate scientists, the world’s leading climate research organizations and the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change to prevent the world’s poor nations from developing.
However, contrary to views of “climate skeptics”, some of which are promoted in the film:
(1) By 2000 mean global temperatures have risen about 0.3 degrees C higher than the maximum of the Medieval Warm Period (1000-1200AD), and highest since 125,000 years ago when temperatures reached 2-3 degrees C above present levels. Temperature rise rates during 1970-2003 have exceeded those of the last glacial termination by one to two orders of magnitude.
(2) The triggers for ice age terminations originated with the sun (orbital forcing), whereas the current climate change is caused by anthropogenic increase in greenhouse emissions. The infrared radiative effects of CO2 are a physical fact demonstrated both in nature and in the laboratory, where the doubling of CO2 levels results in an increase of about 3 degrees C in temperature (Climate sensitivity). Rates of CO2 rise during 1970-2003 exceeded those of the last glacial termination by two orders of magnitude.
(3) Past interglacial warming were triggered by sharp spikes in solar irradiation associated with the Earth’s position relative to the sun (Milankovic cycles), with consequent feedback release of greenhouse gas (CO2, CH4) from the oceans and the biosphere, resulting in atmospheric infrared radiation effects and in melting of ice sheets, which amplify global warming. By contrast current climate change is caused by the thermal effects of CO2 emissions from burning of some 300 billion tons of fossil fuel since the dawn of the industrial age, with consequent increase of CO2 to 380 parts per million, 36 percent above maximum levels (about 280 parts per million) which pertained over the last one million years (The Pleistocene).
(4) Terrestrial mean temperature variations are a compound consequence of several factors, principally solar variations and greenhouse gases. Since the beginning of the 20th century to about 1940 temperatures increased by about 0.45 degrees C as a combined effect of an increase in greenhouse emissions and in solar irradiation associated with the 11-year sunspot cycle. A decline in temperature during 1940-1970 of about 0.1 degree C occurred, despite continuing rise in emissions, due to aerosol reflectance effects and a decline in the sun spot cycle. From the mid-1970th the solar cycle effects and temperature effects were strongly decoupled due to sharp rise in greenhouse gas levels, resulting in temperature rise by about 0.6 degrees C to 2000.
(5) The cosmic ray flux and solar irradiance are inversely related, due to deflection of the former during periods of maximum sun spot activity. Water clouds have both cooling effects (due to reflection) and warming effects (due to infrared properties of water). The increased clouding during periods of cosmic ray maxima and sun spot minima may ensue from decreased solar radiation and lesser cloud dispersion. It has not been demonstrated cosmic rays result in cloud nucleation. Cloud formation is affected by several factors, including concentration of aerosols and dust, and are relatively scarce over areas of maximum warming, namely the poles and the deserts. From the mid-1970s temperatures were strongly decoupled from the solar and cosmic ray cycles.
(6) Increases in evaporation and concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere are the consequence of, not the trigger for, global warming. The water contents of the atmosphere over desert and polar regions, subject to maximum warming, is low to very low. The residence time of water in the atmosphere is much shorter than that of CO2, which may last between 5 and 200 years.
(7) Long-term relations between sea level rise and temperatures exceed 4 meters per 1 degree C. Significant short-term (decades to century-scale) temperature and sea levels fluctuations (several degrees and many meters) during the last ice age (about 110 – 15 thousand years ago) imply great instability of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets. Marked reduction in permanent ice cover by about 16 percent, and rapid collapse dynamics of these ice sheets, were observed over the last 20 years. Sea levels rise rates have doubled between 1860 and 2005 (1860-2000 +1.6 mm/year; 1910-1997 +2.3 mm/year; 1994-2005 +2.8 to 3.4 mm/year).
(8) According to the World Conservation Union, present extinction rates are 50 to 500 times the natural background rate and up to 52 percent of species are threatened with extinction (http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/index.htm).
(9) The great mass extinction of species during geological history (late Devonian, Permian-Triassic, end-Triassic, Cretaceous-Tertiary, Paleocene-Eocene) have been triggered by volcanic, asteroid impact and greenhouse events associated with sharp increases in atmospheric levels of CO2 and CH4.
Those who watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle” need to bear these points in mind.
References
Bamber et al., 2007. Rapid response of modern day ice sheets to external forcing. Earth. Planet. Sci. Lett., 257, 1-13. Crutzen, P.J., 2006. Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulphur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climate Change 77, 211-220; Glikson, A.Y., 2007. Homo sapiens on thin ice. The Australian Geologist, March 2007. Glikson, A.Y., submitted, Milestones in the evolution of the atmosphere; Glikson, A.Y., Submitted, Sea Change. Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., Lea, D.W., Siddall, M., 2007. Climate change and trace gases. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A365, 1925-1954. Hansen, J.E., 2007. Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate. Testimony to Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, United States House of Representatives. Pittock, B., 2007. Ten Reasons Why Climate Change May be more Severe than Projected (in press). Rahmstorf, S., Cazenave, A., Church, J.A., c Hansen, J.E., Keeling, R.F., Parker, D.E., Somerville, C. J., Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections. Science Express, http://www.sciencexpress.org / 1 February 2007 / Page 1 / 10.1126/ science. 1136843. Rahmstorf, 2007. Climate change fact sheet. Potsdam Institute for Climate impact research (www.pik-potsdamde/~stef). Solanki, S.K., 2002, Solar variability and climate change. Astronomy & Geophysics, 43, 5.9-5.13. Wing, S. L., et al., 2005, Transient floral change and rapid global warming at the Palaeocene-Eocene boundary, Science 310, 993-996; Zachos, J. Pagani, M.N., Sloan, L., Thomas, E., Billups, 2001. Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present. Science 292, 686-693.
John – maybe Australia has the best network. And its results are quite clear.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi see mean temperature
Hang on
I am supposed to believe this fella’s economic models?
You have to hand it to George Pell
“In the past pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today
they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
–Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, 2006”
He can say that with a straight face, while he walks around in the funny hat and waves incense to statue. Pure comedy gold.
The mean temperature bars certainly indicate a of rise of something less than a degree since 1910 Luke, which may indicate an overall global trend (not the cause) – but don’t tell me that reliable records have been available from all the Climate Stations (particularly those in the outback) for that long.
I would be much more convinced by a century of reliable records from one station in a constantly remote area.
Yes I am actually – talk to BoM – all those stations have been very carefully selected. Recording the weather is a great Aussie tradition. If that does not convince you – don’t bother looking elsewhere as nothing else will. You’ll just have to wait till it warms up a bit more and review your position.
As for causes – well you say you don’t know or you can search for reasons.
The reason that the temperature trends are interesting is that it’s broadly what is said to be the trends elsewhere.
From the BOM site:
“The Australian Reference Climate Station (RCS) network has been established for high quality, long-term climate monitoring, particularly with regard to climate change analysis. The establishment of the network followed a request by the World Meteorological Organization to all of its member nations in 1990.
A Reference Climate Station (RCS) is defined as follows:
‘A climatological station, the data of which are intended for the purpose of determining climatic trends. This requires long periods (NOT LESS THAN THIRTY YEARS) of homogeneous records, where human-influenced environmental changes have been and/or are expected to remain at a minimum. Ideally the records should be of sufficient length to enable the identification of secular [over time] changes of climate.’
Around 100 RCSs have been selected from the existing Australian observation network. Preference was given to stations with
* high quality and long climate records,
* a location in an area away from large urban centres, and
* a reasonable likelihood of continued, long-term operation.
If I understand this correctly, the BOM climate stations have been established to provide reliable information on current and future trends.
de Gaulle also had much the same philosophy as Aurelius, he said to be successful you had to
– maintain the initiative;
– seek to exploit the inevitable;
– maintain mobility and flexibility;
– keep in with the outs;
– and never stand between a lamp–post and a dog.
Interesting piece in New Scientist recently (4 Aug 2007), by David Malone. Title “Can we learn to love uncertainty?”. Quote “… the pursuit of certainty has become a dangerous addiction. Like alcohol, it makes us feel safe, but it is also making us stupid and belligerent … Thinking flourishes in the land between certainty and doubt.” Relevant to the climate debate?
Jennifer, Benny’s great for quote-mining, isn’t he?
You might care to take a look at Ron Bailey’s full post, http://reason.com/news/show/121926.html, or even at the underlying work by Yale economist Nordhaus that Ron refers to, http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/dice_mss_072407_all.pdf.
Here’s some more quote-mining from Ron, who calls his piece “The Cost of Cooling the Climate; A non-alarmist guide for policymakers”:
“Nordhaus reckons that the optimal policy would impose a carbon tax of $34 per metric ton carbon in 2010, with the tax increases gradually reaching $42 per ton in 2015, $90 per ton in 2050, and $207 per ton of carbon in 2100. A $20 per metric ton carbon tax will raise coal prices by $10 per ton, which is about a 40 percent increase over the current price of $25 per ton. A $10 per ton carbon tax translates into a 4 cent per gallon increase in gasoline. A $300 per ton carbon tax would raise gasoline prices by $1.20 per gallon.
“Following this optimal trajectory would cost $2.2 trillion and reduce climate change damage by $5.2 trillion over the next century. “The net present-value global benefit of the optimal policy is $3.4 trillion relative to no controls,” writes Nordhaus. “While this is a large number absolutely, it is a small fraction, about 0.17 percent, of the discounted value of total future income.” Keep in mind that in this optimal scenario climate change damages would still accumulate to $17 trillion (lower than $22.6 trillion in the baseline case)….
“As Nordhaus notes, “The net benefits of zero-carbon substitutes are so high as to warrant very intensive research.” Setting a price on carbon through a rising tax will encourage the development of such technologies. Another good way to hurry the process along would be to offer a substantial prize to the inventor of a cheap low carbon energy technology, e.g., perhaps a better battery, or paint-on solar cells.
“Nordhaus cogently argues that neither doing nothing nor trying to halt global warming immediately are sensible policy targets.”
Nordhaus indicates that, even if his “optimal” proposals were followed, we can still expect average global warming of 2.61 C in 2100 over the pre-industrial average. Hmm – and this is what Ron Bailey thinks is non-alarmist?
Regards,
TT
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Richard Feynman
Those future temperature predictions are from computer modelling of a physical process which, from first principles, cannot be modelled.
If you want to model climate, which by the way is defined, sensu strictu, as weather averaged over a 30 year period, then you should model climate statistics rather than weather statistics.
So how many data points would be available to us?
As Luke as ten fingers and toes, he should have no difficulty in working this number out. (Assuming he is not wearing socks or shoes since that fact would reduce his counting aids by eight, but even that reduction should enable him to still make an attempt for a solution).
As Luke reckons the Australian BOM data is pretty good, I would probably use the Giles meteorological site as a typical rural one. Data collection for that site started in 1956.
We are in 2007 so (2007 – 1957)/30 = 1.6666
Or we have one data point for climate data.
1 point does not model too well I suspect but when you are a crank or charlatan, does this matter? Of course not – Rhetoric Rules!
That’s data (plural) “are” pretty good you uneducated rock mechanic. Do they not teach geologists anything. And “are” is the point – there is more than one datum point, spatially and temporally. Gee if you think Giles is typical you’ve been Sand Groping for too long.
Louis alas you couldn’t model your way out of paper bag. Do you have someone else do your kriging for you?