Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for richard tol

Comments matching the search richard tol:

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

Stop emissions, stop warming: A climate reality check

MA Rodger at 04:19 AM on 27 December, 2024

rkrolph @8,
The quote you provide comes from a 900 word essay entitled 'Progressive myths harm the honest discourse' by Michael Huemer, a professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The essay is really no more than an advert for his book 'Progressive Myths' (Amazon preview here).

In both book and essay he rails against "political activists" saying that "Nearly every piece of information they disseminate is a distortion or outright lie," and also that their influence is pervasive. In the essay he cites three exemplar "lies" promulgated by such "political activists." The three exemplars given are:-

(1) Women earn just 82 cents for every dollar that men earn for the same work;
(2) Police shootings show a marked racial bias against Black Americans;
(3) Global warming is an existential threat to America and the world.

These are, of course 'progressive' lies as are the nine "myths" featured in his book (according to this book review) and with Huemer apparently a 'libertarian' (according to the reviewer of the book who does say but not convincingly Huemer "also addresses falsehoods from the far right"). With the subject of the book being titled "Progressive Myths", some significant bias should bring no surprises. The Amazon book review linked above shows the book's Part VI containts three chapters:-

19 The Global Warming Consensus.
20 Existential Climate Risk.
21 Mask Science, which presumably is about spread of the recent pandemic.

(I should point out that, as I am a more-progressive less-libertarian Brit sat on the other side of the pond, I would consider the egregious lies and denials spread by 'libertarians' in the US should be far more of an issue and a concern. Thus I see the book as the lesson of Matthew 7:3-to-5 at play here.)

With that preamble from me, is there any merit to the notion of "global warming is an existential threat to America and the world" being nothing but a "progressive myth," as Huemer says? Is it indeed a lie? And do "Virtually no serious scientists think that global warming is an existential threat"?

The first thing required to be clear is what is meant by "existential threat."
There are some lunatics who talk of an "existential threat" to humanity, apparently suggesting that the Homo Sapiens species could become extinct. But such a notion is not being considered by Huemer.
The future exisitence of "America (USA) and the world" is the issue at hand. In the Amazon book review linked above which was lilely written by Huemer, the question is put "Is global warming really going to destroy human civilization?" Put another way, could we be** stoking a collapse of the USA and/or enough of the sovereign states of the world to collapse the world economic order. Note that more will be in play that AGW itself. Without collapsing the entire world order, the remaining sovereign states will almost certainly be arguing over resources, with the environmental impacts of AGW thus precipitating political conflict and thus further chaos.

(** There is considerable uncertainty with the climate effects of AGW, even when a global level of warming is a given. There is thus a lot of uncertainty even before the level of AGW is converted into a measure of economic impacts.) The evident uncertainties within any assessment of the economic damage from AGW means assessment has to account for a less-than precise answer. The average of the potential results does not really provide a worthy assessment. It would be properly some assessment of the worst likely outcome.

And that leads to the work apparently setting-out what will be the financial impacts of AGW. In the most recent IPCC AR6 the conclusion is that no identifiable range of economic impacts globally is apparent due to the varying methodologies producing such a wide range of results. This range has increased since the limited analyses reviewed in AR5. Further complications include there being non-linear impacts with increasing AGW and there will be significant regional variation.

But to at least put some numbers to it, the range shown in AR6 for +4ºC of AGW is +3% to +33% with the CI ranging from negative to +66%. (Note the authors of these lower evaluations do come under fire and the likes of Richard Tol are well known for presenting a denialist stance.) This range compares to the "2.5% of GDP by 2100" stated by Huemer without any mention of the level of AGW assumed. It also compares with the range given in AR5 Box 3.1 "These incomplete estimates of global annual economic losses for temperature increases of ~2.5°C above pre-industrial levels are between 0.2 and 2.0% of income (medium evidence, medium agreement)."

There are many difficulties facing these researchers trying to set some sort of economic cost to AGW, mitigated or unmitigated, some examples being:-

☻ The 2100 time-frame usually chosen ignores some very serious issues, not least Sea Level Rise over multi-century timescales. Greenland melt down will become inevitable at some point below 2ºC AGW if it continues at that level. Thus it becomes a certainty for continuing AGW of +2ºC to resultant +7m SLR over a millennium or so. At +4ºC, there would be an additional +8m SLR from other land ice loss.
☻ There are many saying the undeveloped nations will see negative economic growth under unmitigated AGW. This may well not have such a big simplistic impact on global economic growth as the deveolped world accounts for the vast majority of the global economy. So if say Madagascar were to melt into the Indian Ocean and disappear, the global economy shrinks by just 0.1%. But also the 30 million inhabitants would thus be looking for some sort of future beyond their lost homeland. Some may see such migrations boosting economies elsewhere while others may see it as a more significant annual cost than the $500/head/y lost from their present day autochthonic productivity.
☻ The potential size of unmitigated AGW has been reduced in the minds of some researchers because the world has turned against using coal. This is argued because there are insufficient non-coal FFs to create much more than +3ºC AGW. Yet such an assumption remains to be fully argued out.

And do "Virtually no serious scientists think that global warming is an existential threat"? There is another philosopher who talks as though no scientist could seriously say it is not an exisitential threat. "In the worst-case scenarios in scientists’ climate models, human-caused climate change is a threat to the continued existence of many species and to human society as we know it."

To conclude, Huemer presents a predictably denialist (and he insists he is not an AGW denialist) with his outlandish pronouncements entirely out-of-kilter with him being a growed-up philosopher and all.

How to inoculate yourself against misinformation

Petra Liverani at 20:53 PM on 1 July, 2022

Misinformation is a weasel term just as conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorist are.

With regard to criticism of what we are told by the authorities the term to apply is not misinformation or conspiracy theory, but rather words such as criticism orrefutation and the validity of the criticism needs to be addressed. Of course, if it's called criticism that allows possible validity at least, doesn't it, and we can't have that, no we must smear any criticism with the label misinformation. To call a medical doctor who has studied scientific papers and points out what she thinks shows errors in scientific method a conspiracy theorist or a spreader of misinformation is the wrong approach. What needs to happen is that her argument needs to be counter-refuted not simply dismissed as misinformation. In fact, NZ doctor, Dr Sam Bailey, who has made extremely iconoclastic claims with regard to the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus and viruses in general (as have a few other doctors and scientists) has been struck off the NZ medical register for allegedly spreading misinformation but so far that misinformation has not been identified.

Where we see the constant refrain of misinformation with clear evidence of censorship we need to consider which information is misinformation and who is spreading it.

We're told to "trust the science" which is, ironically, a completely anti-science attitude to take. What an absurdity. Science is about questioning not trusting. I have no desire to "trust science", what I want is open and frank discussion but it's squashed and instead we're told that anything against the mainstream narrative is misinformation.

This recent 20-min video by Sam Bailey, False Gods, "Experts" and the Death of Science, includes snippets of:
-— Richard Feynman's 1974 Caltech commencement address where he speaks of "cargo cult science" and scientists igoring the rigorous scientific work of a particular scientist and
-— Dr Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ, saying that it's difficult to see the upsides of peer review and how experiments done to test peer review show it doesn't bear up very well.

If eminent scientists criticise "science" why shouldn't we?

The scientific consensus on climate change gets even stronger

Jim Hunt at 21:09 PM on 22 October, 2021

In a perhaps surprising recent development regarding the change in consensus among economists, Professor Dr. Richard S.A. Tol MAE endorsed the Cook et al. approach:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/1450569971378106378

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #25, 2021

Daniel Bailey at 06:51 AM on 26 June, 2021

Reading the research paper and the Nature commentary on it, they are pretty much in-line with the recent 2019 SROCC (Chapter 4 is most relevant). Table 4.4 gives these numbers:

Don't take my word on it, though. There's a number of discussions out there already (like here and here) saying pretty much the same thing.

For me, the main thing is that they look at the recent research, both the early research by DeConto and the later stuff, which shows that some of the early concerns about marine ice cliff instability were not as bad as originally feared.

“What we found is that over long timescales, ice behaves like a viscous fluid, sort of like a pancake spreading out in a frying pan. So the ice spreads out and thins faster than it can fail and this can stabilize collapse. But if the ice can’t thin fast enough, that’s when you have the possibility of rapid glacier collapse.

There’s no doubt that sea levels are rising, and that it’s going to continue in the coming decades. But I think this study offers hope that we’re not approaching a complete collapse – that there are measures that can mitigate and stabilize things. And we still can change things by making decisions about things like energy emissions, methane and CO2.”

Does this mean that the land-based ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland may not hold some SLR surprises in store for us? Of course they might. But without a magic crystal ball or a time machine to know with certainty what emissions pathways society will follow in the future, we have to go with what they physics of ice sheets informs us. This research does not rule out worse results this century than the SROCC delineates.

As scientists Joelle Gergis and Richard Alley told a group of us at a recent AGU meeting, the current models (CMIP3 and CMIP5) treat the land-based ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica as "like rocks, but painted white". Meaning that they were not coupled or interactive with their surroundings in any climate-related way. The CMIP6 models, however, look to more fully couple those ice sheets with their surrounding ocean regimes.

Society will have an enormous difficulty in dealing with the first meter of SLR, due at some point this century. If it gets a second meter this century (perhaps not globally, but possibly in some regions), that will be catastrophic.

Climate's changed before

MA Rodger at 19:49 PM on 25 February, 2020

theSkeptik @813,

Such is the composition of your specific responses (not least to my comment @810) that I feel you should be made aware of how far you are from grasping the reality of the climatology you criticise. This makes addressing the substance of your comment (which actually has some merit) an impossibility.

Thus (& specific to you reply to my comment @810), what you call my "first argument" is correcting your error @808 by pointing out the well-known situation that the CO2 measured from ice cores is measuring trapped air. You move on from this 'correction' and on to the so-far-unmentioned-by-you problem of the difference between the age of the ice and the age of the air entrapped within the ice which as you correctly say is not addressed in this SkS post. It is addressed on a different SkS post which is linked within the above SkS post. "Unfortunately" you are unable to cope with that situation.

Similarly, you use part of what I present within what you call my "second argument" to begin anew with a different argument that an absence of Antarctic warming is equivalent to there being no global warming. (Actually if this were the issue, more up-to-date temperature data, so for instance the warming below -70ºS measured by GISTEMP, records a great deal of Antarctic warming over recent years.)

Finally you are flat wrong to suggest that you "do not make any claims about any relationships between GHG and temperature or other related parameters." Whatever your experience in "just looking for unbiased information," do not deny that you yourself come here with "overinterpreted data and conclusions driven by preoccupation," and I would suggest your two comments @808 & @813 show you are more pre-occupied than those you criticise.

The SkS post above, addresses the nonsense myth set out by denialist Richard Lindzen that "climate is always changing" and thus "wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence." You may be unsatisfied that this SkS post properly addresses Lindzen's denialist argument. And I may agree with you on that specific-but-narrow point. But such a deficiency does not, as you attempt to argue, make the underlying thesis wrong. And you failure to present consistent and trustworthy analysis suggests proper discussion of all this likely a little pointless.

With the En-ROADS climate simulator, you can build your own solutions to global warming

ilfark2 at 03:04 AM on 1 February, 2020

I've read a few surveys on carbon taxes that you can find if you're interested.

Let's look at other taxes for the moment. Gasoline tax has increased gas prices substantially yet 60 to 70% of US emissions are from it's citizens driving around in large, useless circles.

Look at the effect of tobacco tax.

Better still, do the arithmetic on how long carbon taxes would take to reduce carbon output substantially. Others have done it.

Taxes as such were introduced arguably, by the Romans. They proved that all you need is a printing press. They mined gold (using slaves), gave this to their soldiers and told subjects they had to give a certain amount of official gold coin every so often. They only way to get the gold was to supply Roman soldiers. This was an easy way to supply Roman troops. Hudson and Graeber cover this.

If we took a New Deal approach to the problem, it will take at least 50 years, more likely 100.

The vast majority of infrastructure, not to mention top to bottom means of production change, happened from 1940 to 1943, and 40 to 60% of the money was printed to do so.

There are quite a few books on the scope and scale of the New Deal vs. WWII mobilization out there now.

Instead of me reading "Good Economics for Hard Times", why don't you find a referenced quote in the book that describes a time in history a society was massively changed via tax policy on the order of ten years (other than the French and Bolshevik revolutions). If they found that, I'll happily grab the book and start reading, because I've never read of such a thing.

In short I challenge readers to point to one instance where massive, short order, societal change occurred from tax policy.

We have many examples of what happens to revenues that are supposed to go to the people. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Alaska among others I'm sure. In these cases, various amounts at varying times of the proceeds were skimmed off the top by elites. This is always the case. It is obvious it will be unless you have real democratic accountability which hierarchies never ever do. Look at the massive sums that are skimmed off by gov contractors... somehow the CCL crowd will magically create a separate Carbon Tax department that will successfully sequester and judiciously allocate all they are supposed to? Large organizations have never operated for any substantial time period this way unless they were run by direct democracy.

But again, if you think we have 50 or a 100 years to get to zero, maybe this would work, but likely not.

Look at the US congress now vs. in the 1930s.

Then, they passed the 30 page Glass-Steagal act. You can look it up and easily read it. It's very simple. Banks can't buy stocks. Savings and Loans can only do a very limited number of things. Gamblers and speculators have to go to hedgefunds. Hedgefunds were a vanishingly small part of the financisphere until Clinton repealed Glass Steagal.

Then there was the crash, then you got Barney Frank and i forget who else, write a bill to reign stuff in. The thing was added to, amended, changed, until it became the useless 2 to 5 thousand page batch of monstronsity, that has done very little to safe guard the financial system.

Ditto the heritage foundation's Affordable Care Act.

That is what will happen in the US with a Carbon Tax.

It might start out useful, but by the time it's done, it will be filled with exemptions, grandfather clauses etc...

Years will pass until the next better version is considered.

No one knows how much time we have, but it's possibly too late and even the IPCC talks about 10 years, which depends on untested, unscaled carbon removal.

The safest path would be massive structural, societal change in less than 10 years.

The only time we've seen that is with massive government supervision and planning. Sometimes using markets (as in US WWII mobilization), other times not.

But again, if you think we have 50 plus years and would rather not risk the status quo, there's an off chance tax/subsidy of the current system might work.

Trust me, I'm not a fan of a WWII mobilization. The one in the US led to one set of elites prevailing over another. It hyper-rewarded capitalists that played ball and left many (especially women, African-Americans and Latinos) behind. It led to the horrible system we currently have. Hopefully a Green New Deal would be more just, but I remain skeptical.

Some nice books to get anyone interested on how economies have been planned by governments or corporations, see "The End of Reform", by Brinkely, "The Visible Hand of Management" and "Scope and Scale..." by Alfred Chandler Jr., the first few chapters of "Destructive Creation..." I forget the author, "Debt: The First 5000 Years..." by Graeber, "Economics: A New Introduction" by Hugh Stretton... and of course Richard Woff, David Harvey, Yanis Varoufanukis. For a more mainstream take on taxation see Stephanie Kelton, Michael Hudson (the MMTers).

You might be right, we might have 30 to 100 years to get to negative emissions, but the Arctic, Antarctic, Australia, Amazon, Siberia, permafrost, methane levels, droughts, deluges (among many other "oh shit that wasn't supposed to happen for another 70 years" scientific papers) suggest otherwise.

There is no consensus

MA Rodger at 21:16 PM on 19 December, 2019

PatrickSS @862,

You present three names in response to my request @858 for the scientists you tell us "think that doubling CO2 will raise the world temp by about 1C," a position you appear to set as equal in importance to "those who think that doubling CO2 will raise the world temp by about 3C." It's not much of a list. Do note that two of these are not climatologists and further, I do not see that any of them present substantive reasons to support their bold claims. This is evidently not two sets of scientists arguing. It is sadly science under attack from a handful of swivel-eyed lunatics.

In support of my own rather bold statement, I would share with you my view of the one climatologist you name - the veteran climate denier Richard Lindzen. He has been at this game so long that he has lost entirely his grasp on the science he is supposed to be practising and now resorts to bare-faced-lies/deluded-foolishness [delete as applicable]. He has certainly ventured far beyond the science of climatology with his nonsense. See his 2017 version here and tick off the numerous examples of untruth he presents. (And to keep us on-topic, note his first attempt to refute AGW is "The 97 Percent Meme".)

I note you cite Dickie Lindzen when you say "Increasing CO2 causes the IR to be emitted at slightly greater altitude. This warms the surface because the temperature at which the emission takes place is the same, so when the lower atmosphere is chaotically mixed the air reaching the surface is hotter (because it gets compressed as it comes down)." I am not sure where Lindzen explaining this mechanism but the way you phrase it is subject to vast misinterpretation.

You add that Judy Curry has had difficulty getting published yet if she has anything worth publishing she only has to post it on her website to get it into the scientific/public domain. Yet there is complete absence of any substantive comtribution from Curry, an absence that speaks volumes.

@862 you say you do not feel your "main argument" has not be "really engaged." You appear to be arguing that the scientific view of AGW is not truly reflected in the 97% consensus and specifically that Verheggen et al (2014) is 'obviously not' fairly summarised by the 91% value. I find this difficult to accept. Perhaps we are reading a different paper.

The North Atlantic ocean current, which warms northern Europe, may be slowing

MA Rodger at 20:30 PM on 30 August, 2019

Human 2934527 @13,
The understanding that a weaker AMOC cools lands bordering the N Atlantic is pretty-much accepted by all. There are exceptions. one being Richard Seager from a decade ago. I would suggest his position back then was fuelled by the work from a few years earlier enumerating the poleward energy fluxes. From his presentation slide 12 (linked @12) “First hint that this may all be myth comes from using observations to estimate atmosphere and ocean heat transports.“ This basically shows that above 40N only a tenth of the north-bound energy is via the oceans, a finding that has pretty-much stood the test of time. Thus from Schmitt (2018) 'The Ocean's Role in Climate' its Fig 3:-
Schmitt (2018) fig 3

Being an ocean-based account, |Schmitt (2018) splits the atmosphere fluxes into dry and wet, but the proportion of the total within the ocean is small beyond 40N, not much more than 10 percent.
And that 'not much more than 10 percent' is almost all the AMOC which operates on a rather small bit of the planet so its influence over that bit of planet is quite large. (The number often given to the AMOC energy flux is ~0.4PW. Today's climate forcing due to AGW is [3.1Wm^-2 x 510M sq km=] 1.6PW acting over the entire world.) So I would suggest that Seager was barking up the wrong tree in his 2007 presentation & his modelling was presumably somehow flawed in concept.

What has been of interest to the science of recent years is getting the strength of the AMOC & its present rate of decline, of interest because AGW models suggest it will decline under AGW and this will cool the N Atlantic borderlands. The science is now starting to get results on the decline. (See for instance this RealClimate post from this January.)

As for the future the jury is still out as to how much the AMOC will slow, with some evidence still in play that it could actually collapse under AGW. Thus Lui et al (2017) 'Overlooked possibility of a collapsed Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in warming climate'. which modelled a 2xCO2 world.
And the overwhelming view is that slowing of the AMOC does lead to cooling of the European Atlantic coastal regions. A figure obtained for a RealClimate post from the researches of Lui et al is captioned:-
Lui et al AMOC cooling
Temperature change in the winter months (DJF), 300 years after CO2 doubling in the experiment. Due to the almost completely extinct Atlantic flow, the northern Atlantic region has cooled significantly. Source: Wei Liu, with permission.

Of course, the dangers of relying on a single paper can be demonstrated by the paper Chen & Tung (2018) 'Global surface warming enhanced by weak Atlantic overturning circulation'. One of its two authors is Ka-Kat Tung who is happy to beat the denialist drum and, as I can testify, a very unreliable source of AGW research. So folk should take what Chen & Tung (2018) says with an oceanful of salt.

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

Eclectic at 16:07 PM on 10 May, 2019

Jake S @370 , yes it is quite evident that you "skimmed" the Cook paper . . . and that you skimped on thinking it through ( +/- a prompter ).

As for the shape of the Earth being "universally accepted by scientists and rational laypeople" [your quote] . . . it is interesting that you fail to use that criterion for AGW (which has a similar weight of evidence supporting it).

Clearly, Jake S , you need to educate yourself about climate science.

And if I may hint [not prompt!] ~ you will find that all science is advanced through peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals. ( Not by Op-Eds in Breitbart or the WSJ or FoxNews ). The heart of the matter for this particular thread, is that the "Consensus" is the result of that science. And FYI, the reputable scientific journals are very keen to publish contrarian papers provided the papers seem to have valid supporting evidence ~ indeed, a number have been published, but every such paper has later been found to be faulty/invalid by subsequent scientific research.

You will not find climate science in journals such as Energy Policy (a journal which explicitly describes itself as being about "Political, Economic ... and Social Aspects of Energy" unquote). Many of the articles in Energy Policy are open-access and not peer-reviewed. Possibly you know what that implies !! You referenced Energy Policy re a "short communication" by Dr Richard Tol ~ the same Richard Tol who later backed off his Consensus criticism, and admitted that in his opinion the Consensus was more like 90%. ( Not 33% or 13% or 4% or whatever is the latest fantasy of Lord Monckton his WattsUpWithThat colleagues.)

Jake S , to be more accurate, I should point out to you that the 97% Consensus was based on scientific papers centered at about the year 2005. The consensus in say 2014 was well over 99% , as judged by the scientific papers published over a 59-week period [why 59 not 52 weeks?] . . . a study of [IIRC] around 2,200 papers showed only 3 [three] papers that were "contrarian" [and each of those 3 was rubbish].

Education, Jake S. And you will find that there are close to zero actual climate scientists who take a contrarian viewpoint about AGW . . . and you will find absolutely zero who can supply any valid evidence to support their position(s). (All they have is rhetoric and religious beliefs.)

My apologies, Jake S , for mentioning Lord Monckton, in post #369 ~ it is just that he is a prominent speaker (not a scientist in the slightest) who is remarkably innumerate & ignorant in actual climate science, and who typifies many denialists by asserting that AGW is a hoax invented by (worldwide) scientists who are plotting to set up a Communist World Government. 'Nuff said, about his intellect.

But it is interesting, Jake S , that you raised the matter of lobotomy (perhaps you meant leucotomy) . . . which has prompted me to think of a Monckton nexus there. It would explain much.

Jake S , as for your list of "many refutations" of the 97% consensus figure . . . there seem to be few, if any, that are scientifically peer-reviewed papers. And much worse, they present no valid argument. And your list includes Dr R. Tol in Energy Policy (!) ; and Breitbart (!!!) . . . not to mention American Thinker (!!) and 3 from ClimateEtc (!) and 6 from JoNova (!!) .

And 15 (fifteen) from WUWT blog (a favored home of Monckton) which is mostly a blog of remarkably puerile propaganda, with comment columns half-filled by commenters who are in full denial of the physical properties of CO2. (Mr Watts says they are quite wrong . . . but he encourages them to rant. It's that sort of blog / echo-chamber. Almost no rational laypeople and almost no real scientists.)

In short, Jake S , you have provided nothing in the way of rational reasons.

There is no consensus

Daniel Bailey at 00:07 AM on 18 November, 2018

Richard Tol accidentally confirmed the 97% global warming consensus. An "own-goal" if there ever was one.

“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

Own Goal

LINK 1

LINK2

LINK3

How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice

Eclectic at 10:30 AM on 28 December, 2017

Richardtol @13 , would you (without going to extremes of effort) please give some detail of your objection.

Do you feel that the Verheggen basic data are worse (the selection of the 45 + 45 blogs; or perhaps the selection of the blog contents/articles)?

Or do you object to the content analysis in terms of the six categories of the sea-ice/polar-bear nexus? Or some more general aspects of analysis?

Presumably you do not object to the qualitative or statistical division of the 90 blogs, with respect to their being science-based or "science-denier". Here seems to be one of those fortunate situations where the division is so black-or-white, as to need no actual mathematical analysis.

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46

wili at 04:42 AM on 22 November, 2017

From the NY Times : “When I asked Richard Alley, almost certainly the most respected glaciologist in the United States, whether he would be surprised to see Thwaites collapse in his lifetime, he drew a breath. Alley is 58. ‘‘Up until very recently, I would have said, ‘Yes, I’d be surprised,’ ’’ he told me. ‘‘Right now, I’m not sure..."

www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/magazine/the-secrets-in-greenlands-ice-sheets.html?_r=0

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Bob Loblaw at 02:22 AM on 22 October, 2017

Lomborg using Richard Tol as a source? Bad idea. Tol is an outlier in these sorts of studies, and he's had to issue multiple corrections to gremlin-filled papers he's written (and refused to acknowledge the impact of other errors in them).

[Andrew Gelman Critque of Tol's work]

[Retraction Watch comments on Tol paper]

Using Tol's lowball estimate is another case of hoping all the uncertainties fall in your favour.

You are continuing to rely on some very unreliable sources, NorrisM.

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

NorrisM at 01:58 AM on 22 October, 2017

nigelj @ 130

My main point is that I do not think the politicians of the world, not just the United States, are really going to impose carbon taxes beyond what is politically acceptable so it is wasted time talking about imposing carbon taxes based upon theoretical calculations of SCC. And they are theoretical when there is so much disagreement on what and what should not be put into the calculation. If you want an IPCC statement which effectively acknowledges this I can point to the section of Chapter 10 of the IPCC 2014 Report which I have read in its entirety.

Beyond the US, look what has been happening in the UK with Brexit and with the rise of ultra right wing parties throughout mainland Europe. Suggesting that carbon taxes will be imposed on these nations to compensate for future SCC in other parts of the world is close to fantasy. The Paris Agreement is the perfect example of how politicians operate. All the real cuts are after 2030 when these politicians are long gone. Meanwhile they get reelected based upon grandiose statements that do not cost their electorate in the pocket book.

So my principal point is that you do what is politically feasible. Impose a carbon tax on the cost of pollution. Of course China is onboard for this. If the Communist Party does not do something about pollution they will lose their grip on power. They know this.

The other thing to do is convince the public that wind and solar power (for now I am leaving alone nuclear power) can viably compete with FF, using FF as a back up source of base load power. Replace coal plants with natural gas which emits one-half the CO2 into the atmosphere. I appreciate that this last point is somewhat problematic with Trump in power but I do not think the Republicans are all in favour of coal.

One final point, ensure that the carbon tax is dividended back to the people. If you keep it to distort the economy by investing it in RE then you lose half the electorate. I reread section of the Lomborg book where he asks Richard Tol (I think he is an IPCC contributor) as to the "pollution cost" of carbon. I thought the range was $14 to $20/t. In fact, Tol uses the range $2/t to $14/t. I appreciate the low range of the IPCC for (I assume) pollution costs only is$18/t so I may be high on my suggested $30/t. My sense is that our economy can handle $30/t so I am not retracting that figure but I think that is the high end.

The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change

Eclectic at 20:59 PM on 27 September, 2017

Randman @22 , about your quote: "she was" (unquote)

She was . . . what? What are you talking about? Please be precise! Readers here don't wish to bother second-guessing what you intend to mean.

Regarding Judith Curry :- the sources are her own comments :

(A) in April 2015 : "Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change" (unquote)

(B) also in 2015 at a Congressional hearing, she stated about the global warming [of the past 200 years] : "And that's not human" (unquote)

(C) in 2014 speaking at the National Press Club : "We just don't know [what's going to happen]. I think we are fooling ourselves to think that CO2 control knob really influences climate on these decadal or even century time scales." (unquote)

(D) in November 2015 [please specially note this very recent date, Randman] she supported the existence of the so-called hiatus or pause : "global average surface temperature ... has shown little or no warming during the 21st century" (unquote)

(E) in 2011, she supported Murry Salby's crazy/nonsensical "hypothesis" that oceanic-origin CO2 is the real cause of our modern rapid Global Warming.

Now, Randman, consider each of the above 5 statements. If you yourself had issued them, then it would be evidence that you were grossly ignorant about climate science. If they had been made by a scientist (a scientist not specializing in climate related matters), then that would count as intellectual dishonesty. Issued by a climatologist, that would rise to the level of gross intellectual dishonesty.

Individually, each of the above statements cannot be justified, for they are individually & severally false and/or misleading. Randman, I could add others to the list . . . but (to paraphrase an Einstein quote) :- "It only takes one" !

$$$$$$$

Randman, I do not in any way suggest that Curry receives money illegally from the Oil industry & other anti-science propagandists. Arguably, what money or other benefits she receives from such groups is immoral but not illegal.

~ In 2006, Judith Curry [climatologist] and Peter Webster [meteorologist] set up a private company "Climate Forecast Applications Network". Judith Curry is President (not an unpaid job, I gather!). Curry herself said (in an interview with Scientific American) : "I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry ... [per my company] since 2007." (unquote). Please note, Randman, that that sort of thing is not illegal — it is simply one of the many ways that the Oil industry slush funds operate.

Perhaps you are innocently unaware, Randman, that the fossil fuel industry slush fund money percolates all around the place. [Though I had to laugh when I saw that Peabody Energy's filing for bankruptcy in 2016 had "stiffed" the prominent science-denier Richard Lindzen, for a USD$25,000 "consultancy fee" that they owed him — though I don't know whether that $25,000 was a one-off or an annual stipend.] Stipends, expenses, etc are paid in various ways — sometimes by "sinecure" payments, sometimes by propaganda "fronts" like Heartland or GWPF, sometimes by other under-the-counter indirect methods e.g. payments to a company (not to the individual).

As to other benefits [in non-monetary form, not in cash] there are the examples of Curry appearing at least three times in front of Congressional-level hearings. I am sure that even you, Randman, are not so naive as to believe that Curry paid for travel accommodation & incidental expenses, out of her own purse — if you act as a prominent stooge for Big Corporations, then they look after you in the premium style. That's just the way the business world is, Randman. (But it's not in any way illegal for her to be on the Big Oil teat.) And then there's the purely psychological benefits she receives — definitely an ego boost for a mediocre climate scientist, to appear (and often) in the national Congressional limelight (etc).

Then there are other benefits in cash e.g. in January and February this year [her academic retirement onto a teacher's pension, being at the end of December 2016] Judith Curry authored two reports, one for Koch Brothers and one for the British propaganda machine GWPF. I don't know whether she was paid directly into her personal account or indirectly via her CFAN company, or by other means — but it would have been a generous*-sized benefit. Again, not illegal — but of doubtful morality. ( *Randman, it is extremely difficult for denialism-pushing Big Corporations to find any scientist with more than a shred of repectability/reputation who can be relied on as a stooge who will play the "Doubt & Uncertainty" game, in the face of all the overwhelming evidence that proves "D&U" is unjustified/dishonest.)

In Summary :

So, all in all, Randman, your own phrasing: "her scientific reasoning is dishonest, biased and she is funded by the oil companies" . . . is a fairly good summation of the situation.

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

JWRebel at 04:55 AM on 2 September, 2017

Instead of the redTeam doing some nitpicking, we could have them submit their own comprehensive climate resconstructions, temperature reconstructions, and theories to explain climate (models of current climate, models of climate in recorded history, models of longer term proxies, and models encompassing paleontological data, models of climate sensitivity, etc). Oh, wait, that would take at least ten years! After they submit their proposals, the blue team of real experts could nit pick away, see if there's anything left to publish, if there any are left: Chances are that somewhere in those ten years they will be converted, like Richard Mueller.

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

NorrisM at 07:19 AM on 1 September, 2017

Following up on my thoughts on another blog on this site (re Trump country to be hit hard by climate change), I truly think that the scientific community should not lose this opportunity to have an effect on Trump's policies going forward.

The reality is that the Trump administration (or at least a Republican administration) will be in power both in the White House and in Congress for at least the next 3+ years.

Although Trump has called "climate change" a hoax perpetrated on us by China we have come to learn to live with his hyperbole. He is a salesman, that is what salesmen do. Please understand I am not an apologist for Donald Trump (I just hope we can make it through the next 3 years without any major disaster).

But he will be moved by the public mood. From what I can understand, the American public are very ambivalent about Climate Change and how much trust can be put into climate scientists (notwithstanding the IPCC, Neil DeGrassie Tyson and Stephen Hawking). In many, but not all, respects these differences do seem to be drawn on political lines. I went to the Pew Research website to get my information.

Here is the url for the Pew October 4, 2016 "The Politics of Climate" article on Americans' view on Climate Change: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/

Given this diversity, it would seem to me that this "red team blue team" approach proposed by Scott Priutt could, depending on the results of the information exchange (the "debate"), move many moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats (see Pew Research) into the camp of the majority scientific view which would clearly turn the political heat up on Trump. I personally would like to see a follow up examination on how best to deal with the impacts of climate change.

I do not think anyone seriously argues as to whether the climate is changing (when has it not?) or whether man has had a signficant hand in it. What this first debate should be focussed on is: (1) how much of a temperature rise should we expect until 2100 (and after) taking into account existing model predictions of future temperature increases and whether this temperature rise will exacerbate extreme weather events; and (2) what would those specific impacts be (ie estimated sea level rise by 2100, etc) on the world assuming no action were taken to limit carbon emissions to mitigate the changing climate. The second debate would have to focus on the best ways to deal with those impacts (ie mitigation and adaptation). It would be too confusing to put this all in one debate.

Given the political reality in the US today, I would hope that the scientific community would jump at this opportunity. I think failure to do so would cause serious harm to its cause. I can just hear Trump if that were to happen!

As I have said in other venues, anyone asking how this could work should search "Climate Change Policy Statement" on the aps.org website, the official website of the American Physical Society, the second largest association of physicists in the world. This panel discussion chaired by Steve Koonin, an eminent physicist (and former Energy undersecretary in the Obama administration), along with other APS physicists, had some of the best climatologists on "both sides" giving their views on certain questions posed in something called the Workshop Framing Document. This Framing Document largely keyed on the IPCC 2013 Group 1 Assessment. The three climatologists for the "majority opinion side" were all important contributors to the IPCC assessment. On the other side were "lukewarmers" like Judith Curry, John Christy and Richard Lindzen.

Based upon the final policy statement ultimately issued by the APS, the "majority side" won, so why should there be any reluctance to engage in this kind of exchange?

If someone like Steve Koonin were to be appointed as the chair of this red team blue team investigation I think you would have a reasonably independent person at its head. I fully understand that after this APS panel hearing Koonin made public statements even calling for such a red team blue team approach. But I do not think anyone could question his integrity.

As I have noted elsewhere, I just wonder whether Trump really has the intestinal fortitude to take a chance on this. My guess is that he will not.

JWRebel @ 2. Actually, my understanding is that in a red team blue team exchange there is no final "decision". I actually find this to be a weakness of the red team blue team approach but I fully understand why. But I would prefer to have a "majority opinion" and "minority opinion" published giving their reasons for their decision in words that are understandable to the public. But this would then become political because who gets to appoint the full hearing panel? I trust Steve Koonin to be a moderator but after that it would be like appointing justices to the US Supreme Court!

There is no consensus

Eclectic at 21:37 PM on 9 June, 2017

Sorry, Rikoshaprl @754 , but the link you supply mentions the main "leading climatologist" as Richard Lindzen — an ex-climatologist who was so unscientific, that he caused major embarrassment to his colleagues at M.I.T. when he was there. And the other climatologists your article (at yournewswire) links to, are little better! Lindzen makes a triple fail, because his own climate predictions are now a full degree Celsius below the present day global surface temperature. That is a colossal error by Lindzen. And Lindzen still seems to think there has been hardly any warming, despite all the evidence to the contrary! Lindzen is severely out of touch with reality. And his third fail, is that he appears to hold a religious-based belief that Jehovah would prevent a global warming of more than the slightest amount. Completely unscientific attitude there, as I am sure you must agree. Among genuine climatologists, Lindzen is a laughing stock.

Now to the Cook study itself. Rikoshaprl, it appears you have not read the Cook paper. If you had read it, then you would see that the second part of the paper consists of questioning the authors of those papers — and here, the authors themselves rate their own papers at around 97% support of the consensus figure found in the first section of the study [i.e. also 97%]

Sorry, Rikoshaprl, but you haven't a leg to stand on.

Perhaps you can inform us of how you came to make such a complete mistake of the real situation. For your own benefit, you should do some reading about what is actually happening in the field of climate science — and you can learn a great deal, right here at Skepticalscience.

Avoid foolish propaganda sites such as Yournewswire. They will misinform you and lead you to embarrass yourself, hugely !!

Study: to beat science denial, inoculate against misinformers' tricks

Tom Curtis at 00:39 AM on 16 May, 2017

karly @19:

"Nobody, ... , can produce one paper (peer-reviewed or not) that shows, unequivocally, that a reduction in CO2 lowers global temperature."

Actually, here is one by Arrhenius in 1898. He writes:

"We may now inquire how great must the variation of the carbonic acid in the atmosphere be to cause a given change of the temperature. The answer may be found by interpolation in Table VII. To facilitate such an inquiry, we may make a simple observation. If the quantity of carbonic acid decreases from 1 to 0.67, the fall of temperature is nearly the same as the increase of temperature if this quantity augments to 1.5. And to get a new increase of this order of magnitude (3°.4), it will be necessary to alter the quantity of carbonic acid till it reaches a value nearly midway between 2 and 2.5. Thus if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression. This rule--which naturally holds good only in the part investigated--will be useful for the following summary estimations."

Here is another by Richard Tol a century later. He writes:

"This paper demonstrates that there is a robust statistical relationship between the records of the global mean surface air temperature and the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide over the period 1870–1991. As such, the enhanced greenhouse effect is a plausible explanation for the observed global warming. Long term natural variability is another prime candidate for explaining the temperature rise of the last century. Analysis of natural variability from paleo-reconstructions, however, shows that human activity is so much more likely an explanation that the earlier conclusion is not refuted. But, even if one believes in large natural climatic variability, the odds are invariably in favour of the enhanced greenhouse effect. The above conclusions hold for a range of statistical models, including one that is capable of describing the stabilization of the global mean temperature from the 1940s to the 1970s onwards. This model is also shown to be otherwise statistically adequate. The estimated climate sensitivity is about 3.8 °C with a standard deviation of 0.9 °C, but depends slightly on which model is preferred and how much natural variability is allowed."

Wasn't so hard, was it.

Of course you will now reject both examples by equivocating on "unequivocal". Neither paper equivocates on their results, but you will reinterpret "show, unequivocally" to mean "provide definitive proof"; which in turn will turn out to mean that you require mathematical proof, at least for something you are disinclined to believe.

That game is, of course, massively uninteresting for those who really want their beliefs to be guided by evidence.

Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 7

Daniel Mocsny at 14:29 PM on 1 January, 2017

william @7: the "rosy" view of religion's relationship to science has a name: NOMA, or "non-overlapping magisteria of authority." Stephen Jay Gould coined the term and described it in his (lamentable, in my view) book Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life.

NOMA is essentially the official position of the National Academy of Sciences.

NOMA has been heavily criticized by a number of prominent scientists, philosphers, etc., including Richard Dawkins, whose book The God Delusion gives it a working over.

The claim that "religion has nothing to say about climate change" is a category error. (It's similar to claiming that nothing about climate change could feature in a J.K. Rowling novel - which is nonsense, because Rowling can write whatever she wants in her novels.) To understand the error, we have to understand what religion is. To understand what religion is, we need only look at where religious knowledge comes from, by posing the question to a religious believer: "What do you know about God (or spirituality, etc.) that you did not learn from men?"

Very few people claim to have received a religious revelation directly from God or from some supernatural source. There is, to my knowledge, no documented case of any two people independently receiving the same religious revelation, identical in all respects. For example, if you make first contact with some tribe in the Amazon rainforest, there is zero chance that they will have independently received even an approximate copy of the Bible (or a copy of any religious group's doctrine or theology) directly from the alleged source (God). If you find a tribesperson with a Bible, you know it had to come from missionaries or someone else who in turn got it from a long chain of middlemen tracing back to the original writers, redactors, editors, and compilers of the Bible. It wouldn't have come from "God" revealing the same thing twice to different people who had no prior knowledge, because that never happens.

Religious people, therefore, do not put their trust in "God," but rather in some particular man or group of men who tell them some particular set of claims about God. Believers put their faith in whatever their religious leaders tell them to believe. As religious claims are unconstrained by any requirement for evidence, the claims of various religious groups are as diverse as human imagination itself. If some religious leader wants to make a religious claim about climate change - just as many religious leaders make claims about the age of the Earth and whether humans share a common ancestor with turnips - he is perfectly free to do so. Just as Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, was free to claim that the second coming of Jesus would occur at Jackson County, Missouri.

For comparison, suppose I claim Elvis Presley is still alive and he told me to tell everyone to give me all their money. If someone accepts my claim and gives me all their money, who does that person believe?

Elvis, or
Me

Even if I somehow persuade a million people to repeat my claim, anyone who accepts the claim is still placing their faith in me, not in Elvis. There is no option to believe Elvis, because Elvis has not verifiably shown up to make any claim. You can only choose to believe, or not believe, a real person who verifiably shows up and claims something. However, for me to qualify as a religious leader, rather than just a swindler, I must convince my followers that they have placed their faith in Elvis, rather than in me. Every religious person you talk to on this point will be deeply confused about where they have actually placed their faith, thus demonstrating the triumph of religion over reason. Religion benefits from the common human tendency to be better at remembering claims than at tracking their sources. It's easier for people to say "God wants me to do X" than the more accurate "My pastor tells me that God wants me to do X."

Given that America's white Evangelical Christians just voted for Trump in a higher proportion than they've voted for any Presidential candidate before, and given that Trump appears to be waging war on climate science, Occam's Razor suggests a productive strategy for fighting climate change is to talk people out of putting their uncritical faith in the mere words of men. Since uncritical faith in the words of men is the basis for America's $1 trillion religion industry, eradicating the fossil fuel industry might require eradicating (or at least greatly diminishing) the religion industry, by persuading people to put their trust in facts and evidence.

A religion like Mormonism relies on getting millions of people to take seriously claims as unlikely as the one about Jesus returning to Jackson County, Missouri. But all religions make equally far-fetched claims - some just do a better job of disguising them. It's hard to imagine humans are going to tackle tough problems like climate change, and whatever as-yet-undiscovered environmental catastrophes are coming next, as long as we have a trillion-dollar industry actively working to destroy peoples' reasoning capacities (and starting on them at very young ages).

Sure, a few religious people subscribe to creation care philosophies. But in the USA - a nation critical to Earth's climate future - religion appears to be mostly an obstacle to long-term human survival.

GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?

RedBaron at 11:41 AM on 30 September, 2016

@scaddenp,

On another thread you said, "If you can see an effective solution to mitigation of CO2 that the libertarians can live with, then please share in detail on this thread. Fresh ideas are extremely welcome."

That's actually pretty easy. There are right wing Libertain Christians (probably right wing Libertarian athiests too) mitigating AGW in their own small way already. Yes that's right, right wing Libertarian free market capitalists making 6 and 7 figure income annually and mitigating AGW all at the same time.

Don't be confused by the current crop of neo-conservatives currently in power in the US. They are not even conservatives really, just refugees from the left wing. They believe in high taxation and big government every bit as much as the most left wing liberal socialist.

A substantial number of neoconservatives were originally moderate socialists associated with the right-wing of the Socialist Party of America (SP), and its successor, Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA).
Neoconservatism ... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War] ... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center ... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.
Notable people associated with neoconservatism
The list includes public people identified as personally neoconservative at an important time or a high official with numerous neoconservative advisers, such as George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.
Politicians
George W. Bush announces his $74.7 billion wartime supplemental budget request as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz look on.
Jeb Bush (R) – 43rd Governor of Florida (1999–2007) and 2016 presidential candidate[122]
Newt Gingrich (R) – Representative from Georgia's 6th congressional district (1979–99), Speaker of the House of Representatives (1995–99) and 2012 presidential candidate[123]
Lindsey Graham (R) – Representative from South Carolina (1995–2003), Senator (2003–present) and 2016 presidential candidate[124]
Peter T. King (R) – Representative from New York's 3rd congressional district (1993–2013) and New York's 2nd congressional district (2013–present)[125]
Jon Kyl (R) – Representative from Arizona (1987–95), U.S. Senator (1995–2013) and House Minority Whip (2007–13)[126]
Joe Lieberman (I) – 21st Attorney General of Connecticut (1983–89), Senator from Connecticut (1989–2013) and 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee[127]
John McCain (R) – Representative from Arizona (1983–87), Senator (1987–present) and 2008 Republican presidential nominee[128]
Tim Pawlenty (R) – 39th Governor of Minnesota (2003–11) and 2012 presidential candidate[129]
Mike Rogers (R) – U.S. Representative from Michigan's 8th congressional district (2001–15)[130]
Mitt Romney (R) – 70th Governor of (2003–07), 2008 presidential candidate and 2012 Republican presidential nominee[131][132][133]
Jim Talent (R) – Representative from Missouri (1993–2001) and Senator (2002–07)[134]

Government officials

Elliot Abrams (R) – Foreign policy adviser.[135]
William Bennett (R) – Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities (1981–85), Director of the National Drug Control Policy (1989–90) and U.S. Secretary of Education (1985–88)[136]
William G. Boykin – Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
Eliot A. Cohen – U.S. State Department Counselor (2007–09), now Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University.[137]
Jeane Kirkpatrick (R) – Ambassador to the United Nations[138]
Scooter Libby (R) – Chief–of–Staff to Dick Cheney[139]
Victoria Nuland – Assistant Secretary of State, foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.[140]
Richard Perle (R) – Assistant Secretary of Defense and lobbyist.[141]
Karl Rove (R) – Senior Advisor to the President of the United States (2001–07) and White House Deputy Chief of Staff (2005–07)[142]
Paul Wolfowitz (R) – State and Defense Department official[143]
R. James Woolsey Jr. (D) – 16th Director of Central Intelligence, Under Secretary of the Navy and green energy lobbyist[1]

So what does a true conservative, who also happens to be a Libertarian, mitigating AGW at a tidy profit in a free market look like?

Meet the Farmer

Be sure and watch all three episode of Meet the Farmer. A lot of what he talks about are related to food security and government regulations, but interspersed between stories of his battles with the government are a few references to the carbon footprint of his farm. And if you know what to look for, you can actually see causation as to why a system that wasn't necessarily developed for AGW mitigation, actually does mitigate AGW through biological carbon capture and storage (BCCS) and reduced emissions. See if you can spot this evidence.

Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case

jja at 01:56 AM on 4 May, 2016

California uses a baseline of SCC that was $12.00 and then adjusted for inflation in 2007 to slightly over $13.00. This value was the mean reported value by Richard Tol in a 2005 published report review. In it he gave equal weight to the 9 papers published on the social cost of carbon, some published as early as 1994, 3 published by Nordhaus and 2 published by Tol. Without regard to the evolution of the IAM models over time, the changing inputs provided by the development of climate science over the previous 10 years, or the fact that the climate science projected impacts from 2005 have been heavily revised, and considered to be much more impactful in the AR5 published in 2013, AND that even these results understate the impacts.

Clearly the application of social welfare to the realm of fossil fuels and economics is still verboten in the halls of power and corruption that our political and business leaders frequent.

How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims

ryland at 19:42 PM on 24 March, 2016

Dr Death @8. Not unsurprisingly despite your comment "I will look at scientific facts and the reasons for it and then I look at the debunking side of it as to why people believe that part is not true" none of those responding to your post have provided you with any sites where "debunking" occurs on a regular basis.

Some of those sites are Wattsupwiththat run by an American "meteorologist" but probably more accurately a TV and radio weather presenter; Jonova run by the Australian Joanne Nova who has an Honours degree majoring in Microbiology and Molecular Biology from the University of Western Australia; ClimateAudit run by Steve McIntyre a Canadian with a Bachelor's degree im Mathematics from the University of Toronto and a degree in politics, philosophy and economics from the Unversity of Oxford; Climate Etc run by the American Dr. Judith Curry who is a climatologist with many peer reviewed publications in the field of climate science; Global Warming Policyh Foundation started by the Englishman Nigel Lawson (aka Lord Lawson) who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Mrs thatcher's government. Others you might like to look up are the American Dr. Richard Lindzen an atmospheric physicist educated at Harvard, the American meteorologist Dr Roy Spencer and the American climate scientist Dr john Christy who, with Roy Spencer monitors the global climate using information from satellites

All of those who I have mentioned are persona non grata at this site but as your stated aim is to examine the views from the "debunking side" it seems remiss not to point you in the direction of some, but by no means all, of those who frequently comment on the 'debunking side" of the climate debate

How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims

Tom Curtis at 16:29 PM on 24 March, 2016

DrDeath @8, I would start with the very basics first:

1) Humans are causing the current rise in CO2 level; and

2) There is an atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Once you understand those two points, a lot of the dross churned out by Anthropogenic Global Warming Deniers can be quickly identified for the absurdity it is. You will then be able to concentrate on the more serious arguments by the more sensible critics of the IPCC (and there are some from both sides, ie, critics who think the IPCC overestimates potential warming and/or potential harm; and critics who think the IPCC underestimates potential warming and/or potential harm).

That in itself is an important point. Most of the media, and a lot of blogs give the impression that there are two sides to the argument, the IPCC side, and the extreme downside critics of the IPCC. In fact, the the IPCC occupies the central position relative to rational criticisms (and some not so rational from both sides). If your reading does not make you aware of that, it is not broad enough.

Finally, most blogosphere criticism of the IPCC, and a lot of media criticism of the IPCC does not even rise to the level of being rational. It is flat earther stuff. In a couple of cases less rational than flat earther arguments, but those are rare. It depends essentially on made up 'data', extremely selective data, and outright misrepresentation of the IPCC position

More generally, as you apparently have taught yourself a bit of maths, I highly recommend "The Science of Doom", even though I disagree with the author of that site on some points. Better yet are good textbooks such as:

Principles of Planetary Climate, by Raymond Pierrehumbert

The Warming Papers, edited by David Archer and Raymond Pierrehumbert (which reviews the foundational papers of global warming)

Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast, by David Archer

The first and second of these have associated websites, which make them particularly useful.

Also worthwhile getting, and the best popular book on the subject IMO, is Richard Alley's, Earth: The Operators Manual.

Finally, while I concur with the advise given above, and think SkS the best place to ask basic questions, as your understanding improves you will get more milage by asking your questions at Science of Doom, Tamino's Open Mind for statistics questions, ... And Then There's Physics for general questions on the debate, and Real Climate for detailed science questions. This is not a criticism of Skeptical Science, but a reflection of the focus of the site. I should also note that some of the authors on Skeptical Science, particularly in particular areas (Kevin Cowtan on temperature records, Rob Painting on sea levels, Dikran Marsupial on statistics and the carbon cycle) have detailed and in depth knowledge of the subject and will give you answers as good as you will get anywhere else. Unfortunately they are also busy and often are not able to respond.

Sea level rise is accelerating; how much it costs is up to us

One Planet Only Forever at 02:42 AM on 14 March, 2016

richardPauli,

An elaboration of your point that is very important to understand:

"Observations that are not learned from, or better understanding from evaluation of observations and experimentation being deliberately denied ... is far too common in our 'socio-economic-political system that is based on popularity and profitability' because of the power of deliberately misleading marketing in the hands of callous greedy and intolerant people (who hope to keep their clearly unacceptable handiwork as the most powerful invisible-hand in the voting and market place".

Anyone paying attention can understand that the system, and in particular marketing in the system, is the problem. It can clearly be observed that it encourages the development of people who do not care about advancing humanity to a lasting better future. It encourages people to focus on getting the best possible present for themselves any way they can get away with (often marketed as it being fundamentally essential for everybody to have the "Freedom to do as they please", without any reasoning being allowed to restrict their preferred chosen pursuits).

Fossil fuel funded report denies the expert global warming consensus

barry1487 at 17:47 PM on 23 February, 2016

It could be added that Richard Tol criticised the Cooke et al paper, and said that he had no doubt there was a strong consensus (high 90s).

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/02/republican-witness-global-warming-consensus-real

Unwilling to read the Heartland document. I wonder if they mentioned this Tol's efforts in their 'literature review.'

Scientists Respond To Tol’s Misrepresentation Of Their Consensus Research

bartverheggen at 17:45 PM on 24 September, 2015

uncletimrob asked: Does Toll really believe what he says or is he just saying because he can?

I was wondering the same, whether he was perhaps pulling a practical joke. I asked him via twitter. His response was rather evasive, on the one hand claiming that these studies don't measure anything, but on the other hand seemingly happy to draw conclusions based on (his misrepresentations of) them. See e.g. towards the end of storify.

Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers

shoyemore at 03:46 AM on 26 August, 2015

There is a thorough discussion on this paper at Real Climate, moderated by Rasmus Benestad. It includes contributes to the discussion from Ross McKittick and Richard Tol, who both had opportunities to review the paper in an earlier form and who both advised against publication at that time.

Let's Learn from Mistakes

Global warming deniers are an endangered species

mancan18 at 10:19 AM on 25 July, 2015

In Australia, Climate Change denial does pay. Australia is one of the world's largest coal exporters, a significant proportion of it's power generation comes from coal, and coal products are an important component the national income that underpins Australia's wealth. As a result, attitudes towards climate change follows party lines, with one party, Labor, promoting it as a serious issue and the other, Liberal/National Party, while giving it token support, take a "lukewarmer" position. This is the reason that the Government has implemented it's clayton's climate change policy, "Direct Action" and has attacked the climate advisory bodies, climate change funding arrangements for developing needed technologies, and promoted many climate change deniers to important positions upon it's economic advisory bodies.

The reason for this is actually quite simple. One of the main Liberal/National party policy think tanks is the Institute of Public Affairs (the IPA). It is Australia's equivalent of the George C Marshall Institute. The IPA, along with other Liberal Party policy think tanks like the Menzies Research Centre and the H. R. Nicholls Society, all actively promote Climate Change denial. Scientists like climate change deniers, Ian Plimer and Bob Carter are attached to the IPA, providing advice related to climate change policy. Plimer is also an important member of the Mining Council of Australia, having been it's chairman, and he influences it's political stance. Gina Reinhart, Australia's wealthiest person, who made her money from huge mining projects, is also related to the IPA. She funded a Christopher Monkton speaking tour of Australia, at the height of the ETS/Carbon Tax debate when Labor tried to introduce an ETS. The IPA is also an important source of climate change denial material and underpins the political stance of Murdoch media outlets who reach around 83% of the Australian population, where right wing commentators like Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine, and Piers Ackereman, and right wing shock jocks like Alan Jones and Ray Hadley, disseminate IPA inspired climate change denial material to their readers and listeners.

Also, the IPA, through it's journal, provides climate change material to its readers, and it's latest effort comes in the form of a book called "Climate Change - the Facts 2014" with contributions from Ian Plimer, Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter, Nigel Lawson, Bill Kininmonth, Willie Soon, Christopher Monckton, Garth Paltridge, Richard Tol, Brian Fisher, Bob Carter, Donna Laframboise, Anthony Watts, Alan Moran amongst others and other climate change deniers. Also, this book seems to form the basis of Matt Ridley's latest essay in June's Quadrant magazine "How the Climate Wars Undermine Science", where John Cook's Consensus Project is discredited, (in their eyes), by referring to it as being biased and unrepresentative.

Now I don't know about you, but, I don't think that climate change deniers are being marginalised in Australia. If anything, they are still pre-eminent due to the IPA's political and media reach. Trying to take effective action to tackle climate change in Australia has already seen the toppling of two prime minsters and a leader of the Liberal Party who did think that the issue was important. It will be a significant issue in the next election but whether the electorate will embrace it, after a fear campaign related to the hip pocket nerve and xenophobic fears related to asylum seekers, is questionable.

While it is easier to have a debate with like minded people; what is happening in Australia, while the Sydney Morning Herald and the Guardian do present material properly conveying the 97% consensus; demonstrates why climate change advocates need to be more engaged with the climate change deniers from the IPA, the Murdoch press, and the right wing shock jock community, because, at the moment the denier/lukewarmer argument is still pre-eminent and not getting it's proper voice with Australia's public.

The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator

Philip Shehan at 23:22 PM on 11 June, 2015

Thanks for the comments KR. Fully understand that you are too busy to deal with theose long posts . (And thank you moderator).

A summary then:

The problem with Whitehouse (first link) is that he basically says that non statistically significant warming translates to evidence for a "pause."

This is acommon argument I get from "skeptics".

Their argument is that less than 95% (actually 97.5%, as half the 95% confidence limits are on the high side) probabiility of a warming trend equates to evidence of no warming trend.

Whitehouse also wants to exclude the years 1999 and 200o from trends on these grounds:

“It occurred immediately after the very unusual El Niño of 1998 (said by some to be a once in a century event) and clearly the two subsequent La Niña years must be seen as part of that unusual event. It would be safer not to include 1999-2000 in any La Niña year comparisons.”

To which I commented:

Whitehouse thinks it is entirely kosher to start with the el nino event of 1998 in a trend analysis and presumably include the years 1998 and 1999 in that trend, [ to justify a pasue claim] but you must not start with the years 1999 and 2000. [Starting at 1999 for UAH data gives the same warming trend as for the entire satellite record. Not statistically significant. "Only'' a 94.6% chance that there is a warming trend from 1999. ]

Is it only me who finds this gobsmacking?

I also wrote

[Whitehouse] says “Lean and Rind (2009) estimate that 76% of the temperature variability observed in recent decades is natural.”

No. On the graph itself it states that the model including natural and anthropogenic forcings fits the data with a correlation coefficient r of 0.87.

And the Figure legend says that “Together the four influences [ie natural and anthropogenic] explain 76% r^2 [0.87 x 0.87] of the variance in the global temperature observations.”

Patrick J. Michaels, Richard S. Lindzen, andPaul C. Knappenberger (second link) write of the recent paper by Karl et al:

“The significance level they report on their findings (0.10) is hardly normative, and the use of it should prompt members of the scientific community to question the reasoning behind the use of such a lax standard.”

Yet further on Michaels, Lindzen,and Knappenberger claim:

“Additionally, there exist multiple measures of bulk lower atmosphere temperature independent from surface measurements which indicate the existence of a “hiatus"…Both the UAH and RSS satellite records are now in their 21st year without a significant trend, for example.”

Here are the trends for UAH, RSS and Berkeley data (the most comprehensive surface data set ) from 1995 at the 0.05 level

0.124 ±0.149 °C/decade

0.030 ±0.149 °C/decade

0.129 ±0.088 °C/decade

So, Michaels, Lindzen, and Knappenberger object to statistical significance at the 90% level used by Karl et al.

Yet they base their claim of “multiple measures of bulk lower atmosphere temperature independent from surface measurements which indicate the existence of a “hiatus” on two data sets which have a probability of a “hiatus” or a cooling trend of 4.8% (UAH) and 34.5% (RSS).

Again, is it just me or is these double standards here amazing?

Then there is Springer (third link)

Singer objects to non satellite data “with its well-known problems”. and write of RSS data:

“the pause is still there, starting around 2003 [see Figure; it shows a sudden step increase around 2001, not caused by GH gases].”

I note:

UAH 0.075 ±0.278 °C/decade

RSS -0.031 ±0.274 °C/decade

So UAH shows a slight warming trend and RSS shows a slight cooling trend but unsurprisingly, for a 12 year time frame, you can drive a bus between the error margins.

As for the step claim. Nonsense, aided by selecting a colour coded graph that foster that impression. No more a step than plenty of other places on the non-colour coded graphs.

Singer also writes:

“Not only that, but the same satellite data show no warming trend from 1979 to 2000 – ignoring, of course, the exceptional super-El-Nino year of 1998.”

Again “skeptics” have been cherry picking the exceptional el nino of 1998 to base on which to base their “no warming for x years” claim for years.

But because it does not suit his argument, Singer wants to exclude it here.

Then Singer decides that non-satellite data is kosher after all because it suits his argument.

I am told that I must bow to the experts here.

Am I crazy or are these people utterly incompetant or dishonest when it comes to statistical significance?

The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator

Philip Shehan at 00:38 AM on 10 June, 2015

Have been getting all sorts of grief over at Bolt for pointing out a number of problems with "skeptics" use of temperature data, and using the trend calculator for this purpose.

I am told that I should contact directly the people whose interpretation I criticise and offer tham right of reply. Just like the "skeptics" do with scintistrs they bucket on blogs. (Yes, sarcasm.)

Actually I have on occasion have failed to do so in the case of Fred Singer, David Whitehouse and Patrick J. Michaels, Richard S. Lindzen, and Paul C. Knappenberge

I have told one critic, on numerous occasions that i have checked the trends with those produced by , among others, Monckton, McKitrick, and those who leapt on Jones' "admission" that a 15 year warming trend was not statistically significant, but nearly so, and the trend calculator results match theirs. I have also explained repeatedly the necessity for autocorrelation to be used with temperature data and referred him to this link.

Yet he wrote today.

The calculation that he [that is me] uses is a method written by a shill that just doesn’t make sense and comes out two to three times larger than you would get if you treated the noise as just random.

I will encourage him to represent his argument here.

But thank you for this valuable tool

Of interest this week are the following posts of mine;

On Anthony Watts blog, Patrick J. Michaels, Richard S. Lindzen, and Paul C. Knappenberger dispute a recent paper by Karl et al which questions whether there has been a “hiatus” in global warming.

This new paper, right or wrong, does not affect my primary argument on claims of a “hiatus”.

Which is that such claims do not meet (in fact do not come within a bulls roar of) the criterion of statistical significance.

What is of interest is that the criticisms of Michaels, Lindzen,and Knappenberger again demonstrate the way that skeptics apply totally different standards of statistical significance depending on how they want to spin the data.

The critique of the paper says:

True, the usual standard of statistical significance is the 0.05, 95% or 2 sigma level. The 0.10 level means that there is a 90% probability that the trend is significant

Yet further on Michaels, Lindzen,and Knappenberger claim:

Here are the trends for UAH, RSS and Berkeley data (the most comprehensive surface data set ) from 1995 at the 0.05 level

0.124 ±0.149 °C/decade

0.030 ±0.149 °C/decade

0.129 ±0.088 °C/decade

The Berkeley data shows statistically significant warming trend, as do 5 other surface data sets, with mean trend and error of

0.122 ± 0.093 °C/decade

So, Michaels, Lindzen, and Knappenberger object to statistical significance at the 90% level used by Karl et al.

I mean, these people have the chutzpah to write “the use of [a confidence level of 90%] should prompt members of the scientific community to question the reasoning behind the use of such a lax standard” yet pin their case for a “hiatus” on such a low statistical probability for two cherry picked data sets.

Lomborg: a detailed citation analysis

Tom Curtis at 10:01 AM on 28 April, 2015

ryland @41, the problem with Lomborg is not that he studies how best to tackle global warming, nor even that his proposed solution isn't a solution. It is that his "research" in support of his conclusions is distinctly second rate, and probably constitutes academic misconduct. I have quoted other peoples opinion on this here and here, but I have not read his books and must rely on their opinions in that regard. However, one issue I have looked at is the use of different discount rates in the "Copenhagen Consensus".

Kare Fog gives the story:

"4) Inconsistent use of discount rates
The experts were instructed in advance to use two discount rates, viz. 3% p.a. and 6 % p.a. That is, the benefit/cost ratios are calculated twice, once with the low rate, and once with the high rate. In practice, however, only the results obtained with the low rate (3 %) have been used in the conclusions. So, the high benefit/cost ratios for the many programmes in the fields of health, nutrition and diseases were calculated using a discount rate of 3 %.
The only exception is in the field of global warming. Here, Yohe et al. use a discount rate of 5 %, gradually declining over 100 years to 4 %, whereas Green uses 4 %.
Why did the climate specialists not use the prescribed discount rates? As to Yohe et al., the explanation given by the economist Richard Tol here is as follows:
"On the discount rate: I do not know what the other papers used. We used a consistent discount rate — all calculations, and all reporting was done with the same discount rate. The models that we use would require extensive recalibration for a different discount rate. . . As we used dynamic optimization models fitted to observations, we had to stick to the discount rate we had. As the rest of the Copenhagen Consensus used simpler methods, they should have used our discount rate."
So Richard Tol thinks that all other specialists should have used the discount rate that gradually declines from 5 % to 4 %, because his group could not easily adapt to the prescribed 3 %, whereas it would have been relatively easy (?) for all others to adapt to his group´s discount rate. In any case, the result is that the disocunt rates are not comparable.
As to Green, he performed his calculations with a 4 % discount rate, but also included results for a 3 % discount rate.
Now, when all data for all items were summarized and compared, all other projects were represented by the benefit/cost ratios obtained wit a discount rate of 3 % (the results with a 6 % discount rate were not used in the final evaluation). Only the climate projects were represented with different discount rates. And these rates were higher than those used for other issues. Which is against the usual thinking that the longer the time perspective, the lower must the discount rate be. As the climate issue has the longest time perspective, it should have the lowest discount rate.
This is especially remarkable in the case of Green´s project. Here there existed a version where a 3 % discount rate was used, but in spite of this, the version included in the final ranking was the one using a 4 % discount rate. And that matters quite a lot. As stated in the previous paragraph, for Green´s project, 4 % yields a benefit/cost ratio of only 16:1, whereas 3 % yields a benefit/cost ratio of 28.5:1. Which would have brought Green´s climate project near the top of the ranking list, above the efforts against tuberculosis, malaria, child diseases and heart diseases. The climate project would have got a priority near the absolute top. But the slight change in discount rate, from 3 % to 4 %, sent the climate project far down along the ranking list, out of the range of projects that are granted money.
Incidentally, this is the same situation as in the Copenhagen Consensus 2004. There, the discount rate used for the climate issue was 5 %, whereas that used for HIV/AIDS was 3 %.
So there is an obvious reason why the climate issue always is ranked last. It is systematically treated with a higher discount rate than the other issues.
It would of course be interesting to hear Lomborg´s comments to this criticism. And indeed, he has been forced to comment upon this in a debate in a local Danish newspaper in February 2009. See here."

On this, I have verified independently that Tol in fact used a higher discount rate than was used examining other projects considered by the Copenhagen Consensus, and that that materially alters the priority rating of takling global warming as compared to those other projects.

In the case of Tol's paper, that may just be Tol's fault, although Lomborg ought to acknowledge the problem, something he seems determined not to do. But in the Green case mentioned above (which I have not independently verified), the choice to use the valuation based on the 4% rather than the 3% discount rate was Lomborg's, and amounts to academic fraud.

There is no consensus

MA Rodger at 19:49 PM on 8 January, 2015

The Forbes story amhartley asked about @650 is rather strong in its assertions. It asserts that Cook et al (2013) involves "egregious misconduct" and was "a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public." These claims are backed up by a mis-description of the Cook et al method and the comments of some well-known scientists - Richard Tol, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta and Dr. Nir Shaviv, this last one being a not-so-well-known climate change denier compared with the other three.

2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #42B

gpwayne at 15:57 PM on 20 October, 2014

Note to SkS: could you correct the error in which the Guardian article about Richard Tol is attributed to 'Bud' Ward, instead of his actual name - Bob?

Thanks...

It hasn't warmed since 1998

MA Rodger at 03:10 AM on 2 October, 2014

Richard Hampton @288.

There certainly is a conicidence. 2007 was the year the global temperatures started showing signs of a pause and it was also the first starting melt year for Arctic Sea Ice. And the energy fluxes are not dissimilar in size (although as ice loss continues to accelerate that equivalence will fail). Yet reasons for the 'pause' proposed by the climatologists, which are quite far reaching, to date don't include a diversion of heat from atmospheric warming to ice melting. I'd guess the main problem with the theory is how such a diversion would work in practice. And the 'pause' has symptoms that date back before 2007. So the changes in rate of surface warming and ice loss remain solely a coincidence.

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

Tom Curtis at 05:37 AM on 20 September, 2014

Will Power @355, by the definitions of the rating categories, any paper rated 2 or 3 that does quantify the contribution explicitly and rated 2 or 3 is a mistake. Pointing out that those papers do not explicitly quantify the contribution is therefore not a criticism of the paper, and if you think it is it shows you have not understood it.

With regard to the two papers you consider, it is quite clear that they implicitly endorse the consensus. That is, their statements together with reasonable background knowledge strongly implies that the paper endorses the consensus.

That implication is inductive. It may be wrong. However, error analysis first conducted by Richard Tol, and then done correctly by Cook and others in their response to Tol clearly show that there are more errors in the opposite direction. Ie, if we corrected all such probable (or plausible) errors, more rating 4 abstracts would be rerated as 3 or higher, than rating 3 or higher abstracts rerated as 4. The net result would be to strengthen the consensus finding.

You are welcome to disagree with that finding, but if you do you need to quantify the proportion of such mistakes in both directions (and also as related to rejection papers). Failure to do so renders your critique merely rhetorical. Ideally you would replicate the paper, but make sure your replication includes the element of author self rating as a check on your abstract rating bias.

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

Tom Curtis at 05:20 AM on 20 September, 2014

Dikran Marsupial @328, there is a defacto exclusion of papers that are not related to climate by the inclusion of category 4:

"(4) Not climate-related Social science, education, research about people's views on climate"

Presumably the intention is to exclude opinions by non-physical scientists who are not only not necessarilly expert in a particular area of climate science, but do not necessarilly have the scientific background to assess the evidence adduced by the IPCC in support of the concensus position. Therefore we can conclude that a limited number of Duarte's very small list do represent genuine errors of classification.

What Duarte (or Russ R) have not established is the relevance of that. Of course there are errors of classification. The classifiers were human, and humans make mistakes. In so large an excercise with the classification of 12,465 papers there are bound to be a number of mistakes. It is well known, and easilly established that the largest single group of such mistakes is classifying rating (1-3) articles as rating (4) due to simple error or insufficient information in the abstract and title, something we know by comparison with the author self ratings. There are in the order of 3500 such "mistakes".

Given that there are bound to be such errors, both increasing and decreasing the consensus value, the only significant question is what is the effect of correcting those errors. For one class or errors (internal rating errors) it is now well established that it has no significant effect by Cook et al's response to Richard Tol's flawed critique. Duarte, and Russ R acting as Duarte's puppet, raise a different category of mistakes. They make no attempt to quantify relative proportions of such mistakes, either by count or statistically, and cherry pick mistakes only in one direction. However, simple analysis as above shows it is highly implausible that such mistakes will impact the result.

Another approach is to note that only 283 out of 12280 abstracts were rated as not climate related, ie, just 2.3%. Assume that twice that number escaped correct classification and all were rated as endorsing the consensus. With these utterly implausible assumptions, "correction" of the results would reduce the consensus rate from 97.1% to 97%.

Again this underlines the fact that simply finding an error of classification or rating does nothing as regards a scientific critique of Cook et al. With out quantification of the relevant ratios, and a projection of those ratios to determine the impact on the concensus rate, listing cherry picked examples of such errors is simply propaganda, haveing nothing to do with science.

Of course, I have laid out these points before @322. Russ R firmly established which side of the science/pseudoscience divide he is on by brushing them aside with an inane comment. Other than pointing that out, I will leave it there lest I also become guilty of excessive repetition.

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

Andy Skuce at 04:15 AM on 19 September, 2014

Critics of the Consensus Project seem to have two rather contradictory arguments:

Everyone agrees with the consensus as defined by Cook et al— even prominent contrarians accept it.
Cook et al's survey exaggerated the extent of the consensus.

Of course, the author self-ratings proved that the first objection is invalid. Some 28 scientists said that their papers rejected the consensus. That's 2.4% of all the authors who responded and 3.6% of the responders whose papers expressed an opinion on the AGW consensus.

As for the second one, it would be easy to show that the 97% estimate is too high, simply by finding consensus rejection abstracts that we missed. You don't have to slog through 12,000 abstracts (twice) like we did, just make a list (hint, ask Poptech) of the most prolific contrarians and search for their papers. Richard Tol performed some statistical alchemy that predicted that 300 such papers should exist, so there is surely some basis for expecting success here, unless of course you think that Tol's analysis is bunk.

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

Tom Curtis at 07:58 AM on 18 September, 2014

Russ R is now running the misinterpretation of the classifications scam vs Cook et al 2013 (ie, claiming that the criteria for endorsement in Cook et al is only that some warming since 1950 be anthropogenic). I say it is a (rhetorical) scam because it was not the first or intuitive response of AGW "skeptics" to that paper. The first response was that authored by Poptech, in which Nicolas Scaffeta wrote:

"Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission."

You will notice that correctly identifies the Cook et al criteria for endorsement, ie, that it indicates that 50% plus of recent warming was anthropogenic, and tries to call it a strawman because it does not match his blatant misrepresentation of the IPCC position.

Indeed, if a paper that endorses only that some recent warming is anthropogenic belongs to the Cook et al 97%, then both Sceffeta's and Shaviv's papers (discussed by Poptech) should have been classified as endorsing the consensus. Likewise, if a paper that endorses only that some recent warming is anthropogenic belongs to the Cook et al 97%, then all four of Richard Tol's papers which he claims to not have endorsed the consensus, should have been classified as endorsing the concensus.

A number of major AGW "skeptics" and Richard Tol have endorsed these claims of misclassification, including Watts (who reposted the claims), Tol who reposts it and a number who have commented either at WUWT or on Tol's tweet without demuring that Shaviv's description of the Cook et al classification was wrong. In fact, I have been unable to find one objection to Scaffeta's claims, or the claims that these papers were misrated based on the supposed fact that the Cook et al 97% endorsed only some anthropogenic warming rather than 50% +.

That, of course, merely demonstrates that the AGW "skeptics" are inconsistent in their criticism of Cook et al. It does not demonstrate that Scaffeta (and Tol's) 50%+ interpretation is correct. So, let us examine the possibility that "level of endorsement of AGW" in Cook et al means just endorsement of the claim that at least some of recent warming has been anthropogenic (ie, that anthropogenic factors have not had either no effect, or tended to cool recent temperatures).

So, consider the classification scheme used in Cook et al:

"Table 2. Definitions of each level of endorsement of AGW.
Level of endorsement Description Example
(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming 'The global warming during the 20th century is caused mainly by increasing greenhouse gas concentration especially since the late 1980s'
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact 'Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change'
(3) Implicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause '...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change'
(4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause of global warming
(4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined 'While the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive...'
(5) Implicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming '...anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results'
(6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming '...the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect'
(7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming 'The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission'"

For this categorization to be consistent it must satisfy two criteria:

1) No paper must fall under more than one classification;

and

2) If different levels of concensus represent different minimum percentages of anthropogenic contribution, they must change monotonically with classification level.

Now clearly if "endorse AGW" means "endorse that "at least some of recent warming has been anthropogenic", then the categorization fails criteria (1). That is because any paper endorsing >0% but <50% anthropogenic warming must be categorized either 2 or 3, but also 7. Further, it also fails condition (2) for category 1 clearly applies only to papers which endorse 50% or more anthropogenic contribution to recent warming, while category 7 applies only to papers that endorse less than 50% anthropogenic contribution. The only monotonic ordering of endorsement levels possible, therefore, is on in which for all categories endorsement of AGW means endorsing 50% or more of recent warming as anthropogenic, and disendorsing means endorsing less than 50%.

If there are two ways to interpret a paper, one of which is consistent, and one of which is inconsistent, then clearly we must give preference to the consistent interpretation. Doing otherwise merely raises a strawman. Therefore, there is no rational way to interpret endorsement in Cook et al as anything other than "endorsement that 50% or more of recent warming was anthropogenic".

Ironically, despite this several AGW "skeptics" have criticized Cook et al both for using a definition of endorsement that allowed even hardcore deniers to belong to the 97% and also for being inconsistent. They prove thereby that there intent is only to criticize, not to actually rationally critique the paper.

97 hours of consensus: caricatures and quotes from 97 scientists

knaugle at 05:10 AM on 12 September, 2014

I fully accept that all but a very few climate scientists are convinced AGW exists, and is of concern, and has strong science behind it. Even Richard Tol admits 90+% of scientists are convinced. Still the 97% number has been around as long as Naomi Oreskes and hasn't changed in 11 years. Numbers that constant (pi notwithstanding) usually make me suspicious, not of the science but how we are communicating it.

Scientists lambast The Australian for misleading article on deep ocean cooling

chriskoz at 13:27 PM on 8 August, 2014

The Australian, in pasrticular their env columnist Graham Lloyd, have developped quite a history of climate science misrepresentations. Some of them, e.g. recent incorrect critique of 97% concensus in Cook 2013 by Richard Tol - misrepresented by Lloyd - have been discussed here.

More comprehensive list of Lloyd's biased coverage is available here. Clearly, based on that history, we need not to be surprised at this latest development; furthe3r may expect more distortions of climate science from Mt Lloys in the future.

But it is hartening that scientists do not ignore those incidents but fight back the misinformation straight at its source, as Carl has done here. Another example of a scientist who "fights back" is Michael Mann who not only writes comments/op-eds to the affected newspapers but also enters legal battles if required to stand his ground. Others should also be encouraged: their time doing it is well spent. I'm personally thankful for that: great job guys!

Resources and links documenting Tol's 24 errors

MA Rodger at 21:50 PM on 11 June, 2014

Towards the end of the post, the link to the "full list of 24 errors identified by the experts reviewers at ERL" also provides links to the Tol's paper as sent to ERL and a later draft. Although there will be changes in the paper evemtually published in Energy Policy, it is very helpful to understanding the nature of Tol (2014). I was not happy discussing a paper in so much detail when, bar the odd quote, it is entirely hidden behind a paywall.

Now seeing the nature of the beast, I find it incredible. From its incompatible title to its strange list of Acknowledgements (a list that includes Dana Nuccitelli, "Willard" and in the draft version "wottsupwiththatblog.") I have to say, this is not a publishable paper.

As far as the 24 errors are concerned, Tol may take an embattled win on one or more of them and a few would end up as score draws, but the majority of the criticisms of Tol (2014) seem well founded and also include fundamental problems for Tol (2014).

But the most fundamental question for Tol is "What is Tol (2014) trying to say"?
Tol (2014) is not a "re-analysis" because that would present an alternative to the 97% as its main finding. Ditto if this paper was mainly concerned with identifying errors within Cook et al (2013). If the thrust of the paper were the inadequacy of method, it would then be less bothered with the specific result - but a whole whole lot more bothered that Tol (2014) demonstrates on how to achieve an adequate method. Tol's paper is polemical but for no justifiable academic reason, and this is magnified by the content of the Abstract.

But why end there. Tol goes well beyond the substance of his paper when he tells us that, although there is "very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct," for Cook et al (2013) "theirs is not a consensus on the causes of climate change." And anyway "consensus is irrelevant in science," and "has no academic value," because it "serves a political purpose, rather than a scientific one," at least in this case. Yet in this case, this particular consensus, "it is well-known" already and "it does not matter whether the exact number is 90% or 99.9%." And further, the alleged errors within Cook et al (2013) "may strengthen the belief that all is not well in climate research." So don't do this consensus enumerating stuff. Stick with the reviews of the literature itself. They already establish where science has got to on climate change."The IPCC fulfils this role."
That, I fear, is all argument for argument's sake. It is not useful to man nor beast. But I do see in it the sort of argument that somebody in denial would likely come out with.

Resources and links documenting Tol's 24 errors

citizenschallenge at 02:26 AM on 11 June, 2014

Good information. For what it's worth, I've reposted this along with some comments. :- )

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/06/richard-tols-big-mistake-or-malicious.html

Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus

Tom Curtis at 01:46 AM on 11 June, 2014

Richard Tol has now published a response of sorts to the "24 errors". I say of sorts in that he merely responds in a single line, often with fairly straightforward falsehoods. As an example of the later, he responds to Error 22, ie, his claim that the trend in endorsements in Cook13 is due to a trend in composition by saying:

"C14 do not dispute key claim: C13 mistook trend in composition for trend in endorsement."

However, C14 explicitly state (and highlight in a side box) that:

"Additionally, the compositional changes in the abstracts occur halfway through the survey period, but the consensus shift was observed in the first 25% of the period. The shift in composition and the shift in consensus do not coincide, thus negating T14’s claim."

So, the 24 Errors document explicitly rejects Tol's claim, providing clear cut evidence for that rejection. I don't know whether Tol's straightforwardly false claim is a consequence of his reading no more of the document than section headings, or whether he does not care about the truth of the matter, and expects his supporters to care no more, so that a straight forward falsehood is all he needs. As a response to criticism, however, it is simply not good enough.

Resources and links documenting Tol's 24 errors

KR at 01:48 AM on 10 June, 2014

Tom Curtis - Tol started complaining about Cook et al the day it was published, for example tweeting here and especially here on May 18 2013 - stating "@ezraklein for starters, because that opening 97% is a load of nonsense @maliniw90th". That was well before poptech made his blog post with cherrypicked objections from authors who hadn't responded to the Cook et al queries regarding self-evaluation, and who didn't seem to understand the difference between papers and abstracts.

Tol has spent the intervening time searching for a reason, _any_ reason, to support his initial reaction. And whenever one set of objections were shown to be nonsense, moving onto another and another and...

He's done a terrible job of it.

My personal opinion (just that) regarding his vendetta is an ideological objection on his part to governmental approaches to dealing with AGW, one not based on the science, coupled with an (ahem) abrasive approach to those he disagrees with.

Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus

Tom Curtis at 14:51 PM on 8 June, 2014

As many of you know, an anonymous person identifying themselves as "A Scientist" has written an critique (PDF) of Tol (2014). A Scientist indicates the anonymitty is due to Tol's vituperative and bullying responses to those having the temerity to criticize his work. The criticism is interesting, and seems valid in principle, but unfortunately is marred by some errors. I have yet to determine if it stands up after those errors are corrected for. (Neal King of SkS has corrected all bar one of the errors, and shown that apart for that one error the analysis is sound after correction.)

In looking at that critique, I have noticed that there is a simpler means to show that Tol's method, and in particular his error correction matrix, is nonsense. Tol assumes two things - that all endorsement levels (1-7) have the same error rate, and that the ratios among possible errors are constant regardless of the endorsement category, and are given by the ratios of average errors over all the data. The interesting thing I noticed is that by assuming that, he predicts that the forward error rate varies greatly between endorsement values. In fact, he predicts the following error rates:

1: 35.61%
2: 10.36%
3: 8.56%
4: 1.36%
5: 84.69%
6: 62.94%
7: 29.51%

That is, he predicts that just 1.36% of papers that actually had neutral abstracts were rated as something else by the Cook et al, 2013 (C13) rating team; but that 84.69% of papers with abstracts that actually implicitly rejected AGW were mistakenly rated as something else. But not only that, he also predicts that these massively disparate forward error rates were somehow coordinated such that the each category as reported in the paper would have just 6.67% errors.

Such a feat would require extraordinary precision in the "errors" purportedly made, and all without coordination or prearrangement. The notion that such precision errors could arise by chance is laughable. Coordination or prearrangement is ruled out not just by the known facts pf what was done but also by the sheer pointlessness of coordinating errors to achieve the same final error rates in all categories. The hypothesis that predicts this precision error production is therefore, laughable.

When it is realized that the evidence in support of this absurd result is a simple mathematical fallacy, ie, that the product of the means will equal the mean of the products, you have to wonder why Tol persists in defending this absurdity. It is as though he wants the world laughing not only at his blunder, but at him as well.

Resources and links documenting Tol's 24 errors

dana1981 at 02:14 AM on 8 June, 2014

[snip] But he's a generally smart person, so he knows the consensus is real and accurate, that the economics of the situation demands a carbon price, etc.

However, I think he saw all the attention Cook at al. (2013) received, and he wanted a piece. I think it's as simple as that.

Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus

Tom Curtis at 19:54 PM on 6 June, 2014

Kevin C @18 & 19, first, I have never found it profitable to ignore you.

Second, simply multiplying abstract ratings by the ratio of author ratings to their corresponding abstract ratings will simply reproduce the author rating percentages. Doing so thereby assumes that the rate of endorsement did not increase in time (given the temporal bias in author ratings). It also assumes that the massive difference in neutral ratings between author ratings and abstract ratings is simply due to conservatism by abstract raters. If instead we assume it is mostly due to the lack of information available in abstracts (almost certainly the primary reason), then we should require neutral ratings to be almost constant between the abstract ratings and abstract ratings adjusted for bias relative to author ratings. The prima facie adjustment I used makes that assumption and only multiplies endorsements or rejections for their relative bias ratios, thereby keeping neutral ratings constant.

I am not arguing that that is the uniquely correct approach. I am arguing that it is a reasonable approach, and hence that reasonable assessments of the biases allow endorsement percentages below 95% with reasonable though low probability.

Third, if you are using the values from Richard Tol's spreadsheet (as I am at the moment due to lack of access to my primary computer), you should note that the itemized values (ie, totals for ratings 1 through 7) do not sum to the same values as the summary values (ie, binned as endorsing, neutral or rejecting) in his spread sheet. Further, the itemized values do not have the same totals for abstract ratings and author ratings. Using the summary values, and applying your method, the endorsement percentage is 95.6% excluding all neutral papers, and drops to 95.3% if we include 0.5% of neutral papers as "uncertain".

Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus

Tom Curtis at 12:21 PM on 5 June, 2014

I notice that the list of 24 errors by Tol is not exhaustive. In section 3.2 "signs of bias", Tol writes:

"I run consistency tests on the 24,273 abstract ratings; abstracts were rated between 1 and 5 times, with an average of 2.03. I computed the 50-, 100- and 500-abstract rolling standard deviation, first-order autocorrelation – tests for fatigue – and rolling average and skewness – tests for drift."

In fact, there were not 24,273 abstract ratings (strictly abstract rating records) released to Tol, but 26,848. They are the records of all first ratings, second ratings, review ratings and tie break rating generated for the 11,944 abstracts rated for the paper. That Tol dropped 2,573 ratings records from his analysis is neither explained nor acknowledged in the paper. That is clearly an additional (25th) error, and appears to go beyond error into misrepresentation of the data and analysis.

Paranthetically, Tol is unclear about that number, claiming that "Twelve volunteers rated on average 50 abstracts each, and another 12 volunteers rated an average of 1922 abstracts each", a total of 22,464 abstracts. That is 1,424 less than the total of first and second ratings of the 11,944, and is too large a discrepancy to be accounted for by rounding errors. He also indicates that abstracts were rated on average 2.03 times, yielding an estimate of 24,246 abstracts. That is within rounding error of his erroneous claim of 24,273 ratings, but inconsistent with his estimate of the number of ratings by volunteers and the actual number of rating records.

Some clarrification of why Tol inlcuded only 24,273 ratings is found in his blog, where he describes the same test as used in the paper, saying:

"The graphs below show the 500-abstract rolling mean, standard deviation, skewness, and first-order autocorrelation for the initial ratings of the Consensus Project."

The initial ratings are the first and second rating for each abstract, of which there are 23,888. However, comparison of the 100 point average of the mean value with S6 from the paper shows the test to have been the same. A problem then arises that his graph of "initial ratings" is not restricted to just first and second ratings. Consider the following figure:

The middle graph is Tol's figure S6 as displayed at his blog. The top graph is the 100 point mean of all endorsement_final ratings from the rating records (the values actually graphed and analysed by Tol). As can be seen, Tol's graph is clearly truncated early. The third graph is the 100 point mean values of enfdorsement_final ratings from all first and second ratings. Although identical at the start of the graph (of logical necessity), the end of the graph diverges substantially. That is because the first 24,273 ratings in chronological order do no included all first and second ratings (and do include a significant number of third, fourth and fifth ratings ie, review and tie break ratings). So, we have here another Tol mistake, though technically a mistake in the blog rather than the paper.

Far more important is that without strictly dividing first ratings from second ratings, and excluding later ratings, it is not possible for Tol's analysis to support his conclusions. That is because, when selecting an abstract for a rater to rate, the rating mechanism selected randomly from all available abstracts not previously rated by a particular rater. Initially, for the first person to start rating, that meant all available abstracts had no prior rating. If we assume that that person rated 10 abstracts, and then ceased, the next person to start rating would have had their ratings selected randomly from 11934 unrated abstracts, and 10 that had a prior rating. Given that second ratings were on average slightly more conservative (more likely to give a rating of 4) than first ratings, this alone would create a divergence from the bootstrapped values generated by Tol. Given that raters rated papers as and when they had time and inclination, and that therefore they did not rate at either the same pace or time, or even at a consistent pace, the divergence from bootstrap values from this alone could be quite large. Given that raters could diverge slightly in the ratings they give, there is nothing in Tol's analysis to show his bootstrap analyses are anything other than the product of that divergence and the differences in rating times and paces among raters. His conclusions of rater fatigue do not, and cannot come from the analysis he performs, given the data he selects to analyse.

This then is error 27 in his paper, or perhaps 27-30 given that he repeats the analysis of that data for standard deviation, skewness and autocorrelation, each of which tests is rendered incapable of supporting his conclusions due to his poor (and mistated) data selection.

Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus

Dumb Scientist at 06:53 AM on 5 June, 2014

It's astonishing that Energy Policy's "review" apparently didn't ask for a single example of the ~300 gremlin-conjured rejection abstracts.

"If I submit a comment that argues that the Cook data are inconsistent and invalid, even though they are not, my reputation is in tatters." [Dr. Richard Tol, 2013-06-11]

Not necessarily. Retracting errors is difficult but ultimately helps one's inner peace and reputation because it shows integrity and healthy confidence. When in a hole, stop digging.

Republican witness admits the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is real

heb0 at 00:17 AM on 4 June, 2014

"The science isn't settled" in much the same way that "the models are wrong." Just as models are by definition not completely accurate, scientific understanding of the climate is incomplete. But both of those statements, on their own, are useless, and both of them could be said about any field of scientific research, no matter how universally accepted. They require quantification to be anything meaningful. Yet, those who trumpet them don't seem interested in quantification, only in spreading that message.

I don't know much about Richard Tol, but lately he strikes me much like Roger Pielke: stubbornly contrarian yet slipperily vague. If memory serves me correctly, both have a strange habit of pedantically seizing on miniscule points of contention and then trying to use that to justify rejecting much larger parts of the science. When you call them on it, it's almost impossible to get them to admit which part of the conensus they disagree with, yet they will, if unchecked, make pretty denial-ish claims. It's fitting that they were both invited as witnesses.

Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.

billthefrog at 04:07 AM on 28 May, 2014

In 2013, the eminent palaeontologist, Steven Stanley was bestowed the Penrose Medal, the top honour awarded by the Geological Society of America. Prof Stanley has long been a proponent of the idea of punctuated evolution, as opposed to the classical, more gradual evolutionary pressures first suggested by Darwin and Wallace.

Stanley's proposed mechanism for these evolutionary spurts is by extinctions (mass and otherwise) either freeing up niches or increasing the competion therein. His suggested mechanism for these extinction events? You guessed it - climate change. Interestingly, Stanley feels that climate change in either direction can be equally efficacious as an extinction mechanism.

Being a thicko engineer, I never covered any of this stuff during either of my degrees. I only have a vague grasp through a general interest in science and wanting to learn more about our planet's history. (And hence getting some insight into its future.)

The OP mentions that "most scientists agree a giant asteroid impact wiped out the dinosaurs". This is obviously out of my field, but I had discussed the K/T (I'll never get used to calling it the K/Pg) on many occasions with one of my neighbours - sadly no longer with us. The gentleman in question however, was a Fellow of the Geological Society of London and was keen to disabuse me of the idea that this was a settled issue.

According to Myles, there were (are?) two diametrically opposed camps in the debate. (Sound familar?) There are those who are convinced by the arguments put forward by the Alvarez/Alvarez/Asaro/Michel camp relating to the Chicxulub bolide as the Deus ex Machina. However, as indeed mentioned in the OP, others look towards the massive basaltic eruptions that spewed forth from the Deccan Traps.

By amazing coincidence, my current bedtime reading is a book called "The Sixth Extinction", by Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin. They also view climate change as a very likely vector for the many of the extinctions the planet has experienced - and continues to experience to this day.

97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven

Tom Curtis at 11:20 AM on 17 May, 2014

tlitb1 @20, sorry, my computer ate my long response, so you will have to make do with the short.

1) I agree with you about Lai et al (2005), which I would rate as (6) "explicitly rejects but does not quantify".

2) From the full rating data, which has been released by John Cook, it can be determined that there is an initial rating error rate between "endorsement levels" of 12.9% on average, which results in an expected error rate between levels after dispute resolution of 4.7%. Given that distinctions between "implicit" and "explicit" are graduated rather than binary (things can be more, or less explicit) such an error rate is unsurprising. It is also overstated in that it treats a large number of ratings of "0" (= uncertain) as errors, which is not the case.

3) The error rate between endorsing or rejecting AGW falls to a low 0.04%. That is because the vast majority of errors are between categories just one level apart, and because nearly all errors (98%) for initial ratings of (4) involve mistakenly identifying an implicitly endorsing abstract as being neutral. Overall, adjusting for errors based on internal data appears to slightly increase the endorsement percentage. (That is a provisional result using simplifying assumptions. More accurate results may change teh sing of the result but will not significantly change the magnitude which is less than 1%. Note that Richard Tol's claim that this adjustment makes a large increase in the "dissensus rate" depends on the false assumption that the error rate and distribution for all rating values is the same.)

4) Despite the low overall error rates, the sheer number of endorsing abstracts means a small fraction will have been incorrectly rated, ie, should have been rated as rejecting the consensus. On the figures above, we would in fact expect two such abstracts. Those figures show only internally detectable errors, however, so the number may by slightly larger.

5) Because we expect some such errors as a matter of course, no amount of highlighting single abstracts being correctly rated will show the Cook et al results to be false. That is because such anecdotal evidence does not provide a basis for statistical analysis. At most the response required is to adjust the values reported for endorsement and rejection in Cook et al by the number of individual abstracts found to be in error. Thus, you have found two abstracts in error. Therefore we would adjust the Cook et al figures of 3896 endorsing and 78 rejecting to 3894 endorsing and 80 rejecting, which changes the percentages (as a percentage of papers endorsing or rejecting) to 97.99% endorsing, down from 98.04%. Even that ignores the probable existence of papers with errors in the other direction, and makes no difference worth mentioning. Even if you were to find a net error of 100 abstracts in favour of endorsement, after correction you still have an endorsement rate of 95.52%, which again is not a challenge to the Cook et al result.

6) Because of this, the only valid method to challenge Cook et al is to do another survey yourself, of at least 2000 abstracts (and prefferably more). Make sure you state your classification criterion clearly. You will find either a result within 5% of the Cook et al value, or your classification criteria will be transparently tendentious.

97% - A Statistically Representative Debate On Global Warming

John Hartz at 22:34 PM on 13 May, 2014

I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that Oliver's skit does not tickle the funny bones of Richard Tol and the Tolettes.

Ditto for all of the other inhabitants of Deniersville.

There is no consensus

bakertrg at 04:43 AM on 9 May, 2014

(snip) Despite how my posts are being characterized I'm not intent on being a dissenter I am just skeptical of some of what is here and any website pushing that 97% number so hard and calling it the consensus makes me VERY skeptical of both the message and the messenger.

Sorry if I offended you with my retort Dikran, not my intent but I felt you totally mischaracterized my post drew a conclusion I never made and sent me off to read sources that don't refute my point, aren't relevant to the issue and actually support my position not yours.

(snip) One of his arguments was that the papers in the 97% number actually don't say man is the main cause of global warming... which is exactly my leaning. I'm not emotionally vested in this idea, it's just the best answer from the data I have actually researched.

dikran 593: 97% of the papers that take a position on the question do take the position that it is mostly anthropogenic.

next paragraph

If you want a study of scientists that are publicly stating that humans are the primary cause of climate change, then you won't find one, because scientists have better things to do

so 97% of scientists are taking the position that THE cause of global warming is anthropogenic but none of them are publicly stating that humans are the cause of climate change? Maybe I'm missing something but that seems to contradict itself.

Despite what it may appear to be my goal is to find answers. I am skeptical of some of the things that are held to be incontrovertible here. My main question and the reason I'm posting on this thread is because I strongly disagree with the methodology for coming up with the number 97%. It seems that a lot of scientists think that humans are A cause of global warming and the graphic takes a huge liberty with meaning by saying humans are THE cause. The meanings are vastly different. I have tracked down some of the papers I'm going to see how many say THE cause.

I'm not a climatologist, I do have a background in physics, computer science and engineering, I have no dog in this fight other than I truly want to know what is happening on our planet if not solely for my edification so that I can at least educate my kids to the best of my ability and speak intelligently on the subject which potentially has massive ramifications going forward. In any event I am honestly trying to address each counter to my initial post (despite what is pretty close to being dog piled which is my reading comprehension is any good turns out to also be against the comment policy)

I see the words "easily disproven", but I actually thought it was accepted fact that we have had cooling trends during the modern industrial period despite ever rising CO2 levels. I posted 1900 to 1940 because I believe I read that on this website but in actually going to look I found some different time lines that had downward trends. 1880 to 1915 or 1940 to 1975 would have been a better example for me to use, I stand corrected.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_200_yrs.html

In any event, the point still remains the same, if the CO2 level is constantly rising and the causation is as great as is being purported shouldn't we see an accelerating temperature change? According to information IPCC admittedly can not explain temperature has been flat for the last 17 years. That is very difficult to explain if the problem is accelerating and even suggests that the causation is either much smaller than alarmists suggest (small enough that mother natures natural variance swallowed it whole) or the link to causation is less strong than you're suggesting.

dr don easterbook gives a fairly informative view both in text and video (though my research shows that he has taken money from the koch brothers) sadly, many players in this discussion have taken funding from one side or another and/or have a book centric profit motive to push their beliefs. Richard Lindzen also falls in this same space. Unfortunately it's hard to determine what came first the ideology or the funding, of course the non consensus supporters are going to look for scientists who share their ideology to champion the cause so it's not surprising that the guys who get funded by big business have the anti AGW ideology. (snip)

The video is long but interesting and he does seem to have quite a bit of data. video the text can be found here and has a lot of great information. Dr Lindzen also offers some pretty compelling video's and his credentials are top notch. That being said his monetary incentive made me watch both videos with a very jaundiced eye. I found him to be pretty credible but I'm always skeptical of people getting paid for their science by a source that only wants a specific outcome.

KR - I briefly looked at Spencer Weart and despite being a believer in global warming comes out against a recent argument for the consensus here. His post about the flawed assumptions in the paper from PNAS made me think he's at least interested in being objective. A very telling point of his post (made on this very website) here poses a big problem for the 97% number. He states that while he is convinced by the evidence, he is surprised by the number who are not. Doesn't appear as if he believes it's only 3% dissenting. He pointed to several reasons why that number could be skewed and he's a recognized figure on your side of the argument.

Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously

Composer99 at 00:43 AM on 7 May, 2014

To elaborate a bit on the characteristics of denialism, and how creationists, climate science deniers, and anti-vaccine activists share them in common, let me provide some examples:

1. Fake or Misleading Experts

Creationism - Ken Ham, Dr Michael Egnor (a neurosurgeon), William Dembski

Anti-Vaccine Activism - Andrew Wakefield, Dr Jay Gordon (*), Dr Vera Scheibner (a micropaleontologist)

Climate Science Denial - Christopher Monckton, Dr Roy Spencer (*), Dr S. Fred Singer (*), Dr Richard Lindzen (*), Ian McIntyre

(*) denotes misleading experts - people with pertinent expertise in the subject (e.g. Dr Jay Gordon is a pediatrician) but who are using their credentials to support or propagate false or misleading information, in the public sphere at least, if not in the literature (e.g. Dr Spencer and the Cornwall Alliance). (Some creationists I have named above might be misleading experts; but I'm not familiar enough with them to say so.)

2. Cherry-Picking & Misrepresentation

Creationism - claims about radiocarbon dating, this article showing distortion of so-called "No Free Lunch" algorithms, claims about the eye, or flagellum, making Charles Darwin out to be a proto-eugenicist, etc.

Anti-Vaccine - Wakefield's (retracted) 1998 Lancet paper (I don't recall seeing that one get trotted out as much since its retraction), some rubbish papers by Laura Hewitson et al (also retracted), claims about various ingredients in vaccines (formaldehyde, aluminium, etc.), the "Fourteen Studies". I could go on - maybe search the vaccine topic thread on Science-Based Medicine for some more examples.

Climate Science Denial - the "pause" in global warming (cherry picking a small portion of the surface temperature record while ignoring the behaviour of 95+% of the climate system), the obsession over outdated papers (Hansen et al 1988 and Mann et al 1999), Anthony Watts' "surface stations project".

3. Logical Fallacies

Creationism - false dichotomy (either their misrepresentation of evolutionary processes must be true, or God/an "Intelligent Designer" did it), ad hominem or similar argument (e.g. accepting evolution leads to the Holocaust, courtesy of Ben Stein).

Anti-Vaccine - ad hominem (what Dr David Gorski calls the "pharma shill gambit"), red herrings (appeals to the issues surrounding thalidomide, Vioxx, or, say, the Tuskegee experiments).

Global Warming Denial - ad hominem (pretty much whenever Al Gore or David Suzuki's names come up), strawman argument ("CAGW"), appeal to popularity (here's a good example, or you could bring up the Orgeon Petition), guilt by association (Donna Laframboise's book about the IPCC).

4. Conspiratorial Ideation

Creationism - In Expelled, Ben Stein alleges that the scientific community conspires to ruin the careers of those who express any doubt in the "scientific orthodoxy of Darwinism" (quotes used to denote sarcasm, not direct quote). Especially religious creationists are liable to discern the influence of Satan or other supernatural forces of wickedness in the widespread acceptance of evolution among biologists.

Anti-Vaccine - One activist, Jake Crosby, is famed for trying to playing "six degrees of separation" to try and tie pro-vaccine advocates to pharmaceutical companies. Conspiracy theories are also called upon to explain why public health departments & researchers would continue to support vaccination programs despite the alleged harms of vaccines.

Global Warming Denial - The allegations that the UEA-CRU hack exposed fraud, or that the subsequent inquiry findings were whitewashing. Any time the claim is made that climate scientists are engaged in a hoax or fraud for the purpose of securing grant money. Any time the claim is made that climate science is part of a wider "eco-fascist", "Marxist", or what-have-you plot to establish despotism.

5. Impossible Expectations/Shifting Goalposts

Creationism - I'm not as well-read on creationist tactics on this front, but I understand that creationists have made a big fuss about lack of certain transitional forms, or even set up impossible expectations for what sort of transitional forms might be found (e.g. the "crocoduck"). The shift to "Intelligent Design" as the primary public vehicle of creationism is a goalpost shift.

Anti-Vaccine - Despite its unethical nature, many anti-vaccine activists call for a double-blind trial of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Anti-vaccine activists occasionally demand 100% certainty of the safety or efficacy of vaccines. I have personally had an anti-vaccine commenter demand that science either develop the capacity to predict who would be harmed by vaccines (an impossible expectation at present).

Climate Science Denial - The "quantum" behaviour of denial as recently discussed on Skeptical Science is a perfect example of shifting goalposts. A good example of impossible expectations would be Judith Curry's "Uncertainty Monster", or similar claims that we just need to do more research for a few more years/decades before we can make policy decisions (because it's all so uncertain).

IPCC issue official rebuttal to more David Rose/Daily Mail nonsense

MA Rodger at 02:44 AM on 11 April, 2014

The errors within Richard Tol's work mentioned by the IPCC press release had already resulted in a spat between Tol & Bob Ward. The account Ward gives of Tol's behaviour does perhaps intimate some dark doings, with an initial less controversial version of Tol's WGII Chapter 10 "leaked to a blog for climate change ‘sceptics’" and then a section is quietly inserted into the final draft on "‘Aggregate impacts’ which was based almost entirely on Professor Tol’s 2013 paper", this being the source of the mentioned errors.

Of course, Tol is one of Nigel Lawson's GWPF so nothing would surprise me. In the Mail article, Tol says of the spat between him & Ward - "It’s all about taking away my credibility as an expert.” Well, I suppose, if he feels he can act like one of Lawson's Gentleman Who Prefers Fantasy, then his credibility will indeed be rather difficult to hold on to.

IPCC report warns of future climate change risks, but is spun by contrarians

Stephen Ferguson at 22:09 PM on 31 March, 2014

Am a tad dissapointed you failed to mention that Richard Tol is a member of the 'Academic Advisory Council' to Lord Lawson's denier thinktank the Global Warming Policy Foundation

The BBC and (even!) The Guardian both made this mistake when he dramatically removed his name as a lead author from this week's IPCC report.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Tol

2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A

KR at 04:09 AM on 29 March, 2014

Poster - The low-ball estimates you describe come almost entirely from Richard Tol, taken from his own papers and inserted into the WGII report - as discussed at Rabett Run his work represents an extreme opinion, not that of the literature as a whole.

Richard Tols estimates seem to assume a best-case scenario (immediate curtailing of emissions), ignore many possible consequences of climate change, and only hold true up to the mid-21st century. They are by no means the mid-line estimates.

[Ridley and Tol, incidentally, are both on the Academic Advisory Council of the denialist organization GWPF]

"Do you have any thoughts or comments why on Ridley and Delingpole suggest the Summary for Policymakers will be "much more alarmist" than the report from the Working Party?" That outcome remains to be seen, as the WGII report has not been published yet - it may be more pessimistic than they expect. Clearly, though, denialists such as Ridley and Delingpole find it advantageous to highlight the lowest estimates.

How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?

Tom Curtis at 12:04 PM on 4 December, 2013

Scarecrow57 @21, all attempts to sample a population, including those which are fully randomized are "surveys". The term you are looking for is a "convenience sample". Convenience surveys do indeed have several disadvantages, including no gaurantee that they are representative of the population as a whole. Specifically with regard to surveys on controversial issues, it is likely that those with a strong opinion will preferentially respond, thereby distorting the result. It may also be the case that percieved views of the conductor of the survey may also bias results. That does not mean that convenience samples are useless, only that generalizing from such samples to the whole population is risky.

In this particular case, the questionaire was emailed to all members of the AMS (excluding associate and student members). There was an effective 26.3% response rate. It is possible, but unlikely that so large a response would be significantly biased with respect to the original population. This is quite unlike the most prominent form of convenience survey in which watchers of a particular news program are asked to phone in (thereby accruing an expense) with response rates well below 10% of the viewership, and unlikely to be more than a fraction of a percent of the population they represent. You may well have seen pronouncements that the later are scientifically useless (they are), but that is because of the multiple biases introduced by the sampling method plus the very small size of the sample.

Finally, Naomi Oreskes sampled all of a specific portion of the literature. Hers was not a convenience sample, and was not biased by the methodology.

The Cook et al survey was in two parts. The first part was an exhaustive survey of the literature as reported by one of two major indexing organizations. As such, it was not a convenience sample and is almost as close to exhaustive as you could obtain. Richard Tol has compared that sample to that from another indexing organization, showing that there are differences in the composition of the samples. What he does not mention, however, although it is very easy to work out, is that difference in composition would make less than 1% of a difference to the result. Even then, he has no grounds to assume the second sample is more representative than that actually used.

The second part of Cook et al was a convenience sample of all authors from the exhaustive survey with discoverable email adresses. Because it was a convenience sample of the entire population, and because there was a significant response, the results are not likely to be far of those of a representative survey. Never-the-less, caution should be applied in interpreting the results of that part of the survey.

How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming

Tom Curtis at 17:08 PM on 23 November, 2013

barry @18, Richard Tol was certainly included, as he has himself confirmed. Unfortunately self rating authors are entitled to anonymity and Cook and his co-authors have done their best to ensure it. Therefore they cannot answer with regard to the others unless they voluntarilly permit their names and self ratings to be released; or themselves volunteer the information as to whether or not they respond, and if so how they responded. I suspect they will not volunteer that information because, if they do, it will be obvious that their disagreement is unusual among respondents. They are angling to be considered representative when they know full well from the self rating survey that they are not.

I will add that there claims about their papers being incorrectly rated in the abstract ratings, are not, in all cases, what they are cracked up to be.

How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming

barry1487 at 16:25 PM on 23 November, 2013

Question:

Of the scientists that were surveyed to rate their own papers, did you include Alan Carlin, Craig D. Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nils-Axel Morner, Nir J. Shaviv, Richard S.J. Tol, and Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon?

I ask because Anthony Watts, referring to a PopTech article regarding those scientists' comments on the paper, says that they were not contacted. But the scientists themselves say nothing about that.

Do you have a list of the scientists you attempted to contact, perhaps in supplementary material?

Any leads appreciated.

Barry.

Cosmic rays fall cosmically behind humans in explaining global warming

HK at 08:18 AM on 17 November, 2013

Well, it only confirms what Richard Alley told us 4 years ago, doesn’t it?
Since a huge increase in cosmic rays didn’t have a noticeable impact on climate 40,000 years ago the conclusion from CERN isn’t very surprising. Unless of course, the assumed link between cosmic rays and the beryllium-10 isotope is wrong.

BTW, is Dimethylamine somehow related to Dimethyl sulphide? James Lovelock (the guy behind the Gaia hypothesis) has proposed that Dimethyl sulphide emitted from some marine algae play an important role in cloud formation over the oceans.

Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science

MA Rodger at 18:12 PM on 26 October, 2013

Ironbark @13.
Your request that I ease up on the 'denialist' trigger would be more likely heeded if you ease up on the denialist argumentation. This you singlularly fail to do. In the very same paragraph as your request you tell us Richard Muller describes that the e-mail hacks from CRU demonstrated 'scientific malpractice' (he may well have done, he has a history of denial) and you then intimate that "the graph" (presumably the "hockey stick" from Mann et al 1999) used by the IPCC and Al Gore was also show after 10 years to be wrong. You cannot be serious!

I do not know where you get such deluded ideas from. Mann et al 1999 featured in IPCC TAR of 2001 and along with a whole bag full of other 'hockeysticks', also in IPCC AR4 of 2007. And if you bother to examine the final draft of IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 5 figure 5.7 you will see that Mann et al 1999 is now replaced by Mann et al 2008, within which the work of Mann et al 1999 remains all correct and ship shape being presented within figure 3(b) of that paper. There was no error, no malpractice attached to the 'hockeystick'.
Do you deny this to be so? Or will you accept that 'climategate' had zero impact on the science.
(Note. There is somewhere on video a UK climatologist (?) who delights in pointing to some minor adjustment to a global temperature record for part of a decade of the 19th century that was the sum total scientific impact of 'climategate', so perhaps "zero impact" is not entirely correct.)

Of course (as pointed out @24) this is off topic here. Indeed, to remain on topic, please do not present your detailed thoughts concerning a different SkS post in this comment thread. That other SkS post does have a comment thread of its own which is provided for such a purpose.

Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation

MA Rodger at 18:46 PM on 12 October, 2013

jmorpuss @29.

You present an interesting example of denial. Does the ionosphere actually dictate the climate? Are the elusive results of the ATLANT experiments elusive because they are being covered up? This, jmorpuss, is the stuff of the "reality" you speak of.

So to you, AGW is not a problem. All the climate scientists in the world are so dumb or corrupt that not one of them can see what you, a humble citizen of this planet, can see as plain as day in front of you.

Congratulations, jmorpuss. You are in denial. Any evidence of human science is irrelevant and rendered false if it supports AGW, because you know AGW is false. You are not alone. Prof. Richard Lindzen takes the same position as you do, and he is a proper climatologist, abet a rather elderly one. Lindzen ignores all the unhelpful evidence because he believes some vital ingredient is missing from the theories, some mechanism of climate that will make the problems of AGW disappear. (I'm not sure how it would make the unhelpful evidence disappear for him, but hey-ho, what do I know.)

Of course, because neither you nor Richard Lindzen are being scientific about AGW to a greater or lesser extent (you jmorpuss the greater, he Lindzen the lesser), you would neither agree with each other. Indeed Lindzen would consider you views ridiculous and insane. And he would not be alone in this opinion.

Such is the stuff of denial. Thank you for sharing it with us.

Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice

Jim Hunt at 20:11 PM on 20 September, 2013

Jubble @20 - Keep in touch, and we'll do what we can. Please bear in mind however, that Richard Lawson who has recent experience in these matters told me recently that:

The PCC has less teeth than an edentulous blobfish that has been to a obsessional dentist for a total dental clearance, then spent 10 minutes in a food mixer on its highest setting, followed by three days in a bath of concentrated sulphuric acid.

Whilst we wait and see what the PCC can come up with, if anything, we're continuing to take matters into our own hands on video (if this works!):

The Great White Con - Update 1 from Jim L. Hunt on Vimeo.

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

JasonB at 12:04 PM on 25 July, 2013

OneHappy,

I suggest reading through earlier comments, there was some discussion on the exact ratings applied to some papers and suggestions on how Cook et al might be meaningfully "audited". In particuar, any bias in how the papers are chosen (e.g. simply checking the papers of known sceptics) will invalidate attempts to extrapolate the error rate to the sample as a whole — if you don't want to recheck every rating then you need to choose a random sample of papers and see what error rate you get with those, taking into account both the papers that you didn't disagree with and those that you did. And don't forget the self-ratings of the authors!

The bottom line, however, is that nobody has come up with a huge hoard of papers that did not endorse the consensus yet somehow escaped that categorisation in Cook et al. You can always find errors in any human endeavour (and the paper itself specifically quantified disagreements between Cook et al raters, though remember that a disagreement in rating doesn't automatically translate into a disagreement in endorsement/non-endorsement) but the real question is, what impact does that error rate have on the result?

Given the overwhelming numbers involved, even gross errors would not sway the results very much. For example, as Tom Curtis pointed out previously regarding the author self-ratings, in order for the original authors' level of endorsement to drop to 94.5% — a figure I would still consider overwhelming — you would need to believe that half of the original authors mistakenly assessed their own papers as endorsing the consensus when they should have been rated as neutral.

Now, it's true that some (e.g. Richard Tol) managed to mis-rate their own papers (thereby incorrectly claiming Cook et al were wrong) but half? And that would still make the headline look much the same. Why? Because there really are bugger-all papers in the literature that actually dispute the consensus. What's even worse is that when you examine those papers, certain opinions about quality and rigour invariably form. In other words, not only are there very few papers disputing the consensus out there, but most of those are also rubbish with obvious errors that make you wonder how they got published in the first place. (Actually, not really — it's painfully obvious how they got published in most cases; it's just sad.)

There's no need to have doubts, the assessments are all online. Check for yourself!

Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy

Tom Curtis at 21:18 PM on 15 June, 2013

chriskoz @15, the link was intended to be to my comment of June 13th, at 3:19am on the wottsupwiththatblog article on Tol's fourth draft. The blog is a new blog focussed on critiquing WUWT.

Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy

Tom Curtis at 08:43 AM on 15 June, 2013

Danieltreed @5, I have examined that claim by Tol. To begin with, it is irrelevant that the search terms used in Cook et al return a smaller sample unless that sample is also skewed. Tol does indeed also claim that it is skewed, but it is possible to use the data he provides to determine the potential effect of that skew. As it turns out, because of the near identity of the number of papers in disciplines which are under represented, and those which are over represented, that potential effect is very small. In fact, as a percentage of endorsements and rejections, the maximum range in the result possible if the skew was corrected is between 97.4 and 98.6%, compared to the 98.04% from the abstract survey. I discuss this issue in more detail here (see the third example of "Tol's consistent bias").

I am not sure what you mean by saying "the endorsement graph is refuse". Indeed, such vague negative criticisms indicate only that you reject the study because it is ideologically inconvenient. People with genuine criticisms are able to state them coherently, and in such a way that people can examine them for flaws.

My best guess as to what you mean is that you are referring to Tol's claim that the pattern of increasing endorsements is purely a result of change of composition over time. If so, you should recognize that Tol's analysis fails because the trend towards increased endorsement is strongest in the period 1991-2000, during which time there is no trend in composition. In constrast, from 2001-2011 the trend in composition is strongest, while the trend in endorsement is much weaker. This pattern is part of the reason for the very low correlation between composition and endorsements (r²=0.065). Tol's claim that the trend in endorsements is based on a trend in composition, then, is based on a simple eyeball assessment of a graph and fails the simplest statistical test. I explain this in more detail here.

As it happens, what is actually happening is a trend towards increased endorsement with no change in compostion in the first period, while the trend in endorsement in the second period is largely explained by the trend in composition. This pattern fits the hypothesis that "...the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics." In particular, it fits the idea of increasing confirmation of AGW up to the IPCC TAR after which scientists increasingly accepted AGW as a working hypothesis except for a few hold outs who found that ideologically unacceptable.

Finally, no knowledgable person argues that AGW is true because a consensus of scientists accepts it. Nevertheless, scientists - especially climate scientists- are the experts in this field. "An expert is somebody who knows all the basic mistakes in a field, and how to avoid them." Therefore if you think those climate scientists have missed something basic, ie, something that can be identified in a blog without any background knowledge in climate science, you are almost certainly a crank on a par with people who claim to have invented perpetual motion, or proved that the world is flat. The climate scientists may be missing something which makes them wrong about AGW, but it will be something very subtle, or something very complex. And it won't turn up on WUWT.

Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy

Alexandre at 07:13 AM on 15 June, 2013

danieltreed at 06:36 AM on 15 June, 2013

I suggest Dr. Richard Tol (or yourself) make a similar survey using your sampling method and category criteria and see how (or if) the results differ. Then you can even come back to discuss the ups and downs of each approach. I suspect after doing real research you would be less prone to dismissing others.

Nobody said consensus = science. This survey just shows that the 'skeptic' argument that "there is no consensus" is bogus. Of course, once you show that, goalposts move.

Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy

danieltreed at 06:36 AM on 15 June, 2013

The sampling used for that 97% consensus number is based on a ludicrous sampling technique.

They used the terms "global climate change" and "global warming"... anyone involved in SEO or PPC will tell you that is way too restrictive, and Dr. Richard Tol investigated the data, and found that the number of papers cited would have QUADRUPLED had the search terms included simply "climate change."

Tol lists other details about the flaw in the sampling. The "Endorsement" graph is statistical refuse. I find the entire argument that consensus=science to be absurd, but that for another day I suppose.

New study by Skeptical Science author finds 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is man-made

Dikran Marsupial at 05:51 AM on 14 June, 2013

civil engineer, just to clarify, my name is Gavin Cawley (I post pseudonymously, but not anonymously), Prof. Essenhigh wrote the original paper on which mine was a comment. Mea culpa, the link in the earlier post was to Prof. Essenhigh's original paper, rather than my comment paper, which you can find here.

Sadly Prof. Salby's argument is also incorrect (I would be genuinely pleased if it were correct) and I and others have written blog posts on his presentations (my article is the first of those listed, and would be a good place to discuss this further):

Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum

Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural

Murry Salby - Confused About The Carbon Cycle

Salby's ratio

Humlum et al. make basically the same mistake and another SkS author has published a peer-reviewed comment paper on that one as well, see:

New study by Skeptical Science author finds 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is man-made

Roy Spencer also made a similar error (happily only on his blog and didn't actually publish it), which I discuss here:

Roys' Risky Regression

Scientists make mistakes frequently, you are not at the cutting edge of your field if all of your ideas are right, and some errors happen more than once. Sadly climatology gets a fair amount of media interest, so instead of these errors being quietly forgotten, they end up being discussed in public view.

Prof. Salby's new talk seems to have some additional material on ice core CO2 proxy data, but the central argument is still that addressed in my earlier SkS post.

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

Tom Curtis at 09:18 AM on 28 May, 2013

s_gordon_b @220, you claim that categories 2 and 3 do not support the consensus because:

"Two and 3, by definition, lacked the scope to indicate one way or another whether they support the consensus. Basically, just as most of all of the abstracts that were rated lacked the scope to comment at all on causation; 2 and 3 lacked the scope to comment on the consensus quantification of causation."

First, whether or not the abstracts lack sufficient information to categorize them is irrelevant to the meaning of "endorse AGW". Your argument, if valid, at most shows that categories (2) and (3) should be empty sets.

Seting that argument aside, several cues require us to give "endorse AGW" and "reject AGW" the same meanings where ever they occur in the list of categories. Of these the most important is that if you do not, if you allow "endorse AGW" to mean "endorse the claim that humans have caused most of recent warming" in (1), but "humans have caused at least some part of recent warming" in (2) and (3), then abstracts can logically belong to both categories (2) {or (3)} and category (7) at the same time. Given that the categories are clearly intended to be exclusive, it follows that if "endorse AGW" and "reject AGW" can be interpreted in a way that makes them exclusive it they should be; and that any interpretation that makes them non-exclusive is a misinterpretation. If follows that "endorse AGW" and "reject AGW" must be given the same meaning whereever they occur in the rating system, and that the difference in ratings for endorsements and rejections is a difference not in the level of endorsement (or rejection) but in the clarity of the endorsement or rejection in the abstract.

Several critics of the consensus have bizarrely criticized the paper both on the grounds that both the ratings at different level vary the meaning of "endorse AGW" and that the ratings are inconsistent due to overlap. They do not appear to recognize that by doing so they make their criticism inconsistent. Specifically, they make it clear that they show their criticism to be based on a hostile, out of context interpretation of the ratings and therefore irrelevant.

Leaving that aside, consider how you would rate the following title and abstract:

"On Regional Labor Productivity
Global climate change will increase outdoor and indoor heat loads, and may impair health and productivity for millions of working people. This study applies physiological evidence about effects of heat, climate guidelines for safe work environments, climate modelling and global distributions of working populations, to estimate the impact of two climate scenarios on future labour productivity. In most regions, climate change will decrease labour productivity, under the simple assumption of no specific adaptation. By the 2080s, the greatest absolute losses of population based labour work ability as compared with a situation of no heat impact (11-27%) are seen under the A2 scenario in South-East Asia, Andean and Central America, and the Caribbean. Climate change will significantly impact on labour productivity unless farmers, self-employed and employers invest in adaptive measures. Workers may need to work longer hours to achieve the same output and there will be economic costs of occupational health interventions against heat exposures."

How would you rate it?

It certainly does not ascribe a specific portion of recent warming to anthropogenic factors, so according to your argument it should be rated as neutral (4) at best. It was actually rated as implicitly endorsing AGW (3)*, a rating I agree with because:

1) It explicitly indicates, "Global climate change will increase outdoor and indoor heat loads" (my emphasis), something we have no reason to believe if anthropogenic factors are not the main driver of recent and near future temperature changes.

2) It implicitly endorses the IPCC A2 scenario as a plausible scenario of future temperature evolution; thereby implicitly endorsing the causal connection between greenhouse gases and temperature rise shown in that scenario including the forcing history and relationship to temperature in recent times. That forcing history, of course, shows anthropogenic factors as the cause of greater than 50% of recent warming.

I think the suposition that categories (2) and (3) cannot endorse anthropogenic factors as causing >50% of recent warming is simply wrongheaded, as shown by the example above. Of course any proposition that can be stated explicitly with quantification can also be stated explicitly without quantification by the use of such terms as "most of" (as in "most of recent warming is due to anthropogenic factors") or "dominant" (as in "the dominant cause of recent warming has been anthropegenic factors"). Further, anything that can be stated explicitly can be stated implicitly by leaving part of the affirmation to background information.

In the end, your objection comes down to the claim that it is easier to make mistakes about categories (2) and (3) than category (1). As the endorsement becomes less explicit and precise, it becomes easier to mistake endorsement for a neutral paper, and vise versa. That, at least, is true. Given the comparison between abstract rated and self rated papers, however, the mistakes have overwelmingly been conservative so the papers conclusions stand.

*One of the author's of the paper has rated it as neutral (4), but in ongoing comments he has shown that he does not understand the rating system by indicating that he thinks there is a "luke warm" category (which is clearly a mistake), and implicitly endorsed a claim by a well known "skeptic" that the consensus position is that "... almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission", which is absurd given the actual statements from the IPCC. It follows that the author (Richard Tol) is so confused about what is being endorsed and the rating system that his self ratings are irrelevant. I discuss his claims further on my blog.

It's not bad

Mark Bahner at 11:38 AM on 23 April, 2013

Mark @344 - first off, almost all of the estimates in the Tol paper you reference are from the most conservative economists doing climate research (Nordhaus, Tol, Mendelsohn, etc.),

Richard Tol is a conservative? That might be news to him! But OK...what do the "non-conservative" ("liberal?") economists say?

Despite these underestimates, the paper still concludes that the net impact on GDP at 2.5°C will be negative, and we're already committed to about 1.5°C warming and still rising fast. So I'm not really sure what your point is.
My point is that global surface temperature is rising by about 0.15 degrees Celsius per decade. So 2.5 degrees Celsius isn't likely to happen even in this century.
In fact, per that paper, 1 degree Celsius warming from the present value was the peak of the positive effect on GDP. At 0.15 degrees Celsius per decade, that's more than 60 years in the future.

Lukewarmerism, a.k.a. Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence

shoyemore at 18:57 PM on 12 February, 2013

Andy Skuce @6

You will find Steve Mosher's definition of Lukewarmerism in the comments to this post - reasonably early on.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/01/encouraging-admission-of-lower-climate-sensitivity-by-a-hockey-team-scientist/#comment-1214225

I am still at a loss to define "Lukewarmers" - there seems to be agreement on teh fundamentals of the science, but a difference in the response. Some, like Richard Tol and Pielke Jnr, just seem to take a different tone - Tol for example is on the "academic board" of the science-denying Global Warming Policy Foundation, but supports a carbon price for all the right reasons. Others (Judith Curry) desire to be "bridge builders", but turn out to be anything but. My own suspicion is that they just get a kick out of running with the foxes and hunting with the hounds at the same time.

Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus

vrooomie at 23:13 PM on 30 October, 2012

danielbacon@13, Anthony watts has kindly compiled a list, which should go a ways towards adressing your requests.

Andrew Montford (Author of The Hockey Stick Illusion)
Richard Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan professor of Meteorology, MIT)
Marc Morano (Climate Depot)
John Coleman (Founder of the Weather Channel, now at KUSI-TV)
Chris Horner (Senior Fellow, Center for Energy and Environment, CEI)
Steve McIntyre (editor of ClimateAudit.org)
Dr. Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph)
John Christy (Alabama State climatologist, co author of UAH dataset)
Joe D’Aleo (WeatherBell)
Joe Bastardi (Weatherbell)
Senator Jim Inhofe
Bob Tisdale (author of Who Turned on The Heat?)
Dr. Ryan Maue (Weatherbell)
Dr. Sebastian Lüning (co-author of Die Kalt Sonne)
Harold Ambler (Author of Don’t Sell Your Coat)
Donna LaFramboise (Author of The Delinquent Teenager)
Pat Michaels (former State climatologist of Virgina, fellow of the Cato institute)
Pete Garcia (Producer of the movie The Boy Who Cried Warming)
Christopher Monckton (SPPI)

*All* have been debunked/addressed here on SkS in the helpful links on the home page.

Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale

Bob Lacatena at 22:16 PM on 13 June, 2012

35, Dikran,

I object to your label of Richard Courtney as a "climatologist". The man has no credentials or accomplishments in the field whatsoever.

Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale

Dikran Marsupial at 17:07 PM on 13 June, 2012

CBDunkerson There have been some climatol0ogists making the claim that the rise in CO2 is natural, including Roy Spencer (as dana pointed out), Tom Segalstad, Richard Courtney, and now Murry Salby. The flaws in their arguments are pretty obvious, which just goes to show that scientists can have blind spots, just like the rest of us.

As I said, the difference between true skepticism and stubborn bias is the willingness to investigate, rather than to simply question (questioning is only of value if you are interested in the answer).

Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money

Peter Lang at 09:23 AM on 1 June, 2012

dana1981 - my apologies; my second link should have pointed readers to:
the two comments on 4 May. Below is an expanded version.

Benefit to cost ratio of the Australian CO2 pricing scheme to 2050

In an interesting exchange between Roger W. Cohen, William Happer and Richard Lindzen, and reply by William D. Nordhaus on “The New York Review of Books” here Professor William Nordhaus (hereafter WN) said:

“The final part of the response of CHL comes back to the economics of climate change and public policy. They make two major points: that the difference between acting now and doing nothing for fifty years is “insignificant economically or climatologically,” and that the policy questions are dominated by major uncertainties.

Is the difference between acting now and waiting fifty years indeed “insignificant economically”? Given the importance attached to this question, I recalculated this figure using the latest published model. When put in 2012 prices, the loss is calculated as $3.5 trillion, and the spreadsheet is available on the Web for those who would like to check the calculations themselves. If, indeed, the climate skeptics think this is an insignificant number, they should not object to spending much smaller sums for slowing climate change starting now.”

Particularly note this bit:

When put in 2012 prices, the loss is calculated as $3.5 trillion, …. If, indeed, the climate skeptics think this is an insignificant number, they should not object to spending much smaller sums for slowing climate change starting now.

I am surprised that WN says the $3.5 trillion is a significant number, given that it is cumulative to 2050 and is for the whole world. I am also surprised that WN says skeptics “should not object to spending much smaller sums for slowing climate change starting now.” I consider the Australian situation and calculate the costs to achieve the Australian share of the $3.5 trillion reduction in climate damages would be around nine times greater than Australia’s share of the estimated $3.5 trillion saving. Here is how I did my calculations.

I converted the estimated $3.5 trillion world damages avoided to the Australian proportion on the basis of Australia’s share of world GDP, i.e. 1.17%. So Australia’s share of damages avoided is 1.17% x $3.5 trillion = $41 billion. That is the cumulative damages avoided by Australia to 2050. It assumes an optimal CO2 price, the whole world implements the CO2 price in unison, and an economically efficient system is implemented across the whole world. It also assumes Australia’s share of world GDP remains constant.

The Australian Treasury estimated the loss of GDP that our legislated CO2 tax and ETS will cause. [ However, it seems they may have underestimated because they, apparently, have not estimated the compliance cost]. The cumulative loss of GDP to 2050 is $1,345 billion (undiscounted) (Chart 5:13), or $390 billion discounted at 4.34%, which I believe is the discount rate that is the default in RICE (2012) and gives the value of $3.5 trillion quoted by WN.

If my calculations are correct, the benefit, to Australia, of the optimum CO2 tax rate (if the world implements an economically efficient CO2 pricing scheme in unison) would be $41 billion and the cost (reduced GDP) would be $390 billion. Therefore, the benefit to cost ratio is 0.11. [benefit/cost should be greater than 1 for the policy to be justified] .

Therefore, I do not understand WN’s statement that “[sceptics] should not object to spending much smaller sums for slowing climate change starting now.” My calculations suggest we would spend nine times greater sums, not smaller sums, to achieve the benefits estimated by WN.

Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich

Justin at 11:13 AM on 27 May, 2012

Is he being serious? Is Richard Alley asking us to believe in stuff because the Pentagon says its true? The Pentagon? Since when has the Pentagon or any other military organisations in the world, given us the truth? Have he forgotten about Iraq's WMD?

How can anyone write a book or a blog based on this type of infantile story-telling? A lot of people believe in UFOs, including the US military. It doesn't mean it has any sound basis in science.

We deniers will continue to dismiss the claims put forward by people like Richard Alley because there is something very child-like about the way Climate Scientists believe almost anything they are told - so longs as it's scary enough!

Lindzen's London Illusions

MA Rodger at 03:13 AM on 14 March, 2012

jzk @68
You could have warned me about the aweful music at the start of the second clip!

Listening to the actual seminar (links @67), I can add to the comment @66.
P13-14 uses graphs that stop in 1984 likely because as Lindzen says "No one's done this (analysis) in 20 years." Maybe he should have asked why nobody has.
P35-36 He makes no mention of presenting a shuffled-up series of years. He perhaps mutters "decadal" as the final 4 are shown. There is no mention of winter trends or lack of trends, just "huge fluctuations." He says "And they're kinda random," (Ah ha, but is he referring to the fluctuations or the presented graphs?) However his main point is that there is physics at work here in the Arctic "...which is completely lost when you take annual mean temperatures." He is here entirely dismissive of any Arctic trend being anything to do with AGW, thus the throw-in 1922 report.
I would add for jzk's benefit - the audience is never appraised that they are not being shown a time sequence of graphs while 'lack of summer trend' & an all-random fluctuating winter is proposed. That is plain sneeky.
P15 was introduced with the words "But here's something that'll give you a little perspective on it." and after explaining the graph "Put in perspective of you regular experience."
Perhaps most telling is a message from his 'take-away' from this section. "Say at least, so far, I mean if some day I see there are changes 20 times what I've seen so far, that would be certainly remarkable. But nothing so far looks that way." This refers to the global average temperature fluctuations so 20 times 0.5-0.7 deg C = 10 - 14 deg C!!!!

Richard Lindzen - an alleged climatologist who doubts that anything short of 'Snowball Earth' or a 'Steam-Soaked Sphere' is worthy of remark.

(Fahrenheit) 451 ppm

Tom Curtis at 17:57 PM on 15 December, 2011

skept.fr @93, it is no more a democratic right to decide that 350 ppmv, or 450 ppmv or whatever target is ideal than it is a democratic right to decide that pi should equal 3. What is a limited democratic right is the decision to accept a certain level of harm. Having done so, it then is a matter of science as to what temperature increase (if any) will result in that level of harm, and what CO2 concentration will result in that temperature increase.

As to what is an acceptable level of harm, here is the basic data:

Note that the increase in temperature is from 1990 levels. From a < a href="http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/simcap/publications/Hare_submitted_impacts.pdf">more detailed study we learn that:

"The number of people living in water stressed countries, defined as those using more than 20% of their available resources, and is expected to
increase substantially over the next decades
irrespective of climate change. Particularly in the
next few decades population and other pressures
are likely to outweigh the effects of climate change,
although some regions may be badly affected during this period. In the longer term, however, climate change becomes much more important. Exacerbating factors such as the link between land degradation, climate change and water availability are in general not yet accounted for in the global assessments.

...

Over 2 C warming appears to involve a major threshold increase in risk. One study shows risk increasing for close to 600 million people at 1.5 C to 2.4-3.1 billion at around 2.5 C. This is driven by the water demand of mega-cities in India and China in their model. In this study the level of risk begins to saturate in the range of 3.1-3.5 billion additional persons at risk at 2.5-3 C warming [42, 48]."

Now, you may think it is OK to democratically decide that it is better that 3 billion people go without adequate water than that they lose 3% of their income, but as the people being so democratic are not among those risking the loss of water, I don't think so. Hence a limited democratic right.

The key point here, however, is that there are many scientific studies which show that the negative impacts of climate change rise sharply above 2 degrees C. You showed in your sarcastic sentence, and again in your comment above that you are unfamiliar with that literature. It you where not, your comment about a target only set as policy and by politicians would be actively deceptive.

You critique Hansen and co-authors for not being economists, and it is true that they do have that virtue. An economist is, after all, a person who "knows the price of everything and the value of nothing", a fact shown by the repeated failure of the cost benefit analyses you are so fond of to include the costs of the loss of ecosystems.

However, Hansen et al did not just pull a target out of their hat. Rather, they built on the work of Danny Harvey who showed that:

"The allowable radiative forcing ratio depends on the probability of significant harm that is tolerated, and can be translated into allowable
CO2 concentrations given some assumption concerning the future change in total non-CO2 GHG radiative forcing. If future non-CO2 GHG forcing is reduced to half of the present non-CO2 GHG forcing, then the allowable CO2
concentration is 290–430 ppmv for a 10% tolerance (depending on the chosen pdfs) and 300–500 ppmv for a 25% risk tolerance (assuming a pre-industrial CO2
concentration of 280 ppmv). For future non-CO2 GHG
forcing frozen at the present value, and for a 10% risk threshold, the allowable CO2 concentration is 257–384 ppmv. The implications of these results are that (1) emissions of GHGs need to be reduced as quickly as possible, not in order to comply with the UNFCCC,
but in order to minimize the extent and duration of non-compliance; (2) we do not have the luxury of trading off reductions in emissions of non-CO2 GHGs against smaller reductions in CO2 emissions, and (3) preparations should begin soon for the creation of negative CO2 emissions through the sequestration of biomass carbon."

Here a 10% risk threshold represents (conservatively estimated) "... allowing for a risk of death to individuals that is 100- to 1000-fold greater than the one-in-one-million threshold adopted by the US EPA and NRC." A 25% risk, ie, the 450 ppmv threshold, represents a risk of death from global warming that may be as high as 1 in 400. Not adverse impacts, mind, but death.

As indicated before, these studies consistently show adverse impacts across a range of measures rise sharply above 2 degrees C. Of course, there is a caveat here. The studies may be in error and the sharp rise in negative impacts may follow 3 degrees C, or 1 degree C. But taking a central estimate of a 2 degree C threshold, and assuming significant encroachment beyond that threshold is at least as bad as the upper range for 2 degrees, then pushing global temperatures to 2.5 oe 3 degrees C will only be 1 tenth as bad as the 1985 Ethiopian famine (death rate of 1 in 40). Of course, that 1 tenth as bad averaged across the entire globe, and will be much worse in particular places and at particular times.

So, my "democratic" right is to decide between a 3% loss of my income, or an additional 1 in 400 chance of premature death for my grandchildren and all their contemporaries. Of course, the cost benefit analyses have this covered, and handle it very elegantly. They notice that most of those deaths will be in the third world, and that a third world life is not worth as much as a first world life - so the benefit of saving those future lives (another important factor in making the lives less important) does not weigh much against the cost of a loss of 3% of my income (which may mean I need to go a week without pizza). (Please note, Richard Tol is on record as defending exactly that analysis for his cost benefit analysis, which he is also on record as saying Lomborg distorted by using a different and prejudicial discount rate for when compared to other alternative for meeting the worlds needs. I'm not sure Tol is on record about Pizza, though.)

Returning to Hansen, what he has argued is that the previous work on thresholds have used only the Charney sensitivity, and that a target set on that basis will result in the long term in significantly higher temperatures due to the long term feedbacks.

Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?

John Hartz at 07:38 AM on 20 November, 2011

THE PAST MONTH hasn’t been good for climate-change skeptics. At a congressional hearing Monday, Richard Muller, a former global-warming skeptic at the University of California, Berkeley, told lawmakers that, after a two-year review of historical world temperature data, he has verified the scientific consensus that the earth is warming — by about 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years. This is not surprising; as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last year, the warming of the planet, detected in multiple, independent lines of evidence, is “unequivocal.”

Source: “A bad month for climate-change skeptics” Washington Post Editorial Board. Nov 18, 2011

To access this editorial in its entirety, click here.

Geologists and climate change denial

Tor B at 00:03 AM on 10 June, 2011

Geologists (and others) should watch Richard Alley’s 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) lecture on CO2 and climate change over geologic time.

As a student of hard rock geology (BS & MS) in the 70s and early 80s, I learned virtually nothing about paleoclimatology, even as paleoecology was the only part of paleontology that interested me. My relevant climate science education really started a couple of years ago when I intentionally read about how and why CO2 is a greenhouse gas, really basic physical chemistry, I’m embarrassed to admit. I wanted to understand why “some people” were saying “AGW”.

A significant event in Phanerozoic time that may have caused climate to change as rapidly as it is now changing is when the Siberian traps poured out at the end of the Permian. Try Stephen E. Grasby, et. al.’s hypothesis on Catastrophic dispersion of coal fly ash into oceans during the latest Permian extinction or an article based on it titled Massive volcanic eruptions + coal fires = the Great Dying.

Christy Crock #6: Climate Sensitivity

dana1981 at 01:16 AM on 9 June, 2011

SoundOff #22 - yes you're right, the IPCC equilibrium sensitivity is the same as Hansen's fast feedback sensitivity. My mistake. We may take your suggestion and do a post clarifying these different concepts.

Dikran #23 - discounting makes some sense from an economic perspective, but it's a tricky question. There's quite a bit of debate regarding what the discount rate should be. The relatively few 'skeptic' economists (i.e. Richard Tol) think the discount rate should be incredibly high, which thus makes reducing GHG emissions now potentially more expensive than adapting to climate change in the future.

Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming

Bud at 02:12 AM on 12 May, 2011

This letter and list is not on your site. Why?

More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. (Translated letter copied below) The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists. The letter urged Chancellor Merkel to "strongly reconsider" her position on global warming and requested a "convening of an impartial panel" that is "free of ideology" to counter the UN IPCC and review the latest climate science developments.

Full Text of Translated Letter By 61 German Scientists:

Open Letter - Climate Change
Bundeskanzleramt
Frau Bundeskanzerlin Dr. Angela Merkel
Willy-Brandt-Strabe 1
10557 Berlin

#

Vizerprasident
Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg
14476 Grob Glienicke
Richard-Wagner-Str. 5a

Grob Glienicke 26.07.09

To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany

When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.

Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.

A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 - more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.

More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum.

In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.

The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world's best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed - under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions.

Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.

Respectfully yours,

Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE

Diplom-Geologe

Universität. - GH - Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)

#

Dr. Holger Thuß

EIKE President

European Institute for Climate and Energy

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

Preference for Mild Curry

Tom Curtis at 14:32 PM on 28 February, 2011

Stephen Leahy @15, a team headed by Richard Müller (see 13 above) and with Judith Curry as the only climatologist, in a research project partially funded by the Koch brothers? I can hardly wait.

Meet The Denominator

muoncounter at 05:41 AM on 15 February, 2011

#206: "are you denying the existence of peer-reviewed social science journals?"

Surely you don't claim E & E is a 'social science' journal? If so, how is it also a climate science journal? Or is this more PT doublespeak?

Example (note an actual item from your 'list', not a made up illustration to make a point):

Biased Policy Advice from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 929-936, December 2007) Richard S.J. Tol

Interested readers (if there are any left) looking for a laugh should read PT's rebuttal to this post, in which he appears to be shooting a Terminator. Real classy choice of images there, shooting those we disagree with.

Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers ice loss: an overview

citizenschallenge at 11:18 AM on 17 December, 2010

Thank you Daniel for that excellent detailed understandable description of the state of the knowledge regarding Greenland and glacial dynamics.

John Cook and his gang that could shoot straight ! - you folks are really making a difference, at least in the availability of focused science information for the layperson, I sure do appreciate it.
~ ~ ~
I have a question - Can someone address the latest thing reverberating around the AGWHoaxer's Echo-chamber:

Science 23 January 2009:
Vol. 323. no. 5913, p. 458
FALL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION:
Galloping Glaciers of Greenland Have Reined Themselves In
Richard A. Kerr

Ice loss in Greenland has had some climatologists speculating that global warming might have brought on a scary new regime of wildly heightened ice loss and an ever-faster rise in sea level. But glaciologists reported at the American Geophysical Union meeting that Greenland ice’s Armageddon has come to an end."
~ ~ ~

I cannot find any critique on Kerr's study, any information would be appreciated.
peter m

It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation

WHATDOWEKNOW at 08:16 AM on 25 November, 2010

I stand corrected on the two other data-sets with 2006 as the warmest year on record. On the other hand, why aren't these 3 data-sets pinpointing the same year? Nevertheless, the solar torque cycle and PDO coincide beyond a shadow of a doubt, as well as the ENSO cycle. The "dude" (calling researches that present other valid arguments "dudes" and not climatologists: those that suite your thinking... is nothing but self-justification: now go and look that up!) forecast every single la nina and el nino event correct to the month when each peaked. Using his work, this can be done years in advance. The developing la nina was already in the books... sorry but just a hard fact!

It is also beyond a shadow of a doubt that the sun influences the oceans and atmosphere and not the other way around.

It is also beyond a shadow of a doubt that peak el ninos and la ninas have increased and decreased respectively with the exact same and absolutely linear rate; as I have shown, paralleling the PDO cycle.

It is also beyond a shadow of a doubt that ENSO events influence global temperatures. Considering that the ENSO cylce and PDO cycle's events coincide, as I clearly pointed out in my earlier comments, PDO therefore also influences global atmospheric temperatures.

It is also beyond a shadow of a doubt that global (atmospheric) temperatures have increased since the 1970s but that since (1998 or 2006 as you may will) this increase has at least halted. The most important question is thus: what has caused this increase and what has caused the stabilizing to declining trend in the last several years?

Given the above, PDO, ENSO and solar (torque) cycles need to be taken into account when trying to answer these questions. Once taken into account, the impact of ever increasing CO2 levels may maybe not be as dramatic as some make/may believe, which in it self is nothing wrong with.

Finally, what makes you believe I am not a professional? Are you? And in science it is absolutely normal to have utterly different opinions about the same research topic! That's what drives science and our understanding forward. If everybody in the room agrees and all nod there heads; now that's when I, as a scientist, get scared, really scared. But then again self-justification is all about: don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind. Or as Lord Molson said it best: I will look at any additional evidence to confirm the opinion to which I have already come.

Better yet, Richard Feyman puts it like this: "It doesn't matter how beautiful the guess is, or how smart the guesser is, or how famous the guesser is; if the experiment disagrees with the guess, then the guess is wrong. That's all there is." And that of course goes for the skeptics as well as the non-skeptics!

How Jo Nova doesn't get the CO2 lag

Chris Colose at 15:40 PM on 21 June, 2010

David, the current mainstream paradigm is that this is what happened in Venus' early history. This is the only planet is our solar system that experienced such a fate, although presumably there are many other planets outside our solar system which can support an atmosphere and receive enough solar radiation for this to be relevant.

On Mars, almost the opposite occurred. The climate evolution of Mars is a tug of war between the sun gradually brightening over geologic time, and the loss of its atmosphere. Geologic evidence for the presence of water suggests that the stronger greenhouse effect temporarily won out in its distant past (although quantifying the levels of CO2 or other greenhouse gases needed to get ancient Mars above freezing is a long-standing issue in comparative planetology and not yet possible with current spectral database information). However, the atmosphere has slowly faded away, and today is only a very small fraction of Earth's atmospheric mass. Mars will never again have any significant atmosphere, and thus cannot generate any meaningful greenhouse effect even if what little of it remains is mostly CO2...The planet is now extremely cold, so in no sense can it be said to have experienced a runaway greenhouse. All the water is frozen beneath the Martian sand. It will take a long time for the sun to keep brightening for Martian temperatures to approach Earth-like values.

For Earth, the range of temperature and CO2 feedback variation that we have experienced in the past are rather small from the perspective of planetary climate. Sure they can get you in and out of an ice age (even the PETM which was one of the best examples of a hellish hothouse and abrupt GHG-induced warming was nothing compared to the temperatures observed on Venus or Mercury, and that cooled down relatively rapidly); however there's a strong converging limit as to how much CO2 feedback you're going to get out of the oceans just by raising the temperature. One interesting discussion on this is here. The domain of interest when discussing the CO2 feedback to warming over the glacial-interglacial cycles should not be taken too far outside the bounds of glacial-interglacial cycles, as things are going to change over different timescales and ranges of temperature. It isn't as though temperature and CO2 are going to keep rising forever, and clearly the ice-albedo feedback diminishes with time and goes to zero when there is no more ice. Just as when you drop a bouncing ball to the ground and let it go, eventually the height of each successive bounce decreases with time. Prior to the point when it stops bouncing completely, you get to the point where it just bounces a millimeter or so up and down for a little while and you can still calculate a number for the total distance that ball went up and down over the course of its journey. This is how feedback (radiative or carbon-based) tend to work on Earth, and is quantified in a manner similar to Jim Eager's post in #10. If you define a feedback factor "f" which diminishes with time (so f < 1) then an example converging series looks like 1 + f + (f^2)+(f^3)...(f^n). Eventually you can add up an infinite number of numbers and still converge to a real finite number (!) since f raised to the power of n becomes exceedingly small when f is between zero and one, and n becomes large.

By the way, if you get an hour or so to sit and watch an excellent climate talk on CO2's role over geologic time, you should definitely watch Richard Alley's a href="http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml">presentation presentation at the recent AGU meeting. It is very interesting and informative.

The human fingerprint in global warming

yocta at 13:07 PM on 29 March, 2010

Interestingly enough Richard Alley by his own admission is not a climatologist but rather an Earth Scientist/Geologist like Bob

The human fingerprint in global warming

Tom Dayton at 12:07 PM on 29 March, 2010

Bob Close, you asked how CO2 can be the main driver of global warming, when its direct effect is smaller than the effect of water vapor. Here is the thread where that is explained: Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas.

CO2 is the driver of other mechanisms that also increase temperature. Water vapor increase is one of those. Those same positive feedbacks would be driven by an increase in the Sun's radiance, if that were happening now. (But it's not; if anything, radiance has been decreasing since at least the 1970s and maybe as far back as the 1950s.)

See climatologist Richard Alley's talk at the 2009 American Geophysical Union conference, "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History."

What CO2 level would cause the Greenland ice sheet to collapse?

billkerr at 14:26 PM on 23 March, 2010

hi john,

Thanks for all the work you have put into this great blog.

I read Hansen's book, it sounds like you have too. The paleoclimate information and ice and ocean inertia issues he raises worry me as well. From memory I think Hansen said it bordered on insanity to consider adaptation to significant sea level rise. Nevertheless, I looked further and found that Richard Tol et al have actually modelled an adaptation scenario for the complete collapse of the West Antarctic sheet:
Global Estimates Of The Impact Of A Collapse Of The West Antarctic Ice Sheet: An Application Of Fund

I expect you and your readers will be interested in the Tol et al study. I want to think about this a bit or probably a lot more before attempting to pass judgment. After all the consequences of reducing or stabilising CO2 are very significant as well especially since no governments have realistic energy plans for the future as currently being discussed on Barry Brook's blog, Brave New Climate

Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked

HumanityRules at 13:24 PM on 20 March, 2010

21.John Russell at 10:02 AM on 20 March, 2010

I'm not sure of the absolute logic of poster #12 on Richard Black's blog but it does highlight something I'd started to notice about that blog. Last year the blog focussed almost completely on climate change. This year it's shifted to a mix of biodiversity/enviroment and climate. The climate posts get maybe 10x more posts than the biodiversity posts. This suggests a far greater interest in climate than environment at least among his readers. Although it's hard to identify cause and effect.

On the contradiction list. The last paragraph stole my thunder. It's is completely unscientific to set up the two oppositional camps (deniers and warmers) and then highlight the contradictions within one camp. Science is a dynamic ever changing process. Contradiction is the norm, seeking to use all powers to remove it (apart from empirical evidence) srikes me as dogma. It's the political and moral imperative that seeks to setup this strong delineation of ideas.

Having said that there's no opportunity to show contradictions in the pro-warmer camp.

Climate's changed before

Quietman at 06:54 AM on 3 March, 2009

I did not copy the link but I did keep the article:

With surprising and mysterious regularity, life on Earth has flourished and vanished in cycles of mass extinction every 62 million years, say two UC Berkeley scientists who discovered the pattern after a painstaking computer study of fossil records going back for more than 500 million years. Their findings are certain to generate a renewed burst of speculation among scientists who study the history and evolution of life. Each period of abundant life and each mass extinction has itself covered at least a few million years — and the trend of biodiversity has been rising steadily ever since the last mass extinction, when dinosaurs and millions of other life forms went extinct about 65 million years ago.

The Berkeley researchers are physicists, not biologists or geologists or paleontologists, but they have analyzed the most exhaustive compendium of fossil records that exists — data that cover the first and last known appearances of no fewer than 36,380 separate marine genera, including millions of species that once thrived in the world’s seas, later virtually disappeared, and in many cases returned. Richard Muller and his graduate student, Robert Rohde, are publishing a report on their exhaustive study in the journal Nature today, and in interviews this week, the two men said they have been working on the surprising evidence for about four years. “We’ve tried everything we can think of to find an explanation for these weird cycles of biodiversity and extinction,” Muller said, “and so far, we’ve failed.” But the cycles are so clear that the evidence “simply jumps out of the data,” said James Kirchner, a professor of earth and planetary sciences on the Berkeley campus who was not involved in the research but who has written a commentary on the report that is also appearing in Nature today. “Their discovery is exciting, it’s unexpected and it’s unexplained,” Kirchner said. And it is certain, he added, to send other scientists in many disciplines seeking explanations for the strange cycles. “Everyone and his brother will be proposing an explanation — and eventually, at least one or two will turn out to be right while all the others will be wrong.”

Muller and Rohde conceded that they have puzzled through every conceivable phenomenon in nature in search of an explanation: “We’ve had to think about solar system dynamics, about the causes of comet showers, about how the galaxy works, and how volcanoes work, but nothing explains what we’ve discovered,” Muller said. The evidence of strange extinction cycles that first drew Rohde’s attention emerged from an elaborate computer database he developed from the largest compendium of fossil data ever created. It was a 560-page list of marine organisms developed 14 years ago by the late J. John Sepkoski Jr., a famed paleobiologist at the University of Chicago who died at the age of 50 nearly five years ago. Sepkoski himself had suggested that marine life appeared to have its ups and downs in cycles every 26 million years, but to Rohde and Muller, the longer cycle is strikingly more evident, although they have also seen the suggestion of even longer cycles that seem to recur every 140 million years. Sepkoski’s fossil record of marine life extends back for 540 million years to the time of the great “Cambrian Explosion,” when almost all the ancestral forms of multicellular life emerged, and Muller and Rohde built on it for their computer version. Muller has long been known as an unconventional and imaginative physicist on the Berkeley campus and at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. It was he, for example, who suggested more than 20 years ago that an undiscovered faraway dwarf star — which he named “Nemesis” — was orbiting the sun and might have steered a huge asteroid into the collision with Earth that drove the dinosaurs to extinction. “I’ve given up on Nemesis,” Muller said this week, “but then I thought there might be two stars somewhere out there, but I’ve given them both up now.” He and Rohde have considered many other possible causes for the 62- million-year cycles, they said. Perhaps, they suggested, there’s an unknown “Planet X” somewhere far out beyond the solar system that’s disturbing the comets in the distant region called the Oort Cloud — where they exist by the millions — to the point that they shower the Earth and cause extinctions in regular cycles. Daniel Whitmire and John Matese of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette proposed that idea as a cause of major comet showers in 1985, but no one except UFO believers has ever discovered a sign of it. Or perhaps there’s some kind of “natural timetable” deep inside the Earth that triggers cycles of massive volcanism, Rohde has thought. There’s even a bit of evidence: A huge slab of volcanic basalt known as the Deccan Traps in India has been dated to 65 million years ago — just when the dinosaurs died, he noted. And the similar basaltic Siberian Traps were formed by volcanism about 250 million years ago, at the end of the Permian period, when the greatest of all mass extinctions drove more than 70 percent of all the world’s marine life to death, Rohde said.

The two scientists proposed more far-out ideas in their report in Nature, but only to indicate the possibilities they considered. Muller’s favorite explanation, he said informally, is that the solar system passes through an exceptionally massive arm of our own spiral Milky Way galaxy every 62 million years, and that that increase in galactic gravity might set off a hugely destructive comet shower that would drive cycles of mass extinction on Earth. Rohde, however, prefers periodic surges of volcanism on Earth as the least implausible explanation for the cycles, he said — although it’s only a tentative one, he conceded. Said Muller: “We’re getting frustrated and we need help. All I can say is that we’re confident the cycles exist, and I cannot come up with any possible explanation that won’t turn out to be fascinating. There’s something going on in the fossil record, and we just don’t know what it is.”

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?

Patrick 027 at 14:27 PM on 9 November, 2008

I think one necessary condition for both barotropic and baroclinic instability is that the waves/eddies have to be moving such that there is at least one level (in the horizontal or in the vertical, respectively) - a critical level - at which the basic state wind is moving with the instability phase speed.

---

waves can grow, propagate, be emitted by a disturbance, reflect, refract, absorb, over-reflect (I think that's analogous to stimulated emission of radiation), and also, they can break. I think breaking occurs when material lines reconnect (which requires mixing) *?*. Notice that for adiabatic motion, contours of IPV on an isentropic surface are material lines on that surface. They are also isentropes on an IPV surface, and those are also material lines on an IPV surface. Reconnection of these contours can result in cut-off eddies (like a cut-off low); this can occur from diabatic processes which can produce and destroy IPV.

Waves can also interact and produce waves in other parts of the spectrum or produce disturbance that radiate other waves, etc...

----

On wave-mean interaction: Earlier I discussed interaction between barotropic Rossby waves and variations in the basic state wind, such as westerly jets and relative minimums in the westerlies (or, alternatively, easterly jets).

It wasn't clear to me what actually happens, but here's another way of looking at it:

The anomaly wind field has u' and v'. If the anomaly consists of a wave train of symmetric cyclones and anticyclones, which are superimposed on some basic state, then the average u'v' is zero. But suppose the basic state is a westerly jet. The total state may then be a meandering westerly jet (with troughs and ridges). But, if the advection is stronger than differential Rossby wave propagation (?), the basic state will distort the anomalies; it tends to tilt the waves- the troughs and ridges tilt from SW to NE to the south of the jet and from the NW to the SE to the north. This tilt cause a nonzero average u'v', which is positive to the south and negative to the north, which means that eddy zonal momentum is being transported by eddy meridional momentum and the transport converges toward the jet, so that zonal momentum is being added to the jet. Whether this means the jet accelerates or the jet widens (or if the jet narrows?), I'm not clear. Notice that (if the jet is accelerating - I think it does, actually) this also increases cyclonic RV to the north and anticyclonic RV to the south of the jet; there is a relationship between eddy momentum convergence and eddy vorticity flux; there is also a relationship between EP flux convergence and eddy IPV flux (EP flux is a vector with vertical component determined by eddy temperature flux v'T' and meridional component determined by eddy momentum flux u'v'; increasing v'T' with height increases stability to the north; decreasing u'v' to the north is proportional to a northward flux of eddy cyclonic RV: v'RV').

There are mechanisms by which jets may sharpen themselves. (see links from http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/people/mem/ )

Also, mixing of IPV or PV in general can/may lead to a 'PV staircase' because mixing between two contours of PV and mixing between two other contours of PV, in reducing the PV gradient in two regions, must then increase the gradient in between such regions. This has consequences for jets. A paper on this - "Multiple jets as PV staircases: the Phillips effect and the resilience of eddy-transport barriers" - is also linked from the above website. It is analogous (according to that paper) to mixing of potential density or temperature in a vertically stratified fluid - mixing can give rise to regions with even sharper density contrasts (I think it's called the Phillips effect). Perhaps not quite the same thing (because it's not multiple layers) but the mixing of the upper ocean, by cooling the surface and warming the bottom of the mixed layer, produces a thermocline - a sharper temperature gradient - at the base of the layer. The strong stratification in the thermocline makes it harder to mix additional water from below into the upper layer (it is also harder to vertically mix the air across an inversion, such as when the air near the surface cools at night - the vertical wind shear can cause mixing by way of a shear instability (Kelvin Helmholtz instability, I think) (which I think is analogous the barotropic instability in horizontal shear), but the stronger the stratification, the stronger the wind shear has to be before such mixing can commence (see also "Richardson number"); I only started reading that PV-staircase paper but I think it was a point of the PV-staircase concept that the sharpened PV gradients become an impediment to further horizontal mixing). In the lower atmosphere, mixing of the boundary layer (layer nearest the surface, unless one differentiates between that and a much thinner 'surface layer') can be driven both by kinetic energy input from wind shear-related instability, and by thermally-driven convection when heated from below (daytime over land, cold front passing over warm water); the thermally-driven convection also produces kinetic energy and the kinetic energy can be used to mix further upward into stable air above, which can produce a thicker boundary layer capped by a strongly stable layer such as an inversion, which resists further mixing.

AND NOW FOR AN APPLICATION OF WAVE-MEAN INTERACTION:

"Wave-maintained annular modes of climate variability"
"HARTMANN Dennis L."
"Abstract
The leading modes of month-to-month variability in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are examined by comparing a 100-yr run of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory GCM with the NCEP-NCAR reanalyses of observations. The model simulation is a control experiment in which the SSTs are fixed to the climatological annual cycle without any interannual variability. The leading modes contain a strong zonally symmetric or annular component that describes an expansion and contraction of the polar vortex as the midlatitude jet shifts equatorward and poleward. This fluctuation is strongest during the winter months. The structure and amplitude of the simulated modes are very similar to those derived from observations, indicating that these modes arise from the internal dynamics of the atmosphere. Dynamical diagnosis of both observations and model simulation indicates that variations in the zonally symmetric flow associated with the annular modes are forced by eddy fluxes in the free troposphere, while the Coriolis acceleration associated with the mean meridional circulation maintains the surface wind anomalies against friction High-frequency transients contribute most to the total eddy forcing in the Southern Hemisphere. In the Northern Hemisphere, stationary waves provide most of the eddy momentum fluxes, although highfrequency transients also make an important contribution. The behavior of the stationary waves can he partly explained with index of refraction arguments. When the tropospheric westerlies are displaced poleward, Rossby waves are refracted equatorward, inducing poleward momentum fluxes and reinforcing the high-latitude westerlies. Planetary Rossby wave refraction can also explain why the stratospheric polar vortex is stronger when the tropospheric westerlies are displaced poleward. When planetary wave activity is refracted equatorward, it is less likely to propagate into the stratosphere and disturb the polar vortex.
"
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=962252

This is far from the only paper on the subject. I couldn't begin to get into all of it.

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?

chris at 05:43 AM on 20 October, 2008

Re #258 Patrick (in reference to your response to the Monty Python style "what did the Romans ever do to us" request in #151 for predictions "that pan out for a change"):

The predictions of a greatly delayed response of the Antarctic to greenhouse-induced warming and a marked asymmetry of warming between the high Northern and high Southern latitudes, were made in 1981 by Schneider and Thompson, and in more detail by Bryan et al in 1988. Describing these early modelling predictions of a greatly reduced Antarctic warming compared to predicted enhanced warming in the high Northern latitudes, Manabe and Stouffer state [in their recent review: Role of Ocean in Global Warming; J. Meterolog. Soc. Jpn. 85B 385-403.(2007)]:

[“They [Bryan 1988] found that the increase in surface temperature is very small in the Circumpolar Ocean of the Southern Hemisphere in contrast to high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere where the increase is relatively large.”]

In other words the very marked asymmetry between the marked warming of the high Norther latitudes, compared to the very small expected warming in the deep S. hemisphere was predicted at least 20 years ago. I've outlined this in more detail in my post # 66 on this thread.

Some other examples (of quite a large number in addition to your examples) in which climate predictions from calculations and modelling have turned out to be prescient (i.e. reality has subsequently matched the models):

In addition to Hansen's rather good prediction of greenhouse gas warming from models set up and run from the early 1980's it's worth pointing out that already in 1975, Wallace Broecker was calculating (i.e. modelling) the warming expected in the future from continuing increases in greenhouse gas emissions:

In his paper:

Broecker, WS (1975) “Climate Change: Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming? Science 189, 460-463

Broecker says (referring initially to the small N. hemisphere cooling observed in then-recent times):

"...This cooling has, over the last three decades, more than compensated for the warming effect produced by the CO2 released into the atmosphere as a by-product of chemical fuel combustion. By analogy with similar events in the past, the present natural cooling will, however, bottom out during the next decade or so. Once this happens, the CO2 effect will tend to become a significant factor and by the first decade of the next century we may experience global temperatures warmer than any in the last 1000 years….”

Broecker then goes on to describe predictive modelling of anthropogenic CO2-induced warming, taking account known levels of CO2 emissions from the UN and a projection (3% per year) of the increase in emissions, the best estimates from measurements of the emitted CO2 sequestered in the oceans and the terrestrial environment and the known warming properties of atmospheric CO2.

His modelling came up with the following prediction. The Earths temperature in 2000 would be around 0.9 oC warmer than the 1900 baseline temperature. The Earth is around 0.8 oC warmer now than it was at the start of the 20th century. Not a bad prediction. Why was his prediction so good? I expect he was partly lucky since the strengths of the various contributions to climate were not so well known then as now. But, basically he was about right because the effects of atmospheric CO2 in causing warming of the Earth via the greenhouse effect were well known and easily calculated.

Two other related examples of the rather strong predictive power of climate and atmospheric modelling are interesting, since in each case the predictions initially semed like they might not accord well with reality (and in the first case was strongly argued against by at least one prominent scientist)

ONE: Atmospheric greenhouse theory, incorported into climate models predict/ed that as the atmosphere warms in response to raised CO2, so the atmospheric water vapour levels would rise. This prediction was strongly opposed by a very few scientists, most notably Richard Lindzen, who asserted that the troposphere would dry in response to raised CO2 levels providing a negative feedback. In fact the data eventually showed that the presictions from models were correct [see Soden et al (2005); Brogniez H and Pierrehumbert RT (2007); Santer BD et al. (2007); Buehler et al. (2008); Gettelman and Fu (2008)…and so on (citations below].

An example where a major prediction from modeling was contested, but the models were subsequently vindicated by real world measurements.

TWO: Atmospheric greenhouse theory incorporated into climate models predict/ed that the troposphere should warm relative to the surface. Early tropospheric temperature measures seemed to contradict this prediction. However it turned out in time that errors in tropospheric temperature measures were responsible for the discrepancy and by 2006 the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program (CCSP) who investigated this issue stated that there is ‘no significant discrepancy’ between surface and tropospheric warming, consistent with model results (Karl et al., 2006).

However there has still remained a potential discrepancy between model predictions and tropospherical temperature measurements in the tropics. However recent work has again shown that the errors likely lie in the temperature measures (largely radionsides/weather balloons) [see Sherwood (2005); Thorne (2007); McCarthy (2008); Haimburger (2008)], and again it appears that the predictions from the models have turned out to be correct (Santer et al 2008).

B. D. Santer et al. (2008) Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology 28, 1703 – 1722.

-------------------------
Brogniez H and Pierrehumbert RT (2007) Intercomparison of tropical tropospheric humidity in GCMs with AMSU-B water vapor data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, art #L17912

Buehler SA (2008) An upper tropospheric humidity data set from operational satellite microwave data. J. Geophys. Res. 113, art #D14110

Gettelman A and Fu, Q. (2008) Observed and simulated upper-tropospheric water vapor feedback . J. Climate 21, 3282-3289

Santer BD et al. (2007) Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 15248-15253

Soden BJ, et al (2005) The radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening
Science 310, 841-844.
-----------------

S. C. Sherwood et al. (2005) Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming Science 309, 1556 – 1559.

L. Haimberger et al (2008) Toward Elimination of the Warm Bias in Historic Radiosonde Temperature Records—Some New Results from a Comprehensive Intercomparison of Upper-Air Data. J. Climate 21, 4587-4606.

M. P. McCarthy et al. (2008) “Assessing Bias and Uncertainty in the HadAT-Adjusted Radiosonde Climate Record”. J. Climate 21, 817-832.

P. W. Thorne et al. (2007) Tropical vertical temperature trends: A real discrepancy? Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L16702.
----------------

Karl TR, Hassol SJ, Miller CD, Murray WL (eds). 2006. Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center: Asheville, NC; 164.

Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans

Patrick 027 at 12:42 PM on 14 October, 2008

"But in fact the thinned crust is the northern end of Greenland (in the articles linked in this thread) and surrounding Arctic ocean and that is exactly where the largest glacial melt is AND IT IS FROM THE BOTTOM. "

I only read the abstract. It sounds like chris may have read more. Is he incorrect about the article?

"But top down melting would not produce the same results"

It depends on what exactly the results are.

Meltwater could come from the surface, flowing down into the glacier through moulins - this source would explain the seasonality of any meltwater-induced lubrication of the glacier.

(Of course, however the ice is melted or induced to flow, the resulting thinning would lower the ice surface and cause warming of the ice surface that way.)

--

"Ice albedo will remain until all the ice is gone. Soot in the top layers lower the albedo so fresh ice will have a higher albedo if we control the output of soot."

Dark aerosols are/have contributed to arctic warming and melting in that way; that is true. tropospheric ozone has also contributed to Arctic warming and melting. So has CO2, CH4, etc.

However, the highest albedo is from fresh snow. Old snow and ice tends to have a lower albedo. When snow melts and refrezes or otherwise changes to form larger particles, the reflectivity is reduced - light may penetrate deeper before being reflected, giving it greater chance to be absorbed. Aerosols (and rocks), natural or anthropogenic, will be concentrated as the ice volume is reduced. Sea ice will become more transparent and thus darker when it gets thin enough to see the water beneath.

The loss of sea ice will likely have a warming effect (in the winter, at least) on the region, not just where the ice was lost.

--

"suggest that vulcanism is a "contributer" in an earlier article"

Potentially so but only in a few locations, whereas the ice mass loss and general warming are far far far more widespread and general.

"They do not say if it is AGW either."

I think at least some of the articles you referenced did say that, not about some of the specific locations but about much of the other warming.

____________________________________
Entering danger zone?

"Keep in mind that while you and I can speak openly for or against the AGW concept. there are others who need to be politically correct or they will lose their jobs or grant money and therefore skirt the issue."

Scientists and politicians and everyone else are only human. However, if a scientist does work that has errors, and especially if it is a matter of interest to people, I expect some other scientist would want to capitalize on the opportunity to point out those errors. Can scientists be friends with each other? Yes, but that doesn't prevent them from pointing out each other's errors - especially if they don't take it personally. There may be actual examples to back up that point but I'll leave that to others.

What about money and prestige? If there were no 'climate crisis', then there would be less money available to study AGW and climate in general, right? Well, I hardly think there's a Higg's particle crisis (that we know of :) ), and yet we've got a Large Hadron Collider now. Still, though, the argument is plausable. Then again, if there were more controversy than there would need to be more work done to resolve it, so...

Still, though, whereever the bulk of the money and attention are going, there could be some scientists out there who would like to make a big name for themselves by successfully overturning the conventional wisdom of the day. If they are not able to do so, then there might be a reason why. And unless scientists are actually making up the data, the data is what it is, the potential error in that data and all, the theory (logic) is what it is, and any scientist, or student, with sufficient education can ask, does this make sense?

There are people with an interest in overturning the current accepted science of global warming. Some of them have lots and lots and lots of money. Yet, rather than having funded real science on the matter (at least any that would successfully accomplish their goals), they instead lobby the government while launching silly propaganda campaigns about how CO2 'is life' (or that any effort to reduce CO2 emissions will harm the poor (often arguments ironically made by people who would rather not have the government do the poor any special favors, I think), or that free market capitalism will solve everything and any government involvement works against innovation - when in fact a carbon tax or some equivalent, etc, could help spur innovation and may be justified by (market) economic principles) ... Meanwhile, my impression is that, if anything, the IPCC summary for policymakers is watered down in favor of anti-alarmism, rather than hyped in the other direction.

"Then there are those, like one poster at this site, that are environmental fanatics who look upon AGW as a bible thumper looks to the word of God."

I can't help but wonder if this is the result of misunderstanding (not that I would pretend to know how your conversations with others have gone - I don't know). Not that it can't happen - many people don't understand science, regardless of what they have come to believe or accept as true (although the people who do understand science are more likely to accept or lean towards the accepted science or at least one or more promising contenders). But sometimes people who do know stuff just get tired and impatient from explaining and explaining and explaining and explaining and explaining and explaining and explaining and explaining and explaining again, especially when so many turn a deaf ear towards it or come back with accusations of communism, or just keep making the same arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, no matter how well it's been refuted to them (and maybe in some cases, being caught telling other people something totally false about what you told them - this has happened to me).

Then what may happen is that people misread each other, assuming that the other guy is a member of the group of ignorant jerks s/he's become accustomed to dealing with. It may happen in particular when a new face advances an argument that the other person has seen before, perhaps from an actual 'denier/contrarian'. Or to save time, a person might refer to the 'scientific consensus', from which the other person may unfairly conclude that the other is just arguing 'from authority', rather than understanding the significance of such a consensus (ie sure, we can't be 100% sure about much, but there comes a time when we've got to make a decision - what do we put in our science textbooks? What do base public policy on? While there are loose ends still being worked out, relativity and quantum mechanics are scientific consensus. Many details have not been found, but the general picture of biological evolution by natural selection and some other things is scientific consensus. That the Earth is ~ 4.5 billion years old ... etc. PS Relativity didn't overturn Newtonian mechanics entirely (we still use the later for many things), and aside from that, if the argument is made that Einstein successfully overturned a consensus, 1. does that mean we could expect that Einstein will also be shown to be wrong someday, and 2. for every Einstein, how many had an idea that didn't pan out?) Although it is unfair, it is sometimes understandable why a person may make an assumption about someone's attitude to reality.

There is also the time constraint - if a person smells 'silly' in an argument, they may decide (rationally) to not bother with it, hence, dismissing it.

Certainly if I didn't have the time I couldn't have been discussing/arguing with you about the merits of various possibilities. I myself am quite satisfied that 'it' (you know what I mean) is mainly AGW. There are many arguments I won't look into further, because I judge them ahead of time to be wild-goose chases that will lead nowhere - I can do that with some confidence because of the arguments I have looked into that turned out to be just that, empty fluff. Occasionally I will look into such an argument though, just to debunk it - but of course, if I can't debunk it, that will tell me something, won't it? (Either that it may be possible, or that it is beyond my knowledge). Another aspect to this - perhaps an application of Occam's razor - there are so many things that are known, that lead to an expectation of significant CO2 causing significant warming - that Arrhenius (sp?) predicted as much long before CO2 emissions ever rose to such a level - the understanding of how radiation transfer actually opperates has been refined since then, as have the radiative properties of gases, etc, - but not in a way to discredit the basic idea, rather just to refine the theory. Then there is paleoclimatology, the computer models, the observations so far, etc. - they all inform each other, of course, but even taken independently they point in the same general direction. Given all that, some of these alternative explanations - it seems like throwing in extra Rube Goldberg devices and lasers to explain how the toaster works, after you've already seen the nichrome wires glowing red... Now, I may still want to learn about some things for other reasons - I don't think the tidal-driven ocean mixing will account for much of recent changes but I find it interesting as a phenomenon all by itself, for example.

"Hopefully we will get to the truth behind all this regardless of their attempts to "enlighten" us "deniers" (that is their demonization of skeptics vocabulary, not mine)."

This is messy. Take out the 'offensive words', and what is left behind essentially describes, in my mind, what I hoped to accomplish - enlighten you.

Why wouldn't I call you a denier or contrarian? Well, because you've been polite and seem willing to listen, you haven't accused me of being a communist, a dumb parrot, or having malice or indifference towards innocent people, and you aren't trying to cast yourself as a climatologist or a scientist in some related field.

I was actually afraid I've 'led you on' when you implied someone else might consider me a denier, so now - in jest - I will say that some of those I have argued with would call you a communist.

As for those words - denier, contrarian - there are people out there to whom I think they would justifiably apply. For example, dare I say Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen. I don't say this just because they say things I disagree with - I say it because they say things that can't be backed up, they make arguments that are shot full of holes, and especially in Fred Singer's case, I am tempted to doubt whether he himself could possibly buy into his own arguments - or else, I think he must be horribly confused and sloppy - yet, perhaps some of his sleight-of-hand reasoning is too clever for that explanation? Other people - whether they knowlingly lie or just want to believe in those things that help them politically - Rush Limbaugh, Michael Crichton, Ann Coulter, James Inhoffe, James Dobson, CEI, etc... and even Jon Stossel and Glenn Beck, - well, ... they don't identify themselves as scientists, but in some cases they are quite biased in their work, and in some cases there furosity ...

Some would say 'denier' is offensive because it may have been inspired by the use of the word next to 'Holocaust'. I can see that, however, I can also see that it is a word, like red, and certainly no one thinks cherries are communist. Does a person 'deny' in an irrational or dishonest way?

Your response to chris:

"Yes but first you have to examine it instead of dismissing anything you don't like off hand or because you don't like the author or what he/she says. You can't skip through and ignore key words and phrases the way you like to and you can't assume that a paper is fact, peer reviewed or not. It is an argument, ie. a hypothesis."

Actually, I think chris may have been saying somewhat the same thing to you. Aside from that, of course one shouldn't assume a paper, even having passed peer review, reaches the correct conclusions. But there are so many many papers ... the balance of evidence tilts clearly toward significant AGW. That there are uncertainties in feedbacks - this applies to any climate forcing, so AGW still 'has a leg up on' various alternatives (in the sense of contenders to being the major forcing of relevant changes), and the 'burden of proof' doesn't fall all the way back to showing CO2, et. al., as big players, just because of feedback uncertainties.

In particular with 'dismissing offhand' - see somewhere above...

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results