Crikey, a prominent daily news email to which I subscribe, has a few climate denialists who pop their heads up from time to time in the Comments section. The most vocal is Tamas Calderwood, who produced this piece yesterday (in response to an article by Clive Hamilton about civil disobedience in the face of government inaction on climate):
Tamas Calderwood writes: Clive Hamilton’s call for civil disobedience is a disgrace. His own lazy arguments and lack of supporting data can’t persuade people that “the fate of the planet hangs in the balance” so he now dismisses democracy and demands action. Meanwhile, the global temperature in August 2009 was 0.23C above the 30-year mean so there’s still no sign of the coming apocalypse. Given that the temperature data supports the climate sceptics, would it be moral for us to take ‘direct action’ against the likes of Hamilton and Greenpeace? Would civil disobedience to stop the absurd and utterly ineffectual ETS be justified? I am as certain of my scepticism on this issue as Hamilton is of his doom mongering pessimism but we sort this stuff out at the ballot box in this country. I would have thought a “Professor of Public Ethics” would know that.
I responded with this in the 15 September edition:
Matt Andrews writes: Tamas Calderwood maintains his fine tradition of breathtakingly ignorant letters on climate change with a couple of claims (Letters, 14 September) just ripe for the puncturing. The first is “the global temperature in August 2009 was 0.23C above the 30-year mean”. Presumably Tamas is trying to paint a picture of negligible warming that doesn’t warrant strong action, but in fact this data point is embarrassingly devoid of meaning.
Let’s take a step back: “climate” is roughly defined as “the average of the weather over the long term”, where “long term” is usually defined as at least 30 years. Short term temperatures – the single month that Tamas cites, or even annual averages – are dominated by the wild ups and downs of the weather, the “noise” in the long term signal. The warming trend caused by human releases of greenhouse gases is very clear over the last thirty years or hundred years, but if you restrict your time period tightly enough, it’s swamped by the natural chaos of the weather.
Tamas neglects to mention that the data he’s quoting is the denialists’ favourite: UAH satellite figures. Satellites don’t measure surface temperature; they measure temperature across large cross-sections of the stratosphere and upper troposphere. That is then processed to generate an estimate of lower troposphere temperature. This is not the same as direct surface temperature measurements, for which there are several global average indexes of high statistical quality, the best of which are Hadley HadCRU and NASA GISS. Substantial issues have been raised in recent years over implausible anomalies in UAH data.
Tamas says “there’s still no sign of the coming apocalypse”; that in itself is very much debatable, but on the face of it he wants us to wait until we have a global disaster on our hands before acting – a suggestion so spectacularly foolish that I need say nothing more on it.
More seriously, Tamas has clearly failed to understand that the climate issue is one of minimising risk. There are substantial uncertainties over what might happen in the coming decades, and, yes, some of them are near-apocalyptic, at least for contemporary human civilisation. That might be a low risk, but it is not insignificant, and it includes several quite plausible scenarios which could play out at very short notice. More broadly, there are major impacts which are already at a high risk of occurring over the next few decades.
Tamas goes on to announce that “the temperature data supports the climate sceptics”. This is in fact (unintentionally) correct – the genuine “climate sceptics” are the mainstream climate scientists. Scepticism lies at the core of science: new data is critically examined both in terms of its soundness and against the context of the established evidence. Conversely, those who label themselves “climate sceptics” are usually the opposite: credulous and ill-informed, sucking up whatever factoid they come across on denialist blogs, and resolutely refusing to educate themselves about the big picture. What he’s trying to say is that the temperature data refutes mainstream climate science – a claim which is manifestly and comprehensively false.
If Tamas is able to provide some kind of substantial evidence to back this assertion, I’m sure that climate scientists the world over would be very interested indeed.
Update: Tamas Calderwood then responded in the 16 September edition with this:
Tamas Calderwood writes: Matt Andrews (yesterday, comments) asserts the satellite temperature record is irrelevant because it doesn’t include surface readings or look directly at the troposphere.
First, the surface station record is unreliable because of the urban heat-island effect and appalling maintenance and placement of measuring stations as found by Anthony Watts, but even the data sets that include surface stations show no warming for a decade.
Second, satellites do measure the troposphere and I specifically used the troposphere data from UAH. The troposphere accounts for 75% of the atmosphere’s mass and 99% of its water vapour.
Matt then goes on to discuss “high risk” “plausible scenarios” that ” might happen” — in other words, he can point to no actual serious global warming but despite “substantial uncertainties” he asserts this will be “near apocalyptic … for contemporary civilization”.
Kieran Diment (yesterday, comments) says I ignore 80% of the data but makes no mention of what this 80% is.
Mark Byrne (yesterday, comments) asks if I “will only be convinced of dangerous global warming after it has occurred”? Well, yes Mark, because despite record human CO2 production no dangerous global warming has actually occurred and the Medieval and Roman warm periods were warmer than today anyway.
In the mean time I’ll again point out that the past 30 years has seen a trend increase in Earth’s atmospheric temperature of 0.38C, the past 10 years has seen about 0.1C of cooling and the Argos buoy program shows ocean cooling since 2003. Average temperatures for the past 15 years have been less than 0.2C higher than they reached in the 1940’s and the past 12 months has been around 0.4C warmer than the average since 1901.
This is not a crisis and I don’t think we need to abandon democracy and enslave ourselves to those who know the TRUTH of global warming when the data don’t support their claims of Armageddon.
Update: I responded with this in the 17 September edition:
Matt Andrews writes: Tamas Calderwood (Letters, 16 September) demonstrates stereotypical behaviour from those who label themselves as “climate sceptics”: be uncritically accepting of any argument found on denialist blogs, assume these arguments are better grounded than real peer-reviewed research, and refuse point blank to learn about the big picture of climate science.His latest letter (in between misquoting me five times) breathlessly repeats a string of endlessly recycled and long-debunked talking points direct from the “Watts Up With That” climate denial blog, infamous among climate scientists for the shallowness and ignorance of its commentary.
For example: “the surface station record is unreliable because of the urban heat-island effect and appalling maintenance and placement of measuring stations as found by Anthony Watts”… in reality, these issues have been long understood and adjusted for, and the real issue – temperature trends – is very strongly correlated across a huge range of surface data sources. For example, the warming trend is just as strong on windy nights as on still nights; if the urban heat island effect were significant, there would be slower warming observed when looking only at windy nights. Big picture: urban heat island and siting issues have a trivial effect on large-scale temperate trend data.
Or “the Medieval and Roman warm periods were warmer than today anyway”: false, false, false, false, false.
And so on and so on. What’s amazing to me is that people can be interested enough in this stuff to devote many hours to digesting wingnut blogs… and yet utterly fail to spend some time learning the basics about contemporary climate science.
Update: Tamas has responded in the comments, so the conversation is continuing here.
#1 by Tamas Calderwood on September 19, 2009 - 10:10 am
Quote
Hi Matt – I came across your website so I thought I’d post a comment. I responded to your latest in Crikey with the below (but they declined to publish it yesterday):
Matt Andrews, Mark Byrne, Kieren Diment and Adam Rope all fail to rebut my central point that despite record human CO2 production there is no sign of any dangerous global warming. Gentlemen, the temperature data is the key fact in this whole debate. My arguments are easily falsified: simply demonstrate that we are experiencing dangerous global warming. So far you have not done so.
How do you respond?
Regards – Tamas
#2 by matt on September 24, 2009 - 12:17 am
Quote
Hi Tamas, thanks for the response, and it’s a pity that Crikey haven’t published your comment yet: it makes it pretty unwieldy if the discussion diverges onto multiple blogs.
You ask whether we are “experiencing dangerous global warming”. The short answer is this: yes, we are.
A great deal of debate can be had over what warming level – or greenhouse gas concentration – is “dangerous”, but probably the most widely used yardstick is that beyond 2 degrees of warming we are likely to be in unacceptably risky territory.
The warming over the last two centuries (now often termed the Anthropocene, as the climate is so different to that which has come before) is incontrovertible; we have comprehensive instrument records of surface temperature as well as empirical measurements of the energy balance of the planet which clearly demonstrate that the world is undergoing substantial warming – and that significantly more warming is yet to come, even if we were to cease all human greenhouse gas emissions today.
The overall surface temperature has warmed by around 0.8 degrees since the mid 19th century, and by 0.6 degrees since 1970 (roughly when human greenhouse gas emissions became the dominant factor influencing global temperature) and the warming trend is in fact accelerating. Given that we have another 0.6 degrees of warming already “locked in”, and up to a degree of warming masked by the temporary cooling effect of aerosols, we are likely to hit the 2-degrees-of-warming mark even if we were to stop all greenhouse-gas-emitting activities overnight.
And none of that includes consideration of the various potential “tipping point” effects which could lead to major climatic changes over very short time periods.
#3 by Tamas Calderwood on September 27, 2009 - 11:51 am
Quote
Matt,
I disagree that we are experiencing dangerous global warming. The UAH data shows a trend increase of 0.38C since 1979 and no warming for 10 years. Indeed no significant warming for 15 years. I use UAH because it is the best data set on global temperature.
I also don’t understand how you can say “the warming trend is in fact accelerating”. I don’t think any temperature data set supports that statement. Warming has stopped for over a decade so it cannot be accelerating.
Finally, I think there is a lot of evidence to show the Medieval and Roman warm periods were warmer than today. I’m not convinced by the links above – particularly the one citing Mann. The Mann Hockey Stick has been show to be wrong.
Regards – Tamas.
#4 by matt on October 3, 2009 - 12:41 pm
Quote
Hi Tamas. Did you actually read the articles I linked to earlier? Specifically, I think you’d find Measuring Earth’s energy imbalance worth reading. The paper it discusses illustrates the big picture of what’s going on: less energy is leaving the planet than is arriving; the imbalance has been present (and increasing) since the 1970s; the vast majority of the heating so far has been in the oceans; and the primary factors for this imbalance have been the increases in CO2 and methane.
What leads you that conclusion? If the satellite data is superior to surface measurements, why do the IPCC reports and indeed most scientific discussion of the instrumental temperature record use surface measurements such as Hadley and GISS?
The “urban heat island effect” is real, but what “Watts Up With That” et al (the anti-science denial blogs) will not tell you is that the warming trend has been comprehensively validated through correlation of non-urban data with urban data, correlation of still nights with windy nights, and correlation of marine temperature data with land temperature data.
See Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? for an introduction to the topic.
On the other hand, satellite data is subject to several significant systemic issues. Rather than a large number of sources that can be compared and statistically correlated, there are a small number of sources. The data itself is not a direct measurement of surface temperatures at all, but is a measurement of lower stratospheric and upper tropospheric temperatures. This data is then subject to adjustment based on a series of assumptions about how the upper tropospheric temperature under certain conditions relates to the lower troposphere (the surface). On top of this, the data can be substantially affected by changes in the rate of orbital erosion (the satellite slowly losing altitude). Problems with instrumental calibration have also been an issue. We’ve seen several cases over the last few years where satellite data has had to be retracted and revised as a result of miscalculation of these factors.
Overall, there is a place for satellite data, and it is useful for some purposes, but it runs a poor second to the surface record in most cases, and certainly for quantifying global trends.
To over-simplify, the word “climate” means the long-term average of the weather, typically over periods of 30 years or more. Annual averages in temperature are dominated by large short-term variations including cycles like El Niño. So-called “sceptics” (who seem to demonstrate a remarkable lack of genuine scepticism) like to talk about “the last decade” because they can start with a huge spike in the annual average (the 1998 El Niño) and end at a low point (the recent La Niña). This says nothing about the underlying climate trend; for that you need to look at long term averages. Look at a graph showing the 30-year average temperature : it’s been steadily increasing – in fact, accelerating – since the 1970s.
No, it hasn’t. This is the conclusion you would come to if you read denial blogs, and gave them far more credence than the overwhelming body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Did you actually read the articles I linked to earlier? Not Alike might help to illustrate the situation.
In reality, the “hockey stick”, as a description of global temperature history, has been strongly validated by a wide variety of sources. You don’t have to look far to discover that. Again, Skeptical Science is a good starting point.
On the recent, and extremely silly, deniers’ ruckus over the Yamal tree ring data, RealClimate has an overview which sets the story straight.
#5 by Tamas Calderwood on October 5, 2009 - 3:22 pm
Quote
Matt,
Let’s stick to one or two points at a time. I think this will make the debate clearer. I hope that’s ok with you.
I want to address two things in this post: the “acceleration” of global warming and the Mann Hockey stick.
There is no data set of world temperatures that shows any rise in the past 10 years. I don’t see how you can get around that fact, particularly since CO2 emissions have been greater than ever.
If you want to use a 30-year timeframe then we have a trend increase of around 0.38C since 1979 – not a particularly large increase. However, it cooled from the 1940’s to the 1970’s – a period of around 30 years. This occurred as industrial production and CO2 emissions really cranked up after WWII. How can we explain that cooling period?
Also – the hockey stick. I guess we’re just going to have to disagree on this one. I find Mann, Briffa et al to be a bunch of frauds. Why did Briffa refuse to release his data for almost 10 years?
There is much evidence to show that the medieval and Roman warm periods were warmer than today. But even if it wasn’t, even Mann, Briffa et al show that the world’s temperatures did rise in the medieval warm period and then cool in the little ice age. There is also lots of evidence for the Roman Warm Period and the Holocene Climate optimum. We are currently in a interglacial period of an ice-age that started over 30 million years ago and 80% of Earth’s history has been warmer than today.
My point is this: The climate is variable and has changed suddenly and without any help from humanity in the past. Why do we suddenly think that a tiny increase in CO2 is responsible for the tiny amount of warming we’ve seen in the past century? How can we rule out natural factors?
Regards – Tamas.
#6 by matt on October 6, 2009 - 12:05 am
Quote
Hi Tamas,
Well… I note that there are more than ten points in your comment, actually, but no matter. In fact, it seems that the main issue you’re not addressing here is that of the differences in data quality between surface and satellite measurements (for the purpose of establishing global temperature trends), but it appears that you’re continuing to quote UAH satellite figures.
To put it bluntly, I can get around that because it’s not actually true, and it’s also only a very small part of the real picture.
Firstly, to play the (ridiculously arbitrary) game of looking at a linear trend over the last ten years… if we look at the actual data it shows a rise over the 1999-2009 period.
Or did you mean that the starting point should be at 1998 instead of 1999? In other words, we should pick the year that happened to have the strongest El Niño in a century as the point of reference? Even using 1998 as a starting point, we see the lowest quality data (UAH) showing a drop, Hadley basically flat, and GISS (the highest quality index) showing a rise.
If we’re going to indulge in silly cherry-picking, why not use 1997 as the starting point? Hmm, nope, that shows warming too.
The point here is that annual averages over a short period like 10 years tell you nothing much; they’re dominated by short term variability like El Niño and La Niña. Long term averages, such as over 30 years, produce a much clearer picture of the underlying trend (climate change).
Much more importantly, it’s crucial to understand that the land and atmosphere temperatures (especially short term data) are a tiny part of the picture. Far more of the planetary warming that is currently happening has taken place in the oceans. See Measuring Earth’s energy imbalance.
I’m astonished, Tamas, that you can have been reading and inquiring into issues of climate change for, apparently, many months at least, but have not yet encountered the basics on the changes in temperature forcings over the 20th century. Please don’t tell me that you’ve been relying on sites like “Watts Up With That” and “Climate Audit” for your information. They have a long and rich history of getting facts completely wrong, and of utterly failing to understand the science.
I highly recommend you read Skeptical Science’s introduction to the topic of climate forcings over the 20th century. The breakdown of the forcings is shown in Figure 5 of that article.
The big picture is that, while greenhouse gases were rising in the first half of the 20th century, a combination of other forcings (primarily tropospheric aerosols) rose at the same time, offsetting the greenhouse gas warming. After around 1970, though, the greenhouse warming accelerated while the aerosol cooling grew much more slowly, and in fact plateaued after around 1990.
Also, I should point out that the instrumental record does not actually show cooling throughout the 1940s-to-1970s period; the cooling was limited to just a few years, from 1944 to the early 1950s (and just one year, 1945, in the southern hemisphere). In the wartime years leading up to 1945, most sea surface temperature measurements were taken by US ships, who measured the temperature of the intake water used for cooling the ship’s engines. This method tends to yield higher temperatures due to the warm engine-room environment. However, in August 1945, British ships resumed taking sea surface temperature measurements. British crews collected water in uninsulated buckets. The bucket method has a cooling bias. Consequently we see a large and sudden drop in the temperature record in 1945.
Mmmm-hmm. I’m afraid I have to interpret that as “I’ll believe anything I read at Watts Up With That and Climate Audit”. The statement that “Briffa refused to release his data for almost 10 years” is in fact (a) false and (b) ludicrously irrelevant to the level of scientific confidence in the “hockey stick”.
The hockey stick is only “controversial” and “discredited” in the denial-o-sphere. In the real world, in the realm of peer reviewed science, it has been repeatedly and comprehensively validated from many sources.
Seriously, I suggest you read the articles I linked to in my last comment.
Not on a global basis, there isn’t. It appears that there was a Medieval Warm Period in some parts of Europe and North America, sure.
Was the temperature across the whole of Europe and North America higher at that time than now? Extremely unlikely, given the evidence.
Was the global temperature higher at that time than now? No way.
See the Skeptical Science introduction to the MWP discussion.
See the information on forcings above; it’s very clear that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the primary factor in the current warming.
The increase in CO2 can hardly be described as tiny. Over the last million years or so, we’ve seen a relatively stable climate, with long ice ages (at a CO2 level of around 180ppm) interspersed by short interglacial periods (at a CO2 level of around 280ppm). The current CO2 level is around 390ppm – much higher than humans have ever seen. We’re seeing temperatures rising at least five times faster, and CO2 increasing around fifty times faster, than during past natural warming events at the end of ice ages.
Beyond that, there is strong evidence for major amplifying feedbacks between temperature and CO2 (and other greenhouse gases). Feedbacks such as the release of methane from permafrost, the outgassing of CO2 from the oceans, the reduction of albedo due to ice melt, and potentially even larger processes such as the release of methane clathrates, will come into play as the temperature rises.
And, yes, the climate has changed dramatically in the past, sometimes within a decade or even one year. And the impacts have been profound. The hope is that we can avoid triggering such an event again.
Really, what we’re wrestling with here is not simply “global warming” – it’s better described as “climate disruption”.
#7 by Tamas Calderwood on October 6, 2009 - 5:22 pm
Quote
Matt,
The “two points” I was trying to address were recent observed cooling and the hockey stick vs. records of the medieval warm period. I think that was pretty clear.
So let’s discuss the temperature data. First, I consider the satellites to be the most accurate record as they take high frequency measurements across most of the Earth’s surface. I use UAH because it is easily accessible, but RSS is substantially the same. I also consider Argo to be the best data for Ocean temperatures.
I am unconvinced by your arguments that using surface stations is better. You can call Anthony Watts whatever you like but his surfacestations.org project has been fascinating and has shown that a significant proportion of US surface stations have artificial heat sources nearby, are placed incorrectly and are poorly maintained. If this is how it works in the US, how can we trust data from sites in less developed countries? And what about the fact that many of the USSR’s reporting stations simply disappeared after its collapse? Also, surface stations can only be placed on the 29% of the Earth’s surface that is land.
Finally, Hadley has refused to release the underlying surface station records for their temperature data so it is unverifiable.
Satellites are therefore best.
Using UAH I have calculated that the temperature has risen by 0.06C in the past 10 years and 0.13C in the past 15 years. That is not a significant increase given what the IPCC models predicted. Temperatures for the past 10 years are flat and have actually cooled by 0.1C since 2001. This is not cherry picking the data. It is simply a description of recent observations.
You also say that “far more of the planetary warming that is currently happening has taken place in the oceans”. Yet the Argo network shows ocean cooling since 2003. The atmospheric and ocean temperature observations therefore do not support a conclusion of rapid global warming.
Your link on climate forcing is also unconvincing. There is much argument surrounding this but at this point we simply do not know what all the factors are or the role each one plays. To assert that we have a clear understanding of this hugely understates the level of scientific uncertainty.
Also – you must be aware that temperature increases pre-date CO2 increases in the ice core record. Historically, temperatures therefore drive CO2 rather than vice-versa.
A few final points. I do not believe that a warmer world will be a crisis for humanity. Quite the opposite. Historically, warmer times have been better for humanity. Also, I do not believe that CO2 drives the climate system as there is no empirical evidence for this. Finally, I do not believe that humanity can control the climate system. I think that the idea that we can via the mechanism of CO2 is breathtaking human arrogance. Nothing personal, of course.
#8 by Adam Rope on October 6, 2009 - 6:11 pm
Quote
Matt, you are simply repeating an exercise I, and others, have tried many, many times before. And you are simply wasting you time.
Tamas has made his mind up, that AGW is not happening, and no comprehensive scientific based argument can shift it.
Hence my ‘does not compute’ comment in a recent Crikey newsletter. If the does not support or fit into Tamas’s narrow world view, then it is simply ‘wrong’.
Tamas prefers to ‘believe’ anything that agrees with his fixed viewpoint, no matter how non-scientific the source, and it does not matter what actual real, valid and scientific evidence you provide to disprove his fixed viewpoint.
See his comments on the Watts Up With That & Surface Stations mis-information, his take on the MWP (Remember he has said that the UK Met. Office ‘peddles falsehoods’ over this one), and other previously discredited mis-information.
Oh, and the data doesn’t suit Tamas, he simply does his own calculations on the data such that the result fits his unyielding stance.
Tamas is not being ‘scientific’, he’s coercing science to do his bidding.
I applaud your efforts, Matt, but you are up against a brick wall when it comes to Tamas.
#9 by Adam Rope on October 6, 2009 - 6:21 pm
Quote
Apologies for the typos and missing words. I’m fighting the mother of all colds right now, and have head stuffed full of cotton wool.
#10 by Tamas Calderwood on October 6, 2009 - 8:31 pm
Quote
Hi Adam. Interesting comment. Has it occurred to you that your comments might be exactly what I think about your attitude to global warming?
Also – if the Met office say that today is warmer than the medieval warm period then I say they are peddling falsehoods because that period was warmer than today.
Also, what data doesn’t suit me? I am just looking at recent temperature data and I don’t see accelerating or even rapid global warming.
My question to you is this: when will we again see rapid global warming? We are not seeing it now despite rapid increases in man-made CO2. Doesn’t that strike you as a little odd?
You guys make pretty good arguments occasionally but I am not convinced that humans control the climate system. Recent temperature data supports my scepticism. Nonetheless, I don’t think debating you is a waste of time. It tests my arguments and makes me think harder about this issue. You’ve responded to me a few times… why would you do so if you thought it a waste of time?
#11 by Adam Rope on October 8, 2009 - 7:12 pm
Quote
Tamas, yes I fully understand why you might say that. It’s just that I have referred you to credible, scientific sources for data, and you have – if ever – only referred to non-credible sources of data.
I note that you again provide no sources for your claims – are you that afraid to present any proof to back up your claims? Please provide a valid, credible and scientific source for your claim that the MWP was warmer than today.
(And before you say I haven’t provided sources to support my facts, I have provided multiple credible sources to you previously, as has Matt above)
I sometimes think you are deliberately playing devil’s advocate in your comments, because you are not debating but simply using the same discredited arguments again and again with no verifying data.
My personal view is that those in the denialist camp are peddling the worst kind of conspiracy theories since the 9/11 attacks (US government conspiracy anyone) or the moon walks (US government conspiracy).
In that they “believe” that AGW is somehow some massive green global conspiracy, and that climate scientists are mis-reporting science in order to keep their revenue funding flow.
I mean, come on, have you ever heard such a ridiculous attack on mainstream science? Would the same attack be made upon biological, chemical or any other valid scientific research?
Any anti-AGW report, no matter how ridiculous, is eagerly grasped upon as somehow yet again disproving AGW. And then when valid scientific sources, yet again, disprove these false claims, the denialists’ simply ignore these inconvenient facts, until the next denialist lightning rod is located.
The fact that all the major scientific bodies in the world, as well as most governments, and institutions, regard AGW as valid, as a real threat, as something that needs to be acted upon, and that these influential bodies repeatedly ignore the increasingly desperate claims of the anti-AGW denialists, apparently makes them part of this same conspiracy.
A last couple of points – no one I know of, or have read, has ever claimed that “humans control the climate system”. That’s the typical denialist exaggeration designed purely to distort the argument.
Finally I did try to post comments into the Cage Match, but nothing got past the arbitrators. I’ve no idea why not. My comments were as valid as those expressed here, and certainly not as insulting as some of kdkd’s. Although I did once refer to your obvious source of information, in a comment that didn’t get published, as that font of all current opinion – ‘the man in the pub’.
#12 by Tamas Calderwood on October 10, 2009 - 1:17 pm
Quote
Adam,
That’s weird about your Crikey cage match comments.
I have noticed that if you try and embed more than one hyperlink then the comment automatically goes to moderation. It seems that Crikey doesn’t moderate this particular thread anymore – they just leave us fanatics to duke it out so those comments stay suspended forever. That might explain your problem. Otherwise I see no reason why they would bar you. Give it a try without any links and see if the problem continues.
Now, to your points.
I don’t thing Global Warming is a big conspiracy. I do think it chimes nicely with a lot of anti-capitalism and green ideology so it picks up fervent support from those quarters. However, my basic point is that I just think it’s wrong.
The reason I repeat the same arguments (mostly the temperature data and also critiquing the hyperbolic doomsday stuff that gets thrown about) is because those arguments tend to show how silly Global Warming apocalypse nuttiness can be.
You mention that “The fact that all the major scientific bodies in the world, as well as most governments, and institutions, regard AGW as valid, as a real threat, as something that needs to be acted upon, and that these influential bodies repeatedly ignore the increasingly desperate claims of the anti-AGW denialists”
I must point out that this is just an argument from authority, not from logic or reason. I am completely unconvinced by those arguments no matter where they are coming from. I can think for myself and analyse the data. I can look at the history of the world’s climate. I can listen to alternative and highly credible views on the matter. I therefore reach a conclusion that AGW is wrong and CO2 is not a major factor in the climate system.
Also, you mention that “no one I know of, or have read, has ever claimed that “humans control the climate system”. That’s the typical denialist exaggeration designed purely to distort the argument.”
I disagree. The G20 conference recently announced that they would not allow the world’s temperature to rise more than 2C by controlling CO2 emissions. What is that if not a claim that we can control Earth’s climate?
Finally, on the medieval warm period. I believe Mann, Briffa et al have been shown to sloppy in their work and their claim that the MWP wasn’t that warm is shown to be false. I haven’t got any links to hand but give me a day or two and I’ll post something in this space.
#13 by Adam Rope on October 10, 2009 - 7:01 pm
Quote
Tamas, I wasn’t saying you were one of the conspiracy theorists because, as far as I am aware, you have not any statement to that effect. I was meaning the fervent anti-AGW brigade over on Bolt’s or Blair’s blogs, and others.
I do actually agree with you, partly, about the fervent ‘green ideology’ side of the equation as well. In that the more strident – for wont of a better word – “supporters” of AGW do go over the top in their claims of – your word – ‘apocalypse’.
I prefer to stick with the rational people on either side, who put forward coherent arguments either for or against. Such that I can read their viewpoint, examine their argument, and then either agree or disagree with the conclusion.
I disagree with you over the ‘argument from authority’ angle. I instead see the arguments – properly put – for AGW put forward by those institutions following the logic and reason of the explored and fully examined science.
I also can look at the history of the world’s climate, and agree that it has changed over time. After all I do hold a degree in geology, and thus spent 4 years (I failed one) examining the worlds history in the long term.
My disagreement with you concerns the extent, and apparent rapidity, of the current changes. In that my readings of the science, specifically the relatively short term input of mankind in digging up and then burning off fossil fuels, in the last two hundred years or so, has had a marked effect on the climate as a whole.
I also disagree with you that the alternative views are ‘highly credible’, because most of those in the anti-AGW camp are definitely not following scientific principles. To me the main AGW opponents, both the scientists and the media commentators, are desperately trying to report anything that may disprove AGW, and then fitting facts to match their beliefs.
And yes, I use the word ‘beliefs’ deliberately.
For example, your arguments for solar activity, volcanoes, plate tectonics, etc.. etc.. have all – from my scientific viewpoint – been proven to be not the main drivers of the current observable changes.
Please note I do not claim they play no part in our climate, although plate tectonics is stretching the point in the short or medium term (long term being in the 10’s of millions of years geologically), just that their role is insignificant compared to other factors.
I can’t find anything to support your statement that the “G20 conference recently announced that they would not allow the world’s temperature to rise more than 2C by controlling CO2 emissions.”
“Not allow” Tamas?
Maybe it would be more accurate to say something along the lines that the G20 pledged to try to reduce emissions such that the global temperature may not rise by more than predicted 2 degrees in the next 10, 20 or 40 years (whatever the target year was – 2020, 2030, or 2050).
So it wasn’t a claim about controlling the Earth’s climate, was it?
I find it intriguing that you think that “Mann, Briffa et al have been shown to be sloppy in their work”. On whose word do you concur they have been ‘sloppy’? Or is that just another anti-AGW exaggeration? After all, ‘sloppy’ would be rather an extreme critique from a scientist.
I await your MWP links in the meantime.
(No riposte to my ‘man in the pub’ comment. I am most upset… ;}} )
#14 by Tamas Calderwood on October 15, 2009 - 5:52 pm
Quote
Adam – I find it interesting that the IPCC had graphs showing the medieval warm period was warmer than today until their 2001 summary that then used Mann et al’s Hockey stick showing the opposite. This was then quietly dropped in 2007 after it was debunked. Why?
#15 by Adam Rope on October 15, 2009 - 7:57 pm
Quote
Tamas, as the Dutch say “Godfe dome”!!
I wrote a response, but the b*stard disappeared when I submitted it.
First time in yonks I haven’t copied the post before submitting – just in case this very thing happens – and guess what happened!!
I’ll get back to you at another date.
#16 by matt on October 15, 2009 - 11:25 pm
Quote
(Adam, sorry that your post disappeared – I hope it wasn’t an issue with the site. Let me know if you experience it again.)
Tamas, you said:
In a nutshell, because the science progressed and more data became available.
Before the mid 1990s the only proxy data of sufficient longevity available was a single study from the UK – a very limited geographical region. That data did show considerable warming in the MWP.
Later, other data used by Mann for the 1998 analysis (which appeared in TAR 2001) covered a much broader area, far reducing the significance of the earlier data.
Many more studies have been done since, and, far from being “quietly dropped”, the “hockey stick” has been validated from many sources now, as reflected in AR4 2007 and since. See the links I provided earlier on the MWP for more details.
Changing tack a bit… earlier on, you said:
The trouble is, Tamas, to be honest, the views that you find “highly credible” (based on the arguments I’ve seen you making, at least) simply fail when it comes to the overall evidence. They have generally been just repetitions of widely circulated talking points that permeate the “denialosphere” of anti-AGW websites. Many of these are just simply incorrect; many are narrowly correct but presented in isolation give a completely misleading picture; and so on. What they are emphatically not is sceptical. You need to do a lot more independent fact-checking, if I can be blunt.
#17 by Adam Rope on October 22, 2009 - 7:52 pm
Quote
Matt, I don’t think there was a problem with the site. I was ‘multitasking’ on the laptop, and think it just didn’t handle all the downloading, backing up and uploading I was attempting simultaneously.
Serves me right for not copying before posting!!
Tamas, basically my lost post was asking you to back up your statements with real data – as in links to proven, credible, sites – because otherwise they are just stories or unproven claims. Even urban myths.
I listened to Ian Plimer’s Okham’s Razor podcast today, after downloading and reading the transcripts, and note he was making the same unsubstantiated MWP claims as you. Along with a load of other wild statements about AGW, and inaccurate comments about the scientists who disagree with him.
Can you please provide something akin to proof that the MWP was warmer than today? I’ve as yet not found anything worthwhile supporting that claim.
And can you also provide valid proof that the “hockey stick” has been ‘debunked’. Again I have found nothing worthwhile supporting that position.
Please not I am asking for proof outside the usual anti-AGW sites.
Or should I write valid and scientifically sound arguments against the data.
#18 by Adam Rope on October 22, 2009 - 7:54 pm
Quote
See, copy it, and you don’t lose it!!
Time for a celebratory glass of wine methinks.