We were more than a little dismayed to read Garth George (Who
stands to gain?) on these pages last Friday week, write Otago
University researchers Doug Mackie, Hugh Doyle and Christina
McGraw.
We appreciate that few readers will have that issue of the
ODT to hand and so, rather than a line-by-line rejoinder, we
confine ourselves to generalities.
We have recently submitted a paper (to a leading journal)
that analyses the science in all 547 submissions (6662 pages)
made to both the New Zealand select committees considering
the ETS (the original Bill and the review).
We found that 86 submissions denied the truth of
human-induced climate change and made a total of 562
science-based claims (an average of seven claims per
submission).
However, there were just 19 unique types of claim.
Garth George uses the fourth most popular: what we called the
"not since" argument.
Here, climate is confused with weather and the claimant says
something like the slight warming that occurred between 1979
and 1998 has been followed by stasis and, since 2002, cooling
(this quote is from the submission made by a source cited by
George).
So what does this mean? Well, climate is long-term weather.
It is not valid to look at weather data for just a few years
and make such claims in the context of climate.
Look at the graph on the left for 1979-2008.
Sure enough, temperature is up and down but overall there
hasn't been much change.
Now look at the graph on the right for 1850-2008.
Here it is obvious that temperature has little wiggles but
these wiggles are superimposed upon an inexorable upward
trend.
This last week has been colder than it was in mid-September,
but that does not mean I expect it to be colder still in
February.
Want to know something really scary? Lags in the system mean
we have yet to experience the increase in temperature (and
other impacts like ocean acidification) that today's CO2
levels will cause.
However, our main point is that outright deniers are a
sideshow.
The real problem is the pernicious fast-follower meme: the
idea that we can afford to wait a few more years and then
take urgent action.
Imagine a boy-racer buying a modified Skyline turbo for
$20,000.
Probably not the wisest purchase in the first place, but
positively dumb if done on credit with only minimum
repayments being made.
Climate change debate
After much lively and interesting debate, this thread is now closed. However, Doug Mackie will be contributing a fresh piece this week summarising the main points of contention and inviting specific questions from readers. Watch the home page. Editor 9/11/09 Did this happen? I looked out it but couldn't find anything.
Editor: Follow this link
This thread is now closed
After much lively and interesting debate, this thread is now closed. However, Doug Mackie will be contributing a fresh piece this week summarising the main points of contention and inviting specific questions from readers. Watch the home page. Editor
Sally, here is a quote from your submission
Sally, Here I quote a piece from your (public domain) submission that was not part of your BBC excerpt: “Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade. The warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.” In case you have forgotten what you wrote you may download a copy from the parliament website. Here is the link.
By using the very simple “not since” claim we illustrated a wider point: People don’t have to understand any chemistry or physics to see that “not since” is totally false. So false in fact that anyone using it has no grasp of the science and is wilfully ignoring the facts.
I would have greater respect for you, farsighted, Calvin and company if early on you had said: “Oh my goodness, you are right that is a dodgy claim, I wonder why I fell for that? But I still have question X”. a) Am I to take it that you now accept the “not since” claim is false? If not, why not? b) If you do accept the “not since claim” is false, then do you think you – or your sources - may also be wrong about some of your other claims? (I fully intend to work through them, but not until we get this “not since” issue clarified) c) If you If you do accept the “not since claim” is false, then do you think other people who also use it may be wrong about some of their other claims?
Lindzen Data
Further to besmirching scientists claims, a friend of mine has generously contributed the following to this "debate". Here is the link
When there are scientists opposing the views of others in the faculty, then the opinions of the laymen will be diverse and this is clearly what has happened here. No matter what the predictions, and that is what they are, even though the calculations may be correct in one sense, the reality is: Predictions regarding movements in Weather and Climate, are unreliable. Forecasting at best is an inexact science, and since I was one, once, I am qualified to have that opinion. I make no apologies for that and that is where it is at. L.S.
bensan, where are you getting your information?
Readers who go to the link above may want to check out the credentials of the author, Marc Morano here. Some hints: he has worked for Rush Limbaugh, he was involved in the infamous "swift boat" claims against former US Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, and he was communications director for the Republicans on the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
research, rather than wishing
Sally - I suggest you do some reading. A good start would Prof Jared Diamond's 'collapse'. Every past civilation has outrun its resources, and crashed. Why do you think we can do no wrong?
Chew on this
The point is merely to emphasise that all and sundry are contributing opinions. We are now told by AL Gore, we ought not to eat meat and there are a couple of architects who have mooted eating dogs instead of keeping them. All this will contribute to ameliorating the imminent disasters that will affect us when the sea rises to alarmingly high levels.
Further chewing needed
... and so? What relevance do these silly ideas have to do with the scientific validity of climate change? Did any of them appear in a peer-reviewed article published in a reputable science journal? The ODT is not a refereed journal so here's my own daft opinion - I think that you are deliberately attempting to besmirch serious scientific research findings by implying that the scientists doing the work are nuts, and that you do this because you are unable to muster any sustainable scientific criticisms of the general current conclusions about climate change.
Chew on this
Bensan, your link is to a list of the “10 Most Outrageous Things said by Environmentalists”, such as Lyall Watson’s absurd assertion that cannibalism is a radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation. What, pray, has this array of idiotic statements have to do with the scientific validity of anthropogenic climate change?
It’s my understanding that all the national academies of science in the developed world, including the Royal Society of New Zealand, support the basic current conclusions of the IPCC. Are you saying that these science organisations share the ridiculous views expressed in the 10 statements? What’s your point?
Partly right but for some of the wrong reasons
Finally. That wasn’t so hard now was it? You are partly right but for some of the wrong reasons. You are right about the idea that 10 years is too short to say anything. I see previously you have used a variation on this claim (using the single year 1983): Follow this link
As has Geoff Kearsley in this link
What thought process lead you to be so wrong then? Do you think you may have made any other similar errors? However, you are totally wrong about measuring a “global temperature”.
Nobody measures a “global temperature”? What is actually measured is a temperature anomaly. This is the difference between measurements made at the same place at the same time and date each year. An annual temperature anomaly of +1 degree for November means that for each day in November, each measuring station recorded an average +1 degree temperature compared to a baseline period for the same station.
A commonly used baseline is the 30 period between 1960-1991. (And yes, each year within the baseline period itself has a temperature anomaly).
Now for the second part of my question: People like Bob Carter continue to use this “not since” argument: What trust can we have in their other claims? Anyone else care to comment on validity of “not since”?
Editor's note on links
The length of text in some of the links being provided in comments is blowing the measure on this page so they are being hidden behind the key-word 'link'.
Unfortunately the colour of the text in the opinion section makes this a little hard to see but in Bensan's post if you mouse-over the word link you will see that it is indeed a link.
Links
Hi Online Editor - I think the problem with links is because they are long and have no spaces. The links' text cant be changed, so I hope you can find a technical solution. I suggest that posters that can, manually put their link into an an anchor tag («a href= etc) instead of pasting the link directly into their post.
Yes, links here are hard to see and easily not noticed because there is no way to distinguish them from normal text. Links must be Blue; this is the convention. Another technical adjustment should fix this. Thanks.
Returning to the topic
So, who amongst the denialists has the courage or skills to answer my many times repeated question?
a) What do they think of the "not since" claim"
b) What trust can we have in those that continue to use this claim?
This is easily the simplest claim about climate change. If you can not or will not address this issue, I doubt you have the skills or ability to understand any of the more complex issues.
Bringing me to another question (this time with answer): Q: Why do people refuse to answer the question? A: Because admitting that some denialist claims are wrong opens all such claims to scrutiny. It is a classic denialist tactic to throw up a blizzard of bs and hope some sticks while refusing to answer any questions. They will flit from topic to topic, never listening to or acknowledging answers.
Anyone using the "not since" is either knowingly fraudulent or parroting things they do not understand.
Which are you? A physical scientist using this claim is in my opinion committing fraud. An person qualified in watching television who uses it is ignorant.
How can you honestly have no opinion on this? After you have answered my question, I will answer your other questions, one at a time.
Another one to chew on
In addition here is another link for all of us to chew on.
...or gag on?
I strongly encourage the contributors to this discussion to visit the website for the film "Not Evil Just Wrong" provided in the link above. Just navigate past the large US flag banner in the background to the "Your Premiere" menu and select the "Host Your Own Premiere" page. Now, look over this page carefully. Do you really want New Zealand decisions on climate policy set according to this kind of rubbish? And if you don't think it could happen, just remember what Rodney said...
Yes
Garth George is incorrect to assert that because there is a 10-year downward trend in global temperatures that global warming has stopped. Measuring a global temperature is meaningless because the planet is tilted and we have regional variations. Measuring a single temperature per year is meaningless because we have two hemispheres with seasons.
Measuring over a decadal scale is meaningless for prediction as the timescale is too short. Analysis purely from the time series is inadequate as it is not possible to determine stationarity and cyclical phenomena can't be identified without some form of frequency-domain analysis.
Climate Change
As a result of a slight glitch here is the link that appeared to be omitted in the previous communication.
Our responsibility
Our responsibility is to future generations. The fact that we're having this debate gives us only one course of action - we have to be precautionary. The lead times are so great, the volumes involved so huge, that it is irresponsible - I say criminal - to proceed as if nothing has happened, until it is too obvious.
By then it it too late. Yes Sally, a fiasco indeed, but people like me will write the histories, and will happily spend a para or two on the self-interested denial phase.
DunedinblogAl - how many well-informed layman are there? Labelled thus by whom?
To have a debate you need to answer the original question
My article was about the "not since" claim. To have a debate you need to respond to the original question before you can expect anyone to respond to your blizzard of other nonsense. Once more: a) What is your opinion of the "not since" claim? b) What trust should we have in those that continue to sue the "not since" claim. Why do you expect me to answer other questions if you won't address this very simple issue that requires no specialised knowledge?
Editor's note: Doug Mackie has a point here. Those on the other side of the debate should endeavour to answer his question in the interests of exploring the topic in a worthwhile fashion.
Experts
Hi Calvin, "You must concede that just because one does not have a degree in you particular disciplines that all other opinions are not worthless." I'm assuming this is a typo as the rest of your argument is far more lucid ... however, I think I understand your point. You are right. A degree in a discipline does not mean your opinions are correct and others are worthless. The problem is you are not arguing against one person with a degree, you are arguing against thousands of experts. If you want to ignore experts on the basis that all opinions are equally valid I suggest next time you need your electrics done, phone a plumber.
Experts?
Rob Burton; I take your point, but arguing against thousands of experts may not necessarily be a lost cause. Sometimes it may even get those same experts to revisit their posits. I am not saying in this case that they are wrong, just don't rubbish other opinions. The difficulty with this argument is that as in all science first comes the opinion followed by the testing then the result.
At this point we have the opinion, but unfortunately if we wait for the test results it may well be too late. What is one to do? Hubble was deemed no expert, but boy did he leave his mark? Oh, and by the way, I will fix my own electrics and plumbing as well.
Science versus opinion
Calvin- I think you may have a mistaken view of the scientific method when it comes to the physical world. First comes some observations (data), then (plus/minus some inspiration) a testable hypothesis, then tests that yield more data, then a revised hypothesis, then more tests, and so on - the cycle never ends. Each step leads to better understanding of the phenomena.
Opinions are quite different matters: you're entitled to yours as I am mine and there is no objective way that we can determine which of us is right. Scientific hypotheses are not just opinions, they must be testable and the best hypotheses (theories) stand up to repeated tests. Your reference to Hubble is noteworthy because, although his observations provided strong evidence for the Big Bang, he never accepted that interpretation.
So, now that the Big Bang is the "consensus" view, does that negate all of Hubble's work? Of course not. This illustrates that the advance of scientific understanding depends on no individual or group, and why notions that climate scientists are part of some grand conspiracy or lackeys of their employers are ludicrous.
Climate change
Now another bit of reference which will be dubbed plagiarism. The hard science of observed data as collated by Prof Richard Linzden, ( a pre-eminent meteorologist from MIT ), and recently confirmed by the ERBE satellite, Should blow away the alarmists. This is hard data from the real world environment. . . .. . not some creation from a computer software model. The Earth radiates more heat into space as it gets warmer, not less as the alarmists theory goes, and so there is no "tipping point" impending.. . . . the satellite data now proves it. Here's the link
Lindzen data
Bensan, for some reason your link was omitted. Are you referring the paper by Lindzen and Choi in Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L16705, 2009 (http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf)?
If so, the data presented offer no basis for rejecting anthropogenic climate change, which is what Lord Monckton seems to have suggested.
Nevertheless, if study's methodology, analysis and conclusions stand up to scrutiny, there may well need to be some changes to climate change models which fail to take negative feedback into account. My understanding is that all the computer models for predicting climate change are intended to reflect what happens in the 'real world' and if the 'hard data' from the real world are inconsistent with the model's assumptions, the model has to be changed.
Where is the link?
bensan; where is the link?
Branching off?
Since the Young/Mackie coalition have adopted the Play The Man platform it seems they look down on anyone with an opinion who is not a scientist.
Clearly this puffery is not conducive to a reasonable argument and whatever these scientists come up with, models based on software which has been developed with possibly faulty input, it is very likely, we will have a completely different scenario within the foreseeable time.
Qui vivra qui verra and so on. My opinion has always been the same, weather changes and so does climate. Weather is a reflection of climate and vice versa.
Before branching off into any of your other questions...
Calvin, Why is it so hard for you to stick to the point? Before branching off into any of your other questions: I am still waiting for an answer to my earlier questions:
a) What is your assessment of Garth George’s “not since” claim?
b) What trust can we have in other claims of people who make the “not since claim” even though the invalidity has been pointed out to them?
Branching off?
Doug, just what exactly is the point to which I should be sticking? I have already said I have no opinion on Garth George's "not since" claim. I did however, wish to expand the debate as it seems to me that there is sufficient 'other' scientific thought which doesn't perhaps coincide with your arguments. I concede that there are some persuasive arguments supporting global warming, and I don't have any basis to dispute this. I do however, wonder at the insistence that it is all to do with man's activities. One only has to look into relatively recent history, such as the Mediaeval warming period 800-1300, during which temperatures were substantially warmer than present. That was definitely not as a result of man's burning of fossil fuels. Then there was the cooling down of the Little ice age 1400-1850. Again, seemingly little to do with man's endeavours. I understand that man has over the last 150 years or so been responsible for the burning of vast quantities of fossil fuels but wonder if that is the only contributor of carbon to the atmosphere. A significant contributor to the carbon cycle is volcanic activity. What effect might the two recent events of Mount St Helens and Pinatubo have had? Further, it is a given that ever since Earth settled into its generally present state that it has oscillated regularly through rigorous changes of warming and cooling. None of which have been due to other than natural forces. Why then, on the strength of just less than 150 years can we be so adamant that the current warming cycle (if it is so) is in fact man made? To me, this is still the debate.
If you lack the skills then don't comment
1) Our article was about the “not since” claim. It is therefore reasonable to constrain discussion to that topic. 2) You have no opinion about this? Why not? It is a scientific claim. If you lack the skills to comment sensibly on this claim then you should not comment on any other scientific claim.
Skills lacking
Oh, so it is about skills? So, you are perhaps the archetypal pedant. A common failing with people who aren't able or prepared to entertain the thought that there may room for debate. This in itself debases the thrust of your argument and sidelines the relevancy of it.