James Annan writes about two programmes on the BBC. First, a good one on overselling climate change. I think that what gave the programme credibility was that they didn't talk to any of the global warming skeptics. RealClimate also has an interesting discussion.
Second, a crappy one where Bob Carter was allowed to misinform listeners and Phil Jones was given insufficient time to reply. Carter said this:
We are at the top of a little temperature cycle. And as Professor Jones knows, since 1998, which was a peak and an extra peak because of an El Nino warm year, that since 1998 the temperature has not gone up at all. Now since 1998, in those seven years, we've been continuing to put out greenhouse gasses at the high industrial rate that we now do. All the computer models that is to say the deterministic ones have predicted that temperature would keep on going up from 1998 to 2005. Reality is that it hasn't.
As I have pointed out before, Carter is cherry picking. It's even worse this time since he acknowledges that 1998 was an El Nino year, but doesn't take that into account in his comparison. And it is dishonest to pretend that what has happened is inconsistent with climate models -- the steady warming trend has continued. The Carter apologists at Climate Audit tried to explain away his previous assertion that global warming had ended by arguing that Carter was just illustrating that is was wrong to judge trends over a small number of years, but this quote makes it clear that he really is claiming that global warming has ended. Certainly that is what his listeners and readers understand him to be saying. For instance Mark Steyn (who may be the most gullible pundit alive), wrote this:
But then in 1998 the planet stopped its very slight global warming and began to resume very slight global cooling. And this time the doom-mongers said, "Look, do we really want to rewrite the bumper stickers every 30 years? Let's just call it 'climate change.' That pretty much covers it."
Phil Jones needs to be much less polite when debating the likes of Carter. He politely waited for his turn to respond, but by then there was hardly time left. What he should have done is interrupted with something like this:
You say that the temperature has peaked and is going to go down now. I'll bet you 500 quid that the temperature will increase over the next ten years. How about it? Do you really believe it's going to go down?
As it happens, it seems that Carter doesn't really believe this because he won't bet, even with 2:1 odds in his favour.
A picture is worth a thousand words. I assume I can't insert images so envisage an upward trending time series graph with an outlier higher than the end point. That should put the 1998 anomaly in perspective. I recall saying to a neighbour in southern NSW in late 1998 'we must have had 100 days over 30'. Admittedly there have been fewer hot days since then but the number of nights of frost has dropped as well. If it has been getting cooler someone forgot to tell the glaciers.
It's inaccurate to describe Steyn as "gullible". He just doesn't care about the truth (or actively prefers lying, I'm not sure which). Long ago, I had a competition to nominate one of his columns that didn't contain either a lie or a gross distortion and no one could find one.
[Personal attacks on other commenters are not allowed here. Do it again and you're banned for 24 hours. Tim]
Tim, at least you've highlighted the merits of the BBC's surprising (given their normal position on the subject) documentary on overselling climate change.
The use of Carter not wanting to bet on an increase in change is a mechanism to paint all of the anti-AGWers as not being prepared to put their money where their mouth is. I'm not with Carter on that one but will happily bet anyone that a climate model will not predict what the weather will be like in 2010. You can even pick the particular model you want to use. Any takers? Of course, if you're not prepared to make that bet then your in the same camp as Carter.
Oops! You're not your (or yore or yaw, even).
I'm not with Carter on that one but will happily bet anyone that a climate model will not predict what the weather will be like in 2010.
If I didn't know better, this sounds like a simplistic hand-wave.
Who would want to take that cr*ppy bet with so many loose ends? How unenforceable. How do you collect? What indicators? Where?
Much simpler, Jack: warmer or colder than this year? See how easy it is to collect?
Best,
D
Jack, climate models predict temperatures will be warmer in 2010 than they were in 2000, and I'll give you 2:1 odds that the climate models are right.
It's this accuracy of the overall climate model prediction of significant rise in temps, due to anthropogenic global warming, that's important. Details as to whether one year is warmer than the previous year, or if tomorrow will be warmer than today, aren't important.
I'm willing to stake money that they're right. How about you?
Hell, I'll bet $10 US that 2006 will end up warmer (if you believe in that "global average temperature fiction") than 2005, and give 3:2 odds. (I put in $6, you put in $4, if 2005 is warmer than 2006 you take it all). Payable by Paypal. If you believe that global warming peaked in 1998, then that oughta be damn attractive.
What I always keep having to remind people is that what "global warming" really means isn't that general temperatures will rise--as though London will graducally become a balmy sea-port (well, literally, as well as culturally)--although in some areas they will--but that rising base-level temperatures mean that more energy gets put into the overall weather system.
When you put more energy into a system, it becomes more dynamic, more unstable, more turbulent, more violent: the highs get higher, and the lows get lower, and the storm systems get more energetic. More energy in the system translates into more powerful hurricanes, more severe droughts, more radical shifts, and a higher amplitude of peaks and valleys when you chart it out. So, in fact, some areas of the globe might well show temporary pockets of colling, till things average out.
It's basic chaos theory, foiks: when you increase the energy of a system, it becomes turbulent, and demonstrates non-linear fluid flow. If you keep increasing the energy in the system, it may well re-align into a higher-order stable state again--the next level of dynamically stable balance--but in between, it's going to be rough. Chaos theory applies directly to weather systems; after all, meteorology was one of the origins of chaos theory. Lorenz was a meteorologist when he discovered his attractor.
re: John Quiggin on 24 April 2006:"It's inaccurate to describe Steyn as "gullible". He just doesn't care about the truth (or actively prefers lying, I'm not sure which). Long ago, I had a competition to nominate one of his columns that didn't contain either a lie or a gross distortion and no one could find one."
Following courtesy of Tim Blair:
"Mark Steyn! Crushed! By a major Australian intellectual!
I don't believe I was ever aware that Aussie prof John Quiggin had launched a competition to demonstrate I was a congenital liar, but apparently he did back in 2002, indignantly objecting to my "lie" that Australia, Spain, Italy and co were "on board" for an America-led Iraq invasion without UN authorisation.
Yup, he certainly nailed me on that one."
"Hell, I'll bet $10 US that 2006 will end up warmer (if you believe in that "global average temperature fiction") than 2005, and give 3:2 odds."
From the figures at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html , since 1980 thirteen years have been warmer than the previous, eleven cooler than the previous and one the same. With those sort of statistics, I wouldn't want to give any more than 1:1 odds.
"It's basic chaos theory, foiks: when you increase the energy of a system, it becomes turbulent, and demonstrates non-linear fluid flow."
Apparently, none of the What-AGW? folks ever had enough scientific curiosity as kids to watch a pot of water put on a stove.
Chris, just looking at the chart you link to I see about 15 increases and 10 decreases. 3:2 odds won't pay, but 5:4 should give a reasonable payout margin.
I haven't really thought about token bet amounts, but maybe they'd be worth doing for the psychological satisfaction.
"just looking at the chart you link to I see about 15 increases and 10 decreases."
I should have mentioned that I used the figures that were there nearly a year ago. Since then revisions have changed the slight decrease from 1987 to 1988 into an increase and the equality of 2002 and 2003 into a slight increase.
"3:2 odds won't pay, but 5:4 should give a reasonable payout margin"
I think any skeptic taking odds of higher than 1:1 would be admitting that warming is happening. It would help their credibility if they took an ongoing bet every year at 1:1 odds.
"I think any skeptic taking odds of higher than 1:1 would be admitting that warming is happening. It would help their credibility if they took an ongoing bet every year at 1:1 odds."
Their reluctance to risk their own pocket cash on their opionions, rather than the mere future of the planet, bolsters my thesis that at this point, they all deep down believe in AGW, they just enjoy being contrary.
I'm not convinced that skeptics disbelieve in AGW, but what I think is happening is that they're applying the precautionary principle by refusing to bet. Which might be even more ironic.