About a week ago, the World Meteorological Organization put out a statement to correct the erroneous claims in the media that global warming had stopped (emphasis theirs):
GENEVA, 4 April 2008 (WMO) - The long-term upward trend of global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is continuing. Global temperatures in 2008 are expected to be above the long-term average. The decade from 1998 to 2007 has been the warmest on record, and the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C since the beginning of the 20th Century.
The current La Niña event, characterized by a cooling of the sea surface in the central and eastern Equatorial Pacific, is a "climate anomaly" part of natural climate variability. This La Niña started in the third quarter of 2007 and is likely to persist through to the middle of 2008. It has influenced climate patterns during the last six months across many parts of the globe, including in the Equatorial Pacific, across the Indian Ocean, Asia, Africa and the Americas.
"For detecting climate change you should not look at any particular year, but instead examine the trends over a sufficiently long period of time. The current trend of temperature globally is very much indicative of warming," World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General, Mr Michel Jarraud said in response to media inquiries on current temperature "anomalies".
"La Niña modulates climate variability. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change in the present context is that the trend is still upwards; the global climate on an average is warming despite the temporary cooling brought about by La Niña."
Roger Harrabin at the BBC wrote a news story about the WMO statement that managed to turn the WMO's statement that global warming had not stopped into a statement that it had stopped in 1998.
Global temperatures 'to decrease'
Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
Of course this erroneous story was picked up by Drudge and was linked by Glenn Reynolds and the rest of AGW denialists.
Fortunately the WMO (and others) contacted Harrabin about the misleading article and it was corrected to read:
The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.
And of course Glenn Reynolds and the rest of the gang corrected their posts.
Ha ha! Just kidding. No, instead of making corrections Reynolds and co accused the BBC of bias:
Under Fire: "The BBC is under fire after altering a news story about global warming as a result of activist pressure."
Following the links we come to a post by Tim Worstall at the Adam Smith Institute:
I must say, I think this is an absolutely marvellous advance. We pay for the BBC, after all, so we really shouldn't have any of that elitist nonsense about a factual reality or anything. No, news should be presented to show the world as "you" believe it to be, not as some impartial reporter of the facts would have it.
That, at least, was the view of one Jo Abbess, a climate activist (and a remarkably confused one at that, a little googling reveals that she worries about both global warming and Peak Oil: mutually exclusive concerns one might think. Bless.) who, as this correspondence shows, did indeed manage to have a BBC news report changed to reflect her views. We mustn't actually talk of static temperatures, or even worse, of 1998 being the hottest so far (and thus since then we've had cooling) because that might make people think that the world has, umm, not been warming and might even have been cooling since 1998. Can't let the proles know the truth now, can we?
The truth is that global warming didn't stop in 1998 and that's what the WMO said and that's what the article should have said and that's why the article needed to be corrected. Of course, the Adam Smith Institute isn't big on corrections.
Page van der Linden has more:
Predictably, Rush Limbaugh got on the bandwagon, linking to a piece by yet another denier, and incorporated the story into his April 8th show. He adds a little more spin with the classic "there's no consensus on global warming!" argument.
Update: Harrabin comments:
I subsequently received suggestions that the article should offer more background. The WMO wanted to emphasise M. Jarraud's view that a slight temperature decrease in 2008 compared with 2007 should not be misinterpreted as evidence of a general cooling. Some of the feedback seemed helpful so we altered and expanded the report - improving it substantially for the general reader, in my view.
Among my e-mail exchanges was one with an environmental campaigner who published our e-mails implying that we had changed our article as a result of her threat to publicly criticise our report. We didn't change it for that reason. We changed it to improve the piece.
The denialists have been rushing to correct their posts.
Ha ha! Just kidding. No, they accuse Harrabin of lying:
So we are asked to believe that between 10:57 am, when Roger was still arguing that the article should be left in its orginal form, and 11:28 am when he wrote to ask whether his changes were acceptable, he had suddenly changed his mind on the basis of new correspondence he had received from, among others, the WMO.
Colour me unconvinced.
I mean, Harrabin could not have received an email from the WMO during that time. It's just impossible because all the email servers are having their morning tea at that time.
Say what?
Reynolds scripsit:
Hahahahaha... this is hilarious! It would be much more accurate and informative to say, "We are launching fire at the BBC for altering a news story without our consent." And "we" of course refers to only Samizdata and the Adam Smith Institute and the small band of denialist socks.
It's funny that Reynolds tried to make himself sound so detached and objective, and make the "fire" look so big.
business as usual.
denialists claim that an environmentalists (or the communicts, or the media or the scientific conspiracy) are changing media repors.
then it turns out, that a well establishe organisdation (or, quite often, the authors themselfs, because feeling misrepresented) asked for a change.
no correction follows, as it is just declared the next level of conspiracy kicking in.....
Whew! That was a close one. For a second there I thought the AGW trend was turning, thank God it was corrected.Could you imagine how foolish we would look if we were wrong? Let's do everything in our power to make sure this doesn't happen again.Spread the word......I'll go turn on the lights and start my car.
Because the BBC doesn't make corrections to reflect the facts more accurately, they change stories because they are frightened of the big bad environmentalists.
And Goliath was really a midget bullied by David.
Hmn, I mark down any post containing the word "denialist" as not being worth my time to read. Thankfully you put it in the topic, so I didn't have to bother reading your post, but what I really need is a firefox extension or the like to strip out all posts mentioning "denialist" before I see them. It can be disappointing when you expect to read a fair and balanced article to find out half way through that the author is stooping to insult the other site and label them in such a way that their arguments should not be heard or considered. It is quite a denialist term in itself, really.
The role of the victim was portrayed by vavatch.
Denialist.
OK, now that vavatch isn't reading ...
I say we make it a movement!
"The truth is that global warming didn't stop in 1998 and that's what the WMO said and that's what the article should have said and that's why the article needed to be corrected. Of course, the Adam Smith Institute isn't big on corrections."
Umm, no.
"We mustn't actually talk of static temperatures, or even worse, of 1998 being the hottest so far (and thus since then we've had cooling) because that might make people think that the world has, umm, not been warming and might even have been cooling since 1998."
That is, as far as I'm aware, the truth. The El Nino, followed by La Nina, make it so, as the WMO said.
"The truth is that global warming didn't stop in 1998"
You'll have to define your terms. GW as measured by observed temperatures? Well, at least as far as I know, it seems that it did.
Starting from the end of the Little ICE AGE of course there is warming. OMFG we're all gonna die!!!! The earth is warming up after an ICE AGE OMFG!!!!!
Mick reminds me of the protagonist of "Flowers for Algernon" ... and the END of the story.
Tim Worstall,
By your measure global warming has "stopped" about half a dozen times in the past twenty five years. Yet, each time it has miraculously continued yet again. Dontcha think your measure is pretty much worthless?
Mick, it could have been worse....you could have reminded dhogaza of the lead in "one flew over the cuckoo's nest"...also at the END of the story.
It seems that all the talk about global warming/cooling etc, etc, is about to be overtaken by the next big story....food riots caused by increasing food prices. Even the UN is starting to question the food to fuel concept.
Mike and kent respond by throwing out unrelated talking points.
dhogaza:
Actually, I'm proposing a new word: "inactivist". One advantage of the word is that, like "delayer", it also includes those who ostensibly admit AGW is happening but still want to Do Nothing. Another -- possibly bigger -- advantage of "inactivist" is that it's based on the word "activist" which these wackos like to use as an insult? If "activism" is such a dirty word, then "inactivism" must be pretty good, no?
A while back I wrote instructions on how to cook Tim Blair, Andrew Bolt, and Patrick Michaels, and maybe we should add Tim Worstall:
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2006/12/how-to-cook-tim-blair-andre…
WMO: "the global climate on an average is warming despite the temporary cooling brought about by La Niña."
But if La Nina is put on one side, why not El Nino? The WMO is absurd to argue for the former but not the latter. The "hottest" ever years of 1998 and 2005 were El Ninos, were they not? why are they not equally discarded? Delete known El Nino and La Nina years and you get a basically flat series with a barely perceptible upward trend. The GISS data for actual temps from 1880 to 2007 show a less than 1oC increase, and that mainly because before 1900 there were no tropical stations in Africa at all and not many in most of SE Asia and the Pacific (check their station coverage maps for 1885, 1900, etc).
Yeah, I did a double-take at that too.
The only thing I could come up with was: if you're concerned about Peak Oil, you think all the oil will run out, and so you can't be worried about all that oil continuing to cause global warming.
Which, if that's what was meant, well, uh . . . crikey.
"The "hottest" ever years of 1998 and 2005 were El Ninos, were they not? why are they not equally discarded?"
Nothing is being "discarded". If you pay attention to the refutations of "global warming stopped in 1998" claim, the real problem is that certain outliers are being emphasized at the expense of the global trend. Missing the forest for the trees, in other words.
Tim Lambert:
Haha. Tim Worstall should write a new post titled, "Journalists criticize BBC mail servers for fabricating WMO messages". Followed by: "Concerned citizen exposes BBC lies". And then: "UNSW blogger under investigation for slander".
The inactivists are a bunch of pathological liars.
bi the way: have you or anyone ever done regression analysis of changes in GISS temperatures 1958-2007 against any or all of the following: changes in emissions, Mauna Loa concentrations, airborne fractions, the price of oil? Try it, if you can do better than R2<0.01, I'd love to know how.
/me ignores unrelated inactivist talking points
This thread is about the BBC's reporting of the WMO position. The WMO said -- and even bothered to emphasize that --
These are the words the WMO said, and these are the words you inactivists are trying to suppress. It's that simple.
"Haha. Tim Worstall should write a new post titled, "Journalists criticize BBC mail servers for fabricating WMO messages". "
Why me? I didn't make the comment above that Tim L extracts about emails and servers. That was, erm, someone else, as the link Tim L provides shows.
At the risk of filling the thread up with silliness, I'd like to know why reality check thinks that any of the things mentioned in post # 21 are directly related to global temperature.
I asked at #21 if any "of changes in emissions, Mauna Loa concentrations, airborne fractions, the price of oil" have anything to do with temperature change. guthrie, all you have to do is show what other more important causative factors than those do "cause" temperature change. The data are readily available from CDIAC. Where are your correlations? Please remember, this is a "science" blog so they had better stand up.
#21: "bi the way: have you or anyone ever done regression analysis of changes in GISS temperatures 1958-2007 against any or all of the following: changes in emissions, Mauna Loa concentrations, airborne fractions, the price of oil?"
...and pirates!
I asked at #21 if any "of changes in emissions, Mauna Loa concentrations, airborne fractions, the price of oil" have anything to do with temperature change. guthrie, all you have to do is show what other more important causative factors than those do "cause" temperature change. The data are readily available from CDIAC. Where are your correlations? Please remember, this is a "science" blog so they had better stand up.
hint: even on a science blog, we don t have to fullfill random demands of trolls!
but correlations have been done. start checking here:
http://www.worldpassports.org/australia_legal/229798
Residual standard error: 0.101321 on 48 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-Squared: 0.783817, Adjusted R-squared: 0.779313
F-statistic: 174.034 on 1 and 48 DF, p-value: < 2.220e-16
sod: ever heard of auto-correlation? It is late here, but an elementary first step to avoid that is to take first differences (as I did). Your link did not do that, although its data did come up with higher R2s when sunspots were included, and with the coeff. on sunspots also significant (the results you reported actually EXCLUDED the sunspots; in Lambert-speak, you are thereby a LIAR, but I don't use that terminology, no doubt your link just made an honest reporting mistake). Keep trying (Hint: check Durbin-Watson).
Reality check:
All you have is nothing but falsehoods. No, obviously a correlation test with sunspots doesn't exclude the sunspots; and no, there was no correlation seen between temperature and sunspots; and yes, you're full of pure junk.
As for the correlation between CO2 and temperature, you don't need any fancy math to see it.
= = =
Tim Worstall:
As the Romans said, excusatio non petita accusatio manifesta.
Anyone still wants to defend their demand for BBC to quote-mine?
Tim Worstall says: "Why me? I didn't make the comment above that Tim L extracts about emails and servers."
Yes, instead you've [written a post](http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/misc/climate-change-censorship!-200804131…) that argues that a text book that misrepresents climate science should not be corrected.
Tim Worstall writes:
Do yourself a favor. Get the temperature anomalies for the years 1998 to 2007 and run a linear regression on them, then come back and tell us whether the coefficient of the year term is positive or negative.
Do you know what a linear regression is?
²vavatch
#6
Kudos to "a denialist term in itself".
So what? Mankind are denialists except for the scientists. They are the only ones who not only know the only truth about the biggest issue of mankind in a changing world, about a linear upward trend in global average surface temperature, who caused it, by what they caused it (nonlinear CO2-trend), it's bad, how much this will interact with nature in the coming centuries and how much it will change depending on human politics in the future.
So don't even address (stupid?) questions about the magnitude of human influence - with or without CO2 - with regard to natural noise, other feedback mechanisms and other human induced perturbations which are not entirely accounted for at IPCC (scientific understanding very low to medium). If you do, you will be associated with denialists of homocides, flat earthers (quote Al Gore) and other pathetic creatures.
I am disgusted about such arrogance to call all these people denialists when the only thing that is relatively solid science is the driving force of CO2 = 3.47 W-2/m2 according to AR4(resulting in roughly 1°F - 1°C for 2*CO2). Anything else regarding the AGW theory is still subject to further research at best, or arrogant claims and public slurs at worst.
If you know you are right, just relax, never mind those "denialists", just ignore them. wait until the end of La Niña, the next PDO shift towards more El Niños, the melting of the thin ice in the Arctic, a strong solar cycle 24, whatever. Temperature will continue to rise as predicted by the IPCC.
But deep inside you know: Those "denialists" have a point! You need this kind of challenge to improve your science.
You need this kind of challenge to improve your science.
No, I don't think anyone needs zombie "facts" and "up is down" claims to improve their science. And that's all the denialists have.
Mick writes:
Yes, Mick, it's warmer than the Little Ice Age. But the climate is a physical system. It's not a system like a spring, where if you press it one way, it will automatically bounce back the other way. If you want to heat it up, you have to add energy. Where do you think the extra energy is coming from, Mick?
Reality check writes:
1998 was, but 2005 was not.
Reality check writes:
RC, when I regress temperature anomaly on CO2 for 1880-2007, I get about 80% of variance accounted for. But that doesn't prove anything; you have to account for the "integration" of each time series. Explaining more than that would get pretty complicated. Suffice to say that when the statistical dust settles, CO2 is a major factor, though not the only one.
re: #1, #18,
"global warming and Peak Oil: mutually exclusive concerns"
I recommend:
Kharecha, P.A., and J.E. Hansen, 2008: Implications of "peak oil" for atmospheric CO2 and climate.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/pkharecha.html
We're going to burn all the oil&gas we can get.
We'll stop when the EROI (Energy Return on Investment) gets too low, i.e., we'll certainly stop before 1:1, regardless of high high the prices go.
The worry is that as we come down the Peak Oil & Gas peaks, if we don't rework our infrastructure and vehicle fleets early enough , we get a big depression. The 2005 US DoE's Hirsch Report says 20 years in advance. The second big worry is that if we don't do that, there will be terrific pressure to use even more unsequestered coal to keep the lights on and do synfuels.
reality check- you want to check which reality you're using.
My point was actually to see if you had any clue at all how or why the things you wanted to graph would have any effect on temperature.
The answer would appear to be, you don't have any idea at all.
How, for example, is the price of oil anything to do with warming? You would first have to convert into constant dollars, then show that emissions were proportional to the oil price, which I don't think is the case off the top of my head, but its your job to do the proving in the first place.
Then, why are changes in emissions important? Surely the relevant one is the Mauna Loa CO2 concentration, which is the only thing you suggested which I can see as having a definite direct link to temperature over a long period.
sod: ever heard of auto-correlation? It is late here, but an elementary first step to avoid that is to take first differences (as I did). Your link did not do that, although its data did come up with higher R2s when sunspots were included, and with the coeff. on sunspots also significant (the results you reported actually EXCLUDED the sunspots; in Lambert-speak, you are thereby a LIAR, but I don't use that terminology, no doubt your link just made an honest reporting mistake). Keep trying (Hint: check Durbin-Watson).
i don t needany test, to understand the autocorrelation in the warming and in CO2 increase.
the sunspots analysis does NOT exclude the sunspots, nor does it show a significant R².
sunspots have been analysed by Tamino recently:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/stalking-the-elusive-solar-cycle…
surprise surprise, no correlation.
Mankind are denialists except for the scientists.
you mean apart from the (educated) majority, who do AGREE with the scientific consensus?
about a linear upward trend in global average surface temperature, who caused it, by what they caused it (nonlinear CO2-trend)
i linked to an analysis of the correlation. it is high. people are trying to bring up sunspots all the time. did you ever take a comparison of a sunspots curve and the temperature?
Those "denialists" have a point!
the term says is all: a denialist can NOT have a point.
You need this kind of challenge to improve your science.
ahm no. sorry, but basically everything that you ever said on this topic, has been said before. and in a much better way. the thought that you are moving climate science forward is WISHFUL THINKING!
Bi: Actually, I'm proposing a new word: "inactivist".
Apologies for the resurrection of that particular point, but there's a similar term you may want to use in other circumstances. I find that one more cutting, since most of the delayers like to categorize themselves as "skeptics". I, for one, will use this term if the delayer's masking his argument as scientific, and "inactivist" if he's honest enough to admit that his argument is political.
Brian D:
That's an interesting word, but I still have reservations about it as it's being proposed by purveyors of paranormal theories like psi phenomena and all that (and I don't want to go there yet).
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
@Sod
Sorry but there is no cohesion in your argueing at all.
Sure! No problem. Yet you still ask:
...and...
Exactly, but many of those "denialists" who do not agree with verything YOU regard as a scientific consensus (the 3.47W consensus, the Oreskes consensus, the good news practice consensus, the ... ... ...) - they do have a point.
Hahahahaha.
climatepatrol, are you seriously proposing that the BBC should lie about what their sources say?
The WMO said -- and specifically emphasized -- that there is still a warming trend. What kind of "good news practice" is it to deliberately leave this out? Tell us.
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Sod: "the sunspots analysis does NOT exclude the sunspots, nor does it show a significant R²." That is simply not true, if you are referring to the data and results in your link. I did the regression using the data supplied and the R2 etc were identical to those cited in the link (a non-peer reviewed and very superficial source) for just the regression between Temp and CO2, whereas when both CO2 and sunspots were included the R2 went up to 0.8 and the Sunspot coefficient was significant t=2.2 with 47 degrees of freedom (your source cited 48 because he had only one parameter, and his R2 was .78). Check your source's methods mate!
Inactivists are hilarious.
Why didn't you simply try to correlate temperatures with sunspots alone? Maybe it's because there's no correlation at all?
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
From the same link, what happens when one tries to correlate temperatures with sunspots alone:
Hmm. R2 = 0.000134823. Does Mr. "Reality check" have Hansen-induced apopletic dyslexia?
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
bi: two can play our game. Do just your regression but with year on year changes instead of the absolutes, and we then have R2 .19 (adj .18) and a significant sunspots coefficient of .09 with a high t at 3.36 for 48 df. Nobody ever said sunspots were the only determinant. The main culprit according to the IPCC and my uncle Tom Cobleigh 'n all is emissions from fossil fuel burning and land use change. Using the CDIAC data for those, taking year on year changes again, and doing the regression on both sunsposts and emissions, the R2s are barely affected, but the coefficient on emissions is NEGATIVE and,lucky for you, insignificant, with t at -0.3. Thus it is time to score our litle game 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 to me. Emissions are NOT the main culprit of whatever minimal warming there has been since 1910 or (on this data) 1958. Time also to close the IPCC. Meantime I would look forward to your conceding defeat but I was taught not to crow or expect an opponent to grovel. So I let you off on that.
Okay. If the headline:
This sentence after a WMO quote is indeed misleading because it was not the emphasis of WMO at all, to the contrary. But hey, the statement "this would mean that global temperatures have not risen since 1998" is correct. The linear trend 1998-2007 has not been proven to be statistically significant and 2008 is very likeley to be another year of not warming. Period. The interpretation of WMO that "The current trend of temperature globally is very much indicative of warming" is also misleading because it makes believe that there is still proof enough that global warming will continue no matter what. Whereas the question: Has global warming stopped? 1)"YES", 2)"NO", 3)"we don't know". The scientifically correct answer should be: 3) with the current scientific understanding of all climate drivers and feedbacks: WE DON'T KNOW.
Is CO2 equally distributed globally? YES. Is warming distributed equally over the globe? Definitely not. Polar haze? Where does it come from? A culprit much better to tackle down than CO2, and so on.
But the expression GLOBAL WARMING is widely understood as CAGW, thus often misleading whatsoever.
climate patrol: well said!
Back to bi: ever helpful, I have rerun my regressions with a lag, i.e. this year's change in temp as a function of LAST year's changes in Sunspots and anthro Emissions of CO2. The outcome is a LOWER R2, hardly surprising because the sun PRIMARILY affects this year's temps, not next year's. Interestingly, the coefficient on Sunspots remains significant but turns negative, while that on changes in Emissions turns positive but remains insignificant. My results here and in my previous post provide a complete explanation of why the IPCC NEVER does regression analysis. The same applies to Hansen, the greatest apostate of our time, apart from St John Houghton.
Reality check:
Oh, R2 = 0.000134823, and somehow that means I'm wrong.
= = =
climatepatrol:
Oh, so according to the WMO global warming might have stopped, because that's what they ought to have said, even if they specifically said the exact opposite. Brilliant.
bi: what a pathetic response. Do go off to bed with sod, that's all you are fit for.
depp=true
notiz=[please do not feed the troll]
And from The Register, yet more pig-headedness by Tim Worstall.
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Reality check uses statistics to dump the work of thousands of scientists down the drain...
Truly, they are epically stupid.
@ ALL
Some commenters are getting bored. How about this one: Kerry Emmanuel, hurricane expert, featured under the title "Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming's impact", Houston Chronicle, April 12, 2008, 12:00AM. Is AMO now against WMO regarding a major pillar of the "indisputable" global warming "consensus"? USA Today, Canada Free Press, Houston Chronicle, etc. ... Washington Post (just kidding, of course not). And where is the press release in Europe?
Does the AGW theory proposed equally distributed warmiing? No. Do GCMs project evenly distributed warming? No. Do you even understand the theory that you think is so wrong? Not even close, pal.
Ah yes. Prepare for denialists to show how much bullshit they can spew over the Emmanuel paper. Will they notice that the results are based on a computer model? Will they notice that the issue of hurricanes is separate from warming?
climatepatrol is staring us off quite well, pretending there was a consensus on hurricanes. It's about to get more stupid in here.
Actually, they are not. They just follow orders what to research for and what questions should be answered. For example, if hardly anybody is seriously interested in investigations such as this one:
from an editorial essay by Roger Pielcke, Sr..
If hardly anybody is seriously interested in investigations such as the above, nobody will publish it in renown scientific magazines. The multi billion Dollar deal was clear: Prove CAGW, prove CAGW!
But maybe I am wrong and reality check will soon be a standard for all climate models. Your name suits you very well, Reality check.:-). I shut up now.
climatepatrol:
The role of the cash-strapped maverick scientist was played by ExxonMobil.
Reality check writes:
Did you perform ADF tests to see what level each time series was integrated at, and did you check for cointegration? All you've said is that you differenced each series -- a meaningless procedure if the time series is integrated I(0) or I(2) or more.
climatepatrol writes:
That's because the sample size of N = 10 is too small. Try 1978-2007 and tell me what you get.
Reality check writes:
Why are you using anthropogenic emissions and not total CO2? A molecule of CO2 in the air doesn't know if it's anthropogenic or not. Greenhouse heating depends on the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a given time.
so let us check some reality:
here s what started this discussion: (#21)
bi the way: have you or anyone ever done regression analysis of changes in GISS temperatures 1958-2007 against any or all of the following: changes in emissions, Mauna Loa concentrations, airborne fractions, the price of oil? Try it, if you can do better than R2<0.01, I'd love to know how.
i did exactly that in post #28. and found a pretty good correlation (R²=0.78) between GISS and the Mauna Loa concentration.
please consider this FACT, when reading all the nonsense that "reality check" wrote after that exchange...
Barton: Well said - "Why are you using anthropogenic emissions and not total CO2? A molecule of CO2 in the air doesn't know if it's anthropogenic or not. Greenhouse heating depends on the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a given time". I love it when I am plagiarised, having made this very point many times on Deltoid, especially when as I have notified above that anthropogenic GHG may well be only 33% of the annual increment (from isotopic analysis). In normal regression analysis one attempts to include ALL relevant variables. That is what the IPCC (and you) studiously refuse to do, which is why we get nutters like Stern, IPCC, Brown, EU, Rudd, and even Bush talking about up to 100% reductions in emissions by 2050.
Sod: I have already explained TWICE above that your link mis-reported his results. Do I have to keep reposting?
Here's acase for corections from the non-Denialist camp: "The WMO statement upon which the BBC and Daily Telegraph report (see
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/10/eacli…)
appears to be that at
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/info_notes/info_44_en.html.
The statement goes to some length to report warming between December 2007 and January 2008. While it is happy to quote the figures for instances of warming it noticeably omits those for regions that reported cooler conditions.
It also makes much effort to report a warm January in Australia and notes that it was warmer than the previous record in 1999. Both figures are of course cited but there was no mention of the pattern of higher January temperatures, which in order were 2008 (+1.23 above average), 1999, 1988, 1969, 1879, 2001, 2006, 1973 (+0.94) at which point there is a break of 0.17 degrees. (Is it a coincidence that five of those eight years end in 8 or 9?).
The WMO report also implies that Australia's January temperatures have been steadily rising for many years. In year 2000 the January temperature was 1.01 below average, in 2002 it was 0.25 degrees below average and in 2007 it was just 0.01 above average. In other words Australia's average January temperature is varying as it has done since the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976.
Of course no-one should have expected impartiality from the WMO when the opening sentence was "The long-term upward trend of global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is continuing."
The whole statement puts the WMO in an embarrassing situation. By its admission that La Nina events cause substantial cooling it is also acknowledging that El Nino events cause substantial warming. How much of temperature trend that the WMO draws our attention to is the product of the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift that shifted the balance towards El Nino events? How much of the slightly elevated temperatures of the last 6 years is due to the state of "semi El Nino" that prevailed in the Pacific?
It seems to me that once the influences of the Southern Oscillation (El Nino & La Nina) are removed, along with volcanic eruptions and shifts in cloud cover, the human influence on temperature is likely to be very minor and perhaps impossible to determine."
hat tip: John McLean
We've secretly replaced the CO2 from fossil fuel burning with 100% pure natural CO2. Let's see if they notice the difference!
Reality Check, with his usual wacky aplomb, writes, "nutters like Stern, IPCC".
This is hilarious. I'd like to know what divine inspiration has given RC in terms of professional qualifications to write this kind of trash.
RC, it seems like you are beoming something of a legend... in your own mind.
Readers beware: Reality check is a 'hit and run' contributor who makes vapid arguments then flees the thread when his arguments are systematically demolished. This happened on another thread in Deltoid recently, when RC tried to suggest that contemporary extinction rates were nothing to be concerned about. His evidence? Walking around Hertfordshire villages and noticing how many House Sparrows he could hear. That was about it.
To Brian D.
Yes the term pseudoskeptic seems appropriate. I have seen it before and as you've seen in the Wiki entry, it mainly applies to an a-priori refusal to examine a case because it has been hyped by some paranormal charlatans, ergo it's bunk. In the case of "AGW" I think many people still see it as an extraordinary claim comparable with paranormal claims. And, since the mainstream media relate about it sometimes ad nauseam it's easy to infer that it's an enemy trick (American rightist blogosphere) or that the entire society has been caught by folly (Western Europe, where the theme of decadence is commonly rehashed)...
An interesting post about the underlying motivations has been written by Maribo:
simondonner.blogspot.com/2008/02/tom-delay-and-believing-in-climate.html
But, since the belief of "extraordinary claim" is beyond reason, I think they are also many so called "AGW believers" which accept it "because the experts say so" or because it's common opinion in their political camp, but more tolerate than accept it since it conflicts with their deep conviction; such people can then be easily gullified by any "debunker" as soon as it comes from any direction other than the predictable rightists or free-market fundamentalists. As such the kinds of C.Allegre (ex-socialdemocrat), or A.Cockburn (far left) can have much more impact...
More, I would speculate that, the more mainstream free-market proponents accept and integrate the ideas of mitigation as best adaptation, the more leftwing pseudoskepticism is bound to grow and pervade, about elite plots for rationing basic goods.
Best
Yves
Whilst we're at corrections, I seem to remember that a couple of months ago one of the trolls on this thread used the January global temperature anomaly thusly:
[my emphasis]
to imply that there was no warming trend. He did so here and on his own page, where he even cherry-picked a few convenient peaks to label on his graph in order to paint a skewed picture.
Since then data for February and March have been released by GISS, and they show that January was simply a statistical burp - probably resulting from the current La Nina event.
To use said troll's own words, will he now admit that:
I was wondering if someone could sort through the attatched list for me and tell me which article would be considered "alarmist" and which one,if any,I should "deny".
Also, should any of these articles be corrected or should the alarmists deny the denialist their right to claim alarmism?
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Betula's a troll who's apparently even dumber than Reality Check ...
dhogaza: Is that possible? I'd call it even...
dhogaza and jeff: I can't speak for Reality Check... but I can't fault you two for your dim witted comments.....AGW is clearly to blame....
http://sify.com/news/scienceandmedicine/fullstory.php?id=14640012
Betula.
Since this obviously causes you significant anxiety, why don't you just tell us which items of that entertaining list you deny, and why you deny them; which ones you support, and why you support them...
...and just cut the trollshit?
Er, what? Betula, That link is about a study by WHO that says extreme weather conditions and natural calamities can lead to psychiatric illnesses. Exactly how does that prove your point?
And then he rambled:
Betula, if you bothered to take a careful look at the wealth of informed contributions both dhogaza and jeff harvey have made over their times on Deltoid, you would be forced to conclude that whilst sometimes their comments may sting, and frequently be the cause of disagreement on your part, they are not made on the basis of these gentlemen being dimwitted.
I am sure that neither of them care a whit about your dig, but you probably need to pause and consider for your own sake how the difference between being able to make substantive points in your posts, or just flailing around being trollish, may make a similar difference to the credibility, other rather the lack thereof, that you garner here.
#70
Correction 1. Talking about corrections and cherry picking: Please read it in context of the splicing of proxy data with unsmoothed instrumental data:
Correction 2: Context of the second slur:
@Barton
. A global warming trend alright. But I don't like to repeat myself on the other aspects.
(Correction 3 - I Just corrected a "denialist" post in German. It was obviously flawed.)
Meyrick,
Please re-read the context. The article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism
clearly is about the claims about paranormal. About AGW I just said that many common folks, with unconscious Aristotelician prejudices, still consider AGW just as it were a claim to paranormal because for them it's impossible, unconceivable, that puny man has any effect on godly earth (more exactly sky, see Maribo's post). Mix that with a fear-of-consequences-if-true (consequences of climate change itself or of subsequent societal changes) and you get the result. Science has nothing to do with that, it's a kind of question of sacrality, beyond reason, also leading to creationism/ID in other contexts.
Then, if NAS and Royal Society just make due points about the present state of climate science, with some standard warning statements about the responsibility of the politicians (like: Attention, this is a serious problem worth considering), that conflicts sooo heavily with such preconceptions: no, no, no, AGW is just unconceivable, they must have gone mad, or have an agenda.
Just read the numerous hostile reactions to many News Scientist articles about climate change. I don't think it's only hacks sent by astroturf groups. There are probably a couple of but they would be isolated in the absence of an irrepressible need to disbelieve. Or, just consider why the Mann et al article (1998), on paleoclimates, which itself neither proves nor disproves AGW, attracted such vehement hostility and became a kind of totem in the denialosphere, to my utter hilarity. Because it affirmed that the late 20th century was "likely" the hottest period of the 2nd millenium, the key hockey-stick diagram being present at some place in the IPCC TAR. It dared to displace the sacred cow of MWP, still present in the corresponding (albeit schematic and only for Western Europe) diagram from the previous IPCC report. The MWP seemed to be utterly needed to show that "climate change was within natural bounds". Why the MWP and not just an older period like the Altithermal, 10 kyrs BP, likely a little warmer than now although the CO2 levels were lower (265 ppm)? Such period could have been conveniently cherry-picked to "disprove" the CO2/T link, so why insist on MWP ? I would speculate that MWP is "historic" and as such is commensurable to our present (and within the bounds of the young earth creationists), and can be easily illustrated by rehashed stories such as Green Greenland, vineyards in England, circumpolar navigation by Chinese sailors to be compared with the weird LIA described with force famines, epidemies, frost markets on the Thames. Forgetting that such period (ca 1550-1850) was indeed very bad for ... many non-Europeans.
BTW I'm always been astonished by the asymmetry of description: warming = good, cooling = bad. It's surely significant of some underlying psyche. Maybe in some parts of the World like the Middle East it could be the reverse, warming being translated into "roasting", cooling into "greening".
Best
Yves
Betula's web site
says
The web site forgot to mention that one of the things caused by global warming is an idiotic web site that claims that the earth warms only by 0.006°C per year.
Perhaps next we can have... a complete list of people and things which are part of the Worldwide Global Warmist Conspiracy (according to conspiracy theorists, anyway). It'll probably be quite huge too.
Bernard, the subject of this discussion is "Denialists Against Corrections"....so why would it bother you if someone you think is a "Denialist" is involved in the discussion?
The list I posted was mean't to show that perhaps in some cases the "Alarmist" title may be warranted, and so I pose the question....are Alarmists Against Corrections?
For example, articles that claim AGW will cause cannibalism,a decline in circumcisions, the NFL threatened, an increase in early marriages....etc....should they be corrected or do you believe them?
Could you imagine cooking your neighbor on Super Bowl Sunday with no game on?....it just won't be the same.
And don't worry, your responses don't sting, they are expected.....
For starters, Betula, how about correcting the claim that the earth warms only by 0.006°C per year?
Oh, no, no, no. That's not among the list of things that Steven Milloy has approved to be corrected.
bi,
Now I'm not sure what web site you want Betula to correct but 0.006 C/year is 0.6 C per century and that is in the range, 0.6 C to 0.8 C, commonly accepted as the correct figure depending upon what temperature record you choose to quote.
If they had said 0.008 C/year would that substantially change anything?
Betula,
You want us to say something needs correcting when you haven't shown that it needs correcting. I'm sure that some of those studies/articles could be wrong. Show us what needs correcting and we'll either agree it needs correcting or show you why it is correct.
Dontcha see the difference here?
Looks like "reality check" forgot to check reality.
John Mashey @37:
Thanks for the reference, that's useful.
Btw, I didn't mean to imply that the 'argument' I proposed up there was plausible - precisely the opposite! It's so odd, in fact, that an assumption of bad-faith argumentation becomes the more charitable interpretation of what's going on.
I like the term "inactivist"; I think I'll be using that. I will be using it to describe myself, since it fits with regard to this aspect. I do believe that there is global warming. I do believe that it is highly likely that human activity is a major contributor. I also believe that we have much more serious problems than that, mainly having to do with the still widespread problem of extreme poverty. When disasters and changes happen, it is the poor that suffer the most (not to mention the daily difficulties), and I think it would be manifestly unfair, to the point of unethical, to make major shifts in human activity to head off gloabl warming if those shifts will make it more difficult for poor people and poor countries to build their economies and achieve a decent standard of living.
Here is a link to, and the beginning of, a relevant article.
PhilB
=====
"Study links democracy, riches and ability to survive a natural disaster"
By Frank Greve
MCT NEWS SERVICE
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071101/news_lz1c01disastr.html
November 1, 2007
Reported deaths in natural disasters worldwide are down tenfold since the 1960s, even though the number of natural disasters is up sharply, according to Princeton University geoscientists.
The reason is better responses to floods, earthquakes, hurricanes and other environmental catastrophes, according to a paper in the October issue of Geotimes, which is published by the American Geological Institute.
What was the key to the better responses? Perhaps how democratic the afflicted country was and how rich, according to principal author Gregory E. van der Vink. ...
Boris
You make a good point.It is difficult to try and correct a prediction of future warming circumstances. There is no data to work with since the events haven't happened.
Now if I were to write an article titled "Global Warming Causes Increased Risk Of Rabies Along Coastal Areas", you couldn't correct it.....it could happen.Less woodland pools inland and more water along the coastline....more mosquitos along the coastline, thus more bats, thus more rabies incidents.
Maybe "Alarmists Against Corrections" is not the best title choice.....perhaps "Alarmists Against Responsible Headlines" would be better.
"Now if I were to write an article titled "Global Warming Causes Increased Risk Of Rabies Along Coastal Areas", you couldn't correct it....."
That's not the worst strawman I've ever heard, but it's up there.
I didn't like the term "inactivist" when I first read it in this thread. But yes, I could describe myself as a global inactivist or an anti globalist. I adore the passion of Al Gore for a good cause. But unlike him, I wouldn't want to entrust a cent to a global tax system and to a steering commitee in the new world order to govern the environment. So you may call me "inactivist". But my main objective here is accountability of scientists, governments. Yes, I am a Ron Paul fan. Here is another quote from the above research paper:
. Think globally, act locally.
climatepatrol:
Just like 1988, 1991, 1995, 1998. Didn't stop denialists from reappearing in the past and won't stop them from reappearing in the future. And it won't stop "climatepatrol" types from telling us to relax and just wait until the end of La Niña.
Here's my forecast for denialist behaviour during the next El Niño: They'll say "It's not global warming, it's just El Niño". They'll then leap into their extensive and detailed understanding of El Niños, something that is strangely absent at the moment.
RC posts:
None. The last six years were no El Nino years.
climatepatrol writes:
What "global tax system?" The carbon taxes that some people have proposed would be levied by national governments, not by the UN or some international body.
@Barton:
Just two examples:
Today global carbon trade and tomorrow
global carbon tax
But it is kind of off topic here. Discussion fits best under the topic of reports of rice shortages which at first were apparently banned by the western media when a couple of not yet globally controlled Asian newspapers wrote about it last February: Worldwide Shortiage of Rice - Prices Soaring. Only now in April it has been in all the news worldwide. Maybe I was the first one who connected the problem with climate alarmism. Now, in April, the German mainstream media did just the same here: firstly the butter, secondly the bread.
Climatepatrol.
Let's step back a few paces.
On 15 February this year you posted on lomborg beats gore 110 to 2 a comment (#63) intended to challenge a refutation of one of Lomborg's 'errors': Page 84: "The vast part of Antarctica has cooled."
You did this by directing readers to a GISS surface temperature map - as sod notes, a single month anomaly. Whether KÃ¥re Fog's rebuttal is valid or not (this argument is for the Lomborg thread), taking a single month to make a point about temperature trends puts you on shaky ground indeed.
I will grant that the comment (#44) that I referred to, which contained the quote:
was made in the immediate context of the peaks you refer to in the mediaeval warm period, and it was clumsy of me to use it without clarification. However, you used the same January 08 temperature anomaly mentioned in this quote on your blog post on 12 February, and at the aforementioned 15 February comment #63 on the Lomborg thread, each time not in the context of the MWP or of temperature proxies. On your blog you used it to imply cooling:
with the preceding 'get-out-of-jail' la nina card to temper your point. So yes, as far as I could see, your point for raising the January 08 anomaly on these three occasions was to try to emphasise a cooling trend, or at least the absence of a warming one.
As to your emphasis of the January 08 northern hemisphere snow cover (clearly illustrated here), you have been cute with that too. Yes, it was greater than most recent years - about 3.3 million km2 so, give or take around a hundred thousand km2. Interestingly, the February anomaly was around 1.3 to 1.4 million km2 over mean, and the March snow cover anomaly was around 3.5 million km2 under the 1966-2008 mean. Does this now mean that you will post another piece on your blog acknowledging the antics of the 'cold girl' two months previously? And will you now do a piece on the same warming trend that the March snow cover anomaly points to (according to your technique), similar to the 'cooling' thrust of your 12 February piece?
Interestingly, your 12 February piece says this
At the time I made a comment on the Lomborg thread that even a cursory eyeballing of the graph would cause anyone to smell a rat in the context of your statement. Winter snow cover is one thing, but your first graphic was 'seasonal', and even it showed something curious...
And lo, if we look at an explicit depiction of the northern hemisphere snow cover anomalies from November 1966 to February 2008, it is quite clear to see what the trend in snow cover is. Certainly many of the recent years' winter months still show a positive anomaly (not in contradiction to climate models), but the weight of the anomalies over all seasons, over the time span, tells a different story.
Can you guess what it is?
climate (supposedly) patrol:
I wasn't aware that land previously used for rice was now being used for biofuels. Could you tell us where this is happening?
@Chris
#96
Neither did I. Worldtribune explains the new food chain.
Neither did I. Worldtribune explains the new food chain.
sorry, but the article doesn t explain anything of that sort.
it has only a single line upon biofuel (apart from the SCREAMING headline):
Production of biofuel -- particularly the corn programs in several Western countries, including the U.S. -- has put pressure on grain supply.
no explanation, no numbers.
Climatepatrol demonstrating his words need to be taken with a grain of salt.
sod: With all due respect. But Jesus Christ would call this blindness. You are so used to focussing on the CO2 signal as grain and to ignore anything else as noise or statistical chaff that no matter how hard I try, you will not see. It's a waste of time and OFF TOPIC. Just one thing to think about: In a global food chain, in the real world, everything is connected, not disjointed like one sentence out of context. Welcome to my topic related blog post anytime as you know.
@Bernard J.
Thanks for elaborating. Yes, I agree as in my post. No trend in winter snow cover, but summer meltdown due to warming in the recent decades. It will be interesting to see if the record refreezing of yet thin ice this past winter in the Arctic will partly survive the next summer. Again, it is unclear whether Arctic warming has stopped or not.
This is an interesting topic indeed. Maybe you can help. I read a comment that early spring warm anomalies over Asia is typical for La Niña years. But Arctic haze along with more pollution from China has undoubtedly a regional warming affect over Siberia and Northern China as well. The (polluted?) snow in Russia melted fast. The Arctic Sea ice didn't. The polar bears in the Hudson bay may hope for more Summer sea ice this time. The seasonal global sea ice right now is at its 1979 level according to http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/.
But if you bring in climate models, I like to ask: Can they simulate the present sea ice extend? Did they simulate the reduction of sulfure aerosols in industrialized countries which led to less cloud albedo and contributed to a warming in the nineties? Isn't it that this positive feedback has stopped? Has ocean warming stopped? Will CO2 level off some when ocean warming stops? This, I think are valid questions at the time, when WMO claims that the current trend is indicative of (further) warming. But then, I do not of course want to impose an answer. Because as far as I know this is all subject to further research at the moment.
sod: With all due respect. But Jesus Christ would call this blindness. You are so used to focussing on the CO2 signal as grain and to ignore anything else as noise or statistical chaff that no matter how hard I try, you will not see. It's a waste of time and OFF TOPIC. Just one thing to think about: In a global food chain, in the real world, everything is connected, not disjointed like one sentence out of context. Welcome to my topic related blog post anytime as you know.
i don t ignore anything. the simple truth is, i haven t seen any facts supporting the claim (made by "alarmists" like you) that biofuel production is a MAJOR problem to world food at this moment.
on the other hand everyone seems to be aware of future problems that an expansion might cause. i am unaware of any MAJOR movement among "warmists" to extend biofuel production at the cost of food production for the third world.
on the contrary, the groups pushing for CO2 reduction are at the forefront of warning about biofuels causing food problems. (or other environmental problems, btw.)
if you have any sources making different claims, please feel free to bring them on here on your blog...
It will be interesting to see if the record refreezing of yet thin ice this past winter in the Arctic will partly survive the next summer.
even if it does, it will not suddenly become 6 year old ice. see, things take time in climate..
Again, it is unclear whether Arctic warming has stopped or not.
that is nonsense. to phrase this correctly: there is NO evidence that arctic warming has stopped.
(la Nina, one winter..)
The seasonal global sea ice right now is at its 1979 level according to http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/.
it is showing a needle peak above the average line. and you carefully picked GLOBAL sea ice, because the arctic isn t.
you include the wild fluctuations of the antarctic sea ice, to cover the clear downward trend of the arctic one.
But if you bring in climate models, I like to ask: Can they simulate the present sea ice extend?
that is NOT their purpose. simulating a 2008 january la Nina sea ice event is completely irrelevant to a 100 year climate model.
(most of your remaining questions on the models are nonsense as well or could be answered by simply taking a look at the models!!!!)
@sod
#103
I see. Honestly, I didn't want to cherry pick the Northern Hemisphere because its refreezing extent is even much larger than the shocking meltdown of last Summer.
This exactly is my objective for accountability of scientists and fits perfectly in this thread: In my opinion, it is NOT up to the sceptical questioner to bring proof that global warming has stopped. It is up to the climate scientist to proof that it has NOT stopped.
So I rephrase my question. Can a climate model simulate a multidecal shift from a period of ocean warming owing to more frequent El Niños to a period with more frequent La Niñas? Is the hypothesis accepted that such a multidecadal pattern (ENSO/PDO/AMO, etc.) could be driven by earth magnetism in connection with sunspots/cosmic rays? All nonsense? I know. Because a model does not predict future temperature, it is merely a sensitivity study. gristmill. But if such vague scenarios which "only illustrate the climatic effect of the specified forcing - (this is why it is called a scenario, not a forecast)" justify a claim that global warming has not stopped, has yet to be proven.
Here is the fact
me:
cp:
I read right through that article and found nothing that answered my question apart from an implication in the title that has a punctuation error. Can you answer my question and not waste my time feeding me non-sequiturs. We already know the impact of biofuels on other food supplies. There is no need to trash your credibility by implying you're answering my question but only giving a non-sequitur.
@Chris
#106
I gather you insist on discussing it off topic. I hope Tim doesn't mind. There are reports that the production area of rice is in the decline worldwide. This particular report
confirms how rice fields are directly given up to produce ethanol.
Another possibility here.:
Do I really need to say more?
cp:
The 14 year average has increased every year since the 14 year period 1963-1976. Mother nature doesn't allow proof of anything over a shorter period. The denialists' attitude is a bit like the old man from Arkansas who wouldn't fix his roof when it was fine weather. Why do I need a good roof in fine weather? Why do I need to worry about global warming in cool weather?
"The denialists' attitude is a bit like the old man from Arkansas who wouldn't fix his roof when it was fine weather. Why do I need a good roof in fine weather?"
The alarmists attitude is a bit like saying there is rain in the forcast, so we had better build an Ark.
Betula.
Do you understand the comparative logical inconsistency between your statement:
and Chris O'Neill's
I think that you might not have the slightest clue...
cp:
You started it.
I couldn't find any such hope when you started it. Maybe it's one rule for you and another one for me.
So you're no longer suggesting that your previous response was an answer to my question. Do you treat everyone with this sort of contempt?
That's nice but where does it come from? And does it necessarily mean that less is being used for rice because of biofuels? I would like to be able to check the facts.
So "could become" means the same as "is happening", does it?
BTW, I think biofuels were always a very dubious idea. Whether they are or are not affecting rice prices does not alter the fact that they are having an impact on the crops that are used to produce them.
Bernard;
It' difficult to have a comparative logical response to Chris's illogical statement.......but of course I will try.
Of course the denialist from Arkansas should fix his roof.... I would go fix it myself if I knew where he lived. But he should also quit smoking,have his house checked for Radon and UFFI,get flood insurance,make a Will,stop eating trans fats,wear his seatbelt and lighten up on the alcohol...especially if he's driving. He is a stupid man who does not heed warnings.
Now, how many scientists, perhaps on the IPCC, smoke cigarettes despite the known risks? Are they Cancer deniers? And how many scientists, perhaps from Arkansas, are using cell phones... despite the speculation that they may cause brain tumors 10 years down the road? Are they tumor deniers?
And how many scientists, perhaps on this site, are burning fossil fuels on vacations, leisure, recreation and hobbies, despite the speculation of future catastrophies, cataclysmic events and disasters. Are they AGW deniers?
Which leads me to conclude that any smoking addicted scientist from Arkansas who is using his cell phone while vacationing overseas is stupid.
And that is why I think Chris O'Neill's statement is illogical..
Small difference between smoking and global warming- the smoker primarily kills himself. The CO2 producer can kill other people on the other side of the world.
@Chris
#111
Please stop power tripping. You started it because I answered somebody elses question and kindly invited him to discuss the offtopic in my blog. Your question was a tricky one and I was right to question its motive. I took it for granted that you understand the economics of the food chain and soaring staple food demands and skirocketing biofuel demands which will result in farmers giving up the low income rice production towards more lucrative crops. When I finally found a very pricise answer you were still not satisfied. You ask a bit much. I am not your student or something. Let's agree to disagree or welcome to my blog. Sincerely, Climatepatrol
Sure if you say it was. I asked direct questions and expected direct answers. When I pointed out that your answers weren't really answers to my question, all you can come up with is:
Sorry, I should remember not to ask for answers that actually answer my questions.
@chris
Fair enough. Apologies. The following is actually a good question which can be connected with the topic of this thread. Yet in order to document it, I kindly ask you to give me some time.
The European Union and the green forrunner Germany has now recognized that "carbon-neutral" biofuels as an implementation of the Kyoto Protocol does not work out as mitigation of the carbon output.
.
Here comes my may point. It all depends on whether the negative impacts of the Kyoto Protocoll and AR4 are recognized (there are positive ones such as an innovation boom in alternative energy sources). If we continue to regard burning food as "carbon neutral", governements who want to meet their Kyoto goals will continue to exploit this option.
Statements such as "[...] The current trend of temperature globally is very much indicative of warming" push the price of carbon further and with it the price of food.
Betula writes,
"Now, how many scientists, perhaps on the IPCC, smoke cigarettes despite the known risks? Are they Cancer deniers? And how many scientists, perhaps from Arkansas, are using cell phones... despite the speculation that they may cause brain tumors 10 years down the road? Are they tumor deniers? And how many scientists, perhaps on this site, are burning fossil fuels on vacations, leisure, recreation and hobbies, despite the speculation of future catastrophies, cataclysmic events and disasters. Are they AGW deniers?".
What Betuala's done is create the ultimate 5-piece strawman that Eli so nicely alludes to on his web site. Its all here in bucket loads. Its the same old nonsense packaged and delivered: "The environmentalists want us to live in caves". This kind of argument has been demolished so many times I won't even try. The fact that Betula wheels it out says it all. I am sure that the next discredited chestnut he/she will dig out is the "In the 1970's scientists were all warning of global cooling".
*Sigh*
Jeff Harvey;
Is this going to be the new mantra...everytime someone disagrees they pull out one of Eli's 5 types of strawmen?...next you will be telling me I should be clothed in "sackcloth and ashes"
You state...."This kind of argument has been demolished so many times I won't even try."
I'm not sure what type of argument you are refering to,but maybe you should try....without hanging on to Eli's coattails.
And by the way,I can't find where I said anything about environmentalists and caves....I'll go back and look again.
climate patrol, correcting the stuff you post makes for a full time job. so i ll stick to the most important points:
you started the "rice shortage" point in comment #94 with these words:
Discussion fits best under the topic of reports of rice shortages which at first were apparently banned by the western media when a couple of not yet globally controlled Asian newspapers wrote about it last February: Worldwide Shortiage of Rice - Prices Soaring. Only now in April it has been in all the news worldwide. Maybe I was the first one who connected the problem with climate alarmism. Now, in April, the German mainstream media did just the same here: firstly the butter, secondly the bread.
your thesis obviously is: biofuel production is CAUSING the CURRENT price increase on rice.
you did NOT bring up a single source, supporting this idea.
instead, all your sources (and me, and most likely most people posting here) are worried about the FUTURE effect of biofuels on food production.
so yes, you might have been one of the first who made that FALSE connection!
the sources you brought up, did NOT present any facts about the devlopments in food and biofuel production, implicating a shift between the two things, causing a food shortage at this TIME.
in a most typical way, in both your sources used in #107, you failed to notice the MOST IMPORTANT parts of the message:
in your california example you missed this important piece of information:
That's because California grows short- and medium-grain rice, ... When people talk of global shortages of rice, they usually mean shortages of long-grain rice.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7342146.stm
while your Japan example missed this part:
t will also allow Japan to utilize the 380,000 hectares of farmland -- some 10 percent of the total in 2005 -- that have been abandoned as cheaper imports have driven Japanese farmers out of business and into the cities.
the subject is a complcated one. obviously market mechanisms COMPLETELY FAIL on the subject of food productionm. (those starving make horrible customers...)
biofuel production sufferrs from the same problems, that most modern agriculture shows: monocultures, pesticides, labor intensive (subsidies in first world) and a competition between needed local food and "luxury" production for the first world.
your analysis doesn t only fall short, but simply is false.
========
The European Union and the green forrunner Germany has now recognized that "carbon-neutral" biofuels as an implementation of the Kyoto Protocol does not work out as mitigation of the carbon output.
this is total nonsense. i m curious to see your source1
Betula,
You will have to try better than this. You produce a feeble argument, get plastered for it, and then cry foul. Well done!
If you want a rational debate, stick to science, or at least avoid strawmen. I am sure I am not the only scientist that has to deal with the kind of dumb comment you made (that I quoted from you, if you bothered to read my last post), but its both inane and lame. Want me to repeat it?
You said, "Now, how many scientists, perhaps on the IPCC, smoke cigarettes despite the known risks? Are they Cancer deniers? And how many scientists, perhaps from Arkansas, are using cell phones... despite the speculation that they may cause brain tumors 10 years down the road? Are they tumor deniers? And how many scientists, perhaps on this site, are burning fossil fuels on vacations, leisure, recreation and hobbies, despite the speculation of future catastrophies, cataclysmic events and disasters. Are they AGW deniers?".
Then you replied to my post, "I can't find where I said anything about environmentalists and caves". No, you didn't, but what else could one be intimating from your comment about scientists using cell phones (I don't have one), smoking (which I don't) and driving a car and going on leisure vacations (yeh, I am guilty on both counts, although living in Holland I do my fair share of cycling). But what is the point? Are you saying that scientists who alert society as the the problems associated with excessive consumption amongst people in the rich nations and the effects of this on the environment should shut up if they partake in any of these activities? That, in order for our words to have any meaning, we should live a 'rustic' existence? What else could your statement mean? How else can it be interpreted? Please fill me in, if you will.
If my retort was rude, I am sorry, but the anti-environmental lobby have become task masters at this kind of jibe. The fact is that we, in the developed world, do take more than our fair share of the planet's natural capital. Like it or not, our planet's ecological life support systems are in decline because of this, and we in the west are living (cumulatively) with an ecological deficit. But there are ways of creating sustainability, equity and social justice that do not necessarily entail a calamitous shift in our lifestyle. One of the best books on the subject is Brian Czech's 'Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train'. Before making any more off-the-cuff remarks, I suggest that you read it.
" think it would be manifestly unfair, to the point of unethical, to make major shifts in human activity to head off gloabl warming if those shifts will make it more difficult for poor people and poor countries to build their economies and achieve a decent standard of living."
But the developing world are likely to suffer most FROM global warming - which is primarily the result of the actions of the developed world.
JH;
Let me first say, that I also apologize for coming across as rude.
As far as my comments on cigarettes and cell phones etc....that was in reply to Chris O'Neill's analogy about a man who ignores fixing his roof when the weather is fine, thus, why worry about AGW when the weather is cool?
The point I was making...was that just because people don't act the way we think they should,or want them to.... or follow common sense practices despite the warnings ie; cigarettes, cell phones etc., does not mean that they are stupid, or deniers or anti-environment.That incudes scientists.
A good friend of mine last year was talking about the horrors of AGW and then went out on the front step to have a cigarette...that didn't make sense to me.
I happen to be an Arborist, with a degree in Forestry from Colorado State University....I am far from anti-environment and don't deny the earth is warming, however, I think the alarmism is out of contol.
In addition, my science background is limited to trees, however, I think I can be rational without pure science. It seems most people on this site are always trying to prove themselves right.........the American physicist Richard Feynman once said that "the finest scientists were always trying to prove themselves wrong"
@sod
your thesis obviously is: biofuel production is CAUSING the CURRENT price increase on rice.
Huh? Uh no! Just a carbon neutral global player that could have a runnaway effect as long as there are people with priorities like you.
you did NOT bring up a single source, supporting this idea.
This is a bold faced lie!
MOST IMPORTANT parts of the message:
in your california example you missed this important piece of information:
????????
You know when reading your twisted denialing rambling and then looking at the top of this post, I suddenly spotted this God denying post claiming that "science has proven that God does not exist".
So I guess the best thing is to shake off the dust and to move on.
But ever so helpful, I will inform you once I have finished a blogpost supporting my claim that as long as burning food is considered carbon neutral and is thus considered a letigimate means by governments to meet the Kyoto Protocol, this will EFFECT all food prices. Short-grain rice, medium-grain rice, corn, wheet, tropical palm oil for jumbo jets of the virgin green airline, soi beans, clean water, beer, everything. It's complicated but not as complicated as climate science.
Basmati rice, Thai perfume rice, sticky rice...chinese long grained rice, Uncle Ben's vitamine rice....everything, Sod.
Sorry, I forgot your long grained rice in my previous comment.
sincerely,
CP
sod wrote: "obviously market mechanisms COMPLETELY FAIL on the subject of food productionm. (those starving make horrible customers...)"
This isn't obvious at all, and in fact is entirely false. Market mechanisms work very well on food, which is why starvation is a far smaller problem in the world today that it was before capitalism became widespread. You are confusing imperfection with complete failure; no the market isn't going to be perfect at providing everyone with everything all the time. But it works far better than any other mechanism we've seen, especially better than the top-down socialist-type systems which have been responsible for the largest food shortages and starvation incidents worldwide in the last couple centuries. With modern technologies and markets, food shortages are almost always failures of governments, not failures of markets.
==========
I wrote: "... think it would be manifestly unfair, to the point of unethical, to make major shifts in human activity to head off gloabl warming if those shifts will make it more difficult for poor people and poor countries to build their economies and achieve a decent standard of living."
Ian Gould wrote: "But the developing world are likely to suffer most FROM global warming - which is primarily the result of the actions of the developed world."
Exactly my point. They are most likely to suffer BECAUSE they are poor, not yet developed, and thus retarding their economic growth is the path to MORE suffering, not less. I agree that rich countries should work to conserve, to avoid waste, to develop more sustainable technologies for energy. But I do not think this should be our main focus, while so much of the world still doesn't have basic needs met. And the most direct path for poorer countries to achieve prosperity is a need for them to obtain affordable energy with which to accomplish, well, everything. Which means that they will need to be ramping up the use of fossil fuels, in large amounts, because those are the most affordable forms of energy with current and near-future technology. Which means that there is a direct conflict between (a) the process of increasing the standard of living and the prosperity of the world's poor, and (b) the process of reducing or eliminating the anthropogenic components of global warming.
I think actually that the most ethical large scale trend of modern times is economic globalism and "outsourcing". This is exactly the process that is most helping the world's poor to develop functioning economies, and it should continue to be encouraged.
PhilB
Huh? Uh no! Just a carbon neutral global player that could have a runnaway effect as long as there are people with priorities like you.
what do you know about my priorities?
again, your claim was NOT about the future price of rice, but about the price increase we are seeing NOW:
Discussion fits best under the topic of reports of rice shortages which at first were apparently banned by the western media when a couple of not yet globally controlled Asian newspapers wrote about it last February: Worldwide Shortiage of Rice - Prices Soaring. Only now in April it has been in all the news worldwide. Maybe I was the first one who connected the problem with climate alarmism. Now, in April, the German mainstream media did just the same here: firstly the butter, secondly the bread.
i am still waiting on any data, supporting this connection!
You are confusing imperfection with complete failure; no the market isn't going to be perfect at providing everyone with everything all the time.
thanks for helping me out of my confusion.
the fact that the market will not supply food to starving people of course is not a complete failure, but just some imperfection!
all this eductaion for free! bless the internet!
I now realize that cp was not interested in answering my question about his original implication. He was only interested in supporting his hypothesis about the effect of biofuel production on future rice prices. We're dealing with someone pretty arrogant here.
@Chris
I said: "Maybe I was the first one who connected the problem with climate alarmism. Now, in April, the German mainstream media did just the same (followed by a link in German)
You said:
I wasn't aware that land previously used for rice was now being used for biofuels.
I said "neither did I".Knowing that I didn't have a source for this happening now. Turning staple food rice directly into biofuel would be so absurd that there would be an international uproar. No, of course things happen in a much more subtle way. Governments have to keep up appearences. So your question that followed was a trick question and had little to do with my invitation to discuss the issue: "you tell us where this is happening?" I was game enough to google that for you although it was not part of my claim that converting staple food rice into biofuel is happening right now.
As I said I will inform you as soon as I update my blog in this respect. You may always comment there as well. Critical comments are also welcome as long as they are honest.
Quoting more of cp than he did above:
And what would "the problem" be and what would "climate alarmism" be referring to in this case? The only problem I saw mentioned was an existing shortage of rice. What existing activity are you implying is helping to cause this existing problem?
B:
and he would also be stupid to pretend global warming doesn't exist while the weather is cool.
Off-topic from the post, but going to climatepatrol's connection of biofuels and rice prices. Uh-uh. Nope. Sorry. Wrong. Try Australian drought, linked to climate change (and signing over water rights to more profitable grape production - possible market failure?), and a plant disease in Vietnam.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/business/worldbusiness/
Thanks for the thought, though.
Chris O'Neil:
My point will never get across, you are locked in your own world.
The sentence was meant to be ridiculous. I could find something stupid in everyone, using citeria for what I think is stupid.....including the most brilliant scientists in the world. The person who invented the MRI or the bullet proof vest may not believe what you believe or act as you would so you insinuate they are stupid.
Because you call someone a denier or an inactivist or insinuate they are stupid....simply because they don't agree with you...... is ridiculous.
Let's take a closer look at the man from Arkansas....let's say that he was on a quest to find a cure for Cancer ....he is in the process of using Hybridoma derived monoclonal antibodies to determine the electophoretic mobility of Japanese Encephalitis protiens, yet, he hasn't bought a hybrid car because he doesn't believe in 30 years we will all be cannibals...is he a stupid man in your eyes Chris? A denier?
So my point Chris, which I deny you will get, is that everyone is a denier.....why worry about cigarettes when my lungs feel great? Why worry about cell phones when my brain feels good? why worry about changing the oil when the engine runs great? Why worry about radon when I can't smell a thing? Why worry about a will when I feel great? Why worry about flood insurance when my basement is dry? Why worry about a seat belt when I'm not flying through the windshield? I could come up with a million of them....and one of them would fit you.....do you deny it?
@steward
Sorry, I don't seem to have access to the NYTimes article you linked. But you have are interesting thoughts too. I was aware of the drought in Australia and plant deseases. I believe it takes a thorough paper to describe what is really going on, connecting weather events, attributing anthropogenic influences to the environment, market correlations of crops, market failures and market interventions by governments (with or without Kyoto).
@chris
One example is Nestle boss Brabeck who sees the rising demand for processed food from developping nations. To keep production costs low in the event of the soaring crop prices (partly owing to biofuel production), he switches to rice. It just all falls together at about the same time...
No, it's not because they don't agree with me, it's because they confuse weather with climate.
BTW, Betula, you are locked in your own world.
Fair enough but I just wonder why you singled out rice when there are other crop markets that are far more obviously affected by biofuel production.
Chris O'Neil:
Thanks for clarifying that....I thought it was because they confuse attitude with climate.
I wrote: "You are confusing imperfection with complete failure; no the market isn't going to be perfect at providing everyone with everything all the time."
sod wrote: "thanks for helping me out of my confusion.
the fact that the market will not supply food to starving people of course is not a complete failure, but just some imperfection!
all this eductaion for free! bless the internet!"
Clearly I failed to help you out of your confusion. A perfect world is not possible; we must just do the best we can. And markets are the best and most effective solution by far to food production and distribution (as well as for just about everything else). That's why, in the rich countries today, most poor people have higher standards of living by many measures then the well-off did a century ago.
You can yelp about every market imperfection, but unless and until you (a) hold each other alternative to the same standard, or (b) come up with a genuinely superior method, you're not helping anyone. And if you're running around promoting alternatives that have repeatedly been shown to fail in far worse and more widespread ways, then you are actively working toward an increase in starvation and misery, not a decrease.
If you are still thinking that removing market forces from the food supply and distribution is a good solution to anything, then you are still sorely confused. Look at, well, every attempt to do so in the last couple centuries and see how they've turned out. See how the USSR had to institute small markets to avoid complete collapse of their food supply before the end. See how non-market "solutions" led to the most massively lethal famines in history in China, and how now they are also learning the lesson (slowly) and creating food markets there to increase production and prosperity. Etc. Etc.
All this free education on the internet is only a blessing if you make use of it. Learning from history is good. Try it sometime.
PhilB
@sod #126
To answer your question, you obviously defend strongly first generation biofuel production in comment #119, whereas
(1)New Scientist first supports most people's concern who post here:
"The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) made tentative predictions of major emissions savings from biofuel expansion by 2030, but failed to warn that such "savings" could be negated by emissions from converting more land to monocultures. Additional environmental effects of such biofuel expansion plans, such as negative impacts on the resilience of an ecosystem, biodiversity or vital ecosystem services, were also not properly taken into account."
(2)(again according to New Scientist), there are about 1% of crops used for Biofuels in 2007 [expanding fast, note CP]. "...But a slew of new studies question the logic behind expanding biofuel production. For a start, there may not be enough land to grow the crops"...
This is only the start of biofuel production. Staple food was already beginning to become a commodity for speculation worldwide, thus artificially increasing the feeling of a rice and wheat shortage (with prices in wheet more than doubling and rice increasing in places by 50%).
In spite of all these concerns by specialists, both AGW proponents and skeptics, you chose to hastily call my claims FALSE.
Hello again. And here is finally the new post with articles, off-topic but as promised, supporting the hypothesis of the link between biofuels and the present food crisis with its tidal waves affecting staple food rice for the poor.
PhilB,
You seem to be arguing there are no alternatives but unregulated free markets or monopolist state corporatism.
The fallacy of the excluded middle.
In the real world, policies based on pragmatic trade-offs are the rule. Usually, markets won't expand where there are no ready profits to be made. Hence, government subsidies of things like basic scientific research, highways, air travel, electronic communication, rural electrification, irrigation, and, yes, agricultural production and food relief that expand economies where private investors deign not go.
Transforming energy infrastructure is just such a case.
Phils been drinking with the free market fairy. In reality all markets are regulated. Successes claimed for free markets are really the successes of regulated markets.
A useful general rule is the freer the market the worse the damage after the bubble bursts. You can go to far on the other side and over-regulate also which limits growth, so it is a balancing act.
luminous beauty wrote: "PhilB,
You seem to be arguing there are no alternatives but unregulated free markets or monopolist state corporatism.
The fallacy of the excluded middle."
I have never said that markets should be unregulated. But a regulated market is very different from a "managed" market or a subsidized or highly taxed or otherwise distorted market. Government has a legitimate (and critical) role in regulating markets to prevent or punish coercion, fraud, theft, or abuse of monopoly power. It does not have a a legitimate role in running the market or picking favorites.
Most of those you list above would still happen (and happen better and with far less waste) if left to happen freely. And "transforming energy structure" is definitely one of those areas. No one could possibly argue that there is no money to be made, no profitability, in energy. There are few things that there are bigger and more robust markets for. So let people and companies figure out how to serve that market, and you'll get far better answers than putting any of that in the hands and direction of a bunch of bureaucrats and lobbyists.
Eli Rabett wrote: "Phils been drinking with the free market fairy. In reality all markets are regulated. Successes claimed for free markets are really the successes of regulated markets."
See above. I haven't been arguing for unregulated markets at all. I've been arguing for open competition undistorted by subsidies, cronyism, favoritism and corruption.
You both jump to the conclusion of "the fallacy of the excluded middle", and attribute to me an argument that I wasn't making.
PhilB