John Humphreys

Carbon Tax Backflips

tlambert — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 03:54:04 +0000

Carbon Tax Backflips

Julia Gillard has done a backflip and agreed to introduce a budget-neutral carbon tax after last year promising not to introduce one.

In a matching backflip John Humphreys has come out against the tax, describing it as a "grab for cash" after writing a report in 2007 that favoured a carbon tax:

Our government is currently using an approach of regulation and
subsidy while considering the possibility of implementing a carbon
trading scheme. We would be better served if the government replaced
all of these options with a revenue-neutral carbon tax. A carbon tax
is preferable to a carbon trading system because it is more efficient,
effective, simple, flexible, and transparent. More importantly, a
carbon tax has the added benefit of providing revenue which can be
used to cut other taxes. Indeed, a revenue-neutral carbon tax may have
little or no economic cost.

Compare this with Humphreys' rhetoric on his web site opposing the tax:

In a deal with the Australian Greens, Prime Minister Gillard announced a multi-million dollar tax on carbon, with no offset in other taxes.

That's rather deceitful. They haven't announced what other taxes will be cut, but they did say that it would be budget neutral.

This is a tax that will hurt every single Australian: electricity bills alone for the average family will go up by over $300 a year.

They haven't even decided how much the tax will be, so how can Humphreys claim this? In any case, it's the net cost that matters to Australian families -- since the tax is budget neutral, that's going to be zero on average.

This is simply another grab for cash by a wasteful government that will do nothing to address climate change.

"Budget neutral" does not mean the same thing as "grab for cash"

This proposal makes no economic sense, and will do nothing to address climate change. All it will do is make every Australian family suffer and cripple our economy.

Or it might have "little or no economic cost" according to Humphreys in 2007.

Humphreys tries to justify his backflip with this.

"A moderate carbon tax, with offsetting tax cuts, would be the least harmful policy for combating climate change" said Mr. Humphreys. "However, the current policy fails because it does not provide the offsetting tax cuts, and so it will increase the size of government and hurt the economy. It is also worrying that the government seems intent on switching to an emissions trading system, which is an unnecessarily complicated and inefficient response to climate change."

The difference between revenue neutral and budget neutral doesn't seem to be that large and insisting on revenue neutral seems to be a less flexible approach when you want to compensate low income folks for the cost of the tax. As for the switch to the ETS, surely Humphreys should oppose that, rather than the carbon tax itself.

Update: Humphreys denies that his position has changed. John Quiggin suggests Humphries is arguing like a politician rather than an economist.

tlambert Sat, 02/26/2011 - 22:54

Tags

global warming

carbon tax

John Humphreys

Julia Gillard

global warming

If you increase tax and spending by the same amount then that is "budget neutral", but it is still a grab for cash and it is NOT revenue neutral. The distinction is actually very important.

I have consistently said that a carbon tax MUST be linked to offsetting tax cuts (NOT spending increases). Given that is what I said in 2007 (with my original report) and 2009 (with the NZ version of my report) and now in 2011, I think it is fair to say I've been pretty consistent.

The only quote above that comes from me is the last one. The other quotes come from the "Stop Gillard's Carbon Tax" website, which is a project of Menzies House. While I am editor-in-chief of Menzies House, that does not mean that I personally write every word on the website, and so those quotes shouldn't be attributed to me.

John Humphreys, I assume you came down hard on the damaging GTS tax that failed to internalize part costs of damaging activity that the carbon tax does.

Surely you must rate the carbon tax as superior to the GTS and many other taxes we currently have.

Let's not get conned here...the proposed tax is supposed to help reduce carbon pollution but we have not been told how much of a reduction is hoped to be achieved via this tax...Is the hoped for reduction going to justify the expense or has that been put in the too hard basket and deliberatley obscured by stupid arguments over who said what and what they really meant.
Arguing about the tax on economic grounds is pointless as if there is not going to be any measurable reduction in carbon emissions then the whole basis of the tax is totally invalid and it is simply just a grab for cash and/or the support of the Greens.
I would have expected something a bit more balanced than the above article on a site named scienceblogs.com ....it is full of faulty logic that is not worthy of having the term science anywhere near it....but then again "computer scientist"...lol what an oxymoron that is.

Humphreys, Iain:

You self-proclaimed 'skeptics' keep saying that there's so much uncertainty over how the Earth's climate works... yet you're absolutely, totally, 100% certain that emissions legislation

> will do nothing to address climate change.

You think that doubt, uncertainty, and open-mindedness are only for other people.

And I think you're full of nonsense.

-- frank

Lol again..hey frank...I'm not a climate change skeptic at all and know that we have trashed this planet and something EFFECTIVE must be done asap to turn it around.
But..I've been around for a long long time and I know better than to trust any Government to do anything effective about the problem due to the conflicting pressure groups that hold sway...my main concern is that no figures have been given as to any hoped for reduction in carbon emissions, and if the tax comes into effect people may assume that all will be well with the planet because the Government tells us this is the way to fix the problem...and nothing real will come out of it...except another tax.
Maybe you are trusting enough to rely on a Government to be 100% honest with the facts ...that's fine by me but I am not.

As for "You think that doubt, uncertainty, and open-mindedness are only for other people."... is that to try to further muddy the waters so this issue will remain a political or ideological squabble and the real issue of reducing carbon pollution via an EFFECTIVE means is forgotten or were you just having a princess moment ?.

Iain, how would you propose we lower emissions without the government or a carbon tax? Magic perhaps?

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

via #6; "...how would you propose we lower emissions without the government or a carbon tax? Magic perhaps?..."

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

...meanwhile, over in China, a new coal fired power station comes on line every week or so.

Hmmm, seems to recall China were not long ago trying to buy up all of Australia's coal mines. Obviously the idea were to close the coal mines down so none of that bad CO2 escaped... Heh...

As I was saying, Iain, how would you propose we lower emissions without the government or a carbon tax? Magic perhaps?

Iain, I said:

> You think that doubt, uncertainty, and open-mindedness are only for other people.

You say,

> Maybe you are trusting enough to rely on a Government to be 100% honest with the facts [...] but I am not.

followed by

> [...you] try to further muddy the waters so this issue will remain a political or ideological squabble

You proved my initial point. Perfectly.

And not only that, you're a concern troll, and possibly a new kind:

> 'm not a climate change skeptic at all and know that we have trashed this planet and something EFFECTIVE must be done asap to turn it around.

So instead of doing nothing because global warming is a hoax, we now have someone who claims we should be doing nothing because for some reason we can only take action after finding a 100.000000000000000% perfect way to curb greenhouse gas emissions which every human, plant, and sockpuppet can agree with.

Meanwhile, the socks, shills, trolls, and concern trolls just keep going 'doubt doubt doubt uncertainty doubt doubt doubt uncertainty uncertainty doubt doubt...'

-- frank

One of the best things you could do with a carbon tax is to return each and every dollar of it back to the people, equally to everyone. So a small carbon emitter will pay (say) $300 per year in carbon tax, but get $600 back. A big emitter might pay $1200 in carbon tax, but get $600 back.

This essentially recognises that we are each entitled to put a certain amount of carbon into the atmosphere, and if you put less than that, you get paid for doing it, and if you put more than that, you have to pay for doing it.

If the return of the carbon tax is made explicit, then people could not view it as a tax grab by the government.

Note that nothing here in any way reduces the effectiveness of a price on carbon to reduce emissions. The change in emissions will not come from consumers deciding to use less power, it will come from producers substituting low emission power for high emission power when it becomes cheaper to do so.

John Humphries:

Indeed, a revenue-neutral carbon tax may have little or no economic cost.

That's not true of course that it would have no direct economic cost.

"Lol again..hey frank...I'm not a climate change skeptic at all "

Iain, you appear to have the same ideology and writing style as Iain Hall.

http://iainhall.wordpress.com/

A right wing blogger, that is not a climate sceptic but links to WUWT? Would that be correct?

Here's Iain Hall at Pure Poison July 18, 2009

It should be obvious to you my now Mick that I want to see some proof that there is a link between the rise in Co2 and a climatic warming thus far there is nothing that is anything more than hypothesis and assertion. {...}But in the absence of hard evidence fro the causal link Between the âextraâ Co2 that humanity has added to the the atmosphere and the claimed changes in the climate Your belief in AGW must be based upon faith alone .

This approach is typical of his observations.

So he was lying then or is lying now. He is a troll.

John Brookes said:

One of the best things you could do with a carbon tax is to return each and every dollar of it back to the people, equally to everyone.

A version of that is occurring with the proposed framework, but that would not meet Humphrey's specification since the rebate would count as new spending. He wants tax cuts, even though a rebate is almost certainly more equitable and likely to reach the beneficiaries more quickly. This clearly reflects Humphreys'libertarian-fundamentalist obsession with the evils of taxation. It's not even the substance of revenue flows between the state and the citizenry that troubles him -- but the name of the revenue flow in question.

Iain:So this is what you do when the citizens of Eastwood won't elect you, 'cause you are palpably nuts?

Let's not jump to conclusions about Iain's identity. please.

Iain writes:

>*Let's not get conned here...the proposed tax is supposed to help reduce carbon pollution but we have not been told how much of a reduction is hoped to be achieved via this tax...Is the hoped for reduction going to justify the expense or has that been put in the too hard basket and deliberatley obscured*

Iain this is in part an exercise in price discovery. Without which we would [forever speculate](http://everythingischanging.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/how-much-would-it-…) on the price of carbon required to mitigate dangerous level of carbon emissions.

So far we have come up with three approaches to mitigating carbon:

1)Direct regulation (requires price discovery)

2)Emission trading (requires price discovery)

3)Carbon tax (requires price discovery)

I fail to see how the lack of certainty in price of carbon vs level of mitigation is an augment against a moderate price on carbon versus the other mitigation approaches.

At a modest prices we are not at risk of overshooting the actual mitigation cost of either of the other two mitigation options available.

If the question is which method is most efficient, then I invite you to make your best argument that a moderate carbon is less efficient than the other two methods.

More relevant than John Humphrys changing position on a Carbon Tax (CT) is why have such a tax at all?

The whole purpose of pricing carbon is to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions but a CT will not achieve this per-se. While a CT may encourage emitters to curb their emissions there is no compulsion for them to do so. Emitters, there are about 1,000 in Australia, are left with the option of doing nothing or as little as possible in order to remain in business, passing on the extra cost of paying the CT, then claiming hardship and seeking government assistance.

Business, my friend, means maximising profit opportunities! And business would expect Mr Humphries to appreciate this and accordingly support introduction of a CT. It would also expect him to realize that without a CT, new technology now available to the energy sector, which will reduce CO2, is simply unaffordable and therefore curbs new business opportunities.

With an ETS, CO2 reduction targets are specified and enforced by government and the price of carbon is determined by the market place. Now I could understand Mr Humphreys baulking at that since it allows the business sector none of the âflexibilityâ or âopportunitiesâ of a CT.

Of course there are other reasons for having a CT. First and foremost, it is supposed to curb CO2 emissions by sending a price signal to both emitters and consumers. That notion is usually defeated by compensating affected parties so that they are no worse off or, if they are, can afford the extra cost of a CT, something else which one would expect Mr Humphreys to support.

One could understand Mr Humphreys bitterly opposing introduction of an ETS which entails government setting CO2 reduction targets which are actually achieved while the market place, rather than bureaucrats, decides the price of Carbon.

But a CT poses none of that kind of threat. Indeed, judging by countries where it has been used, it is doubtful that a CT results in curbing CO2 emissions at all, certainly not in an efficient and cost effective way. So why the backflip Mr Humphreys?

Tim Lambert said:

Julia Gillard has done a backflip and agreed to introduce a budget-neutral carbon tax after last year promising not to introduce one.

Quibble: I hate this use of backflip. Really it's a metaphoric twisting somersault since the metaphor suggests one ends facing in the opposite direction. Why do we need journalistic cliches anyway? Why not say "reversed, repudiated, abandoned or rescinded previous policy"? That said ...

The claim is debatable. People will recall that Julia Gillard said she favoured a market-based mechanism and used this interchangeably with a CPRS. Kevin Rudd's rejected CPRS, like Ms Gillard's proposed mechanism had a fixed price period before transitioning to a full ETS. The period during which this fixed price aplied was shorter in Rudd's than Gillard's but the structure is essentially the same. Had she simply implemented Rudd's CPRS exactly or with minor modifications, she could have used the same nomenclature. Had she simply said that a pure carbon tax were the way to go, the claim for her reversing herself would have been strong. That said, the Opposition, for their own purposes, deliberately and repeatedly blurred the lines between Rudd's CPRS and a carbon tax, so they could persistently claim that Rudd wanted a GBNT since that was easier to run a populist campaign against. They can't now rely on that very distinction to claim she breached her promise. This is pure hypocrisy, but what one expects from the Abbottistas, who have never met an intellectual scruple they wouldn't spit on.

Mike Pope, can you clarify, are you suggesting that and ETS will send are more efficient price signal than a carbon tax?

>*But a CT poses none of that kind of threat. Indeed, judging by countries where it has been used, it is doubtful that a CT results in curbing CO2 emissions at all, certainly not in an efficient and cost effective way. So why the backflip Mr Humphreys?*

What is your evidence for this?

I broadly agree with your argumentation, Mike Pope. A Carbon tax is easier to abolish or subvert, which is why the right likes it. An ETS creates enduring securities which could no be abolished without offending large swathes of business -- and thus operates as an economic and political wedge. An ETS would also be easier to reconcile across national frontiers than a tax, and of course, it would be open to members of the public to force business to act more aggressively by buying and holding permits to emit. Business would not like non-profits effectively voting with their purchases to push up the price of emissions.

You say however:

{a carbon tax} is supposed to curb CO2 emissions by sending a price signal to both emitters and consumers. That notion is usually defeated by compensating affected parties so that they are no worse off or, if they are, can afford the extra cost of a CT, something else which one would expect Mr Humphreys to support

If you are speaking of subsidies to emitters, then the claim is correct. Rebates to households however offer households the oppritunity to choose between continuing previous consumption patterns, handing back the rebate in the process, or new less Co2-intensive consumption while keeping the rebate. It's effectively the reverse of a loyalty scheme. The government offers you an incentive to do less business with the polluter. You can give up some or all of the incentive or some or all of the pollution. If someone can offer you a cost-effective way to have more of your preferred lifestyle while holding your compensation -- i.e. someone with less Co2-intensive but cost-competitive services, then that business wins at the expense of rivals.

Success here turns on elasticity of demand for Co2-intensive services and the price of abatement. To the extent that demand is inelastic, new (and probably more expensive) LCCO2-intensive technologies will be required. The price on carbon is designed to establish a kind of trading parity between businesses trading on cheap/free access to the biosphere as an industrial sewer and those that don't.

oops, mea culpa:

To the extent that demand is inelastic, new (and probably more expensive) LCCO2 {LLCCO2}*-intensive technologies will be required.

* Low lifecycle CO2-intensive

Mike Pope:

>*The whole purpose of pricing carbon is to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions but a CT will not achieve this per-se. While a CT may encourage emitters to curb their emissions there is no compulsion for them to do so.*

Is contradicted by Mike Pope:

>*Business, my friend, means maximising profit opportunities!*

I'm currently involved in transforming my organisation's carbon emissions. We have $100,000 budget for this out of our 60 million total budget. This year we have found projects to fill this budget that will pay for themselves over 5 years. With a carbon tax we will be able to close do the same in the 2012 financial year.

At home I buy "greenpower" and the excess I pay should be reduced by a carbon tax. I also installed a heatpump to make hot water, this uses less power but currently cost more due to comming off the J-tariff. The J- tariff is a subsidy to support coal fired power's deficiency of providing too much base-load.

Business and families trying to do the right thing will less disadvantaged by the carbon tax.

PV will get closer to price parity with coal fire power and thus benefit from the positive feedback than come with [production learning curves](http://www.iea.org/work/2007/learning/Nemet_PV.pdf). The examples go on and on. Entrepreneurs will adapt to this change in price structure.

Malcolm Turnbull on his [blog](http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/blogs/malcolms-blog/time-for-some-str…) in December 2009

On Liberal policy on Climate Change ...

"The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is âcrapâ and you donât need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing."

On Tony Abbott and an ETS ...

Tony himself has, in just four or five months, publicly advocated the blocking of the ETS, the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and, if the amendments were satisfactory, passing it, and now the blocking of it.

His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with âMate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weather vane on this, butâ¦..â

Greg Hunt, opposition spokesman on Climate Change as reported in the [Australian](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/hunt-warms-to-challenge-of…)

He says the Coalition is in "complete agreement" with the government on the science of climate change and Australia's emissions reduction targets. The Coalition also agrees with the government that it is a global issue.

[Andrew Robb](http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/28/3150553.htm?section=justin) threatening Turnbull

The overwhelming majority of the party room are violently opposed to this new tax and I'm sure Malcolm will ... run the party line and do it effectively.

There is no chance that Abbott will get to the next election without these tensions playing out. If you are looking for policy gymnastics look no further.

Greg Combet has also pointed out that the government's proposal is for an ETS. From [Insiders](http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2011/s3149986.htm)

We have put forward an emissions trading scheme, notwithstanding all the debate about tax, however we have said that it will have a commencement period of between three and five years that would start with a fixed price to get the system going, to transition business and the economy in particular through to a floating price fully flexible emissions trading scheme structure.

But it is an emissions trading scheme starting with a fixed price period and it is the case, as the PM has been very upfront with, that during that fixed price period it would operate like a tax and hence of course a lot of the debate. But to be fair and to look at the facts, we have put forward an ETS.

My... that GTS tax goes real fast ! ;-)

John Brooks @ #10 said:

If the return of the carbon tax is made explicit, then people could not view it as a tax grab by the government.

I've been lurking here off and on for a while, but I though I'd pop-in to say that I agree completely with this. A carbon price that doesn't appear to have an immediate benefit is a hard thing to sell to a public that mostly still sees AGW a a distant theoretical risk.

For a while now I've been a big fan of James Hansen's Cap and Fade approach.

It's simpler than cap-and-trade, there are no "carbon credits" to be stolen by hackers or counterfeited, it sounds like it should be more effective at making actual emission reductions, and it can't be as easily spun by denialists/do-nothing-ists as benefiting "wall street" at the public's expense.

Best of all, the public can see an near-term benefit in their own lives as it helps them improve their homes and replace older cars, which will also benefit construction and manufactures of more efficient products. This should make "Cap and Fade" both more effective and more politically bulletproof from the fossil-fuel industry's political mercenaries and useful-idiots.

"A carbon price that doesn't appear to have an immediate benefit is a hard thing to sell to a public that mostly still sees AGW a a distant theoretical risk."

Then the option left is a Government command economy: fossil fuel rationing.

Do you think that's going to be a better seller?

An ETS and a carbon tax each have their benefits and their failings.

A carbon tax gives industry a guarantee on price, which is good. However it doesn't guarantee meeting an emissions target. The setting of the rate of tax on carbon will be difficult politically, and there is a strong risk that the tax will be set too low and doesn't curb emissions very much.

An ETS has the advantage that you guarantee your emissions reductions. From the point of view of business, the problem is that they don't know what they'll have to pay for carbon emissions. Politically, it would be very difficult to backpedal on an ETS target, so it is likely governments will stick to a reduction schedule. I understand that, with an ETS, we in Australia would be able to buy emission permits from other countries. I don't like this option. The possibility of fraud in other countries is high. We need to reduce our emissions. Just paying some other country to continue to not emit so that we can continue to emit won't do the trick.

The issue of compensation is important. Paying compensation to emitters defeats the purpose of a price on carbon. A price on carbon works, not principally by causing us to use less energy, but by the producers discovering that the price on carbon makes other means of producing energy cheaper. If you compensate (say) a coal fired power station, there is every likelihood that they will use that compensation to simply reduce the price of the energy they produce, thus delaying the success of alternate energy producers. They may even use the compensation to back political parties who promise to abandon a price on carbon.

If you want a sort of marxist perspective on our current system, look at it like this. Some emit a lot more carbon than others, but the cost of the consequent greenhouse warming does not magically target the big emitters. We all pay. Putting a price on carbon fixes this.

Starting with a carbon tax and then moving to an ETS is not a bad way to go, but if I could trust the government to make tough decisions on a carbon price, I'd probably prefer a straight tax.

@ Wow:

You seem have misunderstood what I actually typed. You're, perhaps inadvertently, putting words into my mouth and therefore coming up with a false dichotomy while missing my point.

I clearly presented a link to an alternative plan to both Cap-and-Trade as well as "rationing", specifically a plan where people can see an immediate benefit. I also listed it's benefits over the "Cap-and-Trade" approach. In case you missed it the first time here it is again (I'll make it more obvious this time)....

----> "Cap and Fade" by James Hansen, New York Times Opinion, Dec. 6, 2009 <----

If you have a specific objection to the previously linked "Cap and Fade" I would be more than happy to read it (I really would like to read the thoughts of others on Hansen's suggestion), but I'm not going to try and defend a point that I never tried to make in the first place.

The problem (as I see it) is that in trying to solve the issue of AGW some policies seem to be put on the table, not because they are better or more popular, but simply because they were there first and have more "institutional momentum". Failing to try and implement an approach that is potentially better than cap-and-trade in many ways, and is easier to get public support behind, has done nothing but delay any sort of carbon pricing among many countries and therefore has only had the result of worsening the effects of AGW and the costs associated with dealing with the issue.

It's not just an issue of cap-and-trade vs. rationing/regulation.

It's an issue of cap-and-trade vs. other carbon pricing strategies vs. rationing/regulations vs. the continued progression of AGW.

If you prefer the regular Cap-and-Trade approach, I would be interested in reading why you think that it is preferable to other forms of carbon pricing, such as "Cap and Fade". But, Cap-and-Trade is not the only pricing option out there, and the alternatives may be better.

We should consider other strategies to reach the same goal.

That was my point.

Abbott 'begged' for PM's job: Windsor

Tony Abbott on a number of occasions said that he would do absolutely anything to gain government - anything," Mr Windsor told Sky News.

One could draw a conclusion from that that if we pulled a tight rein and said 'Well, you've got government if you put a carbon price on' he would agree with it - that was the inference from his statements

The 'Centre Right political activists' of Menzies House are purely and simply opposed to action on emissions and promote the idea that climate science is too uncertain to rate any kind of action - ie they promote doubt and denial. They promulgate the usual alarmism - such as "The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow" -such 'absurdities' apparently including concerns about climate change. ie those promoting action on climate and emissions are considered wreckers and saboteurs of freedom and prosperity. What an appallingly shortsighted bunch.

Whilst I have real concerns about how effective measures such as this Carbon Tax to actually cause a shift to lower emissions (that doesn't entrench gas which can't achieve long term reductions), there's not much evidence that the 'Centre Right political activists' at Menzies House have any serious alternatives in mind. On the contrary they favour the messages of doubt and denial. Uncertainty is pushed hard on the consequences of climate change. Certainty on the consequences of action on climate change goes uncontested.

If the couple of articles I bothered to read at Menzies House are typical, these are dangerously irresponsible types that promote (and avoid contesting) absurdities in the process of creating slogans for their cause. Just what kind of cause can legitimately deny science based reality in preference to accommodating reality within their policy is a mystery.

I think I'd caution people against leaping to conclusions about the "AGW sceptical" nature or otherwise of those who have doubts about the effectiveness of a carbon tax.

I'm in the camp of "Not sure yet whether a carbon tax is the best way forward, but totally agree the evidence for AGW is overwhelming and we need to develop plans of action".

One of the interesting things about ideas like this is that you need to be 100% certain they have broad public support (and public support is often a fickle thing), otherwise they will result in a change of Government and will be scrapped at the next election, then you're back to square one. All for nothing.

I agree that industry should have to pay to pollute, which is about the only way of seriously encouraging people to find more efficient ways of living and putting pressure on industry to become cleaner. However I'm not so sure that this proposal and the way it has been handled is going to get over the line.

@ Mike #30:

Agreed.

It's in everyone's long-term best interest to find ways to move forward on reducing CO2 (and CO2e) emissions in a manner that is as quick and effective as possible. We need to be looking at ideas that will have more popular support, not just the first proposal that someone came up with. Especially when such proposals just keep getting delayed due to a lack of political support.

People generally don't like to make changes that cost themselves money unless they can see some sort of benefit. IMO too many of the proposed solution appear to the general public to be benefiting "someone else" and are therefore easy targets for denialist obstructionism. Smarter approaches need to be made in order to make substantial and lasting progress.

Zetetic:

.If you have a specific objection to the previously linked "Cap and Fade" I would be more than happy to read it

Zet, Hansen's criticism of cap and trade is essentially:

1) If emissions fell faster than the cap was reduced, then the incentive for even more rapid reductions would disappear as the price of permits would collapse.

2) Lobbyists achieved exemptions, eg for existing coal-fired plants.

3) Emissions could be higher because of offsets which could turn out ot be imaginary or unverifiable.

4) Under a cap and trade system, voluntary reductions in emissions would make way for someone else to emit that amount.

5) Banking yuppies would make money out of a trading scheme.

In answer to those criticisms.

1) So what? in this case, emissions will be reduced at least as rapidly as the cap is reduced. Is that such a bad thing?

The cap has to be set so emissions are reduced as fast as economically practicable. Will the cap be set at exactly the right level - of course not, but if emissions fall faster than the cap, then great. In that case, it could always be adjusted down further, but how likely is that? I mean, a cap is set and businesses get all gung-ho and cut their emissions even faster? Give me a break.

2) If lobbyists can achieve exemptions for a cap and trade, they will certainly be able to do the same for a tax. In fact they have already started in Australia right now. yes, even the coal miners.

3) Any verification regime will be subject to fraud, but the idea that offsets should be rejected doesn't follow from that. If a cap and trade system can be used to encourage, say, reforestation, then I say that's great. Just get the processes right, which is something you have to do no matter how you try to encourage such things as reforestation of sequestration. Note that offsets could just as sensibly be a feature of a tax and spend arrangement.

4) I don't think the voluntary reductions would have a measurable impact on the market price of permits, but if it did, that's just part of the process of getting the cap right. If there's a lot of voluntary (I mean not for economic reasons) reductions, then the cap can be set lower. But frankly, I don't think this is going to be an economically significant amount.

5) Accounting yuppies will make money out of a carbon tax. Banana traders make money out of trading bananas. Big deal. I think the likely volume of trade in permits is exaggerated. In any case, if the most efficient way of allocating permits is a market, then the cost of having a market is that people work in it and get paid. Welcome to the real world.

Other points.

1) It's not a fee it's a tax. And it's not a dividend it's government spending. So Hansen can call it fee and dividend, but it's really a carbon tax with compensation, so lets call it tax and spend. Though I can see why he would prefer fee and dividend, given the political environment he's living in.

2) "All of the collected fees would then be distributed to the public." Hansen is pretty much mute on how this would be acheived. I don't think he's thought it through, frankly. You rake in a massive amount of tax and distribute it on what basis - a flat amount per capita, pro rata relative to income, discount for families, more for farmers and invaldis, blah blah blah He should pay attention to the unfolding debate in Australia if he thinks it's a trival issue. Yes, what the Gillard giovernment is about to introuduce is the "fee and divdend" model.

3) While Hansen worries about the effect of a cap set too high and the price of permits might fall to ineffective levels, he doesn't seem to get it that the level of the tax is no less critical but arguably much more difficult.

It's all very well to say it could be set at a low level then lifted gradually, but that doesn't solve the problem. After ten years it could turn out that the level has been so low and the increments so small there's been no appreciable change in behaviour and we've lost yet another decade.

I suspect this is why some conservatives are more in favour of a tax and spend rather than cap and trade, because under a tax and spend, there's a real chance that carbon emissions don't change at all and it's just business as usual expct for this new tax that's passed on to the consumers.

4) Hansen seems to think the adjustment would come about through consumers changing their preferences for less carbon intensive goods and services.

I can see that he'd make that assumption, but the real key is to change the behaviour of businesses. Eg if a wind-power supplier can produce electricity for half the cost of a coal-fired plant, does Hansen think they'd actually sell it for half the price? No they won;t, but investorts will put all their money into wind power and less profitable coal-fired plants will close down. That's not to say the end result might not be the same, but it seems clear that - again - Hansen has not really thought it through.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. When a climate scientist, distinguished though he may be, starts banging on about economic policy he's just another bloke with an opinion.

Beware the Dunning-Kruger, my son. The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

The fact is, until major powers like the US and China are on board, the denialists are always going to say our tax will have negligible impact on the climate. Their argument is already sorted, no matter what Gillard imposes.

Jackerman @ 20

Dr Starvins (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/Forum/Column_22.pdf) sets out many of the advantages of an ETS compared to a CT. Note the environmental inefficiency of a CT. See also work by Ross Garnaut, Nicholas Stern and others.

Table 1 (http://www.commissionontaxation.ie/submissions/State%20Bodies/L01%20-%2…) indicates that an ETS would result in greater reduction of CO2 emissions but raise less revenue than a CT. In other words, an ETS is a more cost-effective and efficient mechanism for reducing CO2.

Unlike an ETS, it is difficult to accurately measure the effectiveness of a CT in achieving its primary purpose â reducing CO2 emissions. However, after reading Natalia Shakhova, (http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?org=NSF&cntn_id=116532&preview=fa…) you may think reducing CO2 to avert rise in global temperatures of over 2C, or disastrous sea level rise, is somewhat academic?

Fran Barlow @ 21

Yes, I am referring to compensating emitters. Sorry, I should have been clearer.

Zetitec @ 31

I think you make a very important distinction by referring to CO2-e but maybe this is not the appropriate place to discuss this other than to note the threat to global warming arising from massive CH4 emissions noted by James Hansen and Natalia Shakhova

@ John #32:
I agree with you about the USA and China. China at least is making some moves in that direction and their per capita emissions are lower than the USA's, but China is becoming an increasing problem due to it's extreme growth in energy use.

The USA is a different kettle of fish though, IMO.
The USA could easily make major moves to reducing it's emissions, but doesn't even though a majority of Americans would like to see them reduced, not enough of them actually care enough (since it's not perceived as an immediate threat yet) to create enough political pressure to override the fossil fuel industry's control of the Republican party, or push the Republicans into a harmless minority. This is where coming up with policies that would have more public support is important, and create the needed pressure for change.

As to it not mattering what Australia does about carbon, that seems to be your point, I must respectfully disagree. Every country that takes serious action to slow down AGW makes it harder for denialists in other countries to make excuses like "Why should we be the only ones?" or "It won't be enough". Additionally the more countries that are on board, the greater the political pressure that can be collectively applied to the "hold-outs" such as the USA. Failing to do anything because not everyone is on board at the same time is exactly what the denialists/delayists want everyone to do. It's playing into their game.

=====================================================================

@ Mike Pope #33:

I apologize if it looked like I was trying to change the subject, that wasn't my intent.

I was merely mentioning Co2e in the subject of policies designed to reduce AGW causing emissions in general. Obviously CO2 is the bigger player in the game for now, but I think that we also must not overlook some of the other gasses that can be reduced in order to reduce the effects of AGW if progress can be made on those fronts while the fight over CO2 continues. Especially if we want to prevent such a massive CH4 release as is feared may occur.

"Quibble: I hate this use of backflip. Really it's a metaphoric twisting somersault since the metaphor suggests one ends facing in the opposite direction."

A 'backflip' on policy comments is the super dooper version of 'stepping back'. No, the physical doesn't perfectly match the conceptual context, but if you dissect the literal meaning of metaphorical terms and phrases to check their applicability, you'll wind up with a constant headache. There will always be jargon, but no one will be misled by this particular term.

If it wasn't clear, I'm for the carbon tax.

@ Gaz #32:

Thank you for you insight.

I do agree with you that Hansen's proposal was extremely short on specifics, but since it's an opinion piece I wouldn't expect much more there. Obviously people with more economic experience would need to "hammer out the details" for such a plan to ever be implemented in the first place.

As to your rebuttal of Hansen's criticism:

1) I agree that the utility there is debatable, but I do think that Hansen has a minor point that cap-and-trade does seem to make it easier to justify polluting activities, by rewarding others for polluting less. On the other hand I do agree with you that total net reduction is ultimately what is important.

2) True, but lobbyist interference is a problem inherent in any system. Between cap-and-trade and cap-and fade they seem to be on equal grounds there.

3) I agree that any verification system is going to be prone to fraud for either system. One benefit for cap-and-fade though is that without carbon credits to be transferred between parties, there isn't the same issue of an additional level of possible theft/counterfeiting as was seen recently in Europe.

4) I believe that here you are referring to the reduction in use due to people potentially reducing their energy use through upgrading their home efficiency. Please correct me if I misunderstood you there.
Considering the potential saving in efficiency, at least as far as the USA and some other countries are concerned, I'm not so sure that I agree with you there. Granted I'm not an expert but much of the housing in the USA is rather inefficient. IIRC the USA spends about 40% of it's energy on lighting/heating/cooling buildings and housing. Now obviously in areas that already have more efficient buildings and vehicles I would agree that it would have much less of an overall impact.

5) Granted. I personally don't see it as that big of a deal either, but politically it is a bit of a "poison pill" that traders will benefit from cap-and-trade. It's ironic that the same denialists that have been defending those that created the banking crisis and the fossil fuel industry, will turn right around and act like they're trying to protect the poor. But, it does give them some rhetorical ammunition that appeals to the emotions of many voters. In this respect I believe that a fee-and-dividend approach is potentially superior in terms of political tactics with gaining acceptance by the general public.

===============================================

For your other points:

1) Yes, I completely agree that it's actually a tax. But as you said before "Big Deal". The important thing IMO is for carbon to be priced, as for how exactly to determine what that price should be and what to do with the money collected be I'll gladly defer to the relevant experts.

2) Again I agree. It's not by any means a trivial issue. It seems to me (and again please correct me if I'm wrong about this) that in the Gillard situation part of the problem is not doing more to try and work that out beforehand, this leaves the public very unsure about whether it will be a benefit or a cost to them. Regardless you do make a good point that it seems to be unavoidable that there will be complications in trying to determine the dividends, and IMO this seems to be the weakest area of the fee-and-dividend approach.

3) You make some good points setting the fee targets too low in Hansen's approach. Arguably that will be a problem for any approach, but I do think that cap-and-trade has it's benefits on that issue. I also think that you made a good point about why some conservatives prefer a tax-and-spend approach.

4) You make another very good point there, but to be fair to Hansen I think that he was also taking into account improvements in efficiency of power use, at least in areas that are already very inefficient.

Obviously Hansen isn't an economist, but that is also why I also asked for the feedback of others on his proposal. It's not that I'm opposed to cap-and-trade per se, but I think that we do need to consider all of the options to come up with plans that are both effective and politically "sale-able". I really do appreciate your feedback and you've brought up some excellent points in favor of cap-and-trade over cap-and-fade, especially in how in some respects cap-and-trade has simpler targets/goals.

The biggest problem I see with cap-and-trade is trying to sell the public on the benefits in order to get a passable proposal that will stay in effect as a long term policy, that creates an "interesting" hurdle.

Thanks again for your input, it's food for thought. :)

If it wasn't clear, I'm for the carbon tax.

Me too, if a cap and trade is out of the question.

If tax and spend is the best we can do, it will suffice, but if anyone thinks it's a perfect way to overcome problems with a cap and trade is kidding themeselves.

Zetetic @36, "...but China is becoming an increasing problem due to it's extreme growth in energy use..."

Zetetic, believe what you want though China fully intends to dramatically increase its use of coal. The proof of China's intent is the brand new coal fired power stations coming on line every few weeks and the recent attempt by China to buy up much of Australia's coal mine interests.

IMO, apart from AGW being based on faulty science and pseudo-religious hysteria, any silly moves by Australia to limit human CO2 output is futile in the extreme. The only people who would benefit are the bankers and rent seekers.

The well intentioned environmental supporters who think carbon trading/taxing will result in some Gaian utopia will realise in time that they've been played as useful idiots.

Carbon Tax or ETS - I am for either or both (e.g. a tax on imports from countries who refuse to join an international ETS) so long as there is genuine intent to reduce emissions.

Even the Liberal's direct action fund has merit as part of a mix of policies if it was used for example to close Hazlewood power station which by itself accounts for around 3% of Australia's emissions.

It would be possible to design any carbon mitigation policy with so many exemptions it is useless.

The real issue is that outlined by Malcolm Turnbull ...
"The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is âcrapâ and you donât need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing."

@ Flying Binghi:

Yes, never mind that they've been deploying renewables faster than most other countries, all that matters to a denialist's juvenile mind-set is that if someone else is making a mess then everyone else gets to make as big a mess as they want to also, and damn the consequences.

Ah the proud motto of the denialists... "But MOM! They're doing it too!"
Sorry Binghi but the only "useful idiot" on the thread here so far is you, but don't worry I'm sure that your fossil fuel masters will reward your loyalty. [snicker]

As long as your side still has no credible positively supporting evidence, just like with the tobacco company "science" showing that smoking was harmless, it's still just fossil fuel company lies and blind ideological dogma that supports your faith.

@Flying Binghi

@7 at February 27, 2011 9:42 AM you say
"...meanwhile, over in China, a new coal fired power station comes on line every week or so"

@41 at March 1, 2011 12:00 AM you say
"...China's intent is the brand new coal fired power stations coming on line every few weeks"

Why don't you give us all a break and wait until next week when on current performance you are due for another "original" thought before you post again.

Zetetic @43; "...never mind that they've been deploying renewables faster than most other countries..."

Zetetic, tell me, what is this "deploying renewables" ?

>*China fully intends to dramatically increase its use of coal*

The longer we continue emitting 400% more CO2 per capita than China, the longer China will be able to justify increasing their use of coal.

We have to break this cycle, we are amoung the worst polluting, we are amoung the richest, and among those with greatest capacity to play a leadership role in transitioning to a clean energy economy. Countries like Australia (the worste polluting and richest) waiting for China is a prescription for failure.

@ Flying Binghi:

Well you see Binghi, other people around the world, yes even in China, are putting up these amazing machines that make energy from wind, solar, geothermal, etc.

I know that it's hard for you to believe that much of the world already uses them instead of relying completely on burning fossil fuels, and continues to add these renewable sources of energy as a increasing part of their energy supply. No doubt it must sound like some kind of "black magic" to you since it violates the sacred gospel of the burning fossil fuel, that there can be no other source of power. Yet the windmills still move.

BTW have you found any credible positively supporting evidence for your AGW denialist position yet? I know that those so-called "free-market" think tanks, that earlier were telling us that smoking is harmless, aren't the most forthcoming about their evidence but I'm sure you can find it any day now.

via jakerman @46 "...we are amoung the richest, and among those with greatest capacity to play ..."

Actually, jakerman, Australia is currently in debt - it is China that has a very healthy bank account.

via jakerman @46 "...play a leadership role..." - Best ask the Dali Lama about our 'leadership' role...

via jakerman @46 "...waiting for China is a prescription for failure..." - errr, jakerman China will do as China will. If you think China will care about the opinion of some soon to be carbon bankrupted third world country down in the South Pacific, yer best think again...

via Zetetic @47; "...Well you see Binghi, other people around the world, yes even in China, are putting up these amazing machines that make energy from wind, solar, geothermal, etc..."

Do tell Zetetic. Now, these Chinese wind and solar generators located in China, are they fully funded by China ?

via Zetetic @47; "...No doubt it must sound like some kind of "black magic" to you since it violates the sacred gospel of the burning fossil fuel, that there can be no other source of power. Yet the windmills still move..."

Zetetic, around my little farm i use solar panels with back up generator, collect me own water and chops me own wood fer the stove - i've even got an old 32volt wind generator i'm tinkering with at the moment.... so yer could say i have a little bit of an understanding of the reality of basic power systems. Great stuff that solar and wind power, though it is not the answer to provide power for our city's.

>*Australia is currently in debt - it is China that has a very healthy bank account.*

What is your source for this Flying Bingh? on [2000 figures](http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEEI/214578-1110886258964/20748034…) the per capita wealth of China it is $9,387. Australia's more than 30 time greater at $371,031 per capita.

So like [I said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/carbon_tax_back_flips.php#comme…),

>We have to break this cycle, we are amoung the worst polluting, we are amoung the richest, and among those with greatest capacity to play a leadership role in transitioning to a clean energy economy. Countries like Australia (the worste polluting and richest) waiting for China is a prescription for failure.

>*China will do as China will.*?

What, another empty comment. Can't say I'm surprised. Still readers can judge you for what you are.

Flying Bullshit: OK, we get it - you're a coal-fired Kochsucker. BTW you may need to adjust the character-simulation algorithm (yes, yes, we know, algorithm is fat): you slipped up a bit @41 and keyed in some stock phrases with insufficient spelling errors. Still a space wasting troll, though.

rhwombat @51, were it this question that upset ya -

"...these Chinese wind and solar generators located in China, are they fully funded by China ?..."

"You seem have misunderstood what I actually typed. You're, perhaps inadvertently, putting words into my mouth and therefore coming up with a false dichotomy while missing my point."

Maybe I did miss your point, but the element I quoted didn't have any false dichotomy and I never addressed any such.

You stated, and I quote: "A carbon price that doesn't appear to have an immediate benefit is a hard thing to sell to a public that mostly still sees AGW a a distant theoretical risk."

Which has two elements completely at odds, though tied in a sentence, they are not tied phenomena.

You stated that carbon prices must have an immediate beneft or they'll be a hard sell.

The problem is that you either leave it up to the market to find the cost or you tell the market not to do it.

We don't, after all, put a price tag on a child, we tell corporations they cannot employ them, no matter what the immediate benefit or otherwise is (the family, after all, now have one less breadwinner).

"I clearly presented a link to an alternative plan to both Cap-and-Trade as well as "rationing""

But that doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the statement you made which is unsupported and is, because it's a cap, exactly what I stated: government rationing.

That is going to be a hard sell too. In many countries much, MUCH harder.

Whether it would be more successful is irrelevant, your statement was that you need something that is an easy sell.

Imagine what would the republican right do if Obama told them they could only buy 70% of the petrol they used to?

If it wouldn't require an accelerant, they'd burst into flames.

The UK public also have a big problem with rationing.

Cap and Fade is government rationing and that IS going to be a hard sell.

Argue whether your scenario is better and what levels you should manage it.

NOTE: already there is trouble with carbon credits being scammed in Europe.

Mike Pope writes:

>[Table 1](http://www.commissionontaxation.ie/submissions/State%20Bodies/L01%20-%2…) indicates that an ETS would result in greater reduction of CO2 emissions but raise less revenue than a CT. In other words, an ETS is a more cost-effective and efficient mechanism for reducing CO2.

Mike can you clarify your inference from this table,

>*emissions in 2010 are likely to be 48 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, 20 MTCO2 of which is regulated under the EU ETS. If the carbon tax is â¬20/tCO2, revenue would be â¬550 million.*

The table shows that the ETS regulate the first 20 MTCO2 and the carbon tax regulates the rest 28 MTCO2. The revenue per MTCO2 is same for the ETS and the tax ($20/ton in 2010 and $38/tonne in 2020).

It does not show the ETS is more efficient that the carbon tax.

@ Flying Binghi:
So in addition to playing the "But Mom! They're doing it too!" game. Now you seem to be suffering from an inability to use Google, poor dear.

It's a wonder that you haven't been given your own thread like sunspot yet.

As to your first question...

Now, these Chinese wind and solar generators located in China, are they fully funded by China ?

Through the magic of Google we can find that the answer to both parts of the first question is "Yes!"

China trouncing U.S. in clean energy investing

China winning renewable energy race

See how easy it is to find answers if you bother to look for them Binghi? Now granted China still has a long way to go, especially with the way they are packing on new coal plants, I dread to see the health consequences from that. But the problem with your childish "They're doing it too!" argument is that it ignores that even if China doesn't stop buying coal from everyone else and keeps pumping out CO2 that reducing emissions for everyone else would still be an important goal, if not even more important if China doesn't stop.

If you were drinking contaminated groundwater, and had no other choice, would you deliberately contaminate your own ground water (adding to the toxic levels) more just because your neighbor wouldn't stop too? How is that even remotely sane?

around my little farm i use solar panels with back up generator, collect me own water and chops me own wood fer the stove - i've even got an old 32volt wind generator i'm tinkering with at the moment.... so yer could say i have a little bit of an understanding of the reality of basic power systems.

Oh, so of course that makes you an expert on large scale power generation for cites!
Yes that makes sense.

So I guess that California and many countries in Europe getting about 20% or more of their power from renewables must just not exist then? Not to mention that California recently mandated getting 33% renewable by 2020.

Or how about Scotland that is on track for 80% renewable power by 2020? I guess that doesn't exist either...
Scotland on track to hit tough targets on renewable energy

So have you found that positively supporting your AGW denialist position yet? I notice that you never seem to offer any... why is that?

The problem with the 'backflip' locution is that it suggests deceit, betrayal or humiliating backdown. If a politician goes from policy position a to b, the media will always describe this as a backflip. But sometimes it just might be a reasonable response to good arguments or to a changing situation. It is not a vice to change one's mind (this is not meant as a comment on the current proposal, just on the lazy and irresponsible use of this term).

via Zetetic @55; "...in addition to playing the "But Mom! They're doing it too!" game..."

Zetetic, more a case of pointing out to the AGW true believers just what a futile exercise it will be for Australia.

Something more to dwell on -

"China plans to build at least 45 new airports in the next five years to serve booming travel, the top industry regulator said last week"

http://en.mercopress.com/2011/02/27/china-plans-to-build-45-new-airport…

@ Wow #53:

We still seem to be talking past each other.

but the element I quoted didn't have any false dichotomy and I never addressed any such.

True, the part from my earlier post that you quoted didn't have a false dichotomy. My point was that I was suggesting that it's easier to "sell" some form of carbon pricing to the general public if the public perceives an immediate benefit. Your response though was to suggest that only other alternative was some form of "rationing", when what I was trying to bring up was to discuss one proposed an alternative plan that might provide the public with a benefit that they could more immediately perceive.

You can have a plan were the public doesn't see an immediate benefit, you can have a plan where they do see an immediate benefit, you can have a plan that fails to be implemented due to political opposition and does no good at all. That right there are three choices, not the two you seem to have initially been offering.

The problem is that you either leave it up to the market to find the cost or you tell the market not to do it.

Again you seem to have not understood what I was getting trying to say. Obviously there will never be any non-mandated carbon market since the fossil fuel companies would never go along with that. It's a clear case of massive market failure for both CO2 emissions as well as every other form of pollution.
My point was about "selling" (metaphorically only) carbon pricing to the public for political support. I don't know where you seem to have gotten this other idea from.

But that doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the statement you made which is unsupported and is, because it's a cap, exactly what I stated: government rationing.

Here we seem to be using different definitions, this may be part of the communication problem. I was using "rationing" in the sense of a hard mandate, such as the EPA in the USA trying to place a maximum limit on CO2 without any sort of credits trading or pricing, after the cap-and-trade bill was killed by the Congress. You seem to be using it in a broader sense of the term as meaning any sort of restriction regardless of it's type.

Whether it would be more successful is irrelevant, your statement was that you need something that is an easy sell.

Actually my statement was that if we can find ways to make any form of carbon pricing seem as more of a benefit to the voters, then it will be easier to implement them politically. The problem is getting voters to see that benefit in the first place.

I honestly don't see how you got from my statement (that you quoted) "A carbon price that doesn't appear to have an immediate benefit is a hard thing to sell to a public that mostly still sees AGW a a distant theoretical risk." that I "need something that is an easy sell" when I was clearly discussing the relative easy of implementation against the inevitable political opposition.

Imagine what would the republican right do if Obama told them they could only buy 70% of the petrol they used to?

Actually what would happen is that the Republicans, much of the media, and much of the public (that still sees AGW as an potential but distant threat) would probably just refuse to pass it. Therefore, the 30% reduction would never happen, even if it was for the long term good of the country.

The only way he would be able to get away with such a plan was if either the Republicans got something very big out of it, or the USA's oil supplies suddenly got severely curtailed creating an obvious and immediate problem that the public couldn't just ignore thereby putting pressure on the republicans to capitulate. Obama has limited authority (more limited now, after the last election) as President of the USA. Hence the need for political tactics to achieve desired goals.

You seem to think that the political aspect of getting a plan implemented in the first place is irrelevant. If that is your point then I have to disagree. Ultimately, a carbon price that never gets implemented due to a lack of political support is utterly useless for solving AGW, for that particular nation/state. One that gets overturned in a few years with a new election is almost as useless. For a carbon pricing plan of any sort to do any good is has to first be implemented, and secondly needs to persist (perhaps with modifications over time). I'm having trouble seeing why you think that's controversial, unless we are still talking past each other there again.

NOTE: already there is trouble with carbon credits being scammed in Europe.

Yes, which is one of the reasons I previously listed it as a potential drawback to the standard cap-and-trade approach in my very first post here. Every system has it's benefits and drawbacks (both politically and economically), and that is what I was attempting to discuss.

@ Flying Binghi #57:

So after having been show once again to be wrong you now try to change the subject yet again. Big surprise.

I guess this means that if your neighbor was contaminating your drinking water, that you'd still add more pollution to your own groundwater? Very interesting.

So find that positively supporting evidence yet for your AGW denialist position yet? You seem to be very busy not trying to positively support your position, I wonder why?

"My point was that I was suggesting that it's easier to "sell" some form of carbon pricing to the general public if the public perceives an immediate benefit."

And my point is that cap and fade will be hard to see to the general public who perceive AGW as a distant theoretical problem.

Your idea is difficult to sell.

Am I therefore saying you shouldn't think of trying it?

"You seem to think that the political aspect of getting a plan implemented in the first place is irrelevant."

Your plan has a political problem in getting it implemented.

Carbon tax has a political problem in getting it implemented.

As a differentiator of which plan to attempt implementation, the political problem in getting it implemented IS irrelevant.

So quit with the "your idea of a tax is a hard sell" because it also kills your plan just as well.

Heck, almost fergot. Here's a little on the reality of China's wind power industry -

The United Nations body in charge of managing carbon trading has suspended approvals for dozens of Chinese wind farms amid questions over the countryâs use of industrial policy to obtain money under the scheme.

China has been by far the biggest beneficiary of the so-called Clean Development Mechanism, a carbon trading system designed to direct funds from wealthy countries to developing nations to cut greenhouse gases

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/128a52de-deaf-11de-adff-00144feab49a.html#axz…

Western muppet's living a Gaian fantasy pay China to build wind generators...Heh

...meanwhile, back in the real world, China continues to buy up world coal supplies.

Flying Bin is telling us something when starts citing random claims.

A troll who is unable to respond to peoples' devastating rebuttals and so resorts to spamming links? Get *out!*

> ...meanwhile, over in China, a new coal fired power station comes on line every week or so.

For anyone who wants to respond to this tired, old idiocy:

* [China Outpaces U.S. in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants ... **requiring power companies to retire an older, more polluting power plant for each new one they build.**](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html?_r=2&ref=scien…)

* [China aims to cut amount of energy and CO2 needed for every unit of economic growth by 16 to 17% from this year to end of 2015 after meeting target to cut amount of energy produced per unit of GDP growth by 20% over the 2006-2010 period.](http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFTOE71Q00N20110227?sp=tr…)

* [China has raised its target for renewable energy to 500 GW by 2020](http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/07/renewable-…)

Or just point idiots like Flying Bunghole at [per capita CO2 emissions](http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h…) and tell them to shut up until the Chinese are somewhere near their level of per capita CO2 pollution.

Oh dear, looking at the hysteria around here it looks like some just prefer to deny reality...Heh

No need for me to provide any more links, a simple google of China and coal or wind and power tells all. The China renewables like wind power were mainly an artifact of outside funding. Caint blame China if they are astute enuf to take money from the hands of the gullible Gaian dreamers.

The important thing now is to ensure that the muppets that want to take money from Australian taxpayers and give it to the carbon scammers are kicked out.

Which bit of AGW do you deny, Flying Binghi?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
It's presence in the atmosphere is increasing?
That comes from human/industrial sources?
Temperatures are gradually warming?
This cannot be explained by solar activity?
Rising temperatures in the 21st century will have consequences, many of which are not good ones, for human habitation?

Which bit of the whole AGW scam is false? [Or is it just the vibe of the whole thing?](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJuXIq7OazQ&feature=related) (Binghi = Dennis Denuto)

David COG, thanks for the links, but they are wasted on Flying Bin.

@ Flying Binghi:

Sorry but the only hysteria here is still on your part.

I notice you still keep hoping that we don't notice you attempts to ignore the absurdity of poisoning yourself more, just because your neighbor is doing the same.

Oh and what's this now!?

China to slow GDP growth in bid to curb emissions

How interesting!
Other countries (especially the USA) don't seem to be planing to deliberately slow their own growth just to get a handle on their pollution problem. It sounds like China is taking this issue far more seriously than before.

I suspect that their pollution/health problems due to the massive use of coal are far worse that the public is aware of. Not to mention the waste of sending large amounts of money to other countries to keep your own lights on.

I don't know of the top of my head how much China spends on coal and oil but as an example the USA sent about US$1 billion overseas a day in 2010 on just oil. It makes up almost half of the USA's trade deficit.

===========================================================

Oh and yet more news about China!

China Issues Warning on Climate and Growth

But of course Australia and the USA should keep poisoning themselves and throwing away money just because China still uses lots of coal, right Binghi?

========================================================

Have you found that positively supporting evidence for your AGW denialist claims yet? You still seem strangely silent on that issue.

How odd....

For all the hoo-haa over the climate tax, it looks like the Libs 'direct action' plan is going to cost around $30bn, all of which would be borne by taxpayers:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/abbott-climate-plan-…

@ DavidCOG:

Thanks for the links, the per capita emission chart will be especially useful.

BTW try adding Sweden to the list, it's interesting.

Impact of Australia's action = 0.00000000000000001 C
Outstanding.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative releases a [report highlighting the economic benefits of cap and trade](http://www.rggi.org/docs/Press_Release_%20RGGI_Proceeds_Report.pdf)

Lying Wingnut. I see that you have been banned at [Science Forums](http://scienceforums.com/user/8949-flying-binghi/).
Gee thats a surprise.

>*Impact of Australia's action = 0.00000000000000001 C Outstanding.*

Show us your maths Canturi [popcorn].

[From Garnaut](http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp7.htm)

Australiaâs per capita greenhouse gas emissions are the highest of any OECD country and are among the highest in the world. In 2006 our per capita emissions (including emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry) were 28.1 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) per person (DCC 2008d). Only five countries in the world rank higherâBahrain, Bolivia, Brunei, Kuwait and Qatar. Australiaâs per capita emissions are nearly twice the OECD average and more than four times the world average

Impact of Australia's inaction. Disastrous. The idea that Australia can avoid action on climate change is a fantasy of the far right wingnuts. There has already been calls within the EU for a tax on imports from countries without a carbon price. Who will we trade with - Saudia Arabia and a tea party led USA - dream on.

@ MikeH:

Heck Saudi Arabia is applying for Global Warming relief aid, which they originally opposed, that is intended to help poor countries. They want a part of that $100 billion pie for lost oil sales if the world kicks it's oil habit.

Saudi Arabia seeks share of $100 billion climate aid fund

I wish that the EU would threaten such an action, and if needed impose it. It might help to kick-start things with the stranglers to sanity.

MikeH thanks for that, and we can add the contribution of Australia is advancement toward other countries reductions.

Australia's failure to lead means China etc will delay their reductions even longer.

In other words, Australia transitioning to a clean economy and cutting its 1.5% of global emissions is the path to other countires taking the percaptia and pro-rata steps required.

Oops...typo

"kick-start things with the stranglers stragglers to sanity."

BTW thanks Mike for the link. Every country that gets on board takes away one more excuse from the denialists/delayists especially when they are a big contributor.

Blowfly@52: No it wasn't that "question" that annoyed me. It is that you are a low-rent, dumb denialist Troll who desperately needs their own thread to pollute.

via Mike @67; "...Which bit of AGW do you deny..."

Heh ...Mike, are you accusing me of denying your religion...

...anyway, here's an extract from The Climate Caper by Garth Paltridge. Seems fairly reasonable to me -

ââ¦A doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere will probably occur over the next hundred years or thereabouts because we are burning lots of fossil fuel. It is a fairly easy to calculate the likely rise of global-average surface temperature caused by such a doubling, provided that we confine ourselves to the purely theoretical situation where nothing else is allowed to change. Such a calculation can be done reasonably easily these days, and was first done more than a century ago quite without the aid of number-crunching computers. The answer is just over one degree Celsiusâ¦â

via Mike @67; "...CO2 is a greenhouse gas?..."

Yes Mike, CO2 is a greenhouse gas -

"...The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years..."

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

...Heh.

@Binghi, it's interesting you choose to get your value for climate sensitivity from a pop-science book written by a geriatric who's scared of "number-crunching computers".

A sensible and more sceptical person might prefer to check the academic literature, eg,
- Knutti, Reto; Hegerl, Gabriele C. (2008-10-26). "The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes". Nature Geoscience 1: 735â743.

As far as I can make out, the value documented in the peer-review literature is almost three times higher than Paltridge's.

Is there some reason you reject the value documented in the academic literature in favour of that documented in a pop-science book?

>> it's interesting you choose to get your value for climate sensitivity from a pop-science book written by a geriatric

Wow, any other groups we should mock and make fun of? Perhaps science done by women? Or maybe Germans? How about people who are left-handed?

Vince, if you have some intelligent comment about Binghi or Paltridge, you should make it. Your ageism and stereotypes should offend everyone here. I wonder if anyone else who agrees with the point you make will comment on the offensive way you make it?

Dingbat:

here's an extract from The Climate Caper by Garth Paltridge

Ah yes, the man who wanted to believe that the CSIRO was trying to abstract many tens of millions of climate research money from the future Australian Greenhouse Office so much when he was involved in setting up the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre that he invented the fiction that it had already existed. It didn't actually exist until at least seven years later.

Nice to see you care about getting all the facts right as much as Garth Paltridge.

Bill @84: Speaking as a geriatric, I whole heartedly endorse Vince Whirlwind"s argument and can find nothing offensive about it at all.

Your concern has been noted.

>*It is a fairly easy to calculate the likely rise of global-average surface temperature caused by such a doubling, provided that we confine ourselves to the purely theoretical situation where nothing else is allowed to change. Such a calculation can be done reasonably easily these days, and was first done more than a century ago quite without the aid of number-crunching computers. The answer is just over one degree Celsiusâ¦â*

Accurate but irrelevent. The warming due to CO2 is not the extent of real world warming induced by CO2. Bit where PG says "*provided that we confine ourselves to the purely theoretical situation where nothing else is allowed to change*" is were he misleads suckers like Flying Bini.

In the real world CO2 forced warming increases the water vapour content of the atmosphere, which is an even more powerful greenhouse gas, and thus forces warming further. The actual climate sensitiveity is as Vince cited documented by [many authors such as Knutti](http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm) and the most probable sensitivity is around 3 deg C per doubling of CO2.

@82. So because they pump CO2 into some greenhouses, this shows that elevated atmospheric CO2 will be good for humankind?

Here's a proposal for ya Binghi: Why don't ya go and hunker down in one of them greenhouses they're pumping CO2 into? Gotta be beneficial for ya, right? Don't forget to close the doors. Don't want any of that life-giving stuff to escape now!

OK, sarcastic jokes aside, you & I both know that something which is beneficial in unique ways to certain things, is not necessarily beneficial (and may indeed actually be harmful) when it is used in other ways, right? We do know that don't we?

@81 & @82
A village somewhere is missing its idiot.

@81. I missed that moronic comment by Binghi. My Binghi filter must be getting pretty saturated!

Religion - a set of beliefs, normally in an omnipotent and omniscient sky-fairy who controls every aspect of your life, with no verifiable evidence.

AGW - a large volume of observable facts and verifiable evidence that human produced CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere in ever-increasing volumes and in accordance with the known laws of radiative physics, and the absence of any other viable/demonstrable causes, appears to be measurably affecting planetary climate.

Just ever-so-subtly different, don't you think Binghi?

@Bill, 84,
You've made some pretty basic errors in analysis of my post - I'm not making fun of Paltridge for being geriatric, and I'm not making fun of his science.

I'm denigrating his misleading and unscientific pop-science book and stating the plain fact that he is geriatric.

I have previously noted a correlation between geriatrics and science-denial, which is why I mention this - yet another example which fails to contradict my prior observations.

As far as women, germans, and sinistrals go, I believe there is
- a negative correlation between women and science-denial
- a positive correlation between germans and science-denial on a global level
- I wouldn't be surprised if there was a negative correlation as there is a correlation between left-handedness and analytic aptitude

Now I trust Bill that in your reply you will provide facts and well-presented argument, not to mention good comprehension skills for the post you are responding to.

Vince

[Max Planck](http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Planck.html) made a similar if harsh point about the opposition to quantum theory from the aging classical physicists.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

However with climate science there would be a much stronger correlation between far right political views and climate denialism.

> any other groups we should mock and make fun of?

Well, clowns. Comedians. Idiots. Fools. Charlatans. Dangerous dictators. Politicians. Quacks. Frauds. Bankers.

Lots of groups we should at least be able mock and make fun of.

What would Garnaut really know - he's simply an uncritical outlet for CSIRO's research output. Level of certainty of impacts - LOW !

Another unsupported opinion from Canturi. Wake us up when you've got something supportable Canturi.

I don't know Humphries from a bar of soap, but with Sophie Mirabella dog-whistling civil unrest, and Abbott condoning it, looks like things are heating up and not just from global heating.

And our Sophie is supposed to shadow science. One begins to wonder if she has a shadow :(

a positive correlation between germans and science-denial on a global level

And your prove for this claim is what? Our center-right party is not a bunch of denialists. So there is rather a correlation between australians and science denial.

IM, you make a good point. Germany seems to be more leaders than Australia in carbon mitigation.

As an Australian I tip my hat.

To be honest, if Germany had as much mining and related industry, we would lag more too. And some sorts of quackery - alternative medicine e. g. were more or less invented in Germany. So anti-vaccination is still going strong here.

I shouldn't let myself distracted into national score keeping; after all the problems with inactivism are the more or less the same all the world over.

@82:

Please explain in detail the differences between growing plants in a greenhouse environment and growing plants in their ecological context. Discuss the growth effect of comparing ambient vs elevated CO2 and the differences observed when the rate of CO2 elevation changes over the experiment. Explain why plants don't respond to elevated CO2 with increased growth after a certain point. How about tackling the response of below-ground carbon stores to elevated CO2 and temperature? Why not discuss how the balance of ecosystem respiration and assimilation changes depending on whether one considers soil organisms?

Or were you just hoping that no one would call you on your meaningless soundbite that shows your ignorance of plant ecology?

@IM: We have some AGW denialists in Germany, but they are usually ignored.

@IM, & Chris from Europe,
HSBC attitudes survey, 2007

@ Flying Binghi #81:

LOL!
So rather than go by the peer-reviewed scientific literature, you go by a book written by someone with ties to the fossil fuel industry.

SourceWatch- Garth Paltridge

On top of which he gives a "low-ball" estimate of CO2 sensitivity, that in your own quote shows that he's additionally leaving out positive feedback such as increases in water vapor.

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

And yet you have the arrogance of ignorance to accuse those that side with the consensus of the climate science community of being "in a cult".

That's just too funny! :D

===========================================================

@ Flying Binghi #82:

As the others have already pointed out to you, growing plants involves more than just CO2. Surely you must be aware of this, right?

This article looks rather timely since it deals with the effects of AGW on Australian agriculture....

Australiaâs farms âparticularly vulnerableâ to climate change, adviser Ross Garnaut Says

BTW F.B. any thoughts on China's sudden change in energy policy? I noticed that you haven't responded yet.

===========================================================

@ Sab #100:

Oh but Sab don't be too quick to rule F.B. out just yet as an agricultural expert.
After all his/her post at #49 clearly demonstrates that by virtue of having a windmill and some solar panels that F.B. can declare with complete authority that the world can't use renewable energy sources to power cites, in spite of the fact that the world already is doing just that.

We've got it all wrong folks. The great man was on Lateline last night (I checked a few minutes ago, it's not yet up on i-view.) Turns out the PM is all wrong. A carbon tax is proabably a good idea, but giving the money back to the punters is bad.

Surprise, surprise, Mr B Lomborg thinks that **all** of the money should go into research. Most importantly, noone anywhere in the world should instal any wind, solar or other form of renewable power until we've done all the research that leads to wonderful breakthroughs showing us how silly we were ever to have a solar hot water system.

The technology fairy dust will automagically disapparate all our problems. (And I should hope so too if it's been eating all our money for 30 years.)

>*Surprise, surprise, Mr B Lomborg thinks that all of the money should go into research. Most importantly, noone anywhere in the world should instal any wind, solar or other form of renewable power until we've done all the research that leads to wonderful breakthroughs showing us how silly we were ever to have a solar hot water system.*

Technology and capitalism will fix it but only if we get government to pick winners and keep markets out of it?

I could subscribe to the Lomborg vision paraphrased by adelady, but only if we were to address economic inequality via other avenues.

Here is an interesting quote from [MT's site](http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2011/02/press-and-climate-anti-testi…)

>*Right now we're trying the free market solution -- have commodity prices double every year or so, with spikes that triple or quadruple the costs, have the global economy shrink while the financial resources are concentrated in a small power base, rinse and repeat.*

>*It's certainly one mechanism to reduce overall emissions.*

Adelady's [ref](http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3153560.htm)

BJORN LOMBERG:
>*Any economist would say global warming, CO2 is bad, so you should tax it at its damage cost, which is by the best peer-reviewed estimates that we have about $7 per tonne of carbon dioxide right now.*

Where does he get $7 per tonne from? anyone?

Zetetic, Gaz,

You seem to be repeating a discussion that has taken place here two years ago.

Gaz - you may remember this. I am afraid your arguments haven't become any more convincing. I have still to read (from you or anyone else) one single real advantage of a scheme which either (1) allows trading or (2) allows getting credit for existing pollution levels or (3) requires up-front estimates of the price elasticity of energy.

>*Listen, the simple point here is right now solar panels and other green energy sources cost a lot more than fossil fuels. Solar panels cost perhaps 10 times as much as fossil fuels. Now, you can get a few rich, well-meaning Westerners, put them up on their rooftops, feel good about themselves, but it's not going to solve global warming.*

>*But if we could innovate the price down of solar panels over the next two to four decades to be cheaper than fossil fuels, we would have solved global warming. Everyone, including the Chinese and the Indians, would switch.*

Subsiding PV is allowing "rich, well-meaning Westerners, put them up on their rooftops" which is helping to "innovate the price down of solar panels" and is [projected to continue](http://www.iea.org/work/2007/learning/Nemet_PV.pdf) "over the next two to four decades to be cheaper than fossil fuels".

I suppose he's arguing to increase the rate of learning? I'd agree.

*I suppose he's arguing to increase the rate of learning? I'd agree.*

I.e. the capacity factor and storage required for PV need to also be overcome by the price advantage gained via learning curves.

Where does he get $7 per tonne from? anyone?

Not from any serious study I've seen. Most put the cost at closer to $80-$100 per tonne, assuming one focuses narrowly on Co2 and excludes other ciommunity costs associated with industrial scale FHC harvest and combustion.

Of course, since we really can't tell how the whole matter will play out over the next few decades it might be that even these estimates are light. If the period from 2050 forward asees a roiling series of unstoppable climate-driven disasters that finally set back GDP to something like that of the early 20th century and famine, disease, human displacement, and war become commonplaces, then even $500 per tonne isn't going to fix that.

From [Lomborg Errors](http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/coolitBchap2carboncuts.htm)
>*A key argument in Cool It is that if a carbon tax is introduced, it must not surpass the social cost of carbon. On page 36 **he cites ONE economist, Richard Tol, for his "best guess" about the costs of emitting CO2, and this guess is $2 per ton of CO2 (that is $7 per ton of carbon)**. Consequently, according to Lomborg, it will reduce the prosperity of the world society to no avail if carbon taxes are set higher than $7 per ton of C. **However, Tol himself does not recommend an estimate of $7/tC, but rather cites an average estimate of about $16/tC, and probably recommends to use a value of $23-25/tC.***

[Dr Alex Bowen, Dr Simon Dietz, Dimitri Zenghelis and Bob Ward](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/02/climate-change-bjorn-…)

>*Dr Lomborg last year began to call for an investment of $100bn per year on research and development for low-carbon technologies, instead of the $25bn he was advocating 18 months ago. He now proposes that this should be raised through a carbon tax of $7 per tonne of carbon dioxide, rather than the $2 per tonne for which he previously argued.*

>*However, his strategy is alarmingly risky â invest heavily in R&D and hope that this alone will keep atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases low enough to avoid the risk of serious and damaging impacts from climate change. This might work, but it might not.*

>*A more robust approach to managing the risks of climate change would be not only to invest in R&D, but also to use a carbon tax (or cap-and-trade) to discourage greenhouse gas emissions in the short run...*

BTW [Tol uses models that assume](http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/01/richard-tol.html) rising temperature has little impact on extinction levels. He justifies this assumption by arguing that extiction rates are already high so that we will destory speicies regardless of temperature change.

He fails to account for the fact that climate disrutpion makes our extinction impact synergistically worse, and hence it cost more an more to protect vulnerable species as the climate is perturbed.

That might be why Lomborg likes Tols work even if Lomborg needs to cherry pick the bits that suit his current position.

Hi Sortition:

I have still to read (from you or anyone else) one single real advantage of a scheme which either (1) allows trading or

If there is a limited amount of emissions permits to go around, trading allows those who can make the most efficient economic use of them to get access to them. That's not a new idea.

It's the same argument for having a market for stuff like, you know, bananas, houses, jobs, cars, oil, jobs, shares, etc. A system which creates a limited number of nontradable permits would make no sense.

(2) allows getting credit for existing pollution levels or

Agreed. Giving free kicks to polluters is nuts, whether it is done under cap and trade system or a carbon tax. Exemptions like that are not a logical outcome of the cap and trade model any more than they would necessarily end up as part of a carbon tax arrangement.

(3) requires up-front estimates of the price elasticity of energy.

Do you mean the price elasticity of demand for energy? And by "energy", do you mean energy whose generation releases GHGs? I'm not sure what your point is. Can you explain that a bit more please.

Just a general point. I don't want to defend the CPRS as rejected by the Australian Senate in December 2009. The basically sound cap and trade idea got a mangling at the hands of the negotiations with the conservatives, who reneged on their agreement to pass it anyway.

I'd just invite you to do a thought experiment and think about what a carbon tax would have loooked like after protracted negotiations between Penny Wong and Ian McFarlane in the context of frantic lobbying by the coal industry. Something like the Frankenstein's Monster the CPRS ended up as, I'd guess.

Have any economists worked on the employment effects of Hansen's Carbon Fee? [morejobs.org.uk](http://www.morejobs.org.uk/?p=34) says

[Hansen's Carbon Fee] would support the lower-paid who have lower carbon footprints than the affluent. This could allow other changes to tax regimes which could conteract the poverty trap that unemployment payments can create, mirroring some of the effects of Professor Swales proposals to make Value Added Tax employment friendly

MoreJobs [quotes Professor Swales proposals](http://www.morejobs.org.uk/?p=3) saying "That is to say, the introduction of the new tax scheme would increase employment and reduce taxation."

>*It's the same argument for having a market for stuff like, you know, bananas, houses, jobs, cars, oil, jobs, shares, etc.*

An important point is that permits are not as verifiable as such as oil, bananas etc. As such I have a different hesitation towards real world permit trading than I do towards theoretical trading.

Making this system more complex than necessary [can lead to problems](http://www.dhf.uu.se/publications/critical-currents/carbon-trading-â-ho…).

>*Carbon trading is a complex system which sets itself a simple goal: to make it cheaper for companies and governments to meet emissions reduction targets â although, as we will show, emissions trading is designed in such a way that the targets can generally be met without actual reductions taking place.*

Though design is important, its possible to to make a carbon tax really bad, and possible to make an ETS good. What we are offered is another question.

At this stage I think it harder to cover the flaws in a bad tax than it would be to make the problems in a bad ETS appear opaque.

Jeepers Janet - you do go on - are you camped out here? Anyway back on Garnaut - why would even begin to accept CSIRO's rainfall projections for Australia. What's your rationale?

Why?

Maybe this:

"The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is Australia's national science agency"

would be why.

Or do you ask your gardener what stocks to invest in?

The CSIRO are just part of the scam, Wow. Canturi says he believes global warming is happening, he just believes that every government agency is scamming us and some nutter with Excel can do a better job.

Nah, Canturi is part of the scam.

After all, if AGW is accepted, then there's no money in researching whether AGW is real!

Canturi is just trying to make sure he can get some of that hot money being passed about for global warming.

Perhaps Cartooni believes that certain key initials in CSIRO stand for "chemtrails", "illuminati" and "rothschild".
Oh, and of course "scam".

Which isn't any more insane than whatever it is he does seem to readily believe.

Julia Gillard has avoided every opportunity and ignored all prodding to explain the about-face. This club-footed politicking is well partnered with hyperbolic terminology.

via Zetetic #103; "...renewable energy sources to power cites,.... the world already is doing just that..."

Do tell Zetetic, put forward your example of a solar/wind power city and we will have a look-see.

An oh so true observation of the climate hysteria...

"...There is a fair amount of reasonable science behind the global warming debate, but in general, and give or take a religion or two, never has quite so much rubbish been espoused by so many on so little evidence. One wonders why. We live in an age where common sense and tolerance are supposed to be the basis of our system of education, but there is very little of common sense and absolutely nothing of tolerance in the public argument about the climate change business. Perhaps it is that people simply have a basic need for fairy tales and doomsday stories."

via Garth Paltridge, The Climate Caper.

Lying dingbat quoting Paltridge:

never has quite so much rubbish been espoused by so many on so little evidence.

Continuing in his sole objective of spreading poop, dingbat shows us that Paltridge can't even get his Churchill quote right. It should be "never has quite so much rubbish been espoused by so FEW on so little evidence." That few is, of course, the 3 per cent of active Climate scientists that espouse rubbich.

@ Flying Binghi #125:

Thank you for proving that you don't actually bother to read what we post in reply to you. If you had you would have seen that I already cited some examples and provided a link to Scotland's progress on the issue (targeting 80% renewable by 2020). We can't help you learn if you don't try.

Still no reply though on China's change in energy policy that I linked to earlier? I noticed you suddenly seem to be ignoring that.

Maybe instead you can tell us why you believe in a book written by someone with fossil fuel industry ties over the massive body of scientific peer-reviewed works on climate? Especially when the quote you gave us earlier not only shows that he was going with a unscientifically low estimate of CO2 sensitivity, but (as noted in your own quote) he was giving a very simplistic example. So now you again quote this biased "expert" who is somehow not able to actually backup his assertion. It's funny how often you hear the exact same rhetoric coming from all of the other types of denialists (AIDS denialists, Young Earth Creationists, Intelligent Design advocates, Geocentrists, etc.) projection truly seems to be universal in the psychology of denialism.

So far the evidence of AGW is overwhelming with several thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers and samples of evidence from around the world, collected by thousands of independent scientists internationally.

Yet your AGW denialist side continually relies on cherry-picking, misrepresentation, out-right fabrication, and repeating the same long-discredited falsehoods over-and-over. All while they are being represented by the same groups (and often individuals) that told us smoking was safe, and some of which also support so-called "Intelligent Design", all while being funded by fossil fuel money.
Do you really not see a credibility problem with your side there?

So where is that credible positively supporting scientific evidence that supports whatever it is you think is actually causing the warming, and how do you justify it in light of the evidence that clearly shows an effect by increasing GHG's? You've been asked for it repeatedly, yet for some reason it's not forthcoming. Why is that?

Meanwhile, the fossils keep coming out of the ground and out from behind the bikeshed.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/coal-safe-come-hell-high-water-201103…

Hi Gaz,

> If there is a limited amount of emissions permits to go around, trading allows those who can make the most efficient economic use of them to get access to them. That's not a new idea.

Well, I don't understand your position: if polluters do not get credit for existing pollution, what kind of trading will there be? All permits will be bought directly from the government â not so? Unless you are thinking about speculation in permits (buying permits from the government in order to sell them later to polluters for higher price), which sounds very likely, but doesn't sound like it will be a positive development.

> Do you mean the price elasticity of demand for energy?

Yes.

> And by "energy", do you mean energy whose generation releases GHGs?

No â any energy. This is returning to my main point from two years ago: The inelasticity of the demand for energy makes it impossible to predict the value of the permits because the polluters cannot predict how high the energy price will go before demand drops below the cap. This makes bidding for the permits a very risky financial instrument: bidders could easily either make a windfall profit or incur huge losses. (I would suggest that you briefly re-read our exchange from two years ago â I did. This could save re-covering a lot of old ground.)

> Just a general point. I don't want to defend the CPRS as rejected by the Australian Senate in December 2009.

I agree â comparing ideal type vs. actual political plan doesn't make sense. My point is about ideal type vs. ideal type. The best cap-and-trade - really, cap-and-permits, since no trade is involved - has polluters bidding for permits from the government. In such a situation, the only difference is that with the cap-and-permits policy the polluters need to speculate about the elasticity of demand, while with the tax policy, the elasticity is observed and drives the adjustment of the tax level, but there is no need to predict it ahead of time. (Again â see our previous discussion.)

Excellent post [by Quiggin](http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2011/03/03/9539/):

>*McCrann, in particular, is certainly capable of doing arithmetic when he chooses to. He correctly estimates that the revenue from a carbon tax is going to be between $10 and $12 billion a year, perhaps one quarter of the revenue raised by the GST. As McCrann wrote in 2009, âthe carbon tax is going to arrive like a thief in the night; taking an extra $1 for every $4 plucked by the GST, which, in effect, is an increase in the GST from 10 to 12.5 per cent.â*

>*At this point, it would be sufficient to observe that, if the GST at 10 per cent had none of the catastrophic effects predicted by Labor, a tax one-fourth the size is even less likely to have the catastrophic effects predicted by conservatives like McCrann. But we donât need even to take that step. We can simply quote McCrann himself who, in August 2010, advocated raising the GST, not to 12.5 per cent, but to 15 per cent. Apparently, McCrann wants to destroy the economy twice over.*

Isn't it time to give FB the attention he deserves and focus on reality? The point is Australia and Australians should be doing the most they are capable of rather than the least they can get away with. Sure, China burns a lot of coal and if they want to burn more there are plenty within Australia, from big business to government leaders who will do their best to sell it to them. No responsibility taken. I'm sure methamphetamine suppliers would be pleased to know that all harm is the responsibility of the users. And if we say we'll continue to produce CO2 for as long as they do, surely the converse is true; if we continue to entrench further reliance on fossil fuels they will feel justified in doing so. More so given that their per capita use is still a fraction of ours and we've had the benefits of decades of unconstrained fossil fuel use. And the benefits of being the biggest coal exporter.

So what will be the political and economic impacts to Australia of being a Carbon pollution pariah? Do people really think the rest of the world, especially the poorest ones that will feel the impacts hardest will fail to take note of who has been profiting most from making the situation worst? Do people think Australia could not ever be subject to trade sanctions?

My feeling is that fossil fuel incineration and selling the stuff will be seen in future years in much the same way as whale hunting. Modern people look askance, if not disgusted, at Japan's commercial whaling and feel very uncomfortable about the allowances for indigenous and cultural exemptions to bans on whaling.

They only take notice of our own former uses of whale products _ lamp oil, or whalebone corsets, or canned cat food with a little shiver of distaste when someone forces the nasty information under their noses. Maybe a shocked "How could you!".

"How could you!" will probably be the least of it in a generation or so's time.

That generation will be trying to speed up imitation geological carbon sequestration processes in more sophisticated ways than our crass approach to accelerating geological carbon release processes by incinerating stuff we dig up using machinery run by other stuff we dig up.

via adelady #132; "...Modern people look askance, if not disgusted, at Japan's commercial whaling and feel very uncomfortable about the allowances for indigenous and cultural exemptions to bans on whaling..."

via Tim Flannery;

"...In terms of sustainability, you can't be sure that the Japanese whaling is entirely unsustainable..."

"...It's hard to imagine that the whaling would lead to a new decline in population..."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/flannery-says-whaling-is-ok/story…

via Zetetic #127; "...post in reply to you. If you had you would have seen that I already cited some examples and provided a link to Scotland's progress on the issue..."

Heh, Zetetic, Scotland has something like 85% of UK hydro power. Nothing like padding out the figures with a power source that's been in use for over fifty years.

Hydro is a very useful power source as has been demonstrated by Australia's very own Snowy rivers scheme. IMO, we should be looking into more hydro/water supply dams in Oz.

A quick google exposes the reality of the UK wind power fiasco -

"...Wind farms are failing to produce electricity when the temperatures drop, costing billions of pounds and potentially leading to blackouts, leading industrialists warned this week..."

http://www.walletpop.co.uk/2011/01/10/failure-of-wind-farms-in-cold-wea…

@ Flying Binghi #133:

Way to miss adelady's point there F.B.

==========================================================

@ Flying Binghi #134:
I noticed a few details that you conveniently left out of your post.

You left out how in Texas during the recent unusually cold weather shut-down many of the fossil fuel powered plants, due to the cold, but the wind farm kept on producing electricity for many.

Texas Wind Energy Comes Through in Ground Hog Storm

You also seems to fail to consider that the placement and design of a wind generator has effect on it's ability to perform in adverse weather.

I also noticed that the article you cited had no links to any data or organizations to verify it's story. Therefore, of course it makes perfect sense that you would trust it implicitly, while any thinking person would find it to be suspicious. So I did a little digging and the only thing that even came close to the story you cited was how denialists (much like you) were trying to stop further wind projects from being built. Funny that, isn't it?

While you are correct that Scotland has an abundance of hydro power available, you failed to note that most of it was already developed by the 1950's and therefore most of the expansion is in other sources of renewable energy. Now why did you leave that little detail out? (Not that I expect better from someone that considers a book written by someone with fossil fuel industry ties to superseded the peer-reviewed science.) Was it for the same reason that, in the article I had earlier linked to, you failed to note that they were talking about expanding other sources of power and how they had "Scotland is blessed with abundant natural energy sources, particularly in our seas, and the figures follow a steady trend towards Scotland's energy becoming greener and cleaner"? [emphasis added]

So now you want to focus on wind?

OK, how about Denmark heading to 50% of it's power from wind alone?

How Denmark manages its wind variability â paper launched today

In the mean time I'm guessing that you're expecting lots of blizzards on Australia to prevent the wind power from working? (Regardless of the fact that as Texas showed, wind power can work in blizzard conditions.)

===========================================================

How amusing though, still no word on China's change in policy.

Still no credible scientific evidence that supports your position.

Do you really think we haven't noticed how you like to change the subject?

via Zetetic #135; "...While you are correct that Scotland has an abundance of hydro power available, you failed to note that most of it was already developed by the 1950's..."

err actually, Zetetic, in my post #134, i wrote - "...Scotland has something like 85% of UK hydro power. Nothing like padding out the figures with a power source that's been in use for over fifty years..."

via Zetetic #135; "...You left out how in Texas during the recent unusually cold weather shut-down many of the fossil fuel powered plants, due to the cold,..."

Hmmm, and ah though we was in Scotland ...Heh.

...anyway, apparently them Texas power plants had trouble with burst pipes due to it being a bit cold. Considering coal and gas fired power plants operate successfully in far colder climates, methinks the Texas plant operators got caught out by the cold - caint blame them really with all them climate hysteric muppets running around saying that due to global warming children will never again know what winter snow looks like.

Having a further google look-see at the Texas wind power, apparently it don't do much in summer when its needed the most ....Hmmm, the stupidity of building a half arsed power system that needs an entire coal/gas power plant infrastructure to back it up.... dum-de-dum-de-dumb...

via Zetetic #135; "...article you cited..."

Zetetic Yer want me to google up some different links ?

via Zetetic #135; "...still no word on China's change in policy..."

Zetetic, as far as i know China is still buying up all the coal/gas mines it can. So no change in policy that i know.

Considering China has astute political management and gets sent money to build wind power turbines and is one of the worlds largest manufacturers of wind turbines, i guess they will tell the climate hysteric muppets just what they want to hear - meanwhile, China's coal mine buying actions tell us the reality...

@ Flying Binghi #136:

I apologize it was late and I missed that one detail.

Regardless you still continue to miss the essential point that you missed twice now, that Scotland is going from a current level of 27% renewable, only some of which was hydro-electric to 80% renewable by 2030. In other words, No matter how you try to rationalize it away, that is a lot of renewable power that has nothing to do with hydro-electric since Scotland has already developed most of theirs. You seem to be trying to avoid that obvious point. I wonder why?

Hmmm, and ah though we was in Scotland ...Heh.

You're the one that brought up the effects of cold weather with your unverifiable story. The point is to demonstrate that even in weather that is cold enough to shut down fossil fuel plants in Texas, that wind can still keep working.

So, I take your lack of response to my earlier question to mean that you are in fact expecting lots of blizzards in Australia to shut down the wind plants? How amusing.

Regardless, that still ignores that there are other sources of power that can be combined with wind, and the goal with wind is to have several farms scattered over a very wide area, all feeding into the grid. This is so that if one farm does stop producing power (say if the wind stops) the others can take over, that's where we get into the smart grid to distribute the power. Texas for example doesn't do much of this since many in political power over in Texas "don't trust dem big gubment prawjects". This subject (energy distribution) was also noted in my earlier cite about Denmark.

Considering coal and gas fired power plants operate successfully in far colder climates, methinks the Texas plant operators got caught out by the cold

Yes, the weather was unusually cold, funny how that happened what with the Arctic warming faster than the reset of the world, pushing a cold air mass down across much of the USA. Just like the global warming models predicted might happen.

caint blame them really with all them climate hysteric muppets running around saying that due to global warming children will never again know what winter snow looks like.

Funny how the only people that seem to say this are the denialists. While the scientists talk about a wider range of increasingly extreme weather. It's especially funny when many in Texas take pride in ignoring AGW, not to mention laws limiting polluting the air and water.

But, I'm sure that you'll have no trouble at all finding a cite for climate scientists claiming "children will never again know what winter snow looks like", right?

Hmmm, the stupidity of building a half arsed power system that needs an entire coal/gas power plant infrastructure to back it up.... dum-de-dum-de-dumb...

Well F.B. I do have to agree that it was awfully dumb of you to get everything backwards there, although it is to be expected from a denialist. The fact of the matter is that it the coal/gas system that was there first and the wind power has been added slowly, and still only amounts to a small amount of Texas power. So as usual you have the reality of the situation reversed to fit your dogma.

Having a further google look-see at the Texas wind power, apparently it don't do much in summer when its needed the most

Do you mean like this, from last March?
Setting Wind Power Records in Texas
Gee, I wonder if your story is going to be another unverifiable dead end from another denialist "news" site?

==========================================================

Zetetic, as far as i know China is still buying up all the coal/gas mines it can. So no change in policy that i know.

Ah but that was then, and policy changes take time to implement. While we still have to see what China will be doing in the future, their public statements indicate that they have become very aware of the problem with relying on coal. Only the most adamant of the denialists fails to see that poisoning your own food, air, and water from coal pollution is a bad idea in the long run. This means that China is a aware of a problem that you seem to insist on ignoring.

So then, are you still going to maintain the irrational assertion that if your neighbor is poisoning you (and themselves) that you should poison yourself more?

Considering China has astute political management and gets sent money to build wind power turbines and is one of the worlds largest manufacturers of wind turbines

True. Funny though how if renewable energy is going to be such a futile effort that China is pouring so much of it's resources into developing it? I also noticed that you left out China's own expansion of their renewable power base, yet again.

Funny how you consistently leave out those important little details that tend to undercut your denialism, isn't it?

===========================================================

Maybe you can tell us more about these blizzards you are expecting in Australia? I'd like to hear about them.

So F.B have you finally found any credible positively supporting scientific evidence that positively supports your denialist position yet? You know, something other than a made-up statement in a book written by someone with fossil fuel industry ties?

We're still waiting... It can't be that hard for you, right?

Looks like i need to repeat post #62 again -

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/128a52de-deaf-11de-adff-00144feab49a.html#axz…

...meanwhile, back in the real world, China continues to buy up the worlds coal mines.

@ Flying Binghi #138:
So, as usual, you're going to ignore the previous points again rather than address them.

Big surprise.

Sortition (@129).

Well, I don't understand your position: if polluters do not get credit for existing pollution, what kind of trading will there be?

Why should polluters get credit for existing pollution? The logical basis for an ETS is that anyone who wants to emit should buy the right to do it.

There is a case for government subsidy to smooth the way to lower-emissions technology, and that could take the form of emissions credits or free permits or whatever. But that's not an essential feature of an ETS, just way of helping the transition to occur because the world does not function as it does in textbooks (ie no uncertainty, perfect knowledge etc).

Having to buy permits and allowing anyone to buy and sell them may be anathema to many people but our society is based on markets, like it or not. The alternative is for governments to tell people what to do, like the Peter Garrett's insulation batts scheme or whatever Tony Abbott has in mind (direct action? Oh, please. )

Sortition, you seem to think you can eliminate risk from this process.

The inelasticity of the demand for energy makes it impossible to predict the value of the permits because the polluters cannot predict how high the energy price will go before demand drops below the cap.

I don't think whether demand is elastic (responds to price changes) or inelastic (doesn't respond to price changes) is the issue, it's estimating the response.

Granted, there's uncertainty about the effect of price on demand, and that makes it difficult to predict how how the price must go to reduce demand.

But the same uncertainty also means it's just as difficult to predict the correct level for the tax.

That's because policymakers polluters cannot predict how high the tax will go before demand drops below the target.

In other words, a *cap and trade* will involve some risk in buying and selling permits - businesses might buy too many or too few, or buy them when the price is at a high and sell when it is low, thereby losing money.

On the other hand, under a *carbon tax*, businesses will plan their production and investment in technology, based on what they predict the effect of the rising tax will have on customer demand and profitability, and they could turn out to be wrong, thereby losing money.

There is also the *added risk under a carbon tax* that the government will change the rate and trajectory of the tax when *it* realises it miscalculated the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the tax, meaning businesses may thereby lose money.

But risk is a part of business. And shifting energy prices are one of the biggest risks businesses worldwide have faced *and coped with rather effectively* over the past few decades.

You can't make risk go away.

The best cap-and-trade - really, cap-and-permits, since no trade is involved - has polluters bidding for permits from the government.

But a more efficient system would enable polluters to sell surplus permits to those who underestimated their needs, or to businesses which could make better use of them. Not allowing trading means that the worse businesses are at forecasting demand, the more negative the economic impact would be. In other words, it would magnify the negative effect of the uncertainty you are so concerned about.

In such a situation, the only difference is that with the cap-and-permits policy the polluters need to speculate about the elasticity of demand, while with the tax policy, the elasticity is observed and drives the adjustment of the tax level, but there is no need to predict it ahead of time. (Again â see our previous discussion.)

Sortition, of course businesses needed to speculate about the price elasticity of demand - under either system.

How many permits to buy (based on how much you intend to emit) is an important question for emitters under an ETS.
But the question doesnât go away under a tax.

How much you produce and how you produce it depends on the effect of the tax, which has to be forecast based on some estimate of price elasticity of demand.

Sure, the elasticity is observed and drives the adjustment of the tax level, but that's not much help to a business implementing a 5 or 10 year investment program.

Just a final point, I think it's a mistake many people make to assume pricing carbon will drive change through the effect on consumer behaviour. The important thing is to change business investment in technology.

Even given uncertainty about the effect on final demand, a tax or a permit price will change the profitability of different technologies. That's what's going to drive change.

>*meanwhile, back in the real world, China continues to buy up the worlds coal mines.*

Meanwhile back in the real world the emmission of rich nations like Australia is more than 4 time greater per capita than China's. If we are going to achieve a global agreement reduce emission we to reduce this gap by taking a leadership role in slashing our emissions by transforming our energy sector. And/Or we need to compensate China etc to aid them to take an cleaner development path than the one we took.

Gaz,

I disagree with much of what you wrote. You still have not provided a single advantage for a permits policy (with or without trading) over a tax policy. The stories about the wonders of trade I find unconvincing, to put it mildly. They are exactly the kind of stories that we were told about the wonders of trading mortgages.

However, I would like to move the discussion forward so how about we proceed by attempting to flesh out your proposal. Can you suggest what you think would be a reasonable emission cap schedule?

How about a 5% a year for 20 years? That will put you at two-thirds reduction 20 years from now compared to current levels. That sounds like a relatively modest goal.

If that sounds right, what do you think will be the price of energy 5 years from the starting point? After 5 years, the public would have to emit 22.6% less carbon than today. That would put the per-capita carbon emissions at about 1950 levels. Do you really think this can be done in the space of 5 years without decreases in energy consumption driven by dramatic increases in energy costs? Do you really think that within 5 years new technologies would emerge which would yield the desired emission reductions purely or mostly through energy efficiency and non-polluting energy production? If so, why didn't those technologies emerge as economically viable over the last decade, in which energy prices (and particularly gasoline prices) increased significantly? Why has neither energy production technology nor energy consumption per capita changed over the last decade? Why has neither car propulsion technology nor gasoline consumption per capita changed over the last decade?

Hi Sortition,

I'm sorry you aren't convinced by the "wonders of trade".

Presumably you would then want the government to close the following markets and give some board or committee the job of allocating:

Jobs

All durable consumer goods

All non-durable consumer goods, including food

Electricity, water, fuel, sewerage services

All serivces including restaurant meals, holiday
accommodiation and travel

Motor Vehicles

Plant and equipment

Land, housing and other buildings

All mineral commodities

Finance

And anything else which is bought and sold in a market.

Alternatively, you could just take a trip to North Korea and let us know your assessment of "the wonders" of non-market economies.

Sure, markets have to be regulated properly and we know what happens if they aren't but by and large they work, something which you adherence to a carbon tax implies quite unambiguously.

Unlike you I'm not a proponent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

As for all your other questions, why are you asking me? The technical or economic viability of any given trajectory of emmissions reductions applies pretty much to tax or cap.

The âgo live in North Koreaâ maneuver is pathetically worn-out. Anyway, moving on.

> As for all your other questions, why are you asking me? The technical or economic viability of any given trajectory of emmissions reductions applies pretty much to tax or cap.

I would think this is obvious. These question try to examine your claim that emission reductions would be achieved without changing the lifestyle of the average American. If this is to happen, at least one of two things must occur â either huge efficiency gains must be made, reducing the consumption of energy without affecting the lifestyle, or cheap, non-polluting energy resources have to be developed. My point is that if either of those were technologically feasible, we should have seen them emerging during the run-up of energy prices of the last decade.

Since neither efficiency, nor non-polluting energy made any substantial gains over the last decade, why should we believe they would suddenly appear in the near future, without dramatic increases in energy cost beyond the already increased level? If energy costs increase dramatically the consumption behavior of the average American will surely be affected.

By the way, in typical American fashion I wrote about "American lifestyle". This applies to other Western countries as well (although most of those start from a somewhat better baseline in varying degrees).

Abbott (the leader of John Humphreysâ party) is proposing the same targets for emissions cuts as the ALP (5% below 2000 levels by 2020). Tony Abbott and John Humphreys need to answer these questions:

1)How much will Abbottâs direct action plan cost the tax payer (per tonne of CO2)?

2)How will his direct action plan lead to development of low carbon energy, as opposed to simply offsetting emissions from dirty energy?

3)If his plan does little to promote development of low carbon energy, how will this affect Australia when fossil fuel becomes more expensive?

I just want to say that the suggestion that the "Iain" who posted comments at the beginning of this thread is me are totally wrong.

If I wished to post comemnts here I would do so under my full name and linking to my home page (as I do in this comment)
For my views on this particular aspect of the climate change debate Warministas ore cordially invited to drop by my blog where they will be welcomed for civil debate.

It is noted that Iain Hall does not accept expert professional advice on this matter from the properly qualified Australian scientific research organisations.

What are the implications for good governance when politicians refuse to take proper evidence-based technical advice in favour of accepting inexpert advice for the purpose of confirming their ideological bias?

Warministas ore cordially invited to drop by my blog where they will be welcomed for civil debate

They'll get civil debate allright. That's why they're called Warministas.

Vince
Just accepting any argument from authority as you are suggesting does not make any sense for a thinking individual, especially when those saying "trust me" are "climate scientists" who have a vested interest in there being an AGW industry that gets lots of money for "research"

Chris O'Neill
I may call AGW believers "Warminisitas" But how many of you insist on calling AGW sceptics "deniers"???
Its horses for courses to give our interlocutors in this debate with our favourite labels what surely matters is that no one gets personally abusive.

> ...Just accepting any argument from authority as you are suggesting does not make any sense for a thinking individual...

You're right. They first have to think about whether they are personally qualified to assess the science themselves, and if not what kinds of bodies or groups would be the best bet to delegate that kind of assessment to - and what the chances are that an overwhelming consensus amongst the professionally qualified scientists in the field is badly wrong.

Then the thinking individuals who don't have their own climate science expertise will mostly figure that national scientific bodies reporting on an overwhelming professional consensus complete with masses of evidence and documentation of the procedures used to reach it are a far better bet than pretty much all of the bodies and individuals who disagree with that consensus.

> ... especially when those saying "trust me" are "climate scientists" who have a vested interest in there being an AGW industry that gets lots of money for "research"...

When you use scare quotes around the word "research" and "climate scientists", you are implying that they are not actually climate scientists and not actually conducting research.

On what basis do you form that opinion, and on what basis do you assert that your opinion is accurate?

And no, they don't have a vested interest in AGW itself. They have a vested interest in there being money for research - no scare quotes needed - either in the climate, or in other fields which they could equally well apply themselves to if there were no important climate questions left to study. And it would be foolish to pretend that understanding the climate system is not pretty damn important even if they were to find that AGW was not a problem.

You also seem to be unaware that the vast majority of the "lots of money for "research"" you refer to goes to satellite monitoring programs. We'd still want to do that even if AGW were not a concern.

And one should also note that there is a lifetime of kudos, boundless professional opportunity, a Nobel Prize and widespread fame on offer for any scientist who can prove that anthropogenic factors are not significantly influencing the climate. You'd think if as you imply a whole bunch of scientists were conspiring to suppress the truth that someone would step up to claim these prizes, no? Why haven't they?

And if you're going to talk about vested interests...how about them fossil fuel industries, heh?

> "But how many of you insist on calling AGW sceptics "deniers"???"

I only call people deniers if they deny the fairly clear facts - such as the facts that "climate scientists" are actual scientists, and there "research" is actual research, and that there is a great deal of evidence that says it's far more likely than not that human influences are significantly contributing to ongoing warming.

You seem to be angling to be in that category.

"Chris O'Neill I may call AGW believers "Warminisitas" But how many of you insist on calling AGW sceptics "deniers"???"

Because Warministas means nothing. We say it's warm outside?!?

However, AGW skeptics are not called deniers. Because you're not a skeptic, you're a denier. As in you're shown evidence and deny it is valid.

The FACT that you state AGW skeptic as your moniker when skepticism is not skepticism ABOUT ONE THING shows that you are not a skeptic but just wish to state that AGW is not a problem.

Funnily enough, all the self-proclaimed skeptics who deny AGW have multitudinous (well over a hundred) different explanations of what is going on, but they're incompatible with each other, the only thing they have in common is "it's not what the IPCC says it is".

Not once will one of them go and be skeptical of someone who thinks it's not warming when they think it is but it's due to some lensing effect they'll discover any day now, honest.

Most self-proclaimed skeptics actually have nothing to their mantra other than "it's not what the IPCC says" which absolves them of this problem but does rather mean they fit the dictionary definition of denier.

It's horses for courses. If you don't like "denier" then start being a skeptic.

Iain Hall:

Chris O'Neill I may call AGW believers "Warminisitas" But how many of you insist on calling AGW sceptics "deniers"??? Its horses for courses to give our interlocutors in this debate with our favourite labels what surely matters is that no one gets personally abusive.

You can call people warministas if you like but it's so obviously silly because it implies that you don't accept that warming is occurring, regardless of the cause. Anyone who doesn't accept that warming is occurring is in plain denial of a lot of facts.

So call people warministas if you like but it comes with a big red flag that says "I deny that it's warming".

Iain Hall.

You expect to be taken seriously on the matter of objective delineation of climate science. Unfortunately for you, you have failed to convince me to sign up as a potential member of your audience by your inability to title your posts objectively: to wit - "Being Bobâs Biatch..." as a heading for your opinion on the protest against climate change science and carbon pricing. The protestor's sign to which you refer said "BITCH", Iain Hall, not "Biatch" - there's no benefit in being all coy and demure about what those on the ignorant side say.

However, that's just a simple snark. What struck me as somewhat more incongruous with objectivity was your claim:

Of more concern to me is the lack of an apostrophe to designate the possessive case in the word "Browns". It is usually the left who make such basic orthographic errors and I am deeply disturbed that one of my fellow conservative/sceptics has been remiss enough to have missed the most important punctuation marks from their placard...

In my experience in dealing with lay people on non-scientific fora, it is overwhelmingly the conservative right that harbours the ill-educated folk who have difficulty in appropriate apostrophising.

Of course, this is simply my personal experience, but that's the point - I predicate my observation as such. Your sweeping generalisation indicates both an inadequate assessment of the reality of who does what with apostrophies, and a preparedness to base your opinions on less than evidence.

For these reasons I dismiss your pratings.

Oh, and there's the small, specific matter of your cavalier denial of the work of thousands of professional scientists. Which, in the end, is really the substantive point anyway...

> Of more concern to me is the lack of an apostrophe to designate the possessive case in the word "Browns". It is usually the left who make such basic orthographic errors...

Pot. Kettle. Black.

It took five seconds on Iain's website to find Iain making basic errors of grammar and punctuation:

> To be honest I have been amazed at the rancour of the many minions of the left over the pithy signs at this rally its not as if the minions of the left have never been lacking in good taste or due respect to the leaders of the nation when the coalition have been the subject of the peopleâs ire in public protests, In my youth I vividly remember...

Count the errors in that one fraction of a sentence - errors including misuse of the apostrophe - in the very post where he chides people for misusing the apostrophe.

Perhaps he's doing it as performance art or satire.

Unfortunately it seems more likely that it's merely Dunning-Kruger at work.

And for those who like to keep score at home, that quote is not the only misuse of the apostrophe that Iain engages in, even when restricting consideration to merely the front page of his blog.

And for those who like to keep score at home, that quote is not the only misuse of the apostrophe that Iain engages in, even when restricting consideration to merely the front page of his blog.

Omigod! Iain Hall must be one of those lefty commie bastards wot cant spell or grammerate!

Academic smack. Eli loves that game.

Iain Hall's moma can't spell his given name, but wadda u xpect she's an adjunct

Well my rather innocuous comments seem to have generated a whirlwind of response

Lotharsson

...Just accepting any argument from authority as you are suggesting does not make any sense for a thinking individual...

You're right. They first have to think about whether they are personally qualified to assess the science themselves, and if not what kinds of bodies or groups would be the best bet to delegate that kind of assessment to - and what the chances are that an overwhelming consensus amongst the professionally qualified scientists in the field is badly wrong.

My point here is that any "argument from authority" is generally considered to be a very poor way to argue about the details of any scientific question especially in a forum that is open to the scientific laity. Further you compound the weak argument by suggesting that "consensus " proves anything in scientific terms when it is quite clear that it does no such thing(until Copernicus demonstrated that the earth was not the centre of our solar system the consensus used to be that the sun rotated around this planet didn't it?)

Then the thinking individuals who don't have their own climate science expertise will mostly figure that national scientific bodies reporting on an overwhelming professional consensus complete with masses of evidence and documentation of the procedures used to reach it are a far better bet than pretty much all of the bodies and individuals who disagree with that consensus.

So what you are saying here is that we should all just bow down to those who are suitably anointed by the priests of the green faith and don't dare to ask the most basic questions like "can you actually provide a proof for the AGW theory that meets the requirements of the scientific method? Or can you provide an accurate value for the climate's sensitivity to Co2?

... especially when those saying "trust me" are "climate scientists" who have a vested interest in there being an AGW industry that gets lots of money for "research"...

When you use scare quotes around the word "research" and "climate scientists", you are implying that they are not actually climate scientists and not actually conducting research.

On what basis do you form that opinion, and on what basis do you assert that your opinion is accurate?

No That is the implication that you are choosing to draw from my using quotation marks in that context You are making a straw-man argument here and all that I am implying here is that the cult of the "expert" to which you so obviously subscribe is not something that we should bow down to in an age when ordinary folk can have a say in the matters that will affect our lives

And no, they don't have a vested interest in AGW itself. They have a vested interest in there being money for research - no scare quotes needed - either in the climate, or in other fields which they could equally well apply themselves to if there were no important climate questions left to study. And it would be foolish to pretend that understanding the climate system is not pretty damn important even if they were to find that AGW was not a problem.

I think that you will find that I said that they had a vested interest in the AGW Industry and that is certainly true because without the ongoing scare campaign many of those involved in climate research would be unemployed.

You also seem to be unaware that the vast majority of the "lots of money for "research"" you refer to goes to satellite monitoring programs. We'd still want to do that even if AGW were not a concern.

The majority? Oh please provide some proof for this assertion because it sounds like you just made that up.

And one should also note that there is a lifetime of kudos, boundless professional opportunity, a Nobel Prize and widespread fame on offer for any scientist who can prove that anthropogenic factors are not significantly influencing the climate. You'd think if as you imply a whole bunch of scientists were conspiring to suppress the truth that someone would step up to claim these prizes, no? Why haven't they?

The other side of that same coin is obviously "Why has no scientist definitely proven that anthropogenic factors ARE significantly influencing the climate?" because for all of the words and papers uttered in favour of the AGW theory no one has quite managed to do this now have they?

And if you're going to talk about vested interests...how about them fossil fuel industries, heh?

How much has been spent by the "fossil fuel industries" to argue against the AGW theory and how much money has been extracted from government and industry for AGW research?

I only call people deniers if they deny the fairly clear facts - such as the facts that "climate scientists" are actual scientists, and there "research" is actual research, and that there is a great deal of evidence that says it's far more likely than not that human influences are significantly contributing to ongoing warming.

You seem to be angling to be in that category.

As I suggested earlier you are fighting your own straw man here rather than addressing my actual argument but that is not unusual for you is it Lothorsson?

Wow

"Chris O'Neill I may call AGW believers "Warminisitas" But how many of you insist on calling AGW sceptics "deniers"???"

Because Warministas means nothing. We say it's warm outside?!?

However, AGW skeptics are not called deniers. Because you're not a skeptic, you're a denier. As in you're shown evidence and deny it is valid.

The FACT that you state AGW skeptic as your moniker when skepticism is not skepticism ABOUT ONE THING shows that you are not a skeptic but just wish to state that AGW is not a problem.

So I make it clear that my scepticism is on this occasion specifically about the theory of AGW , which is absolutely accurate in this context, for you to suggest that my scepticism is not broad enough is just ludicrous because only an idiot would think that being specific about one issue means that it is the only thing that I am sceptical about.

Funnily enough, all the self-proclaimed skeptics who deny AGW have multitudinous (well over a hundred) different explanations of what is going on, but they're incompatible with each other, the only thing they have in common is "it's not what the IPCC says it is".

Isn't it the responsibility of those who are proposing a theory (like AGW) to prove their theory? Well it was when I learned about science...

Not once will one of them go and be skeptical of someone who thinks it's not warming when they think it is but it's due to some lensing effect they'll discover any day now, honest.

But where you fall down is to assume that being an AGW sceptic means that someone has to doubt that it is warming (or that the climate may be changing) neither is necessary (or accurate in my case) all that one has to be is doubtful that the argument for human responsibility for any observed changes has been proven.

Most self-proclaimed skeptics actually have nothing to their mantra other than "it's not what the IPCC says" which absolves them of this problem but does rather mean they fit the dictionary definition of denier.

It's horses for courses. If you don't like "denier" then start being a skeptic.

Well I speak for no one but myself and my argument is simply that the AGW theory is unproven and those who claim otherwise have the onus of proof and they have failed to provide it.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | March 24, 2011 7:13 AM

You can call people warministas if you like but it's so obviously silly because it implies that you don't accept that warming is occurring, regardless of the cause. Anyone who doesn't accept that warming is occurring is in plain denial of a lot of facts.

So call people warministas if you like but it comes with a big red flag that says "I deny that it's warming".

Sorry to disappoint you Chris but that is an incorrect implication , I call AGW enthusiasts Warministas because it is making an oblique reference to the left-wing guerillas from Nicaragua ( the Sandinistas) as I said a little earlier in this response its not the warming or climate change that I dispute, its the amount of human responsibility for that change that is the real issue isn't it?

Lotharsson

You expect to be taken seriously on the matter of objective delineation of climate science. Unfortunately for you, you have failed to convince me to sign up as a potential member of your audience by your inability to title your posts objectively: to wit - "Being Bobâs Biatch..." as a heading for your opinion on the protest against climate change science and carbon pricing. The protestor's sign to which you refer said "BITCH", Iain Hall, not "Biatch" - there's no benefit in being all coy and demure about what those on the ignorant side say.

The title of my post is a Rap culture reference if you really need to know and since when does any writer of a blog have an obligation to meet any standard of "objectivity" when writing about politics? Because despite your suggestion to the contrary that is what my post is about, the politics of protest and the ridiculous faux outrage about a couple of signs at a rally.

However, that's just a simple snark. What struck me as somewhat more incongruous with objectivity was your claim:

[...]In my experience in dealing with lay people on non-scientific fora, it is overwhelmingly the conservative right that harbours the ill-educated folk who have difficulty in appropriate apostrophising.

Of course, this is simply my personal experience, but that's the point - I predicate my observation as such. Your sweeping generalisation indicates both an inadequate assessment of the reality of who does what with apostrophies(sic), and a preparedness to base your opinions on less than evidence.

Well my experience has been contrary to yours, especially when it comes to the younger generation who are forever texting or putting their thoughts out on twitter, they seem to be entirely oblivious when it comes to the use of the apostrophe to designate the possessive case. We will just have to agree to disagree on this.

For these reasons I dismiss your partings(sic).

Oh, and there's the small, specific matter of your cavalier denial of the work of thousands of professional scientists. Which, in the end, is really the substantive point anyway...

I have never denied that thousands of scientists who are paid for their work do research, what I have said is that they have a way to go when it comes to proving the AGW theory and that those who suggest otherwise are at best being elastic with the concept of scientific proof or don't understand it in the first place.

Lothorsson

Pot. Kettle. Black. (ect)

Wearing your Subbie's hat are you ?

Count the errors in that one fraction of a sentence - errors including misuse of the apostrophe - in the very post where he chides people for misusing the apostrophe.

Perhaps he's doing it as performance art or satire.

Unfortunately it seems more likely that it's merely Dunning-Kruger at work.

I am absolutely humble about my abilities and understanding of science, you on the other hand are deluded enough to think that if you genuflect to authority with enough sincerity then any argument that you put forward will be definitive and beyond challenge, sadly for you your foray into debate here proves otherwise.

156And for those who like to keep score at home, that quote is not the only misuse of the apostrophe that Iain engages in, even when restricting consideration to merely the front page of his blog.

Really?

Like who cares? Its a personal blog and I make no claims for spelling perfection and I am not a professional word smith like you are. How is the Book coming BTW? Care to send me a copy for review?

Cheers

Iain Hall

Iain, first things first.

TherÃ© isn't any "AGW theory". There's 'climate science' which examines and explains the past and present climate. AGW is merely a sub-set of the general science because, at present, that is the major observable event in climate.

If the major influence on climate of the last 60+ years were a warming/ cooling sun or an upsurge/decline in volcanic activity, that would most likely be the focus of more research. As it happens, those things are researched anyway, to examine whether they could explain all or most of the climate phenomena that we see.

"AGW theory" is just the outcome of careful research showing that those other factors are minor or, in the case of the sun, actually providing a cooling effect over the last 20+ years. The research also shows that the predicted effects of gases having certain properties are borne out by the evidence.

Adelady

AGW is a theory that suggests that the extra emissions from human activity is the major driver of the observed climate change but there is no definitive proof of this assertion.

Iain Hall has some explaining to do, Iâll list [some of his arguments](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/carbon_tax_back_flips.php#comme…) as examples:

>*you compound the weak argument by suggesting that "consensus " proves anything in scientific terms*
Is that true Iain, did someone here really suggest that suggesting that *"consensus " proves anything in scientific terms*? Can you show us who made such a claim?

Iain continues:
>* So what you are saying here is that we should all just bow down to those who are suitably anointed by the priests of the green faith and don't dare to ask the most basic questions like "can you actually provide a proof for the AGW theory that meets the requirements of the scientific method? Or can you provide an accurate value for the climate's sensitivity to Co2?*

Is that really what was said or this just the straw that youâd prefer to argue rather than address the really issues? If you are actually interested in climate sensitivity we [can discuss that](http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm).
BTW, Last time I looked proof was not how science operated, science is based on the preponderance of evidence. Maths is based on proofs.

>*"Why has no scientist definitely proven that anthropogenic factors ARE significantly influencing the climate?" because for all of the words and papers uttered in favour of the AGW theory no one has quite managed to do this now have they?*

Would you like a pink unicorn to go with your impossible standard Iain. You seem very attached to this not scientific standard call proof. Let me redirect your interest to the actual scientific standard of preponderance of available evidence.

I counted (roughly) eleven times were you made your argument about the proof or lack of re AGW. I hope you now realize this is a pink unicorn strawman argument relying on an non-scientific impossible standard. I suggest if you are interested in a scientific argument, that you move to the scientific standard of evidence.

(make that 12 bogus times with your response to Adelady.)

Iain Hall writes:

>I think that you will find that I said that [climate researchers] had a vested interest in the AGW Industry and that is certainly true because without the ongoing scare campaign many of those involved in climate research would be unemployed.*

Mmm, and same for those cancer reserchers. And the Alzheimer's reserchers. I guess we can expect the Medical association to begin advancing laxer public health standards so they can increase their customer base and employment opportunities?

Clearly, Iain Hall is a denier. He does not accept authoritative expert scientific opinions, but he does give credence to the ideas of fringe-living cranks.
He can't explain why all the properly-qualified are wrong, and seems to think the science is something that's up for "debate" by people who don't have the skills, training or knowledge to contribute to it. The sole justification he supplies is a vague and laughable accusation of corruption against scientists. The fact that none of them drive Ferraris doesn't seem to register with him.

Ultimately, Iain will take his place in history alongside Tony Abbott and the rest of the deluded and ideological anti-science kooks.

If he were willing to accept any advice, I would offer this: think of your reputation and discard ideology before bringing proper analytic skills to this issue. It's not just your own career that is on the line, the credibility of the Liberal Party itself is at stake, and things are not looking too good so far. Get Malcolm to explain it to you if you're having trouble - not everybody in the Liberal Party has allowed itself to be fooled by the cranks and kooks who agitate on this issue.

jakerman

Iain Hall has some explaining to do, Iâll list some of his arguments as examples:

{...}

Iain continues:

{...}

Is that really what was said or this just the straw that youâd prefer to argue rather than address the really issues? If you are actually interested in climate sensitivity we can discuss that. BTW, Last time I looked proof was not how science operated, science is based on the preponderance of evidence. Maths is based on proofs.

{...}

Would you like a pink unicorn to go with your impossible standard Iain. You seem very attached to this not scientific standard call proof. Let me redirect your interest to the actual scientific standard of preponderance of available evidence.

I counted (roughly) eleven times were you made your argument about the proof or lack of re AGW. I hope you now realize this is a pink unicorn strawman argument relying on an non-scientific impossible standard. I suggest if you are interested in a scientific argument, that you move to the scientific standard of evidence.

(make that 12 bogus times with your response to Adelady.)

What is so wrong with wanting a high standard of proof for a theory that is the foundation for calls to change every aspect of our economy and our lives? Frankly if you are happy to have every aspect of human life and culture on this planet changed on the basis of such weak evidence doesn't that suggest that you are working on the basis of faith rather than empirical science?

Further your link to the article about climate sensitivity just demonstrates the problem in that aspect of the theory, namely there is not even a consensus of just what the climate sensitivity is

Mmm, and same for those cancer reserchers. And the Alzheimer's reserchers. I guess we can expect the Medical association to begin advancing laxer public health standards so they can increase their customer base and employment opportunities?

Actually that is a rather poor analogy because it is pretty well known how both of those diseases work (which does not mean a cure or a treatment is pending) but there is some rather blatant examples of researchers manipulating research to make more money while the results for patients are at best questionable.

Iain Hall:

Sorry to disappoint you Chris but that is an incorrect implication , I call AGW enthusiasts Warministas because it is making an oblique reference to the left-wing guerillas from Nicaragua ( the Sandinistas) as I said a little earlier in this response its not the warming or climate change that I dispute, its the amount of human responsibility for that change that is the real issue isn't it?

You still don't get the point. Since you accept that it's warming it makes as much sense to call you a warminista too. What do you think the word "warm" means? Don't you think it's a bit silly everyone calling everyone else warmininistas? (Apart from the people who are completely in denial of warming).

> My point here is that any "argument from authority" is ...a very poor way to argue about the details of any scientific question especially in a forum that is open to the scientific laity.

Er, disregarding the illogic of implying that argument from authority has no place in a forum frequented by people who don't have any scientific expertise of their own...

...you missed my point.

See my comments after the next quote:

> ...by suggesting that "consensus " proves anything in scientific terms...

No, no, no. This is not my argument at all. Nuances matter.

I argue that if one is incompetent to assess the science oneself, as you seem to acknowledge that you are:

> I am absolutely humble about my abilities and understanding of science...

...then one needs to move on to a different method of determining one's belief about what is most likely true.

A reasonable method is to accept that while it is possible that an overwhelming consensus amongst qualified scientists will turn out to be wrong, (a) it is rather unlikely, and (b) until such time as evidence turns up to lend significant support to the idea that it might be wrong it's wise to assume that it's right, and (c) clinging to arguments as to why the consensus is wrong that sound good to amateurs in the pub but don't hold any sway with scientists who know their stuff is idiotic.

I'm more than happy to hear arguments as to why the consensus is wrong, but they have to pass scientific muster! Point (c) is especially important for those who aren't scientifically competent themselves, and it's the one that's most often violated.

And none of this applies to those competent to assess the science, which reinforces that I'm not arguing that scientific consensus is always correct.

> So what you are saying here is that we should all just bow down to those who are suitably anointed by the priests of the green faith...

Er, no. I see comprehension is not your strong point, and you've somehow determined that the scientists are en masse making ... what, fraudulent claims on behalf of an ideology other than a search for scientific truth?

So...once more with feeling - if you aren't scientifically capable yourself, then making an argument that "I don't believe the science" without backing it up in terms that pass scientific muster with those who are actually competent in the appropriate scientific field is ... well, Dunning-Krugeresque, for starters.

And your assertion that somehow the national science bodies are captive to "high priests of the green faith" is ... interesting, and apparently unsupported by any evidence. How did you come to this belief? Do you assert that you think you understand the science deeply enough to make this conclusion? Or are you ... appealing to some authority?

> ...don't dare to ask the most basic questions like "can you actually provide a proof for the AGW theory that meets the requirements of the scientific method?"

Please! That question is asked all the time!

What the heck do you think climate scientists studying AGW - and creating IPCC reports - have been working on? Perhaps your misapprehension is due to a flawed understanding of "the scientific method". (There is a common denialist meme that operates just like this...)

> Or can you provide an accurate value for the climate's sensitivity to Co2?

Don't be obtuse.

Can you provide an accurate value for how deeply the front end of my car will be crushed if I drive it off this cliff? Should the lack of an accurate value mean that I should not be worried for my safety if I start driving towards it? Or does the reasonable uncertainty bounds for that value imply that I really don't want to do so?

> That is the implication that you are choosing to draw from my using quotation marks in that context

Indeed, because that is what "scare quotes" mean, making it hard to draw any other implication. If you don't realise this, then you probably shouldn't use them.

> The majority? Oh please provide some proof for this assertion because it sounds like you just made that up.

Google is a remedy for your ignorance.

> ...because without the ongoing scare campaign many of those involved in climate research would be unemployed.

On what basis do you make this claim? Please provide some proof for this assertion because it sounds like you just made that up. And on the other hand, we have actual working scientists commenting on this blog asserting otherwise.

> The other side of that same coin is obviously "Why has no scientist definitely proven that anthropogenic factors ARE significantly influencing the climate?" because for all of the words and papers uttered in favour of the AGW theory no one has quite managed to do this now have they?

No, it's not the other side of the coin. You reveal your lack of understanding of science by claiming that it is.

Science operates with uncertainty and likelihood bounds, and within reasonable bounds scientists have proven what you claim they have not. You can assert that they have not done so, but so far your assertions on that point are merely unsupported and non-scientific bluster. You seem to be echoing classic "high-proofer" or Popperian fundamentalist memers - stances that I'm betting you don't apply to other scientific results that you leverage in daily life.

> The title of my post is a Rap culture reference...

I didn't write the quote to which you were responding there, and yes, I got the rap culture reference.

> Wearing your Subbie's hat are you ?

I don't know what a Subbie is or why it should be capitalised. I do know something about stones and glass houses though.

> ...you ... are deluded enough to think that if you genuflect to authority with enough sincerity then any argument that you put forward will be definitive and beyond challenge...

Not at all! I'm more than happy to have my arguments challenged - it's how errors in my thinking are corrected. But I also know there are questions I'm not competent to answer, and in those cases I try to look for those who are. I note that this is not a universal practice.

And I merely insist that the merit of any scientific argument cannot be reliably assessed ... unfortunately rather tautologically, but apparently it's necessary ... by those who aren't equipped to assess the science. Being suitably equipped includes a reasonably broad knowledge of the particular field in question so that one can weigh all the evidence, not just a subset that someone would like you to focus on.

And I also note that many of the "skeptics" and "deniers" are (a) clearly not equipped to assess the science, if only because they insist on scientific "facts" that scientists have clearly refuted, and (b) clearly make assertions such as "the scientists haven't proved AGW" that either (i) rely on the assumption that they are so equipped, or (ii) rely on appeal to some perceived authority - which wouldn't be very smart if they were also arguing that appeal to authority in arguments about science on blogs is not useful or valid.

> Frankly if you are happy to have every aspect of human life and culture on this planet changed on the basis of such weak evidence doesn't that suggest that you are working on the basis of faith rather than empirical science?

Good god. Really?

The evidence is quite strong. Saying it's weak doesn't make it so. You have to provide a reasonable argument for that assertion.

So feel free to explain why you assert that the evidence is weak, without resorting to argument from authority. References would be really helpful. You'll find copious references to evidence and logic in the sections of the IPCC reports that deal with the case for AGW - you should probably go through the vast majority of those and show how they are outweighed by other evidence and logic. And if you want any credibility you should check your arguments and evidence before you publish to make sure climate scientists haven't already assessed and dismissed them as bogus or irrelevant.

I look forward to reading your argument.

But really, "every aspect of human life and culture"? Remind me who's supposedly running a scare campaign here?

Iain Hall writes:
>*What is so wrong with wanting a high standard of proof*

Iâve explained what is wrong with it. âProofâ is not a scientist standard. You may has well ask for a pink unicorn. Your continued adherence to this pink unicorn standard is denial of how science operates.

Iain reverts to his strawman fallacious tactic:

>* Frankly if you are happy to have every aspect of human life and culture on this planet changed on the basis of such weak evidence*

You havenât debated, let along establish, the strength of the evidence, so how do you know the evidence is weak?

Iain continues:

>*Actually [cancer & Alzheimer's research] is a rather poor analogy because it is pretty well known how both of those diseases work (which does not mean a cure or a treatment is pending)*

You should be more precise, we understand some important parts of how these diseases work. And thus itâs a fair analogy as there is much that is understood of how the climate works.

>*but there is some rather blatant examples of researchers manipulating research to make more money while the results for patients are at best questionable.*

Which distinguishes climate researchers as a higher standard, as despite unprecedented scrutiny know scientific fraud has been found in climate science.

>*Further your link to the article about climate sensitivity just demonstrates the problem in that aspect of the theory, namely there is not even a consensus of just what the climate sensitivity is*

Your arguing for a purple unicorn to match your pink one. You donât need consensus on a specific climate sensitively. We have multiple lines of evidence used to determine probability density function of climate sensitivity. This is diverse and strong evidence that the climate sensitivity is between 2 and 4.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2.

Chris @167

You still don't get the point. Since you accept that it's warming it makes as much sense to call you a warminista too.

No sorry but to be a Warminista you a have to believe that it is both warming and that the warming is the fault of modern industrial society.

What do you think the word "warm" means? Don't you think it's a bit silly everyone calling everyone else Warministas? (Apart from the people who are completely in denial of warming).

As I have said before in this thread the point of contention is not the climate warming or failing to do so, but the amount of any perceived warming that can be attributed to human activity. You clearly think that most of the perceived warming is due to human activity where as I don't think there is enough proof to make such a claim, I'm willing to be convinced though so please try.

Iain writes:
>*What is so wrong with wanting a high standard of proof*

Iain reverts to his strawman fallacious tactic:

>* Frankly if you are happy to have every aspect of human life and culture on this planet changed on the basis of such weak evidence*

You havenât debated, let along establish, the strength of the evidence, so how do you know the evidence is weak?

Iain continues:

>*Actually [cancer & Alzheimer's research] is a rather poor analogy because it is pretty well known how both of those diseases work (which does not mean a cure or a treatment is pending)*

You should be more precise, we understand some important parts of how these diseases work. And thus itâs a fair analogy as there is much that is understood of how the climate works.

>*but there is some rather blatant examples of researchers manipulating research to make more money while the results for patients are at best questionable.*

Which distinguishes climate researchers as a higher standard, as despite unprecedented scrutiny know scientific fraud has been found in climate science.

>*Further your link to the article about climate sensitivity just demonstrates the problem in that aspect of the theory, namely there is not even a consensus of just what the climate sensitivity is*

Sorry that should have been Chris @168

Iain Hall writes:
>*What is so wrong with wanting a high standard of proof*

Iain reverts to his strawman fallacious tactic:

>* Frankly if you are happy to have every aspect of human life and culture on this planet changed on the basis of such weak evidence*

You havenât debated, let along establish, the strength of the evidence, so how do you know the evidence is weak?

Iain continues:

>*Actually [cancer & Alzheimer's research] is a rather poor analogy because it is pretty well known how both of those diseases work (which does not mean a cure or a treatment is pending)*

You should be more precise, we understand some important parts of how these diseases work. And thus itâs a fair analogy as there is much that is understood of how the climate works.

>*but there is some rather blatant examples of researchers manipulating research to make more money while the results for patients are at best questionable.*

Which distinguishes climate researchers as a higher standard, as despite unprecedented scrutiny know scientific fraud has been found in climate science.

>*Further your link to the article about climate sensitivity just demonstrates the problem in that aspect of the theory, namely there is not even a consensus of just what the climate sensitivity is*

Iain continues:

>*Actually [cancer & Alzheimer's research] is a rather poor analogy because it is pretty well known how both of those diseases work (which does not mean a cure or a treatment is pending)*

You should be more precise, we understand some important parts of how these diseases work. And thus itâs a fair analogy as there is much that is understood of how the climate works.

>*but there is some rather blatant examples of researchers manipulating research to make more money while the results for patients are at best questionable.*

Which distinguishes climate researchers as a high standard, as despite unprecedented scrutiny no scientific fr@ud has been found in climate science.

>*Further your link to the article about climate sensitivity just demonstrates the problem in that aspect of the theory, namely there is not even a consensus of just what the climate sensitivity is*

Iain, can you explain why doctors and mediacal associates campaing for high public health standards that reduce the demand for medical services? Why do they act against what you might have us believe is (in your critique of climate researchers) their self interest for employment?

Frankly if you are happy to have every aspect of human life and culture on this planet changed on the basis of such weak evidence doesn't that suggest that you are working on the basis of faith rather than empirical science?

That's the question for the deniers to answer.

Climate change is going to affect every aspect of our lives. So far no denier has produced strong evidence supporting their case.

Lothersson

My point here is that any "argument from authority" is ...a very poor way to argue about the details of any scientific question especially in a forum that is open to the scientific laity.

Er, disregarding the illogic of implying that argument from authority has no place in a forum frequented by people who don't have any scientific expertise of their own...

I did not say that it has NO place in a forum discussing this topic only, that it is a fundamentally weak way to argue

...you missed my point.

See my comments after the next quote:

...by suggesting that "consensus " proves anything in scientific terms...

No, no, no. This is not my argument at all. Nuances matter.

I argue that if one is incompetent to assess the science oneself, as you seem to acknowledge that you are:

I am absolutely humble about my abilities and understanding of science...

And you mistake my humility for an admission that I know nothing about science, which is not the case.

r...then one needs to move on to a different method of determining one's belief about what is most likely true.

A reasonable method is to accept that while it is possible that an overwhelming consensus amongst qualified scientists will turn out to be wrong, (a) it is rather unlikely, and (b) until such time as evidence turns up to lend significant support to the idea that it might be wrong it's wise to assume that it's right, and (c) clinging to arguments as to why the consensus is wrong that sound good to amateurs in the pub but don't hold any sway with scientists who know their stuff is idiotic.

Lets agree that there being a "consensus" may lend some weight to an argument but it is never wise (as my earlier referencing Copernicus shows) to suggest , as you do, that it is in any way definitive or substantial when it comes to making a scientific argument.

I'm more than happy to hear arguments as to why the consensus is wrong, but they have to pass scientific muster! Point (c) is especially important for those who aren't scientifically competent themselves, and it's the one that's most often violated.

Would any scientist worth their salt make the argument that their ideas are consistent with the consensus therefore they are scientifically correct? Being consistent with some broad consensus proves nothing.

And none of this applies to those competent to assess the science, which reinforces that I'm not arguing that scientific consensus is always correct.

Its funny that you should say this now because earlier you were suggesting that the consensus is of great import and that we should accept it as a proof of the AGW theory.

So what you are saying here is that we should all just bow down to those who are suitably anointed by the priests of the green faith...

Er, no. I see comprehension is not your strong point, and you've somehow determined that the scientists are en masse making ... what, fraudulent claims on behalf of an ideology other than a search for scientific truth?

I see that you don't do metaphors very well and if I was going to allege a conspiracy then I would just come straight out and say so, My comment actually addresses your excessive zeal for suggesting that all we need to see is the qualifications of someone talking about AGW to know how true their claims are. That is fundamentally unscientific.

So...once more with feeling - if you aren't scientifically capable yourself, then making an argument that "I don't believe the science" without backing it up in terms that pass scientific muster with those who are actually competent in the appropriate scientific field is ... well, Dunning-Krugeresque, for starters.

You have no idea how scientifically capable I am, I am a modest man but I do appreciate the basics pretty well.

And your assertion that somehow the national science bodies are captive to "high priests of the green faith" is ... interesting, and apparently unsupported by any evidence. How did you come to this belief? Do you assert that you think you understand the science deeply enough to make this conclusion? Or are you ... appealing to some authority?

No I am suggesting that You are en the thrall of those high priests not the "national science bodies" which I did not invoke at all.

...don't dare to ask the most basic questions like "can you actually provide a proof for the AGW theory that meets the requirements of the scientific method?"

Please! That question is asked all the time!

What the heck do you think climate scientists studying AGW - and creating IPCC reports - have been working on? Perhaps your misapprehension is due to a flawed understanding of "the scientific method". (There is a common denialist meme that operates just like this...)

They may have been working on it but they don't have an unequivocal answer now do they? as for the scientific method I under stand it well enough to appreciate that there is no way of testing the AGW theory that would validate it by way of a repeatable experiment .

Or can you provide an accurate value for the climate's sensitivity to Co2?

Don't be obtuse.

Can you provide an accurate value for how deeply the front end of my car will be crushed if I drive it off this cliff? Should the lack of an accurate value mean that I should not be worried for my safety if I start driving towards it? Or does the reasonable uncertainty bounds for that value imply that I really don't want to do so?

Yes I could actually, as I have built a car myself and I understand a fair bit about automotive design But your analogy does not really work as it makes a faulty assumption that in terms of the future climate we are heading over a cliff and there is no great certainty tah thais will actaully be where we are heading.

That is the implication that you are choosing to draw from my using quotation marks in that context

Indeed, because that is what "scare quotes" mean, making it hard to draw any other implication. If you don't realise this, then you probably shouldn't use them.

The majority? Oh please provide some proof for this assertion because it sounds like you just made that up.

Google is a remedy for your ignorance.

You made the assertion so you have the onus of proof, this is just a cop out.

...because without the ongoing scare campaign many of those involved in climate research would be unemployed.

On what basis do you make this claim? Please provide some proof for this assertion because it sounds like you just made that up. And on the other hand, we have actual working scientists commenting on this blog asserting otherwise.

How much money is being pumped into research about climate compared to say thirty years ago?

Would those "working scientists " be working without the funding from government to consider the future of the climate?

They would not be working without the funding QED.

The other side of that same coin is obviously "Why has no scientist definitely proven that anthropogenic factors ARE significantly influencing the climate?" because for all of the words and papers uttered in favour of the AGW theory no one has quite managed to do this now have they?

No, it's not the other side of the coin. You reveal your lack of understanding of science by claiming that it is.

Another cop out! It is entirely appropriate to counter your suggestion that those who doubt the AGW theory have to prove a negative (to win great accolades) by reminding you that those making the AGW argument don't have a high standard of proof either.

Science operates with uncertainty and likelihood bounds, and within reasonable bounds scientists have proven what you claim they have not. You can assert that they have not done so, but so far your assertions on that point are merely unsupported and non-scientific bluster. You seem to be echoing classic "high-proofer" or Popperian fundamentalist memers - stances that I'm betting you don't apply to other scientific results that you leverage in daily life.

Well I would argue that the higher the stakes are the higher standard of proof we should require before we act, AGW enthusiasts like yourself want to see our entire society remade into a low energy low environmental impact society without substantiating your underlying reasons for doing so.

Not at all! I'm more than happy to have my arguments challenged - it's how errors in my thinking are corrected. But I also know there are questions I'm not competent to answer, and in those cases I try to look for those who are. I note that this is not a universal practice.

So how precisely do you decide who to turn to is such circumstances?

On what basis do you respect an authority?

And I merely insist that the merit of any scientific argument cannot be reliably assessed ... unfortunately rather tautologically, but apparently it's necessary ... by those who aren't equipped to assess the science. Being suitably equipped includes a reasonably broad knowledge of the particular field in question so that one can weigh all the evidence, not just a subset that someone would like you to focus on.

If a scientific argument is so dense and obscure that the gist of it can not be understood by a layman then it is open to the reasonable suspicion that it contains too much bovine excrement.

And I also note that many of the "skeptics" and "deniers" are (a) clearly not equipped to assess the science, if only because they insist on scientific "facts" that scientists have clearly refuted, and (b) clearly make assertions such as "the scientists haven't proved AGW" that either (i) rely on the assumption that they are so equipped, or (ii) rely on appeal to some perceived authority - which wouldn't be very smart if they were also arguing that appeal to authority in arguments about science on blogs is not useful or valid.

You are currently arguing with me rather than the nebulous straw sceptics that invoke here, and If my suggestion that AGW is unproven is wrong then kindly show me where it has been definitively demonstrated to be correct , heck I'll even be happy with the civil litigation standard of proof here. But by the way It is you who keeps making appeals to authority here, not I.

The evidence is quite strong. Saying it's weak doesn't make it so. You have to provide a reasonable argument for that assertion.

Hmm shall we start with the paucity of the data for the planets climate the further into the past that we go?

How about the weakness of climate proxies for the reconstruction of paleo climates?

So feel free to explain why you assert that the evidence is weak, without resorting to argument from authority. References would be really helpful. You'll find copious references to evidence and logic in the sections of the IPCC reports that deal with the case for AGW - you should probably go through the vast majority of those and show how they are outweighed by other evidence and logic. And if you want any credibility you should check your arguments and evidence before you publish to make sure climate scientists haven't already assessed and dismissed them as bogus or irrelevant.

Like a lot of god-bothers that I used to argue with in days gone by you insist on trying to make the argument all about the tenants of your faith, and cite your prophets pronouncements, go instead to the fundamentals, of accurate data and sound reasoning

I look forward to reading your argument.

Well please try to address what I say rather than your men of straw and we will have a lovely time ;)

But really, "every aspect of human life and culture"? Remind me who's supposedly running a scare campaign here?

So are you suggesting that for your cure to the "AGW problem" that there doesn't have to be huge changes to the way our society functions?

Zoot

Climate change is going to affect every aspect of our lives. So far no denier has produced strong evidence supporting their case.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you are right (and to get this thread a bit closer to the original topic of Carbon tax backflips ) don't you think that it is unwise to create a huge money churn that will achieve nothing of substance (for nearly a thousand years according to Tim Flannery) rather than to put our efforts into practical adaptation as the climate changes?

Iain: tl; dr.

Please come back when you can make a concise argument. I suggest you spend a little time at skepticalScience or similar before engaging here.

Why do deniers flood the web with such lengthy but ultimately empty writing? (Don't answer that, I think I already know the answer to this one, and I don't want anyone bursting my bubble.)

Iain:
>>*can you provide an accurate value for the climate's sensitivity to Co2?*

Loth:
>Don't be obtuse. Can you provide an accurate value for how deeply the front end of my car will be crushed if I drive it off this cliff?

Iain:
>*Yes I could actually, as I have built a car myself and I understand a fair bit about automotive design*

Are you being truthful Iain? If so, then please give your answer (and confidence interval) for how deeply the front end of your car will be deformed if driven off a cliff?. Lets start with a modest 5 metre cliff.

Zoot:
I think the phrase is "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

This is not a one-or-the-other scenario. We will be spending a lot of money on adaptation (practical and otherwise.) When we have to eat into our prevention budget in order to fund our adaptation budget (as was proposed after the recent Qld wet season) then we are not thinking with our heads.

>*don't you think that it is unwise to create a huge money churn that will achieve nothing of substance (for nearly a thousand years according to Tim Flannery) rather than to put our efforts into practical adaptation as the climate changes?*

Yes I agree with that.

But instead of discussing Iain's unspecified thing that "will achieve nothing of substance ", let us instead get back to the topic of a carbon tax, which if desinged correctly will send a market signal to price part of the damage of excessive CO2 and rightful aid growth in low carbon alternatives.

Jakerman

For the fall from your five meter cliff does the car have any forward momentum or is it just a nose first dead drop to the ground?

How hard is the ground in question? is it solid rock, soil, sand or mud?

When I crashed the car into an embankment at 60kph (in the rain) the damage was restricted to the destruction of the fibreglass nose-cone and radiator and some superficial damage to the engine cover the chassis was in fact undamaged I quite reasonably expect that the damage would be in the same ball park in your 5m drop hypothetical
Iain

Jakerman

Yes I agree with that.

Hooray! a small patch of common ground!!!

But instead of discussing Iain's unspecified thing that "will achieve nothing of substance ", let us instead get back to the topic of a carbon tax, which if designed correctly will send a market signal to price part of the damage of excessive CO2 and rightful aid growth in low carbon alternatives.

But will it do what you hope it will is the most pertinent question when it comes to a Carbon tax and the whole idea of a carbon tax seems to be predicated on wishful thinking and a wrong headed assumption that making existing sources of energy more expensive will be enough to make up for the greater expense and lower efficiency of the alternatives. Surely that is approaching the problem from the wrong direction and It makes more sense to make the alternatives more efficient and less expensive?
How for instance are you going to "design it correctly" so that it sends an effective "market signal" and still make it acceptable to the people in our democracy?

Iain, 2008 Camry Altise moving at at 10km/hr horizontally, falling on dry soil (80% clay, 10% sand, 10% river loam) with the ocassional stainless steel bollard (150mm dia, 20m thick 304 Stainless tube) extending 1 metere in the air, spaced radomly at 1 bollard per 20 m2.

Please provided your answer with your confidence intervals.

>* Hooray! a small patch of common ground!!!*

âAâ for comedy, âFâ for comprehension.

>*whole idea of a carbon tax seems to be predicated on wishful thinking and a wrong headed assumption that making existing sources of energy more expensive will be enough to make up for the greater expense and lower efficiency of the alternatives. *

Your argument seems to be predicated on a wrong headed assumption that a carbon tax simply makes existing sources of energy more expensive. A carbon tax not only internalises part of the cost of fossil fuels, but it increases demand and production of low carbon energy sources which [decrease in cost with rising production]( http://www.iea.org/work/2007/learning/Nemet_PV.pdf).

And you have left out how the revenue from the tax can be used to furthr accelerate the development of low carbon alternatives.

Not sure which alternatives you believe are lower efficiency than fossil fuel. As fossil fuel comes form photosynthesis (approx 1% efficient) and requires high temperature and pressure cooking, then mining, extraction or pumping, before being burned to create heat which is turned to kinetic energy then electricity (less than 30% efficiency) giving an overall efficiency of less than 0.3%.

Correction [that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/carbon_tax_back_flips.php#comme…) should read: 150mm dia, 20mm thick 304 Stainless tube

I've [responded to Iain Hall's long comment above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/carbon_tax_back_flips.php#comme…) on the Open Thread [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/open_thread_60.php#comment-3516…), because it's getting seriously off-topic here (not to mention more than a bit FTT-ish)...

Jakerman

Aâ for comedy, âFâ for comprehension.

Although I am rather fond of sarcasm I was not in fact being sarcastic when I suggested that it is good for us to find something to agree on. So am I to take it that You are retreating from your previous claim to agree with me about Flannery's statement?

Your argument seems to be predicated on a wrong headed assumption that a carbon tax simply makes existing sources of energy more expensive. A carbon tax not only internalises part of the cost of fossil fuels, but it increases demand and production of low carbon energy sources which decrease in cost with rising production.

Will it do this is the real question here isn't it? and there is considerable doubt that something as amorphous as our economy will dance to the same tune that economists are playing here surely that is wishful thinking that assumes too much about the behaviour of business

And you have left out how the revenue from the tax can be used to furthr(sic) accelerate the development of low carbon alternatives.

Will it really? the example of all of those wind turbines in China come to mind, they were required to build them by the government but have no obligation to connect them to the grid so they are touted as an example of China going green but in reality they don't do anything to reduce their burning of coal.

Not sure which alternatives you believe are lower efficiency than fossil fuel. As fossil fuel comes form photosynthesis (approx 1% efficient) and requires high temperature and pressure cooking, then mining, extraction or pumping, before being burned to create heat which is turned to kinetic energy then electricity (less than 30% efficiency) giving an overall efficiency of less than 0.3%.

As for your ever more ridiculous car falling of a cliff hypothetical you can't be serious!
look in a 5m fall you can't just say that the car would be travelling at an arbitrary 10kmh it would never reach that velocity in 5m and if the bollards are only occurring at a rate of one per 20 sq m then with a frontal area (of the engine compartment) of less than 2 sq m there is only a one in ten chance that the bollard would even come into the equation at all.
You asked me if I could say what the deformation of the front of my car would be in a 5m fall now as I have experienced an analogous impact in an actual crash I think that I have made may point and shown you that I understand what is involved here.

Lost a bit of my penultimate paragraph which should read:

By efficiency I mean the delivery of the energy when it is actually required, wind turbines produce substantially less than their rated output and can not be relied upon in most circumstances, Photovoltaics produce no energy at night Geo thermal has not been made workable despite a large investments, nuclear has been ruled out for Oz so it is not just price for the hardware that is in play here but also just how well the technology will actually work for business that matters.

> look in a 5m fall you can't just say that the car would be travelling at an arbitrary 10kmh it would never reach that velocity in 5m...

Basic high school physics that should be recalled by anyone claiming to "[appreciate the basics pretty well](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/carbon_tax_back_flips.php#comme…)".

Free-fall under the influence of gravity, dealing only with the vertical component of motion via decomposition, ignoring air resistance which is relatively small until approaching significant fractions of terminal velocity:

d = 0.5 * g * t^2

=> 5m = 0.5 * 9.8 * t^2

=> t = about 1s

v = g * t

=> v = about 10m/s = about 36km/h.

Checking assumptions: this is not even close to terminal velocity, so ignoring air resistance was reasonable.

So you're still making claims that (a) you can't substantiate and (b) would be really easy to check before you made them and (c) turn out to be flat wrong and (d) demonstrate that your self-assessment of your scientific capabilities is probably wildly inaccurate.

Loth, not mention Iain mixes up horizontal with vertical.

Running ouf the door, but I'll be back later to discuss the rest of Iain's post. More fun to be had with his latest gem!

>*So am I to take it that You are retreating from your previous claim to agree with me about Flannery's statement?*

Given that you gave no specific statement from Flannary, there is nothing for me to retreat from. The point I agreed to was that I do not support steps that make no difference, which is why I on the contrary support a carbon tax (if designed well).

>*By efficiency I mean the delivery of the energy when it is actually required*

So you are using the well understood term of efficiency incorrectly. But thanks for telling us what you actually mean.

>*wind turbines produce substantially less than their rated output and can not be relied upon in most circumstances*

Again you use inaccurate language. Wind turbines produce on average less than that rated maximum. Yet this is factored into their cost per unit of energy delivered. When connected up over large distances (across different wind regimes) they are very reliable. There is nothing to prevent a 100% renewables grid where wind, solar, PV, hydro all support eachother with grind balancing capacity provided by flywheels, gas turbines, pumped storage and thermal storage.

>*Photovoltaics produce no energy at night*

Highest energy demand is during the day. PV is also well balanced by well distributed wind. And when we get closer to 100% renewables we can be interconnected with high voltage DC intercontinental linkages- Its always day somewhere.

>*Geo thermal has not been made workable despite a large investments*

Geo thermal is workable and is already [a going concern of 9 GW](http://www.geo-energy.org/pdf/reports/GEA_International_Market_Report_F…)

>*nuclear has been ruled out for Oz*

Nuclear can still play a significant role in geologically stable regions with lower renewable capacity.

Iain:
>>>>*can you provide an accurate value for the climate's sensitivity to Co2?*
Loth:
>>>>Don't be obtuse. Can you provide an accurate value for how deeply the front end of my car will be crushed if I drive it off this cliff?
Iain:
>>>*Yes I could actually, as I have built a car myself and I understand a fair bit about automotive design*

Jakerman:
>>Are you being truthful Iain? If so, then please give your answer (and confidence interval) for how deeply the front end of your car will be deformed if driven off a cliff?. Lets start with a modest 5 metre cliff.

Iain:
>>*For the fall from your five meter cliff does the car have any forward momentum or is it just a nose first dead drop to the ground?*

Jakerman:

>moving at 10km/hr horizontallyâ¦with the occasional stainless steel bollard â¦spaced randomly at 1 bollard per 20 m2.
Please provide your answer with your confidence intervals.

Ian:

>*As for your ever more ridiculous car falling of a cliff hypothetical you can't be serious! look in a 5m fall you can't just say that the car would be travelling at an arbitrary 10kmh it would never reach that velocity in 5m*
Iain not only mixed up horizontal velocity with vertical acceleration, but his assumptions about acceleration [are way off]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/carbon_tax_back_flips.php#comme…)

Iain:

> You asked me if I could say what the deformation of the front of my car would be in a 5m fall*

Incorrect Iain, [I asked you for]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/carbon_tax_back_flips.php#comme…) âan accurate value for how deeply the front end of Lotharssonâs] car will be crushed if I drive it off this cliff? That is the question to which you replied â*Yes I could actually*â

I suspected that when you did the real calculations youâd find that a range of probable deformation would be more realistic (given the chaotic factors in play and the low probability yet high impact resulting from the odd bollard)

Iain
>* now as I have experienced an analogous impact in an actual crash I think that I have made may point and shown you that I understand what is involved here.*

No Iain, youâve shown me the opposite. I overestimated your ability to calculate a realistic answer.

Iain Hall:

No sorry but to be a Warminista you a have to believe that it is both warming and that the warming is the fault of modern industrial society.

Says who? You? I can't quite find the phrase "fault of modern industrial society" in definitions of the word "warm". I'll call you a Warminista or warmist from now on.

You clearly think that most of the perceived warming is due to human activity where as I don't think there is enough proof to make such a claim, I'm willing to be convinced though so please try.

It's straightforward, though complicated, to use so called line-by-line calculations (meaning one frequency at a time) to prove that CO2 on its own will produce 1.2 deg C of warming from a doubling. It's also an observed fact that the warmer the global atmosphere, the more water vapor it is holding which our denialist friends keep reminding us is a strong greenhouse gas. So direct warming caused by CO2 will cause more water vapor to sit in the atmosphere which itself will cause further warming (and so on, fortunately to a finite sum). I believe the water vapor feedback approximately doubles the climate sensitivity (to approximately 2.4 deg C/CO2 doubling), although this feedback is usually computed by climate models that incorporate all feedbacks together. Cloud feedbacks bring the expected climate sensitivity to around 3 deg C/CO2 doubling. However cloud feedbacks greatly increase the uncertainty to a 95% confidence interval of 2-4.5 deg C/CO2 doubling.

What you're saying is that we should pray that cloud feedback turns out to be far more negative than we expect and just take the risk that it won't turn out the way we expect. You obviously have a different attitude to risk but this is not a risk I'm prepared to take.

What the questions that no one is asking is.

Who has really called for this tax on the whole world?
Who asked for it to be introduced here in Australia?

The money is not to be used for cleaning up polluters, no they can go on their merry way and just pay a tax. In the meantime the average bloke gets to pay for increased energy, food, fuel etc.
Global Warming, sorry I mean climate change numbers are like the USD, manipulated to suit those who want to control us all.

sorry I mean climate change numbers are like the USD, manipulated to suit those who want to control us all.

Yes Danny boy, it's a giant conspiracy, the biggest of all time.

Heartland's Denialist Conference: the Australian connection.

tlambert — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:46:38 +0000

Heartland's Denialist Conference: the Australian connection.

Heartland's International Conference on Climate Change is on again. I can't help but be impressed by the number of Australian organizations co-sponsoring the conference. Sponsors don't pay any money -- instead they get free admission to all meals and sessions for up to 20 people. And with 58 sponsors and 800 people registered to attend, that means they are giving away more admissions than people registered to attend. It's likely that almost everyone attending got free admission.

There are seven Australian organizations signed up as sponsors. As well as the obvious ones like Lavoisier and the IPA there are some unfamiliar ones, so let's look at the whole list.

The Lavoisier Group. John Quiggin on Lavoisier:

This body is devoted to the proposition that basic principles of physics, discovered by among others, the famous French scientist Antoine Lavoisier, cease to apply when they come into conflict with the interests of the Australian coal industry.

The Institute of Public Affairs. Australia's leading anti-science think tank, with staff including Alan Moran, Sinclair Davidson, Jennifer Marohasy and Tom Switzer (opinion editor at The Australian for much of their war on science).

The Institute for Private Enterprise. This seems to be a one-man operation by Des Moore.

Mannkal Economic Education Foundation. Their postal address is at "Hayek House", so you can probably guess where they are coming from. Their global warming denial page is a bunch of links to other people's stuff -- they don't seem to produce much on those lines themselves.

Climate Sceptics Party. Only launched last month. According to their platform:

We are ordinary but proud Australians who are gravely concerned with the unfounded environmental alarmism infiltrating all forms of Australian Government (Federal, State & Local), threatening our way of life and hard fought freedoms

I believe proud and ordinary cohenite is a member.

The Carbon Sense Coalition

is a voluntary group of people concerned about the extent to which carbon is wrongly vilified in Western societies, particularly in government, the media, and in business circles.

they seem to be focused on opposition to policies that reduce net emissions from agriculture (in Australia that refers mainly to land clearing in Queensland).

Australian Libertarian Society. Basically this is John Humphreys, whose response to any disagreement is to accuse you of lying. He announced his sponsorship with whoppers like this

In 2008 we have seen the coldest year since 1994 and the current temperature is nearly exactly the same as the average over the 1970s.

True to form, when I commented on his post, Humphreys accused me of lying, though this time he also deleted most of my comments as well.

Update: Kevin Grandia:

what really strikes me so far is that it's the same people attending and talking about the same things they did last year.

tlambert Sun, 03/08/2009 - 08:46

You might be interested in this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090223083344.htm

eg. Increased wind turbine use would require a dip in power output from power stations and no storage would be required.

"John Humphreys, whose response to any disagreement is to accuse you of lying."

You are thinking of Graeme Bird.

As far as I can tell, the only substantive difference between last year's and this year's is that Fred Singer is going to try getting all of the septics to start singing from the same pseudo-scientific hymnal. (See Andy Revkin's NYT article.) Among other things, this will mean deprogramming sun-worshippers like Anthony Watts. Kevin Grandia of Desmogblog is attending and reporting, so hopefully we'll be hearing more about this.

Also note that the Onion has a very well-done parody of the conference.

Steve Bloom:

> the only substantive difference between last year's and this year's is that Fred Singer is going to try getting all of the septics to start singing from the same pseudo-scientific hymnal.

Maybe it's also time for them to decide which one of the numerous climate conspiracy theories they'd like to propagate. :)

Steve Bloom, Bi: Isn't there a proper word for this? Something like "message discipline"?

I note that Lindzen's criticizing the denialists promoting solar causes. I'd love to see which solar proponents still tend to cite Lindzen's skepticism and credentials as if it helps their cause.

According to Revkin, Christy isn't attending again this year. Revkin cites it as "wanting to avoid 'guilt by association'" (latter Christy's words). Hmmm.

Does anyone know if the Heartland catering is up to the standard of the Heritage Victory Tours of yore? One also wonders whether the "conference" "papers" are of similar quality stature timbre as the oldschool Heritage papers. Will Baliunas and Soon reveal another paleo "paper"?! Will we see some Sally cleavage on the red carpet? Will WaPo have a slideshow so we can see the latest fashions? My mind reels.

Ah, well. At least the bogusphere and denialosphere will have few ululating posts the next few days, seeing as they are all gorging themselves.

Best,

Really funny thing about the conference is how warm its been in New York. It got to 17C on Sunday for start of the conference which is very hot for this time of year (just 3C shy of a record for the day). It would seem that we now have the anti-Gore effect ;-)

If you think about it the best place and time to hold a "sceptic" conference is in a cold place at the end of winter. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know why they don't hold it in Arizona in summer (noting that the Australian Climate Science Coalition, NZ Climate Science Coalition and International Climate Science Coalition websites are all hosted in that state).

I notice that Revkin mentions the report "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Planet". All I have ever seen was that "Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change", just as it is downloadable from Heartland. It clearly says "SPM of the report", I guess in an attempt to match the IPCC naming convention as closely as possible. Has ever anyone bothered to go into nitpicking mode and nail them down on this by asking to see the full report? It amazes me again and again, how uncritical the self-proclaimed skeptics are, when it comes to material supporting their own point of view.

bluegrue, to my knowledge, the report itself doesn't exist, though the summary does. IIRC, Eli Rabett had more on that.

On an unrelated note, Tim, there's a great foot-in-mouth moment stemming out of that conference. One of the things they're promoting is a new anti-Gore film, "Not Evil, Just Wrong". The filmmakers were recently interviewed and played the CEI's "CO2 is life" card, which is nothing new, but also brought up the DDT myth, through a direct comparison: "CO2 is the new DDT."

Here's SnM on "why doesn't Gavin attend ?":
"..... it's my understanding that the Gavin Schmidts of the world have refused to attend such venues in the past. I don't understand the purpose of such refusals. I don't understand what harm could possibly be done by preaching to the heathen. Maybe some of them would be convinced by Gavin."

Y'know, I'd almost be prepared to take up a collection to pay for Graeme Bird to attend as a guest speaker. Almost.

As a Australian, please allow me to apologise about Queensland. There's something about white people that means that whenever we settle in the tropics, we turn it into a fascist hole. Queensland is Australia's Texas.

A blogger at the Australian Libertarian Society [has responded](http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/03/10/true-lies-and-tim-lambert/) to this part of my post:

>John Humphreys, whose response to any disagreement is to accuse you of lying.

Naturally, he accuses me of lying. He also claims that Humphreys deleted my comments because I was "unnecessarily abusive" and I've been banned from commenting there.

Fortunately I saved a copy of my deleted comments. Judge for yourself if I was "unnecessarily abusive".

-----

Your very [first comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/12/zombie_alert.php#comment-286285) on the post began with abuse: "Because you did lie Tim". Some more examples of your civility from that thread: "intellectually dishonest" ... "your group-think" ... "you're a fringe alarmist who makes up the embarassing part of the GW activists" ... "peanut gallary" ... "obnoxious Greenie trying to lecture me on economics" ... "fear-mongering" ... "Super Jeff" ...

You then put up a post of your own where you accused me of fear-mongering, equated me to LDP candidate Graeme Bird and falsely claimed that I called you a zombie. How very civil of you.

-----

Yes I criticised you, but my post was accurate, while you misrepresented Oreskes again and again and again.

-----

Nice trick John, linking to a post written months later. In the post you wrote the same day we find:

"When people start on a campaign to raise fear about some impending doom and promising that the government will save you I automatically start asking questions and often I donât get satisfactory answers. Proponents of government action donât like that and today Iâve been called a zombie for my global warming skepticism (Tim Lambert) ... I would like to set up our own similar project named after the two primary fear-mongers, Lambert & Bird â the LamBird Consensus."

Are you still going to deny that you called me a fear-monger? And what did I write in my post that was mongering of fear?

-----

John, as far as I can tell, you think that if you accuse someone of lying, you are being civil, but if they return the favour they are being uncivil and you will complain about this. Yes, some commenters were rude to you in that thread, but you started the incivility with the first words of the first comment in the thread: "Because you did lie Tim". You think this is a civil response.

And you did misrepresent Oreskes with out-of-context quotes. Other commenters in that discussion called you on this and provided the context. Here's another quote from Oreskes (from her reply to a letter from Pielke about her Science piece):

"Pielke suggests that I claimed that
there are no papers in the climate literature
that disagree with the consensus. Not so. I
simply presented the research result that a
sample based on the keywords "global climate
change" did not reveal any, suggesting
that the existing scientific dissent has
been greatly exaggerated and confirming
that the statements and reports of leading
scientific organizations -- including the
U.S. National Academy of Sciences --
accurately reflect the evidence presented in
the scientific literature."

A blogger at the Australian Libertarian Society has responded to this part of my post

JC's post at ALS is stunningly stupid, given that he is one of the more abusive people in the Australian blogosphere and has spent more time than anybody else agreeing with Birdie, for him to not even notice the hypocrisy is just amusing.

I notice that The Climate Sceptics Party lists former NSW Treasurer Michael Costa as one of their 'Australian and NZ scientists against global warming'. A man of many hats...

For an experiment, I posted this to a recent thread at John Humphreys' blog (I left the typo as I blundered it).

------------------------------------------------------------

John Humphreys,

I note that on the page you announced your co-sponsorship of the Heartland Instituteâs Conference on Climate Change, you put it that the global temperature for 2008 is the coldest since 1994. This is incorrect.

The web page where you oroginally made this claim:

http://australianlibertarian.wordpress.com/history/activities/kyoto-cam…

On this page, the global temperature for 2008 is marked â(updated 26 November 2008)â, which means that you presented the temperature for the year before it was complete.

It was a simple matter to follow the link from that page to the UAH temperature data page (monthly), and do some simple math.

The temperature for 2008 (now with data for every month) is warmer than 1999 and 2000. Here is the link to the satellite data you provided if you wish to confirm.

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

My methodology was very simple. I added up the months for 1999, 2000 and 2008 respectively and divided by 12 to get the average global temperature. This is the typical procedure done by the various temperature record institutes.

I hope you will correct your statements accordingly on the pages where they appear.

http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/11/26/2009-conference-on-climate-ch…

http://australianlibertarian.wordpress.com/history/activities/kyoto-cam…

And any others. Thank you in advance.

------------------------------------------------------------

The post is at #77 this thread:

http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/02/04/final-reminder/#comment-62133

We'll see how that goes.

Tim Lambert, I visit your site frequently. Thank you for the interesting, clear analyses.

Brian D:

> > > the only substantive difference between last year's and this year's is that Fred Singer is going to try getting all of the septics to start singing from the same pseudo-scientific hymnal.

> > Maybe it's also time for them to decide which one of the numerous climate conspiracy theories they'd like to propagate. :)

> Steve Bloom, Bi: Isn't there a proper word for this? Something like "message discipline"?

Dunno. Me, I'll call it "harmonization". Wikipedia (!) lists this as one of the definitions of the word:

> The apocryphal act of removing discrepancies between different Gospels. This was done in the past in many ways (see, for example, Diatessaron), although finally Christianity accepted the Gospels with all their discrepancies.

Thanks for the hint, Brian D.

I guess Anthony Watts had a narrow escape at this conference. He has announced at his blog that 75% of coverage in his surface stations project would be enough to look into evaluating the US temperature record. He's slightly below that threshold, but above 70%. Let's see, for what reason he will not replicate JohnV's work next year.

P.S.: The above comment #30 by raivo pommer looks like spam, it is reporting on devaluation of the Romanian currency; curiously it is in German.

Yes! Send Graeme!

Re #28: Barry, I think you need to weight for the varying month lengths; i.e. multiply each monthly figure by that month's number of days, add them up and then divide by 365 or 366. I don't think your basic result will be affected.

For those with the stomach for it, Bob Carter is doing fairly detailed daily posts at Quadrant. There are several inadvertently amusing passages.

Re #29: This is a long-standing Republican technique, developed decades ago to help a party with inherently minority views gain and hold power. It'll be interesting to see if Fred gets any traction, as so many of the objects of his efforts are just plain cranks.

Barry #28 -- I have responded to your comment. My post of November 2008 used information available at November 2008. But I congratulate you on your expert knowledge of how to average.

Tim -- The comments you reproduce in these comments do not include my full responses (perhaps because you do not have them available as I removed them as well) and consequently do not provide the full story. As I explained (in patient detail) at the time, I removed the discussion because it was off-topic.

The link attached to my surname is misleading.

The "whopper" that you refer to was true at the time of writing, and the source data was available through the links. I don't think it is reasonable or fair to expect me to include information that is not available at the time of writing. Consequently, I think it is inappropriate for you to accuse me of telling a "whopper" (which I believe is an accusation of lying).

I very rarely accuse people of lying and I generally assume that most people (irrespective of their views) argue in good faith. It is misleading to say that my "form" is to accuse people of lying.

I note that sea level rise projections by 2100 have been revised upwards from 59 cm to include melting ice, and are now 1.2 m+. I seem to recall a fair bit of discussion as to why the melting ice wasn't included in the original 59cm and would appreciate a recap & update.

John, you claim that you deleted my comments because they were off-topic. But you did not delete a host of off-topic comments abusing me and my blog. Care to tell us the real reason?

In a post on your blog Joe Cambria claims that my deleted comments were "abusive". You know this to be false. Why haven't you corrected him?

I don't have a copy of your comments, but I think folks can work out what you were saying from my replies, but feel free to explain yourself -- I won't censor you.

Your claim that "the current temperature is nearly exactly the same as the average over the 1970s." wasn't remotely close to being true when you wrote it. Study the graph, which shows what the situation was when you wrote your post.

James, basically no one had a clue about how to model the ice sheet dynamics. This motivated much recent work, but there is still not a definitive answer. The 59 cm was 59 cm from stuff we know about plus whatever from the ice sheets, iow a lower limit.

Dicky Lindzen was there sounding the alarm about climate alarmism, explaining to the audience in clear terms how simpleminded are his opponents and how unambiguous the evidence that climate is ruled by negative feedbacks all the time, no matter what - you can trust him on it.

" ... This implies that nature is, as any reasonable person might suppose, dominated by stabilizing negative feedbacks rather than destabilizing positive feedbacks ... those who are committed to warming alarm as the vehicle for a postmodern coup dâetat will obviously try to obfuscate matters ... The satellite records of outgoing heat radiation show that the climate is dominated by negative feedbacks and that the response to doubled and even quadrupled CO2 would be minimal. In a field as primitive as climate science, most of the alleged climate scientists are not even aware of this basic relation. And these days, one can be confident that once they are, many will, in fact, try to alter the data."

Lindzen was the serious scientist at the show.

Quoted from here btw.

Egads, is he still working the Iris Hypothesis? Zombies ahoy!

bi quotes the Wikipedia:

Dunno. Me, I'll call it "harmonization". Wikipedia (!) lists this as one of the definitions of the word:

The apocryphal act of removing discrepancies between different Gospels. This was done in the past in many ways (see, for example, Diatessaron), although finally Christianity accepted the Gospels with all their discrepancies.

Well, once in a while partisans of one issue or another get their hooks into Wikipedia, and stuff like the above can remain a long time before somebody notices.

Tim -- if there is an off-topic discussion that you think is de-railing a discussion on the ALS blog and it is worrying you, feel free to tell me and I'll look at it when I have the time.

It is not "my" blog. It is a group blog available for Australian libertarians. Generally, each author is responsible for moderating the discussion on their own posts.

The 2008 temperature at the time of writing was +0.1 over the baseline. That is fairy close to the historical average, as determined in the 1970s. That's not exactly what I wrote... but the typo is not important to the point. It certainly doesn't justify an accusation of lying, nor the constant attacks.

Found this 'review' of the conference:

http://www.rferl.org/Content/GlobalWarming_Skeptics_Raise_A_Storm_In_Ne…

Quote Bast (refering to The Inconvenient Truth):

"There's simply no peer-reviewed scientific literature that would justify predictions of a 20-foot [6-meter] rise in sea level, and yet that's very prominent in his film."

My understanding is that the film doesn't state when this would happen. Also although the science states it will rise a metre or two in the next century or two, no scientist has ever stated it's going to suddenly stop after one or two metres and I doubt any sane person would think that.

BTW i haven't seen the movie.

"It is not 'my' blog. It is a group blog available for Australian libertarians".

Yikes, that's enough to put anyone off.

hm. only if you take the lowest point in the 2008 year and compare it to the highest spike from the 70s.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2008/plot/hadcrut3vgl…

BPL:

> Well, once in a while partisans of one issue or another get their hooks into Wikipedia, and stuff like the above can remain a long time before somebody notices.

Hmm... whatever. I still think "harmonization" is a good word to describe S. Fred Singer's attempt at an Official Climate Skeptic Theory.

John, the host of off-topic comments abusing me and my blog were on the very thread that you deleted my comments from. Both before and after. Would you care to explain the real reason why you deleted my comments?

Look at the graph on my post. The 2008 temperature *at the time you wrote your post* was 0.3 degrees above the base line, while the average for the 70s was 0.1 degrees below. these are not "nearly exactly the same".

Is George Will giving the plenary?

The 2008 temperature at the time of writing was +0.1 over the baseline. That is fairy close to the historical average, as determined in the 1970s.

A trend of one data point? While not technically false, it is utter bullshit. A misrepresentation of fact with the intent to deceive.

You wouldn't win this one in court, John. Even with cohenite as your lawyer.

It's basically the abusive cherry-picking that distinguishes denial and skepticism.

Here we have a double whammy. Selecting the one data set out of all available data sets that supports a desired conclusion, and selecting a narrow subset of data points from the data stream that fortuitously, again, supports the desired result.

I'm so not impressed.

Tim -- I deleted plenty of comments aimed at you from that thread. And I moderated others to remove some personal abuse (including some aimed at you). I left individual comments that are off-topic, but removed a series of posts (from you and others) when it became clear that were a major distraction from the topic.

The average in 2008 at the time I was writing was +0.01 (not +0.1 which I wrote above, or +0.3 as you wrote) and that can be worked out from the underlying data that I linked to.

sod -- I wasn't taking the lowest point in 2008. I was taking the average of the monthly temps, excluding the data not available at the time. And I wasn't comparing to any one year, but the baseline -- which is an historical average.

LB -- I didn't suggest a trend of one data point. I simply pointed out that 2008 was cold relative to recent years. I didn't say there was any trend. Elsewhere I have said that while the pause in warming over the past seven years is interesting, it's too early to interpret what it means.

I note that "misrepresent with intention to deceive" seems quite similar to "lie".

I didn't suggest a trend of one data point. I simply pointed out that 2008 was cold relative to recent years.

So, exactly what did you intend to suggest by pointing out this statistically meaningless factoid, John?

you write:

The debate about climate change is ongoing. In 2008 we have seen the coldest year since 1994 2000* and the current temperature is nearly exactly the same as the average over the 1970s baseline average taken in the 1970s.

and you link to a [site](http://australianlibertarian.wordpress.com/history/activities/kyoto-cam…), that is linking on to UAH satellite data.

your own data shows that you are wrong (even with the multiple corrections that you already made)

the UAH data does only start in 1979 (so obviously no "1970s baseline"), and the year 1979 isn t the baseline either, as can be seen from the data you linked to. (1979 has a NEGATIVE average. if it was the "baseline", it would be zero).

so to sum you up: you cherry picked a weird time period (first few months of 2008), you made multiple errors, while comparing that data, and you came to a completely meaningless conclusion.

"Egads, is he still working the Iris Hypothesis? Zombies ahoy!"

Er... isn't Mann still working the hockey stick ploy?

Er... isn't Mann McIntyre still working the [broken] hockey stick ploy?

Fixed!

"So, exactly what did you intend to suggest by pointing out this statistically meaningless factoid, John?"

Cherry picking anyone?

John, I counted 14 off-topic attacks on my me or my blog. You had no problem with these, explicitly approving them when you deleted some of the abuse directed at me. How can you claim that my four comments were a greater distraction than those 14? Why won't you admit to the real reason why you deleted my comments?

The baseline for UAH is not the 70s, that is logically impossible since the first full year in the series is 1979. The UAH base line is 1979-1998. I do think it is interesting to compare 2008 with the average for the 70s. See the graph in my post (using Hadley data). Even a year that was unusually cold for the 2000s is way above the average for the 70s. A fact that you will never report.

"He's slightly below that threshold, but above 70%."

Anthony Watts' record is at 75.5% of all USHCN stations (over 80% of active stations) as of March 8th. His claims are accurate. He hit the 70% mark a month ago.

The last 200+ surveys are done with a deliberate "rural bias". (I know, the great majority having been done by me, c. 198 in all.)

Results are pending. It's difficult to compare, as only 11% of stations are in compliance with NOAA's own siting strictures, and only 3% of them rated "excellent".

To further complicate matters, a large percentage of the better sited stations are ASOS units in airports (a big problem in and of itself) and are subject to the severe HO-83 TMax bias.

That leaves very few good stations for a sample. There are also distribution issues. CRN4 stations (58% of total, NOAA's own estimates are a 2C or more warm bias) are disproportionately bunched in the southeast and Mississippi Valley, where there was considerable cooling over the 20th century. CRN 2 stations are mostly concentrated in the west, where there was considerable warming over that period of time. This has to be carefully quantified, and it is not easy to do.

In the case of John V, no account was made for ASOS or regional distribution concerns, and a far smaller sample was available, though he did make a good effort and I completely respect his honesty and openness.

As it is, the data is being assessed, and the chips will fall where the chips fall. And all data and methods will, of course, be open for independent review.

Just a firsthand report from the trenches.

So, Evan Jones, if your work in the trenches shows that the surface temp record is shit, how will you explain away the fact that the satellite record - Christy and Spencer are denialists, as you know - track it so closely?

Not enough satellite photos?

And also, Evan Jones, how will you explain away all the ecological, biological, glacial melting, and sea level rise data we're seeing?

"global cooling causes everything to melt?"

Is that it?

And, if you deny all of the above ...

How will you explain the basic physics? What implications will fall out from your overthrowing much of what we know of physics?

Will nuke plants cease to function? Solar panels?

Are you at the forefront of the debunking of the Newtonian/Einsteinian foundation of modern physics? What will you replace it with?

Results are pending. It's difficult to compare, as only 11% of stations are in compliance with NOAA's own siting strictures, and only 3% of them rated "excellent".

Of course, we know that this makes Evan Jones a liar, since NOAA's siting standards have been for new stations, not old stations.

This claim that somehow NOAA's negligent or incompetent, siting stations that don't meet it's own standards, is one of the most vile examples of crap from Watts and his science illiterate cohorts.

And, Evan Jones, before you became a Real Stud at WUWT, you proved yourself to be an incompetent in a variety of forums populated with people with technical backgrounds.

Your embracement of Watts, and his embracement of you, sort of symbolize the "dipshits of a feather embrace one another".

After you overturn science, what will you do? Go naked and suck worms for your living?

your claim about regional distribution is false.

John V did a [grid approach](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2061.#comment-137943), it was Steve McIntyre who didn t weight them:.

John V:Geographic Distribution:
The first image below shows the geographic distribution of the stations with different site quality ratings. There is a clear western bias in the worst stations (CRN=5) and a clear southern bias in the best stations (CRN=1). Since SteveMc's plots were generated using a simple arithmetic average of all station histories, they do not consider this geographic distribution. ... I calculated the 1-year and 5-year average temperatures for the continental USA. The calculations were done by overlaying a 0.5 x 0.5deg grid over the entire area and calculating average temperatures at each grid point for every month from 1880. The grid temperatures were calculated from surrounding stations with readings available for that month (if no reading for the month then the station was excluded for the month).

i hope that Anthony will be honest enough to publish the "real" results as well, and wont use those multiple problems as an excuse to manipulate the results.

a good idea to avoid "sceptic bias" would be, to replicate the John V approach as close as possible.

my real hope though is with John V, showing up again...

"So, Evan Jones, if your work in the trenches shows that the surface temp record is shit, how will you explain away the fact that the satellite record - Christy and Spencer are denialists, as you know - track it so closely"

You seem to be putting words in my mouth. The siting is obviously very poor. The effect this has on the offset is established by Leroy and confirmed by Yilmaz (but I would argue more study needs to be done).

What is really in question is the effect on the trend.

Maybe it is a lot, maybe it is a little. I didn't say what the result would be. I won't know what the result will be until it is released and reviewed.

As for satellites, one possible explanation is they measure lower troposphere by microwave proxy, not the surface. Lower trop is supposed to heat at 1.2 to 1.4 times the rate of the surface, depending on latitude. The data is given for lower troposphere and does not say it is converted to emulate surface measurements, so I am presuming it is not. I might well be wrong, but that is my understanding.

It is also interesting how RSS and UAH seem to be diverging from GISS as of late.

But my area of expertise, if you can call it that, centers on station siting itself, not satellite reconstructions.

Only one thing is established: the stations do not conform with NOAA standards. That we know. What this means will be examined.

One also needs to look at LaDochy et al (12/2007) and Yilmaz et al (2008). Those studies (particularly Yilmaz) certainly raises the question.

"And also, Evan Jones, how will you explain away all the ecological, biological, glacial melting, and sea level rise data we're seeing?"

Well, glaciers, on the whole, have been receding for centuries. NASA also reports dirty snow is a serious issue, accounting for 30% of Arctic melt (some estimates put it at over 90%). Coal soot acts like salt on a driveway and reduces albedo as well. This is anthropogenic, but not a direct result of CO2, and can be controlled by particulate reduction.

"And, if you deny all of the above ..."

I don't deny all of the above. I question extent and cause. I look for correlations (which may or may not turn out to be causation). I also fully accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and caused warming--but I do question the positive feedback estimates, which are essential to CO2 AGW theory.

"Of course, we know that this makes Evan Jones a liar, since NOAA's siting standards have been for new stations, not old stations." And other ad hominem remarks. Considering the source, to be expected.

You do realize how much worse you make yourself look than you make me look with such comments? Besides, judging by what I have read by you and of you, I wouldn't trade my rep for yours for a million bucks.

"your claim about regional distribution is false."

Hello, sod. You are right, and I stand corrected.

He makes no mention of the heavy CRN2 western bias. Perhaps that did not exist ant that much earlier time. CRN1 bias may have been southeastern earlier, but so far as I can see this is no longer so (and CRN1 stations are much cooler than the others and are adjusted much warmer). There aren't a whole lot of them, of course. CRN5 stations do still seem to have a westward bias, but CRN4 stations (far more numerous)appear to be concentrated in cooling areas.

None of the work is final, however, and it is being done by others. I don't know what gridding methods will be used (I'd be interested to know, actually).

"i hope that Anthony will be honest enough to publish the "real" results as well, and wont use those multiple problems as an excuse to manipulate the results."

Yes, there are a lot of problems. It is not as easy as might seem. There are also station moves involved, and it is very difficult if not impossible to determine the effects (other than by step changes in data). From what i can tell, MMS usually does not document local station moves earlier than the late 1950s. Take Chama, NM , for example. There is a whopping upward step change (in the late 1920s, IIRC), follwed by a downward step change. No records exist for that period. There is another downward step change in 1964, but that does not coincide with a station move. There is an upward step change, however, after 1998, when the station was moved from the surrounding woods to the grounds of the ranger station.

Poor records make it difficult to track back too far and in any case, the coordinates are only sufficient for mesoenvironment. Even today, given coordinates are very rarely sufficient to determine microenvironment. Photos or curator interviews are necessary for that. (Occasionally a curator knows the precise previous location of a station. More often not.)

Whatever methods or data Mr. Watts or his colleagues use will, of course, be open for purposes of independent review. And I assume there will be plenty of that.

sod -- Also note Mosh's followup on the John V thread:

Yes Jon, That's similar to what I've done in the past with sites like Marysville ( 5) and companion
sites like willows ( well its a 3) and Orland ( a 1) and Colusa and on a site by site comparison
I have never failed to see to a divergence betweens the 1s and the 5s.

Now that would be an interesting study!

This would appear to be a more directed method than gridding, assuming a uniform method is possible. CRN4 sites are common enough, though, for comparison in most areas.

Stripping out the ASOS sites would seem to be advisable, though, for obvious reasons.

All about temperature records:
http://cce.890m.com/temperature-record/

And I believe JohnV did with and without airports:
http://www.opentemp.org/_results/20071011_CRN123R/crn123r_crn12r_5yr.png

(CRN12R has 17 stations, CRN123R has >60)

Evan Jones, you wrote, "I don't deny all of the above. I question extent and cause".

Let me make it clear for you then. There is without any shadow of a doubt a link between the northward expsion of flora and fauna and climate change over the past 30 years in the northern hemipshere. This includes both plants and animals that are being forced to readjust their ranges in response to regional warming. Where species are not responding is perhaps due to such important factors as habitat loss in more northward ecosystems and the deleterious effects of agricultural intensification and urban expansion which act as physical barriers. Habitat generalists are tracking the warming more effectively than specialsits. Another important barrier to species adaptation is the fact that species do not exist indepenent of other environmental constraints and, most importantly, usually depend on interactions with other species (primary producers or consumers; mutualists or antagonists). Warming is unraveling trophic webs, that is for sure, and the result is that systems will be simplified, with consequences for a wide range of services that emerge from them.

So on this point you are not only out on a limb, you are totally incorrect to suggest that the biological evidence is limited or fragmentary. It is not: there is a wealth of data in a range of scientific journals supporting my arguments. To reiterate, the biological evidence for warming is overwhelming. The evidence for a human fingerprint on the current warming is also overwhelming. The science on these issues should be closed by now. That it apparently isn't shows how much influence powerful and well-funded vested interests have. The challenge is for the scientific community to determine what the effects of anthropogenic climate change will have on natural and managed systems, not to determine if it is happening or not and what the primary underlying causes are.

It is hardly surprising that very, very few of the sceptics are environmental scientists. If they were, they'd know how incorrect they are (perhaps those that are scientists in one form or another do, but then again some of these people are already bought-and-paid for). This is also a view from 'the trenches' - speaking as a senior population ecologist.

LB -- the factoid is fair to point out. It goes to the general point that we've had a pause in the warming over the past seven years. Given I was introducing a conference hosting heterodox climate change speakers, this unexpected deviation from trend is an appropirate enough hook to the conversation.

I think your original accusations against me were OTT.

This would appear to be a more directed method than gridding, assuming a uniform method is possible. CRN4 sites are common enough, though, for comparison in most areas.

i am pretty surprised to here this, from a person who claims:

But my area of expertise, if you can call it that, centers on station siting itself, not satellite reconstructions.

why would a person, who believes that micro sites issues will strongly effect the trend of a station, think that a comparison with another station, at "nearby" location" makes any sense?

Station A is a type 1 station, very close to the sea. station B is a type 5 station a couple of km away from the sea, sheltered by hills.

you think that a road has a serious (and long term) impact, but that a station at a completely different location will give a good comparison?

[Monckton](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/10/iccc-conference-day-3/#comments) is using misleading claims:

âArctic sea ice is disappearingâ â in fact, there is no discernable trend in winter sea ice area over the last 30 years.

to come to wrong conclusions:

Lord Monckton concluded with some comments that will serve well as an epitaph for the entire Heartland-2 climate conference. âThere was no climate crisis, there is no climate crisis and there will be no climate crisisâ, he said. âThe correct solution to global warming is to have the courage to do nothingâ.

this unexpected deviation from trend is an appropirate enough hook to the conversation.

Any half decent analysis should have told you that you are probably mistaking noise for an "unexpected deviation from trend".

Seriously, stick to the economics, you're just embarrassing yourself whenever you blog on climate science.

Jeff harvey

>There is without any shadow of a doubt a link between the northward expsion of flora and fauna and climate change over the past 30 years in the northern hemipshere. This includes both plants and animals that are being forced to readjust their ranges in response to regional warming. Where species are not responding is perhaps due to such important factors as habitat loss in more northward ecosystems and the deleterious effects of agricultural intensification and urban expansion which act as physical barriers...

Paul.

I agree

I wonder if there is going to be a clash. Since the Northern hemisphere is where most developed fossil fuel burning nations are and humans using that technology can stay put (defying nature and the necessity migrate).

Whilst migration of 'wild' species heads North expecting to find sparsely populated landscapes, only to be confronted with humans determined to stay put.

I can only see even more extinctions and a lot more trouble.

Paul,

Many thanks. You make a number of very valid points. There is worry amongst many scientists not that species cannot adjust their ranges, but that there will be little in the way of optimal habitat left when they do. Although the current changes at regional scales are quite rapid, I don't doubt that many resident (less so migrant) species can adjust their 'thermal behavior' and move to higher latitudes (of course, plants are going to have a much harder time of it, as are soil biota). But over much of the northern hemisphere nature has already been simplified, and there is more to adaptation than being just able to migrate and relocate. I have written about this at more length on another thread.

As for Monkton, anyone who writes such blatant nonsense as *"The correct solution to global warming is to have the courage to do nothing"* should not be taken seriously. I am sure he would probably say the same thing about many other symptoms of the current predicament, as well: habitat loss, extinction, other forms of pollution etc. I believe that the Heartland 'ICCC' was a joke and nothing less.

John,

Supporting one statistically meaningless factoid with another statistically meaningless factoid as a rhetorical device to bind yourself to an audience that is prone to believe that meaningless factoid does in fact have some meaning somehow makes the assertion plausible? This appears on its face to be an ongoing exercise in prevarication, don't you think? You might even be fooling yourself, I suppose.

...this unexpected deviation from trend...

Unexpected by whom, exactly? This so-called deviation is well within the expected deviation of historical annual to multi-decadal variability.

John, you claim some expertise in economics, yet seem rather naive about trend analysis of stochastic time series, a subject of primary interest in economic analysis. It is hard to imagine you are repeating these falsehoods out of mere stupidity.

Tim corrects John H:

The baseline for UAH is not the 70s, that is logically impossible since the first full year in the series is 1979. The UAH base line is 1979-1998.

John H corrects his blog:

...the current temperature is nearly exactly the same as the average over the 1970s baseline average taken in the 1970s.

Maybe John H is that stupid.

"Let me make it clear for you then. There is without any shadow of a doubt a link between the northward expsion of flora and fauna and climate change over the past 30 years in the northern hemipshere. This includes both plants and animals that are being forced to readjust their ranges in response to regional warming."

That was never unclear to me. There was been a global warming trend from 1979 to 1998 and a continued warming in the Northern Hemisphere since then until the PDO flipped to cool phase in January 2007. Where it goes from here, quien sabe?

"So on this point you are not only out on a limb, you are totally incorrect to suggest that the biological evidence is limited or fragmentary."

I do not recall suggesting that the biological evidence was limited or fragmentary.

"The evidence for a human fingerprint on the current warming is also overwhelming."

I also agree with this. But I question the primary source of the anthropogenic cause. Besides, stipulating that the NOAA is correct (though they keep readjusting, so by definition one can't assume this), climate has warmed about 0.72C over the 20th century. The IPCC estimates much more warming the 21st century based on positive feedback loops. That is what I think is highly questionable.

The evidence for modest, direct CO2 warming is strong. But I suspect the positive feedback calculation is wrong, and it has also failed on the first cut: Instead of increase of ambient vapor in the middle & upper trop and strat, and high-level clouds, we see increasing low level cloud cover, which has increased albedo. That is a negative feedback, not a positive, at least at this stage of the game.

I simply pointed out that 2008 was cold relative to recent years. I didn't say there was any trend.

Posted by: John Humphreys | March 11, 2009 3:57 PM

...the factoid...goes to the general point that we've had...this unexpected deviation from trend...

Posted by: John Humphreys | March 12, 2009 9:41 AM

O, what a wicked web we weave...

why would a person, who believes that micro sites issues will strongly effect the trend of a station, think that a comparison with another station, at "nearby" location" makes any sense?

I said I do not know how strong the effect is. Neither did I say it was the only effect.

Three things definitely affect offset and -- may -- affect trends: Urban vs. Suburban vs. Rural, regional issues (warming in west, cooling in southeast, etc.) and microsite issues.

When you choose a nearby site, you control the last variable, at least. And it is fairly easy to discriminate on the second variable. That leaves one (relatively) free for direct comparison on the third.

For all we know, unadjusted station moves have an effect, too.

All we do know for sure is that the stations are not well sited and the effects (or lack thereof) need to be examined.

It is also important to note that after discounting the offset, a heat sink may well exaggerate a cooling trend as well, as the heat sink effect "undoes" itself on the way down. It is quite possible that the cooling over the last two years is exaggerated.

BTW, sod, I appreciate your civil discourse on this contentious issue.

All we do know for sure is that the stations are not well sited and the effects (or lack thereof) need to be examined.

They have been. By real scientists doing real science for a real long time now.

BTW, sod, I appreciate your civil discourse on this contentious issue.

hm, now that you say it, i notice as well. i am following the events in Winnenden (Germany) on TV, and mostly post during repetition. it isn t that far away..

They have been. By real scientists doing real science for a real long time now.

Mmmm. No.

The NOAA COOP system has a 100'/no suth shading rule. The NOAA/CRN parameters are more strict, but CRN 1 & 2 ratings conform well with the above.

The sites clearly do not conform with this. I recently observed a station in East Stroudburg, PA, that was converted to NOAA/Nimbus last year.

It was sited less than 4m from the residence, and was on a step slope, placing it above the heat rise of the house. The (non-standard) backup, less than 2 feet away, was actually mounted on the upper deck railing.

According to the curators, the original CRS was located further away from the house.

As I said, 89% of observed stations are within 30 m. of a heat source or sink and 69% are within 10 m. (or located directly atop or adjacent). The modern MMTS systems are more likely to be in worse violation than the old CRS units, which do not require cabling.

You need to check the actual data before making such bland assertions.

If you mean that they have been "examined", you are also wrong. No comprehensive microsite survey has ever been made before, by anyone, "real" scientists or no.

The closest we come to that is Yilmaz, et al (2008), not a warming study, but one looking into how to create more comfortable urban environments. Comparisons of sensors sited 2 m. off the ground showed around an 8C difference in offset between stations well away from asphalt sited over grass and stations sited over concrete or asphalt.

As the temperature rose, graphs clearly show that the sensors located over asphalt showed a higher heating trend than those over grass or dirt.

Obviously this is not conformed to NOAA siting standards and more experimentation clearly needs to be done to establish both offset and trend effects.

If you mean that they have been "examined", you are also wrong. No comprehensive microsite survey has ever been made before, by anyone, "real" scientists or no.

The data - which is what counts - has been. JohnV's work supports the notion that these real scientists doing real science for a real long time now have actually done a real good job.

My point stands.

You need to check the actual data before making such bland assertions.

Yes. The *actual* data. The temperature data, which is exactly what the real scientists doing real science have been doing for a real long time now.

And doing a real good job at it.

Really.

Hmmm. Then why the switch from USHCN-1 to USHCN-2? A rather radical departure in approach.

The stations are poorly sited. This has a very strong effect on offset and an unknown effect on trend. Station moves (poorly documented at least until recently) create step-changes in data that are not considered. Historical metadata is often readjusted. Therefore, by definition, its "realness" is at least somewhat limited.

This tells us, prima facie, that the climate is a difficult thing to measure and an even more difficult thing to track, regardless of how "good" the "real" scientists are. Appeal to authority will take one only so far.

Surely you do not object to further and closer study?

JohnV's work supports the notion that these real scientists doing real science for a real long time now have actually done a real good job.

John V is open and honest. But his work is based on far less complete data than is currently available. He also does not do a full side-by-side comparison (like what Jon and Mosh suggest and what Yilmaz actually does), which seems to me the logical way to proceed.

LaDochy (studying not on micro- but mesoenvironment) concludes that urban stations exaggerate the same warming trend compared with nearby rural and coastal stations. The percentage of surface stations in urban environments far exceeds the percentage of urban environment vs. rural.

John V's work is a very preliminary result based on an insufficient number of stations. Further work needs to be done. And is being done, for that matter. Why would you object?

Surely you do not object to further and closer study?

It's useful when done by competent people. Neither you nor Watts fall into that category.

I don't object to you wasting your time. I only object to your claims that it's worth a rat's ass.

I am not a researcher. I am merely an assistant who collects data. And as long as the methods and data is open, I don't see what the problem is. And Watts has 25 years' experience as a TV weatherman and his business is weather measuring equipment and software, which means he has a very specific specific knowledge of that which he is measuring.

His findings are that the USHCN network is poorly sited. He does not go further than that in his conclusions. As this is documented by photographs (and to a lesser extent, virtual surveys and interviews with curators), this is clearly valuable research. For that matter, the NOAA invited Watts to their HQ for a conference and told him so.

So I would argue that you are incorrect in your assessment of its value.

I also find it counterintuitive, to say the least, that the NOAA adjusts the trend (sic) 0.3C warmer (closer to 0.42C with USHCN-2), though, I particularly question the fact that SHAP is a positive rather than negative adjustment: From what I have seen, it is typical that a CRS replaced by an MMTS that is sited worse than the original.

And Watts has 25 years' experience as a TV weatherman

Yes, I know. His experience reading the weather is of a great help in overturning the work of a very large number of well-educated scientists.

Do you ever *listen* to yourself?

As to competency, how incompetent is a camera?

That's why he does this way: to dismiss claims of incompetence before they are even made. So unless you are claiming he is doctoring the photos, you have to admit the evidence is there. And the data is what the cameras say it is.

Do you ever listen to yourself?

I would suggest that people listen to you and listen to me and come to their own conclusions.

A well educated scientist who is working with questionable data might possibly be coming to the wrong or a skewed conclusion. We are actually quite surprised that the NOAA/NCDC has not done routine due diligence on their own -- critically important -- USHCN (or GHCN) network.

hm. the problem isn t just with the photos. http://www.surfacestations.org/ still claims, that a class 5 station has an "error>=5Â°C".

this is complete bogus, of course. as ladochy, whom you cited above shows, the error is closer to 0.5Â°C

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/119064.pdf

oh, and looking for him, i found this nice [poster](http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/cirmount/meetings/agu/pdf2007/kelly_goulden_po…):

was it microsite issues or UHI, that moved that vegetation up that hill?

As to competency, how incompetent is a camera?

I own several, and none of them are worth a damn for taking temperature data.

hm. the problem isn t just with the photos. http://www.surfacestations.org/ still claims, that a class 5 station has an "error>=5Â°C".

Well, that is what the NOAA itself claims (in the CRN handbook personally signed off on by Dr. Karl, himself), which is basically an English translation of the LeRoy (1999) study.

The idea is to use the same standards that the NOAA already acknowledges. Which seems only fair.

FWIW, Yilmaz (2008) shows that a sensor sited 2 m. over asphalt or concrete shows an 8C warm bias. This is autumn, but it is at relatively high altitude. Also, an NOAA sensor is 5' +/- 1', much closer to the ground, and that would increase the difference.

So is the >=5C number correct? I can't say that I know. But it is the official position of the NOAA/CRN and it has been more or less confirmed by the Yilmaz study.

But yes, I think a full year-round study at COOP sensor height is needed. It certainly would not cost very much to do such an experiment.

As for the photos, I see no problem with them.

I own several, and none of them are worth a damn for taking temperature data.

Hmm. Maybe you aiming them at the wrong places? #B^1

this is complete bogus, of course. as ladochy, whom you cited above shows, the error is closer to 0.5Â°C

As best as I can recall, LaDochy (in his December 2007 paper, not the earlier one) was not considering microsite, but mesosite issues. His comparisons were between urban/suburban/rural locations, not CRN1 vs. CRN5. And isn't the 0.5Â°C a 1980 - 2001 trend figure and not an offset figure (I don't quite recall)? No one is suggesting that the trend difference is anywhere near >=5Â°C. Just the offset.

It is possible that there is more error in UHI assessment than in the effects of microsite violations.

Ah. Your link is to the earlier paper (also interesting--and shorter).

The problem with the "park-like" setting site is that the mesoenvironment is green--but the microsite environment is depressingly gray! The equipment appears to be sited directly under either concrete or crushed rock. That would make it at best a CRN4 station, and possibly a 5.

Evan Jones posts:

The stations are poorly sited. This has a very strong effect on offset and an unknown effect on trend.

It's not "unknown," it's "nonexistent." Here are some of the analyses that have been done:

Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., Imhoff, M., Lawrence, W., Easterling, D., Peterson, T., and Karl, T. 2001. "A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change." J. Geophys. Res. 106, 23947â23963.

Peterson, Thomas C. 2003. "Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found." J. Clim. 16(18), 2941-2959.

Peterson T., Gallo K., Lawrimore J., Owen T., Huang A., McKittrick D. 1999. "Global rural temperature trends." Geophys. Res. Lett. 26(3), 329.

And remember Anthony Watts and surfacestations.org? They finally compiled a huge sample of "good" stations and "bad" stations, and... guess what? No significant difference in the trend. Gee, I guess the scientists knew what they were doing after all. Quelle surprise.

i see two very big problems here:

1. your analysis places those two stations in the same or similar classes. that is absurd.

2. you (and Anthony, btw) use the classification and its effect (error>=5Â°C) without knowing (or at least clarifying) the meaning of that term.

the meaning of the error, as i see it, is: some stations falling into this class have experienced a MAXIMUM error above 5Â°C.

it translates into: a class 5 station that is completely surrounded by concrete, with no shadow might show an error above 5Â°C on a very hot day.

this is an important information for meteorology. on an extreme day, this site may provide very false information. but it is pretty close to irrelevant for climate research.

using the message to scar people, and basing a huge project on information that isn t completely understood, makes me wonder about the honest purpose of those behind and supporting the project.

your analysis places those two stations in the same or similar classes. that is absurd.

I think you misunderstand me.

CRN rating is strictly microsite. The mesososite environment (more rural setting vs. more urban) is different and is a different calculation entirely.

The way the LeRoy paper reads is that it is an estimated or expected difference not a maximum difference. The Yilmaz paper tends to confirm this (an 8ÂºC+ difference during summer).

The LaDochy December 2007 study (not the one you cited) indicates the warming trend for California from 1980 - 2001 is overestimated by a factor of two.

My point is that more study is obviously required.

using the message to scar people, and basing a huge project on information that isn t completely understood, makes me wonder about the honest purpose of those behind and supporting the project.

I think that injunction would apply to both sides of the debate, no?

I think that injunction would apply to both sides of the debate, no?

What "debate"? On the one hand we have science. On the other hand ... you and Watts.

You're saying scientists shouldn't warn people of the consequences of their actions? Science should be silent about the dangers of smoking? Of global warming?

CRN rating is strictly microsite. The mesososite environment (more rural setting vs. more urban) is different and is a different calculation entirely.

i agree, there is some misunderstanding. both stations in the LaDochy paper. ["WILL THE REAL LOS ANGELES STAND UP"](http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/119064.pdf) are inside the LA city. one station is located in a park, the other one on a rooftop parking space.

The way the LeRoy paper reads is that it is an estimated or expected difference not a maximum difference.

this is obviously false. snow cover will remove most microsite effects. "error>=5Â°C" can not be an "expected" difference, it must be a maximum effect.

The Yilmaz paper tends to confirm this (an 8ÂºC+ difference during summer).

in [Turkey](http://www.ejournal.unam.mx/atm/Vol21-2/ATM002100202.pdf)., in summer. measured over a full concrete airport runway.

this are the most extreme conditions possible.

i am looking forward to a similar study, in Alaska, with a minor road close to the sensor and some tree shading on it.

The LaDochy December 2007 study (not the one you cited) indicates the warming trend for California from 1980 - 2001 is overestimated by a factor of two.

how do you come to that factor 2?
this LaDochy paper mentions a very important "meso" factor: irrigation might give a DOWNWARD trend to rural stations.

My point is that more study is obviously required.

my point is, that those most basic points, should have been the starting point of the surface stations project.

Hey,

Read between the lines of the recent NRC report from the US NAS and you will see that they don't believe current climate observations are adequate.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12595

I should have added that the NRC comments relate to the US, which supposedly has the most sophisticated monitoring system in the world.

If that is not up to scratch how much reliability can be placed on a so-called GMST derived from 'dodgy' stations across the world?

You can find as many stations with problems that might lower the temperature as those that might raise it

You can find as many stations with problems that might lower the temperature as those that might raise it

Pfffft.

Not on denialist sites.

Wattscredulouswitdat?

Best,

If that is not up to scratch how much reliability can be placed on a so-called GMST derived from 'dodgy' stations across the world?

Thank God we have satellite telemetry that tells the same story, and that ecological and geophysical data also tells the same story, eh?

We don't really need the surface station record to understand what's going on, but it's comforting that it correlates well with our other data, don't you think?

The right-wing talking heads are unleashing their attack dogs on Andrew Revkin.

You can find as many stations with problems that might lower the temperature as those that might raise it.

Too true.

As I related to Radium Water Tim on another thread, I live in a rural region about a 15 minute drive from the CBD of our state capital. The daily city maxima that were reported each evening were so consistently 2-4Â°C below what neighbours were reporting for our area that I spent a few hundred on a weather station to get an accurate idea (+/- 0.1Â°C) of what our temperatures were.

And they are, almost without exception, 2-4Â°C below the city's maxima.

Heat island indeed.

Evan writes, *I think that injunction would apply to both sides of the debate, no?*

The problem is that this isn't a debate; its one extremely well funded side twisting, distorting and mangling science to promote a pre-determined worldview and political agenda, and the other side constantly having to defend a huge volume of empirical evidence.

The denialists are well-aware that science is not on their side, but they know they do not have to win the debate on these grounds. All they have to do is to shed enough doubt on the theory of AGW to render any meaningful action to tackle the problem mute. This is because the public and honest policymakers (not those bought-and-paid for by industry) will not push for regulations if the debate appears to be 'stuck somewhere in the middle'.

I suggest you check how the denialists have shifted their goalposts over the past 20 years. First, AGW was a 'doomsday myth'. Then, as evidence flowed in in support of climate change, the impetus shifted to 'it's natural, due to the sun and natural variability'. More recently, abusing long-term data sets and misunderstanding the concept of forces required to shift largely deterministic systems, they have shifted to the 'it hasn't warmed at all since 1998' - an exceptional year by any standards that was much warmer by far than any preceding years due to a potent El Nino event.

Mark my words: in 10-15 years, as the evidence accrues still further, they will shift to their last argument: 'Ok, humans are the primary culprit but it's too late to do anything so we will just have to adapt' (that is already being said in some denialist circles). Again, in every one of these scenarios there is a constant theme: *don't change anything and by all means do not cap carbon emissions*.

The political right are hijacking the science that they hate to ensure that the song remains the same. It is profit maiximization for the privileged few.

I am a Geologist who has had no formal training in climate science however have looked into the science behind the GW theory over the last 12 months and I have to say there are some issues that throw some doubt into my mind regarding the influence of human induced Co2 increases on global temperatures.

I do not have tunnel vision on either side of the debate however I do not want governments burdening economies with another tax on something that may not be real.

There is one question I have that you may be able to answer:

Why is it that the when Co2 vs temperature is plotted it shows a logrithmic relationship, that is most of the warming affect occurs for the first 20ppm and then tails off in a logrithmic plot. Going by this if Co2 is doubled or even tripled from current levels it will have a negligible effect on atmospheric temperatures. This is due to the fact that Co2 only absorbs certain wavelengths of energy so once it has done this adding more does nothing. Now to me this relationship seems feasible given that Co2 levels have been massivley higher in past geological times ie up 5000ppm but we didn't have a runaway greenhouse effect. Also Al Gore may have also inadvertenly comfirmed this in his ice core graphic when he got on the scissor lift and showed Co2 levels rocketing up recently however temperatures were not going up at the same rate as they were in relation to Co2 levels in the previuos spikes on the ice core graphic. Also over the last 10 years no significant warming has occurred (satellite data)however the Co2 levels have continued to rise, dosen't this cast doubt over the relationship between the two?

Ah, I wander over here looking for the dust-up with Tim Curtin about the Soloman et al travesty about emission rates and what do I find? Just the usual bloviators and some snideness about new political parties; so from this proud and ordinary citizen may I wish you all a Will Steffan reality. BTW, I thought the William Gray piece at the Heartland conference was pretty damn good; I wish I could think of an equivalent pro-AGW effort; perhaps the recent Steig et tu Mann revelations?

Stuart H:

I am a Geologist who has had no formal training in climate science however have looked into the science behind the GW theory over the last 12 months and I have to say there are some issues that throw some doubt into my mind regarding the influence of human induced Co2 increases on global temperatures.

Fair enough. It's good to have an inquiring mind.

I do not have tunnel vision on either side of the debate

I don't want to be told by anyone that they don't have tunnel vision. You would be wise to leave that judgement up to people reading you.

There is one question I have that you may be able to answer:
Why is it that the when Co2 vs temperature is plotted it shows a logrithmic relationship, that is most of the warming affect occurs for the first 20ppm and then tails off in a logrithmic plot.

This is not how the logarithm function works. "Most" of the variation in the logarithm function does not occur over any finite range of input. The logarithm function varies from minus to plus infinity. Doubling the input causes the same increase in output for any original input, i.e. increasing the input from 2 units to 4 units causes the same increase in output as increasing the input from 1 unit to 2 units. Increasing the input from 4 units to 8 units causes the same increase in output again etc. Thus there is no such thing as an input range for which "most" of the variation in output occurs.

cohenite:

what do I find? Just the usual bloviators

What a hypocrite.

Reply to Chris O'Neill

Your explanation doesn't make much sense to me. Are you saying that from 300ppm Co2 to 600ppm Co2 will cause the same temperature increase as 20-40ppm Co2? If you think it does then the relationship is linear not logrithmic

Stuart

Just to further explain myself, my understanding is that Co2 only absorbs certain wavelengths so once the existing Co2 does this then adding more has little effect, this physical property of Co2 causes the logrithmic relationship when plotted against atmospheric temperature changes, is this not the case?

Stuart

> Your explanation doesn't make much sense to me. Are you saying that from 300ppm Co2 to 600ppm Co2 will cause the same temperature increase as 20-40ppm Co2? If you think it does then the relationship is linear not logrithmic

Stuart H, you're either a liar or an idiot or both. You can fool the mathematically uninitiated, but you can't fool anyone who has at least a high school education in mathematics (and still remembers it).

Why the hostility? do you not agree that the relationship between Co2 concentration and atmospheric temperature is logrithmic?

See my previuos comment after the one you quoted where I provided my understanding of the science, if it's not correct then can you explain why the temperature increases 1.5 degrees within the first 20ppm and then only 0.3 degrees for the next 20ppm?

Stuart

Stuart H, you're still either a liar or an idiot or both. Now get out your calculator and compute the values of

ln 20.
ln 40.
ln 60.

This is the answer to your moronic question.

Can you find out the values by yourself? Or are you too busy waiting for your shillmasters to tell you what the answers are?

bi-IJI

I am simply requesting an answer to my question on whether you agree that Co2 concentration forms a logrithmic relationship with temperature. I assume you know what a logrithmic relationship looks like!

I have read articles that state the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not saturated which doesn't seem to fit the graphs showing the physical properties of Co2.

If temperature is modelled to continue to rise with further CO2 concentrations without stopping then why did we not have a runaway greenhouse effect when atmospheric CO2 was between 3000-5000ppm 65 million years ago?

Do you understand?

I said:

> Stuart H, you're still either a liar or an idiot or both. Now get out your calculator and compute the values of

> ln 20.ln 40.ln 60.

> This is the answer to your moronic question.

> Can you find out the values by yourself? Or are you too busy waiting for your shillmasters to tell you what the answers are?

I'm betting on the latter.

So, Stuart H, have you yet figured out what the values of ln 20, ln 40, and ln 60 are?

Or are you trying to dodge the whole elitist venture of Actually Doing Sums, by throwing out yet another bunch of inactivist red herrings?

What the point of sitting here calculating log values?

My point is that for each additional molecule of CO2 added to the atmoshpere the temperature increase is smaller than the last. Do you dispute this?

Also you are so typical of someone who is in the GW extremist group who prefer to attack the man instead of having a rational debate about the science, it's pathetic really and doesn't help your cause

Stuart

> What the point of sitting here calculating log values?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Spoken like a true "geologist" all right.

Someone introduce Stuart to Tim Curtin, please - it is clearly a preordained match.

Stuart, if you are going to claim that the logarithmic nature of heat absorption by [CO2] somehow casts doubt on the science of global temperature, you might bother not to speak utter idiocy about the nature of logarithmic relationships.

Hi Chris; it takes a thief to catch a thief, or bloviator as the case may be.

Stuart; stick around and gain a real education in human charity and kindness; in the meantime, before bi--IJI cracks what ever cyclinders he has left, here are the log values and an interesting graph; now I'll go and do my penance;

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1994/logwarmingillustratedeo8.png

Well what is the point? You don't seem willing or are unable to answer any of my questions

You do realise how stupid you sound by posting comments like the last one don't you?

Ah well I guess I'm not going to get an intelligent debate out of you so it's time to move on

I do not have tunnel vision on either side of the debate

Is there a person alive who thinks of themselves as having tunnel vision on either side of a debate? What an odd thing to say. It seems to be roughly equivalent to "hello everybody, I think more clearly than you do."

Are you saying that from 300ppm Co2 to 600ppm Co2 will cause the same temperature increase as 20-40ppm Co2? If you think it does then the relationship is linear not logrithmic

Maybe we have different definitions of the word. Wouldn't linear mean that 20-40ppm would be the same as 320-340ppm?

BTW, the hostility comes from people here having heard it all before. It's kind of like whack-a-mole, but without the hope of a prize at the end. There is a non-stop stream of people like you who happen along, saying "a-ha! I've managed to figure out that thousands of people are wrong about their field of study!" When you combine the ennui with your initial "I am so well-thinked" and then the "isn't logarithmic linear which makes it not logarithmic?", you get snark.

In case we're wrong about the relationship being logarithmic, what would a True Logarithmic look like? Does it have to be log 10 or can it be log 2?

cohenite, your graph contains multiple errors. The relationship is not logarithmic all the way down to a concentration of 0 (since log of 0 is negative infinity). And climate sensitivity is the equilibrium response to a forcng, not the immediate response.

Thanks cohenite

And Lee I am not saying I am right and since you have weighed in would you like to explain why I am so misguided about the effect of CO2 concentrations above 380ppm on climate, all I want is a rational explanation that is based in science and doesn't involve personal attacks which are pointless.

Stuart

As I am mentioned here I hope I can post this:
Stuart H and Chris OâNeill are spot on about the logarithmic nature of increases in temperature with respect to increases in [CO2] at the Monckton thread, and bi-ij is off the planet. Chris said: âDoubling the input causes the same increase in output for any original input, i.e. increasing the input from 2 units to 4 units causes the same increase in output as increasing the input from 1 unit to 2 units. Increasing the input from 4 units to 8 units causes the same increase in output again etc.â As my Quadrant article made the same point (citing Arrhenius), let me spell it out in Excel. It should be clear that for global mean temperature to reach the annual mean of 28oC in Dubai, atmospheric CO2 would have to rise from 385 ppm now by 52,428,800 ppm. To reach Brisbaneâs present annual average it would still have to rise by 25,600 ppm, to 25,985 ppm. Plotting the logN of the increases CO2 in ppm produces a perfect linear line, which is exactly parallel to the linear plot of changes in temperature against changes in [CO2]. DIY in Excel.

Increase in [CO2] ppmLogs dCO2Temp oC
100.00 4.6051714.7
200.00 5.29831715.4
400.00 5.99146516.1
800.00 6.68461216.8
1,600.00 7.37775917.5
3,200.00 8.07090618.2
6,400.00 8.76405318.9
12,800.00 9.457219.6
25,600.00 10.1503520.3
51,200.00 10.8434921
102,400.00 11.5366421.7
204,800.00 12.2297922.4
409,600.00 12.9229423.1
819,200.00 13.6160823.8
1,638,400.00 14.3092324.5
3,276,800.00 15.0023825.2
6,553,600.00 15.6955325.9
13,107,200.00 16.3886726.6
26,214,400.00 17.0818227.3
52,428,800.00 17.7749728
104,857,600.00 18.4681128.7
209,715,200.00 19.1612629.4
419,430,400.00 19.8544130.1
838,860,800.00 20.5475630.8

oh ... good ... grief.

TC you must have been a dire daily challenge for your teachers in school - are any of them known to have survived?

Stuart H:

> all I want is a rational explanation that is based in science and doesn't involve personal attacks which are pointless.

Why don't you (horrors) actually start Doing Some Sums? Oh, I forgot that doing sums is beneath you, because you're a "scientist". Or is that "geologist".

And what pough said:

> When you combine the ennui with your initial "I am so well-thinked" and then the "isn't logarithmic linear which makes it not logarithmic?", you get snark.

* * *

Tim Curtin:

> Increase in [CO2] ppm Logs dCO2

It's Î(log CO2), not log Î(CO2). You fail.

To see why: suppose we have two variables X and Y such that Y varies logarithmically with X. Thus

> Y = m ln X + c

for constants m, c. If we have two pairs of values (x1, y1) and (x2, y2) following this relationship, then we have

> y1 = m ln x1 + cy2 = m ln x2 + c

Subtracting the two equations gives

> y2 - y1 = m (ln x2 - ln x2)

Clearly, the change in Y as it goes from y1 to y2 is

> Îy = y2 - y1.

And as shown above, this change depends not on

> ln Îx = ln (x2 - x1);

instead it depends on

> Î(ln x) = ln x2 - ln x1.

None of this requires graduate-level maths, Tim Curtin. Why did you have to make such a dumb error?

(Erratum: 4th equation should be

> y2 - y1 = m (ln x2 - ln x1)

)

The y axis 'o' is 288K; and there is only an immediate response because the only 'pipeline' is in Hawaii;

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1994/to:2010/scale:0…

Bi: first, you attack me, instead of Chris OâNeill, whose spec. I followed absolutely faithfully (at #117: "Doubling the input causes the same increase in output for any original input, i.e. increasing the input from 2 units to 4 units causes the same increase in output as increasing the input from 1 unit to 2 units. Increasing the input from 4 units to 8 units causes the same increase in output again etc."). He like the IPCC Stern & Garnaut proposed log Î(CO2), and that is what I did, namely 0.7 observed change in T for each doubling of the INCREMENT in [CO2], i.e. observed 0.7 oC for 100 new ppm since 1900 and the same for the next 200 and then 0.7 again for the next 400. Chris OâNeillâs is the standard formulation. Your equation is your own until you specify m. For that you pays your money and makes your choice. I opt for Chris. Negotiate with him and only then get back to me.

Me:

The logarithm function varies from minus to plus infinity. Doubling the input causes the same increase in output for any original input, i.e. increasing the input from 2 units to 4 units causes the same increase in output as increasing the input from 1 unit to 2 units. Increasing the input from 4 units to 8 units causes the same increase in output again etc.

Stuart H:

Your explanation doesn't make much sense to me. Are you saying that from 300ppm Co2 to 600ppm Co2 will cause the same temperature increase as 20-40ppm Co2? If you think it does then the relationship is linear not logrithmic

If you don't believe me then get a calculator or a spreadsheet and find the difference between log 2 and log 1, between log 4 and log 2, and between log 8 and log 4. The differences are always the same.

Tim Curtin:

> first, you attack me, instead of Chris OâNeill, whose spec. I followed absolutely faithfully

No.

You still fail.

Stuart H. posts:

Going by this if Co2 is doubled or even tripled from current levels it will have a negligible effect on atmospheric temperatures.

The radiative forcing from carbon dioxide on present-day Earth is estimated by Myrhe et al. (1998) as:

RF = 5.35 ln (C / Co)

where RF is in watts per square meter and carbon dioxide concentration C and reference concentration Co are in parts per million by volume. Clearly doubling CO2 results in a forcing of 3.7 W m^-2, and with a climate sensitivity of 0.75 K W^-2 m^-2, this would mean doubling CO2 raises the mean global annual surface temperature of the Earth by 2.8 K.

This is due to the fact that Co2 only absorbs certain wavelengths of energy so once it has done this adding more does nothing.

For the reasons this "saturation argument" is wrong see here:

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Saturation.html

Now to me this relationship seems feasible given that Co2 levels have been massivley higher in past geological times ie up 5000ppm but we didn't have a runaway greenhouse effect.

No one is predicting a "runaway greenhouse effect" on Earth. Global warming of a few degrees will be enough to massively disrupt our agriculture and economy.

Also over the last 10 years no significant warming has occurred (satellite data)however the Co2 levels have continued to rise, dosen't this cast doubt over the relationship between the two?

Your information is wrong. Check here:

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Ball.html

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Reber.html

cohenite:

it takes a thief to catch a thief, or bloviator as the case may be.

There is only one person here that someone from both sides agrees is a bloviator.

Bi: you said âTo see why: suppose we have two variables X and Y such that Y[eg temp?] varies logarithmically with X [eg CO2?] Thus
Y = m ln X + c
for constants m, c. If we have two pairs of values (x1, y1) and (x2, y2) following this relationship, then we have
y1 = m ln x1 + c
y2 = m ln x2 + c
Subtracting the two equations gives
y2 - y1 = m (ln x2 - ln x2)â (1)

Fine, but that does not gives logs for y2 - y1
âClearly, the change in Y as it goes from y1 to y2 is
Îy = y2 - y1.â

Amazing! Who would have thought?

âAnd as shown above, this change depends not on
ln Îx = ln (x2 - x1);
instead it depends on
Î(ln x) = ln x2 - ln x1.â Amazing, a pure tautology. Hallelujuh!

âClearly, the change in Y as it goes from y1 to y2 is
Îy = y2 - y1.â

More amazing. The same great truth repeated. Truly a new Einstein.

And as shown above, this change depends not on
ln Îx = ln (x2 - x1);
instead it depends on
Î(ln x) = ln x2 - ln x1.

Another tautology.

Tim Lambert, if anyone deserves permanent banning it is bi for habitual unpleasantness and terminal nonsense not to mention complete math incompetence. He has his own largely unvisited blog, leave him there.

Let's see. Tim Curtin says,

> He [O'Neill] like the IPCC Stern & Garnaut proposed log Î(CO2), and that is what I did,

and then when I show using mathematics that it's really Î(ln CO2) and that he's talking complete nonsense, he claims that, since I'm right, therefore I'm wrong.

He like the IPCC Stern & Garnaut proposed log Î(CO2), and that is what I did, namely 0.7 observed change in T for each doubling of the INCREMENT in [CO2], i.e. observed 0.7 oC for 100 new ppm since 1900 and the same for the next 200 and then 0.7 again for the next 400.

The great Curtin is merely pointing out the correction he made to Myrhe et al.'s radiation forcing formula which by coincidence BPL posted above:

RF = 5.35 ln (C / Co)

As Curtin showed, the correct formula is actually:

RF = 5.35 ln ( 380 (C-280) / 28000)

or in terms of temperature:

ÎT = 0.7 ln (2 (C-280) / 100) / ln (2)

thus leading to Curtin's progression above. This is Curtin's second law of atmospheric physics, following on from his first law of atmospheric physics which is Curtin's law of conservation of atmospheric mass. This was yet another great discovery by the genius physicist Curtin.

... and there is only an immediate response because the only 'pipeline' is in Hawaii...

Posted by: cohenite | March 15, 2009 5:27 AM

Interesting fact: In cohenite's universe, water boils immediately upon putting the kettle on the stove.

"Book 'im, Dano."

Your explanation doesn't make much sense to me. Are you saying that from 300ppm Co2 to 600ppm Co2 will cause the same temperature increase as 20-40ppm Co2? If you think it does then the relationship is linear not logrithmic

Stuart H, it's logarithmic. You're going to have to brush up on your high school mathematics before you successfully overturn the work of a very large number of hard working climate scientists ...

All of your arguments are just cut-and-paste denialist tripe, BTW. That's why you're being met with hostility. You can easily find out they're wrong by doing a little scientific reading on the web. Why should people here do that work for you? (though Barton has kindly done so, you should read his links, thank him, and apologize for having posted crap).

Chris O'Neill:
I am ashamed of you. You forgot his most important contribution to mathematics, namely Tim Curtin's proof that polynomial = exponential, which of course implies the now trivial P=NP. I would imagine that even as we type, the Clay institute is cutting the check for our soon to be millionaire Curtin.

What a lot of huffing and puffing. This is what Chris O'Neill said: "Doubling the input causes the same increase in output for any original input, i.e. increasing the input from 2 units to 4 units causes the same increase in output as increasing the input from 1 unit to 2 units. Increasing the input from 4 units to 8 units causes the same increase in output again etc." This is what I did: I first took the observed increase in the "input", 100 ppm of [CO2] from 1900 to 2000, and the resulting increase in "output", a rise of 0.7 oC in global mean temperature over that period (GISS). Then I added more input, first doubling, so extra 100 ppm to get same output, 0.7 oC, exactly per Chris. Next doubling takes us from extra 200 ppm to extra 400 ppm for another 0.7 oC, and the next to extra 800 ppm (for cumulative from pre-industrial add 280 ppm) for another 0.7 oC, and so on, all exactly in line with the O'Neill formula.
Given starting global temp in 1900 of 13.9 oC, say 14, with the extra 800 ppm we have reached total [CO2] of 1180 ppm for a global temp of 16.8 oC. The next doubling to 1600 gives us 17.5 oC., which is 3.5 above 1900, but which the IPCC claims will arise from just 280 extra ppm (i.e. doubling from 280 ppm. to 560 ppm.). O'Neill is always right, so I hope he will convey his model to the IPCC.

Chris added: "Thus there is no such thing as an input range for which "most" of the variation in output occurs'". Actually, if you fit an Excel log linear trend line you will see most of the variation does begin (the line is steepest) at the beginning of the input range. But then I suppose Excel must have it wrong, because O'Neill is without peer in being always right.

pough is correct on the snark; and, as inveterate blog watchers will know, the CO2 angle being raised by you here, Stuart H, has recently been doing the rounds elsewhere. So I guess the snark threshold is currently set low. Also, much of the information you require/request has been talked about ad nauseum in blogs for nigh on 10 years (since the FAR (IIRC), and certainly since the TAR) and is easily available on the net. Consequently, if, as you say, you

have looked into the science behind the GW theory over the last 12 months

and have got to geology degree level or greater, it seems unlikely on the face of it that you can't have come across this material (And if you have, then why ask here in the form you ask? And if you haven't, then how, for example, did you manage to get a degree? ...). Hence the snark that quickly developed after your early incredulity on the concentrations and logs.

As to theoretical underpinnings of the _C_/_C_0 part, look here for _starters_.

Now

Î_T_s = _Î»_Î_F_

and

Î_F_ = _Î±_ ln(_C_/_C_0) --- not the only formula; see Table 6.2 in the TAR (and the e.g. linked below)

where

Î_T_s (W mâ2) = change in equilibrium surface temperature

_Î»_ (K Wâ1 mâ2) = climate sensitivity

_Î±_ = constant (by experiment/observation/model, e.g.)

_C_ (ppmv) = current [CO2]

_C_0 (ppmv) = initial [CO2]

Now do the logs and your incredulity should vanish.

And I dare say one of your supplementaries (from past experience) may well be answered by material such as this, this and this.

Tim Curtin, you are only allowed to post to the "Windschuttle hoaxed" thread. If you post in the wrong thread again I will ban you.

By the way: Tim Curtin: you still fail.

I don't think you understand how poorly funded the "deinialist" side is.

The denialists are well-aware that science is not on their side, but they know they do not have to win the debate on these grounds.

If the "denialists" were well aware of any such thing, and were aware that curbing CO2 was the solution, what makes you think they would object to pulling out all stops to solve the problem?

I do not believe you are thinking this through if you can bring yourself to believe, much less publicly state such things. I urge you to reconsider the issue from the perspective that both sides genuinely believe in their positions and that both sides want a better world for future generations.

Likewise, I do not believe those who believe in CO2-feedback-based AGW are guilty of a "fraud" or perpetrating a "scam" or "power grab". I think that that may be wrong in part or in full on any number of issues, but I believe they are sincere in their beliefs and their motives are not base.

I assume the motives of both sides are based on how they perceive the science and are oriented toward the good of mankind.

Yes, very much a surprise as the paper being written on the subject has not been released yet. I think we need to wait until it has been.

And it goes far deeper than trend in a constant environment. The environment is not constant.

It involves change of trend due to urban/suburban/exurban creep (the sort that would not result in a step change) and undocumented station moves, which causes severe discontinuities that are not factored out.

There is also an adjustment issue. I do not see how adjusting modern temperatures +0.3 C for USHCN1 or +0.4 for USHCN2 can be justified. And it makes far more sense that the SHAP adjustment would be negative rather than positive. Yet it is positive, and this makes no sense to me.

Evan Jones:

> I assume the motives of both sides are based on how they perceive the science and are oriented toward the good of mankind.

Yeah, yeah. Also, lying for Jesus is good for you too.

this is obviously false. snow cover will remove most microsite effects. "error>=5Â°C" can not be an "expected" difference, it must be a maximum effect.

I can only go by the actual words in the paper.

As for Yilmaz, he reports the difference to be over 11C at ground level and over 7.5C at 2 m. (Surface stations are sited lower than 2 m.) Even snow can create a warming offset, esp if the station is buried in it (which came up in the recent Antarctica controversy). The measurements are in summer, but they are taken at high altitude.

I am not stating anything is obvious and I am not reading anything into Leroy except what he actually says. And he does not say "minimum", or "maximum". He says "estimated" and "expected". If he were not using "greater than" symbols, one might assume he meant "average". But I assume that if he meant "minimum" he would have used that word or words to that effect. he does not.

I don't think anything is obvious other than that more study needs to be done under surface station conditions, year round. I don't say LeRoy is right, I only say he says what he says. Maybe he is right, maybe wrong. So let's find out.

Yeah, yeah. Also, lying for Jesus is good for you too.

Being an atheist, I'm sure I wouldn't know.

You can find as many stations with problems that might lower the temperature as those that might raise it

Pfffft.

Not on denialist sites.

So go look at the pictures yourself, then. They are all online and open to public inspection. You could even rate them yourself, using NOAA's own COOP or CRN published standards.

If you think it is cherrypicking, then go look and come to your own conclusions.

Come on, Evans, why not embrace Holy Jesus's Young Earth Creationism just this once? Yes, it's full of lies, double standards, cries of persecution, bluffs, and sheer illogical garbage, it's all for the greater good! Please consider their viewpoint!

Barton Paul Levenson:

Thank you for your reasonable discourse. All too rare.

Hanson, Reudy (2001) is concerned with UHI, not microsite. There are problems with the "nightlight" proxy. It is too variable, depending on level of development.

We prefer the "U/50" method as this is an actual measurement of nearby population. But even this is problematic, because a denser suburban sprawl that features a lot of grassy or even forested areas is different from a small city.

Also Peterson (2003) is very early in the controversy. Peterson, Parker is more recent, and that has been vehemently disputed by more recent studies.

It is hard to know whom to believe. But "settled", it ain't.

NOAA/NCDC/USCHN2 does not even apply a UHI adjustment, but uses an homogeneity method and a step change "fixer-upper". My own impression is that this merely spreads the problem around and overlooks gradual, continuing changes in mesoenvironment (or microenvironment, for that matter). Meanwhile, the US temperatures are adjusted over 0.4C from raw data. (Heck, I'd even like to see a revisiting of the TOBS issue.)

Eli Rabbet: You can find as many stations with problems that might lower the temperature as those that might raise it

Not as far as I can see. By their very nature, there appear to be more opportunities for warming bias than cooling. But, as you are a prominent scientist, I invite you to look at the pictures and come to your own conclusions on that issue.

Bernard J.: I live in a rural region about a 15 minute drive from the CBD of our state capital. The daily city maxima that were reported each evening were so consistently 2-4Â°C below what neighbours were reporting for our area that I spent a few hundred on a weather station to get an accurate idea (+/- 0.1Â°C) of what our temperatures were.

First: If you would photograph the site and post it at surfacestations.org, we would greatly appreciate it. (Check to see if it has not already been surveyed.

Second: How are your and your neighbors' stations sited?

According to COOP standards, they must be at least 100' from your residence or any paved surface (like a driveway), or any heat source (such as an AC, BBQ, pump, or parked car), should not be obscured by vegetation, and should not have shading to the south.

They must have the proper housing installed, of course (or you will get a serious warm bias at Tmax). And, of course anything mounted on the wall or roof of a house is not going to yield anywhere near proper results.

By their very nature, there appear to be more opportunities for warming bias than cooling.

Of course, we all know the warming biases ended in 1998.

BTW, before going to the trouble of photographing any site, please make sure it is a USHCN network site. These are listed in the gallery (check by state).

Anyone who wants can be part of this. We are especially interested in well sited stations, which is why I have been concentrating on rural surveys. (Not that a city site is necessarily poorly sited, but more of the better sites are rural.) So if you have a well sited USHCN station in your vicinity that has not been surveyed, we'd really, really like a survey done.

Of course, we all know the warming biases ended in 1998.

I said:

> Come on, Evan, why not embrace Holy Jesus's Young Earth Creationism just this once? Yes, it's full of lies, double standards, cries of persecution, bluffs, and sheer illogical garbage, it's all for the greater good! Please consider their viewpoint!

By his own standards, Evan Jones should follow my advice.

Evan Jones #166: "But temperatures have, on the whole, averaged rather flat."

Averaged rather flat? On the whole? What the heck is that supposed to mean?

No, don't tell me. It's a Law of Nature. Every time someone pops up here and starts bleating about some alleged "trend" in the past ten years what follows is bound to be drivel.

"..a heat sink may well exaggerate a heating trend.."

Someone shoot me.

Once upon a time Eli looked at a bunch of photos, and to tell you the truth, Playbunny was more fun, but there were lots of sites that were close enough to tree lines and bushed that they were obviously going to be in the shadows part of the day, and obviously were in some of the photos. This, of course, does not even take into account those near enough significant transpiring veg that they would be cooled.

Now the whole thing misses the point that what is being measured is an anomaly, not a trend, so what counts is not whether a site is warmer or colder than neighboring sites, but whether the site has changed over the years in a way that would bias the trend, not the absolute temperature. Evan Jones is another idiot who needs to understand the concept, but would rather expose himself.

Evan Jones sayeth:

Not on denialist sites.

Let's give credit where credit is due. I find Evan Jones' honesty refreshing, he admits he's a denialist, not a skeptic.

Evan Jones:

A quick question - among the many I have, but that will come in a later post. You mentioned "Parker is more recent, and that has been vehemently disputed by more recent studies."
Are you referring to the Parker 2004 and 2006 papers? And which aspects of it are in dispute?

So, yes, once you discount the direct offset (sic) of nearby exurbanization (etc.), the heat sink effect on trend (sic) may well have been a push since 1998, or even had a mild cooling effect.

you don t start an analysis with an outlier. you simply, absolutely and always do NOT do that.

i read about a thousand denialist posts, looking at the last decade, when that decade included 1998.

i have read about ZERO denialist posts, looking at the "trend" over the last decade, simply because it is UPWARDS.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1999/plot/wti/from:1999/trend

cherrypicking is the main tool of denialist analysis.

I can only go by the actual words in the paper.

this is a serious problem. because you are using the stations for a different purpose.

assume that i am selling wood screws. i have a specification list of classes for their performance. now you use them for metal, but insist in using my specification, without fully understanding it. this is road to disaster!

I don't think you understand how poorly funded the "deinialist" side is.

the denialist side is well funded. they don t have to bother with expensive real research. publishing nonsense on websites isn t expensive.

the denialist side is well funded. they don t have to bother with expensive real research. publishing nonsense on websites isn t expensive.

And some of that "funding" comes in the form of donated services, such as Fox News giving people like Steven Milloy a bully pulpit with no equivalent being given to the reality-driven science side of the spectrum. Milloy and others appearing as "News Commentators" not only gives the denialist side cheap access to millions of homes, it also gives them faux credibility because, well, Fox would never lie, right? :)

sod:

> the denialist side is well funded. they don t have to bother with expensive real research. publishing nonsense on websites isn't expensive.

dhogaza:

> And some of that "funding" comes in the form of donated services,

Also, Marc Morano uses the taxpayer-funded server epw.senate.gov to spread his bollocks. (although he's reportedly on his way out -- thank goodness.)

Yeah, Morano's sort of a double whammy, using tax payer support to spread his lies, while his boss is kept in office by virtue of oil money.

sod: Whether or not it is an outlier remains to be seen. Bear in mind that several multidecadal oscillations went from cold to warm phase between 1976 and 2001. Now they are beginning to revert to cool phase. Also, solar cycle 24 is starting out very quiet. So we will have to observe.

Also, three of four metrics indicate mild cooling. GISS may possibly be the outlier here. One reason that it is reasonable to make the observation from 1998, despite the fact it was an El Nino is that it was followed immediately by a La Nina of lesser strength, but longer duration. So it seems reasonable to me that both phases must be "included IN" or both must be "included OUT". So one must draw the line from either 1998 or from 2001 to get a non-jiggered trend.

Also, the heat sink effect may have exaggerated the warming prior to 1999, but it may also be exaggerating the current cooling trend as well.

The reason I don't think the issue is settled is that climate in immensely complex. For example, as recently as 1998, ten years after the alarm was sounded, scientists were not even aware of multidecadal oscillations that affect El Nino/La Nina frequency.

Bear in mind, I do think there has been warming and I do think CO2 has a direct effect (quite apart from any feedback effects). But I do not think the case has been made that there is an imminent emergency that requires precipitous action.

they don t have to bother with expensive real research.

I think that is an unfair characterization. I have based my arguments exclusively on peer-reviewed papers and direct observations. I can't say how expensive this was, but I am not relying on secondary media sources.

A quick question - among the many I have, but that will come in a later post. You mentioned "Parker is more recent, and that has been vehemently disputed by more recent studies." Are you referring to the Parker 2004 and 2006 papers? And which aspects of it are in dispute?

Yes. What's in dispute (in brief) is whether UHI is "gone with the wind" as Peterson asserts.

Pielke, Matsui (2005) and Pielke, et al (2007) dispute this, as does the LaDochy (December [sic!] 2007 paper on urbanization effect on California climate measurement from 1979 to 2001.

Note that I am not saying who will ultimately be proven correct (of if it's a split), merely that there is dispute on the issue.

As it now stands, USHCN1 makes a mere -0.05C trend adjustment over the 20th century, while USHCN2 makes none at all.

Also, three of four metrics indicate mild cooling.

Not with statistical significance. Which you know. Which is exactly the kind of crap that makes you a denialist, not a skeptic.

Note that I am not saying who will ultimately be proven correct (of if it's a split), merely that there is dispute on the issue.

Yeah, and there's an active flat earth society, too. Big deal. I pay no attention to what they say, and I pay no attention to what denialists like Pielke say.

Evan Jones:

What's in dispute (in brief) is whether UHI is "gone with the wind" as Peterson asserts.

This is not in dispute given the vast empirical evidence from canopy-layer UHI studies. UHI intensities do decrease with increasing wind-speeds (e.g. see Souch and Grimmond 2006 Progress in Physical Geography for a review on p. 271). Peterson and Parker are both correct in this assertion.

OTOH, I've read Pielke's papers and I have very grave misgivings about his analysis. His group does not appear to account for the influence of the urban canopy layer (re: Oke 1987, Boundary Layer Climates). The point is that the assumptions of Monin-Obukhov ST simply do not apply within the canopy layer, so his application of that to model heat content in the boundary layer is, well, moot.

The '05 paper's key conclusion IMO is that "...trends in temperature should be expected to be different at every height near the surface when the winds are light, as well as different between light wind and stronger wind nights." I think P & M do not consider the correct scale; the surface layer as they define it is too large scale-wise when examining the near surface UHI, and one has to consider the influence of the urban canopy on lapse rates.

I also find it most peculiar that Pielke and Matsui did not reference a seminal study in urban climatology by Nakamura and Oke (1988, Atmospheric Environment) where they obtained temperature and wind data within an urban canyon that showed that in calm conditions, air temps from surface to roof height varied less than 1K for areas >0.5 m from wall and road surfaces - i.e the lapse rate is almost neutral, in contrast to what P&M assert.

Note that I am not saying who will ultimately be proven correct (of if it's a split), merely that there is dispute on the issue.

Yes there is dispute, but I would not think that what RPSr. says makes much sense at all, given the empirical evidence on UHIs decreasing with increasing wind-speeds and his lack of understanding of urban climates. C'mon - only a single throwaway reference to Tim Oke's work in his 3 UHI-related papers?! That's very, very bad form.

This is why Watts is a dishonest twit.

When JohnV's preliminary analysis showed that siting made no difference, and apparently was adequately corrected in the surface analyses, Watts declared that there would be no more analyses until an adequate number of stations were covered. He later set that barrier at 75% - which has now been reached. And during the lengthy interval, he did not do any such analysis.

However, he continued to make claims. He made post after post after post after post about 'badly sited' stations. His readers have proclaimed widely that Watts work has discredited the surface analyses. Such claims have been made in the comments on Watts own blog, where they must first be approved by Watts. He sometimes disavows those claims - but then he feeds them byposing another bad site post, and approving another batch of garbage comments on his blog.

What he is doing is taking raw 'data,' and presenting it in a way to encourage certain conclusions, and allowing people to post on his blog that conclusions have been reached - WITHOUT ALLOWING ANALYSES TO SEE IF THOSE IMPLIED CONCLUSIONS ARE VALID.

This is fundamentally unscientific and dishonest.

It's worse, even, than trying to hide the fact that he has failed his promises to revisit issues he was called on, by banning the person (me) who several months later asked politely when he was going to do so, and then going back and removing every post I had ever made, all of which he had previously approved.

He is simply not to be trusted.

Lee: The siting is improper because both of NOAA's stiting specs say it's improper. QED. What effect this has is being examined.

And what is this "not allow" thing? You want to do an analysis? Go to the gallery. Knock yourself out. Who's gonna stop you?

The pictures are there and so are the survey reports. In the case of virtual surveys with only the measurement view, those are a WIP and have the pertinent information for analysis printed on the maps in any event. There are a few with insufficient info (not counted in the 75% total).

It's only unscientific if you make claims based on data and methods that you won't release until subpoenaed by congress, or threatened with an FoA lawsuit, hem-hem. (But maybe we'd better not go there.)

At any rate, the data is there. Watts makes no claim about trend (the effect on offset is well established).

I do understand that you are mad at him. My guess is that perhaps you made him a little mad, too, as he accorded you a singular honor, so far as I know. Perhaps "politeness" is in the eye of the beholder? #B^1

Former Skeptic: You make a good, rational, non-pejorative argument.

As I said, I don't know who is right about UHI. I have looked at attacks on and defenses of both POVs and my mind isn't yet made up. I would not argue that wind has no effect on UHI.

But the LaDochy paper shows both offset and trend to be significantly greater in cities. And that is an empirical study that disputes Peterson's conclusions.

If you ask me, the effect on trend is probably more than 0.05C/century (The NOAA/USHCN-1 20th century adjustment), but that is only my guess.

I also read something about a Chinese station being relocated from upwind to downwind of a city (both rural settings)and showing significantly warmer results. But since there was no mention of microsite conditions I did not pay much attention to it at the time (and did not snag the link). I may come back to it later.

But what is equally important as simple effect is to what extent cities have grown around station sites, where station have been moved, and the effect this has on the trend and the ability to measure trend.

But bear in mind that all I said was that there was an ongoing dispute.

It's all so new, former skeptic. Climatology is immensely complex and until the global warming issue happened by, it was considered a "non-sexy" science with relatively low enrollment. I don't think you could even get a degree in climatology, as such, two decades ago. But now, it's a hot topic and enrollment has skyrocketed (I've read that it's 10X what it was a decade ago). So has study of the issue by both CO2-AGW advocates and skeptics, alike.

That means there is a lot of stuff, all contradictory, coming pouring out. But it's such a complex system with so many uncertainties and plain old unknowns, I don't think we have an answer yet. But it sure makes folks on both sides get very irrational, very quickly.

Aside from the data issues, what I think it comes down to more than anything, really, is whether the IPCC conclusions about CO2 positive feedback loops are correct. And there appear to be negative feedbacks not properly included in the IPCC AR4 calculations.

But that is all very speculative.

Station surveys I understand. If you include virtual surveys (which include a definitive satellite or birdseye spotting or curator interview for placement on satellite maps, or both), I may have made more of them than anyone else in the world, now that I think of it. 200, at last count.

Evan Jones:

Aside from the data issues, what I think it comes down to more than anything, really, is whether the IPCC conclusions about CO2 positive feedback loops are correct. And there appear to be negative feedbacks not properly included in the IPCC AR4 calculations.

Of course, for things like cloud feedback, the uncertainty is quite high and it could actually be negative. Because it is uncertain, the wise thing to do is to just assume that it is as negative as it could possibly be, much like the people at the casino who assume the numbers are always going to come up in their favor. That strategy works well for them and it will work well for us too.

Averaged rather flat? On the whole? What the heck is that supposed to mean?

That means that if you take the four major metrics (UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS) and average their trends from 1998 - 2008, the linear trend is about as flat as it gets.

"..a heat sink may well exaggerate a heating trend.."

Someone shoot me.

Hmmm. I think I shall torture you, instead.

A heat sink absorbs and reflects heat during the day, then at night it releases it. This shows up at both Tmax and Tmin. If you want to heat a greehnhouse and you want to be carbon-neutral about it, all you gotta do is place a (very big) rock in it, exposed to the sun. This spikes Tmax very nicely, and knocks the edge right off of Tmin.

In the Yilmaz experiment, we clearly see a steeper daily warming trend over concrete than over grass. Then, as it cools into nightfall, the downward trend is steeper.

Therefore, a warming trend is exaggerated by a heat sink, and a cooling trend is also exaggerated by a heat sink.

Cloud cover does seem to be the big question. The IPCC says we will see increasing humidity in the middle/upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, with increased high-level cloud cover.

But the AquaSat indicates that we instead have a significant increase in low-level clouds (which increases albedo)and a dessication of the middle/upper trop and lower strat, and no increase whatever of heat-trapping high-level clouds. This may have had a homeostasis effect over the last decade.

Pascal's Wager works fine for seatbelts. Buckle up even though you don't believe you are going to crash.

But I don't think it applies here. Pascal's Wager supposes that the cost of prevention is nothing, or near nothing. it also presupposes that what is being done will actually work if the danger is real. AGW-CO2 policy would seem to fall short of both these requirements.

Besides, why single out CO2? Why not also assume the worst for, say, particulates, population growth, plus every other environmental or demograpic factor? Why not call the cops and hospital every time you went out just in case you got robbed or hit by a car? Or contacted some dread disease? Or whatever? Should we triple the defense budget because we must "assume the worst" about being invaded? (Better be "safe" and quintuple it--we may have to fight a 7-ocean war.) Because if we did all that, we would be swamped with insurmountable "problems" requiring more wealth to "solve" than there is wealth on earth.

To say nothing of unintended consequences. (Ethanol springs to mind.)

But this is getting away from nice clean data integrity issues and into all those yucky policy issues . . .

So Pascal won't do. What we need is a cost-benefit analysis with a continual inflow of data and information as it becomes available.

"But I do not think the case has been made that there is an imminent emergency that requires precipitous action".

In other words, Evan, you are saying that humanity should continue experimenting with the atmosphere, as well as with terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems whose functioning we barely understand. Procrastinate. Procrastinate. Wait until 'all the data are in'. Yup, that sure is sound strategy for managing the global commons. Forgetting, of course, that these systems permit human to exist and persist by generating a range of vital services.

I am afraid that your caution will just see us push ourselves further and further down the self-created bottleneck we are already in. In case you hadn't noticed, every natural system across the biosphere is in decline; some rapidly, some more slowly. Climate change will probably be the final nail in the coffin. Estimates are that we have lost 30-40% of critical ecosystem services since about 1970.

Speaking as a senior scientist, your arguments are totally and utterly illogical with respect to policy. Science does not operate by consensus and never will. If you have the academic qualifications your purport to have, then you should understand this. There never will be 100% consensus on any environmental issue, not matter how much data are in. There will always be outliers. But public policy must be based on consensus. Otherwise nothing will ever change. There is certainly a strong enough consensus amongst the scientific community, and. most importantly, those doing the actual research on climate, to start making changes in ongoing policies. Yes there are some uncertainties, but if we continue to procrastinate as you are suggesting, then by the time the data are all in then it will be way, way, too late to do anything. Humanity already faces massive challenges just to ensure that our species will survive for the next 200 years, given the declining health of the biosphere. I think it is wholly irresponsible for those to argue that we must 'stay the course'. That course is a cliff. The quotes Tim Lambert mined from the lectures presented at the Heartland denialist pseudoscience bash are a disgrace and should disqualify these people from being taken seriously. But, given the fact that our political systems are largely beholden to commercial elites who think only about the next fiscal quarter (or perhaps 2 years ahead at the very most), these people will always be given veritable megaphones to spread their contrarian nonsense. It is up to the scientific community to counter them.

This may have had a homeostasis effect over the last decade.

Assume away, Evan. It works well for the people at the casino. There is very little likelihood that cloud feedback is negative overall and the probability decreases rapidly the more negative you assume it to be. You're not getting the point. The carbon emission choice is the high uncertainty, high risk choice with an average expectation that is quite undesirable.

Pascal's Wager works fine for seatbelts. Buckle up even though you don't believe you are going to crash.

What? You have obviously been misled but the expectation is that the earth is going to warm damagingly with continuing carbon emissions. i.e. we believe we are going to crash. Pascal's wager is not particularly accurate in these circumstances because the risk is substantial.

it also presupposes that what is being done will actually work if the danger is real.

This is the bizarre idea that not generating carbon emissions might actually cause the same warming as generating carbon emissions. I never cease to be amazed by the bizarre ideas that some people come up with.

Besides, why single out CO2?

No-one is singling out CO2. Please spare us the strawmen.

What we need is a cost-benefit analysis

This has been done.

with a continual inflow of data and information as it becomes available.

Obviously you forgot to mention a continual output of action.

Can we all just conclude that Evan Jones. like Anthony Watts, is an uneducated idiot and just ignore him?

He's not interested in learning, there's really no point. He's making the same argument he made in the past on other blogs. Anyone who more or less worships Watts as being some sort of climate science guru as Evan does isn't really worth your time.

Evan,

I'm not mad at Anthony. Amused and somewhat disgusted that anyone takes him seriously. The honor Anthony accorded me is far from singular. I am far from the only person banned from WattSoup.

You might try to ask him when he plans to either retract or follow up on the following, as he said he would do. That's what I did, asked when he was planning to do this, and it got me scrubbed from his site, all past posts included.
-----------------
"UPDATE: We have had about half a dozen people replicate from HadCRUT data the signal shown in figure 4 using FFT and traditional filters, and we thank everyone for doing that. We are currently working on a new approach to the correlations shown in figure 5, which can yield different results using alternate statistical methods. A central issue is how to correctly identify the peak of the solar cycle, and we are looking at that more closely. As it stands now, while the Hodrick-Prescott filtering works well and those results in figures 2,3, and 4 have been replicated by others, but the correlation shown in figure 5 is in question when a Rayleigh method is applied, and thus figure 5 is likely incorrect since it does not hold up under that and other statistical tests. There is also an error in the data point for cycle 11. I thank Tamino for pointing these issues out to us.

We are continuing to look at different methods of demonstrating a correlation. Please watch for future posts on the subject."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/30/evidence-of-a-significant-solar-i…
-----
and this:

"UPDATE1: Iâve decided to make this a 3 part series, as additional interest has been generated by commenters in looking at the data in more ways. Stay tuned for parts 2 and 3 and weâll examine this is more detail.

UPDATE2: I had mentioned that Iâd be looking at this in more detail in parts 2, and 3. However it appears many have missed seeing that portion of the original post and are saying that Iâve done an incomplete job of presenting all the information. I would agree for part1, but that is what parts 2 and 3 were to be about.

Since Iâm currently unable to spend more time to put parts 2 and 3 together due to travel and other obligations, Iâm putting the post back on the shelf (archived) to revisit again later when I can do more work on it, including show plots for adjusted base periods.

The post will be restored then along with the next part so that people have the benefit of seeing plots and histograms done on both ways. In part 3 Iâll summarize 1 and 2.

In the meantime, poster Basil has done some work on this of interest which you can see here.

UPDATE3: Part 2 is now online, please see it here."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/28/a-look-at-4-globaltemperature-ano…

BTW, part 2 has been taken down.

Evan Jones:

Take it from someone who has done published UHI research â Pielke et al are categorically wrong about canopy-layer UHI and wind-speeds. Several of us have the opinion that if RPSr. attempted to publish his 2005 paper in a specialized journal e.g Boundary-Layer Meteorology, he would have been soundly rejected.

As I said, I don't know who is right about UHI. I have looked at attacks on and defenses of both POVs and my mind isn't yet made up. I would not argue that wind has no effect on UHI.

Then why argue from ignorance? If you really do want to learn and find the answer on wind and UHI, read Okeâs 1987 textbook and his chapter on urban environments, or the Souch and Grimmond (2006) article above, or the Mills (2009) article in Progress in Physical Geography as well. And look, you canât say âitâs all speculativeâ and then throw in an opinion without attempting to understand the theory and published research beforehand, yeah?

But the LaDochy paper shows both offset and trend to be significantly greater in cities. And that is an empirical study that disputes Peterson's conclusions.

I know Steveâs work pretty well, as a matter of fact. We bump into each other in conferences on a regular basis. Which LaDochy paper are you referring to? The 2007 Climate Research one? Thereâs nothing in there that says anything about UHI and wind-speed...unless you are now shifting to talk about Peterson's (2003) paper? Similarly, I don't think Steve's paper explicitly "disputes" the previous conclusion; rather, they measure different things altogether (i.e. unadjusted vs. adjusted temperature time-series for one thing), yes?

Please let me know the reference, if you donât mind â Iâm pretty keen to see what the paper actually mentions.

True, but as per the IPCC AR4, it appears that Parkerâs 2006 paper is the final word on urban siting & trends for now, unless someone else has a radically better suggestion that makes sense.

Thatâs pretty impressive actually. There is a need for these metadata that would help urban climate research. But how that data are used and interpreted is another thing altogether, no?

Another quick question â have you (or anyone at surfacestations.org) attempted estimating the source area of temperature sensors (either the old-fashioned ones in CRSs or the newer instruments) located in urban areas that are either sheltered or un-sheltered?

Evan:

There is no recent cooling trend:

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Ball.html

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Reber.html

Evan Jones writes:

if you take the four major metrics (UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS) and average their trends from 1998 - 2008, the linear trend is about as flat as it gets.

Please read this carefully: "Climate is defined as mean regional or global weather over a period of 30 years or more." (World Meteorological Organization)

And then read my pages:

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Ball.html

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Reber.html

Bart, the denialist Gold Standard is now 11 years, rather than 10. They believe the world was created 11 years ago - in 1998.

PBL: Sorry, but ten years is all we have since 1998.

I think it makes more sense to look at oscillations from low point to high point, and vice versa.

Therfore I have no problem with examining the warming phase from 1979 - 1998 in isolation, even though it is less than 30 years. I think that it makes more sense to do so, regardless of the "30-years-equals-a-trend" rule.

After all, Dr. Hansen had no problem with judging the future based on a trend from 1979 to 1988, and, for that matter, neither do I.

If you want to look at the last 30 year, we see a rise for the first 20 years, and a flat-to-slight-decline thereafter. This coincides with a half-dozen multidecadal trends going from cold to warm over the first 20, remaining in warm phase for 10 years, and now, as the PDO switches to cool phase (with other cycles possibly to follow). I am also perfectly willing to consider that CO2 has an underlying effect, the magnitude being uncertain owing to of uncertainties regarding positive vs. negative feedback).

We have wheels within wheels, here. Not all the wheels are well understood (or even discovered, as of yet). Consider that when Dr. Hansen sounded the alarm, the multidecadal ceanic-atmospheric cycles not only had not been discovered, but would not be discovered for a decade after that.

BTW, for clarification, I consider myself a "lukewarmer". I believe there has been warming (though part of it may be an artifact of poor siting and poor adjustment). I do "deny", or at least consider it very unlikely, that there is an imminent emergency requiring the expenditure of over a third of world economic growth on an ongoing basis.

Evan Jones, people like you who insist on starting with 1998 are cherry pickers. That is completely junk science so you are a denier not a skeptic and not a "lukewarmer" but a dyed in the wool denier.

Go and learn some statistics and basic data handling.

Former Skeptic: I have to take it from both sides. My conclusion is that more study is required, to wit:

I am sure you have seen geographic graphs running over urban areas that show temperatures lower as they approach a UHI bubble, rise 'way up as they go over it, then decline once they are past it. What i think is that this has to be done on a year-round basis on a city (or cities) that are windy vs. cities that are not, and on a year-round basis and taking prevailing wind direction into account.

Please let me know the reference, if you donât mind â Iâm pretty keen to see what the paper actually mentions.

Unfortunately I don't have it. As best as I can recall, it came out of the flap that occurred around a year ago when the Chinese network was declared a-okay, but then it turned out it wasn't. (You may recall the incident.)

But how that data are used and interpreted is another thing altogether, no?

Gosh, yes.

I also think the NOAA and Hadley adjustment methods should be made available for independent review so that the results can be examined and replicated. At least the USHCN-1 methods were broken down into their components. The USHCN-2 page has a lot of verbiage, but no breakdown, and the adjustment is a third higher than USHCN-1.

If I am not mistaken, USHCN-1 claims a 0.6C increase and USHCN-2 claims a 0.72C warming trend over the 20th century. That is a significant difference and I would like to now how that comes about.

We do have the "lights = " and the "U/50" versions from NOAA and GISS. We also have the dates when the stations were converted from CRS to MMTS. (That's on a table somewhere on surfacestations.org, but I'm not sure where, as I work directly off a spreadsheet copy.)

Often, even usually, a CRS/MMTS involves a local station move, and based on my interviews with curators vs. MMS records, these moves are often not documented. This, of course, makes analysis somewhat difficult. Sometimes the conversion occurs when the curators are changed ("ingested" and "reactivated" in their quaint idiom).

But often, as at Stroudsburg, NOAA makes the conversion without a change of curators: No mention whatever is made of the localized site change either in the "updates" or the "Location" section of the NCDC/MMS database.

Sorry, but ten years is all we have since 1998.

2008-1998 is eleven years.

I think it makes more sense to look at oscillations from low point to high point, and vice versa.

This is the very *definition* of cherry-picking.

Evan Jones, people like you who insist on starting with 1998 are cherry pickers. That is completely junk science so you are a denier not a skeptic and not a "lukewarmer" but a dyed in the wool denier.

I do not insist. I merely suggest that trends, regardless of length, be judged from low point to high, and from high point to low. As for labels, I am not afraid of words. I am the sum total of my arguments, whatever that is. Pick your terminology.

Go and learn some statistics and basic data handling.

. . . said Wegman to Mann . . .

(Not so well received by the latter.)

Which LaDochy paper are you referring to? The 2007 Climate Research one? Thereâs nothing in there that says anything about UHI and wind-speed

The December one. Recent California climate variability: spatial and temporal patterns in temperature trends (not the one sod cited). It doesn't measure cause, but effect. He notes that urban areas have a significantly steeper trend (at Tmax and esp. at Tmin) when comparing urban vs. rural stations.

He does not appear to consider wind, per se, or microsite effects either, for that matter. He just looks at the data itself as compared with varying mesosite.

. . . said Wegman to Mann . . .
(Not so well received by the latter.)

Professionals quibbling over obscure technicalities which, as it turns out, have zero impact on the result of the statistical analysis are in no way comparable to what you're doing, which is to suggest we toss everything ever learned by anyone about statistical analysis in the toilet.

And to then replace all statistical analysis with cherry-picking.

You're even stupider than I thought.

This is the very definition of cherry-picking.

Only if you pick one cherry. Not if you consider all, including 1979 - 1998.

It makes little sense to study a given trend in any other fashion other then, well, the beginning and end point of the trend.

I am the sum total of my arguments...

In other words, you're a zero.

dhogaza: Coming from you, that is a mild compliment.

Only if you pick one cherry. Not if you consider all, including 1979 - 1998.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

dhogaza: Coming from you, that is a mild compliment.

You're right, f***wad is more accurate.

which is to suggest we toss everything ever learned by anyone about statistical analysis in the toilet.

Such as the "getting rid of" the MWP? #B^1

You're right, f*wad is more accurate.

See Anon., et al, (trad.) Rubber and Glue)

In other words, you're a zero.

. . . he says as he goes negative.

Evan opines:
"This is the very definition of cherry-picking.

Only if you pick one cherry. Not if you consider all, including 1979 - 1998.

It makes little sense to study a given trend in any other fashion other then, well, the beginning and end point of the trend."

Evan, conduct this little thought experiment. Go back through the surface temperature data for the last 150 years, start at the beginning,a nd step through it in order one year at a time. Fro each year, imagining yo are actually in that year and don't have any subsequent data - How many of those years will be 'declining trends' based on your "its ok to cherry pick' methodology.

for the simplest "method" - that of simply comparing the current year to the previous high year, the answer will be "almost all of the years are in declining trends" The only yeas in which you would admit an increasing trend are the years in which there is actually a new record set.

Even if you do the somewhat more acceptable strategy o9f using trend lines, yo will still get a strong majority of 'declining trend" years, simply because you will always be cherry picking a high year to start from.

And this despite the fact that the data overall shows substantial increase over that time period.

THIS is what is wrong with your refusal to follow even basic statistical rules about data analysis.
--
BTW, Evan - have you asked Watts yet when he's going to get around to following up on his "GISS is skewed" and "covariance of ordered sets" posts? Given that he promised those followups a full year ago now?

The sick thing is that this Watts seems to think Evan is a valuable contributor. But we know Watts is as ignorant of statistics as Evan so I guess it's a marriage made in heaven, eh?

Evan: "He notes that urban areas have a significantly steeper trend (at Tmax and esp. at Tmin) when comparing urban vs. rural stations."

Evan, why one earth do you think that the surface trend analyses - GISS and HADCRUT - correct urban trends to those of neighboring non-urban stations?
They are there specifically because the study authors recognize a potential contaminant from urban effects, and try to correct for it.

This is why JohnV's analysis mattered. It showed the the corrections work, at least based on preliminary analysis.

Watts has JohnV's code. He could have - trivially easy - automated a process that would have given real-time updates in the analysis as more stations were added. He refused to do so. Watts has met his (preciously arbitrary) 75% threshold now. He could, trivially easily, repeat the JohnV analysis with all the extant stations. I suspect it would take about an hour, given that he already has all the station data in hand.

Instead, he has specifically asked people to leave it alone "until he publishes."

Evan, Watts could have his analysis up this evening, available for comment, starting work on it right now, if he really meant to do so.

But he has a history of hiding from issues and breaking promises to consider his analyses, when it doesn't favor him to do so. Until I see otherwise, I'll continue to believe that is what he is doing now that his convenient (didn't reach it until after the last denialist confab) 75% rule has been met.

The honor Anthony accorded me is far from singular. I am far from the only person banned from WattSoup.

Very few have (and are subject to redemption). However, I believe you are the only case of retroactive deletion.

Instead, he has specifically asked people to leave it alone "until he publishes."

But as the data is publicly archived, you are under no actual compulsion to comply.

And the reverse applies if looking at it from 1979 - 1998. To which I have no objection, whatsoever. Looking at each trend separately is valid. I would go so far as to say conflating them (without also eyeballing them separately) is less valid.

The only yeas in which you would admit an increasing trend are the years in which there is actually a new record set.

No, I merely think that examining trends from beginning to end is the best way to interpret a trend. If you look at them all--and the overall--I don't think that can be characterized as cherrypicking.

Evan, why one earth do you think that the surface trend analyses - GISS and HADCRUT - correct urban trends to those of neighboring non-urban stations? They are there specifically because the study authors recognize a potential contaminant from urban effects, and try to correct for it.

They do, but the correction is very trivial. If you look at the specifics, almost as many cities have an "urban cooling" adjustment as a "global warming" adjustment.

What we would like is the full set of adjustment procedures to be made publicly available so they can be replicated.

Until I see otherwise, I'll continue to believe that is what he is doing now that his convenient (didn't reach it until after the last denialist confab) 75% rule has been met.

Before.

A nit-pick, true, but since my own work pushed him over the top before the conference I will, with some satisfaction, point that out.

gaaaahhhh!!!!!!

I freaking know better.

"Looking at each trend separately is valid. I would go so far as to say conflating them (without also eyeballing them separately) is less valid."
"No, I merely think that examining trends from beginning to end is the best way to interpret a trend. If you look at them all"

Even, look at them all WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?! What are your criteria for identifying the 'beginning' and 'end' of a 'trend?' "Eyeballing" them? What statistical analysis do you use to test whether that is actually a unique inflection point in the data, a change from what was before to what was after? What do you have other than pulling periods out of your posterior?

And do you realize that your comments display an appalling ignorance of basic statistical concepts?

---
"What we would like is the full set of adjustment procedures to be made publicly available so they can be replicated."

Oh, good god. Dude, the papers are out there, the code is available for download.

Dude, the papers are out there, the code is available for download.

In fact, JohnV's Open Temps code is a rewrite that replicates the functionality but in a more readable, better structured way.

That's what JohnV does - replicates the GISS adjustments to raw data.

Handy reference to JohnV's description of what he was up to.

Note, Evan, where he states "then NASA released the code ...", which is what triggered his rewrite.

Evan Jones (#186) : "..a heat sink may well exaggerate a heating trend.."

Point is, not enough to make a significant jot of difference to the big picture, not even in the 1.6% of the Earth's surface covered by continental USA.

By the way, I admire you use of the term "trend" to decribe the change in temperature beween day and night. Excellent stuff. And here was I thinking 11 years was a tad short. 12 hours. Way to go Evan.

Now please stop torturing me and go back to torturing the temperature data.

If you bothered to address the Yilmaz study you might get somewhere.

Furthermore, I have said (repeatedly) that more study needs to be done under surface station conditions. This seems to have raised a lot of objections. One wonders why.

"then NASA released the code ..."

That was FILNET, only. And it was a non-working FORTRAN dump with no operating manuals. Mac & Co. finally got it running, but they can't reproduce NASA's results. We are still waiting for the ability to reproduce NASA's full adjustment.

What are your criteria for identifying the 'beginning' and 'end' of a 'trend?'

Well, the 20th century trends are pretty obvious, either for the US or the ROW. You should have very little trouble seeing them.

And do you realize that your comments display an appalling ignorance of basic statistical concepts?

Suggesting that to understand a trend, one should judge it from beginning to end does all that? Okay.

Can we all just conclude that Evan Jones. like Anthony Watts, is an uneducated idiot and just ignore him?

Hmm. If only everyone who thinks I am an uneducated idiot would ignore me. If only . . .

What can I say other than that I heartily endorse this suggestion?

(Well, I can dream, can't I?)

Can we all just conclude that Evan Jones. like Anthony Watts, is an uneducated idiot and just ignore him?

Hmm. If only everyone who thinks I am an uneducated idiot would ignore me. If only . . .

What can I say other than that I heartily endorse this suggestion?

(Well, I can dream, can't I?)

BTW, if you want to "recreate" GISS data, starting with NOAA raw data won't do.

In case you weren't aware, GISS starts with NOAA data, applies a "deadjustment" algorithm (which does not yield the same result as NOAA raw data), and then goes on from there.

And it was a non-working FORTRAN dump with no operating manuals.

Bullshit. It was their FORTRAN code which denialists bitched about because "we can't figure out how to compile it".

That's totally different than saying "it's non-working FORTRAN code". Obviously, the code works at GISS.

You're such a fucking liar.

Hmm. If only everyone who thinks I am an uneducated idiot would ignore me. If only . .

Note that nothing you have done has had any impact on actual science. The real kind, the peer-reviewed, published kind.

You get attention in the blogosphere because people hope to educate your double-digit IQ mind.

Not because anyone thinks that anything you're doing is interesting from a scientific POV.

Suggesting that to understand a trend, one should judge it from beginning to end does all that? Okay.

Stupid, because in science "trend" means something of statistical significance. Obviously, a priori choosing of start and end points is arbitrary, which is the definition of cherry picking, and totally in opposition to everything statistics tells us about analyzing of data.

Of course, if Evan Jones is right, not only will climate science be overturned, but *all* of science will be overturned.

My MacBook pro will be turned to dust, because the mighty Evan has proven that everything that modern science depends on has been overturned ...

Fat chance of that, dude.

What can I say other than that I heartily endorse this suggestion?

No worries, serious science ignores Watts, and even more so, ignores you.

Your fame is limited to a very small slice of the blogosphere.

I actually see no evidence that anyone outside Watts thinks you're even worth listening to in the denialsphere.

I'd say you don't have to worry too much about exceeding Warhol's 15 minutes of fame.

But you've certainly exceeded 15 minutes of ridicule and insult.

Because you're deserving of both.

Science will continue to move forward long after your anti-science, denialist crap has been forgotten.

Note that nothing you have done has had any impact on actual science. The real kind, the peer-reviewed, published kind.

Well, I have developed certain methods and techniques for virtual surveys which may have some future utility. And I expect that the data I have assembled will be used in at least one peer-reviewed paper. As for its lasting impact, if any, I wouldn't know.

It was their FORTRAN code which denialists bitched about because "we can't figure out how to compile it".

Well, they did figure it out eventually, of course. (Something I think Dr. Hansen believed they would be unable or unwilling to do.) They also made the most amazing discoveries about it. But I assume you would be aware of all that.

On the other hand, GISS has a disconcerting way of changing their metadata without announcement, so I suppose that whatever code they were using in June 2007 may have been altered by now.

I was most suspicious of SHAP, at first. How they got a positive adjustment trend out of that is something that eludes me. (I have never gotten an answer to that one. Perhaps someone will care to explain it to me some day.) And FILNET has proven to be most amusing. But I am holding out hope that the homogenization procedure (which would seem to involve a spot of pasteurization) may yet provide the best entertainment of all.

And who knows what may be lurking in those TOBS calculations? It is certainly a valid and necessary adjustment. yet I find myself becoming more and more interested in the actual execution thereof.

Your fame is limited to a very small slice of the blogosphere.

My word. I had no idea I had any fame in any slice of the blogosphere, whatever. Why, thank you for your kind words!

As for the rest, I can only ardently wish that as many people as possible read what both of us have to say and come to their own conclusions.

but there were lots of sites that were close enough to tree lines and bushed that they were obviously going to be in the shadows part of the day, and obviously were in some of the photos.

COOP still uses a min-max/2 measurement (we are SO stone-age). So what the NOAA COOP requires is that the sensor be unshaded to the south (which would shade it even at noon). Otherwise, if the sensor is unshaded at Tmax time (usually not too long after noon), the question is entirely moot.

This, of course, does not even take into account those near enough significant transpiring veg that they would be cooled.

Yes, but there are not too many with that problem. And those that are usually have warming biases, as well. Check it out. Also, at night, a canopy can trap heat, affecting Tmin. That is GISS's excuse for applying an "urban cooling" [sic] adjustment in parts of South America.

Actually I have been strictly differentiating offset and trend, throughout. Had you not noticed this? After all, I would be "another idiot" had I not been very careful to do so. #B^1

Actually, when one calls someone an idiot for making a basic error, one should check more carefully to make sure he is actually committing the error--as opposed to punctiliously and explicitly avoiding the error. (Sheesh.) Not to do so would be, er, um, careless, as it were. However I remain confident that, as a professional, you meant no offense, whatever.

Yes, we know that a heat sink may seriously affect the offset.

The Big Question is if/how much it affects the trend.

The Yilmaz data very clearly indicates that it does. It certainly requires further study. There seems to be much objection to this, for an unknown (or at least unstated) reason.

However, having said all that, undocumented station moves (as exemplified by the MMTS debacle) or even nearby construction may well have resulted in offsets getting mixed into the NOAA data and affecting the measured trend, creating a spurious warming effect. Sometimes even documented site moves create serious step-changes, obvious to any observer, yet that somehow manage to appear in the post-adjustment data. Take the USHCN Champas, NM, site, for example (or Lampasas, TX).

(BTW, did you know that a Nimbus unit can seriously dud out on you if you touch it and create a static-electric shock? I have had more than one complaint about that. You should probably alert your brethren on that score.)

Evan Jones writes:

It makes little sense to study a given trend in any other fashion other then, well, the beginning and end point of the trend.

It's not a trend. A trend has to be statistically significant. You don't have enough data points for that.

Read it again: "Climate is defined as mean regional or global weather over a period of 30 years or more."

You are taking a small jog in the data that seems to lead to the conclusion you want and isolating it to prove your point. That's not legitimate. You have to use all the points, not just the ones that support the conclusion you want. And you have to have enough to draw statistically valid conclusions.

There is no cooling trend. There is no flat trend. A trend has to be statistically significant. If it isn't it is not a trend.

Well, they did figure it out eventually, of course. (Something I think Dr. Hansen believed they would be unable or unwilling to do.

Evan, at times you are unwittingly funny as hell.

On the other hand, GISS has a disconcerting way of changing their metadata without announcement, so I suppose that whatever code they were using in June 2007 may have been altered by now.

This is unwittingly funny as well ...

Let's see ...

Evan believes that the GISS algorithms designed to generate a useful global temperature product aren't capable of doing so because well, he's got photos to prove it.

Then he bitches because perhaps GISS is improving those algorithms and the code which executes them ...

I do object to making an unannounced change without explaining why. If an adequate explanation is made, then fine.

(And of course, the "improvements" have always been to cool the past and leave the present as is, thus increasing the warming trend.)

And I have also made it clear that we do not know if the photos affect the trend or if the data is invalid. Only that the bad siting means that the issue requires study. As does the station move issue.

You realize that no one is going to pay any attention to what you say if you so badly distort what others are saying?

I do object to making an unannounced change without explaining why. If an adequate explanation is made, then fine.

(And of course, the "improvements" have always been to cool the past and leave the present as is, thus increasing the warming trend.)

You realize that no one is going to pay any attention to what you say if you so badly distort what others are saying?

BPL: I understand your objection.

The last three phases have all been less than 30 years. The current phase is only a decade old, the previous phase was only around twenty, and the one before that around twenty-five.

In 1988, Dr. Hansen did not see fit to restrict himself to the 30-year rule, nor in my opinion should he have. You have to call them as you see them, as indeed Dr. Hanson did. I think he was probably wrong, but I don't object to his timeframe.

I suggest the 30-year rule is arbitrary and likely to yield a poorer understanding of climate. For example, I think one learns far more by isolating the c. 20-year warming from the late 1970s to 1998 from the previous cooling and subsequent flat periods. We care, primarily, about what made the temperatures rise during that period.

(As the meaning of "flat trend" is quite clear and everyone, including you, know what I mean by it, I will continue to employ the term and beg your indulgence.)

Evan, at times you are unwittingly funny as hell.

You are one up on me, then. You never once fail to amuse.

he's got photos to prove it.

One wonders what you might be saying in the absence of those inconvenient photos, of course . . .

I have also made it clear that we do not know if the photos affect the trend

Well, I've never seen a photo warm enough to affect even the weather ...

In 1988, Dr. Hansen did not see fit to restrict himself to the 30-year rule, nor in my opinion should he have

And, please, quit misrepresenting Hansen's 1988 testimony.

Evan Jones:

And as I have said, check the references listed in my previous posts â these near-surface UHI surveys have been done for numerous cities world-wide under different wind conditions, and have shown that there is a noticeable decrease in UHI intensity with higher wind-speeds. The empirical evidence shows that:

(a.) Pielke and Matsuiâs 2005 paper has no empirical proof in urban stations sited in the roughness sub-layer/urban canopy layer, and;

(b.) Parkerâs 2004 and 2006 papers (showing that UHI from âurbanâ siting and from urban growth/encroachment has, for all intents, no impact on the global surface T record since there is no statistical difference in trends in calm vs. windy conditions) make theoretical sense.

Look, not to be as snarky like the others are here (even though I can clearly see why they are), but your repeated calls that âmore study is requiredâ would hold more water if you do actually read the literature out there and understand it.

Thank you for your answer about my source areas question, but I think you misunderstood me. I was asking whether there is information in surfacestations.org showing whether anyone estimated the areal size around the temperature sensor which it measures. Yes, itâs certainly important to document the micro-site conditions, but has anyone examined the range of influence of thermometers under different stability conditions? Perhaps this point, rather than how âbadly-sitedâ the sensors are, is the key issue here.

And yes, thatâs the LaDochy study I was referring to (the one published in Climate Research). And as I said, where does it explicitly dispute Petersonâs conclusions? Steveâs group analyzed unadjusted data while Peterson looked at data adjusted for elevation, MMTS vs. CRS, rooftop siting, latitude etc. Clear case of apples vs. oranges here â thereâs a big difference in method â did you actually notice it when reading the paper? While the LaDochy findings are somewhat interesting, especially their correlation with PDO, it lacks the spatial scope of Petersonâs study, and it does not examine trends with respect to wind-speed. IMO Steveâs paper could have made a better argument if they had looked at the dT/dt for windy vs. calm conditions, but thatâs a moot point.

there is a noticeable decrease in UHI intensity with higher wind-speeds. The empirical evidence shows that.

I am not arguing that it does not. It is purely a matter of degree.

Yes, itâs certainly important to document the micro-site conditions, but has anyone examined the range of influence of thermometers under different stability conditions? Perhaps this point, rather than how âbadly-sitedâ the sensors are, is the key issue here.

No I don't know. The actual science is being done by others. And yes, perhaps stability issues might prove to be far more key that microsite conditions. Or might station moves (either undocumented or documented yet ignored). Or faulty adjustment procedures. Or (etc.)

Look, not to be as snarky like the others are here (even though I can clearly see why they are),

Music to my ears. (Eyes?) The effect is acute self-immolation, though they don't seem to catch on.

but your repeated calls that âmore study is requiredâ would hold more water if you do actually read the literature out there and understand it.

I am trying to get a rough handle an many aspects. I can't study every aspect. The "basic literature" on any small aspect of climate is worth an MS all by it's lonesome. And there are a huge number of "small aspects". So I am doing what I can to juggle.

But I outline what I mean by a practical approach to "more study" for UHI, below, and it simply can't be answered by the basic literature.

And as I said, where does it explicitly dispute Petersonâs conclusions?

Starkly, but quite indirectly: i.e., via its conclusions.

Peterson maintains the UHI effect is relatively insignificant. To the best of my recollections, LaDochy's observations indicate that the delta-Tmax is double and the delta-Tmin is quintuple for urban areas as it is for rural areas.

I am not saying who is right and who is wrong. Which leads to my next point.

And I did rough out the "required study" that would clear up the issue, empirical though it may be.

To flesh out the detail:

--Select a sample of cities with a variety of conditions. Windy, non-windy, desert, jungle, tundra, agricultural, sheltered, open, whatever. Mix and matich. You'd know what to pick better than I.

--Use surface level sensors, as we are primarily interested in UHIE on the USHCN network. (This is important.)

--Sensors would be placed at varying points in the cities, and outside (upwind, downwind, and crosswind).

--You'd need maybe a hundred sensors. Maybe 200, depending on your sample size. Standard-issue MMTS units would be preferable, but it might be more practical to use the self-contained, fully automated (and much cheaper) stuff. Those
In quantity you could probably snag those for maybe $100 to $300 per unit.

Also, cheaper, better equipment would allow both hourly measurements and a Tmax/Tmin calculation. And they store the data automatically, so no need for daily readings and (joy of joys) no missing records. (25% or more of USHCN data is AWOL and has to be handed over to the tender mercies of FILNET, which, for an unknown reason, adds a whoppingly large warming adjustment using USHCN-1. No mas!) So long as the equipment is compatible, you'd probably get more experimental bang for the buck than by going the non-MMTS/Nimbus route.

--Run the experiment for at least a full year (for obvious reasons), making sure the stations were properly maintained and that the microsite remains constant.

This begs theory, atmospheric layers, what have you, and measures UHI effect the same way the GHCN does. In your face, down and dirty, and strictly empirical.

Then we will find out how UHI affects temperature offsets and trends, and what the UHI adjustment should be. Nothing else will tell really us. Not Peterson. Not LaDochy.

That's the "more study" I think needs to be done.

Funding, anyone? #B^1

but your repeated calls that âmore study is requiredâ would hold more water if you do actually read the literature out there and understand it.

Another of Evan's charming attributes is a historical tendency to read a paper then totally misunderstand and/or misrepresent the results. A bit like those creationists who cite research into evolutionary biology as evidence that evolution is impossible.

Evan's charming attributes

Awwww, you old softie, you. Still trying to butter me up!

Keep adding. (Maybe you'll even make hominem someday.)

Evan Jones said: "As the meaning of "flat trend" is quite clear and everyone, including you, know what I mean by it, I will continue to employ the term."

Your middle name wouldn't happen to be "Dunning" or "Kruger" would it?

Your posts are ideal examples for any high school student wishing to write an easy on the D-K syndrome.

Former Skeptic: Have you seen the Ren et al. (2008) paper on UHI in Northern China? Based on urban vs. rural station trends, it estimates UHIE to be c. 1.2C/century.

Come to think of it, Ren jibes pretty well with LaDochy.

(I believe they both use GHCN-adjusted rather than raw data, so the difference might be on top of UHI adjustment.)

Yes, they suggest that the true warming in this part of china has been 0.8C since 1950.

Real proof that AGW isn't happening, eh, Evan?

Evan suggests that the 'trends' i teh record are obviosu by "eyeballing"

Let me give it a shot, using Evan's suggestion. I'll do just 1990 - now, to make it easier.

1990 - 1992 - down trend
1992 - 1995 - up trend
1995 - 1996 - down trend
1996 - 1998 - up trend
1998 - 1999 - down trend
1999 - 2000 - gee, this must be what Evan means when he ays everyone know what he means by a flat trend.
2000 - 2002 - up trend
2002 - 2003 - down rend
2003 - 2004 - up trend
2004 - 2005 - down trend
2005 - 2006 - up trend, but almost 'flat'
2006 - 2007 - down trend.

Clearly, every up trend is followed by a down trend, and every down trend is followed by an up trend, so there cant be any warming. Or cooling. QED.

Gee, this is fun, Evan. Why did I waste all that time trying to understand the basics of time series analysis, when this is so much easier and more productive.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Clearly, every up trend is followed by a down trend, and every down trend is followed by an up trend, so there cant be any warming. Or cooling. QED.

I never suggested that, of course. Obviously not all trends are created equal. I do think there has been a mild warming. (Probably not as much as the IPCC, NOAA, or GISS suggest.)

Evan Jones (#186) : "..a heat sink may well exaggerate a heating trend.."

Nope. A heat sink will either act to throw away heat, thus lowering temperatures in your system. I think you mean a system with a large heat capacity. This will act to dampen the overall temperature swings. As heat is input, the extra heat capacity absorbs the energy and warms slowly. When the heat is removed, the large heat capacity will slowly give up heat and slow cooling.

So your statement is completely wrong.

Yes, they suggest that the true warming in this part of china has been 0.8C since 1950.

Ren suggests that UHI effect alone has increased the warming tend measurements by 0.1C/decade since 1960.

Even Phil Jones agrees, in the case of Northern China.

So your statement is completely wrong.

You are confusing the tactical with the strategic.

Take a black tar driveway. It does not produce heat. What it does is soak up joules during the day as well as reflecting.

The reflection increases Tmax. As night falls, heat is released, just as you say. And at Tmin it is still being released, thus exaggerating Tmin.

The greater the warming, the greater the disparity. Therefore, quite apart from the offset effect, a heat sink exaggerates a warming trend. But there has to be a warming trend in the first place to exaggerate.

It also exaggerates a cooling trend, as the effect undoes itself. Thus, I suspect the cooling over the last couple of years has been exaggerated by heat sink effect.

It works in both directions.

I mean "thus reducing Tmin".

Increasing Tmin?

I mean making it hotter.

baaaahahahahaaahaha...

Evan disputes my tongue in cheek 'conclusion' from parsing of an 18 year time series into 12 distinct 'trends,' but has nothing to say about the parsing into trends in itself..

Folks, this is D-K committed at a level that can only be called genius.

Evan Jones writes:

The last three phases have all been less than 30 years. The current phase is only a decade old, the previous phase was only around twenty, and the one before that around twenty-five.

In 1988, Dr. Hansen did not see fit to restrict himself to the 30-year rule, nor in my opinion should he have. You have to call them as you see them, as indeed Dr. Hanson did. I think he was probably wrong, but I don't object to his timeframe.

I suggest the 30-year rule is arbitrary and likely to yield a poorer understanding of climate. For example, I think one learns far more by isolating the c. 20-year warming from the late 1970s to 1998 from the previous cooling and subsequent flat periods. We care, primarily, about what made the temperatures rise during that period.

You just don't get it, do you? It's not a question of choosing whatever period appeals to you. Whether a relationship is statistically significant or not is something that can be MEASURED. You do it with ten years of annual climate data and you get "INSIGNIFICANT." Capiche?

Allow me to show you the actual tests:

YearAnomSlopep
19880.1800.0200.000
19890.1030.0210.000
19900.2540.0200.000
19910.2120.0230.000
19920.0610.0250.000
19930.1050.0220.002
19940.1710.0190.011
19950.2750.0160.044
19960.1370.0160.092
19970.3510.0070.424
19980.5460.0050.643
19990.2960.0170.084
20000.2700.0120.279
20010.409-0.0030.618
20020.464-0.0120.095
20030.473-0.0170.116
20040.447-0.0200.270
20050.482-0.0400.179
20060.422-0.0200.000
20070.402

The third column is the slope of the relationship between temperature anomaly and elapsed time in years. The fourth column is the significance, there is a chance of less than the figure indicated that the relationship is due to chance. The usual criterion statisticians use is p < 0.05 or "95% confidence." By that criterion, 1998-2007 is no better than flipping a coin. You don't even start to get significance until you start in 1995 (N = 13), and when you do that all the slopes are significant positive (warming). 2006-2007 is "trivially significant" because there are only two points and any linear fit will always be perfect.

1998-2008 tells you nothing meaningful about climate. Nothing. Nada. Zip. It's not enough information. I'm not saying this to be mean or because I don't want it to be enough. I'm saying it because I ran the regression and it came out statistically insignificant. You can do it too. The anomalies are Hadley Centre CRU, not NASA GISS. Plug the numbers into Excel and run the regression yourself.

Evan at 256: Nope, you are now confusing "heat sink" with absorber. Look at the situation when you add a tar driveway near a thermometer. During the day, the black surface will absorb visible light, turn it into heat, heat air nearby and radiate in IR. It is not "reflecting" heat to make you feel hot. It probably will increase Tmax because it is physically absorbing energy right there and heating up. It is not a significant heat capacity though, and as the sun goes down, it will efficiently cool. The same things that make it good at heating the local area (i.e. black, large surface area) also make it good at cooling to the ambient temperature. It probably won't affect Tmin. If the black surface were over a swimming pool, which has a large heat capacity, then you might affect Tmin.

In any case, how would this create a trend? If I put in a driveway, that takes a day. The next day, my thermometer might read 2 deg hotter than it would without the driveway. But it's not going to read 3 degrees hotter 10 years from now. It will be the same driveway, with the same affect, with the same offset.

It sounds like you are misusing the term "heat sink" and "trend".

Okay, call it "absorber", The effect is what it is.

In any case, how would this create a trend?

A fair question. The greater the difference between Tmax and Tmin, the greater the effect. So when temperatures actually do get warmer, the effect is magnified and added to the total. The greater the actual warming, the greater the spurious warming effect.

The reverse, of course, applies to a cooling trend.

So both warming and cooling trends are magnified.

I know you are not. You have been civil and reasonable, throughout.

Perhaps I am disputing that a decade of "weather" is statistically insignificant. And I may well be wrong.

I certainly do not consider the 20 year warming period from 1979 - 1998 to be insignificant (nor do most AGW advocates). Perhaps I am wrong there, also.

But there appear to be statistically significant drivers with half-cycles shorter than 30 years. So if the 30-year rule is indeed correct, it leaves us in a very awkward position when we try to evaluate it.

Would you suggest looking at it from high point to high point from the 1930s to 1998 as compared with low point to low point from the mid-1950s to 2009? The trouble being that the current cooling--whatever--may not have spun out its course yet; it could end tomorrow or go on for decades.

If you take the last 30 years (discounting for Pinatubo), there has been a warming trend, but a rather mild one.

BTW, if it turns out that poor siting creates uncertainties that create an error bar of, say 2C, what would that mean for the significance of the 20th century (post-adjustment) warming trend, as estimated (a trend of 0.006C - 0.008C per year)?

Bearing in mind that the adjustment is NOT negative, but +0.3 to +0.4 degrees per century?

Evan Jones :

If you take the last 30 years (discounting for Pinatubo), there has been a warming trend, but a rather mild one.

Pull the other one.

Perhaps I am disputing that a decade of "weather" is statistically insignificant. And I may well be wrong.

In other words ... I have a definition of trend that I think scientist should adopt, but I don't know enough statistics to determine if a decade of weather is statisticallly significant or not.

In other words, I'm an idiot, but I'm still going to overturn all of climate science.

Evan Jones is a tard.

dhogaza: You do realize how much you are embarrassing to those who agree with you on AGW?

(Don't worry, though, you others, I'll overlook it. I won't allow him to rub off on you. Besides, I find him almost endearing.)

Chris O'Neill: You, on the other hand, merit a civilized response.

First, please bear in mind that I do believe there has been warming. I also believe there is a CO2 fingerprint. It's all a mater of degree.

GISS has made itself a bit of an outlier out of itself, as of late. (We can spitball over their recent readjustments if you'd like.) But going by the other three (Hadley, UAH, RSS), using adjusted data, what we've had is around +0.6C (on the high side) from 1979 - 1998 and a giveback of maybe 0.1C since then. Pretty much the same trend as 1915 to 1945, which was without much CO2 increase, depending on your proxy.

These are comparable curves because they both begin at the start of warming trends. We are also stipulating that the adjustments are correct (the raw data + TOBS works even better for my argument).

Definitely warming trends, but not exactly setting off any fire alarms. And the curve is currently humping towards the cool side, not headed the other way at present.

If we are going to hit that +3.5C by 2100, we'd better get a move on. We have only 90 years to gain that 3.6C. We'll need +0.4C/decade for that, and we've been doing well under half that for the last three decades.

It all comes down to whether that CO2-positive feedback loops theory actually works out. (So far the Aqua Satellite sees the opposite effect, but those results are still preliminary. Dare I say that more study is required?)

Evan Jones:

No I don't know. The actual science is being done by others.

Thanks for clarifying. I have my doubts that this is truly the case â but the fact that nothing has been seen in the literature to confirm this issue is telling. I still fail to see why so much effort is spent by Watts and co. on documenting microsites when this issue of instrument source area under different stabilities is, IMO, a more important issue. For one thing, itâll tell you the extent (10 yard radius? 100 yards? 500 yards?) to which you should document the site conditions.

Doesn't it feel tiring to juggle so much? Why not get an MS on climate/micro-met then? Itâll help you to learn some of the theory that you appear not to read up on. Or try to publish something on this in a reputable peer-reviewed journal rather than on a website or blog? For one thing, these steps will make you realize some of the errors that you are making.

And as I said, where does it explicitly dispute Petersonâs conclusions?

Starkly, but quite indirectly: i.e., via its conclusions.

OK, unless my English is screwed up...how does this sentence make sense? Starkly but indirectly?

There is nothing in Steveâs conclusions that directly or explicitly contradicts Petersonâs paper. Why? see below. Once again, have you read the paper?

Peterson maintains the UHI effect is relatively insignificant. To the best of my recollections, LaDochy's observations indicate that the delta-Tmax is double and the delta-Tmin is quintuple for urban areas as it is for rural areas.

Thereâs the rub. As Iâve said above â the two papers are comparing apples with oranges. If Steve's group had applied the T adjustments that Peterson made, they would not have such a large dTmin/dt.

For the last time, have you read the paper and tried to understand it? Or did you just read a cherry-picked summary that I've seen posted on blogs?

In any case, there is a chance I'll meet Steve LaDochy next week. Iâll definitely raise this issue with him.

But I outline what I mean by a practical approach to "more study" for UHI, below, and it simply can't be answered by the basic literatureâ¦And I did rough out the "required study" that would clear up the issue, empirical though it may be...To flesh out the detail:(edit)

And as I said, there are studies in the urban climate literature that have (largely) done what you suggest. E.g. Jerome Fast in Phoenix, Kathy Runnalls in Vancouver, IngegÃ¤rd Eliasson in Sweden, Winston Chow in Singapore etc. It helps to read the stuff out there.

Then we will find out how UHI affects temperature offsets and trends

And as I said â these folks found that near-surface UHI does âgo with the wind.â David Parker used this to show that globally, the UHI has insignificant effect on SAT record trend since 1950.

Evan Jones:

Have you seen the Ren et al. (2008) paper on UHI in Northern China? Based on urban vs. rural station trends, it estimates UHIE to be c. 1.2C/century.

I have. And sadly, it is fundamentally flawed for one reason:

They do not analyze minimum temperatures.

If you want to study UHI, you have to examine nocturnal T â not mean T, which is what they did. On top of the conflation of larger-scale daytime/nightime T forcings that would affect the "urban" signal (the Asian brown cloud being one example off the top of my head), there is also strong evidence of urban âcool islandsâ/rural âheat islandsâ during daytime periods. This is caused by higher thermal inertia (i.e. concrete takes a longer time to heat up than bare soil) and greater shading in urban areas which will obviously affect the data quality. And, as several of their ârural sitesâ are arid deserts, which generally have higher daytime T than in urban areas, this would strongly contaminate their background T signal.

I feel very sad when I read this paper. Ren and co. obviously did a lot of work as documented in their methods section, but they chose the wrong metric to analyze, which makes their conclusions fatally flawed. What a bummer.

Come to think of it, Ren jibes pretty well with LaDochy...(I believe they both use GHCN-adjusted rather than raw data, so the difference might be on top of UHI adjustment.)

No. Both Ren and LaDochy use unadjusted raw station data. Please read the papers - especially the respective methods sections - before making such assumptions.

The anomalies are Hadley Centre CRU, not NASA GISS.

Yes, one can tell by all those minuses at the end . . .

I have to admit that if I have to pick between Jim Hansen and Phil Jones, I'll go with HadCRU. (At least they don't rely on the "Siberian Thought Criminals" to grid them to the north pole.)#B^1

Former Skeptic.

Hmmm. If it's flawed, then why is Dr. Jones buying it?

And are not all effects (both cool park and hot spot deals) all meat for the average?

I am concerned with UHI effects on temperature data (Tmax & Tmin) more than the inner zen of UHI, itself. So why would one not use the mean to determine that? (For that matter, how would one not use it?)

I am assuming the brown cloud is a cooling offset overhead (increased albedo)--until it gunks up the arctic ice and increases melt, that is. Albedo up, albedo down. Four legs good, two legs bad. But I've heard a lot of disagreement as to its overall effect.

Ren simply compares urban (by size) data with rural. The data is standard max-min How do you get away from that?

Please read the papers - especially the respective methods sections - before making such assumptions.

I read LaDochy a year back, but only the abstract for Ren, so far. I'll get to it. (Do you recall offhand if they include a TOBS adjustment?) At any rate the UHI adjustment would have been minuscule--about 5% of the observed difference for Ren.

BTW, if it turns out that poor siting creates uncertainties that create an error bar of, say 2C, what would that mean for the significance of the 20th century (post-adjustment) warming trend, as estimated (a trend of 0.006C - 0.008C per year)?

Quite possibly nothing at all.

Have you ever sat through a first year 'accuracy' versus 'precision' lecture?

I give up. Evan Jones is unteachable.

Evan Jones at 262. If you start out by not understanding what you are talking about, I doubt any of the rest of your argument will be worth anything. Saying "it's an absorber, it's a heat sink, whatever" is the equivalent of someone confusing power and ground or a resistor and a capacitor in an electrical circuit. If they then go on to tell me about their magical circuit, I'm not going to waste much time on them.

I doubt a driveway is going to drive down Tmin. In any case, people observe Tmin increasing, right, so this goes against your simple argument.

By trend, I mean specifically changing temperatures over a long time. Like what is observed. I can see how adding a driveway near a thermometer could increase Tmax, but why would that increase change over a long time? You will see a step change when the driveway is put in (which should be easy to spot in the data and correct for.) But this would not create an increasing trend, which is what you need to argue for if the thermometer signal we see that indicates global warming is simply installed driveways.

Evan jones:

Pretty much the same trend as 1915 to 1945, which was without much CO2 increase, depending on your proxy.

So you think this is proof of same cause? If you do you're wrong. BTW, why do you ignore the fact that there has been more recent warming than from 1910-1940. Some intellectual honesty would be much appreciated.

And the curve is currently humping towards the cool side, not headed the other way at present.

No it's not.

If we are going to hit that +3.5C by 2100, we'd better get a move on.

We don't need 3.5C to have serious problems.

We have only 90 years to gain that 3.6C.

We already have 0.75C.

We'll need +0.4C/decade for that,

More like 0.3C/decade.

and we've been doing well under half that for the last three decades.

More than half what's required for a massive disaster actually.

It all comes down to whether that CO2-positive feedback loops theory actually works out.

Not just a theory actually. Observations confirm it.

(So far the Aqua Satellite sees the opposite effect,

Don't believe everything corporate shills like Marohasy tell you about results from this satellite. Contrary to what Marohasy says, water vapor is increasing with temperature.

but those results are still preliminary. Dare I say that more study is required?

You can certainly do more study to try to determine if releasing yet more CO2 is going to be safe for the earth's surface temperature. However, it's not looking too promising at the moment that releasing more CO2 will be safe. You've got the right idea that we shouldn't take unknown risks with the earth before more study is done.

Evan Jones:

And are not all effects (both cool park and hot spot deals) all meat for the average?...I am concerned with UHI effects on temperature data (Tmax & Tmin) more than the inner zen of UHI, itself. So why would one not use the mean to determine that?

You are contradicting yourself. You claim to be concerned with UHI effects on temp data without wanting to know what causes, modifies or influences UHI in the first place.

Watts up with that?

Itâs like wanting to examine statistical significance without knowing which test to use or how to apply the test. Not understanding the technique will make you look like an idiot (e.g. Pielke Jr.).

If you understand near-surface UHI theory, you would know exactly why Tmax, DTR and Tmean are poor metrics to measure the urban effect on T. Even Pielke Sr. knows this. There are way too many factors that would distort and possibly increase the urban signal from these metrics, as Iâve stated in my previous post.

(For that matter, how would one not use it?)â¦Ren simply compares urban (by size) data with rural. The data is standard max-min How do you get away from that?

For someone who has admitted to not reading the Ren paper, you seem to know a lot about their methods. Ren and co. did not use standard max-min because, in China, âordinary stations do not take measurements during nighttime. (p. 1335)â So they had to use mean T, which as I said, is the wrong metric to use. Remember what I said? Please read the papers - especially the respective methods sections - before making such assumptions.

I read LaDochy a year back, but only the abstract for Ren, so far. I'll get to it. (Do you recall offhand if they include a TOBS adjustment?)

Offhand? No.

At any rate the UHI adjustment would have been minuscule--about 5% of the observed difference for Ren

Is that fact, or your uneducated guess? What was that I said about not making assumptions prior to reading a paper and not just the abstract? But hey, if you persist in making these guesses, go ahead, no oneâs bothering to listen.

Hmmm. If it's flawed, then why is Dr. Jones buying it?

I presume you are talking about Jones et al. (2009)? Forgive me if it's the wrong paper.

You have to ask Phil. I donât buy it at all â especially when Philâs group does not explicitly explain â despite their promise to do so in his intro paragraph â why he ditched minimum T records when he should know that it is the best metric of urban influence. Para. 18 of his article just merely talks about DTR trends, with no direct mention of Tmin trends, which is sloppy work IMO. While thatâs not dishonest, thatâs being economical with the truth.

Sigh. Chris O'Neill, dhogoza, BPL, Bernard J., Gator...I share your pain. It's one thing to try to discuss and to educate; it's another thing to try to discuss and to educate with someone who is intransigently happy in one's ignorance.

Oh well, I tried.

...and your efforts are much apprecaited, Former.

Well, you were doing fine until that last post. I can only read so fast, and I have a lot on my plate. I will get to it.

If you understand near-surface UHI theory, you would know exactly why Tmax, DTR and Tmean are poor metrics to measure the urban effect on T.

Okay, temperatures are taken at Tmax and Tmin. So that's when UHI would affect the temperature readings. What happens in between, by definition, can't. That much seems obvious.

Looking at the charts in the Ren study, he is simply comparing the readings from urban areas of various sizes with each other and with rural data. This produces the difference. I still don't see why that doesn't work. (You'd want TOBS adjustments, if any.)

And, yes, that's the right Jones paper. (Note that he does not concede that the China conclusions apply elsewhere.)