Asymmetrical Information

I like Starbucks coffee! Even the dark ones!

Did you know that most locations offer a lighter blend as one of the coffee's of the day?

I'll share the love. Just want to repost I comment I made on Althouse’s blog, I think the thread died before I posted it. I’m sick of the fallacy that we should do crazy, expensive, and ineffective stuff just to “do something”.

Cedarford,

Actually, research is the proper risk management approach. The “worry about it until it’s proven irrelevant” approach is not a sound risk management policy. Think of the insurance industry, which has served us well and is often credited with allowing the major capital investments that have driven our economies for the past 600 years (see Against The Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk).

Insurance works in two ways, it pools resources so that they are available when unpredictable, but expected events occur, such as car accidents. Secondly, insurance invests in broad, low risk markets so that resources are available when the unexpected happens. It works by making the proper resources available when catastrophe strikes.

Risk mitigation is used only when both risk and cost can be measured. The risks of AGW mitigation policies can’t be measured (it’s not significant relative to vastly larger naturally existing risk). The proper coarse of action is to identify what is likely to happen and what will be needed to respond to those events and invest.

And funnily enough, if you read Financial Engineering News, you’ll even see homage paid AGW ocassionally. Of course, there are 3 reason for this: 1)It’s a paper, they need to make their stories interesting/entertaining 2) Insurance(and Risk Management in general) is a for profit industry. They need to market higher premiums to drive up prices and profits. If you talk to someone in reinsurance confidentially, you’ll find that they considered Katrina a windfall (sorry, I like puns, I can’t help it). It’s a great excuse to raise premiums. 3)As an industry, it’s in their interest to pawn off as much of their costs as possible onto government to increase profits.

When the real reason for increasing premiums is looked at, you see that it’s really because more people live in riskier areas and that risk was underestimated in the past. [As people moved into new areas, their rates were essentially assessed on the data of the less risky areas we lived in previously. Now that insurance payout events are happening in those areas, there’s better data.] The mentioning of AGW is almost entirely for marketing purposes.

Megan, would you feel any differently about the need to "do something" about global warming if it were caused by non-human processes but could be modified by carbon emission cutbacks? It seems to me that you should feel pretty much the same, because we would face the same choice--spend x amount of resources to give y amount of help to other people. Whether or not the warming is anthropogenic is morally irrelevant. But your argument seems to be that our obligation to restrict emissions flows from the fact that it is OUR consumption that is going to cause THEIR problem.

And if the Instapundit post accurately reflects your view--that we really should do something about global warming but it's politically impossible due to the costs of emission controls--then you should devote all the time you spend on this issue agitating for experiments on high-altitude aerosol injection. That at least has the potential to cool things off for less than a hundreth of the cost of emissions control, can be tested on a small scale, and would be easily reversible.

Wait, why don't you think a carbon tax is possible, if phased in slowly and accompanied by progressive tax breaks. (Because a carbon tax is regressive.) Isn't Applebaum right that that removes the collective action problem?

And do you really want to see a cap-and-trade? Two big problems:
1. We don't know what the cap should be. Clearly, there should be some tradeoff between preserving economic growth and stopping global warming. A tax makes that tradeoff automatically; a cap has to be constantly adjusted to make that tradeoff, and it's not at all clear that it would do it efficiently.
2. A cap requires allocating credits, which leads to huge amounts of lobbying, favoritism, corruption, etc.

Megan,

Your Insta-Post on Global Warming gives some of the false framing too much air. By allowing Global Alarmists the framing of: it is settled (the extent of anthropogenic contribution to warming); it requires abatement (as opposed to treating the air or using technology;) and it requires trading programs (as opposed to clean development) frames it as a large, international wealth transference program.

Meanwhile, scientists who find alarmist claims over the top and proffer solutions less draconian, and politicians who suggest programs of clean development (remember Bush's '05 SOTU?) involving India and China - get no air.

A rational person might think it's not because of the cause, but advocacy for the particular solution that is driving the movement.

Jane,

Didn't you have several posts a few years ago on the economic consequences of substantial reductions in energy consumption? IIRC, you concluded that a cut in energy consumption sufficient to "do something" about global warming would result in a standard of living roughly equivalent to what our grandparents experienced in the early 1900s. Why would you advocate a large carbon tax -- designed to cut our energy consumption in half -- if it would have such an outcome?

Granted, the predicted dire consequences of AGW, if they materialize, will be dire, indeed. However, we know -- as much as we can "know" anything in the field of economics -- that reducing our national wealth will yield increased mortality rates. Before we take a step that is all but certain to kill people, I'd like a little more assurance that CO2 reductions will produce any benefits at all. This is particularly true now that we learn that Mars, Jupiter, and even Pluto, are also warming. Some part of the warming we are experiencing on planet earth may be man made, but Pluto?

Check out www.iceagenow.com - a different perspective on the increasing temperature in the oceans.

Suppose CO2 is the result of solar induced warming an not the cause of warming.

Then spending trillions to reduce CO2 will be a waste.

Didn't libertarians used to be against government waste.

Given that we will be off fossil fuels by 2100 through technological evolution please explain the rush.

I also favor a carbon tax, but will oppose cap and trade systems, and will oppose actions like those being proposed for Great Britain with violent action if necessary. However, I favor the tax for reasons other than global warming, namely, an opportunity to give alternatives a boost forward since I think the day will come when fossil fuels can't supply the increases in energy that will be required.

I could tolerate the tax proceeds being used to replace other, more harmful taxes, but would much rather see a system in which the proceeds are returned in their entirety to the citizenry on a per capita basis- this is the most logical way to address the "pollution of the commons argument". This should be tolerable to libertarians who recognize the inability to homestead the atmosphere.

As for global action to curb global warming- not going to happen. The political obstacles are simply too great, and most of the world is simply too poor for the proposals. Global warming is simply going to have to be lived with, we are not going to stop using fossil fuels, and we won't stop increasing CO2 levels until we reach the limits of fossil fuel production.

So there's consensus that anthropogenic C02 is the cause of Global Warming, huh?

Do any of you Global Warming exponents actually know the CO2 content of the atmosphere?

Try less than 0.04%, that's less than 4 one-hundredths of a percent, or .00035 in decimal terms. Powerful stuff that CO2.

If I was a plant, I'd be worried about too little CO2!

Several assumptions have to be true before I sign off on reduction and a carbon tax.
The main one is verification that our co2 does in fact cause global warming and this just isn't one of climate cycles as past ones have been. As the price of oil rises, so do the possibilities of finding something to replace it. Technology is a wonderful thing. The carbon tax is an especially bad idea. It gives Government a huge new source of money. They will not reduce other taxes, but will find many many more things to spend the money on. At some point, oil usage will decline thanks to replacement by whatever new source of energy we come up with, so that sea of money will start to dry up. Then what? Certainly not spending cuts.

On Starbucks coffee --

I roast my own. The distinctions between better and worse beans are lost when you roast them into briquettes, though, which is why I think Stabucks does it (in fact you test the quality of the beans with stuff so minimally roasted you'd never ever drink it like that).

Man, those guys took over Boston's excellent "Coffee Connection" shops back in 1990 and ruined them.

Having just returned a few months ago from a 3 year detour in Europe, I have to say that I can't find a single place that will make a decent Espresso. I think I've had *one* in the last 6 months that I've been back in the US. Starbucks is not it. It seems Dunkin' Donuts is now selling the stuff too, I'll have to try them out.

Just an idle, but serious, question: How many libertarians, of the "movement" types who blog or are otherwise publically engaged, actually still believe that it is likely that anthropogenic global warming is not occurring, to some extent? Almost all of the libertarians that I recall reading seem quite open to a tax on oil, gasoline, or carbon, with receipts that are in some way returned to the taxpayer (via reduced income taxes or some such thing).

I doubt that Henry Farrell would be too thrilled with the preferred libertarian response to anthropogenic global warming, but that's another issue entirely.

Personally, I'd still probably oppose such a tax if it results in a significant increase in government revenues. But that doesn't mean I'm refusing to do anything about it.

"Try less than 0.04%, that's less than 4 one-hundredths of a percent, or .00035 in decimal terms. Powerful stuff that CO2."

Yes, it is powerful stuff, that CO2, as you'd know if you took a basic high school level science course. The basic issue with global warming isn't the lack of a consensus re: the effects of C02 and methane, or even a lack of consensus as to whether current climate change is caused by human activity. The real issue is the state of science education in America. I'm sorry, but the world has left you behind. We're not going to wait while you insist on seeing evidence that has been compiled for the last 50 years. We don't need YOUR consensus.

starbucks

double-short latte...always good no matter what starbucks makes it.

Megan,

Is the earth warming? It's been warmer than it is now, and recently too. And it's been much colder than it is now, even more recently. In neither case did co2 emitted by man's activity have a darn thing to do with it. In the postwar industrial boom of the 20th century, the earth COOLED DOWN. But before that, it was warming up in spite of their being little or no manmade CO2 from industry. The postwar cooling was what made these same scientific mouthpieces threaten us all with a manmade ice age, for pete's sake.

Co2 is a lagging indicator that earth is warmer, not a cause of the warmth. Warmer earth means more plant growth and more plant decay, and that activity emits more co2. Volcanoes emit more co2 than mankind can hope to emit. The track of solar flare activity follows well the track of temperatures, but the co2 track lags behind it by almost a thousand years.

Man's miniscule contribution to a miniscule ingredient in our atmosphere makes precisely NO difference. Those who insist it does are either on the troll for funding or notoriety, or else are prejudiced against capitalism and industry and are looking for a club with which to beat them into submission.

Or both.

Please please don't talk in moral terms of feeling guilty for driving a big car with leather seats. It's not morally wrong to drive a car!

But it is morally wrong to suppress public discussion of a very important topic, about which one would think people would want as much info as possible. SO why do you think they suppress it?

Lack of confidence in their own argument is the main reason that happens. Or else they're afraid of lopping off limbs from the money tree.

or both.

Hear, hear on the issue of framing the question. Here's an alternate frame, what is the optimum temperature for the planet? More precisely, what is the optimum temperature range for the planet and the optimum amount of variation? If you can't answer that (and I really don't see anybody seriously trying) you cannot answer the question of whether the earth is too hot or cold and what are the costs or benefits of making any changes.

Framing the issue in this fashion completely eliminates most of the major battlefields. If the optimum temperature were, let's say 1 degree colder than we are now, and it would translate out to a $5T difference in the size of the global economy, expenditures to get us to optimum up to $5T would be entirely rational. But what if the optimum temperature were 1 degree warmer than we are at now? What is the right thing to do becomes much more complex. You want the temperature to go up but not so fast that you don't have time to figure out how to stop the rise cheaply once you hit optimum.

Now this exercise can be engaged in without rancor by believers in AGW and by skeptics. If all you want is what's best for the planet, starting out with figuring out what's best would seem to be a proper starting point. People, so far as I know, aren't much studying the problem, though and that's a real puzzle.

This state of affairs only makes sense if the conventional AGW debate is about seizing power by panicing people into giving up their rights and freedoms to climate control police.

I tell you what. When temperatures are consistly higher than they were in the 1600's, then maybe just maybe I will buy into Man made global warming.

Heck, when the vikings discovered Greenland, it was green. Now it is not, what happened? How did it get to be green, how long would it take for a place like that to turn from green to white or white to green?

Fact of the matter is, Weather is a complex system that we have not decoded yet. And since one scientist has been able to point to planetary alignage and match it up to heating and cooling trends, unlike the computer models we have today, just maybe we should listen to that guy.

And please explain the Mars ice caps melting, can any GW person explain that please? If it is not the sun getting hotter or Mars being closer, what else could it logically be?

Suppose CO2 is the result of solar induced warming an not the cause of warming.

Do you mean "not the sole cause", or "not a cause at all"?

...countries like Bangladesh or any number of African states whose countries will become largely uninhabitable...

Other than sea level increases of a foot or so a century, what credible evidence exists that GW will make any country 'largely uninhabitable'?

There is much more evidence the food productivity will increase with higher temperatures.

So, you write for the economist. So what? That makes you qualified to state that the GW debate is over? Says who?

Since when are scientists infallible and immune to the herd mentality that plagues the rest of humanity?

This is a mania. Remember the tulips.

On Global Warming Questions:
1. GW is happening - scientific fact, it seems.

2. What is cause? You seem to believe that it is man, hence man can do something about it, i.e., lessen the warming or counteract it. So you have aligned with the Gore Group?

3. If some of the scientists who are expert in the field are correct in their assertions, the majority of the warming is caused by the sun. Not much man can do about that, as far as I know.

Coffee: Starbucks coffee is dreadful, go for Contra Cafe medium roast. BTW, I'm pretty sure espresso has more caffeine by volume than drip coffee, it's just the cups are so darned small, unless you go for the quad-tall-cappucino.

Global Warming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
It's happening, but it's being caused by the Sun, not human activity. Hardcore greens are just ex-Commies that latched onto the latest and greatest anti-capitalist ideology as they were flailing around in defeat after the Berlin Wall fell. Interesting note about that video: one of the participants noted that Thatcher used the concept of global warming to beat up the NUM during their strikes in the 1980s, arguing that the UK needed to get out of coal and into gas/nuclear, which would conveniently kneecap the NUM and its Marxist agenda. Unintended consequences ftw :l

Scott,

I used to be a movement Libertarian. So I hope I qualify to answer your question.

We will be off fossil fuels by 2100 due to technology advances. Like this one:

Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion

The cost of the first prototype is $200 million. If it works (I give it an 80% chance) it will lower the cost of energy generatioin by a factor of 10X. Eliminate the thermal plume from nuke, coal , and natural gas plants. Plus it will generate very little long lived radioactive waste. Very few neutrons too!

Plus it would be a good source for fast planetary space travel.

Spending about $2 million on further research (for about 1 year) on the Bussard Fusion Reactor would increase the odds of success to about 95% if the research turns out favorable.

So why aren't we demanding that a government lab get busy? Two million and one year is cheap.

So tell me again why a CO2 tax is a good idea?

Plus CO2 levels are near a historical low point. We have had 7X as much CO2 in the atmosphere during ICE AGES.

I find it hard to believe that movement libs have been stampeded into this. Of course I left the party over 9/11 so I don't follow their foolishness much any more.

If libs want to do something RIGHT NOW the least expensive thing that has some potential benefit is to increase the production tax credit for wind and extend it for about 5 years.

Ah, Chris Wren doesn't need OUR consensus. After all, the rest of the world has been compling data on AGW for 50 years--though thirty years ago they thought it(all of this evidence they'd complied) meant a new Ice Age. And before that, a warming, and before that a cooling...

You'd think with all the evidence laid out that Chris and friends might've twigged to the idea that the Earth cools and warms over time--something we have millions of years of evidence for.

And no 'consensus' telling us to shut up about.

All those Scientists that disagree about AGW will probably have a bone to pick with :

"However, I regard two questions as basically no longer worth debating, at least by people with my level of science education:

1) Is AGW happening?"

What you are saying here is that Scientists who disagree have less science education than you do. Even the ones who have more science education than you do.

Wow, well the heck with really trying to determine how and why the earth is getting hotter. Heck, even those carbon emissions from America were tons worse after During and After WW2 and the planet got cooler. Lets just chuck all that out the window and say it is happening.

Paul Z.,

Not a cause at all.

CO2 has been 7X higher during ICE AGES.

Holy crap, I've never seen a more concentrated instance of hand-wringing than in your last post.

Global Warming may be happening and it may be long term or just a blip in earths history....

Can we do something about it? I doubt it, only man is so arrogant as to think he can control the climate.

Bangladesh will be flooded by a 1 foot rise in seal level by 2100 (when we will be essentially off fossil fuels)?

Who knew Bangladesh was so flat?

Megan,

The whole idea of man made global warming is bunk. Do we place C02 in the air sure. But is it significant no. Not in comparision to the nonmanmade sources that are spewed forth.

Then take the sun, literally. There are other planets that exoscientists have noticed are also warming up -- mars and venus. So the source of all the warming might be external to the planet. And if it is then all the Al Gore huff and puff is junk.

I wonder how superfantastic it would be for your Economist career if you were to *not* fall into line on global warming like a good little monkey. I'm guessing not very.

To those who state it is settled:

If it were settled:
1) Wouldn't at least one of the mathematical models developed to predict Global Warming have correctly predicted .. well anything .. that occurred in the past using the data prior to the past event? None have.
2) Wouldn't positive correlations between CO2 and warming (using past data) be provable? So far it is not, if fact the opposite: Warming preceeds the elevated CO2 - and CO2 levels have been much higher than they are now.

Doesn't any of this trouble the committed? Or, as I asked earlier, is it really about advocating a solution? a wealth transferance solution, since no other proposed solution will do?

I have tried to follow the arguements about globl warming and I have come this far: reasonable science people do believe that much of climate change is man-made and not simply a cyclic change. Arguements against this view have in the past two weeks been shown to have been made by people whose work, credentials, suggest that they are not a trustworthy source for information. It is clear that even if much of global or climate change is in part natural, our pumping of bad stuff into the atmosphere has had a very bad effect--witness what is taking place to a number of species, and this has nothing to do with the climate. If you do not approve of inhaling 2nd hand smoke then why tolerate the junk we pump into the environment? If Chin a dn India are big polluters, we ought not use that as an excuse Not to do anything: we are supposed to be world leaders, not followers.

Your hope that some form of something will be found so that you need not change the way you live is, well, not very adult.

i actually think the weakest aspect of your GW post is the claim of apocalyptic problems if we do nothing about it. ummmmmmmm, didn't the UN just say seas would rise . . . 30 inches or so? and that's going to kill us all how? it's not like it happens overnite, holland and n. orleans have been underwater for years. so where's the madmax scare coming from?

i love a theory that's not falsifiable: we have a tremendously cold february, it's . . . GW; we don't have any real hurricanes this past year, but we're still assured GW will cause hurricanse to increase in frequency and strength; it's been much warmer before, but warming this time is still man's fault.

here's the other thing: the notion of settled science on something as complex as the extent to which GW is anthro is obviously silly. it is relevant that people were predicting cooling very recently, cause it shows how wrong experts can be. or look at medical science, where what's good and bad for you changes well nigh daily. pardon me if i'm not really to accept that 60 or 70% of scientists agreeing on a topic means they're right in some absolute sense.

To hold a single input responsible for output when we fully understand the system that processes all of the inputs is folly, but to do so when we only partially understand the system is absurd. One might have an argument if a model successfully predicted outcomes, but the current climate models don't, and they only get more accurate when the amount of predicted warming is reduced!

Presuming that models that accurately account for actual systemic processes will be more predictive, these climate models aren't even worth looking at until they incorporate the effects of clouds and other hydrologic phenomena, much less taxing the p*ss out of ourselves over.

yours/
peter.

"Heck, when the vikings discovered Greenland, it was green. Now it is not, what happened? "

I don't think that's true, isn't most of the ice older than the vikings?

Bangladesh will be flooded by a 1 foot rise in seal level

Now there's a disturbing image. Are they fleeing migrating polar bears driven south by the melting of the pack ice, or what?

Who's Ron Bailey and what authority is he?

If you read the IPCC4 you'll see that the estimates of what is likely to happen are dropping as the data becomes better understood. As well you'll see that the higher - and scarier - ranges of the projections are based on the more extreme economic and demographic scenarios. (Think a doubling and a half of world population all living at the level of consumption experienced in South Korea with no technological innovation.)

You'll also see that the confidence level in the modeling is 90% which sounds certain but, realistically, would you accept that level of confidence for bridge building or a new surgical technique?

As well, when you look at our current "solution" you will note that it is only Western nations which are being forced to cap emissions under Kyoto. This leaves China free to bring a new coal fired electrical generating station online every 10 days as it has been doing and will continue to do for several years.

At this point saying that global warming is man made is, at best, an untested hypothesis. Suggesting broad policy prescriptions - most of which would radically reduce economic activity - based on largely unproven science is foolhardy and it is unlikely to make much difference in any event so long as economic powerhouses like China and India are exempt.

We are going to have to live with the Global Warming Jihad for a few more years simply because the alarmists have made the running to date. However, as more scientists become engaged and as more policy options are put on the table with proper cost benefit analyses, the hysteria surrounding the issue will tend to abate.

The one thing which is certain is that the Earth's climate changes and has been changing for billions of years. Were this not the case I would be writing from beneath several hundred feet of glacial ice. There are many reasons why man is adaptable and one of them may very well be the fact that we have had to deal with climate change throughout our years on the planet.

How many tons is the correct amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? (can be expressed as a percentage or in tonnage or in number of molecules)
How many degrees celcius will how many extra tons of CO2 make the temperature of the Earth rise in how many years? (Again, CO2 can be measured in percentage or molecules instead of tonnage if that's easier to answer)

Since the science is settled by one of your scientific level, the answers to those questions will be easy.

I'll look forward to your reply so I can stop thinking, silly me, that the Sun actually has something to do with the temperature of the Earth.

Megan, the problem with your Bangladesh example was pointed out by PJ O'Rourke almost 20 years ago. At that time, when Bangladesh was ravished by floods and displacement of people and all that, it had roughly the same median elevation and population density as Fremont, California. Yet, Fremont, CA didn't seem to have the same kinds of problems. Strangely enough, Fremont, CA was much wealthier. And after the dot-com boom of the 90s that transformed even the less desirable parts of the Bay Area, it's even comparatively more wealthy today than Bangladesh today. It's like 20 years ago, righty libertarian humorist O'Rourke was channeling the Copenhagen Consensus, arguing that poverty is the biggest world problem, and in the specific case of Bangladesh, direct aid to help them into wealth is a better use of our time and energy than some transfer payment for some externality we don't fully understand and for which we will probably never get the accounting right.

Ms McArdle
Re global warming comment on instapundit. When you say something is not worth debating you are telling a lot of us to shut up, that we don't
have a right to tell our point of view. If you value Ron Bailey's opinions you have a problem fer
shure. Racism, now that is a real moral question.
I hope Mr. Reynolds ain't reading his blog.

Re global-warming questions, you left one out:

Are we homo sapiens responsible in any significant way, or -- in view of the reported fact that Mars is similarly warming plus a whole lot more evidence that bucks Gore's thesis -- is it more about the sun?

Megan,

Your post on global warming was so vapid I've lost respect for you. Other commentors have rightly noted that if GW is not caused by human activity, human policies will have no bearing (other than the economic damage they might inflict).

As an economist, you should pay more attention to Bjorn Lombord and the Copenhagen Consensus -- it deals with allocating limited resources ($$) to do the most good. Guess what? Kyoto etc. rank near the bottom of the priority list.

I miss Glenn already.

Ok, you guys are on to us. Global warming is just a myth we leftists have come up to cause unnecessary worry. We don't want carbon controls to limit global warming, we just really, really, like driving tiny expensive hybrid cars rather than more comfortable SUVs.

Al Gore and the vast majority of the scientific community are in on it, each trying to sell dvds or get in on the multi-trillion $ global warming research market (far more lucrative than working for the fossil fuel industry).

Oh, and the aforementioned vast majority of scientists ignore such contrary evidence as the cool period from 1940-1970 and the shrinking of Mars' ice cap in doing their analysis because that would get in the way of our grand diabolical plan to eliminate the incandescent light bulb once and for all! Bwahahahah!

Oy vey those Irish genes. My two children have an Irish grandma - a nurse from the real Ireland who married a British doctor - and her numerous grandchildren and great grandchildren are predominantly red-headed, auburn haired, green-eyed, fair skinned - very white with pink cheeks. Oh yes there is one black Irish type, my son, whose raven tresses probably came from me, but then a lot of people have always thought I was Irish which I definitely am not because of once my dark locks pink and white skin and green eyes.

Who's Ron Bailey and what authority is he?

Ron Bailey writes for Reason magazine, and he's much smarter than you and everyone else here.

Like many commenters here, I remain skeptical. It's just not true that the debate is settled among scientists. Even the "GW" part of "AGW" is subject to on-going scrutiny-- the IPCC seems to have brushed aside the potential affect of urban heat islands on the dataset, for example (and yes, I know there are scientific papers that argue that UHIs don't affect the data enough to signify; I'm just saying that that question doesn't seem settled to me.)

If this were a much smaller question, like whether one should shore up a particular stretch of riverbank, then I'd agree with the calculus Megan seems to be using: it would be wasteful to spend too much time and energy studying it if we've managed to convince ourselves through an appropriate amount of study that it's a good idea. But in the case of AGW, the debate is simply not settled, and the cost of taking the actions proposed by AGW activists are huge, in money and in human lives.

So, too, are the costs if AGW is real, if we can stop it, and if we don't act-- that's Al Gore's argument, and he essentially leaps from that to saying "thus we must act; we cannot afford to debate it any longer". Well, unless you believe in the truly silly scare-stories of a hundred meters of sea-level rise, no more polar bears, etc. (and while that debate's not settled either, it is, ahem, going badly for those who believe in such things), then the balance of costs of acting, costs of not acting, benefits of both, and time remaining indicate that caution and more study are in order.

"I don't think that's true, isn't most of the ice older than the vikings?"

Yes, the ice cap is quite old (like 100,000) years, and so obviously there when the Vikings visited, but they visited and set up their colonies during the medieval warm period, when Greenland was much greener than now. However, they were pretty much wiped out during the later little ice age

I forgot.

Food production will decline due to longer growing seasons and increased CO2. Who knew?

Pot grow ops increase plant growth rates and energy absorbtion efficiency by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere of the grow op. Them pot growers are sure stupid.

===========

So Ron Bailey is convinced? I'm not impressed. If he actually knew anything about the temperature record (noise exceeds discernable signal) and the state of the models (terrible but better than 10 years ago) he would still be an AGW sceptic.

The models do not take into account solar variability, solar magnetic fields (which influence cloud production by deflecting cosmic rays), the fact that they do not model atmospheric or ocean circulation well, and lots of other stuff. The end result of poor models and poor data? GIGO.

So you set this pile of garbage in front of me and tell me to eat hearty?

Are you nuts?

Emperor Gore is naked. And he has a small schvantz to boot.

This *ickless wonder wants to take us to the cleaners (he owns an interest in the business) and libertarians are cheering him on? What ever happened to the libs natural scepticism of corporate interests? Or for that matter the UN (of which IPCC is a part).

I don't get it. When did libertarians get stuck on stupid? Libs used to be smarter than that.

Megan:

It is probably to be expected that the scientific case for AGW is nearing collapse at the same time that the popular hysteria is reaching a cresendo. Indeed, the Al Gore's of the world probably see the next two or three years as their last opportunity to make a buck out of the AGW hoax. But right now, the information is available which establishes that a hoax is underway.

Consider this: When the last IPCC report was issued the argument in favor of AGW rested on the "hockey stick" analysis of Mann, et al. Now, however, the IPCC itself has abandoned the "hockey stick" as unreliable. Nevertheless, although the reasoning behind the prior conclusion is abandoned the conclusion remains the same and is asserted with even greater vigor. Does this make sense? What new information has been found which supports the conclusion previously based on the Mann hockey stick?

"1) Is AGW happening?"

I think the answer is Yes (and note to some posters, the "A" here stands for anthropogenic, meaning human (and not, e.g., solar)-caused warming).

But I think Jane missing a big question between 1 and 2. There should be a question 1A: HOW MUCH warming is anthropogenic? If 95% of the warming is caused by the sun, or is just random noise, then it seems much less likely that our answer to question 2 is yes. This is a question for which I do not have an answer.

Nonetheless, I support a carbon tax (with appropriate offset so as to make it revenue neutral) for non-GW reasons.

"ON GLOBAL WARMING Let me clarify a little my position. I think there are a lot of questions about global warming: how much, and what, should be done. However, I regard two questions as basically no longer worth debating, at least by people with my level of science education:"

This paragraph is most puzzling. What level of scientific education are we talking about? I have to assume, not a whole lot.

I have more than a little, myself. I was at MIT long enough to rack up a few degrees in physics and engineering. And from my viewpoint, the scientific debate about GW hasn't yet begun. All we've had so far is paranoia, moral preening, pseudo-science, and politics as usual. The control fetishists see it as a great opportunity to stampede us all into their dream of a world-wide socialist utopia, micromanaged by people much like themselves. The near-certain worldwide depression resulting from their draconian program to cripple the industrial world will result in mass starvation in the undeveloped world, whether or not GW is real. The cure will certainly be worse than the disease if the disease doesn't even exist. If it does exist, we need a bit more to go on than an ex-hippy dream about the evils of industry and mysterious pollutants of uncertain effects. Guessing at the solution is like opening the medicine cabinet and chugging all the meds in sight. It's worse than useless if we don't yet know what the hell we're doing.

Meanwhile those of us who can actually spell fancy words like geophysics and climatology without consulting some grad student's "computer model" will patiently wait for some genuine scientific evidence before jumping on the GW bandwagon.

Historically, global warming has had something to do with the action of the Sun. If, as scientists have noted, the polar caps on Mars are receding, is that not proof that some action of the sun is causing that and therefore is causing a similar action on Earth.

That being said, the argument remains - we need to reduce pollutants on Earth. Does that mean those of us already doing a fair job on cleaning pollutants need to do more, or that the new sources of pollutants coming on line (Power plants in China and India) that have relatively little pollutant control need to do better.

Trading credits does nothing to help but makes Washington FEEL GOOD.

Actually, you should be buying land around Death Valley, Great Salt Lake, or depending on whether we peons are still allowed air travel, the Dead Sea, since we can flood these and all other low lying areas to take some pressure off the NYC and Bangladeshi dikes.

Michelle Dulak Thomson,

Thank you for the best laugh of the day.

Wallster,

Bias need not be so sinister. Leftists don't like industrial activity and are predisposed to believing that it is causing massive damage. Leftists think that large scale government solutions are effective, and are predisposed to want to solve problems where large scale government solutions are the answer. Leftists think that America and capitalism are evil, and are predisposed to believing that they are causing problems, and destroying the planet.

It is confirmation bias, not conspiracy.

When I saw that Ron Bailey decided that AGW was effectively proven, it sure gave me pause. He's a smart guy, and I greatly respect the work he's done.

However, the major voices on the skeptical side, such as Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Sally Baliunas, and Richard Lindzen, haven't changed their message.

Respectfully, I think Ron's wrong. At least, he's not right: the evidence isn't there yet to claim that AGW is definitively occurring.

augustr,

Now, why am I suddenly hearing the voice of Lex Luthor saying "Beach-front property!"?

Yancey Ward,

Just doing my bit to melt the ice around here . . . oh, sorry, not perhaps the best image . . .

I'm glad others who can keep technical details straight have already called Ms. McArdle on her "largely settled" oversimplification (at best; "error" might be more accurate). So I'll just address her Question #2: Should we do something about it? As one commenter pointed out, this question does not depend on how much human activity has to do with whatever warming is/will be going on. However, it does omit a threshold question: What are all the pros and cons of the likely degree of warming, to the extent we can predict it? This is a serious question, and the relative balance of pros and cons shouldn't be merely assumed. Of course, since there are still so many uncertainties about how much if any long-term warming we're looking at, we may need a few different sets of pros and cons for several different possible scenarios.

Oh, Megan. I know libertarian's hate him cuz of his misteps with the 2nd amendment. But shouldn't Bloomberg get some mention as a potential presidential candidate. I think he could do quite well even with his anti-gun past, especially if he can convince people we will sit on his views there.

Man-made "Global Warming" (genuflect in the direction of Carthage, TN, whenever you say the phrase) is balderdash. When someone can explain to me how the Neanderthals caused the end of the last ice age, then I will consider the possibility of anthopogenic "Global Warming" (genuflect) today.

Megan,

I disagree with you global warming post. I agree that that global warning is occurring. But how much and how fast and to what degree it is caused by human activity as distinguished from solar activity and other natural processes are all open questions.

And what to do about about global warming is not a simple matter at all. I have read in several places that, even if the Kyoto Accords were followed to the letter, it would effect global warming by only a tiny amount, while causing widespread economic damage, perhaps a global depression. I do not think it makes sense to spend trillions of dollars on "fixes" that will have a negligible effect. The answer has to be future technology, which will make it feasible to do what is necessary in the near future. But those most in favor of following the Kyoto accords are precisely the people most likely to be against the technological advancement that may be our only hope of reversing global warming.

My view
a) Human activity is lowering, not raising global temperatures. The closest thing to an experiment we have to testing this is the effects of volcanoes. Large volcanoe eruptions reliably lower worldwide temperatures, sometimes considerably (Tambora caused snow in New England in July 1816). To the extent that global temperatures are rising, it is due to customary causes unrelated to humans (solar output, normal variations in orbit, changes in cosmic ray activity, reconfiguration of continental locations causing changes in weather (the last being likely the least)). Our pollution is offsetting this.
b). Evidence is that the atmosphere flushes itself every five years or so. Volcanic effects seem to dissipate in that time frame, and pollution we have caused and stopped (automotive lead) disappears from the Greenland snow in about five years. So if we stopped doing everything we are doing, five years from now, whatever effect we are having would cease.
c) CO2 is at historic lows when you view it in geologic time frames (millions of years). It could be far higher and we would still have all the life you see around you. Maybe the Dinos would come back.
d) The evidence on ice melting and temperatures rising is conflicted to say the least. Urbanization of weather stations alone has caused an upward drift in recorded temperatures.
e) As noted above, the Norse lived in Greenland for 300 years (900 ad to 1200 ad or so) and it was Green. If it turned green now, Al Gore's head would explode. There's a book on Chinese voyages of the 15th century that indicates a chinese fleet reached the north pole in open water in the summer of 1426. The nyt appears to be unaware that open water in the summer at the north pole is not that unusual.
f) We haven't had a decent volcanoe for a while, and none, with the possible exception of Yellowstone, seem to be getting ready for anything interesting. This alone would cause and upward drift in temperatures. The last decent one was Krakatoa in the late 19th century.
g). Most of the time, the world is in what we would consider to be an ice age. We happen to be living in one of those short (10,000 year) intervals of warmth, which are followed inexorably by 100,000 year periods of cold. We are at the end of that period. If any big change in climate is likely, it is the return of the ice ages. So if you think driving that SUV is warming the earth, then get out there and drive. Us folks living in New England are otherwise faced with the prospect of digging our houses out from under a mile of glacial ice.

In case anyone has not yet seen it, this documentary is superb:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

GLENN:

Megan McArdle?

What were you thinking?

(And if anyone could get your Carbon Tax instituted, it'd be Bloomberg.)

to Michelle Dulak Thomson.

Exactly

Am I right in reading this Democracy Blog bit that its trying to say the nominations for the parties are over, oh, two years before the elections?

Right now, there are a lot of loser clubbers, and RINO's that are trying to with much puffing of the breath to keep Guiliani floating.

Now, might he win? Sure. Socons are very tolerant compared to the others in the R party which is proper since they are the dominant force. And if he makes the promises that he's going to need to secure Socon support, then maybe we can have the first Northern president since JFK. I'm not unalterably opposed to him like I am with John McCain (I'd vote for Hillary first before him.)

But, calling the Superbowl before the season even begins is rather silly.

This seems to parallel your Global Warming bit. My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts.

Which I regard as a shame because I've always thought you were one of the better blog voices out there, and your name was the one that made me most happy among the group Insty chose this time.

But since we're into calling discussion to a close--let me call the AGW-GW debate to a close on this blog. The AGW side, this judge rules, clearly owned the debate with facts, humor, salient questions arrayed against an arguement from authority. "Consensus says..." Who cares what consensus says? I want the Truth.

Ok, "A" means "Anthro" not "Anti-".

Okay, the Anti-GW's owned the debate.

Tennwriter

Nobody, are you saying that the scientific community has a leftward bias that has resulted in its consensus that GW is human-caused?

As far as the general population, is it possible that leftists are more likely to believe scientists, whereas right-wingers are anti-science and inclined to latch onto any contrary argument as rationale for disbelieving the consensus of the scientific community? Many of the above mentioned arguments against GW are in the same tone as arguments you might hear against evolution in favor of creationism (and probably from the same individuals).

Also, could it be that right-wingers are predisposed to believe that industry and the free market could not possibly be the cause of any ill effects to the environment or to society? Could it be that right-wingers believe any pro-environment policy or environmentalist is misguided and motivated by America-hating tendencies?

There is clearly a bias affecting the GW debate, however it is on the right wing side.

For the record, I'm not anti-industry or anti-America. I am against sitting here with our heads in the sand ignoring a problem that might mess up the world for my kids and grandkids, when we should be evaluating what can be done to fix the problem.

Pretend, volcanoes emmit CO2, but they also emmit aerosols, making them a net temperature reducer. The lack of volcanic activity probably contributed more to the recent GW than Anthro GHGs. And the models assume the 1998 (I think) levels of volcanic activity.

If volcanic activity increases, we could see AGW completely wiped out. And thensome.

all those appealing to authority -- those infallible scientists and their consensus -- might want to know a bit more about the credentials of those posting here. as with many websites like this, you've got some way intelligent people with ridiculous degrees who know what they're talking about too.

and how can you so blithely ignore the number of times well-accepted scientific models have turned out to wrong because they failed to properly account for some factor or another? wouldn't be the first time or the last, so i would think most folk would err on the side of skepticism rather than accepting this whole cloth as part of the enviro religion for ostensibly secular folk.

There are too many variables influencing the climate for a general conclusion to be made about the effect on any one of them. Some of the factors that must be included (by no means an exhaustive list) are heat from the sun, gravity, air pressure, air temperature, density, humidity, Earth's rotation, surface temperature, ocean currents (e.g., Gulf Stream), greenhouse gases (including water vapor), CO2 dissolved in the oceans, polar ice caps, infrared radiation, cosmic rays (ionizing radiation), Earth's magnetic field, evaporation, precipitation, cloud formation, reflection from clouds, reflection from snow, volcanoes, soot formation, trace compounds, and many, many others, Even if mathematics could be developed to accurately model each of these factors, the combined model would be infinitely complex and would require some simplifications. Simplifications in turn amount to judgment calls by the modeler.

Global Warming? Actually, according to a scientist on Glenn Beck last night (I'm over a certain age and therefore not required to remember names of specific people) who said within the next 10 years there's going to be a shift towards global cooling! We're simply in a "warm-ish phase" (all things being relative). So, you might want to reconsider buying property in the hinterlands!

Ron Bailey, brilliant though he may be, is an economist. From my understanding, economists are in love with models. Considering that AGW doesn't exist anywhere except in computer models, no doubt he believes it to be true. However, scientists are supposed to be based in what can be proven in the real world. AGW hypothesis cannot be verified in the real world because human scientific thought doesn't understand how weather works. We don't have computer models that can model even two weeks into the future, and yet we have faith in our ability to model decades and centuries into the future?

Now, it might be a good idea to cut pollution anyway, even if there is no AGW. However, if there is no AGW, then CO2 is not a pollutant. In fact, higher CO2 levels actually aid in plant growth, since plants use CO2 to convert solar energy into food. Maybe we need laws to cut down on actual gunk in the air, but that's not what people are proposing.

Wallester, I will reassert:

Actually, research is the proper risk management approach. The “worry about it until it’s proven irrelevant” approach is not a sound risk management policy. Think of the insurance industry, which has served us well and is often credited with allowing the major capital investments that have driven our economies for the past 600 years (see Against The Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk).

Insurance works in two ways, it pools resources so that they are available when unpredictable, but expected events occur, such as car accidents. Secondly, insurance invests in broad, low risk markets so that resources are available when the unexpected happens. It works by making the proper resources available when catastrophe strikes.

Risk mitigation is used only when both risk and cost can be measured. The risks of AGW mitigation policies can’t be measured (it’s not significant relative to vastly larger naturally existing risk). The proper coarse of action is to identify what is likely to happen and what will be needed to respond to those events and invest.

There is a Risk Management industry folks. But, there wouldn’t be if it operated like AGWers want to.

And funnily enough, if you read Financial Engineering News, you’ll even see homage paid AGW ocassionally. Of course, there are 3 reason for this: 1)It’s a paper, they need to make their stories interesting/entertaining 2) Insurance(and Risk Management in general) is a for profit industry. They need to market higher premiums to drive up prices and profits. If you talk to someone in reinsurance confidentially, you’ll find that they considered Katrina a windfall (sorry, I like puns, I can’t help it). It’s a great excuse to raise premiums. 3)As an industry, it’s in their interest to pawn off as much of their costs as possible onto government to increase profits.

When the real reason for increasing premiums is looked at, you see that it’s really because more people live in riskier areas and that risk was underestimated in the past. [As people moved into new areas, their rates were essentially assessed on the data of the less risky areas we lived in previously. Now that insurance payout events are happening in those areas, there’s better data.] The mentioning of AGW is almost entirely for marketing purposes.

Fear sells risk management products and services.

A. Starbucks offers mild!

B. Your SUV will have NO EFFECT on the sea level in Bangladesh.

other than that your doing OK.

From what I have read, the impact of global warming is primarily felt during winter in cold climates.

I would truly love to see warmer winters where I am. I'd love to not have to pay Florida or California real estate prices to get Florida or California weather.

So why can't I be in favour of global warming? As Karen A. Wyle says, I don't see much debate or discussion of the costs and benefits possible from a warmer globe.

Now, of course I do not want the homes of Florida or Malibu or Bangladesh to be destroyed. So why don't we concentrate on finding a way to prevent the sea level rise and other possible side effects, while allowing warming?

I came up with the idea of sending supertankers to the arctic circle and carting the ice down to Dubai before it melts. And if that is not a practical plan, well, is it any less practical than shutting off all our lights, quitting driving and letting our houses freeze in the winter and boil in the summer?

I'm sure we could get some real estate developers in Dubai to pay for the ice by creating "Arctic Lakes Resort, Phases I to XXVI". Mitigating global warming might even be a nice business opportunity, if we used some imagination and flair instead of wallowing in gloom like we seem to enjoy nowadays. Where's our entrepreneurial spirit?

If Al Gore convinces us all of global warming and then we enter a new ice age because we tampered with the natural cycles of the earth, I'm going to be pretty mad at the poor guy.

I'd rather see global warming than a new ice age. And in the 1970s, the same guys who are predicting global warming today were predicting exactly that.

So far, then, I think doing nothing might just be the best strategy.

A warmer world ... sounds like just the ticket for me.

How about you?

D

Tom Swift,

Right on!

Let me add that I'm Naval nuclear reactor trained and have worked a number of years as an aerospace engineer. One step below rocket scientist.

AGW is a stinking pile.

Temperature measurement instruments are not well enough calibrated to measure a 1 deg F signal over a 100 year span. A really expensive and well calibrated instrument re-calibrated weekly could probably measure down to the .1 deg F level in the field. If you have an above average instrument calibrated yearly you might get 1 deg F. Now try extrapolating that back to the days of glass thermomometers and humans reading the numbers.

And you want to tell me that within that error band you can find a 1 deg. F signal (temp rise over the last 100 years)?

Oh yeah. Moving the measuring site 30 ft could cause as much as 1 deg F difference due to micro climate. Would you care to bet on how many measuring stations have moved 30 ft in the last 100 years? Would you want to make a trillion dollar bet?

OK. We are all libertarians here. When do I get my share of the really good hemp?

1) Is AGW happening?
2) Should we do something about it?

You've forgotten something crucial:

1.5) What's causing it?

That will determine the answer to 2). Recent data points to solar activity as the culprit.

As CO2 is relatively unimportant compared to water vapor as a greenhouse gas (CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere, and water contributes to 90% of any greenhouse effect) and as the amount we contribute - something like 3.5% anually - is laughable, making drastic reductions in CO2 footprints to no effect would seem to be extremely foolish.

On the GW issue:

Some interesting graphs in this post:

http://anti-strib.blogspot.com/2007/03/global-warming-questions.html

My continued position is that the Earth has warmed up or we would still be in the 4th Ice Age. However SUV's and/or humans were not responsible for it.

Please people Greenland was named Greenland as a marketing GIMMICK. The colonies of Vikings there barely got by - largely by force feeding their cows kelp in the winter.

"Heck, when the vikings discovered Greenland, it was green. Now it is not, what happened? How did it get to be green, how long would it take for a place like that to turn from green to white or white to green?"

It was crappy back then and barely habitable. It wasn't green at all.

Eric the Red was such a good marketer that people are still repeating the Greenland=green myth a thousand years later.

Here's another hint people - last time I looked Youtube wasn't a peer reviewed scientific journal. Citing it in a debate on global warming is silly.

Here's a another point - scientists are pretty smart. They realize the effect that solar radiation has and have built that into the model. All climate models that people use account for every single object noted here and still it's warming up.

Frankly I am sick of the "world is too big to effect" argument. It's demonstratably false too (see any buffalo? How about the forests from the Eastern seaboard to the Ohio? How about the commercial fishing stocks?) Here's a hint people 6 billion people and industrial development can have an effect on even the climate!

Here's why moderate climates are so important. Predictability of the climate is incredibly important in agriculture. I realize that most people have no idea how food is grown but I assure having a moderate relatively predictable weather helps. People in large parts of the world rely on this regularity to plant crops etc. Once that predictability is gone it's farther harder to grow crops.

Like I have said before, it's already too late to do ANYTHING about it. We are going to have a warmer earth. No biggie for me since I came to the conclusion we came to the tipping point a few years ago.

"c) CO2 is at historic lows when you view it in geologic time frames (millions of years). It could be far higher and we would still have all the life you see around you. Maybe the Dinos would come back.
d) The evidence on ice melting and temperatures rising is conflicted to say the least. Urbanization of weather stations alone has caused an upward drift in recorded temperatures."

c)Well I am not too worried about geologic time scales, it's the human time scales and agriculture I am worried about.

d)Sorry the urban heat island effect has been accounted for in the models.

It's this sort of pseudo science that has got the US in trouble.

Let me add that my aerospace specialty was instrumentation.

And because this topic drives me nuts, and therefore I can't help myself, not only are Mars polar regions receding, but Mars' atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide. So I guess the green house gas effect works only on earth.

Uh tipping point?

We have had 7X as much CO2 during ICE AGES.

A great UK documentary about the global warming hysteria:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

CEO,

Are you telling us that something has increased the CO2 levels on Mars?

Who knew?

"They realize the effect that solar radiation has and have built that into the model. All climate models that people use account for every single object noted here and still it's warming up."

That's not true. They vastly underweight the effect, see Stott et al.

I think they also often don't consider that the margin GH effect tappers of as concentrations increase.

Wallster,

Actually, I think scientists as a class don't have a unified bias. It depends to a large degree what gets them research grants, which depends heavily on the field they are in. But GW scientists tend to be motivated by funds which reward those finding a problem, not minimizing one, and live in academic circles, which are mostly leftist.

The right being anti-science is a favorite canard of the left. Actually both groups will jettison science when it conflicts with their ideology. The left has little use, for example, for the scientific consensus that GMO's are safe, or for evidence of developmental differences between men and women.

All of the anti-AGW ideas on this thread oppose creationism, as they take for granted geological findings of ice ages over long periods of time. Not a very creationist perspective.

Right wingers definitely have an anti-AGW bias, I agree. And for lots of the same reasons. They think America and capitalism are good, so it is unlikely that they are causing global destruction, etc.

But I didn't see anyone argue that the skeptics must be sincere, just because they are skeptical. I would disagree with that as well.

I think that doing something has to be seen in context of what that something costs. The major left-wing bias in AGW is to assume the worst about it, justifying the most drastic of action, while assuming that the solutions are cost free.

Itching to do something could be making the problem worse, if it is the wrong something.

Brian,

There is some doubt as to whether the heat island correction is correct.

Hard to tell since the models and the data used in them is hard to extract from the "scientists".

In any case the error band is assumed to be .006 deg C per decade. Wich is .06 deg C per 100 years. 10% of the ESTIMATED global warming signal. And that is the best case estimate of uncorrected error from one cause. How many other causes of error are there? Enough so that the signal = the noise?

Your two points on AGW were:

1) Is AGW happening?
2) Should we do something about it?

I would amend the list

1) AGW is undoubtedly happening, but at what level and does the threat level really supersede all others?

2) Can we do something about it?

On the first point, there can be no doubt that adding CO2 to the atmosphere drives temperatures up to some degree. But, the climate system is vast and robust. It is not at all clear that the processes are well enough understood to make turly accurate predictions. If the uncertainty in a prediction is as high as the prediction itself, then you have insufficient information to make a decision. Even if it is half as much, you are taking a great risk by imposing draconian measures that carry a cost in lives and treasure all their own.

On the second point, I can't see how anyone thinks that the current approach of scaling back CO2 production can succeed. The benefits of increasing it are too great and, a huge chunk of the human population of the planet is simply not going to toe the line. Beyond that, even those nations which ostensibly accept the goals are not really going to meet them. Look at all the nations that signed up for Kyoto that are not meeting the targets. And, Kyoto is very minor compared to what is currently believed to be required. This is much pain for little gain, and a bad deal for everyone.

Adaptation and some method of sequestration are the only truly potentially viable solutions.

If the models can't predict current weather patterns, how can we trust them to predict future weather patterns? If the models don't match reality, that means that the model is garbage. It doesn't mean that we put our faith in the model because it seems like the ideas behind it are sound.

Brian,

Your are correct, Greenland was named Greenland in an attempt to market it. For a similar reason, Iceland was named Iceland -- to keep people away from Iceland (the Vikings wanted it for themselves). You are also correct, Youtube is not a source for peer reviewed data. Youtube, strictly speaking, isn't a source for anything. It's a repository. Some of the things on Youtube are quite good. Much is not. The linked Youtube item was to a documentary produced by a British TV station. It's not a peer reviewed documentary, either. How would you compare it's scientific merits with Al Gore's academy award winning documentary? The NYT had an article that pointed out that some, not all, experts find fault with the accuracy of some Gore's claims. Can you point out any similar misrepresentations from the British documentary?

I'm glad you made it to this most recent debate on just how closed is the question of AGW. When last we exchanged comments on Jane's blog, you said that all the climate models take into account variations in solar activity. You just repeated that claim. I asked if you could point to any graphs comparing solar activity with changes in the earth's temperature. This would allow us to compare the correlation of CO2 to temperature with the correlation of solar activity to temperature. You didn't respond.

(You also called me stupid for wondering if solar cycles might have more impact on global temperature than man's actions. I felt your low estimate of my intelligence may have been factor in your failure to respond to my request. I still have the same question regarding the impact of solar activity on earth's climate, so your estimate of my intelligence is unlikely to have changed. This makes me doubt you'll respond this time, but I hope that you will.)

If you do, you'll likely come back with links to graphs showing that there is a strong correlation between the number of sun spots (an indication of solar activity) and the earth's temperature. Looking closely at the correlation, we'd see that an increase in the number of sun spots is quickly followed by an increase in temperature. Looking at a similar graph of historical CO2 levels, we'd see a strong correlation with CO2 levels. A close look would reveal that a rise in temperature is followed -- after more than a hundred years -- by a similar rise in CO2 levels. While correlation is not causation, this is hardly support for the theory that rising CO2 levels causes rising temperatures. It might be evidence of the opposite, that rising temperatures cause increases in CO2.

How do you explain this apparent contradiction? And, if you are willing to respond, how do you explain the apparent rise in the global temperatures of Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto?

On global warming hysteria...

AGW is very much up for debate...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=swindle

Giving up your leather seats or your maxi-SUV is fine, but that will not have any impact on global warming. What needs to be done to cut CO2 levels to head off global warming will have drastic effects on the world economy.

You and I are not going to die but take a trillion dollars out of the world economy and some folks will. Americans are looking at giving up leather seats, buying carbon credits or some other equally useless gesture. Sub-Saharan Africa will have lots of folks die. Some estimates are that one million people will die over the next 100 years because of global warming. One million people will die this year because of diarrhea. Two million will die from malaria and 100 million will suffer mightily.

If you are going to save the world, set some priorities.

sheez, seems you struck a nerve there, eh? How about a different perspective? Of itself, pollution isn't such a good thing. That is why it is called that. If pollution in general causes something, then the effects, long and short term should be assessed. Global warming is kind of a non issue, because even if the sun IS causing warming, pollution still is a bad idea. If you convince each individual to pollute less, by showing them the pros and cons, as a large group they give you more bang for the buck in terms of pollution reduction.
There is your question of framing. I point out to my neighbor how much more fun a Miata is than his Suburban, and how 90% of the time his Suburban isn't needed... and suddenly it makes more sense for him to own a miata, and RENT a suburban only when the relatives are in town.... und viola he makes the decision to do that instead, getting 3x better gas milage, and less than half as much pollution. I didn't have to legislate that, I just asked the right questions.
Do you remember when we all started turning off the lights when we were kids? You make it as simple as a penny saved is a penny earned, and suddenly the joneses look stupid for having every light in their house on. You get to be happy because you didn't spend the money. It is true that if that kind of conservation takes off, the per unit price edges up, but it will settle, especially, when you are careful to mention all the fringe benefits of saving energy.
Mention to China how they might corner the market on good nuclear, if they are willing to go there, and they will stop building bad coal plants, and they will sell nukes to you to...
All without tons and tons of regulation. Without hand wringing, without putting on a hairshirt...

Cheers, D
ps. and yeah, I know NOTHING is ever that easy, but if we can start with the 80% solution, I think we could get there, eventually...

Any theory of global warming that does not specifically account for the varying level of the sun's output is fundamentally flawed. The Sun is an electrical entity, as all the new research clearly shows and although nuclear fusion may be occurring on the sun, the Sun is primarily just a part of the electrical currents flowing through space. The solar "wind" is electricity. The Sun's output is not constant and cannot possibly be proven or assumed to be. See Professor Don Scott (PhD Electrical Engineering, U Mass) book, The Electric Sky. It is time to bring science, particularly astronomy, geology, and archaology into the 21st century and recognize the role of electricity as the dominant force over the much weaker force of gravity. Entrenched academicians are ignoring new evidence from space probes and space telescopes so they can maintain their lock on public funding of out-dated pseudo-theories. Global Warming nonsense theories that ignore the electrical nature of the Sun (and all stars) and assume the constant output of the Sun, are garbage. Go to www.thuderbolts.info or to Don Scott's website. If you think Mainstream media is bad, mainstream academics is just as corrupt. There is nothing wrong with trying to cut pollution, but let's not base future spending of billions of dollars on fundamentally flawed assumptions about what drives climate.

If the models can't predict current weather patterns, how can we trust them to predict future weather patterns?

Please allow me to address this question. There are lots of reasons to question the accuracy of the climate models, but this is NOT one of them. The models are designed to predict changes in climate, not weather. I live in the middle of a desert. That does not mean it never rains here, it just means it seldom rains here. A climate model that predicts even less rain for my area would not be proven incorrect just because it rained the following month. Climatic changes are measured over decades, not days or weeks. A model would be accurate for my area if, over time, we were dryer -- despite occasionally wetter than average periods. Similarly, the fact this past February was one of the coldest in the last 100 years does not mean the climate models are wrong. But it's not a vote in favor of accuracy, either.

Here is an excellent article on the problem with current global warming assumptions:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8gfbewe7

for those of you interested in the GW debate head on over to ''The Reference Frame'' Lubos Motl has a great post today.Megan you might enjoy it.

Oh well.

The hysteria is based on two things. Recent increases in CO2, which are well within long term variations, and therefore just as explainable by natural variation as anything else, and bad, and recent temperature records.

We have about 300 years worth of temperature records, and prior to wwii, they are increasingly spotty and full of measurement error.

The two most common continuous weather records are maritime and aviation, both kept for business advantage, neither requiring absolute accuracy (in contrast to, for example, time measurement, which requires absolute accuracy for longitude measurement, which is why we've had accurate clocks for 250 years), kept by people who didnt' care about Al Gore or global warming, and both suffering from significant systematic measurement bias towards heat.

Ships have converted from wood to steel, low to high during this time frame, and no one then or now was attempting to measure sea surface or air temperatures with the degree of precision attributed to them by the greenies. An air temperature reading six feet above the surface of the ocean on an unheated wooden boat is going to be considerably different than a reading 90 feet above the water on an 80,000 ton steel cruise ship. Away from the stabilizing effect of the water, the variations in temperature readings will rise. In the presence of a powered, heated, steel vessel, the readings will rise. And the ship captains didn't care then and don't care now. Their company's weather office wants the data for financial planning reasons, not to make sure al gore finally gets elected president.

And nowadays, you get your weather from the local airport. On land - hotter automatically. And urbanization is overpowering. The pattern is consistent - politicians by undeveloped land near a big city, then announce the need for an airport - Midway. Then the city grows around it, so politicians buy undeveloped land farther out, and announce the need for a new airport - OHare. Then the city grows around it, so politicians buy more undeveloped land farther away- Peotene, and announce the need for a new airport. We will hear in 30 years that the average temperature at Peotene has risen one whole degree, therefore, we should immediately terminate western civilization. From people who just flew into Peotene in Gulfstream.

And when I am landing my plane, I want to know the temperature in relation to freezing, and the temp dew point spread, and one degree celsius accuracy is dandy. I don't care what the temperature was an hour ago or an hour in the future, I don't care that the FAA sent new equipment a month ago that threw everything off by a half a degree - and neither does the tower or the airport manager.

Take away utterly unreliable, biased temperature records taken on bad instruments by people who cared not one whit for long term comparability and you are left with a rise in CO2 well within long term norms. And we're at the end of an inter-glacial warm period. And for this western civilization must come to an end.

But the greenies also don't understand that they have repeatedly doubled down politically on what will appear to be a tulip bulb level hysteria in five years. So what if global warming is in fact either not occurring or not being caused by humans? What happens to the greenies then? Have they thought that one through?

Here's a thought for them. Perhaps we ought to not pollute when we can reasonably avoid doing so because, well, you shouldn't sh*t where you eat. For artistic reasons, if nothing else.

80 pages for those who have not made up their minds about global warming and how to respond to it.

http://www.carbontradewatch.org/pubs/carbon_neutral_myth.pdf

The criticism of the solar explanation for warming cycles has been that the variation in solar heating is insuffient to explain the warming we have experienced. No more.
From the research recently reported by the Danish National Space Center:

"DNSC is basing its effort in this area on own scientific results – observational, experimental, and theoretical. The scientific results have been published internationally and indicate that the varying activity of the Sun is indeed the largest and most systematic contributor to natural climate variations. The effect goes through solar modulation of the cosmic radiation, which affects the formation of aerosols and thereby also the formation of clouds. Even though a physical mechanism connecting cosmic rays to aerosol formation has been found experimentally, no climate model has yet made an attempt to include such an effect."
http://spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/climate-research-at-the-danish-national-space-center

Wallster wrote

*As far as the general population, is it possible that leftists are more likely to believe scientists, whereas right-wingers are anti-science and inclined to latch onto any contrary argument as rationale for disbelieving the consensus of the scientific community?*

IN your world it's possible, wallster. Because in your world the left are the hyperintellectuals and the right are the redneck dunderhead offspring of cousins.

But here, in the real world, the arguments being made against anthroglobalwarming are visibly based on evidence and common sense. And the going arguments in favor of it are "accept the consensus or be isolated and discredited by the movement!"

Even the post that began this thread, Megan's original post, came in the form of the presumption that AnthroGW is true without a discussion of it. That is what makes we rightard rednecks so angry. We don't disbelieve reflexively in science, but believe it or not we do know the difference between science and Stalinist information control.

I don't see any of the proAGW types getting death threats from the antis. But it's very much happening the other way around.

JohnH,

Thanks for the pointer to the Danish National Space Center. Lots of interesting stuff, including:

Cosmic ray intensities – and therefore cloudiness – keep changing because the Sun’s magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy, before they can reach the Earth. Radioactive carbon-14 and other unusual atoms made in the atmosphere by cosmic rays provide a record of how cosmic-ray intensities have varied in the past. They explain repeated alternations between cold and warm periods during the past 12,000 years. Whenever the Sun was feeble and cosmic-ray intensities were high, cold conditions ensued, most recently in the Little Ace Age that climaxed 300 years ago.

Who knew mankind causes cosmic radiation? /snark. The Danish National Space Center has published a study demonstrating a link between cosmic rays and cloud formation. The link is demonstrated both by the correlation between the levels of cosmic rays and cloudiness and by experiments showing that cosmic rays free electrons in the atmosphere that "help to assemble the building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei on which water vapour condenses to make clouds." Very interesting stuff; stuff that "no climate model has yet made an attempt to include."

D - The problem with what you say is that CO2 is not a pollutant. So, focusing on reducing CO2 may result in reductions in pollutants as a side benefit, but you could do a better job by focusing on specific pollutants.

The science of global warming is far from settled.
There is much better correlation of temperature change with solar energy flux than with CO2. See "The Great Global Warming Swindle" at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

Paul Morris

RE: "Global Warming".

You may be convinced, and Ron Bailey may be convinced, but that doesn't make the conventional "global warming" hypothesis true. Yes, the world is warmer now than it was in the 1700's; the Hudson River used to freeze, and now it doesn't. But does that mean that we humans are CAUSING the warming, or is it just part of the long-term variations in the climate?

Well, 1000 years ago, the Vikings raised dairy cattle in Greenland, and Leif Erikson founded "Vinland", named for all the grape vines, in Labrador. The Romans used to raise grapes in England.

If you ignore the highly politicized pseudo-scientists, you'll see that there is still a LOT of debate on the causes and ultimate effects of climate change. Best guess: this is one more example of climate CYCLES. It's been warmer before; it'll be colder soon.

Where is Glenn anyway? This verbose virtual Instapundit isn't working. Now I know why I ignored this Jane Galt pseudo a long time ago. Please Glenn, either don't ever leave again or find someone less longwinded. I don't care what this person thinks. At all.

Kabul, Afghanistan

Thank you for saying what I think about Starbucks' coffee. I have to confess, though, that my favorite coffee is Taster's Choice instant. People sneer when I admit this.

I'm very relieved by these comments. The MSM has been regurgitating the certainty of AGW for long enough now that I was beginning to lose faith. I can see by these comments that there is a substantial number of people that aren't buying. I'm going to quit worrying about this now, drive my tiny car to the park enjoy the sunset (on the west coast) and remember how much better pretty much everything is now than it used to be and think about how much better it's going to get in the future.

David - a couple of quick points.

"How would you compare it's scientific merits with Al Gore's academy award winning documentary?"

I haven't seen Al Gore's documentary. I have no idea about it's scientific content - please notice I didn't CITE Gore's documentary.

"If you do, you'll likely come back with links to graphs showing that there is a strong correlation between the number of sun spots (an indication of solar activity) and the earth's temperature. Looking closely at the correlation, we'd see that an increase in the number of sun spots is quickly followed by an increase in temperature. Looking at a similar graph of historical CO2 levels, we'd see a strong correlation with CO2 levels. A close look would reveal that a rise in temperature is followed -- after more than a hundred years -- by a similar rise in CO2 levels. While correlation is not causation, this is hardly support for the theory that rising CO2 levels causes rising temperatures. It might be evidence of the opposite, that rising temperatures cause increases in CO2."

So you want me to go out and find graphs supporting your argument? I have run models for various climate changes on a blade computer set up (small clustered super computer). I can perhaps upload those assuming I can still find the data. Here you are free to run one version yourself

http://edgcm.columbia.edu/

See as opposed to most of the people on this blog - I actually take a look at the climate models and try to see how they are constructed. I don't repeat talking points. Nor do I mischaracterize other people's posts.

"You also called me stupid for wondering if solar cycles might have more impact on global temperature than man's actions."

Nope that's not what I said. I merely pointed out that the sun's output variability is taken into account in current models. Your assertion that climatologists don't take into account was stupid. Climatologists have long known about solar variability output. It explained a cooling period in the first half of the century. You asserted this was something they didn't take into consideration which of course is wrong.

For example buffknut's point

"he Sun's output is not constant and cannot possibly be proven or assumed to be. "

except of course current climate models don't assume it to be a constant. Had he examined the underlying models, he would know that. Since he didn't bother to do this, he merely repeats a point he found at a web site.

"We don't disbelieve reflexively in science, but believe it or not we do know the difference between science and Stalinist information control."

Actually considering that 43% of the American population believes the earth is 10,000 years old. I suspect they "disbelieve reflexively in science."

Please cite the specific failures in current climate models. You must cite the actual model and where it fails. Please note that currently NO ONE has done that on this blog so far. Pointing out a link to youtube or poor designed websites by conspiracy theorists doesn't qualify.

Like I said before here. Global climate change is happening and at this point there is very little we can do about it.

Yes Brian, clearly taking the fluctuation of the sun into account in regards to how much of the suns IR will be absorbed by CO2 and Methane is the same thing as taking the temperature correlation and cosmic ray components into account. /sarcasm

Also, I certainly don't hold "Megan's view" on AGW policy against her. She basically assumed the Economists position when she started working for them. I believe she implied as much shortly before or after the blog started. Not provable, but it looks like she's insincerely pulling the band wagon for the economist. Note that just before she made a provocative post she provided a forum that would bring together much of the arguments against "her position". Megan seems to be shilling for the non-catastrophic AGW movement.

Sure it's a bit sloppy, but there's also a lot of very good information in this thread.

And don't everyone forget to look at Nir Shaviv's sciencebits.com blog, in particular the CO2orSolar post and comments.

Megan and all you folks that are convinced CO2 is the culprit, get on over to Powerline News and spend some time watching "The Great Global Warming Swindle." A mind is a terrible thing to waste.So is hundreds of billions of dollars.

Brian Despain,

I must of course answer your challenge with a challenge of my own (this is due to my ignorance of the technical aspects of the models, and therefore I must use a heuristic method of argument, as I assume that with your expertise in weather models, you can provide the answers.)

Please name one weather model which has any ability to predict future weather patterns.

Please provide data which shows that model(s)' record of successful vs unsuccessful weather pattern prediction.

You may include any model which can successfully predict temperature patterns as well as that model(s)' success rate.

I anxiously await your reply.

Sincerely,
Joel Mackey
Burleson, Texas

It's been warmer before; it'll be colder soon.

Brian Despain

Global climate change is happening and at this point there is very little we can do about it.

Yes, Brian, We got that the first three times you said that. Most of us agree. Further, I'll stipulate: Global Climate Change has always happened, and at this or any other point there was little we had to do with it or can do about it.

I've also looked at the models, those that have been released to reviewing community - which, by the way - are insufficient to reproduce the reported results, much less the prediction of previous events.

I guess you will have to appeal to more "authority."

Well, anyone who wants to believe in AGW is free to do so. Before we spend a dime on it, though, they ought to be prepared to demonstrate a few things:

First, eliminating the "A" component in GW will do demonstrable good. No one should have to give up their standard of living so Al Gore can feel good about himself.

Second, a cure can actually be had. If the "A" component cannot be eliminated, then spending a dime on it is a waste of money. Again, none of us should have to give up a thing if all we're doing is giving Al Gore a reason to live.

Third, the cure won't be worse than the disease. It would be foolish to compel people to accept an appreciably lower standard of living for negligible benefits.

As for the suggestion made - carbon tax, caps & credits, etc. . . . .

someone suggested Megan is a libertarian.

Artificially adjusting markets through taxes & rationing is a dadgum strange approach for a libertarian.

P.S. PLEASE don't appeal to "consensus" on matters scientific.

First, science either is or isn't - - the pile of scientists you build believing in something isn't worth a tinker's damn if the 'something' isn't in fact true.

Second, if there's one scenario that's been repeated in science throughout history, it's that of "scientific consensus" at a particular point in time eventually being discovered to be complete bunk. In fact, mankind getting it wrong when it first starts studying a subject tends to be the rule rather than the exception.

It is indeed still green in certain parts of greenland today. I think it was green in the past when people settled there and the whole "marketing" myth was passed on by modern historians who know people lived there in the past, but now that most of greenland is ice they were forced to assume it must have been hype 800 years ago. The problem is unless you were there 800 years ago you only have circumstancial evidence to go by. Which is: settlements have been found in greenland, some of them under ice or permafrost.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

So please don't try to pass that 7th grade history teacher bs about greenland being ice throughout all of history. It's safe to assume if people used to live in areas which are inhospitable, that those areas probably used to be hospitable.

But maybe you know better after stumbling upon Erik's marketing plan, which revealed his true intentions.

"2) Should we do something about it?"

This question assumes that we actually can do soething to stop/mitigate it

What nobody really knows is that if we all stopped breathing/driving cars, etc. tomorrow.....

Would the earth notice?

My post is being held for moderation. Too many URLs I suspect.

Joel start here for understanding how climate models have evolved over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model

But here's the lead paragraph,

"There are both atmospheric GCMs (AGCMs) and ocean GCMs (OGCMs). An AGCM and an OGCM can be coupled together to form an atmosphere-ocean coupled general circulation model (AOGCM). With the addition of other components (such as a sea ice model or a model for evapotranspiration over land), the AOGCM becomes the basis for a full climate model. Within this structure, different variations can exist, and their varying response to climate change may be studied (e.g., Sun and Hansen, 2003)."

I suggest everyone read that Greenland article - great stuff.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

The end for Greenland was multi-variant, in which climate cooling played a part.

aaron-

I'm not sure whether you were responding to me, but you are correct that AGW is mentioned in risk management circles (I'm in the insurance industry), however it is utterly ridiculous to state that it is being mentioned solely for marketing purposes in order to justify increased rates.

Rather, underwriting professionals need to make rational decisions in pricing risk, and to do so they must consider all relevant facts without prejudice. That means that they need to consider the fact that the earth is warming at an alarming rate and this is going to affect weather patterns, and therefore underwriting profits. They don't have the luxury to disregard scientific evidence that global warming denialists have.

Dave -
Umm, I haven't heard of any global warming denier's lives being threatened. If anything, the only threat is the kneejerk stalinist denialism evident in the posts above.

Megan McCardle, Gregg Easterbrook, Michael Shermer, Ron Bailey... all former sceptics have been forced to accept AGW. Perhaps you should consider abandoning your irrational biases lest you be the last one on the denialist raft.

"I guess you will have to appeal to more "authority."

I wasn't appealing to authority. Merely pointing out that no one here has offered a valid critique on a climate model. Instead we get links to youtube and a couple of sites that look slapped together in weekend. Why is it that we don't see critiques in specific climate models?

"I've also looked at the models, those that have been released to reviewing community"

Ah the models have been released - that's how science is done and some of the them have over a million variables such HadOM3 and GFDL XM2.X.

http://nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov/CM2.X/

You realize you can go download the data and the models and look right? There's no big conspiracy to keep these from you or hidden away so scientist can enforce their Stalinist regime.

Just so you guys know - I think global climate change and peak oil are tremendous business opportunities. HUGE in fact.

Still anxiously awaiting that data showing the rate of successful prediction of future events... I mean surely they can at least predict the temperature with say 60% accuracy?

I like your out "my post was too link rich"... that is rich. You should be on coast to coast with Art Bell.

Brian says.

Why is it that we don't see critiques in specific climate models?

Simple really. The "scientist" do not make their models or data sets public except under duress. Even with pressure the releases are often partial.

I have designed servo systems where the models are excellent and based on first principles (physics and control theory). A very good model will give results within 10% of real performance. And we are to assume that the much more complicated climate models are within 1%? I don't think so.

Climate models (as far as is known) are full of fudge factors to make the numbers come out right. So the models are proably not good predictors and are not based on first principles.

Just one example - an error of 1% in the "cloud" factors would destroy model validity. Do able you say? The data sets are no better than 1% accurate. Probably worse. Plus it is not known if the sign of the cloud factor is positive or negative let alone within 1% of the real value. It is just assumed to be some value.

GIGO

We are to spend trillions based on models that are poor and data that is far from solid at the required accuracy?

Measurement to high enough accuracy is very difficult today. Then go back 100 years (the start of the data) and the accuracy is worse.

Based on unknown models (where the transfer function factors are not known to the required accuracy) and poor data sets you want to place a trillion dollar bet?

It is a con game.

Which just goes to show that if stuff is complicated enough you can design a good con without too much effort if you can conceal your methods. Better than alchemy.

Hot air into gold. Climate alchemy.

Umm, Brian, I believe Stott et al was mentioned. Look back at the CrookedTimber, Charlie Brown and the football hack job Quiggen posted for a link to the paper.

I probably recall incorrectly, but I think it may have been you that blithely dismissed it without any clue of it's significance and threw out a strawman.

wallster,

Are the risk management folks placing their bets based on the cause of global warming or just the results?

Does the risk manager care if solar output is the cause rather than CO2 output? Of course not.

Yet you cite risk management to bolster the case for spending trillions on CO2 reductions.

Where does all this fuzzy thinking come from?

"When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead"

aaron on March 14, 2007 10:03PM reccommends:

Nir Shaviv's sciencebits.com blog, in particular the CO2orSolar post and comments.

I also highly reccommend Nir's stuff.

For the more technically minded:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Another interesting point is that the IPCC and the climate community as a whole prefer to rely on global circulation models which cannot predict the sensitivity (to better than a factor of 3 uncertainty!), and they choose to ignore the empirical evidence which shows that the climate sensitivity is actually on the low side.

IPCC bias

Second, if he would have sent me that article before publishing, I would have pointed out various inaccuracies in it. Here are some details in the article:

* "Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists" - given that I am the only scientist mentioned in the article, I presume it is meant to describe me. So, no, I don't deny global warming exists. Global warming did take place in the 20th century, the temperature increased after all. All I am saying is that there is no proof that the global warming was anthropogenic (IPCC scientists cannot even predict a priori the anthropogenic contribution), and not due to the observed increase in solar activity (which in fact can be predicted to be a 0.5±0.2°C contribution, i.e., most of the warming). Moreover, because empirically Earth appears to have a low sensitivity, the temperature increase by the year 2100AD will only be about 1°C (and not 2°C and certainly not 5°C), assuming we double the amount of CO2 (It might certainly be less if we'll have hot fusion in say 50 years).

No Interview

Hot fusion has very good prospects:

Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion

So far this program can't even get $2 million in funding for the preliminary research. Or the $200 million for a test reactor.

So tell me. If AGW is real why haven't the AGW folks latched on to this?

I claim politics. A cheap and easy solution is not in the interest of the control freaks.

If spending trillions on reducing CO2 output is a good idea why is it so hard to raise .02% of that amount for a program that will reduce electrical costs by a factor of 10X and be ready for production in 5 to 7 years?

Such a lowering of production costs would insure a very quick roll out.

The 15% temperature variations were a misquote by Kathleen Wong from a long ago published article in the California Wild. Her error was that she accidentally omitted "cloud cover". It should have been "as much as a 15% variation in the cloud cover, which cause large temperature variations" (of order 5 to 10 degs).

From the above "No Interview" link.

Megan,

I don't want to sound like a chucklehead, but have you seen the video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

that rebutts An Inconveinent Truth?

I think that it raises some important points and is worth watching.

P.S. Watch it fast, because Google is taking it down every time someone objects to it.

P.S. Watch it fast, because Google is taking it down every time someone objects to it.

Well obviously they're taking it down because AGW is not debatable anymore.

Maybe bookburning wasn't such a bad thing after all.

If I thought that global warming will cause human life to cease to exist on Earth, I'd be worried too. I also expect that I'd do more than complain about others' moral responsibilities, like maybe not have a job that requires all sorts of trans and intercontinental travel and give up my fancy appliances. Of course, I'd probably also expect to have at least a vague notion of how this could possibly happen.

Wallster,

If you think "deniers" aren't getting death threats you aren't paying attention. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031207.htm

These threats are almost certainly coming from cranks, but anyone care for a game of 'Gore or Kazinski'? http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html
Threats to "deniers" careers are a much bigger barrier to good science.

The very fact that they are referred to as 'deniers' is a very bad sign. Remember Galileo was a geocentric solar system denier. Other scientists couldn't beat him on the science but they won a short term battle in the political arena.

Wallster,

Here's another link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

Interglacial periods last 10,000 to 15,000 years. The last glacial period ended 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.

I hope humans actually can cause global warming.

On the theme of a contrasting unpopular view (Tyrone) post on MarginalRevolution.com (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/03/tyrone_says_it_.html):

1) I suspect strongly that reducing the energy (or emissions) generated by a process costs more per unit of energy saved if that process is already more efficient.

2) Users of energy in the US who could potentially be compelled or encouraged to reduce their CO2 emissions almost certainly generate more dollars of output per ton of CO2 than similar energy users in India and China.

3) India and China are two of the world's largest and fastest growing emitters of CO2, yet have not chosen to strongly deter their citizens from increasing CO2 emissions.

4) It only seems reasonable therefore to conclude that the governments of India and China do not believe that the costs of reducing emissions exceed the benefits. Those costs are largely in the loss of present and future production and therefore are easily convertable to dollars.

5) Since we can not reduce CO2 at lower cost than India and China, it follows that they would not want us to spend any funds that we are willing to altruistically supply for their benefit on CO2 reduction.

You might still decide that India and China are wrong and we should paternalistically reduce global warming for their benefit, but it's worth at least considering that they don't consider it a good use of their own money, and they are the two large economies most likely to be impacted.

That "Global Warming Swindle" is a nicely put together piece of documentary.

It even shows how Al Gore's logic is off when it comes to CO2.

Well there is no chance in heck that I will have the time or inclination to read what is now a 146 comment long thread-

However even if it has been previously stated I will concur that:

We are given three commentators to cover for Professor Reynolds while he is away.

Great, we think , three times the content.

Wrong, more like one third of the content.

Are we simply spoiled by Reynolds stakhanovite blogging schedule?

UGh - two comments swallowed. Once again probably too large or too many links.

I have idea Megan - turn on typepad authentication.

I'm not convinced that global warming is substantially anthropologic(with the exception of a large spike due to particulate reduction http://rationalenvironmentalist.com/particulates.html). If it's not primarily a man made phenomenon then isn't it very dangerous to declare man (in particular America) liable for global climate status quo?

This pile-on by the environmental science community sub optimizing their cause over the biases of other equally worthy causes like charity, health and, startlingly, world general economic well being; is very troublesome.

Tread lightly friends.

When I was a child, there was a movie out that PROVED Big Foot existed. Really. And I told my 10 year old daughter this when she came home worried about GW.

I believe AGW will be a big joke years from now.

In the mean time, lets not destroy our economy for a theory.

Janie

"When I was a child, there was a movie out that PROVED Big Foot existed. Really. And I told my 10 year old daughter this when she came home worried about GW."

You mean this one?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0191831/

The fact that you put Bigfoot on the same level as global climate change shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. GCC is real. But keep "making your own reality."

Here Brian, the Stott article is in here.

At one point, I claim GHG only accounts for 10% of recent warming. That's wrong, I misread and was comparing early century GHG warming to recent GW. Many believe the number is closer to 1/3 up to about 1/2 (of course most of that is from assumed compounding mechanisms, warming causes warming).

And cosmic ray flux correlates with 1.5% change in global low cloud cover. Don't think that's included in models.

Simpleton -

Thanks for the links. That is one example of supposed email death threats to one scientist. Clearly, anybody who would make a death threat in this case is, as you said, a crank. It doesn't seem to be a pervasive problem, however. I googled the topic of 'death threats and global warming' and hit about 100 blogs all referring to the same scientist. If not reading any of these agenda promoting blogs means I'm not paying attention, then so be it.

As far as my labeling you as a 'denier', Galileo was a visionary who defended and believed in heliocentrism, before the majority accepted that the earth revolved around the sun. I would say that AGW-deniers are akin to those who still clung to the idea of an earth-centered universe years after a heliocentric model was accepted.

Joel Mackey - your sarcastic comment suggests that because there are no models that can correctly predict future weather patterns, we should disregard any evidence of AGW. We shoudl just forget about it, because we have no tested model that accurately predicts weather patterns. Good idea.

When the weatherman says there is an 80% chance of rain, do you leave your umbrella at home because weathermen are so often wrong and therefore their hysterical prediction of rain is worthless?

I anxiously await your reply.

M. Simon:
Thank you for the points as to the relative accuracy of air temperature measurements. I have similiar experiance and training (MSEE) and agree that a +/- 1 degree F accuracy over any reasonable time span is about the best one could expect from the current location and equipment contained in the typical NOAA site. Considering those records and comparing them to prior records obtained from mercury thermometers adds another source of variance. Yet, we are told that a supposed increase of 0.6 degrees C in mean annual "Global" temperature since 1900 (?)is not only accurate but meaningful. Prior to November of '06, NOAA's records indicated that the decade of the 1930's was the warmest decade of the recent past and that, at least in Ohio, the warmest year was not 1998 (or 1999 depending on what news conference one selects) but rather 193x. However, Dr. Hansen, et al, have now quietly "adjusted" those records so that the 1930 temperatures are now in "3rd place". Reportedly, a "computer error" resulted in the loss of the prior data. Additional comments about this development can be found at climateaudit.org. Of cource, this is just my opinion and according to previous posts, I am biased against science-see my posting "name" to confirm that.

Aaron that's a link to a bunch of blog comments. Exactly what you me to take away from that? I need to know which needle to look for in that haystack of comments.

Oh Mike the poor victim.

"Of cource, this is just my opinion and according to previous posts, I am biased against science-see my posting "name" to confirm that."

Actually my previous posts stated that people that believe that the earth is 10,000 years old tend to be biased against science. It certainly wasn't that guys named Mike are biased against science.

"However, Dr. Hansen, et al, have now quietly "adjusted" those records so that the 1930 temperatures are now in "3rd place". Reportedly, a "computer error" resulted in the loss of the prior data."

That's right it's all a big scientist conspiracy. The evil scientists are trying to control you.

M. Simon -

You are correct, underwriters and risk managers don't give a rats ass what causes climate change when assessing risk, but in the publications they produce it is generally referred to as 'human caused', not that that means anything. Also, I never said 'let's spend trillions' on anything. Not sure where that trillion$ number is coming from.

Your otherwise reasonable points in this thread are diminished by your ridiculous claim that the "Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion" project is not getting $2 million in funding for the preliminary research because it is not in the interest of global warming "control freaks". If this $2m is such an easy fix, do you think that the free market that is so dear to most on this board would, you know, invest the modest sum in anticipation of the mind-boggling rate of returns it would generate if a solution was found?

The only action I need about global warming is a victory in a tort suit. A victory which is likely if property owners are faced with increased insurance premiums along the southern coast.

Libertarians have no other measure of global warming.

Wallster,

Galileo was a scientist. He formulated a hypothesis, gathered data, and published his results. His data generation and results were questioned by other scientists (who questioned him used the church/government against him). That is what science is all about. What I am seeing now with climate change research doesn't have any of these characteristics. Government is subsidizing one side of the issue, journals don't publish and tenure doesn't follow for researchers that do not toe the line. I see quite a few parallels.

The word 'denier' is the worst sort of ad hominem attack because it is linked to 'holocaust denier.' Stick to the facts and have an honest debate on those facts and you will have a lot more credibility and you will certainly get to avoid those 16th century papacy generalizations.

The models are great but they do not substitute for data. Brian refers to models with a million variables as if this is a badge of honor. A million variables is a million chances for error and variance. While I am not a model nerd, I have known a few and you have to have a very good understanding of each element before you can model a complete system. The more we understand the elements of the AGW system the lower the global mean temperature change predicted becomes. Even with the best modeling, the predicted reduction in global warming expected from full compliance with the Kyoto Protocol is far less than the error in the models.

One scientist receives five death threats. Shouldn't he get a Grammy Award or something.

Simon,

I have to agree with Wallster on this one. "Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion" isn't easy and it isn't low cost. If it were people would be breaking down doors to invest.

It will cost more than going to the moon and the project's success is far from guaranteed. The United States, the European Union, Russia, Japan, South Korea and China will spend over $10 Billion on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. The hard part about fusion is getting more energy out than you put in to start and contain the reaction.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm

"The fact that you put Bigfoot on the same level as global climate change shows your lack of knowledge on the subject."

Yes, I believe both to be science fiction, or at least junk science. I am greatly disturbed at the general public's tendency to believe this theory without serious, critical thinking. We need to ask hard questions before we allow ourselves to be scared into traveling down a very difficult path.

The earth has warmed and cooled periodically during its entire existence - without help from SUVs with leather seats. Sometime profoundly, sometime mildly. Now the temperature has apparently increased by 1 degree in 100 years – its all our fault and we are doomed - no discussion. Let go right into the schools and scare the school children! Even if it is warming – and we know that is has warmed slightly over the past 100 years (warming back up from the Little Ice Age perhaps?), we cannot be sure that it will continue to do so to a ruinous level. We cannot be sure we are the cause (there is in fact evidence to the contrary – sun activity). And we cannot be sure that all efforts to change the climate would have any effect at all. At lot of the pro AGW people agree with the last point. But hey, lets destroy our economy so that we can at least say we are “doing something” and we can feel so good about ourselves.

A study of the "little ice age" is very instructive, I believe. Humans did what human do - we adapted.

I am sorry if you think that I should just jump on board and agree to do serious damage our economy - our future - and our dreams on your say so, or on the say so of SOME "experts". Guess what, other experts disagree. Perhaps you are the one that need to educate yourself on the facts so you cannot be led around like a sheep.

From Jane Smith:

I am greatly disturbed at the general public's tendency to believe this theory without serious, critical thinking

As we have told you over and over, we have already had "serious, critical thinking", we have already asked the "hard questions", and we now have a consensus on the answers with which no rational person can even find the smallest crack to debate. End of discussion!

Someone asks:

"what is the optimum temperature for the planet?"

The actual temperature change will be a balance between tort damages and fossil fuel premiums due to tort.

Biologically, evolution has set the average temperature at about 4 deg cooler than now.

Remember, the glacial cycle is really driven by biological activity, but phased by orbital considerations.

"I am sorry if you think that I should just jump on board and agree to do serious damage our economy - our future - and our dreams on your say so, or on the say so of SOME "experts". Guess what, other experts disagree. Perhaps you are the one that need to educate yourself on the facts so you cannot be led around like a sheep."

What other experts? Can you show me one? Can you offer a single critique of either of the two climate models I mentioned earlier other than I don't believe it?

Climate change in previous periods wasn't as RAPID as the current changes are (in fact the current changes are occurring 10 times faster than previous periods) Climate changes over longer periods are easier to adapt to. Led around like sheep? You have no idea how climatology works or even what the current climate models are. I have taken the time to look at them and decided that indeed the climate is changing. Please note I have not staked out the human involvement (the rapidness of the current set of changes leads me to believe some human involvement). Yet I am the sheep. You are literally repeating talking points. If you want to discuss the issue - then let's discuss it but I am not going to take "I don't believe it" as much in the way of scientific evidence.

Folks - the data is out there. I encourage you to go look for yourself. For example Deranged AGW Proponent's sarcastic post on highlights the problem. It's not that people are telling you to shut up, it's that when you ask people who deny global climate change is happening (and there are people here on this blog who do just that) or you ask what's wrong with the model, you don't get a substantive reply other than I think it's wrong.

"Brian refers to models with a million variables as if this is a badge of honor."

Actually I was calling bullshit on someone's claim to "have examined the models when they become available". The models are complex and publically available via download. The idea that scientists are hiding information is silly since that's not how science is done. Given the complexity of the models I am pretty sure they will never be 100% accurate.

"While I am not a model nerd, I have known a few and you have to have a very good understanding of each element before you can model a complete system."

I agree however, the picture as our understanding of climate models has gotten worse, not better. I realize the models are flawed but getting better models comes through work and research. The data and models both agree - something is happening - we just disagree with the extent of the changes.

"Even with the best modeling, the predicted reduction in global warming expected from full compliance with the Kyoto Protocol is far less than the error in the models."

Who suggested adapting Kyoto? Not me. Look I am not suggesting we do anything. My gut told me after looking at the models that it's probably not reversible. (That's right I went with a feeling on that). I suspect we will see a series of positive feedback loops until we arrive at a warmer earth. It's no big deal really since most of the people affected are in the third world.

Look you take a look at the data and take advantage of the situation or you can deny it. For example I suspect that this year's honeybee dieoff was multi-variant but I wouldn't be surprised if warming contributed by increasing parasite load. (Keep in mind this is a developing crisis - we have no idea what is causing the current die-off). As result fruit is going to get more expensive in the United States.

Tyler Cowans complaint: “So much of libertarianism has become a series of complaints about voter ignorance, or against the motives of special interest groups.”

I think that part of the problem is to waste time using general arguments against individual problems.

For example: to argue against a particular tariff, on the grounds that import tariffs in general are bad. Almost certainly, this tariff will be good for the people arguing for it, and no one else pays attention (as people often complain).

So the sensible thing is not to argue against any particular tariff, but to pass laws or make agreements discouraging tariffs in the most general terms possible. Imagine a law or WTO agreement requiring that the money raised from taxes on imports fall by 10% per year. Few people will argue for tariffs in general – just the special cases they happen to benefit from. So such a rule might be passed relatively easily.

After that, tariffs would inevitably become less significant every year. Every year the beneficiaries of tariff X could fight it out with the beneficiaries of tariffs Y and Z, to see who loses this year. To the rest of us it hardly matters who wins this argument – someone will lose, and eventually every tariff will have to be cut.

On a slightly similar note, during the last Tory leadership election in the UK, one candidate argued that the rate of growth of state spending should be capped at 1% less than the rate of growth of the economy. I think his rival just suggested less than GDP growth (“share the proceeds of growth”). If such a rule could be enforced e.g. by a constitutional amendment, then the state would tend to become a smaller part of the economy over time, without any more argument.

More generally, we can imagine some Office of Market Distortion, which would attempt to measure the cost done to the economy by the regulations of each regulatory authority. Then we can require each such authority to cut those costs by x% per year.

There is too much emphasis on fighting individual problems, and not enough on creating institutions to fight those problems for us.

When proponents of AGW claim that climate change was not as rapid as it is now, I suppose that to mean there is no place in the history of the planet where we have seen the kind of warming that has occured in the last century? And from what I hear it has warmed 1 degree in the last century?

So no place in the last 10,000, 100,000, million years has it warmed by one degree or less over the period of 100 years? Please...that's a joke.

Does it at all concern people that there is a certain segment of the scientific population for the last 50 years have been claimoring for us to "do something now!" or else impending doom will come upon us? Actually 50 years is being generious. I think there have always been people standing on the street corner with signs saying "the end is near".

Seems like those in the "consensus" of the scientific community are like the prisoners in Plato's Allegory of the Cave: i.e., they believe reality is represented by what they currently see, without regard to that which they cannot see. What about historical ice ages and warm periods (The 4000 foot walls of Yosemite Valley were created by a glacier in an ice age, and currently receding ice sheets on Greenland show the existence of ancient Norse settlements and farms that were necessarily there before the ice covered them)? What about the sun being warmer now than at any time in the past 1000 years (based on declining Berrylium 10 levels in ice cores, which occurs when the sun becomes hotter)? What about common sense?????

Brian:

Did the Doctor tell you when your meds would kick in?

There is some simple decision tree that clarifies climate change.

First, one has to believe in the glacial cycle.

Then one has to believe the cycles are activly sustained, as opposed to being a damped oscillation.

Then one has to select an external force (orbital mechanics?) or an internal driving force.

If one selects an internal driving force, then one must select, by laws of thermodynamics, an active heat pump.

If one selects the active heat pump, then by semantics, that is called a biological force.

What biological force could be causing the glacial cycle to deviate, if it is?

"Did the Doctor tell you when your meds would kick in?"

So I take this is what passes for "debate"?

"What about historical ice ages and warm periods (The 4000 foot walls of Yosemite Valley were created by a glacier in an ice age, and currently receding ice sheets on Greenland show the existence of ancient Norse settlements and farms that were necessarily there before the ice covered them)?"

There are structures in permafrost - not under ice sheets

"What about the sun being warmer now than at any time in the past 1000 years (based on declining Berrylium 10 levels in ice cores, which occurs when the sun becomes hotter)? What about common sense?????"

Apparently reading is not your strong suit. I merely claimed global climate change was happening (and the I suspected that humans were accelerating the change given rapidness of the change.). Your posts do nothing but bolster that argument. I am not arguing that previous changes didn't occur - only that the current change is faster than previous changes.

"So no place in the last 10,000, 100,000, million years has it warmed by one degree or less over the period of 100 years? Please...that's a joke."

Actually we don't have reliable enough proxy data for "100,000, million " years (Do you mean 100,000 or a million or 100,000,000?). Naturally the farther out you go - the less reliable your data. We do have relatively reliable for last twenty or so shifts. We do have enough data to note the change is rapider than previous shifts.

Brian Despain,

Thank you for your thoughtful posts on this topic. It's obvious that you have spent a lot of time and effort wrestling with the issue of GCC and whether or not there is a human component to it.

While I'm not claiming to have spent nearly as much time as you, I have done a lot of reading and thinking about the question. I remain unpersuaded by my view of the evidence. Yes, I am troubled by the fact I have a different view than people I respect, such as you and Jane. However, I've never let such differences trouble me too much.

As for just one data point that gives me pause with regard to AWG, see the Danish National Space Center's discussion of the interaction of solar activity and cosmic rays on the earth's temperature. Here's a money quote:

DNSC is basing its effort in this area on own scientific results – observational, experimental, and theoretical. The scientific results have been published internationally and indicate that the varying activity of the Sun is indeed the largest and most systematic contributor to natural climate variations. The effect goes through solar modulation of the cosmic radiation, which affects the formation of aerosols and thereby also the formation of clouds. Even though a physical mechanism connecting cosmic rays to aerosol formation has been found experimentally, no climate model has yet made an attempt to include such an effect.

Note that none of the current climate models take this issue into account. Is this accurate? I don't know. I'd have to examine every model to be sure.

What does seem clear from this and other sources is that the vast majority of warming can be accounted for by natural causes. This would seem to indicate that man is NOT causing the warming and reducing our CO2 emissions will have little to no effect.

Sorry for the spelling and other language errors. I'm trying to do too many things at once.

That's correct Dave - it's a new effect and hasn't yet been figured into the models I know and I suspect it well be a few years before it is - it takes time to form a baseline of data.

However the speed of the current change is different than previous climate changes. Look cosmic rays might well help with cloud formation but exactly how does that change the data? It doesn't particular and I suspect that it's a minor effect compared with other factors. BTW the last paragraph on that page states
"That there exists a significant contribution from solar activity variations to global temperature increase does not, however, exclude other contributions to the rising global temperature, natural as well as human. DNSC, however, is focused on establishing the best possible and scientifically based evaluation of the size of solar induced effects on climate."

It's pretty clear that they recognize other inputs to the system but their research is specifically on solar induced effects.

See http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html.
"He[Mann] starts with his software. There are certain procedures that are normal and accepted in his line of work. But if he makes just one little mistake, his program does a weird little recursion and if there's any data at all that shows the pattern he wants it to show, it will be magnified 139 times, so it far overshadows all the other data.

He can run it on random numbers and it gives him the shape he wants. Unfortunately, the real-world numbers aren't random -- they have a very different shape. All the numbers. Even his jimmied program won't give the results he wants."

"And Mann's report is the famous "hockey stick" that "proves" that global warming not only is happening, but right now we're in the warmest climate period in the past thousand years. "

"What were those bad numbers Mann plugged in to get his fake results? Modern bristlecone pine tree-ring data in which recent tree rings showed the widths that would normally mean unusually warm weather.

However, these trees were located near temperature recording stations that showed lower than usual temperatures. So instead of being a sign of warmer temperatures, the tree rings are actually responding to the increased CO2 levels.

Even the heading on this bristlecone pine study clearly stated that the wider tree rings did not indicate higher temperatures. But Mann plugged them in as if they did, producing the one dataset that showed "warmer weather" (i.e., wider tree rings) in recent years, allowing the defective software to produce its hockey-stick result.

The bristlecone pine study was real science. Mann's use of it was deliberately fraudulent."

Read the whole thing.

or read the source material

Read It For Yourselves

I could not possibly array all the evidence here; you must read the books for yourself. Unstoppable Global Warming is a highly accessible book written for ordinary educated readers. It's the book I recommend most highly.

Shattered Consensus, on the other hand, uses the language of various disciplines of science to a degree that makes some chapters fairly difficult for untrained readers, though the key chapter I cited here, on the Hockey Stick Hoax, is quite readable and worth looking at by everybody.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.
Patrick J. Michaels, ed. Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming.. (See especially: Ross McKitrick, "The Mann et al. Northern Hemisphere 'Hockey Stick' Climate Index: A Tale of Due Diligence," pp. 20-49.)

1. My comments about the veracity of whether models was a direct answer to Brian Despain's challange of specific critiques. Therefore your (wellster) characterization of my reply is some lame attempt at a straw man argument.

But to answer your question, I dont listen to the weather man, I don't use umbrella's, my lifestyle does not require it. If I see thunderstorms rolling in, I will check the weather to see if hail is report, not predicted, reported, likewise for tornados. I live in north central Texas, if I dont like the weather, i wait 15 minutes and it changes. If I don't like the chicken little weather alarmists, I apparently have to wait 30 years for them to change their tune.

Anyone who is familiar with FEA (finite element analysis) of geometric solid computer models (cad data) in the engineering of structures finds the reliance of chicken little alarmists on climate models laughable. Do not even get me started on computer models of financial markets and thier ability to predict future price movements. You have basically created this great big complicated system, set yourselves up as the priests of said system and call anyone who denigrates said system a moron or an apostate.

The burden of proof as to the validity of your system (climate models) is on you. Science is about discovering the laws of nature and learning such laws so that we can predict natural phenomenon with extremely high levels of probability. Show me the quantitative data that proves global warming. Otherwise go read Taleb's "Fooled By Randomness", because your just another religious zealot trying to regulate my actions based on your belief system dressed in a gossamer veil of science.

"I like your out "my post was too link rich"... that is rich."

Actually the default settings of MT typically hold a post for moderation if it has more than 3 outgoing links. I run MT for my own blog. So far I have had two comments swallowed in this discussion.

But I guess you can call me a liar if you like. Your rudeness is certainly explained now that I know you are a Texan.

I call bs when I see it, it helps me keep people from getting killed in my line of work.

And until you can provide data which shows that your preferred climate models are in any way successful at showing future climate patterns, I am calling bs on you.

If engineers used climate model standards to design their structures, we certainly would not have a population problem.

So let me get this straight. You think I am lying about the posts?

Another one eaten. Megan must have her threshold set to 2 outgoing.

Observed data, the Hadley Model and the Canadian model

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GCM_temp_anomalies_3_2000.jpg

why dont you post data showing the validity of your climate models which you are trying to use to bolster your authority on the issue?

Cheap debate tactics are just that, cheap.

You claim that your posts are "eaten" or held for moderation, yet you have posted since.... it seems to me that you are afraid to address the issue I have raised and are now trying to move the focus.

The only issue I am discussing is the validity of climate models, all other aspects of the agw debate and this thread in particular are not anything I wish to engage in, at least until this specific issue is addressed.

Local media just reported that today's temperature is 2 degrees colder than yesterday's temperature. At this rate, this time next year the temperature will be, like, more than 300 degrees below absolute zero!! I need to stock up on warm socks.

Did you even look at the link I provided?

Sorry Brian, I think registration is required (but free). Here is a breadown of some models.

I linked the thread because you had been acting as silly as the commenters in the thread. I thought it was funny. I also provided some important studies in the thread, the readers responded with name calling and citing other studies completely unrelated and assertions provably false.

I was hoping to take a look at your links today, but I have the flu or somehting. If I do anything, it'll be read Weart or make some soup. I have likely looked at it all before, but changes of me giving it a serious look in the next week or so are slim.

"why dont you post data showing the validity of your climate models which you are trying to use to bolster your authority on the issue?"

I did - you didn't even look at it.

"You claim that your posts are "eaten" or held for moderation, yet you have posted since.... it seems to me that you are afraid to address the issue I have raised and are now trying to move the focus."

Ok you know what MT stands for right? It stands for Movable Type which is the particular software package powering this blog. You can set the threshold that triggers moderation by the number of outgoing links. It's designed to prevent people from spamming the comments.

Don't believe me - post three outgoing URLs in a comment.

I've been having posts eaten too.

I think two is about right. And I think it helps to keep all links in tags and just a phrase as the text. I tried to do one link, and used the link as the link name also it was eaten.

1. In the course of replying to your childish post about your being a liar or not I did not refresh.... I do not know if you realize this but the thread is not a real time instant message system, there is lag in seeing new posts.

2. The lag in this post and your childish taunts is from me actually looking at your link and links from that link. Would you like for me to assimilate the data and form a reply, or would you like to have a tit for tat pissing match?

3. On a side note, I find it somewhat disturbing that someone who claims intimate (or at least authoritative) knowledge of climate models and the veracity thereof, cannot figure out how to post on a thread using a software application that he himself uses on a regular basis. That is not to say that your not intelligent, just that you, as everyone else, are fallible.

I will return to the links until such time as I have formed an opinion about them.

It seems as if the people screaming consensus overlooked a few scientists...

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/danish_scientist_global_warming_is_a_myth/20070315-012154-7403r/

Every day I see articles like this. All I would like to see is the so called table that shows the earth's temperature for the last 50-100 years. Then show me the radical swings we all need to be so afraid of.

Because so far I'm thinking that the earth has been warmer, the earth has been cooler in the past, so the warming or cooling won't be the end of us.

I really seem to remember from 6th grade science talk about the earth being a lush jungle that the dinosaurs roamed in. All the fossil fuels we are using is from that massive amount of plant life that developed when the earth was warmer.

I don't think it will be a long term problem if things warm up a few degrees. Short term as we have to deal with coastal issues, but overall I'd rather see a field covered in wheat or corn than snow.

Brian says:

However the speed of the current change is different than previous climate changes.

Are you telling me we can go back say 3 million years and get data in even 10 year increments for that period?

If your data points are less than 2X of the frequency you are trying to assess they are useless. It is called the Nyquist limit for those interested in data reconstruction. Normally for rate of change stuff, if you want an accurate value, you would like data at 5X or 10X the frequency you want to see.

Looking at data points 1,000 years apart tells nothting about 100 year rates of change. For 100 year rates of change data every 10 years would be good and every 5 years would be better.

Some questions regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GCM_temp_anomalies_3_2000.jpg

How was the "observed global average temperature" arrived at.

The y axis appears to be a deviation from a baseline (0), what is that baseline temperature.

I would also like to know how many iterations the model developers had to compare their results to their "observed average" and their model's output as there is a tendency to curve fit your results to match past results.

In summation, I will have to research deeper, as no one on this thread seems willing to provide quantitative data supporting any climate models, which my bias leads me to believe is due to the lack of that data's existence.

I note that policy makers and cheerleaders like to point out specific climate events such as Katrina, or various droughts , or warm winter months when proselytizing. Yet when defending their positions wish to revert to general data, averages and smoothed curves, avoiding the specific like the plague.

"On a side note, I find it somewhat disturbing that someone who claims intimate (or at least authoritative) knowledge of climate models and the veracity thereof, cannot figure out how to post on a thread using a software application that he himself uses on a regular basis."

The number of outgoing links that triggers comment moderation is a user defined parameter. MT's default setting is three. Megan has throttled hers back to 2. So if you put more than one link in a post it gets moderated. The only way to find that out is to post comments with links in them. The last post that got moderated had two outgoing links. I know perfectly well how to post - but the outgoing URL limit has been changed from the default, probably because Megan's blog is far more active than mine.

I don't claim to be a climate expert but I have satisfied myself that the models are pointing out a real phenomenon. I occasionally re-visit the issue to keep informed. In fact I only got so actively involved in order to make a housing purchase.

"I don't think it will be a long term problem if things warm up a few degrees. Short term as we have to deal with coastal issues, but overall I'd rather see a field covered in wheat or corn than snow."

Ok just remember there are going to be dislocations and changes you can't predict. I know I briefly mentioned it earlier but there are going to be surprises along the way. I suspect that global climate change has had hand in CCD (colony collapse disorder) by stressing colonies and increasing parasites. Most of the collapsed hives have had greatly increased disease organisms in them.

http://abfnet.org/news/honey-bee-die-off-alarms-beekeepers-crop-growers-researchers/

Things like this will continue to happen. (My take abnormally warm winter increased the number parasites and when the cold snap hit in February, the colonies took it hard as they were far weaker than normal.)

Not world ending but pretty annoying especially if you have crops that rely on bees. (Bees are pretty important in pollenization.

Here you go Joel

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5499/2133

Data sets and model

http://nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov/CM2.X/

Hadley Data Sets

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/

Re: clouds,

We don't even know if we have the sign right let alone the magnitude and yet clouds are admitted by all to be one of the most significant variables.

Since clouds are so significant and the latest experiments show that the sun's magnetic field has a very large influence on clouds (through cosmic rays) then the current models which do not include solar effects on cloud formatin are USELESS except for doing very general sensitivity studies.

If current models can predict the past without getting clouds right the models are either lucky or faked.

So are ya feeling lucky?

"the latest experiments show that the sun's magnetic field has a very large influence on clouds (through cosmic rays)"

This is an assertion - the experiments showed an effect. You have added qualifiers such as "very large" - how large is yet to be determined. Furthermore I agree the sun is by far the largest factor in climate. This newly discovered effect on the sun's magnetosphere on cosmic radiation is another set of variable to be added to the models. This will take several years at a minimum of observational data (and probably more). Hopefully there is an existing correlation to previously monitored solar events.

So Brian,

What is your opinion on the Nyquist limit vs the current data sets? For prehistoric data sets? For geologic data sets? The resolution gets worse the farther back you go.

Given that micro-climate can have a large (1 deg F) impact on the data and a move of as little as 30 ft can cause such a change do we have the information on the location of the climate stations to within 30ft for the last 100 years?

Real science is hard.

Those were naturally in my moderated posts. That's a lot of data to digest and includes access to the full data sets used in the Hadley model. I didn't realize how much data you wanted but hopefully that should be sufficient. If you need further pointers, please feel free and I will try to dig them up. Hopefully this will dispel the notion that people are making thing up out of whole cloth.

This is an assertion - the experiments showed an effect. You have added qualifiers such as "very large" - how large is yet to be determined

Yep. And until we know how large the models are not to be trusted for making trillion dollar bets.

BTW we do not even properly know (leaving out the cosmic ray stuff) if the cloud factor should be reinforcing or deinforcing currently. It is assumed reinforcing. i.e. worst case.

So OK the models show the worst case based on our present state of knowledge.

So do you want to place a trillion dollar bet based on the dice showing sevens 10 times in a row?

I work with model builders for servo systems where everything is bounded. The environment benign. Measurement is easy and accurate (better than 1%) and we still feel good about a result within 10% of the real world. Climate is 100X harder. Data accuracy is worse and you want me to believe that you can come it at better that 1% (3 deg C) accuracy?

You know I find that hard to swollow.

It has to be base on faith not engineering (my field) or science.

I'm looking forward to your exposition on the Nyquist limit with reference to data reconstruction.

"What is your opinion on the Nyquist limit vs the current data sets? For prehistoric data sets? For geologic data sets? The resolution gets worse the farther back you go."

Background for everyone else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency

Simon has a good point. The proxy data we have for older climate data is in my mind crap. Other than ice cores, the various other proxy data (Bristlecone pines etc) are not too trustworthy. Modern data sets are vastly superior (and far larger)

"do we have the information on the location of the climate stations to within 30ft for the last 100 years?"

This might surprise you but yes we have their location. Weather stations are largely used in weather prediction which is pretty important in modern society. I am a little interested in your resolution of 30 ft - How did you determine it? Most weather stations have had fixed locations for a number of years. It makes forecasting difficult to randomly move things around.

"Yep. And until we know how large the models are not to be trusted for making trillion dollar bets."

Once again you ascribe a position to me that is not my own. I am not suggesting Kyoto or any such nonsense.

"Data accuracy is worse and you want me to believe that you can come it at better that 1% (3 deg C) accuracy?"

Did I claim that? Nope I merely claimed that the models are probably on to something. You have claimed quite rightly that the older data sets are insufficient. I agree.

Brian,

Good on ya re: Nyquist. However that calls your "unprecidented rate of change" statement into question.

Yes the models are on to something. They bound the problem. However, they are suspect because they all come in at the high end of the range. If the cloud sign is negative they would come in at the low end. or possibly even that CO2 makes no difference in the current range.

As to moving 30ft for recording stations. That is a heuristic I gathered form a guy who has multiple sensors in his back yard.

BTW did the Russian or Chinese stations move in the last 100 years? Did they keep good records during their many political upheavals? I trust American stations. We have been very politically stable since about 1865. The rest of the world is not so fortunate.

Apply the 30 ft rule to ocean air temperatures measured on the bridge of a ship. Maybe 10 ft off the ocean in wooden ship days and maybe 90 ft with steel vessals. Then you have the problem of powered ships changing the micro-climate vs sailing ships.

http://www.climateaudit.org/

has some good bits on the location stability of recording stations around the world. I misplaced the exact link so you will have to look around. In any case we are placing our bets based on a measuring system not designed for climate measurements.

Then we went from glass thermometers with human readers to electronic instruments with automatic data recording. The older measurements are only as good as the person doing the measurements. Were they done by random duty officers (for ocean data) or some one who cared? Were the thermometers recalibrated at the ends of the voyage and corrections made for instrument drift? Were the logs faked (a common practice if measurements were inadvertently skipped - I'm ex Navy Nuke so I know how these things are done in the real world). How accurate was lat. and long. known? Before GPS it depened on the skill of the navigator. Errors of 1 mi. in sailing days were very common. Errors of 10 mi. frequent. Errors of 60 mi. not unknown. How well were chronometers kept in 1865? Was recalibration done at the end of the voyage and corrections of position for chronometer drift made at the end of the voyage?

Also. Increses in solar output over the last 100 years accounts for .5 (+/- .2) deg C of the .6 deg C change. Meaning that increased CO2 probably accounts for maybe 20% of the "recorded" temperature change. The cloud thingy could cover the rest.

So it is more than possible that increased CO2 accounts for aproximately zero of the change in "evidence". Do the models show this possibility? None that I've seen reported.

At best the models tell us what kinds of things to look for. At worst they are totally useless.

i.e. if cloud sign and magnitude are this CO2 is important. If cloud sign and magnitude are that CO2 is unimportant.

Yet we year the multitudes croaking that the science is definite and results confirmed.

Yet we hear the multitudes croaking that the science is definite and results confirmed.

I smell a rat.

Actually you got me thinking in a entirely seperate direction with your original question.

"What is your opinion on the Nyquist limit vs the current data sets?"

Indeed that's is a great question and I have spent some time thinking about it. No good answers yet but certainly make me wander what is the Nyquist limit? What sort of polling frequency makes sense? Just thinking about it - and I haven't answered it yet.

"Meaning that increased CO2 probably accounts for maybe 20% of the "recorded" temperature change."

Had you said this in the beginning we probably would have found ourselves in agreement.

"Do the models show this possibility? None that I've seen reported."

Ah you realize that when people report the models they are typically reporting the mean right? Look you can't rely on random newspapers for your science coverage. "However, they are suspect because they all come in at the high end of the range." Some come in very high others don't.

We will know the answer in the next 5-10 years though which is kinda nice. BTW Just a reminder I am not advocating we do ANYTHING. I don't think there is a lot we can do.

Brian,

Let me help with Nyquist. At a 2X sampling rate it is possible to determine if a frequency is present if the sampling rate and the frequency to be determined are not coherent. A long data set would be required to determine the magnitude.

However, if higher frequencies than 1/2 the sampling rate are present at a decent magnitude you have an aliasing problem. i.e the high frequencies are translated to a lower frequency band making low frequency bins higher (or lower) than they should be.

In engineering we like to have low pass filtered data with a sampling frequency of 5X for a sharp cut off filter (which smears the high frequency data - phase and magnitude gets screwed) or 10X or even 20X for a first order analog filter (which would smear the high freqencies much less).

Look at the early digital audio stuff. Filters very sharp and sampling at about 2.2X the highest frequencies. OK for audio since the ear is not very phase sensitive at 20KHz. Today the filters are much less sharp (which means the filters themselves are less likely to produce artifacts - which sharp analog filters do) and we sample at higher frequencies and then reduce the data with digital FIR filters which do not have the artifact problem. Which means the recordings are pretty accurate these days. Playback still has the sharp filter problem.

BTW misunderstandings in communication between us have been excellent with respect to giving laymen an understanding of the problems involved in the science so I count that as a gain and not a loss.

Let me also note that if the high frequency events are transient you need the higher sampling rates - 5X to 20X - for good fidelity. Other wise the high frequencies are time smeared.

In the control area these days we like to sample at 100X or even 200X to get precision control. Not possible in the early days of relatively slow computers. The high sampling rates insure peaks will be recorded accurately.

BTW if any one wants to discuss the physics of the Bussard Fusion Reactor - I'm game.

Or if you have any questions. Ask.

Brian, I think we have found ourselves in pretty much agreement. Most of the conflict here seems to be do to form.

Actually I understand how Nyquist applies in signal theory. What I am interested in how long the data set must be in order to determine magnitude of the climate. As you noted

"A long data set would be required to determine the magnitude."

But instead of Jane's comments - I suggest either my blog or yours to continue it.

brian, you are an unbelievably patient person and i really appreciate the effort you're making here. the thing i don't get is this -- doesn't this very discussion demonstrate that the science in this area is not anywhere near settled. and by settled, i mean very little chance that in the next 10 years we will find additional factors to consider that drasticly change the analysis. as i think you can see from many of the comments in response to your posts, many of the people debating these issues with you are not idiots, and have pretty good grounds for objection to the certainty of drastic climate change (leaving aside whether anthro, warming more harmful than helpful, a cure is politically possible, it's moral to focus on warming and not AIDS, clean water, etc.).

put another way, usually, things that aren't debatable really aren't debatable. that obviously doesn't seem to be the case with warming (by which i mean the constellation of issues surrounding warming, not whether thermometers have measured certain temperatures in the past few years).

Megan,

Let me post here a copy of my note to Ron Bailey.

Ron,

Your article "Global Warming -- Not Worse Than We Thought, But Bad
Enough" suggests that you regard the IPCC as a rather credible
scientific body. I must guess that you have not had the time to
look into how they do "science" in the IPCC.

Let me invite you to take a brief look at the "science" that led to
the SAR statement: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible
human influence on climate."

You can find a brief summary at http://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm

The statement from the TAR: "There is new and stronger evidence that
most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable
to human activities." was largely based on "multiproxy climate
reconstructions", particularly by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes, which
led to the once fashionable "hockey stick" graph of supposed
historical temperatures. See
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-20.htm

However, Steve McIntyre has shown that Mann et al (1998, and 1999) used
dubious temperature proxies, and dubious statistical methods, to achieve
the results that they did. Moreover, if one observes various aspects of
"climate science" that Steve highlights, one can observe that patently
unscientific practices seem to be routine in at least some areas of
"climate science", particulary practices which make it from difficult to
impossible for anyone to check, i.e. replicate, the work. You can find
numerous examples at Steve's blog, www.climateaudit.org , including links
to various analyses of Steve's work, including the report of the US
National Academies of Science panel which examined Steve's critiques of
Mann et al and seemingly grudgingly concluded that Steve's critiques are
correct.

JerryB

Actually DJ most of the debate here centered around the human part of global warming. How much have humans contributed? Please keep in mind some of the commenters here also doubt global climate change is occurring (Janie which compared it to Bigfoot). That's why educated myself enough to get understand that the models are pointing at real pheonomum. The data for the last 130 on the climate isn't that bad and gets increasingly better in the 20th century.

"have pretty good grounds for objection to the certainty of drastic climate change (leaving aside whether anthro, warming more harmful than helpful, a cure is politically possible, it's moral to focus on warming and not AIDS, clean water, etc.)."

Well we know drastic climate change is a REGULAR feaure of this little planet and we have pretty good data on the last 100 years. Climate change on earth is a certainty - just when is the real question. I am satisfied that the climate is changing. I am considerably less satisfied on the human causes of GCC but feel it's entirely plausible. As I said in an earlier post we will know in the next 5-10 years.

I do not believe we can ever "know" in our lifetimes. How can we "know" whether or not the climate does change about a couple degrees every 1000 years? No one has been keeping detailed records all over the planet for that long? And how do we know if "the planet" is warming up know? It was warmer than usual in Europe and around the Rocky Mountains we had a very cold winter. What does that mean about "the planet" as a whole?

Back to the point, the reason why we can never truly "know" what's really in store for the future of the climate is why this whole GW scare has grown so much. Scientists speaking fancy words and pointing to complex charts making all sorts of claims and we have no choice but to listen because few people can actually refute it. Those that do are shunned or dismissed easily enough.

The other reason why this GW movement has legs is because the weather is around us all the time. Thre is the age old truth that when you've got nothing to talk about with a stranger, you can always talk about the weather. Everyone notices it. So when we have a hurricane, its easy for someone to pull up those complex charts and data and put on their white lab coat and scare the rest of us into believing its the truth.

What if some proponent of multi-universe, string theory, was to tell us he has data proving our universe will collapse in 50 years due to some mankind induced activity. We wouldn't believe them no matter how much data they showed us simply because we can't walk outside and feel string theory like we can the weather. The weather is the perfect scare tactic.

--It's really hot out!
** Well, that's because of GW.
--Wait it's cold now.
** Well, GW doesn't predict hot everywhere, just somewhere, it will get cold other places.
--But yesterday when it was hot in my backyard you said it was from GW? Now you're saying its from GW that my back yard is cold.
**That's right, with GW there will be an increased unpredicability in the climate
--Oh, because we used to be able to predict the climate so well before.

This is ridiculous.

actually, i read alot of people here to be skeptical that we're due for drastic change, regardless of whether anthro, in the near term. then add in the complexity of figuring out whether it's anthro (by which i mean, do we make a material contribution), and i just don't see how the science gets you there. (in case you're wondering, i've tried really hard to educate myself on this, and the science out there is not convincing (yes, i presume to be able to review the relevant materials).)

so my point remains -- this is all debatable (hence the debate) and we generally don't radicly change lifestyles based on a hunch or suspicion (leaving aside that we're obviously way adaptable, the changes will come slowly (no model shows seas rising fast enough to (e.g.) flood things)), technology will keep increasing, we'll be richer in the future). so i see no real reason for concern (e.g., i see no real chance of destruction close to that caused by WWII, and the world rebounded fairly well from that, thanks).

put another way, so far as i can tell, you concede that we don't yet know it's anthro, so we don't yet know whether we should even bother trying to do something (leaving aside whether politicly feasible, moral to focus on warming rather than other problems, etc.). and those latter questions aren't science, they're econ for the most part, with some moral philosophy thrown in.

what am i missing here?

Actually CDDub you demonstrate the problem RIGHT in your post. It's rampant anti-intellectualism with a large part of the population.

"Scientists speaking fancy words and pointing to complex charts making all sorts of claims and we have no choice but to listen because few people can actually refute it."

Scientist don't make up things to "control" you. The history of the planet is filled with climate change. Yet to you it's some unknowable proposition that scientists are making up and are using as a scare tactic. Scientists aren't the environmental movement and large parts of the environmental movement are as religous as any fundamentalist movement. The climate has changed before. It will change again.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2819.htm

DJ Superflat you aren't really missing anything really. The real annoyance will come from little things like disruption in normal weather patterns (rains coming at a different time, things like the honey bee die-off) nothing impossible to deal with but unexpected.

Brian,

A lot of folks think the honey bee die of is due to moving hives to the fields instead of having permanent hives.

The disease vector is the flat bed truck.

I find it comical that anyone thinks we can measure a "global temperature" let alone predict it. It takes billions of calculations to do a one day weather forecast and we know how inaccurate those can be.

I hope the geologists don't become jealous of the climate scientist's newfound celebrity. Otherwise, I'm sure we can expect predictions of "doomsday earthquakes" unless we quit drilling for oil.

How come this nonsense is so complementary to the goals of the Left?

FAGGOT is what the English call a meatball.
If you take this to mean Edwards is a meatball then whats the problem with what Ann said????
A MEATBALL IS A MEATBALL IS AMEATBALL
(you get it??)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

Global temperature is bogus, just as my initial instincts indicated, it would be like trying to predict global gas mileage by averaging say 10% of the cars driven. And that is if the data is not massaged to give the desired result.

I love how data presented by an oil company backed study is dismissed out of hand as being biased toward a predetermined outcome, but data presented by a government backed study is considered sacrosanct, as if the government does not have any bias toward maintaining or increasing its' bureaucratic domain.

Comments are Closed.