Too Bad M. Dion did not have this focus group
Global warming anxiety was a Nineties and early Noughties fad — the product of a too affluent age in search of a hair-shirt religion to assuage its guilt at having had it so good. Now that everyone has something real to worry about, cutting carbon emissions seems about as relevant as the Jitterbug or the Rubik’s Cube. the spectator
My pal KMG sent along the above.
The regular folk of England, and Canada, have been aware that the whole global warming trope was a crock for nearly a decade. While the bien pensant of the Liberal Party bought it whole, tragically, the CPC bought it on the bounce hoping to keep concerned, but idiotic, Green soccer mums inside the tent. Which will not happen as soon as they see how flattering florescent is.
Real worries trump the monster under the bed every time.
October 17th, 2008 at 4:21 am
Hi Jay: I see statements like this all the time:
Of course the problem is that the science that backs global warming is strong and growing stronger each year. As I said in a previous post, it all comes back to the following:
1) We are responsible for all the recent CO2 production.
2) CO2 will absorb and then re-emit longwave radiation.
3) If you shine more longwave radiation on an object you will add heat to it.
Those are all about as solid as you get in science. If you accept them then you accept the basis of global warming. If you don’t accept them, then which ones are in doubt?
Regards,
John
October 17th, 2008 at 5:39 am
I was leafing through the latest issue of “Canadian Geographic” yesterday, which is an entire issue on global warming/climate change/we’re all gonna die stuff.
The article on Mount Kilimanjaro started off as (paraphrasing) as: “The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting. Satellite images show that, since 1912…”
And I thought: we had satellites in 1912? I may have read it wrong, but this was either a really bad edit, or they do think we are this stupid.
October 17th, 2008 at 9:07 am
John, thank you for providing the catechism.
Just for the moment, let us give you those three points; to which I would add what one might call the three great Mysteries.
1) We do not know by how much a given concentration of CO2 will raise the temperature;
2) We do not know if the relationship between CO2 and temperature is linear (though we rather suspect it isn’t);
3)We do not know what mechanisms account for the MWP, and the various “minimums” over the past 2000 years.
And, just for fun, the “protocols of probity”.
1) Money does not grow on trees.
2) It is unwise to destroy economies to address marginal problems.
3) It is almost always cheaper to adapt than to ameliorate.
4) It is folly to spend money on policy which will be overwhelmed by the activities of others.
5) All policy should meet the basic test of cost/benefit analysis.
6) Any “benefit” must be at least as well defined as the costs incurred providing it.
7) Any cost/benefit analysis must include the opportunity costs a given policy imposes – thus 20 billion for carbon sequestration is 20 billion not available for clean water or basic vitamin programs.
Now I don’t happen to concede your points – for example who are “we”? The reality is that North American emissions have been trending down while Chinese and other developing economies have been racing upwards – however, even if I did the whole warmist cult simply fails to address the absence of hard numbers as to the effect of emissions. And without those hard numbers it is impossible to evaluate policy options and their economic effects. Instead we are stuck with guesstimates like the Stern Report which do not – because they cannot – properly value the purported benefit of carbon emission reduction.
The warmist analysis tends to be “carbon dioxide emissions are bad in general” therefore it is worth any amount of money to make them go away. Which may be “science” but it is sure not economics.
October 17th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Jay: a number of points to address, but the main one first. Your only issue with the three points that I presented seemed to be that you are unsure of the definition of we. To begin with , I am not sure of the time frame that you imply when you say trending, however up to 2005 (the most recent year I have information on) the emissions for North American were still increasing. However, keep in mind the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is cumulative thus the emissions that North America produced 50 years ago are still – for the most part – present. So while I was talking about total anthropogenic CO2 additions, the contribution by North America is by far the largest component.
Anyway, unless you have any further questions or information I think we can agree that your statement “The regular folk of England, and Canada, have been aware that the whole global warming trope was a crock for nearly a decade.” is flawed.
Now, if you wish we can move on and look at some of your other statements.
1) We do not know by how much a given concentration of CO2 will raise the temperature;
Ah, that is the key question and the best guess is that it will be about 3 C for a doubling of CO2. Although some of the skeptics who know the science well enough will argue for a number closer to 1.2 for some technical reasons that we can go into if you wish. I suspect that the way scientists arrive at the 3C will not fit your definition of hard data, but if not, I would ask you what would?
2) We do not know if the relationship between CO2 and temperature is linear (though we rather suspect it isn’t);
We do know very well that it is not a linear relationship. It is a complex function because there are a number of factors coming into play (saturation, pressure broadening, etc.).
3)We do not know what mechanisms account for the MWP, and the various “minimums” over the past 2000 years.
Well, my first guess would be over that short a time scale, changes in the sun was probably the dominant factor in change to the Earth’s climate. However, what we do know very well is that of all the possible mechanisms, they are not responsible for the current increase in temperatures. For example, there is no other mechanism apart from CO2 addition that would also explain the cooling in the stratosphere.
Regards,
John
October 17th, 2008 at 10:19 am
James: Ouch – satellites in 1912 does seem like a really strange statement. However I would also caution anyone (e.g. the Canadian Geographic) against using Kilimanjaro to illustrate global warming. At least some of the reduction in snows is caused by a reduction in precipitation as opposed to more melting. Now, it could be argued that the reduction in precipitation is linked to global warming – but I would hesitate to support such a statement simply because I do not know.
Regards,
John
October 17th, 2008 at 11:09 am
John, who “we” is (and isn’t that an ugly bit of English) is just one of the problems. You make the assertion that CO2 hangs about in the atmosphere but so far as I have been able to determine, “latency” is another unresolved issue. As to the rise in CO2 being solely human related that simply ignores the massive contributions of various volcanic eruptions. Plus we know that CO2 is just one of many gases which are thought to have green house effects – methane is, apparently rather more significant and water vapor – while not strictly speaking a gas – makes its own contribution.
The focus on CO2 is not particularly well grounded scientifically. As you concede, there is a significant range of opinion as to the effect of a CO2 doubling on temperature. And as you rightly point out, that relationship is complex rather than linear and the variables are not yet well understood. My point – and I suspect the point which the public is aware of – is that the policy conclusions have been reached well before the science is well enough understood to justify them.
You make the assertion that the natural factors which created the MWP and the various minimums “are not responsible for the current increase in temperatures”.
First, are you sure that there has been an increase in temperatures? (And please don’t cite the flawed work of Mann et al.) A good deal of that “increase” may very well be due to faulty measurement techniques and data “refining” which forces the reported temperatures to reflect the bias of the climate science community rather than, well, the actual climate. (See Climate Audit and Watts Up With That) Moreover, it is becoming apparent that the “increase” in temperatures actually stopped roughly a decade ago although the concentrations of CO2 have been increasing throughout that period. This seems a bit difficult to explain.
Second, how can you be certain that such increase as there may have been is not due to natural variability. After all, we know that there was a MWP and we know that there have been various minimums; what makes you think that natural variability has simply stopped and been replaced by CO2 emissions.
Third, a number of mechanisms – reduced ozone being a favorite – are at least as good as increased CO2 in explaining stratospheric cooling.
Here is my overall point: we are asking the population to buy into very expensive policy prescriptions which are addressing a “problem” the science of which is a long way from being complete or conclusive. And some of the gaps – such as the actual relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature – have significant policy implications. (If a doubling of CO2 causes a 1.2 degree rise in temperature rather than a 3 degree rise rather obviously the cost/benefit calculation changes.)
Policy makers are asking people to suffer real economic pain and those people, not unreasonably, are demanding that their governments prove to them that the pain will actually make a difference to a well defined, well understood, problem. Right now all they are being given are the political conclusions of the IPCC.
October 17th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
One may logically accept the basis of global warming without conceding that the problem is attributable solely to CO2. Proponents of the Kyoto solution do themselves no favours with their increasingly shrill denials that other factors affect the climate. Scientists are supposed to follow all the facts, are they not? To ask the population at large to accept enormous economic upheaval as the price of combatting a problem that is not completely understood nor explained is foolish, and ultimately futile.
October 17th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Hi Jay: A number of points. In my opinion the main one is the question of the recent rise in CO2 being due to humans so I will go into this in a bit of detail. To begin with my argument is based on the facts that we have fairly good measurements of oil consumption on an annual basis and that we have good knowledge of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. If you doubt either of these we can discuss them.
Now, from the consumption of fossil fuels we can calculate the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere. We can also measure the atmosphere level in the atmosphere and observe that only about ½ of what we produce shows up in the atmosphere. Now, there is no doubt that there are a large number of sources and sinks of CO2 such as volcanoes (for example Mt. Pinatubo – one of the recent large volcanoes – produces about the same CO2 over its eruption as from anthropogenic sources). However these tend to balance out over the longterm. If they didn’t we wouldn’t see the fairly steady year to year rise we see in CO2 levels.
To think about it another way, consider a bank account with $100 in it. There are a number of people each of whom can put in or take out money. You put in $7 over the year. At the end of the year the account has increased to $103. What would the balance be if you did not put in your $7.
In regards to the focus on CO2, I think it is well grounded in science. There is a range of opinion of the effect of a CO2 doubling from a little over 1 degree to 6 degrees with a likely value of 3.4 degrees. James Annan has done some interesting Bayesian analysis of climate sensitivity and he is worth a read. Also, since you raised it, I would challenge you to quote the part where I say that the relation between CO2 and temperature changes is not well understood.
In regards to recent temperature increases, well, there are a number of independent indicators that show a rise in temperature. Arctic ice, glacier retreat, changes in vegetation and animal patterns, temperature reconstructions from historic records (e.g. Luterbacher) or boreholes (e.g. Huang) and a ½ dozen more. These all say that the globe is warming. In regards to your comment that warming stopped a decade ago, John Cook has an interesting post.
In regards to natural variability, I don’t know what you mean by natural variability. I think that any change in climate has an underlying physical cause. We know a great many of these and can measure their importance.
You also comment that the stratosphere cooling could be caused by decreasing ozone. The problem with this is that in the equatorial zone (i.e. 30 S to 30 N) there is no trend in ozone concentration but we still see the cooling.
A final two questions to you. First, what would close the gaps in the science that you seem to think are critical to policy decisions? Second, what proof can you offer that the policy will be expensive?
Good night,
John
October 17th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
“To think about it another way, consider a bank account with $100 in it. There are a number of people each of whom can put in or take out money. You put in $7 over the year. At the end of the year the account has increased to $103. What would the balance be if you did not put in your $7.”
Sorry to pick on this example but it is a perfect proxy for the uncertainties of climate science: are there limits as to how much a given person can put in? Is there a way of knowing how much any given person puts in or takes out. On your example, there is a lower bound in that no person can take out more than 100(assuming no overdrafts) and there is an upperbound on the day we measure the amount of money in the account – namely 103. However, the day before there could have been 1,000,000 in the account or -750,200 (assuming overoverdraft). The fact I see $103 in the bank at the end of the year tells us nothing about the account’s history or, for that matter, its prospects. Both are uncertain. the former can, perhaps, be determined, but it will tell us very little about the future of the account.
More on your more substantive points after dinner.
October 17th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
“To begin with my argument is based on the facts that we have fairly good measurements of oil consumption on an annual basis and that we have good knowledge of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. If you doubt either of these we can discuss them.”
Well yes we do have good data on oil consumption. And we have excellent data on coal use which proceeds the oil century by a hundred and fifty years and the Thames still froze.
Knowing how much CO2 is emitted is a part, a small part, of the climate puzzle. It’s effects on temperature are the larger part and we have very limited, hard, data on that.
October 18th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Jay: Regarding my bank account example, let me respond. No, there is no good way to tell who else puts in what. However it is not really relevant since in the “real world” we have many more measurement than at the end of the year (and that is even without asking you to come up with a physical mechanism that could absorb that much CO2 so quickly). This preclude the wild swings you propose. So my analysis still stands!
In regards to the effects of CO2 on temperatures, this paper will probably not satisfy you, but it is a good place to start.
Regards,
John