DON QUIXOTE CHANGE
Friday, November 21, 2008 at 08:00AM Excellent article here on the blabbering from President-elect Obama..
"Barack Obama managed to say all the wrong things at this week's Governors Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles -- without even showing up. The President-elect appeared to the green faithful on Tuesday and opened his pre-recorded pledge to "take the lead" in addressing global warming with these eerily familiar words: "Few challenges facing America -- and the world -- are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We've seen record drought, spreading famine and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season."
Let's think about that for a second - "few challenges facing America more urgent that combating climate change..." Wanna bet?
"Waging a Don Quixote style battle against the very forces of nature trumps all but a few challenges? Do these happen to include the immediate issue of collapsing international markets and their very real potential to spark a worldwide depression? Or assuring the denial of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists and rogue nations? Or evading the strangle hold our dependency on oil allows those same factions and governments to leverage over us? Or our deteriorating confidence in the safe stewardship of a nuclear weapons arsenal already in the hands of an Islamic State of dubious intent and political cohesion? Or the successful outcomes of wars currently waging in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or resolving our increasingly tenuous relationship with Russia? Or the "poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan [that] could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris" Obama himself spoke of in his July "fellow citizen of the world" speech in Berlin?"
Obama and his extreme left friends may think that because they now have power that pressing realities can be ignored in the pursuit of Don Quixotic dreams. They can't and so all this environmental gibberish a la Goracle will end of going nowehere.
agw 
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (23)
here is an interesting and balanced account of the history of the IPCC and how the AGW theory got traction from 1970 to the present where it has become the accepted orthodoxy.
Two quotations:
"The case for dangerous human-caused global warming rests solely on the projections of computer models. Without such projections, which have consistently been in the range of a 1.5°C to 4.0°C global temperature rise from a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration, there would be no basis for alarm."
"In the absence of computer models there would be little credence given to the view that the relatively small warming of the second half of the twentieth century was due to carbon dioxide emissions; there would certainly be no credence given to the possibility of irreversible runaway global warming over the coming century. Cool heads would note that most of the earth’s surface is either ocean or freely transpiring vegetation and that surface evaporation will continue to constrain surface temperature rise, as it always has done."
So the whole AGW case rests on the models being essentially correct. It's a big ask.
Peter,
"Accepted orthodoxy" makes it sound like a religion. Which I think it has become. The models have been proven to be consistently wrong so why should anyone pay a blind bit of notice to them?
David
Yes, the models have been attacked and significant problems have been identified, especially with the famous "hockey stick" graph, but also with the extent to which feedback loops will affect future temperatures.
I belong to a number of environmental groups and I keep my (addmitedly recent) scepticism on AGW mostly to myself. It's a bit like going to church and admitting that you're an atheist.
Peter,
"The case for dangerous human-caused global warming rests solely on the projections of computer models. "
That's simply false and is in fact the opposite of the truth. It is the case for any complacency that rests entirely on the projections of computer models. It is, after all, the IPCC projections which say that catastrophic warming is the least likely scenario and, if it occurs, won't occur for some time. Without the models the conclusion is that we don't know what raising CO2 will do, other than that it will acidify the oceans and lead to some amount of warming. So if we don't know, maybe we should be a bit more cautious.
Also, having a model is not optional. You can have a physics based model (which has at least got the sign of warming correct for the past several decades) or you can instead turn to your internal prejudices, which are probably about as reliable as waving a dead chicken over a map of the world.
This is what always gets me about the 'sceptics'. They seem to approach the question with a thought process along the lines of Climate science you say? Well I have no training in science, I know little about stats, my maths is barely up to working out my change in the supermarket, and I have neither read nor understood even a single published paper on the topic - but how hard could it be! Hmm, having read a few blogs while watching reruns of the Simpsons, it appears that I have come to a radically different conclusion than the majority of the world's scientists. Well, the most likely explanation for that is that those scientists are mistaken, or frauds engaged in a worldwide conspiracy. It is likely that I myself am a modern day Galileo. Just like these other thousands of part time Galileos who have spotted issues that most full-time scientists never thought of.
Frank
The fact is that AGW does not adequately explain the warming experienced in the 20th century. If the theory was 100% correct we would expect to see temperatures rising seadily over that century in line with steadily increasing CO2 emissions. But that is not what happened. Most of the warming occurred between 1970 - 1998.
And then there is the inconvenient truth that there has been no warming since 1998, despite new records for CO2 emissions being set every year.
That is why it is reasonable to assert that the case for AGW rests mainly on its models of future temperatures. Which could of course turn out to be correct.
Peter,
One strawman at a time. Let's focus on the original claim which is that the case for dangerous warming rests solely on projections of computer models.
That is simply incorrect, it does not rest AT ALL on projections of computer models. Which I can show:
Here is a paper that lowers the probable upper bound for climate sensitivity. It rests on multiple independent observations in the past, not the projections of computer models.
Here is a reference to another paper that constrains the probable lower bound on climate sensitivity. It rests on observations going back millions of years, and not projections of computer models.
Try to resist bringing new objections to those results because that is simply changing the subject. My sole point here is that to say that case depends on the IPCC projections is incorrect. I'm not bothered if people want to dispute the case, but they should at least state what the case is correctly.
(As I said, it is the case for any kind of complacency that requires the models to be reliable. By analogy, anytime you put petrol in your car or turn the ignition, you're using a model of sorts that says your car probably won't blow up. If you didn't have such a model, and all you knew was the properties of petrol, you'd never go near a car.)
Frank
Will get back to you later on this.
All this will go down the drain once we as a nation wake up and face the real crises surrounding us. I don't think its going to take very long before Obama and his administration, along with a democrat controlled congress, make a complete mess of just about everything.
Where are the seas rising? They're not rising in the north-east of Scotland where I live. Those low-lying islands so often cited as the canary in the mine: have they disappeared yet? Indeed, are they actually disappearing? If they are, I'm sure that we would have read about it.
Frank
I read your links. Interesting, but hardly conclusive.
Check this out for an alternative explanation of the late 20th century warming.
One quote:
"Over the last 30 years we have had
one El Niño event after another. Prior
to that we had 30 years of one strong
La Niña event after another."
And check this out for a basic critique of AGW. It's not claiming to prove that AGW is wrong, but it is saying that the theory remains "unproven" as the Scottish juries are still allowed to decide.
Off-Topic
Obama spoke and the DJIA gained ~5%.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/081121/business_us_markets_stocks.html
He speaketh, and they obeyeth.
What next - water into wine?
Peter,
"I read your links. Interesting, but hardly conclusive."
They are completely conclusive for the purpose I introduced them: to prove that the first sentence of your quote is false. The case is NOT solely based on projections from models. It is based on independent lines of observational evidence. This is a fact, not a matter of opinion.
I'm talking about what the basis of the case is, not whether it is correct or not. What your guy said is similar to claiming that homeopathy is based on the signs of the zodiac, or that the theory of electricity requires reincarnation to be true. It's got nothing to do with whether the theories are correct (homeopathy isn't, electricity is) - both of those statements are just false.
Frank
AGW explains the cooling from 1940 - 1970 or so on the aerosol effect of pollution, which it claims more than offset the forcing effect of increasing CO2 emissions in that period.
Maybe, but I have not seen anything conclusive on this. As my post at 8.43 pointed out, another possibility is that La Nina and its effects on oceon currents was at least partly responsible for that cooling trend. If so, that points to El Nino as a culprit (maybe not the only one) in the warming trend from 1970 - 1998 or so.
Peter,
"Maybe, but I have not seen anything conclusive on this."
Clearly most of the scientists working on the problem have.
And that's the thing that denialists can never admit to. There is actually a whole body of evidence out there, a whole set of facts that directly undermine their position, and it has convinced most scientists.
" As my post at 8.43 pointed out, another possibility is that La Nina and its effects on oceon currents was at least partly responsible for that cooling trend. If so, that points to El Nino as a culprit (maybe not the only one) in the warming trend from 1970 - 1998 or so."
Probably none of the scientists who work on this all day for years have ever thought of that one before. They've only known of its existence for 100 years or so.
Just look at the papers you're quoting. Who is the author of the first one? In some wine journal? Why hasn't he received the Nobel prize for his breakthrough? Is it that he is oppressed, or is it that no scientific paper talks as that one does. It even contains the following large dose of stupid: "Carbon dioxide is less than one-twenty-fifth of 1% of the air that we inhale.". So what? And the usual BS about anyone who disagrees with him subscribes to a 'religion'.
The other link you quoted, the 'skeptic's handbook', is (still) the same old shite that has been rebutted on countless occasions before. The only worthwhile advice it contains is to ask the AGW "bully boys" to explain their case. It is a shame no 'sceptic' ever follows it. It would certainly make a change from them setting up strawmen of their own to demolish.
If someone wants to understand what the case for AGW actually is, rather than just to poke holes in it, here's a novel approach that could be attempted: try reading the IPCC report. It contains a large section on attribution.
There's some responses to the first 'balanced' (*rolls eyes*) paper quoted here.
Frank
I've read the Deltiod link before and it makes some good points.
Of course the existence of El Nino / La Nina has been known for a long time. It does not follow that we can accurately measure their effect on world temperature changes in the last 100 years.
Our knowledge of ocean currents is quite primitive, although rapidly advancing in recent years. It is becoming clear that the PDO and NAO are major factors.
My position is that AGW is plausible, but as yet unproven, and is certainly not at the point where we should fundamentally and abruptly change our way of life.
As a matter of interest, what probability would you put on it being essentially correct?
Peter,
"It does not follow that we can accurately measure their effect on world temperature changes in the last 100 years."
No, but the claim is merely that this uncertainty is not news and is already factored in. In fact, almost everything the sceptics are saying is not news to the scientists working on this. Most of it is obvious crap, and most of the rest of it is insignificant. Let them publish their work and convince their peers first. That's how it works.
The long and the short of it is that the mainstream view of AGW represents humanity's collective best guess at what will happen in response to CO2 emissions, despite the uncertainties (which are stated pretty clearly). Everything we currently know says that it will be around 3C per doubling, and that this have impacts ranging from severe (likely) to catastrophic (less likely).
An argument that the uncertainty is even greater than we think it is, which is what most sceptic arguments boil down to, would make the issue more urgent and not less. It's like saying russian roulette is safe if you don't know for sure the gun is loaded.
"Our knowledge of ocean currents is quite primitive, although rapidly advancing in recent years."
If you read the paper you first quoted again, notice that he spends a bit of time saying how little is known about this and that, how primitive the models are, how large the uncertainties, etc. Then, a couple of paragraphs later he confidently asserts The likely magnitude of human-caused global warming is so low that it will not be discernible against the background of natural variability in the climate record.
This is almost always a feature of the sceptic argument - uncertainty is for other people. Other people cannot model the climate, but they can. They can even do it without a computer, while all the other poor fools cannot even do it with several.
"As a matter of interest, what probability would you put on it being essentially correct?"
I don't know enough to say how likely it is correct or not, or for my opinion on that to matter. I do however know more than enough to say that every 'sceptic' argument I have seen so far is either demonstrably complete BS (the majority, and 100% of the big rightworld blog memes) or far more tenuous than the mainstream view (by simple dint of the fact that they have not yet convinced their peers).
Frank posted:
No, but the claim is merely that this uncertainty is not news and is already factored in.
Really? To what probability? 1%? 99%?
Most of it is obvious crap..
And the hockey stick? Most maths guys would say that is crap maths, but it's still trotted out, though less so recently.
The long and the short of it is that the mainstream view of AGW represents humanity's collective best guess at what will happen in response to CO2 emissions, despite the uncertainties (which are stated pretty clearly).
I must have missed the "uncertainties" in Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth. That seemed to me like he was claiming 100% or so for AGW, which would make it pretty much a polemic rather than a balanced view of the state of scientific knowledge on the subject.
This is almost always a feature of the sceptic argument - uncertainty is for other people. Other people cannot model the climate, but they can.
No - it's the AGW guys who are claiming infallibility with their models. They are saying that those models mean we need to reduce carbon emissions by 80% in the west by 2050. The sceptisc are the guys saying "hold on a minute!"
Pete, just to interject. You have finally come to the dark side with 'peak oil'. For me, the height of the carbon age and AGW are completely analogue. Its only the end results of either that are open to debate. Scientists and speculators can yarn all they want.
Peter,
"No, but the claim is merely that this uncertainty is not news and is already factored in.
Really? To what probability? 1%? 99%?"
[...]
"I must have missed the "uncertainties" in Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth."
Equivocation. I am referring to the statistical uncertainty in the data as well as the statistical uncertainty in the causes of warming, not colloquial uncertainty as to what is going on overall. I am also referring to the published science and not Al Gore's film. For example, see Figure SPM.2 in the IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM. Notice the error bars.
Unknown causes would show up as effectively random components or other biases in the data and consequent uncertainty in the trends, especially on short timescales. That doesn't mean that nothing is known about the trends, nor that a long term trend of 0 or less (cooling) cannot be excluded with high confidence.
Think about anything else with complex causes. Immigration, tourism, or crop yields for example, depend on literally millions of variables, most of them unknown and utterly unpredictable. Ironically, for almost any such thing you care to mention it also depends on climate, which the sceptics tell us we know nothing about.
If the sceptics are right we should therefore know nothing about anything. It is completely infeasible to predict the exact inflow and outflow to any country or tourist resort on any given day or month. What if Joe planned to go skiing, but there was no snow that year, or he broke his arm and couldn't travel? What if recession kicked in and the Poles all decided to go home? What if an immigrant marries someone and wants to return home and raise their kids.
And yet it is perfectly possible to make useful predictions of the direction of migration and tourism on average. But if the 'sceptic' mindset were correct, that should be impossible and nobody should make any plans at all about anything. Build a ski resort? Put in place immigration controls? Plant crops? Pack suntan lotion? Let's not be so hasty!
"No - it's the AGW guys who are claiming infallibility with their models."
A complete falsehood. Again, see the IPCC report.
"And the hockey stick? Most maths guys would say that is crap maths,"
False and irrelevant. 'The' hockey stick is controversial, it is not true that most maths guys agree that it is rubbish. Also neither the AGW crew nor its debunkers claim it is a central plank in the case or indeed has any bearing on the question of CO2 and warming.
Frank, the 'hockey stick' has been shown to be a fabricated lie.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/APEC-hockey.pdf
If you still believe in it, then that's you beyond the realms of debate.
On the supposedly rising sea levels, where are they rising? Have the low-lying islands disappeared or are they even disappearing?
Allan,
"Frank, the 'hockey stick' has been shown to be a fabricated lie."
No, it has been shown to be controversial. Even your linked paper calls it a 'debate'.
"If you still believe in it, then that's you beyond the realms of debate."
You lack any powers to exclude anyone from any debate, especially one you lost years ago.
"On the supposedly rising sea levels, where are they rising? "
Planet Earth. Join us sometime.