Global Warming

Betsy Newmark comes out swimging, with a link to a Bjorn Lomborg piece in the Daily Torygraph.

I find these assertions by Lomborg to be fascinating-if-true:

Of course, as scientists, they should point out that fossil fuels will warm the world. This is indeed the majority opinion and likely to be true. Moreover, they should also tell us the likely impact of global warming over the coming century, which is likely to have fairly serious consequences, mainly for developing nations.

But to inform us accurately they have to go further than that. They should tell us what will happen even if we implement the fairly draconian measures of Kyoto - which they curiously do not.

They do not tell us that even if all the industrial nations agreed to the cuts (about 30pc from what would otherwise have been by 2010), and stuck to them all through the century, the impact would simply be to postpone warming by about six years beyond 2100. The unfortunate peasant in Bangladesh will find that his house floods in 2106 instead.

Moreover, they should also tell what they expect the cost of the Kyoto Protocol to be. That may not come easy to natural scientists, but there is plenty of literature on the subject, and the best guess is that the cost of doing a very little good for the third world 100 years from now would be $150 billion per year for the rest of this century.

Even after the Brown/Blair exertions to extract more aid for Africa, the West spends about $60 billion helping the third world. One has to consider whether the proportions are right here.

The six year extension is new to me.  The high cost, relative to sensible alternatives, is not.

UPDATE:  Let's bring Jamie into the mix.

Comments

[Forbes]

TM: Six year extension is not new. Kyoto merely puts off the temperature rise that would occur in 2094 until 2100. See figure 192 on page 302 of softbound Cambridge University 2001 edition of "The Skeptical Environmentalist."

Original source: Wigley,T.M.L. 1998 "The Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4 and Climate Implications." Geophysical Research Letters (25)13:2,285-8.

That investment in Kyoto, under such scenarios, results in a postponment of a 0.15 degree Celcius rise in global temperature for six years, about a century hence, is about all anyone needs to learn the farce that is Kyoto.

[Jos Bleau]

Until lately, paleoclimatologists called past interglacial periods that were signifigantly warmer than projected for 2100 "climatic optimums." In every case studied, warmer temperatures lead to greater rainfall most everywhere, the expansion of both temperate and tropical zones, the concomitant decrease in deserts, leading to a great overall increase in life of all sorts.

It is only in the computer models of funding and punlicity seeking 'scientists' that global warming leads to catastrophe.

Of course, human induced desertification and environmental degradation may stil cause great harm, but that's due directly to our own mismanagement and not global warming.

You'll almost never hear the phrase "climatic optimums" used today. It's a tough funding market out there and hey, paleoclimatologists have to eat too, you know.

[Rick]

One mustn't forget that in their drive to impose greater servility on the human race, the Kyoto-buffs have no particular objection to global impoverishment.

Gaia demands it.

Cordially...

[Rick]

One mustn't forget that in their drive to impose greater servility on the human race, the Kyoto-buffs have no particular objection to global impoverishment.

Gaia demands it.

Cordially...

[Brainster]

Jos Bleau, that's something I noticed awhile ago. When discussing the effects of global warming, there are no beneficial aspects; it's all disease, flooding, loss of wildlife, etc.

[The Kid]

Uh oh, the Aussies have not gotten with the program. Professor Rob Carter, from James Cook University in Townsville is obviously a dunce.

A cooling trend took place between 1940 and 1970, when temperatures began to rise again, reaching a peak in 1998. "This coincided with the biggest El Nino in the 20th century," he said.

However, research by the climate research unit at East Anglia University in Britain had shown that the average global temperature had declined since 1998.
[Snip]

Climate had always changed and "always will", [Professor Carter] said. "The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it."

Our most loyal ally, Australia has also not signed up for Kyoto.

The guy who helped set off the Plame game sets up the game plan for next month's G8 industrial summit in Scotland, where Tony Blair aims to get W to commit to Kyoto. Bob Novak rreports today that:

Blair is working behind friend Bush's back trying to turn him on Kyoto. Blair secretly has lobbied U.S. senators, and British officials are collaborating with American environmentalist advocates. Lord May of Oxford, president of the British Royal Society, was able to persuade science academies from 10 other countries (including the United States) to demand ''prompt action'' on global warming. Congress is closer than ever to enacting fossil fuel restrictions.

''In reality, Kyoto was never about environmental policy,'' a White House aide told me. ''It was designed as an elaborate, predatory trade strategy to level the American and European economies.'' The problem for Europeans has been that Bush refused to go along, ruining the desired leveling effect. The EU's industries have been devastated, while America has prospered.

Europeans' desire to bring U.S. prosperity down to their level is no conspiracy theory of American conservatives. Margot Wallstrom, the Swedish vice president of the European Commission, in 2001 (when she was commissioner for the environment) said the Kyoto Protocol was ''not a simple environmental issue ... this is about international relations, this is about economy -- about trying to create a level playing field.''

Do they level the playing field by trying to make everyone rich? No, like the Commies they once were, they level by making everyone equally miserable.

But read the whole thing because TM’s buddies Rick Piltz and John McCain are the usual among a group of unusual suspects. Novak snidely adds too that them Yurripeans are having trouble meeting the Kyoto targets they signed up for. I guess they’ll have to fudge this like they do the Euro deficit targets.

[TM]

When discussing the effects of global warming, there are no beneficial aspects; it's all disease, flooding, loss of wildlife, etc.

A wave of nostalgia is washing over me. Back in the glory days of the nuclear freeze movement, the Big Scare was the environmental disaster that would follow a nuclear exchange - the resulting clouds and dust would block the sun, leading to "Nuclear Winter".

A friend of mine deplored this negativity and pessimism - what about the prospects for mutated, fast growing fruit dangling from every tree, he wondered? Why couldn't we bask in the warmth of glowing, radioactive rocks? Why couldn't a nuclear exchange lead to Nuclear Summer?

Skeptics abound.

[The Kid]

There’s a rising tide of opposition to Kyoto coming from scientists according to Sunday’s London Telegraph.

"If you could vote for a change in climate, you would always want a warmer one," says Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the University of London. "Cold is nearly always worse for everything - the economy, agriculture, disease, biodiversity."
[Snip]
The heat-wave that struck much of Europe in 2003, killing more than 11,000 in France alone - was seized on by ecoactivists as proof-positive of the lethal effects of global warming.

Yet a review published last year by scientists at the University of London pointed out a basic medical fact: in many countries, cold kills far more people each year than heat. For the kind of temperature rise predicted for the UK over the next 50 years, the team estimated that heat-related deaths would rise by about 2,000 a year - but that this figure would be dwarfed by a cut in cold-related deaths of 20,000.
[Snip]
Climate scientists have made little of the benefits of a warming planet, and even less of the ability of humans to cope with the consequences. From the changes in irrigation and new crops made by American farmers that prevented a repetition of the 1930s Dust Bowl, to the sea-wall system that protects northern Vietnam, there is no lack of evidence for human inventiveness in the face of climate change.
[Snip]
Even if we shut every fossil-fuel power station, crushed every car and grounded every aircraft, the Earth's climate would still continue to get warmer, according to Prof Stott. "The trouble is, we would all be too impoverished to cope with the consequences," he said.

A neato graphic accompanying the article shows worldwide benefits of global warming.

[Dale Gribble]

"Global warming? Screw 'em. We'll grow oranges in Alaska."

[Jos Bleau]

"When discussing the effects of global warming, there are no beneficial aspects; it's all disease, flooding, loss of wildlife, etc.

A wave of nostalgia is washing over me. Back in the glory days of the nuclear freeze movement, the Big Scare was the environmental disaster that would follow a nuclear exchange - the resulting clouds and dust would block the sun, leading to "Nuclear Winter"."

Nice but not appropo{sp}, TM.

1000 years ago wine grapes were growing in Britian. They grow there today [and in Scandanavia, too], but only as cultivars/hybrids of much hardier North American strains. Old style grape vines, if they can be found, still will not flourish in Britian. Global warming has much work to do ...

[ed]

Hmmm.

Screw the grandkids I want it warmer now! - drew carrey

[dsquared]

Dear chaps.

There is an awful lot of very expensive stuff built only a few feet above sea level. Most of it has insurance policies written on it. A hundred and fifty billion dollars might sound like a lot of money, but wait till you see the bill for the alternatives.

Love,

The insurance industry.

[dsquared]

(btw, the $150bn estimate comes out of a model much less sophisticated and every bit as extrapolative as the climate models. In particular, the $150bn is not an actual cost; it's a "foregone growth" number which comes out of a model which assumes that there are literally no possible constraints to economic growth other than the Kyoto Treaty).

[Cecil Turner]

"A hundred and fifty billion dollars might sound like a lot of money, but wait till you see the bill for the alternatives."

The problem is, the $150 bil won't solve the problem (or even make much of a dent in it). And as Lomborg suggests, the money could be better spent elsewhere. When the tree-huggers get serious about the subject, they'll start proffering logical steps like increased reliance on nuclear energy, fusion research, and hydrogen vehicles. Until then, the environmental lobby can effectively stall progress by arguing over who went to what meetings, and they'll get precisely the attention they deserve.

The best Kyoto sum-up still belongs to Russian Academy of Sciences head Kondratiev:

"The only people who would be hurt by abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be several thousand people who make a living attending conferences on global warming."

[ed]

Hmmm.

"There is an awful lot of very expensive stuff built only a few feet above sea level. Most of it has insurance policies written on it. A hundred and fifty billion dollars might sound like a lot of money, but wait till you see the bill for the alternatives."

Hmmm.

And mostly inhabited by liberals.

HMMMMMM.

(goes outside to spray several aerosol cans...)

[Harry Arthur]

Concur with virtually every comment above. There is a very illuminating Newsweek article ca 1973 indicating that the planet was in a cooling "crisis". The "experts" believed that it was such a "crisis" that drastic action should be taken immediately, including spreading coal dust over the arctic to slow the precipitous cooling. This was little more than 30 years ago! Now it's 180 degrees the other way around - we're about to be inundated with sea levels rising, etc, etc, - so we should now figuratively spread coal dust all over our economies to stop the warming.

Sound familiar? Same tune except played backwards. Turns out that the more accurate the climate models become the less warming they predict. Did you know that current models cannot even model clouds? Not enough computing power yet and not enough knowledge of exactly how clouds work to enable models to be built. Some scientists have observed the capability of clouds over the Pacific ocean to actually act as "heat sinks" in response to local warming - not yet modeled. Winds are another problem. Given the level of uncertainty and model limitations, the modelers have to "tweak" the numbers based on certain assumptions about how they think things work. The problem I have is with the assumptions behind the "tweaking".

Definitely follow Bjorn Lomborg's arguments. For those of you who may not be familiar with his work, he's an ex Greenpeace member who is an associate professor - statistics I believe is his area of expertise. He has written an excellent book in which he challenges virtually all of the modern assumptions about how bad things are, including the many, many assertions about global warming.

The primary problem with this whole subject as I see it, is that it has become a religious discussion as opposed to a scientific debate with all the normal attendant "true believers" on both sides. Unfortunately the level of ad hominem argument doesn't lend much that is instructive to the debate. Also sound familiar?

[Harry Arthur]

It was Newsweek, April 28, 1975. Reprinted here.

A few excerpts:

"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now."

"A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972."

"Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 ..."

"...the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases..."

"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Except now we're "sure" we're right about exactly the opposite trend? But we would never want to question the climate "experts", would we? Of course whether it's "global cooling" or "global warming" note that it causes "an increase of extremes of local weather such as ..." I guess the only way to avoid the extremes is to maintain the weather precisely as it currently exists?

[Harry Arthur]

Sorry, one more correction: "associate professor - statistics I believe is his area of expertise. He has written an excellent book ..."

Professor Lomborg is an adjunct professor and his book is titled "The Skeptical Environmentalist". Excellent statistical treatment of a great many subjects including water and air pollution and others in addition to extensive analysis of the potential impact of global warming.

[The Kid]

More on mitigating rising sea levelshere:

Even the frightening prospect of rising sea-levels caused by the melting of the polar ice caps - widely regarded within the climate-change lobby as one of the most devastating consequences of global warming - is now under serious scrutiny. Millions of people, from those living in the coastal cities of the West to the inhabitants of Pacific islands, are at risk, we were warned.

But then the early claims of 5ft rises started to give way to far less dramatic predictions; the most recent estimate, published last year by the International Quaternary Association, puts the figure at a sea-level rise of somewhere between 8in and zero. A recent study found that sea levels around the allegedly threatened Maldives have actually fallen.

In any case, even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now concedes that there is little fear of millions being made permanently homeless by flooding. Its most recent report states: "Human settlements are expected to be among the sectors that could be most easily adapted to climate change, given appropriate planning and foresight."

To add to Harry’s input - the cost and uncertainty surrounding climate change prompted Lomborg to call for a convocation of leading economists to examine the state of the worlds and priorities efforts which would give the biggest bang for the buck in reliving human suffering worldwide. The result was the Copenhagen Consensus. The basic idea is described here.

On the left of the main page. you can see the results in the priority ranking of 17 efforts. Note that the very last three deal with global warming….

[Harry Arthur]

TK, several great posts on this subject both in this thread and previously! I cannot tell you how many of my family and friends have fallen for the exagerations and junk "science" on this subject propagated primarily by the "nattering nabobs of negatism" in the MSM.

Healty scepticism is always good, especially on this subject and religion - but then I repeat myself.

[Tom Thatcher]

Apropos of the Global Warming Has Become Religion Argument:

There is a famous concept that anchors global warming: the "hockey stick graph." A graph of global average temperatures for the last 1000 years that shows a flat line until the industrial revolution, then a sharp rise--it looks like a hockey stick lying on its side. Now, the hockey stick has never worked for Europe--there was a "little ice age" from roughly 800-1300CE and a warming trend ever since. But the warmists have always said that temperatures elsewhere only started to rise AFTER the industrial revolution and consequent increase in burning of fossil fuels.

In 1998, 2 climatologists published an article in the journal Climate Research presenting data that the whole Earth had been warming since the Middle Ages, long before human fossil fuel use became significant. The response from the "Scientific community?" It could have spraked a thoughtful and evidence-based debate. Instead, the 6 journal editors who approved the paper were forced to resign.

That puts global warmists in the same position as Pope Paul V who told Galileo to shut up or be excommunicated.

Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts!

Even more cries of "heresy!" from supposed scientists documented here.

[Tim Lambert]

Ahh yes, nostalgia. I can remember when they were arguing against the Montreal Protocol. "It will cost billions and billions!" "People will starve without refrigeration!" It turned out that their predictions of extreme costs and calamities were wrong. And guess what? The same people who who wrong about Montreal are making similar claims about Kyoto.

The trouble with Lomberg's argument is that he frames it as a choice between spending money to help the third world and the Kyoto treaty and it isn't. It is possible to do zero, one or two of these things and the choices are independent. And Kyoto doesn't just have benefits for 3rd world countries, but for 1st world ones, which is why it got passed.

Tom Thatcher, your "facts" are wrong. The editors resigned because the paper was badly flawed and should never have got through peer review. See
here.

[Jor]

I don't think the point of Kyoto is to solve global warming. The point is to change incentives for companies for them to figure out a way to solve global warming. It aint gonna be solved until its worth $$$$. Hence you gotta make it worth a lotta $$$ -- so people put resources behind trying to figure it out.

I'm not sure Kyoto is the best way to go, but I just don't understand why conservatives refuse to have their cake and eat it too? Why not say Kyoto is useless -- but instead, America wants to increase research (private or public, or whatever) into alternative energy sources by 20 billion a year (4 times NSF budget I think).

[Cecil Turner]

"And Kyoto doesn't just have benefits for 3rd world countries, but for 1st world ones, which is why it got passed."

It may have passed where you are. In the US Senate, it's about 67 votes short.

[The Kid]

The trouble with Lomberg's argument is that he frames it as a choice between spending money to help the third world and the Kyoto treaty and it isn't. It is possible to do zero, one or two of these things and the choices are independent. And Kyoto doesn't just have benefits for 3rd world countries, but for 1st world ones, which is why it got passed.

Lomberg’s point – the point of the Copenhagen Consensus, the point of economics, in fact – is that resources are finite. Spending money on one thing means you can’t spend it on something else; it’s the having and eating the cake idea.

So how do we best expend resources to help the most folks? Any benefits from Kyoto are long-term, possibly ephemeral, and quite expensive. The opportunity costs – AIDS drugs, improved sanitation, and the like – are high in terms of lives lost.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"There is an awful lot of very expensive stuff built only a few feet above sea level. Most of it has insurance policies written on it."

Insurance policies get renewed each year, and insurance companies employ a lot of math whizzes to determine risk. They'll cope just fine, thanks.

Btw, how much of that 'very expensive stuff' will be that in six or seven decades? And how much of it could be saved by building dikes?

"The trouble with Lomberg's argument is that he frames it as a choice between spending money to help the third world and the Kyoto treaty and it isn't.'

As 'The Kid' points out, Lomberg's point is known to economists as, opportunity costs.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

The wonders of the internet confirm my suspicions:

"Today, approximately 27 percent of the Netherlands is actually below sea level. This area is home to over 60 percent of the country's population of 15.8 million people. The Netherlands, which is approximately the size of the U.S. states Connecticut and Massachusetts combined, has an approximate average elevation of 11 meters (36 feet). The Netherlands ties Lemmefjord, Denmark for claim to the lowest point in Western Europe - Prince Alexander Polder lies at 23 feet (7 meters) below sea level."

[Paul Zrimsek]

But in 100 years, the polder will be 7.5 meters below sea level. They're doomed, I tell you, doomed!

FWIW, some of that expensive stuff continues to be built on the Outer Banks of North Carolina-- which are receding rapidly towards the mainland for reasons mostly unconnected with global warming. I don't know what it's costing the owners to insure these places but apparently it's manageable.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"I don't think the point of Kyoto is to solve global warming."

Of course it isn't. The purpose of Kyoto is to make businesses more expensive to operate in developed countries, that's all.

[Tom Thatcher]

I have never in my field (biology) heard of even one editor being forced to resign because a bad paper made it through peer review, let alone 6. The fact that the editors resigned, rather than just publish an editor's note or retraction, looks like an ideologically motivated witch hunt to me. And if the paper was so flawed, how is it that 4 more groups have independently questioned Mann's methods and conclusions, forcing him to publish a partial retraction of his own?

[Harry Arthur]

Jor, we HAVE said "Kyoto is useless" - some have heard that assertion, some disagree, some don't listen. The problem is that the Europeans are lobbying us hard to ratify Kyoto. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Bill Clinton already signed Kyoto but that the Senate passed a "sense of the Senate" resolution something like 97-0 indicating their objections to the treaty and that it would not be ratified. That was a fairly bipartisan rejection of this very deeply flawed treaty that arguably will have no measurable effect on global warming in any case.

You also said "I don't think the point of Kyoto is to solve global warming. The point is to change incentives for companies for them to figure out a way to solve global warming. It aint gonna be solved until its worth $$$$. Hence you gotta make it worth a lotta $$$ -- so people put resources behind trying to figure it out."

Several problems with your reasoning here IMHO.

1. As TK points out above the purpose is not as altruistic as you suggest, it is to bring American prosperity down to European levels - to "level the playing field." I'm just surprised anyone from the EU actually admits this agenda.

2. I'd say most people who listen only to the MSM or who support Kyoto think it will "solve" the problem. If it won't "solve" the problem what's the use? We already have an energy bill that funds a number of alternatives. Perhaps the numbers aren't what you'd like and perhaps they should be higher but the alternative is not suitable to those pushing for ratification of Kyoto.

3. Though many scientists would argue that warming is caused by human activity, many would dispute that assertion. I'd say that at this point the most honest answer is that we just don't know either the causal mechanism of warming, or the solution mechanisms. As I stated above, the zeal for support of Kyoto ratification approaches religious furvor.

4. Your point that "people put resources behind ..." is in my mind fairly naive. How is this done? I would submit that these "resources" are either taken by the government in terms of taxes to fund your "alternative energy sources" research or that companies will bear the additional costs, passing them through to the consumer. My question to you is how high would you like your taxes raised and/or how high would you like your cost of living to go. Research isn't free.

Professor Lomborg's treatment of opportunity costs is a valid assessment of this issue. Again, I would suggest that it is naive to think that we don't need to prioritize precious financial resources to solve the most pressing problems. These are real, demonstrable "NOW" problems not theoretical, maybe, future potential problems. In short, I'd rather do what we can to provide drinkable water and AIDS treatments for Africans now than to worry about a few tenths of a degree temperature increase 50-100 years from now that we may or may not even be causing and may or may not be able to fix even if we do wreck our economies in the attempt.

Finally, given the track record of these climate "experts" over the past four decades I have serious difficulty believing that we should put all our eggs in their "crisis" basket just yet no matter how convincing the latest greatest computer model seems to be.

[Jamie]

Funny... I just blogged on this subject yesterday, free-association-like. I had no idea an actual discussion was brewing.

TK: "Any benefits from Kyoto are long-term, possibly ephemeral, and quite expensive." Not possibly ephemeral; definitely ephemeral, and any opinion to the contrary is pure hubris. The last Ice Age ended, what, 20,000 years ago? That's a BLIP in geologic time. It's less than a heartbeat. In fact, allow me to quote from this article: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ice-age

Glaciologically, ice age is often used to mean a period of ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres; by this definition we are still in an ice age (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist).

There you go. An Ice Age is when there's ice year-round in places other than the tops of high mountains. From this definition we can infer, can we not, that the normal run of things is no ice year-round in places other than the tops of high mountains?

Kyoto, sun-dances, nuclear war: none of these would stop the inevitable (those with a Gaia complex might substitute the word "relentless," implying intent as it does, though of course Mother Gaia would never do that to her little denizens) and constant change that is the default state of the Earth. We, we adaptable humans who live everywhere, choose whether to sleep at night or during the day, breed at will, create land from swamps and distill fresh water from oceans, we owe it to ourselves to DEAL WITH the changes, not to try to stop them.

[Harry Arthur]

TL, and the same people who were wrong about global cooling are making similar claims about global warming.

[Warmongering Lunatic]

Run the climate models without Kyoto, or run them with Kyoto. Either way, the same warming happens and the same consequences occur -- merely with a six year delay over 100 years in the Kyoto case. Since these are the same models being used to predict global warming in the first place, if they're wrong, the premises on which Kyoto is advocated are wrong. So, however little Kyoto costs, it either merely increases the time before the inevitable by 6%, or it has no predictable effect of any kind.

All those expensive things built close to sea level are doomed or not with or without Kyoto. The deserts will or will not expand, with or without Kyoto. The coral will or will not die off, with or without Kyoto. Kyoto doesn't solve anything.

The only question is thus an economic one, and it's very, very limited -- assuming the climate models are right, will the cost of Kyoto be greater or less than the value of a six percent per century delay in warming? And the answer to that, from any responsible economist, is, "Buggered if I know."

Meaning there is no responsible affirmative case to be made for the Kyoto protocol.

[Jim Glass]

Global warming ... global cooling ...

Remember that it's not either/or.

Global warming can cause global cooling -- so we can have both as a two-fer!

[Forbes]

The current issue (Jul/Aug) of the magazine "Foreign Policy" (not available on-line, yet) has an interesting, debate-style, back and forth, between Carl Pope, exec. dir. of the Sierra Club, and Bjorn Lomborg.

Read the whole thing, as is said!

My copy just arrived--so it may be a few weeks before the issue is posted on their web site.

[TM]

As to the Mann Hockey-stick debate, here are two interesting papers.

Far be it from me to pass judgment on these abstruse issues, but the second article is in a popular Aussie newsweekly, and tells me this:

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey-stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasn't so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalisation in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalisation procedure tends to emphasise any data that do have the hockey-stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called "Monte Carlo" analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey-stick shape!

...In PCA and similar techniques, each of the (in this case, typically 70) different data sets have their averages subtracted (so they have a mean of zero), and then are multiplied by a number to make their average variation around that mean to be equal to one; in technical jargon, we say that each data set is normalised to zero mean and unit variance. In standard PCA, each data set is normalised over its complete data period; for key climate data sets that Mann used to create his hockey-stick graph, this was the interval 1400-1980. But the computer program Mann used did not do that.

Instead, it forced each data set to have zero mean for the time period 1902-1980, and to match the historical records for this interval. This is the time when the historical temperature is well known, so this procedure does guarantee the most accurate temperature scale. But it completely screws up PCA. PCA is mostly concerned with the data sets that have high variance, and the Mann normalisation procedure tends to give very high variance to any data set with a hockey-stick shape.

(Such data sets have zero mean only over the 1902-1980 period, not over the longer 1400-1980 period.)

The net result: the "principal component" will have a hockey-stick shape even if most of the data do not.

McIntyre and McKitrick sent their detailed analysis to Nature magazine for publication, and it was extensively refereed. But their paper was finally rejected. In frustration, McIntyre and McKitrick put the entire record of their submission and the referee reports on a Web page for all to see (see below).

And the Big Finish:

Apparently, Mann and his colleagues never tested their program with the standard Monte Carlo approach, or they would have discovered the error themselves. Other and different criticisms of the hockey-stick are emerging (see, for example, the paper by Hans von Storch and colleagues in the September 30 issue of Science).

Some people may complain that McIntyre and McKitrick did not publish their results in a refereed journal. That is true - but not for lack of trying. Moreover, the paper was refereed - and even better, the referee reports are there for us to read. McIntyre and McKitrick's only failure was in not convincing Nature that the paper was important enough to publish.

...The Canadian scientists who conducted this study, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, first submitted a critique of Michael Mann's study to Nature, the monthly scientific magazine, in January this year.

After extensive discussion, last March, Nature asked them to revise it from its original length of 1,900 words down to 800 words. This was re-submitted on April 9.

They did not hear back from Nature, but when they inquired about delays in publication, were told that Nature had not heard back from its reviewers.

On August 4, Nature advised that their shortened submission would not be published. The main reason was that the issues raised were "too technical" to resolve in the now 500-word space available.

The authors commented, "Readers may share our surprise that the matters raised are 'too technical' for consideration in a science journal."

It is interesting that the Hans von Storch in this drama is surely the same fellow who resigned in protest about an API-funded study, as noted by Tim L.

[Harry Arthur]

Interesting that the more you learn about this subject the more interesting it gets.

[kim]

Ever since photosynthesis developed carbon has progressively been sequestered. We have developed the ability to free that carbon in the nick of time to prevent a progressive cooling of the earth.
================================================================

[kim]

Ever since photosynthesis developed carbon has progressively been sequestered. We have developed the ability to free that carbon in the nick of time to prevent a progressive cooling of the earth.
================================================================

[Harry Arthur]

TM, "In frustration, McIntyre and McKitrick put the entire record of their submission and the referee reports on a Web page for all to see (see below)."

Where, below?

[Tim Lambert]

Popular Aussie nesweekly? I'd never heard of them. Let's see... Ahh, published by the National Civic Council. Anti-Communist group from the 50s. Didn't know they were still around.

Anyway, the article by Muller was originally published last year in Technology Review and I blogged it then. Since then, the hockey stick graph has been independently reproduced.

[kim]

What is the consequence of progressive sequestration of carbon?
==============================================================

[kim]

What is the consequence of progressive sequestration of carbon?
==============================================================

[Cecil Turner]

"Where, below?"

Harry, "(see below)" is quoted from the original, and refers to the synopsis on "submitted," "critique," "1900 words," "too technical" etc. The paper is linked in the first piece, here.

And Tim, contrasting M&M's very detailed critique with the response from Ammann and Wahl (and the main point that the M&M method failed A&W's validation) did not inspire confidence in the latter. It's apparently preliminary, which is fair enough, but absent the "detailed description of the code and the individual scenarios discussed in the paper," it's impossible to evaluate. (Even if I were competent to do so.) I'd also note they appear to accept M&M's data centering critique, which suggests M&M's paper isn't completely without merit (and that they might have a valid complaint about their treatment by Nature).

[Tim Lambert]

Cecil, Ammann and Wahl have posted their source code on the web (follow the links from their news release). What more information do you think is needed here? They show that the centring technique doesn't make a difference. This suggests that, at best, M&M are making a mountain out of a molehill.

[ed]

Hmmm.

"Global warming can cause global cooling -- so we can have both as a two-fer!"

And thus we can also have global cooling cause global warming. A trifecta!

Then there's the lack of neutrinos from the sun. A fusion reaction should cause neutrinos. But no neutrinos have been detected in the decade people have been looking for them. Could the sun's fusion reaction fluctuate between states? Could the sun be in a between state where the sun's fusion reaction won't kickstart until the sun cools somewhat and condenses enough?

Who the hell knows?

You gotta laugh.

[Cecil Turner]

"Ammann and Wahl have posted their source code on the web [. . .] What more information do you think is needed here?"

Treatment of data, specifics of whether the copy errors cited by M&M are valid, but mostly, their technique for calculating the RE numbers (their main point . . . which competent researchers may be able to pull out of their source code, but I certainly can't).

"They show that the centring technique doesn't make a difference. This suggests that, at best, M&M are making a mountain out of a molehill."

Perhaps slightly overstated. They said it was "influencing the reconstruction in a minor way," which, if true, would support your Mtn/M-hill contention (argh, another M&M).

[Harry Arthur]

Thanks, Cecil.

[Tim Lambert]

What? He has to explain it to non-experts as well? OK, fine, read this.

[Cecil Turner]

"What? He has to explain it to non-experts as well?"

If you expect us heathens to convert, then yes.

"OK, fine, read this."

Nice explanation. Unfortunately, it does little to resolve who's right. If A&W had directly refuted M&M's data concerns, I'd be inclined to accept that--but AFAICT, they didn't. The "it doesn't matter" treatment requires review of their entire methodology by folks who can do that sort of thing . . . which definitely does not include me.

You're welcome, Harry.

[Tim Lambert]

They have refuted M&M's claims about there being a mistake in the MBH analysis of the data. That's why M&M are now arguing that the data is wrong. M&M's tactics seem to be to just keep throwing stuff at MBH in the hope that something will stick. And even if it doesn't they've created enough noise to confuse the issue. We see this again and again. People are still running with completely as completely bogus as the urban heat island non-issue, or claiming that satellite don't show warming.

[Harry Arthur]

Tim, very recently I saw something on one of the science channels addressing the urban heat island and satellite issues that left several questions in my mind about why there is such disagreement among the experts on this issue. Logically it has always seemed to me that the argument from this viewpoint makes sense and I have read several experts who claim that the satelite data shows less warming. Though I generally seem to be in disagreement with you on the cause and potential impact of warming I'd still like to relook those two aspects of this discussion based on your comments. Any chance you could shoot a few links my/our way to some of the discussion/analysis of these two items in particular? Links or URLs are fine. Might be able to find them myself but it seems you're already familiar with the pro & con on this so it makes sense to start there.

In all honesty this is an argument I have used on a number of occasions in discussions with family and relatives and if I'm wrong I'll admit it. I'd like to see for myself the reasoning behind your evaluation that this is a bogus objection to the "warming advocates'" (for lack of a better term) arguments/data.

Thanks.

[Tim Lambert]

There is a really obvious way to deal with possible urban heat island effects -- just use the data from rural stations for long temr trends. Do you think it likely that the scientists working in the filed would not have thought of this? You can read the details
here.

Satellite data shows something between half as much and about the same warming as the surface record, depending on how you analyse it.

[Cecil Turner]

"They have refuted M&M's claims about there being a mistake in the MBH analysis of the data. That's why M&M are now arguing that the data is wrong. M&M's tactics seem to be to just keep throwing stuff at MBH in the hope that something will stick."

M&M had a lengthy section on claimed database errors in their 2003 paper. AFAICT, A&W didn't address it. But it certainly predates the latest A&W effort, and so does not appear to be a recent tactical shift by M&M. Or did I miss something?