On Pillar Toppling

January 25, 2010 by Policy Lass 15 Comments

I have a day off today and have been surfing a number of websites looking at elements of the skeptic criticism of AGW theory.

Toppling Pillars

Chylek’s letter got me thinking about these pillars he sees as being undermined by the CRU emails and why I have been so little moved by all the evidence skeptics have put forward. It’s likely because, in the end, no real pillars were toppled.

If you go into a house and build a pillar or three in the interior and then topple them, the house remains standing — because it was not premised on those pillars in the first place.

I have found repeated in various locations on the skeptosphere reference to the “pillars” of man-made or anthropogenic global warming and efforts to topple them.  However, when I ponder what I read, I have come to the conclusion that the pillars the skeptics are toppling are “their” pillars — pillars they have created in order to topple. Strawmen, in other words.

In my opinion, the real AGW pillars are:

  1. Measured increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and other GHGs to levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years
  2. Theory of the greenhouse effect
  3. Measures of climate sensitivity
  4. Globally averaged temperature record over the past 150 years and other temperature records via ground based, satellite, sea surface temps.
  5. Evidence of environmental impacts of warming — sea level increases, arctic ice extent, antarctic melting and ice extent, glacier retreat, impact on animals and plants, droughts, etc.

I don’t include the model predictions or hockey stick and issue of paleoclimate because logically, the models are tools used to explore the above pillars and as to the hockey stick and paleoclimate, it is entirely possible for it to have been warmer a thousand years ago due to natural influences and GHGs could still pose a threat to our climate, leading to unprecedented warming.

This decision of mine can be argued, and yes, the TAR includes sections on paleoclimate and models.

Keep in mind that skeptics and deniers hold the hockey stick and paleoclimate reconstructions as one of the pillars of the man-made global warming theory. They view toppling it as a major accomplishment that undermines the theory as a whole.

So, what does the TAR say about paleoclimate?  The section on paleoclimate asks and answers the question — is current warming unprecedented? However, they were truly quite circumspect in the assessment report. Continue reading →…

Uncategorized
, , , , , ,

What did it for me?

January 24, 2010 by Policy Lass 13 Comments

The last couple of weeks have been a watershed for me in terms of my own thinking about AGW.

I entered into the post-climategate world with a willingness to see if the emails turned up evidence of a quality and quantity necessary to undermine the foundations of AGW, which I take to be the dominant scientific paradigm on global warming.

When I left this war a year or so ago, I left it thinking that what passed for discussion on the blogosphere was a choice between “AGW is a BRE-X Style Hoax” vs “Skepticism is Just Another Big Tobacco Disinformation Campaign”.

Neither of those are real choices to people with any sense. So, instead of assuming climate scientists are snake oil salesmen or skeptics Beelzebub incarnate, I decided to give the debates another chance.

What did I find?

More of the same.  Small, inconsequential errors, mistakes, out-of-context comments, and normal human foibles were taken and blown out of proportion as part of the denial campaign to halt climate policy and protect vested interests. Continue reading →…

Uncategorized
, , ,

Chylek’s Editorial

January 24, 2010 by Policy Lass 0 Comments

I want to explore the Petr Chylek editorial a bit because it contains some key issues for me:

What are the key pillars of man-made global warming theory — or the AGW Dominant Scientific Paradigm?

For me they are:

– anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gasses released in the atmosphere as a result of burning of fossil fuels and land use changes

– increase in concentration of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gasses released in the atmosphere as a result of burning of fossil fuels and land use changes to levels not seen for hundreds of thousands of years

–enhanced greenhouse effect resulting from increase in concentration of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gasses released in the atmosphere as a result of burning of fossil fuels and land use changes to levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years.

– increase in globally average temperature over the past 50 years due to enhanced greenhouse effect resulting from increase in concentration of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gasses released in the atmosphere as a result of burning of fossil fuels and land use changes to levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years.

– potentially damaging consequences for human civilization in the future if nothing is done to mitigate increase in globally average temperature over the past 50 years due to enhanced greenhouse effect resulting from increase in concentration of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gasses released in the atmosphere as a result of burning of fossil fuels and land use changes to levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years.

I don’t see any of my AGW pillars as being undermined by the CRU emails or the mistake in the AR4 over Himalaya glaciers and 2035/2350. In fact, I think my pillars are still intact.

Let’s see what pillars Chylek thinks have been destroyed or undermined by recent developments: Continue reading →…

Uncategorized

Himalaya Glaciers, IPCC and 2035

January 23, 2010 by Policy Lass 4 Comments

Over at Climate Audit, my new most favorite place for a good laugh, and head shake, McI has another post about the Himalaya 2035 IPCC AR4 mistake. One might think, given the coverage on his blog, that he’s … gloating?

No. Not the puzzle solver.

He’s just solving puzzles. Not speculating about motives or attacking climate scientists. No.

In his post, McI lays blame for the mistake at the feet of the IPCC chairperson. There’s speculation about how the mistake — the claim that the Himalaya glaciers would be gone by 2035 — has led to mucho dinero being wasted on this issue.

Continue reading →…

Uncategorized
, , , , ,

Petty Petty Puzzler

January 23, 2010 by Policy Lass 18 Comments

Over at Climate Audit, McIntyre has a post on a line from one of the EA emails.  It’s all about the Y2K correction and the comment that someone should “hide” the article by Hansen “”.

Here is the quote:

Jim, please check if everything is fine.
Robert, please move to the CU site and hide this after Jim checks it.
Darnell, please send it out to Jim’s email list. Jim said if I don’t want to, you should do, but it is not a matter of what I WANT TO or NOT WANT TO. I don’t know how to.

Much ado about the word “hide” — in fact, 4,562 words or 18 pages dedicated to one word.

McI is really trying to dig up dirt isn’t he?

It’s another passive-aggressive post — claiming he can’t really do something (we don’t know what he meant) and then doing it anyway — more speculation.

Continue reading →…

Uncategorized
, , , ,

Criticism of the IPCC Reports: A New IPCC Calculus?

January 20, 2010 by Policy Lass 2 Comments

Paul M has a list of criticisms and flaws in the IPCC reports that I’d like to explore in greater detail.

Here is the first criticism:

A “new IPCC calculus”:

A new form of calculus has been invented by the authors of the the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), in order to create the false impression that global warming is accelerating…

Here is the graph:

Paul, do I have to point out that you are imputing motive here — you are stating the reason the authors included the graphic is to “create a false impression that global warming is accelerating.” In other words, you are asserting that they knowingly created a graph that misleads about the rate of global warming? I just want to make that clear.

Here’s more:

The slope over the last 25 years is significantly greater than that of the last 50 years, which in turn is greater than the slope over 100 years. This ‘proves’ that global warming is accelerating. This grossly misleading calculation does not just appear in chapter 3 of WG1. It also appears in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM): “The linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years“. Thus, policymakers who just look at the numbers and don’t stop to think about the different timescales, will be misled into thinking that global warming is accelerating. Of course, we could equally well start near the left hand end of the graph and obtain the opposite conclusion! (Just in case this is not obvious, see herefor an example). A similar grossly misleading comparison appears at the very beginning of chapter 3, page 237: “The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C vs. 0.07°C ± 0.02°C per decade).“

Will someone more skilled in statistical analysis point out to me why this is grossly misleading and wrong?

Here is another comment:

It is the same story with the misleading comment in the SPM mentioned above (“The linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years“). This statement was not in the original version reviewed by the scientists. It was inserted into the final draft that was only commented on by Governments.  The Chinese Government suggested deleting this, pointing out that ‘These two linear rates should not compare with each other because the time scales are not the same’. Well done to the Chinese Government for spotting that. Too bad their valid comment was ignored by the IPCC.

Interesting questions raised:

1. Is it wrong to say that the rate of increase in warming is greater in the last 50 years than over the entire period and why?

2. Why was the new graph included in the final draft?

3. Who was involved in the government review? I imagine governments had their own scientists reviewing it, not just politicos.

Paul — I have to ask — if the report included four different graphs, with each one focusing in on a specific time period, would you still complain about it?  If there were four graphs showing 1860 – 2000, 1905 – 2000, 1960 – 2000, and 1980 – 2000?

What do you think the graph shows and what is the proper way of analyzing the graph?


Uncategorized
, , ,
Newer Entries
Older Entries