A Global Warming View From Main Street
Feb 15th, 2010 | 53 responses
I’m just an average person who turns the air conditioning on when its hot and the furnace on when its cold. When it comes to global warming, I figure the pollutants we emit into the air probably contributes to the trend in some degree.
That’s an unshakable belief just as evolution makes more sense than the creationist theory.
Now, what empirical knowledge I have on climate change you can stuff in a whiskey shot glass. Pollutants, or
the air we breath, is another matter.
I went to high school in the foothills of Claremont, Calif., and the smog settling from Los Angeles in the 1950s was enough to gag an elephant. Even on its worst days some six decades later, smog is not as thick, thanks to environmental restrictions the state imposed on gasoline emissions.
I lived in two rural communities in Oregon from 1990 to 2003 and it was the most pristine air I ever inhaled. I used to take walks along the county roads. When an old pickup truck passed belching black smoke from its exhaust, my dog Honey would sneeze and I would cough, a forced recall of my LA days when my throat felt like asbestos. In my 13 years in Oregon, I never experienced flu-like cold symptoms, a malady frequented twice annually in my California days.
Here’s a fact few of you know. Those landscaped center dividers along the California freeway system are either oleanders or acacia shrubs. Why? They’re the only two plant species other than weeds that can survive vehicle emissions.
The smog-producing freeways in Southern California accelerated the death of citrus groves and vegetable farms as much by disease as by a monumental upsurge in land prices. Perhaps, not so dramatic as the river in Cleveland catching on fire, but with the same results.
I remember driving down Interstate 5 to Tijuana in my newspaper days in San Diego. The perpetual wafts of smoke from the TJ dump eventually would invade your nostrils. It would take several days to rid the stink.
So don’t tell me pollutants have nothing to do with the environment.
The global warming skeptics and deniers that we mostly hear from are conservatives voiced so crudely by Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and ilk. Now, I’m paraphrasing Hannity, but during the two recent snow blizzards on the East Coast he would show a live outdoor shot and gloat, “There folks, is global warming at work.”
Ridicule aside, the Washington Post Monday published a serious article on the problems besetting the global warming hysteria raised by its deniers. It concluded the theory was correct but the methodology to prove it was flawed.
It targeted the 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which won a Nobel Prize by stating “warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”
Among the errors was most of the Netherlands is below sea level, which it isn’t, and a typographical error which predicted Himalaya glaciers would melt by 2035 rather than 2530. Reports the Post:
In the past year, a cache of stolen e-mails, revealing that prominent climate scientists sought to prevent the publication of works by their detractors, has sullied their image as impartial academics. The errors in the U.N. report — a document intended to be the last nail in the coffin of climate doubt — are a serious problem that could end up forcing environmentalists to focus more on the old question of proving that climate change is a threat, instead of the new question of how to stop it.
And this response from two doubting Thomas in the Senate::
Two Republican senators who have long opposed a cap on carbon emissions, James M. Inhofe (Okla.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.), are citing the errors as further reasons to block mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Last week, Barrasso called for an independent probe into the IPCC, suggesting that the United States should halt any action on climate until it verifies the panel’s scientific conclusions.
Inhofe said Thursday in the Senate that the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to curb greenhouse gases should be reexamined, since the U.N. panel’s conclusions influenced the agency’s finding that climate change poses a public threat. “The ramifications of the IPCC spread far and wide, most notably to the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that greenhouse gases from mobile sources endanger public health and welfare,” Inhofe said. On Friday, a coalition of conservative groups filed a petition to overturn the EPA’s finding on the same grounds.
It seems to me sitting here at a computer while sipping iced tea that conservatives have one valid point to their argument. That is the cost to implement any program to reduce carbon emissions into the ozone or whatever Al Gore was talking about in his documentary “The Inconvenient Truth.”
As an average guy, I have another observation. Since global warming effects the entire planet, what good would it do if, for example, only the United States, Canada, Europe and Japan cracked down on greenhouse emissions while China, India and all the Third World nations did little or nothing.
I’m not convinced any little bit helps on a planetary scale. It’s more an all or nothing effort which is not only improbable but impossible. And, I say that as an optimist at heart.
As for the experts on this subject, click here.
53 Responses to “A Global Warming View From Main Street”
Good post Jerry, and a good article you linked to as well. Hysteria can come from both sides when it comes to AGW, and a calm reasoned approach is the sensible one, preferably devoid of the partisan influences that tend to encourage all the tit for tat nonsense – none of which addresses the seriousness of the issue. Despite the surface tarnishing that occurred with the data dump, the consensus among people who are knowledgeable and who work in the field is that AGW is real and shouldn't be ignored. If that case remains to be made in the minds of some folks, then I'm all for taking whatever steps are necessary to appropriately spell it out for them.
“It seems to me sitting here at a computer while sipping iced tea that conservatives have one valid point to their argument. That is the cost to implement any program to reduce carbon emissions into the ozone or whatever Al Gore was talking about in his documentary “The Inconvenient Truth.””
Oh boy here we go… First, the valid point non-conservatives have is about the cost of not doing anything.
Here's the deal, right: The chance of having a car crash is low. But the cost of being in a car crush uninsured is terribly high, so if you multiply the cost with the probability, you still get a significant cost for the “Do nothing” choice. If that cost is higher than the cost of insurance, you get insurance. In many societies, you have to buy insurance *because you filing bankruptcy because you were in a car crash and uninsured is bad for the rest of society*.
However, the analogy is incomplete – we'd also need to strap a whole bunch of poor, third-world people to the grill of our car in order to really get an image of the stakes here.
When your consumption and production cause costs *to other people than yourself*, that is called an externality. For example, if everyone could fish from the same communal lake, the fish would soon die out. So we pay for fishing licences and have fishing seasons etc., because every fish you take out of the lake is a social marginal cost for your communal fellows.
Well, CO2 output harms the production and consumption of others. Therefore we have to pay for the privilege. We are not allowed to kill other people with our pollution.
I hear a lot of right-wing hobgoblins having *paroxysms* about these supposed *TRILLIONS* we will have to spend to curb emissions. Ludicrous spewing of plebeians and radio-acolytes, of course.
We can curb emissions effectively and economically. Money we don't spend today is a cost tomorrow, so don't you think you can get away with paying. There is no escape from the effects of our actions. Simply put, not paying for externalities is not only infantile on an intellectual level, it is tantamount to genocide when seen from a proper perspective.
BTW, they recently made a review of the AR4, the report from the IPCC. Out of 2,800 pages they found two direct errors.
[...] Post By Google News Click Here For The Entire Article Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]
Axel,
I renew my request for you to post a reasonable CBA that argues in favor of mitigation without sleight of hand on discount rates and “equity factors”. You continue to argue that such a thing exists and then decline to show it.
The CBAs that exist that argue for mitigation rely on changing the standard methodology by which a CBA is done in order to arrive at the conclusion that mitigation is worth the cost given the likely future costs of a probability weighted set of outcomes.
The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this shows you are more interested in sloganeering than in a debate over the current versus future costs of alternative solutions to the problem.
The science scandal simply points to the uncertainty that exists in the science. The IPCC tried to reduce perceived uncertainty by putting their finger on the scales. They got caught and ended up increasing uncertainty instead. Such is the peril of putting your finger on the scales.
I don't deny warming is occurring. I deny that we have a sufficient understanding of its mechanisms or have a good enough technological solution to allow us to pursue mitigation to allow anyone to make a fact-based argument that the cost of mitigation justifies the returns.
As to your sneering about trillions of dollars. I've previously posted that the range of assumptions (gross cost) ranges from $1000 to $3000 per US household per year for Waxman/Markey. Over the course of 50 years, that's somewhere between $5 and $15 trillion dollars (less with a discount rate of course). This implies the total cost of mitigation for the world, discounted is easily 10s of trillions. Again, beyond your assertion that this perspective is wrong, are there any facts you'd like to bring?
Even the Stern report suggested the cost of mitigation would be about 1% of global GDP by 2050. Let's call global GDP on average over the next century, about $150 trillion. 1% is about $1500 billion per year. Again, one arrives at tens of trillions fairly rapidly. Not this is an indirect cost measure and higher than the direct cost measure above but both are well into the tens of trillions.
“The CBAs that exist that argue for mitigation rely on changing the standard methodology by which a CBA is done in order to arrive at the conclusion that mitigation is worth the cost given the likely future costs of a probability weighted set of outcomes.”
Have you ever showed me one of these faulty CBAs? I need a starting point. Anyway, a CBA is a flawed basis for decisions – this isn't about economics only, but about the well-being of other people whose environments our actions affect.
“The IPCC tried to reduce perceived uncertainty by putting their finger on the scales.”
Twice in a 2,800 pp report. Under no circumstance can you get away with such blatant concern-trolling without reducing yourself in my eyes.
“I deny that we have a sufficient understanding of its mechanisms or have a good enough technological solution to allow us to pursue mitigation to allow anyone to make a fact-based argument that the cost of mitigation justifies the returns.”
The mechanisms are very clear. Just like planets have been affirmed to exist before they were spotted, the current warming can only be explained once CO2 is factored in. Also, as I said, the CBAs only care about our pocketbooks, not the moral or ethical implications of killing other people with our habitual consumption.
“Over the course of 50 years, that's somewhere between $5 and $15 trillion dollars (less with a discount rate of course).”
That' one of the dumbest extrapolations ever. This is exactly one of the sectors of the economy where related developments can raise or lower the cost over just a decade.
“Even the Stern report suggested the cost of mitigation would be about 1% of global GDP by 2050.”
Does it say anything about the costs of not mitigating? Because it would be interesting to see what would happen if we decided to spare ourselves that one percent in costs, as a probability given by scientists. If the probability of the costs of non-mitigation times the probability of the scientists being right (something I rate higher than the chance of the WaPo or the Daily Mail being right about anything) about that cost exceed one percent, the choice is clear.
Of course, all of this is only about our precious GDP. It completely ignores the implications of killing millions because a bunch of incredibly generic Westerners had an existential hole to fill and consumed like locusts.
So then if not a cost benefit analysis, what is the rational basis for making a decision other than you say so? Here is a link to the Stern report's chapter on economic impacts.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Executive_Summa…
You will note it argues for mitigation efforts, but, if you read the technical appendices, it does so because it both reduces the discount rate arguing that a discount rate is not the right basis for decision making and adjusts the impacts of future climate change on the basis of a normative judgment about equity (e.g., impacts in some countries/parts of the world should be worth more than equivalent impacts in other parts of the world). This is the only way they can make the math work, which was clearly their intent from the beginning.
As to the IPCC, it is more than 2 issues and it must be coincidence that every found error was an error that made warming look more alarming and more immediate. Must have been coincidence is all.
You offer no alternative decision making framework other than assertion and insult. If this is your attempt to convince, you will have few converts (not that you care as you are quite secure that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong).
Thanks for the link, I will try to follow it through but it relies almost entirely on an unlinked EPA study. I'll go have a look for it. Methodology is everything in such studies so the results are not meaningful without a real exploration of the approach.
This is an interesting discussion, though like most these days to some extent devolves into name calling and harsh rhetoric. You should both read some of the peer-reviewed work of RSJ Tol, a Dutch economist who has done a large portion of the economic analysis of the damage costs associated with CC. Some high points:
He has largely criticized the Stern report for cherry-picking studies in order to arrive at higher costs of carbon emissions. (http://www-iam.nies.go.jp/aim/stern/Tol_sternre…)
He (rightly) points out that in a CBA total damages versus total mitigation costs are inappropriate, instead marginal costs are the more useful figure.
He estimates (based on this report: http://puc.sd.gov/commission/dockets/civil/2006…) that marginal damage costs are likely to be less than $50/tonC, but that more research is needed in the face of such large uncertainties (http://fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publicat…).
Another point that he raises is that the benefits of mitigation are less than the damage costs of carbon emissions, due to the lag time in climate response to GHG forcing.
CBA is a highly useful tool, when applied correctly. I'm not sure given the huge scientific (and cost) uncertainties of both inaction and different forms of action that it is appropriate. On top of that, there are huge normative/moral components of CC, as GCMs all show disparate impacts globally. Some will benefit or see little change over the next 100 years, while others are likely to be heavily impacted. These distributional impacts are not as well served by a global-scale CBA, but that doesn't make them unimportant. Economics is not and should not be the only tool relied upon for conducting policy analysis.
In the end, it's not going to be solved by others, at least, not at this time. I still think that pushing energy independence (or at least, independence from foreign energy) is a far more productive approach, which both liberals and conservatives should be able to agree on. Individually, the best thing to do right now is to become as energy independent as you can, and hope for the best.
Jerry, you poor thing.
Haven't you heard the news?
Dr. Phil Jones, founder of both the “Hockey Stick” curve and the CRU, and keeper of one of the world's most important surface temperature databases, has admitted over the weekend to the BBC that there is no statistical evidence of Global Warming in the last 15 years worth of data.
None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
Dr. Jones is now confirming what the satellite data and ocean temperature data have been saying for years.
There is NO GLOBAL WARMING.
The belief that there was AGW is an artifact of sloppy/intentional manipulation by agenda driven quasi-scientists.
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, it is a plant friendly, ocean cleansing nutrient vital to life on earth.
For those that respect real science over junk science, I have a PDF final report that is interesting:
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?q…
The final paragraph seems a bit ominous to me.
Orkneygal, you poor thing. Haven't you heard the news?
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201002150006
To put it simply and comprehensively, being wrong on this is going to cost a hell of a lot more than those scientists being right.
I see the effects of climate change daily where I live. I can see the Andes, there are no more of the water storage devices known as glaciers left. The city I live in will die in less than 10 years. The starving highlanders pour in daily, walking 100 to 200 miles because they lost all and have to walk.
RE: the various facts, errors, and spin relating to the IPCC, I suggest you read the following article. It should help address some of the confusion you seem to have about the organization.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2…
There are no words in the English language adequate to describe the ignorance on your part displayed by this post. Jones is the founder of the hockey stick? You actually think that cherry picking a given short time frame such as the last 15 years means something? Sorry, not true. In addition, JSpencer points out what was really said, the understanding of which requires an appreciation of the nuances involved in doing real science. In addition, to call CO2 ocean cleansing is to think that cleansing the ocean means increasing its acidity as it absorbs too much of that cleansing nutrient.
and your domecile is where that you can see the Andean range? And the city that will die in ten years is where? When I've been in the Andean ranges, the mountain people have EVER been starving for lack of help from others who live in proximity. As true now as in the 1960s when I first went there.
thanks.
…Ever been starving for lack of help from others in proximity…and in Africa and in Asia…and in ALL THE WORLD….UNTIL….some have reached a point where they CAN help….
We can help and we do…..
More could help but they don't see….
The uniting common goal is before our eyes….
Read the entire PDF Dr E, not just the abstract.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?q…
The final sentence:[No major
enhancement in particle growth is observed for the acidic seed, suggesting that the large glyoxal
uptake is not a result of particle acidity but rather of ionic strength of the seed. This increased
partitioning into the particle phase still cannot explain the high levels of glyoxal measured in
ambient aerosol, indicating that additional (POSSIBLY IRRESVERSABLE) pathways of glyoxal uptake
may be important in the atmosphere.]…!
Possibly Irreversible? IRREVERSIBLE? By the time that we know for sure, it may be to late? TO LATE!
We dare speak for the entire world when we understand the risk? We can look around us and SEE that our world is dying and To KNOW what is destroying our world may or may not be reversible and still we quibble semantics?
God have mercy on our species should we choose the wrong path because god's universe will NOT!
Wager all mankind for another comforter. We are Mad!
You don't actually expect the poor countries to cut back their emissions if the wealthy countries don't, do you?
The wealthy have to start the process and drag the poor countries along. If they sit on their asses and wait for the poor to do something, Florida will be underwater…
JSpencer, Thanks for the link. I'll retract my comment about the IPCC and keep it as it relates to various political and quasi-political actors pushing for drastic action to combat global warming. Their statements are quite different than the balance treatment provided in the document.
As to CBAs, I disagree that marginal costs versus marginal benefits are more appropriate. Total costs and total benefits are a more relevant discussion if we are considering a global policy change. Furthermore, if you refuse to use CBA as a tool, on what basis should we debate the various policy choices available to us?
Don,
I don't expect developing countries to cut their emissions at all regardless of what the developed countries do. They don't want to and they are using the historical precedent of developed countries to justify that position. Nor do I actually expect any countries to consistently pursue positive cost options that reduce GHGs.
As for Florida being underwater, that type of comment is the exact thing that cheapens the debate.
JSpenser et. al.
How about if I quote from your own proof that what Jones said was spun?
from your own link-
“What Jones actually said is that, while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time interval (1995-present) involved. The warming trend consequently doesn’t quite achieve statistical significance.”
Tell me J, if data ” doesn’t quite achieve statistical significance.”, isn't that like being a little bit pregnant? Data is or is not significant, so don't be saying the statement has been “debunked.” It's just not true.
Additionally and more generally, the entire hockey stick is based upon the conjecture that the rise in global temperature is “unprecedented. Given that the argument presented by Jones himself via your link
“What Jones actually said is that, while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time interval (1995-present) involved.”
The AGW's entire crisis mode is based upon the last 15 years of warming, and Jones clearly states that 15 years is not long enough to draw statistical conclusions.
Here in lies one of my primary disputes with how climate science is debated. Your own proponent declares the lack of statistical evidence, yet the BBC article is “debunked” because it states that there is no evidence that the warming of the past 15 years is noteworthy.
Either Which way you argue this, one must either give up the current trend or give up the notion that you can provide statistical proof for your assertion.
“The AGW's entire crisis mode is based upon the last 15 years of warming,”
This is patently false.
Of course the word “debunked” was chosen as appropriate for the particular commenter I was replying to. My chosen words to you would probably be more along the lines of, “context”, “intellectual honesty”, “big picture”, etc. From what I've seen, the accumulated and accumulating evidence of the steady and harmful effects of global warming is not in dispute among in most scientific circles. That said, there are a disproportionately loud number of voices taking issue with it.
The highest point in Florida is 345 ft above sea level, if sea level rise more than 20 feet a good chunk of South Florida will disappear: Coastal Florida and Everglades – Sea Level Rise Map. Realistically speaking we can expect a 2 meter increase in the sea level over the next century, in which case you can kiss goodbye to the keys and get some serious salination of the ground water…
The US and the EU are the two largest markets in the world, threatening to remove access to said markets and actually carrying through with the threats would get most countries to cut their emissions.
J
” From what I've seen, the accumulated and accumulating evidence”
Here is the problem, evidence must be verifiably consistent with some branch of science or mathematics, anecdotal observation is not evidence.
A great example I hear is the shrinking of Greenland's glaciers. Retreating ice has uncovered ancient foliage. We hear from your side about the retreating ice, but don't hear about plants that clearly point to a previous warm period.
I know of no one who has done any investigation into climate that does not believe that the earth has been warming since the last ice age. Jones himself states there is no verifiable statistical evidence that what we are experiencing is even significant outside of the 10000 year trend.
Snow storms or heat waves are fodder for antidotal proof, but no one who has any scientific background believes either is significant. The big picture you cite is nothing more than this very same thing.
Arctic Ice is melting? Has the melt been shown to be anything more than previous ice recessions? The reason that the MWP is considered a “local” phenomena is that there is scant proxy records from the Southern Hemisphere. If that is cause enough to discount that warming, please explain why the current warmth in the Arctic is proof of global anything.
Please cite global examples that are proof that the current trend is truly global. When you're done there, show me the proof that CO2 produced by man is the cause of that warming. Honestly, I'll take proof of either conjecture.
Thanks for your response, it's good to converse sans the BS seen elsewhere in this thread.
jim
the hockey stick is your poster child for AGW. Where else has the trend been seen?
Don, did you even read your own link…Here, I've quoted it below.
Current sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century,[1][2] and more recently at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4[3] to 3.1 ± 0.7[4] mm per year (1993-2003). Current sea level rise is due significantly to global warming,[5] which will increase sea level over the coming century and longer periods.[6][7] Increasing temperatures result in sea level rise by the thermal expansion of water and through the addition of water to the oceans from the melting of continental ice sheets. At the end of the 20th century, thermal expansion and melting of land ice contributed roughly equally to sea level rise, while thermal expansion is expected to contribute more than half the rise in the upcoming century.[8] Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of this century typically range from 90 to 880 mm, with a central value of 480 mm. Models of glacial flow give a theoretical maximum value for sea level rise in the current century of 2 metres (and a “more plausible” one of 0.8 metres), based on limitations on how quickly ice can flow.
So you translate a theoretical maximum increase to “one we can expect”. Another example of how people cheapen science in the name of sensationalizing.
Not to mention wikipedia as a source.
Don,
If you actually believe that the US and other countries can sustain a sanctions regime to combat carbon emissions, you are, in my opinion, wildly optimistic to say the least. The developed world can't even agree on and enforce sanctions to prevent countries going nuclear (a far more immediate threat than global warming) and you expect long term sanctions for carbon.
Wow.
I wish I had more time to devote to this discussion, but I'm at work right now (yes I work for a living
so for now I'll just point you toward a few links. These are all from realclimate but that's only a starting point, as each includes several links to studies, papers and discussion in the areas specific to your concerns, i.e. ocean, arctic, antarctic, etc.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/c…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/c…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2…
Btw, I don't for a second dispute that the earth has gone through multiple periods of heating and cooling in the past. There is ample evidence that it has, from ice core samples, stalactite samples from undersea caves, etc., so your observation about Greenland having once been verdamt is indeed evidence of these cycles. What is different now is the ability humans have developed relatively recently to significantly (negatively) impact our environment, not just in terms of climate, but planetary ecosystems as well. I know we both agree that environmental responsibility, stewardship, and education should be a common goal to all people, regardless of ideology or culture.
More dissection of the misinformation meme re: the IPCC:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201002160017
The global warming pseudo-cultists are once again the butt of jokes at their expense.
Hopefully many in our governments will not be as stupid as to shed reason for poor policy decisions.
Your right about work getting in the way, it's a good thing they pay us or it wouldn't be worth the effort.
I'll read your links, and I'll provide you with one that helps articulate many of my concerns. I hope you can take the time to see a pretty good presentation based in science and mathematics.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/chapter-…
You're also right that living cleanly, efficiently, and leaving the world as we found it is an objective we share. The irony is that I don't need to be a warmist or denialist to believe in that goal. Like every other debate around here, the truth lies somewhere between the caterwauling extremes. Science is supposed to supersede the political and dare I say religious fervor this subject evokes.
Get back to work!
Fair enough, I'll check out the link. Here's another that supports your own views:
http://yelnick.typepad.com/politick/global_warm…
Done.
Well, BBC has posted a transcript of the now contentious Dr. Phil “Hockey Stick” Jones interview.
The link is below. You can read it for yourself and decide what he did or did not say. I'm particularly impressed by what he says and doesn't say about past warming periods.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/85116…
All sides are spinning this, but the Warmists seem increasing shrill and desperate.
For those that aren't familiar with the phrase “not statistically significant”, it means that the data does not support the hypothesis. It means that the hypothetical must be rejected as false and the alternative must be accepted as true. In this case, the hypothesis is that the earth's surface temperature is warming. Since there is no statistical evidence of this, as Dr. Jones acknowledges, then the alternative hypothesis of “the earth is not warming”, must be accepted.
That is the way hypothesis testing works.
Later…………………
Wow. That was a fascinating interview.
So he's basically saying that there are 4 warming periods since 1840 that are indistinguishable from each other but the periods in between showed presumably less warming. During the entire period CO2 was growing, albeit at different rates.
I further hear him saying that the current period does not have enough warming to be statistically different from no warming. He is right thought that short data sets make demonstrations of statistical significance difficult.
Finally, what's interesting to me is that the approach to the analysis seems to be to use “human effect” as the error term in an analysis that addresses historical temperatures. What's fascinating about that is there is then a further link required to get to CO2. I didn't know this was how they did the analysis.
Thanks very much for posting. I would not have seen this otherwise.
HemmD, you are the only one using the word “local” concerning the MWP, which implies claims for an event that was smaller than real scientists recognize it to have been. The truth is that there is no evidence that it occurred anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere.
In addition the “hockey stick” is only a poster child for global warming denialists such as yourself, who make fools of themselves when they lie about what it really means and what has and hasn't been proven about it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-s…
No, that's not what it means. You really don't understand science, do you? And you also still don't understand that a 15 year time frame cherry picked for what it seems to imply is simply incapable of proving anything about long term global trends.
For everyone's consideration:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Dunning-Kru…
The IPCC on the MWP:
A reply to the claims about what Jones said and didn't say, with links to supporting articles.
A reply to the claims about what Jones said and didn't say, with links to supporting articles.
Jim_Satterfield
You are so fun to play with!
Every time you type something, it shows the true depth of your knowledge and understanding of the world of science and the mathematics behind it.
Here's a commonly accepted definition of Statistically Significant
“The likelihood that a result or relationship is caused by something other than mere random chance. Statistical hypothesis testing is traditionally employed to determine if a result is statistically significant or not. This provides a “p-value” representing the probability that random chance could explain the result. In general, a 5% or lower p-value is considered to be statistically significant.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/statistically-sign…
It matches pretty much the defintion found in my statistics textbook; maybe your statistics book says something different, Eh?
Here's a link to a more detailed explanation of Statistical Significance which explains acceptance and rejection of the null hypothesis.
http://www.statpac.com/surveys/statistical-sign…
Of course, since you seem to know everything about statistical significance already, that explanation will surely bore you.
So, let's do some math, shall we?
Dr. Jone was asked about the last 15 years of data. So 15 years times 365 days per year gives about 5475 days worth of data, ignoring leap years.
With that sample size, what statistical test would you suggest would be the best one to do to determine if the surface temperatures are warming?
A test for normality or a test for trend? Maybe both? Or maybe something more sophisticated, like ANOVA or Regression Analysis?
If Dr. Jones would just release the raw data, even we could try to repeat his work to see if there is statistical significance or not, or more importantly at what level of confidence level the trend is significant.
Maybe we should request the raw data from Dr. Jones under FOI laws so we can do the statistical work ourselves?
That should be easy. I'm sure Dr. Jones and the CRU are happy to share their raw data with anyone and everyone!
Later…………
Orkneygal
Jim_Satterfield-
You seem to know SO MUCH about the MWP and why the IPCC thinks it only affected the NH. I AM impressed!
So. maybe you could use your superior scientific knowledge to explain the peer reviewed findings noted below to little old me and the rest of the readers here.
“We describe a new tree-ring reconstruction of Austral summer temperatures from the South Island of New Zealand, covering the past 1,100 years. This record is the longest yet produced for New Zealand and shows clear evidence for persistent above-average temperatures within the interval commonly assigned to the MWP. Comparisons with selected temperature proxies from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres confirm that the MWP was highly variable in time and space. Regardless, the New Zealand temperature reconstruction supports the global occurrence of the MWP.”
From GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29, NO. 14, 1667, 10.1029/2001GL014580, 2002
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroP…
Now, just in case you forget, remember that New Zealand is in the SH, not the NH.
I'm just holding my breath waiting for your response. I'm so excited!
Did you know I live in Wellington, which is SO CLOSE to the South Island where this important scientific data about the MWP was verified before it was published in a peer-reviewed paper!
Yes, overwhelming scientifically based evidence of the MWP is right here near where I live!
Do you think we should tell the IPCC about this paper?
I'm sure they would love to know that they overlooked this scientific evidence of the MWP in the SH. They do so much want to get it all right, don't they? I'm sure they will want to rewrite the section of the report that you quoted once they are informed of this compelling evidence that what they concluded is not accurate.
Later……..
Orkneygal
But the definition you refer to in this post has little to do with your other post. Let's remind you since you appear to have short term memory problems concerning what you wrote.
Therefore your specific claim that I referred to as being wrong is that 15 years worth of data, covering a cherry picked range, does not prove the entire concept of global warming to be wrong. A 15 year range is capable of being affected by short term events such as El Nino or La Nino, distorting the results if they are not accounted for. Accounting for those types of events is much more readily accomplished by a longer time range. Your little games of trying to make it sound more significant by counting the days doesn't change that fact. Neither does your attempt to claim that I was referring to any definitions of terms from statistics as opposed to your insistence that these little denialist games actually prove something about the science involved. What's especially amusing about the insinuations you make about CRU is the “release of raw data” meme. Unfortunately for you, those claims you're making just prove that you couldn't possibly understand anything about it, since you aren't even aware that the data the CRU uses is already public, they just aggregate and analyze it. This information concerning the source of their data is easily found. You apparently just aren't interested in it since it disagrees with your smug politically informed stance on the issue.
There's proof in New Zealand. Good. One more data point. Have they found the equivalent evidence in South America yet? Something just as rigorous, mind you. Where's the study from Africa? Where is another study from New Zealand or Australia? The claim was that evidence was lacking to prove global extent of the phenomenon in the same time frame. It still is. It doesn't mean that others won't find some more, just that it doesn't exist yet and can't be assumed to exist.
Once again you've just missed some facts because you weren't looking. Like the fact that the IPCC is well aware of the paper you cite, in fact the report lists it in the references section of Chapter 6 of AR4, which is the section addressing paleoclimatology. Maybe this will help.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg…
But of course I would understand if you have difficulties doing any real research and making out the text. I think it probably has something to do with the portion of your anatomy that your head seems to be occupying.
Jim_Satterfield
I get the distinct impression that you are typing your responses after you have been into the sauce a bit too much, you poor thing.
Normally, I don't respond to people when they are in that state, but your ability to confuse the facts with stupor induced ramblings and rantings has to be addressed for the benefit of our other readers, who are, hopefully, sober and genuinely interested in the real science..
On Statistical Significance.
Remember, it was Dr. Jones that used that term in the sense of statistics. I believe he used it in the sense that most scientists mean it, which fits with the definitions in the textbooks, not your curious expression of it, which we can't really understand, since you haven't articulated it. What is your definition of “statistical significance” Jim_Satterfield if it is not what the textbooks say it is?
As evidence of the accuracy of my interpretation of Dr. Jones use of the term, I invite all readers to go back and look at the actual interview noted in the link below. In that interview, Dr. Jones posts a table of temperature trends during four time periods in recent history. The table clearly shows Dr. Jones interpretation of “statistical significance” matches that which I have noted in my posting above. It is Dr. Jones who uses the term in the textbook statistical sense. I can only conclude from the tirade about this point that either Jim_Satterfield didn't read what Dr. Jones actually said, or did read it and doesn't understand it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/85116…
On CRU Data-
Jim_Satterfield typed this statement
“Unfortunately for you, those claims you're making just prove that you couldn't possibly understand anything about it, since you aren't even aware that the data the CRU uses is already public, they just aggregate and analyze it. This information concerning the source of their data is easily found. You apparently just aren't interested in it since it disagrees with your smug politically informed stance on the issue.”
Again, let us return to the interview with Dr. Jones from the link above, here is what he said about the release of raw data-
“Through the Met Office we have released (as of 29 January 2010) 80% of the station data that enters the CRU analysis (CRUTEM3).”
Sorry, Jim_Satterfield, but 80% of the data is not ALL the data. You may think that Dr. Jones has published the data, but HE doesn't think he has published the raw data. What is on the CRU website is the so-called “enhanced” data. Getting at the raw data was part of CRU’s fiasco with the FOI requests.
Since you seem to know where a public copy of the current complete raw CRU data set(s) are (i.e. CRUTEM3), I suggest you contact Dr. Jones immediately and let him know where it is, since you obviously you know something about his data set(s) that he doesn't.
Later……………
Orkneygal
On the subject of the Medieval Warming Period (MWP)- Jim_Satterfield typed
“HemmD, you are the only one using the word “local” concerning the MWP, which implies claims for an event that was smaller than real scientists recognize it to have been. The truth is that there is no evidence that it occurred anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere. If evidence that it did occur globally is discovered then much changes and it should. But so far that is not the case.”
I then presented scientifically based evidence in the form of a rigorous New Zealand tree growth study.(GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29, NO. 14, 1667, 10.1029/2001GL014580, 2002) of the Medieval Warming, etc, which proves ipso facto the inaccuracy of what Jim_Satterfield claimed about there being “no evidence”.
In response to that inconvenient fact Jim_Satterfield typed-
“There's proof in New Zealand. Good. One more data point. Have they found the equivalent evidence in South America yet? Something just as rigorous, mind you. Where's the study from Africa? Where is another study from New Zealand or Australia?”
So, Jim_Satterfield, you began the discussion about the MWP claiming that there is “no evidence” and when proven wrong, you suggest that more data is needed.
This behavior is proof that you have drunk the IPCC kool-aide and adopted their creed.
That creed includes ignoring one's own false statements, condemning contrary facts as being insignificant when confronted with them, spinning lies about the data and its sources and ultimately making ad hominem attacks when the evidence is overwhelmingly against the IPCC warmist point of view.
All of these tactics are evident in what Jim_Satterfield has typed in this blog.
However, Jim_Satterfield has asked for additional studies, and perhaps other readers are interested also about other paleoclimate evidence from the Southern Hemisphere.
So, below is a link to a nicely organized repository of scientific literature confirming paleoclimate evidence of the Medieval Warm Period in the around the world, including areas that Jim_Satterfield seems so desperate about.
Remember, it is Jim_Satterfield that typed
“The truth is that there is no evidence that it occurred anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere. If evidence that it did occur globally is discovered then much changes and it should.” That is so true, because the AWP debunks the entire theory of AGW and Jim_Satterfield knows it.
So here's the link to scientific papers about MWP all over the world. Pick whatever geographical area you want and start reading. There are 5 other papers covering New Zealand, 16 with African data, 16 for South America, 7 for Antarctica and so, on.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
For busy readers , here’s a précis of one of the papers.
“Terra Nova Bay, Victoria Land, Antarctica
Reference
Baroni, C. and Orombelli, G. 1994. Holocene glacier variations in the Terra Nova Bay area (Victoria Land, Antarctica). Antarctic Science 6: 497-505.
Description
In the words of the authors, they describe and analyze “data obtained during studies carried out by the Italian Antarctic Research Programme (1985-1991) in the Terra Nova Bay area, Victoria Land.” Of most significance to the Medieval Warm Period, in this regard, were data pertaining to the Edmonson Point Glacier (74°20'S, 165°08'E), which abuts a small ice-free area along the eastern coast of Mount Melbourne. Baroni and Orombelli state that a withdrawal phase of the glacier's cliff front “is documented by a horizontal marine ingression of more than 150 meters and the deposition of coastal marine sediments,” noting that “the dates relative to this withdrawal phase correspond to a calibrated age between the 10th and the 14th centuries, a time interval including the Medieval Warm Period [authors' italics].” They also say “there is evidence of a more recent period of advance, of at least 150 meters” that “occurred later than the 14th century in a time interval possibly corresponding to the Little Ice Age (16th-19th centuries).” Last of all, they state that “at present, the glacier appears to be in slight regression (as much as several tens of meters), as is documented by the ice-core moraines which locally face its frontal and lateral margins.” From these observations we conclude that the Medieval Warm Period of AD 900-1300 was more substantial than the Current Warm Period to date.”
Later………..
Orkneygal
Thank you for reminding me that I was wrong in using the phrase no evidence. The word inadequate is most definitely what I should have used. But you are equally wrong when you claim that the MWP being a global phenomenon would “debunk” AGW. Why? It's very simple. We know for a fact that CO2 and methane are both greenhouse gases. We also know that human activity are increasing the levels of these gases in the atmosphere. We know that the oceans have been serving as sinks absorbing a lot of the CO2 we have been generating. Studies have shown that there are parts of the oceans that are drastically decreasing the amount of CO2 they are absorbing. All of these factors have to be considered when discussing this issue, not just the paleoclimatology research. Also, please remember that the phrase “to date” appears in the article you quote and it's 15 years old meaning the data analyzed to refer to current warmth is older still.
Some links if anyone is still reading.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-p…
http://bit.ly/7Zrg6d
Someone who thinks that it was global but is nuanced in his claims.
http://mensch.org/5223_2007/archive/Science2001…