Climategate (GW email leak)

[bascule]

I wasn't replying to you, bascule.

 

Well would you, please?

[JohnB]

A world government? Oh goody. Being democratic this would of course mean that India and China would control roughly 1/3 of the votes. I take it you don't see a problem with this outcome?

 

iNow. I see what you're getting at in post #130. I hadn't thought of it in that way and will have to consider the implications. (And possibly my position on this.)

 

As an aside, you are aware that Dr. Mann has stated that no reputable climate scientist would graft the instrumental record onto a proxy reconstruction?

 

Regarding DeepClimates allegations I would suggest that DC is incorrect. SteveM (I believe rightly) inferred that the discussion was Briffas decline in the late 20th C. Simply because the reply email from Michael Mann says so.

I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith's,

we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean

values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline.

http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=136&filename=938018124.txt

 

That the reply to the earlier emails speaks of the Briffa decline would surely imply that it was indeed the topic of discussion. So DC hasn't caught SteveM lying at all.

 

There is one question that hasn't been asked in all this. (Or at least I haven't seen it asked)

 

Keith Briffa says in one email;

I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=138&filename=938031546.txt

 

I'd really, really like to know who or where this "pressure" was coming from. It comes across that rather than dispassionate science, someone wanted a predetermined picture presented.

 

I also note that having d/loaded the full FOI2009 file there are a number of documents that that back up (to a degree) Wegmans concern about co-authors reviewing each others papers. While such occurrences are not neccessarily pernicious, they do undermine the concept of "independent" review and would perhaps tend to encourage "groupthink".

[iNow]

iNow. I see what you're getting at in post #130. I hadn't thought of it in that way and will have to consider the implications. (And possibly my position on this.)

Understood. I do have a request, though. If you do, in fact, come to a different conclusion than I did, I would most certainly appreciate hearing what that conclusion entails and why you've arrived upon it so I can ensure that my own position does not require reconsideration, or actually reconsider it if it does.

[npts2020]

DH; I have no doubt that a certain segment of those people promoting action on climate change are "anti-capitalist", a few whom I know personally, but exactly how is taking action going to hurt capitalism. Does that mean that every law that promotes the welfare of all of society over narrowly defined corporate profit is "anti-capitalist"?

[D H]

I don't see what the fault is with that. Deciding whether to take action against global warming requires a risk/cost/benefit analysis. Showing that the benefits side of that equation is high (entails stuff we want to do anyways) is a perfectly reasonable way to argue for it.

What I cited was not a risk/cost/benefit analysis. It was just a waving of the hands. I would like to see a valid risk/cost/benefit analysis of this. So far, I have seen cook-the-books type analyses (e.g., post #53), analyses that hand-wave the costs away (e.g., Scientific American's November 2009 article)

Overall construction costs for a WWS system might be on the order of $100 trillion worldwide over 20 years, not including transmission. But this is not money handed out by governments or consumers. It is investment that is paid back through the sale of electricity and energy.

That $100 trillion is an extreme low-ball estimate. As a starter, it ignores the costs of building transmission lines, it ignores supply and demand, and it assumes a 31% decrease in needed power. Nonetheless, let's take that $100 trillion as a basis. Where does that kind of money come from? In the US alone, that amounts to $16.6 trillion dollars. Spread over 20 years, that is $828 billion per year. That is over 3 times the total annual gross revenues of the US electric power industry. Pipe dream economics!

 

 

DH; I have no doubt that a certain segment of those people promoting action on climate change are "anti-capitalist", a few whom I know personally, but exactly how is taking action going to hurt capitalism. Does that mean that every law that promotes the welfare of all of society over narrowly defined corporate profit is "anti-capitalist"?

I am not claiming that action will necessarily hurt capitalism. The point of my showing those banners was to visually demonstrate the claim that some have glommed onto global warming because the solution furthers their political agenda.

 

 

The only hope is either a resolution towards establishing a world government

QED

If coal doesn't peak around 2025 as the German Energy Watch group thinks, I think we're stuffed.

Why do you want the world to suffer?

 

 

This is all a nice ad hominem against proponents of climate science

The video was shown at the opening of COP15. The banners were from COP15 demonstrations, with the full intent of urging the COP15 delegates to choose a path that furthered the political agendas of those carrying the banners. Where exactly is the ad hominem? Please retract that false accusation.

[bascule]

The video was shown at the opening of COP15. The banners were from COP15 demonstrations, with the full intent of urging the COP15 delegates to choose a path that furthered the political agendas of those carrying the banners. Where exactly is the ad hominem? Please retract that false accusation.

 

Sure! Now will you please confirm the validity of climate science?

[iNow]

And now for something completely different:

 

 

http://www.morrissuntribune.com/event/article/id/20026/

Local Commentary: Thoughts on 'Climate-gate': Mitigate our impact

 

By Pete Wyckoff

 

Is the planet cooling? "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick…to hide the decline," writes climate scientist Phil Jones in a stolen 1999 e-mail which has caused a frenzy. FoxNews.com tells us that we finally have a 'smoking gun'--proof that scientists are manufacturing a global warming crisis so that they can… they can…(I've never really understood the goals of the evil scientific conspirators).

 

The planet is warming. The data are unequivocal and based on measured temperatures (corrected for things like the "heat island" effect, so please don't write an angry response claiming that the thermometers are wrong). What Phil Jones was referring to is something else: past temperatures estimated via tree rings. Since 1960, the rings in trees seem to have lost some of their power to record temperature.

 

Why should tree rings indicate temperature at all? As most of us learned in childhood, the trunks of trees at our latitude tend to put on a distinct growth ring every year. All other things being equal, when the trees are happy, they put on a large ring. When the going gets tough, the rings get thin. What makes a tree happy? Light, nutrients, lack of disease, and warmth (to a point). What do trees despise? Drought. By careful interpretation of past tree growth patterns, we can learn a lot about past climates.

 

Scientists have spent many years developing the techniques needed to reconstruct climate via tree rings. The problem is that in the past few decades, the tree ring-climate relationships seem to have become "decoupled" in many areas. Why? The main cause seems to be increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. While carbon dioxide is famously a gas that heats the planet (the greenhouse effect is real and uncontroversial), carbon dioxide also directly impacts plants. Carbon dioxide fuels photosynthesis, and increased carbon dioxide in the air can both speed-up plant growth and make plants less sensitive to drought.

 

Decreased drought sensitivity is an expected response for plants exposed to high levels of carbon dioxide. All along the underside of a plant's leaves are little holes called "stomata." These holes can open and close. A tree must open its stomata to take in carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. Unfortunately, plants lose water out of their open stomata. Plants growing in air that has lots of carbon dioxide can reduce the amount of time their stomata are open, thus making them lose less water and become less susceptible to drought.

 

Biologists call the concept here "water-use efficiency," and it is of crucial interest to farmers and foresters alike. Carbon dioxide causes warming that will likely make west central Minnesota a drier place in the future. At the same time, increased carbon dioxide in the air makes plants growing in our region less susceptible to drought. The balance between these two forces will be crucial.

 

The changing relationship between climate and tree growth is a hot topic of research at your local university. Last Friday, Dr. Chris Cole and Dr. Jon Anderson, of the University of Minnesota, Morris, published a paper in the journal "Global Change Biology" showing that aspen trees in Wisconsin are growing faster than they used to, and much of the increase is attributed to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Two weeks ago, a former student and I published a paper in the "Journal of Ecology" showing that oak trees in west central Minnesota became less sensitive to drought during the 20th century. If "dust bowl"-severity droughts come again soon, we project that the local oaks will suffer 50 percent less mortality than they likely did in the 1930s.

 

So what does this all mean? The relationship between tree rings and climate is becoming muddied by the rapid recent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. For most of the past 10,000 years, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained reasonably stable. Now they are skyrocketing. Modern tree rings are no longer the reliable recorders of temperature they once were. It is a good thing that we now have thermometers.

 

What does Phil Jones' stolen e-mail not mean? It does not mean that global warming is a hoax. It does not mean that there are really any cracks in the scientific consensus that humans are causing dangerous alterations to the global climate.

 

We humans are changing the climate, largely by emitting vast quantities of carbon dioxide via the way we heat our houses, fuel our cars, and generate our electricity. This is unwise. Yes, the future climate, along with the increased carbon dioxide, may be good for some. For most people, however, the downsides of climate change are likely to far outweigh the benefits. Don't let Fox News mislead you. As a prudent, conservative people, we should take serious steps to mitigate our impact.

 

Dr. Pete Wyckoff is Associate Professor of Biology at the University of Minnesota, Morris.

[D H]

The Ad Hominem is the implication that all climatologists are rabid communists. I object to that Ad Hominem attack against the climate community of scientists. Please specify that you are only talking about the objectives of a few eccentric activists.

Those banners were obviously presented by people who are not climatologists. They are people with a political axe to grind, like yours:

The only hope is either a resolution towards establishing a world government

 

And no, I am not talking about the objectives of just a few eccentrics. Just as Republicans lapped up the Laffer Curve, Democrats glom on to global warming. "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing." The solution to global warming requires much greater involvement of the government throughout society.

 

 

Otherwise you're a hypocrite wanting the be all precious about the use of the word "Denialist" and yet liberally applying your own Ad Hominem generalisations to a whole scientific discipline.

Back to the Denialist crap, are you?

 

Just to let you know, I have two vehicles: An American-made pickup and a Japanese-made subcompact. When I need a truck, I have it around. When I need to get to work or the grocery store, my car works just fine. My 5 year old truck has 16,000 miles on it. My car: 136,000 miles. I buy electricity from Green Mountain Energy.

 

These were *my* choices. I have said many times that I acknowledge that our output of CO₂ has affected the climate to some degree. I have made personal choices, not government mandated non-choices, to reduce my impact on the environment somewhat. I do not need the government sticking its nose in my business. I do not need the government telling me I can't drive my truck the few times I really do need it. I do not need the government mandating an over 80% reduction in CO₂ in 40 years when there is no clear way of how to even begin to achieve that goal. It is an unattainable goal.

[iNow]

[swansont]

And no, I am not talking about the objectives of just a few eccentrics. Just as Republicans lapped up the Laffer Curve, Democrats glom on to global warming. "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing." The solution to global warming requires much greater involvement of the government throughout society.

 

I'm not seeing the problem with having more than one motivation to sell to the public to muster the political will to do something. Some people may not be motivated by energy independence or other benefits, so why not appeal to them using global warming? I think iNow has linked to a cartoon that sums it up rather nicely.

 

I do not need the government sticking its nose in my business. I do not need the government telling me I can't drive my truck the few times I really do need it. I do not need the government mandating an over 80% reduction in CO₂ in 40 years when there is no clear way of how to even begin to achieve that goal. It is an unattainable goal.

 

The government "sticking its nose into our business" complaint flies in the face of all the instances when people complain that they haven't been doing enough. People get sick because of an e. coli outbreak? The government isn't doing enough inspecting. Did corporations (and individuals) in the US stop polluting the environment on their own, or did the government have to pass a Clean Air Act and empower the EPA to help protect the environment? The bottom line is that one of the functions of government is to make sure that when people (or businesses) act in their own self-interest, they don't harm others. So if CO2 emissions are an issue, then we do need the government to regulate them, since the majority of individuals are unlikely to do it on their own.

 

Is there actually a proposal out there that would make driving a pickup truck illegal, or is that just FUD/strawman/appeal to ridicule?

 

I also think the "can't do it, so don't try" approach is flawed.

[D H]

Let's look at this list.

• Energy independence. That is a worthy goal. However, will cutting CO₂ emissions to 20% of 1990 levels in 40 years achieve that goal? Is that goal, let alone the more aggressive goals of accomplishing the same in 20 or even 10 years even feasible? If energy independence is the real goal, then make that the real goal. That goal is achievable. A goal of energy independence would not require abandoning the energy resources we do have at hand within our borders. (e.g., coal, natural gas). In fact, it would well encourage further development of those resources. Those CO₂ reduction goals on the other hand preclude the continued use of coal.
   
  There is a double-edged sword here. Transitioning from oil to wind and solar will make us more energy independent, but it will make us more mineral dependent. The reserves of the lithium, rare earths, and rare metals are, for the most part, outside of US boundaries. Going Cheney on the climate would just trade one set of foreign demons for another.
   
   
  
• Preserve rainforests. Preserve my sanity! The biggest threats to the rainforests are burgeoning populations and economic pressures in the tropics. Going Cheney on the climate would vastly increase those economic pressures. Brazil is one of the biggest sources of biofuels. "Brazil, Paraguay, Indonesia among others have huge deforestation programmes to supply the world biofuel market" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2007/aug/17/biofuelsmenacerainforests).
   
   
  
• Green jobs. First off, that is a tautology. Second off, So what? What about real jobs? What is the net impact on us as a whole? Getting there requires a TARP-style investment every year; see post #182 -- and that is assuming the intentionally low-balled estimates. That kind of spending would impoverish us, not enrich us.
   
   
  
• Healthy children. That requires cooking the books (e.g., the articles cited in post #53). I posit that an unsustainable 20 year spending spree that impoverishes us all would make for rather unhealthy children.

 

 

Maybe more later; I have to go for now.

[bascule]

However, will cutting CO₂ emissions to 20% of 1990 levels in 40 years achieve that goal?

 

What legislation is this referring to?

 

Also, I guess you're never going to get back to me on the validity of climate science, after all that blustering about "belief".

[D H]

What legislation is this referring to?

Cap and trade. "The goal: To limit the rise in global temperature to approximately 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2050 by reducing carbon dioxide and other emissions from companies as part of a larger plan for curbing global warming. The cap: To achieve this goal, the U.S. government should steadily tighten the cap until emissions are reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050."

 

This exact phraseology is used in several places:

http://www.pppl.gov/colloquia_pres/MC13JUL09_SGoldberg.ppt

http://www.earthlab.com/articles/capandtrade101.aspx

http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2009/090311.pdf

http://www.jennerrodandgun.com/SCD/forest.ppt

 

Similar phraseology is used elsewhere.

 

 

Also, I guess you're never going to get back to me on the validity of climate science, after all that blustering about "belief".

The question was vague; your debating style is anything but. Ask a vague question, twist the response, howl fallacy at the drop of a hat.

 

As a better question and you'll get a better answer.

[bascule]

Cap and trade.

 

I see nothing in the proposed legislation about "cutting CO2 emissions to 20% of 1990 levels in 40 years". Perhaps you can point out the particular section you're referring to:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act

 

The question was vague; your debating style is anything but. Ask a vague question, twist the response, howl fallacy at the drop of a hat.

 

As a better question and you'll get a better answer.

 

You're claiming this question, which I've asked you repeatedly and you are yet to answer, is vague? Whaaa?

 

Do you recognize the IPCC's position that anthropogenic CO_{2[/sub'] is the foremost radiative forcing affecting the climate system as a scientifically valid one?}

[D H]

Yes, it's vague. What do you mean by scientifically valid? Confirmed by observation, or hypothetically plausible?

[bascule]

Yes, it's vague. What do you mean by scientifically valid? Confirmed by observation, or hypothetically plausible?

 

Le sigh. I give up. I'd just like a straight answer on your thoughts regarding climate science, but it's pretty clear to me at this point you don't want to give one.

[D H]

I have repeatedly given a straight answer on my thoughts regarding climate science. Do I need to repeat myself many times over, just in the hopes that one of you can catch a glitch?

[bascule]

Reviewing the thread, I suppose you have:

 

If the dominant feedbacks are negative rather than positive, those numbers in the IPCC are sheer alarmism meant to effect a political outcome. The same goes for making the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene Optimum disappear. These scientists have switched from being scientists to being politicians. Lousy politicians, I might add.

 

Wow. You do realize that there is evidence of positive feedbacks all over the place occurring right now, especially in regard to sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, right?

 

If they're wrong, that makes them politicians? Where do you get off making remarks like that? If physicists were to discover some pressing problem that could potentially result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the suffering of millions more, don't you think they would be "alarmist" as well?

Edited December 18, 2009 by bascule

[swansont]

Cap and trade. "The goal: To limit the rise in global temperature to approximately 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2050 by reducing carbon dioxide and other emissions from companies as part of a larger plan for curbing global warming. The cap: To achieve this goal, the U.S. government should steadily tighten the cap until emissions are reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050."

 

This exact phraseology is used in several places:

http://www.pppl.gov/colloquia_pres/MC13JUL09_SGoldberg.ppt

http://www.earthlab.com/articles/capandtrade101.aspx

http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2009/090311.pdf

http://www.jennerrodandgun.com/SCD/forest.ppt

 

Similar phraseology is used elsewhere.

.

 

The White House proposal is 83% below 2005 levels by 2050, which gives about the same number

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-attend-copenhagen-climate-talks

 

It's not exactly out of the realm of possibility that the proposed cut was exaggerated on purpose so that there was room to bargain in congress.

[D H]

Wow. You do realize that there is evidence of positive feedbacks all over the place occurring right now, especially in regard to sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, right?

Has it really, or is it just that arctic sea ice tracks extremely well with the phase of the PDO? That the PDO has been in its warm phase since 1977 but recently (2008) entered its cool phase jibes quite nicely with arctic sea extent. The peak ice loss occurred in 2007. 2008 and 2009 saw rebounds toward more normal levels. Why don't we wait and see what the next decade or so brings about before going all Cheney on the climate? Along the way we can take some prudent steps toward greenhouse gas reduction, prudent steps that do not overly tax our already overstressed economy.

[bascule]

The peak ice loss occurred in 2007. 2008 and 2009 saw rebounds toward more normal levels.

 

Are you kidding me? Cherry pick endpoints much?

 

 

Look, it's going back up to normal!

 

Any loss of sea ice compounds the Earth's radiative imbalance due to the change in albedo. Sea ice is highly reflective whereas ocean water is comparatively quite dark.

[D H]

Just like you have cherry picked the thirty year interval during which the PDO was in its warm phase. As I said, let's wait a decade or so and see what transpires.

[bascule]

Just like you have cherry picked the thirty year interval during which the PDO was in its warm phase. As I said, let's wait a decade or so and see what transpires.

 

Are you kidding me? Wrong:

 

 

If there was a correlation between these two graphs your argument would still be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. But there's not even a correlation:

 

 

Where are you getting this stuff? Can you please start acting like a scientist and stop posting unsubstantiated crap?

Edited December 19, 2009 by bascule

[D H]

Are you kidding me?

Way back in posts #53 and #54 iNow and I posted these two graphs:

 

 

 

The obvious difference between these two graphs is the extent of the warming since the late 1970s. Before that they track each other fairly well. In particular, they both show a marked cooling in the early 1940s and more or less flat from the late 1940s until the late 1970s. Claims of anthropogenic global warming focus primarily on the warming since 1970 (or 1978, pick your favorite cherry). That cherry-picked point corresponds very nicely with the phase change in the PDO.

 

An alternative explanation is that the global warming since that time is that the climate can be explained solely in terms of the PDO and AMO. That begs the question: Have we impacted the behavior of those multi-decadal climate cycles, and by how much? That is one of the key questions.

 

============================

 

We don't have the luxury of an extra trillion tons of Co2 or 450ppm.

We cannot afford to undertake the draconian measures you and others are calling for. Those measures are not economically possible. Demands that we *must* undertake those draconian measures is dooming us to failure. Moreover, the people will eventually revolt against those measures. Emplace laws and treaties that impoverish the democratic developed world and you will see a backlash by the voters. In the US, this most likely will entail a return of power to the idiots of the religious far right.

 

Some prudent measures are affordable and achievable. We can, for example, take steps toward energy independence. Make that achievable end the goal rather than making that a byproduct of an unattainable goal.

 

As the cartoon above says, "What if it is all a scam and we create a better world for nothing?"

That of course assumes that this better world will be achieved. It ignores economic and political reality.

 

BTW, how exactly are limitations on CO₂ output going to "preserve rainforests?" One of the claimed advantages of biofuels is that they are carbon neutral. Moreover, rainforests are in developing and underdeveloped nations. The rules on these nations will not be the same as those on the developed nations.

 

As is the case with energy independence, if preserving rainforests / limiting biodiversity loss is a goal, make it an explicit goal. Do so and that goal has some chance of being attained. A recipe for not achieving that goal is to make it an unjustified byproduct of an unattainable goal.

[iNow]

Way back in posts #53 and #54 iNow and I posted these two graphs:

 

 

 

The obvious difference between these two graphs is the extent of the warming since the late 1970s. Before that they track each other fairly well. In particular, they both show a marked cooling in the early 1940s and more or less flat from the late 1940s until the late 1970s.

And the reasons were addressed in post # 58.

 

 

Claims of anthropogenic global warming focus primarily on the warming since 1970 (or 1978, pick your favorite cherry).

Did you really just suggest an equivalence between looking at only the last three years to suggest a trend and looking at the past 40 to show a trend... further suggesting an equivalence in "cherry-picking" when so doing?

 

It seems so... It appears that you are positing a "cherry picking equivalence" between people using at least 4 decades when showing a trend with you using 3 years, and further ignoring the available explanation of the difference between pre-1940s temps and post.

 

In short... it seems (at best) disingenuous of you, and I'd like offer an opportunity for you to clarify in case I've misunderstood.