A Climate Change of Mind

[Whag]

In the words of PZ Myers: "Wow, evidence really works sometimes."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...ptic.html?_r=3

[Raphael]

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

About 18 months ago, as soon as I heard of Dr. Richard Müller’s Berkeley Earth Temperature project, I sent an email to several skeptical scientists drawing their attention to his statement that he considered his team’s attempt to verify how much “global warming” had occurred since 1750 to be one of the most important pieces of research ever to be conducted in the history of science. This sounded too much like propaganda.

He was posing, I said, as a skeptical scientist; his results would broadly confirm the pre-existing temperature series; when his research ended, he would declare himself to have been converted from scepticism to the belief that merely because the world had warmed the warming must be our fault; and publication of his results would be exploited as a triumphant and final confirmation of the “global warming” orthodoxy.

© source where applicable

Lord Monckton continues with a demonstration "by Classical methods that his principal conclusion “that global warming is real, that the prior estimates of the rate were correct, and that the cause is human” is incorrect a priori."

[robertb]

I am not sure why this is such a contentious issue.

Atmospheric carbon was, over millions of years, absorbed by our oceans and living things. Some of this absorbtion resulted in stuff like oil and coal. We burn this stuff and, in doing so, release some of the absorbed carbon back into the atmosphere at a much faster rate than it can be reabsorbed by natural processes and thereby increase the level of gasses like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere helps provide the greenhouse effect that causes our planet to be habitable. Increasing the relative amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere increases the strength of the greenhouse. A stronger greenhouse means things like a relatively warmer planet, more energy in our atmosphere leading to more extremes in weather conditions and probably an eventual rise in sea level as a result of the reduction of the volume of polar ice.

Whether the planet is in some sort of natural warming cycle seems irrelevant to the fairly obvious fact (basic chemistry is basic chemistry after all) of the additional nonnatural warming being provided by our activities.

Kind of a no-brainer it seems to me, unless I am seriously mistaken about the effect of carbon dioxide.

[Leonhard]

He starts out with a slander of Müller's character, which is ironic since the last time someone made accusations against Monckton, he threatened to sue and demanded satisfaction.

Monckton's argument is simple, he argues that there's no correlation between CO2 and global warming; Ergo CO2 can't be the cause of global warming. That's the classical logic he's indicating at. There's nothing wrong with the form of the argument, only that the basic premise is wrong. There is a very strong correlation between the recent increase in CO2 and the temperature. The physical models of weather expects this to be the case. As for his claim, that he repeats in the article (unaware of any criticism, or perhaps aware but simple not caring), is blatantly false.

annual-residual-small.png

This chart is taken from Müller's project and shows the temperature profiles of various temperature reconstructions. First of all, they all agree, this is what is expected if the temperature reconstructions are correct. As you can also see there's too much uncertainty in the data to say that the temperature growth has stopped.

decadal-residual-small.png

This becomes even more clear if the graph is smoothed out by averaging together the temperatures across ten years.

annual-with-forcing-small.png

The red line in this graph came from taking the CO2 concentration and volcanic sulfate emissions, and creating the best fit linear combination. This is a quick and dirty way to check whether there is any correlation. Its not by itself enough to establish a sound correlation, which would require comparing the physical models to the temperature increase. However I think it makes Monckton's claim a tad bit less impressive.

A question for conservatives: I know a lot of you are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming. I know its a science that some are using to drive political points, and economic proposals. However that shouldn't change whether the science is good or bad. Conservative fiscal policies would be still hold true, whether or not the Earth's climate is changing because of us. Is there anything about 'Smaller goverments; Responsibility; Family; Prolife.. etc.." that tells you that this has to be false?

[Darth Executor]

A question for conservatives: I know a lot of you are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming. I know its a science that some are using to drive political points, and economic proposals. However that shouldn't change whether the science is good or bad. Conservative fiscal policies would be still hold true, whether or not the Earth's climate is changing because of us. Is there anything about 'Smaller goverments; Responsibility; Family; Prolife.. etc.." that tells you that this has to be false?

It largely stems from the fact that scientists were demanding the government do something about it, largely by further crippling the economy. It looks like another far left power grab so a lot of conservatives will dismiss it entirely.

[Seasanctuary]

It largely stems from the fact that scientists were demanding the government do something about it, largely by further crippling the economy. It looks like another far left power grab so a lot of conservatives will dismiss it entirely.

Yeah, what I'm hearing from conservatives is a lot of:

"We don't want to respond to it, therefore it isn't true."

[Cow Poke]

A question for conservatives: I know a lot of you are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming. I know its a science that some are using to drive political points, and economic proposals. However that shouldn't change whether the science is good or bad. Conservative fiscal policies would be still hold true, whether or not the Earth's climate is changing because of us. Is there anything about 'Smaller goverments; Responsibility; Family; Prolife.. etc.." that tells you that this has to be false?

Let's assume that I, as a conservative, agree with the notion that global warming is happening AND is caused by humans. What I QUESTION is the proposed "solutions". As far as "smaller government"... as much money as we have spent fighting poverty and drugs (how are those "wars" going?) - I can only IMAGINE the size of the "Solve the Global Warming Department" bureaucracy and budget.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, what I'm hearing from conservatives is a lot of:

"We don't want to respond to it, therefore it isn't true."

I wouldn't say "don't respond to it" ... I would ask what is the plan, how much will it cost, and what are the chances it will have any impact at all".

[Raphael]

He starts out with a slander of Müller's character, which is ironic since the last time someone made accusations against Monckton, he threatened to sue and demanded satisfaction.

Or you could just read it as him saying "I called it 18 months ago".

Monckton also claims in his article that the temperature increases are in line with what could well be natural climate change.

I wonder how Muller's study would be affected using the new calculations that comply with the WMO-approved Siting Classification System that Anthony Watt's just completed a study on? Because if, as Watts' study suggests (I'm aware it is still undergoing peer review) the actual temperature changes are less that what Muller used, then it means that no matter how good Muller's work is, whether or not he went in agreeing with AGW, through no fault of his own, that his models were using incorrect data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

[Leonhard]

Or you could just read it as him saying "I called it 18 months ago".

Monckton betted on the evidence coming out in favor of Global Warming. Slandered Müller's character, by calling him a subversious skeptic going for a false converstion story. Is that what you're saying? That's not calling it, that's slander.

Monckton also claims in his article that the temperature increases are in line with what could well be natural climate change.

The mechanism being what exactly? The temperature reconstructions going back a thousand years are pretty flat when sources from across the globe are taken. There was a medieval warming period in Europe, however the rest of the world didn't follow along with that. Likewise we recently had some of the coldest winters in Europe and a lukewarm summer, while Russia had their warmest summer in recorded history.

I wonder how Muller's study would be affected using the new calculations that comply with the WMO-approved Siting Classification System that Anthony Watt's just completed a study on? Because if, as Watts' study suggests (I'm aware it is still undergoing peer review) the actual temperature changes are less that what Muller used, then it means that no matter how good Muller's work is, whether or not he went in agreeing with AGW, through no fault of his own, that his models were using incorrect data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

They did actually, or at least the project started by using only the weather instruments Watt's had given the okay of from his large survey. The whole project even started with Anthony Watt's approval. He went so far as to state publicly that he'd accept whatever conclusions they came to. This hasn't occurred. Whether or not his new even stringer demands will make any difference I'm not sure of. I'm trying to look through his paper to see what differences he's talking about. I don't get the new criterion he's using, so I can't argue whether its good or bad.