Thursday, November 3, 2011

Can Anthropogenic Global Warming be non-Catastrophic?

The denial of something Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is the latest right-wing front in its attack on climate science. Right winger science deniers have set up a fall back strategy:
Position 1: There is no evidence that Global Warming is happening
Position 2: Global Warming is happening but has natural rather than human causes
Position 3: Global Warming is happening and has human causes, but will not have catastrophic consequences
it should be noted that positions 1 is inconsistent with positions 2 and 3, and position 2 is also inconsistewnt with position 3. But AGW skeptics often argue more than one of these positions at the same time, thus argue what amounts to incoherent arguments.

The skeptical camp has engaged in an all out attack on Michael Mann, those findings lead to the so called Hockey Stick Graf. The hockey stick shows that something dramatic is happening in global climate, something that cannot be explained without recourse to the AGW hypothesis. One reason why AGW skeptics are so upset by Richard Muller's Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project findings is that the data verified the Michael Mann hockey stick. Of course independently verifying Michael Mann's hockey stick has been something of an industry in Climate Science for some time.

Thus not only does the BEST data show that global temperature is increasing, but it establishes that the rate of increase has recently increased. The increase is global temperature thus becomes a problem to explain. The non-Anthropogenic Global Warming model must explain why the global temperature is rising, in light of powerful processes forcing global temperature in the direction of cooling. The first force for cooling is the earth orbital cycles (Milankovitch cycles), which have been trending towards colling for some time, and are expected to continue the cooling trend for the next 23,000 years. The Milankovitch cycles are widely believed by the scientific community to account for the global glaciation cycles.

In fact there appears to be a divergence between global temperature and the the denial of something Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is the latest right-wing front in its attack on climate science. Right winger science deniers have set up a fall back strategy:
Position 1: There is no evidence that Global Warming is happening
Position 2: Global Warming is happening but has natural rather than human causes
Position 3: Global Warming is happening and has human causes, but will not have catastrophic consequences
it should be noted that positions 1 is inconsistent with positions 2 and 3, and position 2 is also inconsistewnt with position 3. But AGW skeptics often argue more than one of these positions at the same time, thus argue what amounts to incoherent arguments.

The skeptical camp has engaged in an all out attack on Michael Mann, those findings lead to the so called Hockey Stick Graf. The hockey stick shows that something dramatic is happening in global climate, something that cannot be explained without recourse to the AGW hypothesis. One reason why AGW skeptics are so upset by Richard Muller's the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project findings is that the data verified the Michael Mann hockey stick. Of course independently verifying Michael Mann's hockey stick has been something of an industry in Climate Science for some time.

Thus not only does the BEST data show that global temperature is increasing, but it establishes that the rate of increase has recently increased. The increase is global temperature thus becomes a problem to explain. The non-Anthropogenic Global Warming model must explain why the global temperature is rising, in light of powerful processes forcing global temperature in the direction of cooling. The first force for cooling is the earth orbital cycles (Milankovitch cycles), which have been trending towards colling for some time, and are expected to continue the cooling trend for the next 23,000 years.The Milankovitch cycles are widely believed by the scientific community to account for the global glaciation cycles. William Ruddiman attributes the divergence to the early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions forcing of climate. This process, according to Ruddiman, dates back 8000 years. Ruddimamn points to forrest clearing and early agriculture as important components in global patterns of GHG emissions and atmospheric GHG concentration over the last 8000 years.

Global (solar) dimming is the mechanism that tends to force climate toward cooling. Meinrat O. Andreae, Chris D. Jones and Peter M. Cox argue,
Atmospheric aerosols counteract the warming effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases by an uncertain, but potentially large, amount.
this in turn suggests unintended consequences for global garbon controls.
Strong aerosol cooling in the past and present would then imply that future global warming may proceed at or even above the upper extreme of the range projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Needless to say, AGW skeptics do not include known cold forcing mechanisms in their account of climate change.

Thus we can and should discount the argument against global warming as unscientific, but arguments against global warming are zombie arguments. A zombie argument is an argument that continues to be used after it has failed factual and logical tests. That is the argument is rationally dead, but continues to be employed by people who are not motivated by a high regard for rationality.

Once the reality of global warming has been established, the argument for AGW comes next. These arguments point to past examples of climate variation, the so called Medieval warm period, that was followed by the so called Little Ice Age. These episodes are not adiquately explained by AGW skeptics, and Ruddimamn explains them nicely from an AGW perspective. Of even greater difficulty to the anti-AGW cause is why the cold forcing mechanisms, the Milankovitch cycles
and global dimming are not having a climate effect. Finally the Mann Hockey Stick points strongly to increased atmospheric CO2 as the major climate forcing mechanism. Thus the anti-AGW argument has failed to explain why climate is not cooling rather than warming, while the AGW theory explains both cooling and warming trends over the last thousand years. Thus the anti-AGW argument fails to survive rational tests. This will not stop anti-AGW advocates from employing zombi arguments against the AGW theory.

Thus we find the last refuge of the AFW opponents, the anti-catistrophic argument. The Blog masterresources.org faithfully parrots the right wing Koch family line of global warming and energy issues. We know that the current Koch party line has embraced the attack on so called Catistropic Anthropogenic Global warming, when we see the recent play that the concept has received in masterresources. In late October E. Calvin Beisner wrote,
The recent announcement of the results of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Project by project chairman Richard Muller has caused quite a stir. True believers in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) have greeted it as the final nail in the coffin of dissent. Why? Because it concludes—take a deep breath, now—that “Global warming is real.”
As I have noted the reality of the Michael Mann's hockey stick is also supported by the BEST data, and establishing global warming, places the onus on the Anti-AGW party to come up with a plausible explanation for why global climate is getting warmer, that excludes AGW. Needless to say, Beisner fails to do that. Instead he goes on the attack,
The only thing more stunning and frightening than the idiocy of equating “global warming” with “CAGW” is the failure of so much not only of the public, and not only of the media, but especially of the scientific community—well, okay, the already committed, true-believer “scientific community”—to recognize (admit? expose?) the rhetorical sleight of hand.
Now wait a minute partner, we just witnessed a
rhetorical sleight of hand.
One which came from Beisner, not the “scientific community.” Beisner dies not tell us what he means by CAGW and how he distinguishes it from ordinary AGW and GW. Nor has he indicated what tests should be applied in order to distinguish between AGW and CAGW.

Worst of all Beisner simply ignores evidence that the catistrophic effects of Global warming are already upon us. A recently published paper, Increase of extreme events in a warming world by Stefan Rahmstorf and Dim Coumou, who state,
We find that the number of record-breaking events increases approximately in proportion to the ratio of warming trend to short-term standard deviation. Short-term variability thus decreases the number of heat extremes, whereas a climatic warming increases it. For extremes exceeding a predefined threshold, the dependence on the warming trend is highly nonlinear. We further find that the sum of warm plus cold extremes increases with any climate change, whether warming or cooling. We estimate that climatic warming has increased the number of new global-mean temperature records expected in the last decade from 0.1 to 2.8. For July temperature in Moscow, we estimate that the local warming trend has increased the number of records expected in the past decade fivefold, which implies an approximate 80% probability that the 2010 July heat record would not have occurred without climate warming.
If Rahmstorf and Coumou are correct, catastrophic warming is upon us already.

Last year a catistrophic heatwave and drought struck Russia during the Summer. The record heat was so extreme that words like unprecedented and disastrous are appropriate.
Last week, Rahmstorf and Coumou described their article on Real Climate. They reported finding that between 1979 and 2009 the average Moscow temperature increased by 1.4 C. Winter Warming has increased by as much as 4.1 C since 1880. Thus local warming appears to be following a long term trend.

The 2010 Russian heatwave was far from the only extreme heat and drought event during the last decade. In 2003 an extreme heat wave struck Western Europe, killing some where between 35,000 and 50,000 people. Extreme heat waves returned to Western and Central Europe in 2006 and South Eastern Europe in 2007. The North Central United States and nearby areas of Canada were effect by a prolonged extreme heat event in 2006. Australia was affixed by extreme heat in 2008 and again in 2009. In 2010 not only was much of Russia afflicted by extreme heat, but the heat spread to Eastern China, Japan, the UK and the United States. in 2011 an unprecedented extreme heat and drought event struck Texas and surrounding states. The high Houston average heat for august amounted to a thousand year weather event, while during much of the same period Southwestern Asia was experiencing an extreme heat event with temperatures as high as 126 F (52 C) being recorded during August.

In addition, these heat events have taken tens of thousands of lives. In Russia alone, during the 2010 extreme heat waves, an estimated 56,000 deaths could be blamed on heat related causes. The Russian death tole was twice the number of people who died during the 2011 Japanese earthquake-tsunami event. Huge heat and drought crop losses were reported for Russia in 2010 and in Texas and adjacent area in 2011.

Catistropic Anthropogenic Global Warming? Its here. When a hero of the anti-CAGW crowd, Roger Pielke Jr attempted to argue with Rahmstorf and Coumou on Real Climate recently, he was repeatedly clobbered. It is really time for the skeptics to call it a day, unless they are simply in the game for Koch family money.

18 comments:

Eric said...

In my opinion, you are conflating the positions of a diverse group of people to produce this self-inconsistent jumble of views. I don't think that the same people hold all of these views. Could you not come up with a similarly disjointed composite of ideas for any other similarly complicated subject? It is a prevalent--and in my opinon, unconstructive--over-simplification that there is a dichotomy of belief, with AGW "believers" and "deniers". I really don't think that's true at all.

The above is clear to me because I am neither a "believer" or a "denier". I believe in global warming, and indeed, in anthropogenic global warming. But this doesn't make me a "believer". I have a lot of concerns and criticisms of the hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding this subject and with the quality of the underlying science, as well as the many things that we don't yet understand to a satisfactory degree. I'm quite concerned that the reduction of AGW to settled science that is not subject to scrutiny or challenge of underlying details will lead to absurd policy consequences and an inquisition of orthodoxy.

In your blog post you touched on a number of points that concern me, but in every case you missed why it concerns me. Let me give you an example or two. You mention the MWP and LIA as proof of the AGW cannon, but I see them rather as sources of uncertainty and signals of what we don't yet really understand. How much of the modern AGW rise is attributable to LIA rebound to "normal"? Is the relative positioning of the MWP in accurate context to the present day? There are indications in Mann's past record that he and others in the paleoclimatology community have waged a war of minimization on the MWP, and there are very reasonable criticisms on the early part of his hockey stick. As a scientist, I'm shocked as I dive into the details of how the hockey stick came about and the indications of bias in its conclusions about the MWP. I am unsettled that the conclusions of the hockey stick don't match the archeological record of, for example, the vikings in Greenland.

Though neither a AGW believer or disbeliever, I am clear about one thing, though: Gen IV nuclear is the future.

Anonymous said...

I think it is sad that you choose to resort to strawman arguments and name calling.

Position is a very rare position, but climate alarmists love to debunk that one as if it was the position of all their opponents.

Position 2 and position 3 is inconsistent but are used as what-if scenarios. I think it is interesting that someone with a scientific background can go all in with one scientific position and then accuse the scientific opponents of inconsistency because they operate with uncertainty and multiple scenarios. That is just sad.

By the way I believed that it was generally accepted not to confuse weather with climate - or is that only when it does not suit your purpose?

Charles Barton said...

Eric and Anonymous, would you classify Steve MacIntye and Anthony Watts. GW denier, AGW denier, or CAGW denier? How would you classify Roy Spencer? Has Roy Spencer fallen back from GW denier to CAGW during the last ten years?

Leclerc said...

(called anonymous above)

I would probably not classify them as anything and certainly not as "deniers".

Here is a scientific disagreement here with many uncertainties where name calling and derogatory personal classification has no place.

A scientist pronouncing a discussion as over and done and then becomes personal rather than factual may no longer call himself a scientist.

I really enjoy a good scientific debate about facts. Zombie pictures illustrating the opponents does not contribure to that. In general I find that doomsayers are usually the ones destroying the debate, and I am very concerned that they/you have good arguements that gets lost in the noise.

Personally I am not convinced that human activity have a huge effect, but I am very much aware that I may be wrong on that. I am even less convinced that the expected temperature rise predicted by the doomsayers will be disastrous, however I am aware that I could be wrong.

I find it much easier to understand the scientific arguements from those you call deniers because their posts have much less disdain, and I find that to be much more trustworthy.

Wrong or not about climate, nuclear power is a good idea.

Charles Barton said...

As far as I can tell, Watt and MacIntyre are AGW deniers for most of the 20th century, but GW deniers for the last 20 years. Both insist that Global Warming pattern captured in Michael Man's hockey stick graph did not happen.

Most members of the scientific communities so not consider Watt and MacIntyre to be scientists.

Leclerc said...

If Watt and MacIntyre is not scientists, why then is it so hard to refute them without being derogatory?

If I may ask, why are they not scientists? I would consider a person using the scientific method for either data collection, analysis and communication to be a scientist no matter what education they have or what their result are.

They are not scientific heretics just because they come to other conclusions.

Charles Barton said...

Watts lacks many attributes normally expected to be a scientist. First Anthony Watts does not have a college degree, anormal requirement for being a scientist. Watts has not published papers in Peer reviewed scient8ific journals. Watts was professionally a meteriologist, a profession that requires a colledge degree or a scientific background.

Stebe MacIntyre has a BS in Math and no worked for 30 years in the Canadian Mining industry. During the last half of that experience he worked in management. None of these Exeriences would qualift Macintyre to be characterized as a scientists.

As for difficulty refuting Watts and Msacintyre's work, there have been a number of scientists who have published papers doing just that, and in addition discussions in Real Climate. Their reputation as scientists does not extend bryond right wing and republican circles.

Anonymous said...

Charles , whatever flaws these right wingers have , it is they who are going to promote nuclear energy including that based on thorium technology.Those on left have already taken a strategic decision to oppose all forms of nuclear energy.

Charles Barton said...

Anonymous, some right wingers may support nuclear power, but many, including supporters of the Koch brothers do mot. But this is like liberals, some of whom support nuclear power, while others do not. The Koch brothers and their libertarian allies are selling the idea that we can go on using fossil fuels without adverse consequences. This is dangerous nonsense, just as the Green myth that nuclear power is too dangerous to move is too dangerous to use is a dangerous myth.

John in the Lot said...

Hi Charles, I actually know a climate change denier, who is otherwise a reasonable and intelligent journalist although with tabloid tendencies! I have asked him which of your three positions at the start of your blog he agrees with and why. If he comes up with a sensible reply I will pass it on.
Menwhile on LFTR's can you point me to where it says that the MSRE was tested for stability by shutting off the cooling? I'm sure I read it somewhere.

charlesH said...

CharlesB,

Please compare and contrast your education and publishing record with SteveM on AGW subjects. My impression is that you are not in the same league with SteveM but I could be wrong.

I think you embarrass yourself with this post and cease to be effective in winning support for LFTR among many CAGW skeptics far more qualified than yourself.

Charles Barton said...

Charles, I am not a scientist, nor do I criticize the work of mainstream scientists. i leave judgements on scientific issues to scientists. Steve M is trained in math at a BS level, Math is a scientific tool but is not itself a science. Steve's work in the mining industry may have involved the practical applications of geological science, but this would have not in itself qualified him as an expert on climate science. Critics of Steve's work have pointed out technical errors which they say invalidate his findings. These criticisms involve technical issures which i am not qualified to judge. Thus i have to rely on the judgement of trained and professionally qualified experts, whose judgement is overwealmingly that Steve M is wrong, i find it far more credible that Steve M has made a mistake, than the argument that the community of professionally trained climate scientists cannot tell the difference between scientific errors, and valid scientific findings.

charlesH said...

You're correct, you are not a scientist nor even trained in the sciences. If you were, you would know that SteveM is a far better scientist (on statistics in particular) than those that you hold is such high regard.

Support in the CAGW skeptical crowd for LFTR et al is strong. I have posted on AnthonyW's WUWT regarding LFTR with strongly positive results.

So what in the world are to trying to accomplish by attacking CAGW skeptics who are far more qualified in AGW science than yourself? Do you think this somehow helps the LFTR cause?

Hello? The opposition to LFTR/nuclear is wholly on the left/enviro/CAGW/socialist fringe. You are not helping the LFTR cause with your anti-CAGW skeptic poorly informed rants.

Anonymous said...

Steve McIntyre has been invited to speak on multiple topics in climate science at world class scientific conferences and at world class scientific institutions.

Science is not a club that requires proper passwords and membership cards. It is a way of approaching hard problems -- which necessarily involves honesty and open-mindedness.

On that score, I suspect that Steve Mc scores higher than most of your climate heroes. BTW, the authors of the BEST climate study are having a royal catfight about whether or not the data shows warming to be continuing over the past decade or so.

Certainty on this issue is the mark of a non-scientist, or the mark of a dishonest scientist.

Red said...

It is best not to go too far out on the limb here, Charles. Things can get very emotional very quickly, and that is not good for anyone. Especially when these matters are too complex for laymen to justify holding such firm and inflexible opinions.

In strong emotional states, blood pressures rise, heart beats speed and intensify, oxygen levels can dip perilously. You can see how flailing in the dark can cause a lot of unintended damage. None of us are getting any younger, after all.

Charles Barton said...

@Anonymous The fact that MacIntyre has been invited to speak at climate science conferences, does not prove that he is a scientists, but it does demonstrate that climate scientists have not rejected his views without considering them.

@CharlesH, Hoe would you prove that "SteveM is a far better scientist (on statistics in particular) than those that (I) hold is such high regard"?

This is certainly a statement of your beliefs, but is it a statement of facts? I find it not plausible that MacIntyre has superior climate science research skills to those of any climate scientist who supports (C)AGW theory.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Barton

Your post has it backwards.

These are not three arguments against AGW by "deniers". Rather these are the three propositions which AGW proponents have to prove in order to make their case.

There is also a fourth; investments in AGW activities have a greater return than investments addressing other issues such as unsanitary water and malnutrition. Bjorn Lomborg believes in 1,2,and 3 but still doesn't want to waste money on CO2 abatement.

Mr. McIntyre's job in the mining industry was to examine stock prospectuses and root out fraud. He had a talent for it. Thus his contribution on the hockey stick.

Mr. McIntyre showed that feeding random numbers into the statistical procedure used by Mr. Mann produces a hockey stick.

The Wegman Report identified the statistical errors in Mr. Mann's methodology and also identified the 20-30 "climate scientists" who are responsible for this entire field. They write papers together, "peer review" each others work, and make it difficult for anyone who disagrees with them to be published. This is not science.

Finally, although I have found quite a bit to like about your site, I have a nagging suspicion that this is just the latest left wing attempt to sabotage the nuclear industry by advocating for a technology, LFTR which is still in its infancy, when IFR technology is ready for prime time today. (see Barry Brooks Brave New Climate blog, another Green advocate).

Small, factory built, sodium cooled, metal fueled, fast reactors with super critical CO2 Brayton cycle for power production and with pyroprocesssing for recycling were available in the 90's but blocked by the Clinton administration. Obama deep sixed the GNEP SFR just recently. John Kerry blocked the Clinch River Breeder Reactor in the early 80's. Do you see a pattern here?

If the Greens hadn't destroyed the nuclear industry in the 80's, CO2 would be below the Kyoto target today and not available as a club to attack the coal industry.

By targeting the coal industry for replacement by natural gas, Greens are supporting Big Oil and more importantly OPEC. Natural gas should be used as a substitute for oil either as compressed natural gas or via conversion to liquids such as methanol.

Our transportation sector is dependent upon the Petropowers; it is much more important to reduce this dependency than to reduce CO2 emissions from coal plants.

I agree with you that using nuclear to reduce emissions of all sorts from coal plants is desirable and the sooner the better.

Finally, this is an example of right wing argument, no reference to Zombies here.

Steve

Anonymous said...

You have confirmed my suspicions.

You are just another left Green propaganda site disinterested in any real debate on the issues.

Chickenshit

Followers

Blog Archive

Some neat videos

Nuclear Advocacy Webring
Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Get Your Free Web Ring
by Bravenet.com
Dr. Joe Bonometti speaking on thorium/LFTR technology at Georgia Tech David LeBlanc on LFTR/MSR technology Robert Hargraves on AIM High