(Before doing the poll, it would be best to provide a second graph that had exactly the same scale and geographical coverage as the first).
My prediction is that given these two choices, the vast majority would choose the bottom graph. (That first graph is the much-derided "hockey stick graph").
Note that these two graphs represent starkly different views of reality. The first one depicts a world with historically stable temperatures, but now possibly driven to imminent apocalypse because of mankind's activities. If this one's true, then "the sky is falling!" rhetoric would be quite justified, in my view.
The second one depicts a world with historically significant temperature fluctuations very unlikely to be caused by man. If that one's true, mankind likely has no choice but to adapt to large future climate changes.
Again, some fascinating background on the top graph is found in this Monckton article.
Update--Note what Monckton wrote in his second Sunday Telegraph article here (the bold font is mine):
The views of 200 readers who emailed me are in the link above. About a third are scientists, including well-known climatologists and a physicist who confirmed my calculations. Some advise governments.If you have comments, I ask that you keep them very tightly focused on the graphs above.
Nearly all condemn the "consensus". Most feel that instead of apologising, the UN has misled them, especially by using the defective "hockey-stick" temperature graph.
Posts
37 comments:
Bottom graph is my vote. No doubt. The history of the earth and the glacial cycles show major swings in the earth's climate...then all of a sudden incredbile stability...until of course humans. yeah right...I have a better chance of seeing an IBWO in upstate NY !!!!
Yes, the bottom graph.
These are some good points. I hate to see this blog lose it's focus, though.
Polls aren't going to do a damned bit of good in helping to resolve the question of whether or not the earth is experiencing human-induced global warming. And frankly, Tom, I think you're way off base on the subject of global warming. Count me as an IBWO skeptic, but a global warming believer.
OK, fair enough, John.
Two followup questions:
1. Does the top graph most closely match your view of scientific reality?
2. If your answer to #1 is "yes", could an intelligent person with no "axe to grind" ever pick the bottom graph?
I happen to know FROM THE EVIDENCE which graph more closely reflects reality. That's why I have the opinions that I do, and it closely follows what's happinging in the IBWO "hunt" ... which is why, I believe, that Tom has posted this "not really off topic" topic.
I'm all for alternative energy, BTW ... especially the safest and cleanest: NUCLEAR!! (Non of those bird-frying solar furnaces or bird-whacking windymills for me!)
I believe the top graph is a global average while the bottom figure is Europe. Since individual locations vary much more than the global average they are not comparable.
Regarding the evidence for global warming, it is overwhelming. The vast majority of climatologist agree that the evidence supports the hypothesis that the Earth is warming due to CO2 emmissions from humans. It is sad to see that this blog is now comparing the debate over global warming (for which there is incredible evidence) to the Ivory-bill (little or no evidence).
I guess we can start debating the theory of evolution next.
"I believe the top graph is a global average while the bottom figure is Europe."
Correct. That's why I wrote this under the graph: "Before doing the poll, it would be best to provide a second graph that had exactly the same scale and geographical coverage as the first".
Monckton writes: "Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost..."
"The vast majority of climatologist agree that the evidence supports the hypothesis that the Earth is warming due to CO2 emmissions from humans."
They agree that there has been a recent period of warming, just as there have been many periods of warming in the past. They absolutely do not agree that human activity is a significant causal factor in the latest period of warming.
You may have your facts correct on the ivory bill, but your climate change knowledge is wanting.
The medieval warming period (which was indeed real) was not warmer than the current global average temperature. I would challenge you to provide real data supporting your claim (global averages, not one region).
Secondly, there is broad scientific concensus that the current warming trend is mostly caused by human activity. By broad concensus, I mean over 90% of climatologists. Of course there are naysayers, just as there are "scientists" who deny evolution.
Additionally, the fact that many climatologists debate the level of warming that will occur into the future (2-10degrees C) does not trump the fact that almost all agree that some warming will occur if humans continue to increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Correct. That's why I wrote this under the graph: "Before doing the poll, it would be best to provide a second graph that had exactly the same scale and geographical coverage as the first".
*sigh* It would be best to simply not show these two graphs because, as the previous commenter noted, they are not comparable.
Whatever happened to error bars,by the way? I feel like I can trust temperature measurements taken in the last couple hundred years, maybe, but I take temperature measurements (within 0.5 degrees!)from 1000 years ago with a grain of salt. Are we that confident that in 1450 the average temperature in Europe was 0.2 degrees lower than in 1400? Or 0.8 degrees lower than in 1200?
It looks to me as if both graphs show that for MOST of the 20th century it's been unusually hot. And I am mistaken about the striking recession of glaciers? And the melting snow cap on Kilomanjaro? And the melting of ice in Inuit territories affecting polar bear migration?
Do you know what this "hockey stick" red herring reminds me of? It reminds me of Jonathan Wells, the Discovery Institute hack, who takes what he claims are "misleading" figures from high school biology textbooks and uses that "evidence" to smear evolutionary biologists as deluded hacks who lie to cover up the "truth" (i.e., the "truth" that the "evidence" that life on earth evolved is not as convincing as 99.9% of informed people believe).
They agree that there has been a recent period of warming, just as there have been many periods of warming in the past. They absolutely do not agree that human activity is a significant causal factor in the latest period of warming.
So scientists do not agree on whether the evidence suggests that humans are a significant causal factor for the latest period of warming. That's nice.
On the other hand, almost every scientist agrees that human activity COULD be contributing. Certainly the consensus view is NOT that human activity (pollution, deforestation, etc) is incapable of affecting average global temperatures.
And so we are faced once again with the policy question: are we going to seriously discuss ways in which the possible human contributions to global warming can be reduced? Or do the global warming skeptics simply want to discredit the other side, roll the dice, and let whatever happens, happen.
According to that logic, I would expect Monckton et al. to look forward to the next time a giant meteor or asteroid hits the earth. "Hey, it's happened before. No biggie. In fact, it turned out pretty good for mammals like us."
The second one depicts a world with historically significant temperature fluctuations very unlikely to be caused by man. If that one's true, mankind likely has no choice but to adapt to large future climate changes.
Whether "it's true" or not, nobody can dispute the second half of the statement: mankind has no choice but to adapt to large future climate changes.
That's why the debate exists. Are we as a country actually going to use our giant human brains and expertise to evaluate STRATEGIES for "adapting" to large future climate changes, or are we as a country (or consortium of countries) going to sit around and wait until the oil companies and powerful industrialists think there is a problem?
That's reality. My two cents: waiting for oil companies and industrialists to seriously concern themselves with the welfare of average human beings is a profoundly naive approach to public policy.
"Are we as a country actually going to use our giant human brains and expertise to evaluate STRATEGIES for "adapting" to large future climate changes..."
I'm very happy that you are asking this question. It appears that significant warming and cooling periods have been a fact of life on earth for a very long time, and all life here has had to adapt or die off.
Many people may erroneously think that large global warming or cooling periods can be avoided if we just reduced human impacts enough...
"The medieval warming period (which was indeed real) was not warmer than the current global average temperature. I would challenge you to provide real data supporting your claim (global averages, not one region)."
Again, Monckton writes: "Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost..."
How, specifically, do you counter each of Monckton's points above?
"Secondly, there is broad scientific concensus that the current warming trend is mostly caused by human activity. By broad concensus, I mean over 90% of climatologists."
Source, please.
Many people may erroneously think that large global warming or cooling periods can be avoided if we just reduced human impacts enough...
Maybe. But is that really what "global warming skeptics" are worried about? Are they worried that the public is somewhat confused about geologic time scales and the fact that there was once an "ice age" that was certainly not caused by humans?
I highly doubt it. Again, I must note that the political party affiliated with the most vocal skeptics is the party that is transparently least concerned with a scientifically literate public.
Again, the issue is: can the rate and extent of global temperature increases by affected to any degree by human activity? And can altering human activity slow down or decrease the rate or extent of those changes?
Because those changes may very well impact a lot of human beings and other organisms in a very very very negative way.
If we COULD slow those changes down or reduce the extent of those changes (which is certainly a possibility), why would we not try?
Because upgrading the refinery will make an aristocrat cry? Seriously.
"Or do the global warming skeptics simply want to discredit the other side, roll the dice, and let whatever happens, happen."
Not at all. Again, I encourage you to actually read Monckton's articles. In the second one (Wrong problem, wrong solution), he writes about the pros and cons of various actions that we could take.
I don't know what the answers are, but here's one paragraph from his point of view: "Sci-fi panics such as climate change are dangerous because they distract politicians from what really needs doing. Y2K bug: correct solution, laugh; actual solution, Y2K Office. Result: nothing, at great cost. Energy shortages and climate change (if you believe that man is responsible): correct solution, go nuclear and reverse 20th-century deforestation. Actual solution: windmills, rampant deforestation, EU paying farmers not to plant trees or anything else. Result, energy crisis, species loss and no fall in CO2."
"Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now."
I note that "up to 3C warmer" inclues 0.1 degree warmer.
I also note that "scores of papers" is not a very high number of papers. How many of these "papers" are just recitations of the same data? Where were they published? Etc. Again, this is the sort of game that creationists love to play: lists of "supporters" and "dozens of examples" of this that or the other thing. Of course, when you pull back the curtain you discover stuff like a proposal to require HIV+ people to be quarantined.
This strange characterization of the literature and the weird factoid about the Viking farms does not prove that average global temperatures were higher "then" than "now."
And let's keep our eyes on the ball: it's the effect on the climate of indisputable DIFFERENCES between the behavior of modern humans versus Wiking that is the subject of dispute.
Compared to other animals we have always had a relatively large impact on our surroundings. In the past two hundred years this impact has grown dramatically. We now affect the environment on a worldwide scale. Countless tons of gases and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere; deforestation and erosion on a massive scale; chemicals and organic wastes washed into waterways and the seas with well documented and devestating effect. Uncontrolled harvesting the oceans for fish has resulted in widescale damage to fisheries and the marine ecology which supports them. How can anyone in their right mind think that continuing on as we are will have no negative consequence? It’s always been a no brainer to me that if there is a strong possibility that we’re doing something which excacerbates a threat to our life support system we ought to change it. As a species we’ve never before done these things on this scale much less gauged their impact.
Climate change and the science studying it are far more complex than bird identification. Tom, before you become too entrenched in the point of view you seem to be aligning with may I suggest a far more in depth investigation of the issues and the debates surrounding them. I’m an expert birder, not a climate expert, so that’s what I’ll be doing too. Here are a couple of places to start reading:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/guides-by-category.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/
Finally Amy Lester has stated something which I agree with and have not yet seen anyone else respond to here:
“It boils down to this: is there any reason to worry about the impact humans have on their environment, particularly the earth's atmosphere? And if so, do the perceived benefits of taking steps to avoid any adverse impact outweigh the risk of possible negative consequences (including economic consequences) from taking those steps?”
MR
The notion that glaciers were gone from the Andes during the Medieval warming period is a lie. We have ice core records that go back over 2000 years from the Andes.
Here is one example
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Tropical_Ice_Cores_Shows_Two_Abrupt_Global_Climate_Shifts_999.html
“It boils down to this: is there any reason to worry about the impact humans have on their environment, particularly the earth's atmosphere? And if so, do the perceived benefits of taking steps to avoid any adverse impact outweigh the risk of possible negative consequences (including economic consequences) from taking those steps?”
I heartily agree. In fact, I think you'll find very few people who would disagree with any of the above.
We need to examine all of the facts, and we need to do our best to realistically quantify the costs, risks, and benefits. If policy makers were to be wrongly convinced that eliminating all "excess" CO2 is the key to avoiding an imminent apocalypse, they are unlikely to make good cost/benefit decisions.
"The notion that glaciers were gone from the Andes during the Medieval warming period is a lie..."
I don't know--maybe Monckton meant specifically the Venezuelan Andes?
I found this on climateaudit.org:
"Pollissar et al 2006, discussing the glaciers in the Venezuelan Andes, convincingly interpreted mag-intensity in sediments as evidence for the presence/absence of a glacier. When there is no glacial runoff, mag content of sediments tends to be low. Polissar et al concluded that the Venezuelan glaciers did not exist in the MWP."
If policy makers were to be wrongly convinced that eliminating all "excess" CO2 is the key to avoiding an imminent apocalypse, they are unlikely to make good cost/benefit decisions.
Agreed.
Perhaps we disagree mainly on the likelihood that policy makers will swallow the idea of an "imminent apocalypse" caused primarily by C02 emissions and addressable only by total cessation of those emissions. I think the likelihood of that happening is low, in spite of the well-publicized viewpoints of "global warming extremists." And I don't think the likelihood is low because of the work of "skeptics" like Monckton. It's because of what you have already pointed out: many thoughtful climatologists understand that the causes and outcomes are not cut and dry.
Plus, the general public has an intrinsic understanding of the unpredictability of weather (quite different from its understanding of, say, statistics or basic facts about biology).
amy said... Secondly, there is broad scientific concensus that the current warming trend is mostly caused by human activity. By broad concensus, I mean over 90% of climatologists.
Tom asked... Source, please.
FWIW, it's not an exact source of "90%" but here is an article in Science (which might not have the highest standing at this blog) published in December of '04. It's called
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, and lists multiple organizations involved in climate science that agree that man is causing at least part (if not most) of the current global warming.
Maybe things have changed in the past 2 years, but it certainly seems like many scientists had reached consensus then.
So does this mean you're going to change from IBWO skeptic to Global Warming?
I don't know what the answers are, but here's one paragraph from his point of view: "Sci-fi panics such as climate change are dangerous because they distract politicians from what really needs doing. Y2K bug: correct solution, laugh; actual solution, Y2K Office. Result: nothing, at great cost.
Sorry, but from one who was in the software trenches for the Y2K change, his point of view is completely ignorant of what actually occurred in 1999.
First, I didn't know a single software engineer who was expecting wholesale disaster. In fact, virtually all of the hype came from people in the general media, not from actual software engineers involved with released production code.
The effort to clean up Y2K bugs was huge. I personally combed through tens of thousands of lines of code. And yes, I found 2 bugs. Others at my company found bugs too. If we hadn't fixed them the result would have been incorrect financial data being returned to our clients. Hardly the end of civilization but the fact is that our systems would have failed. Many other companies also found and fixed bugs prior to Y2K.
So anybody who says the "correct solution" was to "laugh" has absolutely NO idea what the heck they're talking about. They have no concept of the amount of software that was actually fixed prior to Y2K.
Sorry, Tom, but that was a bad example to post.
"They have no concept of the amount of software that was actually fixed prior to Y2K."
Oddly enough, I myself was working in the software industry at that time, and I know exactly what you mean.
However, did something called the "Y2K Office" ever do anything significant to help people fix bugs?
Tom -- I also had a comment re the YTK bug etc. quote from Monckton. Did I veer too far off course? If so, no prob. Just checking to see if maybe it got lost in the queue.
MR said…“Finally Amy Lester has stated something which I agree with and have not yet seen anyone else respond to here: “It boils down to this: is there any reason to worry about the impact humans have on their environment, particularly the earth's atmosphere? And if so, do the perceived benefits of taking steps to avoid any adverse impact outweigh the risk of possible negative consequences (including economic consequences) from taking those steps?”
Let me paraphrase Amy,
“Is there any reason to believe that God might judge our actions? And if so, do the perceived benefits of taking steps to avoid judgement outweigh the risk of possible negative consequences from taking those steps?” This of course is Pascal’s wager.
Yes, we might want to reduce greenhouse gases, but we might want to join religious orders by the same reasoning. We’re never far from discussions of faith here.
"Did I veer too far off course?"
Yes, in my judgment, that one went too far afield. Sorry.
Obviously the cure for global warming is nuclear winter. Problem solved.
Yes, we might want to reduce greenhouse gases, but we might want to join religious orders by the same reasoning.
That's false, for the same reason that Pascal's Wager is a terrible argument.
Greenhouse gases exist. We *can* affect the levels of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere. We *can* reduce the human contribution to greenhouse gases. Or we can do nothing. Or we can increase those gases even more rapidly then we have been. That's reality. Real facts. Real decisions.
Pascal's Wager fails as a compelling argument because the "choice" is imaginary. Which of the billion deities is the True Deity? I'd hate to pick the wrong one. That would seem to be worse than picking none at all.
Considering all possible contingencies, which do you think is most risky to the overall health of human beings on earth: a modest increase in pollution, keeping pollution levels constant, or a modest decrease in pollution?
Yes, in my judgment, that one went too far afield. Sorry.
Mystery solved: you really do read these comments before they get posted!
Either that, or this is the most elaborate attempt ever to prove that I am not your sock puppet. :)
This is from Jared Diamond's book, Collapse, p. 114
"I have often asked myself, "What did the Easter Islander who cut down the last palm tree say while he was doing it? Like modern loggers, did he shout 'Jobs, not trees!'? Or: 'Technology will solve our problems, never fear, we'll find a substitute for wood'? Or: 'We don't have enough proof that there aren't palms somewhere else on Easter, we need more research, our proposed ban on loggin is premature and driven by fear-mongering"?
Anonymous said:
"'Let me paraphrase Amy,
“Is there any reason to believe that God might judge our actions? And if so, do the perceived benefits of taking steps to avoid judgement outweigh the risk of possible negative consequences from taking those steps?” This of course is Pascal’s wager.
Yes, we might want to reduce greenhouse gases, but we might want to join religious orders by the same reasoning. We’re never far from discussions of faith here.'"
My answer to Amy's query is yes it is reasonable to be concerned about some human impacts on the environment and atmosphere. And since these impacts have resulted in the whole scale destruction of once productive ecosystems at least on a local level it's reasonable to assume that polluting and habitat altering activities could have disastrous consequences on a global scale - we just don't know for sure. And since we are talking about breathable air and the food chain here (you know, the things most important to human life in the final analysis) erring on the side of caution would be the wiser choice.
I'm not sure how you equate this with a substitution of reason by faith except maybe by some faulty reasoning of your own?
MR
“Which of the billion deities is the True Deity? I'd hate to pick the wrong one.”
Yes Amy, that is the problem. How do we please one deity without offending another? If your deity is climate change your course of action may conflict with the course of action you would choose if your deity had been say, Sub-Saharan famine, or perhaps sectarian violence... all substantial threats to humanity. What is it you fear? Eternal Damnation? “Nulclear Winter”? Paschal’s Wager and the “Precautionary Principal” both graciously extend pre-eminent weight to any overwhelming fear you choose to set before their altar. As I said, we’re never far from discussions of faith here.
However, did something called the "Y2K Office" ever do anything significant to help people fix bugs?
I don't know the term Y2K Office. We had a single person in charge of our Y2K plan, testing, bug fixes, and (in case we still screwed up) response effort.
If your deity is climate change your course of action may conflict with the course of action you would choose if your deity had been say, Sub-Saharan famine, or perhaps sectarian violence... all substantial threats to humanity.
Uh, no. Please pay attention. You can't worship Jesus and Satan and Ryxlplyxltyx at the same time. You have to choose one.
I can simultaneously support reductions in CO2 emissions, help for starving people in Sub-Saharan Africa, and measures to prevent sectarian violence. In fact, it's quite easy.
I hope this ends your confusion about the vapidity of Pascal's Wager.
Bottom graph wins hands down for anyone without an an agenda. Faithful assistant Algore is bipolar. Pun intended.
There is no evidence of global warming for the last ten years. All evidence i have seen supports a cooling. Co2 can not cause global warming because you could never put enough in the atmosphere. The IPCC and Al God Gore all they do is lie and exaggerate. For personal gain. People need to wake-up. The second graph was more accurate. Thank You
Post a Comment