13 replies to this topic

[OEXCHAOS]

In light of Climate-Gate, I thought I'd hustle my note on why I'm a "Catastrophic Global Warming Skeptic" along. I've also included background articles and peer reviewed papers below, linked where possible. The sources are credible, but not exhaustive. I have read at least the abstract or significant excerpts of every paper directly referenced (unless otherwise stated), but not those referenced by others.

First, allow me to clarify the issues. As it is claimed by many AGW proponents, AGW theory essentially asserts the following: 1)the earth is warming dramatically and 2) in an unprecedented fashion and 3) that man-made CO2 is to blame for this.

I am a skeptic, as I believe all thinking people should be on ANY new scientific issue, but especially any scientific theory that makes extraordinary claims.

Here's how it started: The extraordinary claims of ice free Arctic, melting Antarctic, and millions dead in coastal regions, etc. etc.

Extraordinary claims set off my radar. We've heard those before on any number of topics, including (ironically) global cooling some 30 years ago. So, reason #1 to be skeptical is hype.

Then the politicians and the UN got involved and they started talking about taxes (cap and trade). Politics means that everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt and more skepticism. Have you ever known a politician to NOT lie or at the very least stretch the truth for political gain? That'll be reason #2 to be skeptical.

Then we find out that big business stands to make many, many Billions from any Carbon Trading scheme. It may come as some surprise, but there are some business entities that like to use the power of government to get economic benefits that they have not earned and do not deserve. When they get into the act, you can be sure that you're not getting the whole picture. Reason #3.

When government and industry gets invested in a cause, you can be sure there are a LOT of research dollars available to folks who toe the line. It's not hard to find data that will support the hypothesis and papers that support are likely to beget more funding. It's not corruption, just an economic law. If there's money available for something you're going to get it. Very nice careers can be made in an environment where the money is flowing. That's Motive. Reason #4 for a bit of skepticism.

So, fine. If I don't have time to do my homework, the proper default position is skepticism. Alas, I'm curious so I made a bit of time to learn about this stuff. I'm certainly no expert and the more I studied, the more I know how little I know, and further, the more I know how little many alleged "climate experts" know.

My first inclination was to look at the solar cycles to explain the situation. That looked to be the best explanation for what appeared to be some significant global warming. I'm still inclined to think that solar activity is a major driver of global temperatures and climate, but the state of the science is just not to the point of giving anything like a high confidence level in one's understanding of the factors driving climate. It's not enough to dismiss CO2 driven warming out of hand, at least not yet.

But then again, one need not dismiss CO2 entirely to be skeptical. The claims are that the warming is unprecedented and man-made. So, then I started looking more closely at the science behind the claims of unprecedented warming.

First, there was the "Hockey Stick". Wow. No past warming and unprecedented recent warming. Well, except that they had to hide the Medieval Warm Period, and they screwed up their bristle cone pine tree ring study. They tried this again with the tree ring study at Yamal (see Briffa, et al.), but this turned out to only contain 10 tree samples, one of which was a real flyer (outside the norm and accounted for much of the claimed "warming"). So, we can toss out the hockey sticks thanks to their ample flaws.

Interestingly, though, in researching these arctic tree ring studies, I found that many of the peer reviewed papers show that the extent of the tree line was well south (200km or more) of where it had been in the past (Medieval Warm Period and Holocene). Huh! If the current "warming" is unprecedented, why is the tree line so far south of the past tree line extents? Hmmm...Ding! That one makes me skeptical of the most dire claims and predictions.

Then, I started looking at real temperatures. First, thanks to the surface station project and the work of Roy Spencer and the ongoing fiasco with raw data from Hadley's Climate Research Unit, it was clear that there was a real problem. This problem has been documented also by Anthony Watts with the surface stations project and will soon be published, as well as by others such as W. Karlen. Basically, it seems to be only the urban temperature stations that are showing much warming. Both the GISS and CRU data sets are introducing upward bias by using poorly sited surface stations, mis-attributing airport sites as rural sites, and smearing warmer data sites over wide areas.

Worse, and as "ClimateGate" partially demonstrates, CRU no longer has (or has destroyed) significant amounts of the original raw temperature data. Essentially, other scientists can't replicate their work. We have no idea exactly what their "value added" data manipulations were. If you can't reproduce the science, it is unreliable at best and worthless at worst. This is the global temperature record that we're talking about here and it has been kept under lock and key, if you will, without allowing any but an anointed few from a rather in-bred scientific (activist?) circle to have access to study the data. This in an of itself warrants a very skeptical view.

As a skeptic, that doesn't mean that one can dismiss AGW out of hand, but one can demand real scientific accountability when folks make outlandish claims of warming. They should be able to show it and we should be able to attempt to duplicate their work from the public record. But we can't (see some of the "ClimateGate" programmers notes to see the difficulty in anyone duplicating CRU's work).

You need not take my word for any of the above, either. You can research rural temperature stations around the world and compare them to urban stations near by. You may still have heat island effects or siting problems, but you will almost assuredly see a much less pronounced warming trend over the past 100-140 years, if any at all. You can also peruse the inventory of siting issues in the US by visiting www.SurfaceStations.org and verify for yourself that most of the temperature measurement stations are not nearly compliant with NOAA standards.

All of this points to a falsification of the first claim of "Unprecedented Warming".

The Man-Made CO2 induced warming assertion is a bit trickier. The science in the field isn't go good on this one. In the lab, it seems clear that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can cause warming, but the lab is not a chaotic system, nor is CO2 nearly as important as other greenhouse gases. Certainly, we know this, CO2 has been increasing over the past 10 years, but global temperatures have not (see the UAH satellite record). That would seem to imply that if man-made CO2 is driving temperature, it's dwarfed by other factors, perhaps solar cycles, or sea current oscillations or mostly likely a combination of these factors and more.

Oh, and let's do remember, I'm not making outlandish claims. I'm not obligated as a skeptic to come up with alternate theories. I'm merely saying "prove it" and the fact of the matter is, the AGW hypothesis is weak, at this time. I can freely say, "I don't know" when it comes to if we are warming (or will resume warming, more accurately) and what's causing said warming (if we're warming).

More Cooling than We Thought and Problems with Climate Models

The linear warming trend in these models that is obtained by subtracting the 60–70 yr cycle, while unexplained at present, is clearly inconsistent with climate model predictions because it begins too soon (before greenhouse gases were elevated) and does not accelerate as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate. This model and the empirical evidence for recent cooling thus provide a challenge to
climate model accuracy.

http://www.ncasi.org...il.aspx?id=3230

Tree Lines at Yamal show cooling and much cooler temperatures than MWP and Holocene

http://www.nosams.wh...locene_v12a.pdf

Rash*t M. Hantemirov* and Stepan G. Shiyatov (2002) A continuous multimillennial ring-width chronology in Yamal, northwestern Siberia. The Holocene 12,6 pp. 717–726
http://www.nosams.wh...locene_v12a.pdf
This is the paper that provided the (unused) Yamal data.
Look at page 720. It shows how tree lines have moved SOUTH over the last 700 years. Tree line reflect minimum growth temperatures.
It has been getting progressively COLDER.

More Russian Tree lines
http://rstb.royalsoc...3.full.pdf html
G.M MacDonald,
K.V Kremenetski,
and D.W Beilman

Not so "Unprecedented" Warming in Greenland

http://www.expressne...icle.cfm?id=776



Climate change and the northern Russian treeline zone

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B July 12, 2008 363:2283-2299; doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2200


MWP Warmer than today according to Midge Study

http://hol.sagepub.c...stract/19/2/317

Solar Activity Creating More Warming

In Science:
http://www.eurekaler...a-sus082509.php

http://www.leif.org/research/IDV09.pdf

This one is dramatic--Cosmic radiation could possibly explain a lot of measured global warming.
Svensmark H., T. Bondo, J. Svensmark (2009), Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L15101, doi:10.1029/2009GL038429.

Press article here: http://english.farsn...p?nn=8807151416

Arctic melting?

Oceans driving Surface Temps

Compo,G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. in the journal Climate Dynamics

"We now know (thanks to Compo and Sardeshmukh) that 80% of land surface temperatures are driven by transfer of heat from the oceans. The main transfer is via westerly ‘winds’ in the northern hemisphere. These winds are driven by the jetstream – but they are not so much winds, as vortices or cyclones, that extract the heat, create cloud and dump the heat as rainfall or radiative cloud cover on land. The ‘unusual’ Arctic melt-down has been partly driven by excess radiative cloud over the polar region (14% from 1980-2000) and warm ocean water travelling further north than usual under the sea-ice.

When there is more cloud in higher latitudes (and the gyres are located between 30-60 degrees north) the effect is warming – insulation of the ocean heat stores, rather than cooling as in the tropics. So any change in percentage cover OR spatial distribution will affect those heat stores."


A LongTerm Temperature History, for perspective

http://www.ncdc.noaa...0/alley2000.gif

Issues with the temperature record

http://www.greenworl...owup.htm#recent

Destoryed or lost data at CRU?
http://www.theregist...13/cru_missing/


One of many papers not supporting a major temperature increase during recent time is:

Polyakov, I.V., Bekryaev, R.V., Alekseev, G.H., Bhatt,U.S., Colony, R.L., Johnson, M.A., Maskshtas, A.P. and Walsh, D., 2003: Variability and Trends of Air Temperature and Pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875-2000. Journal of Climate: Vol. 16 (12): 2067ñ2077.

Another by W. Karlen as mentioned in the "Climate-Gate" leaked emails:

Karlen, W., 2001: Global temperature forces by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases? Ambio 30(6): 349-350.


Urban Heat Island

article, not peer reviewed re: Au UHI
http://www.newsweekl...009oct31_c.html

press release and abstract for peer reviewed article on the importance of UHI
http://news.uns.purd...ogiClimate.html
more here:
http://www3.intersci...l...=1&SRETRY=0


Land Use Driving 50% of observed warming.
http://www.gatech.ed....html?nid=47354
http://pubs.acs.org/...hag?cookieSet=1

Summary of the SurfaceStations Project:

A veteran meteorologist, Anthony Watts, had reason to doubt the reliability of US Surface Temperature Records so he founded http://www.surfacestations.org and set out to audit 1,221 weather stations operated by the National Weather service.

After surveying over 70% of those sations, he issued a report that states:

“(W)e found that 89 percent of the stations­nearly 9 of every 10­fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source. In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.” (Pg. 1) The report concludes, “the raw temperature data produced by the USHCN stations are not sufficiently accurate to use in scientific studies or as a basis for public policy decisions.” (Pg. 17)

It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report
a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice
that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government
agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.

The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.


Antarctic Not Losing Ice and Not Warming

Sidorenkov, N.S. (2003). Changes in the Antarctic ice sheet mass and the instability of the Earth’s rotation over the last 110 years. International Association of Geodesy Symposia 127, 339-346.



No Consensus
http://www.climatesc...s/pdf/Brown.pdf
on causes
http://www.nap.edu/o...isbn=0309095069

Greenhouse Gases Don't seem to be holding heat in

http://masterresource.org/?p=4307


Skeptical Papers

A voluminous listing of skeptical peer reviewed papers

http://www.popularte...supporting.html

More background on Steve McIntyre

http://online.wsj.co...=googlenews_wsj

[colion]

I am a skeptic, as I believe all thinking people should be on ANY new scientific issue, but especially any scientific theory that makes extraordinary claims.

Extraordinary claims set off my radar.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

--- Carl Sagan, Cosmos, PBS, 1980

[OEXCHAOS]

Word.

[maineman]

Krugman 120709

[OEXCHAOS]

Looks like Krugman is depriving some village of its idiot again.

[maineman]

Looks like Krugman is depriving some village of its idiot again.

Yeah, these dammed Princeton Professors with their Nobel Prizes. What do they know?

mm

[OEXCHAOS]

The question should be, what does the Nobel Prize committee know? They've given the peace prize to a president who's only manged to escalate a war (properly, but still) and to propagandaist who is getting rich off the unsupported AGW alarmism. Krugman has no credibility with me based upon that. As an economist, I'll give him modest credit in his focus, but on larger matter? He's a hack.

[maineman]

See, this is the problem being "discussed" on some nearby threads. Mark, you, I suspect you are an intelligent man. Hence, calling Krugman a "hack" sounds stupid or simplistic. He's an educated and thoughtful man. You may or may not agree with everything he says. I don't. But I respect his thoughtfulness, his years of study, his credits, his work. Why is it necessary and what does it gain to call him a "hack"? Have we lost all civility here? If you read yesterday's NY Times there was an excellent op - ed piece by someone who refuted many of Krugman's assumptions, while posing an alternate way of dealing with carbon emmissions. They both have similar end games in mind (cleaning up the planet in ways that make sense for our children) but different approaches. I meant to add his link, too. My point is there are intelligent people out there with excellent credentials and views. We gain nothing by name calling. Unless you are Glenn Beck or someone like that. And I suspect, or hope, you are not. mm

[OEXCHAOS]

See, this is the problem being "discussed" on some nearby threads. Mark, you, I suspect you are an intelligent man. Hence, calling Krugman a "hack" sounds stupid or simplistic. He's an educated and thoughtful man. You may or may not agree with everything he says. I don't. But I respect his thoughtfulness, his years of study, his credits, his work. Why is it necessary and what does it gain to call him a "hack"? Have we lost all civility here? If you read yesterday's NY Times there was an excellent op - ed piece by someone who refuted many of Krugman's assumptions, while posing an alternate way of dealing with carbon emmissions. They both have similar end games in mind (cleaning up the planet in ways that make sense for our children) but different approaches. I meant to add his link, too.

My point is there are intelligent people out there with excellent credentials and views. We gain nothing by name calling. Unless you are Glenn Beck or someone like that. And I suspect, or hope, you are not.

mm

MM, I mean political hack. Not thoughtful, but rather agenda-driven. He certainly has no special expertise in climate science, and I find him to be philosophically bankrupt and a squanderer of economic expertise.

But sure, even a blind pig finds an acorn. What does he say that seems compelling to you?

I obviously can't get exited about solutions to non-existent problems.

M

[colion]

See, this is the problem being "discussed" on some nearby threads. Mark, you, I suspect you are an intelligent man. Hence, calling Krugman a "hack" sounds stupid or simplistic. He's an educated and thoughtful man. You may or may not agree with everything he says. I don't. But I respect his thoughtfulness, his years of study, his credits, his work. Why is it necessary and what does it gain to call him a "hack"? Have we lost all civility here? If you read yesterday's NY Times there was an excellent op - ed piece by someone who refuted many of Krugman's assumptions, while posing an alternate way of dealing with carbon emmissions. They both have similar end games in mind (cleaning up the planet in ways that make sense for our children) but different approaches. I meant to add his link, too.

My point is there are intelligent people out there with excellent credentials and views. We gain nothing by name calling. Unless you are Glenn Beck or someone like that. And I suspect, or hope, you are not.

mm

Yes, Krugman is intelligent and has a lot of good paper - necessary but not sufficient. In his field of expertise he deserves and gets one's attention whether or not there is agreement. The problem, however, is when he leaves his area of expertise (as most op-ed types do) and at the same time permits his politics to completely inform his economics and objectivity (here emerges the "hack"). In this twilight zone, all too often when dealing with broader subjects that include an economic factor he becomes intellectually dishonest by cherry picking what and how he incorporates economic stuff which he knows as well as the back of his hand. (His articles several years ago about privatization of the British social security system is a classic example that I recall). This characteristic together with a tendency toward an "in your face" style I have read is part of the reason that the NYTimes has declined in the last decade or so.

The internet is full of Krugman discussions. Many of the articles are just hot air being blown back to counter Krugman's hot air. However, the following in my view is one of the more thoughtful ones which addresses some of the things that I see.

An Open Letter to Paul KrugmanBy Arnold Kling : 07 Oct 2003
Dear Paul,



You might remember me from graduate school at MIT. I would like to ask you a question about what constitutes a reasonable argument.



For example, suppose I were to say, "We should abolish the minimum wage. That would increase employment and enable more people to climb out of poverty."



There are two types of arguments you might make in response. I call these Type C and Type M.



A hypothetical example of a Type C argument would be, "Well, Arnold, studies actually show that the minimum wage does not cost jobs. If you read the work of Krueger and Card, you would see that the minimum wage probably reduces poverty."



A hypothetical example of a Type M argument would be, "People who want to get rid of the minimum wage are just trying to help the corporate plutocrats."



Paul, my question for you is this:



Do you see any differences between those two types of arguments?



I see differences, and to me they are important. Type C arguments are about the consequences of policies. Type M arguments are about the alleged motives of individuals who advocate policies.



In this example, the type C argument says that the consequences of eliminating the minimum wage would not be those that I expect and desire. We can have a constructive discussion of the Type C argument -- I can cite theory and evidence that contradicts Krueger and Card -- and eventually one of us could change his mind, based on the facts.



Type M arguments deny the legitimacy of one's opponents to even state their case. Type M arguments do not give rise to constructive discussion. They are almost impossible to test empirically.



Here are some more examples of issues where liberals could choose to use either type C or type M arguments:



Tax Cuts



Suppose that someone were to say, "The Bush tax cuts will increase long-term growth." You might raise various objections.



One possible type C argument would be that even if the tax cuts increase long-term growth, they will increase inequality. Thus, the consequences are not good. We could have a constructive discussion of that issue, although we may not come to agreement.



Another possible type C argument would be that the tax cuts will reduce national saving, thereby lowering the capital stock, thereby reducing economic growth. They will have the exact opposite of the consequence that is claimed for them. I think that this is an important argument. I have the discomfiting impression that many in the Bush Administration and its supply-side supporters fail to understand this argument.



A type M argument would be, "So what were the Bush tax cuts really about? The best answer seems to be that they were about securing a key part of the Republican base. Wealthy campaign contributors have a lot to gain from lower taxes, and since they aren't very likely to depend on Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid, they won't suffer if the beast gets starved." In fact, this is what you wrote in "The Great Tax Cut Con," which can now be found at The unofficial Krugman archive.



To me, this is not a helpful argument. Imagine that we could somehow prove that the motives of the supply-siders were pure, and that they really did want to improve economic growth. Would that purity of motive outweigh the argument that the higher deficits will actually have the consequence of reducing growth? I would hope not. Conversely, if the motives are wrong but the consequences are good, to me that would argue in favor of the tax cuts, not against them.



School Vouchers



Suppose that I were to say, "I believe that school vouchers would increase the quality of education and reduce the gap between the quality of schools attended by the poor and that of those attended by the rich."



A type C argument would be that there are other values that are more important, so that public education, whatever its flaws, should be maintained as it is. If you took such a position, we could have a constructive discussion, but we might end up having to disagree.



Another type C argument, which you raised in an essay in Mother Jones, would be, "Upper-income families would realize that a reduction in the voucher is to their benefit: They will save more in lowered taxes than they will lose in a decreased education subsidy. So they will press to reduce public spending on education, leading to ever- deteriorating quality for those who cannot afford to spend extra. In the end, the quintessential American tradition of public education for all could collapse." This is an argument about consequences. I believe that it is wrong, because I think that upper-income families would be happy to pay higher taxes to support an education system that works rather than one that fails. But at least we are talking about an empirical question.



A type M argument would be the one you made in the next paragraph of your essay. "The leaders of the radical right want privatization of schools, of public sanitation -- of anything else they can think of -- because they know such privatization undermines what remaining opposition exists to their program." This argument shuts off any constructive debate. It dehumanizes me to the point where I am not even given credit for knowing what my own motives are. Similarly, when I read the comments on Kevin Drum's blog post about vouchers, I see a lot of type M arguments.



The War in Iraq



Suppose that someone says, "The war in Iraq has made us safer from terrorism." You would disagree.



A type C argument would be to suggest that in fact the war in Iraq has made us less safe from terrorism. One view might be that if we had backed down, we would have had broader support in the world and more resources to deal with terrorism elsewhere. It is a difficult question to settle empirically, but we can have a reasonable argument.



A type M argument would be to write, as you did on September 9, that, "It's now clear that the Iraq war was the mother of all bait-and-switch operations. Mr. Bush and his officials portrayed the invasion of Iraq as an urgent response to an imminent threat, and used war fever to win the midterm election." This is not a constructive argument. My opinion is that it requires an implausible degree of complicity among highly dedicated civil servants. Would Colin Powell not have resigned if the purpose of the war were to win an election? Furthermore, I still care far more about consequences than about motives. If the consequences of the Iraq war are that it leads to increased terrorism and conflict, then even the purest motives would not make it a good war, and vice-versa.



The Economic Consequences of Mr. Krugman



Paul, your columns consist primarily of type M arguments. Either you do not see the difference between type C arguments and type M arguments, or you do not care.



I am not going to try to guess your motives for relying on type M arguments. However, I can tell you some of the consequences.



One consequence is to lower the level of political discourse in general. You have a lot of influence with those who sympathize with your views. When they see you adopt type M arguments, they do the same.



Conversely, many of your opponents are stooping to your level. I see type M arguments raised by many of your enemies on the Right. As horse manure draws flies, your columns generate opposition that is vindictive and uninformed.



Another consequence is to lower the prestige and impact of economists. We are trained to make type C arguments. Instead, you are teaching by example that making speculative assessments of one's opponent's motives is more important than thinking through the consequences of policy options. If everyone were to use such speculative assessments as the basis for forming their opinions, then there would be no room for economics in public policy discussions.



You could express your point of view using type C arguments and still take strong stands for what you believe is right. In fact, you might find that doing so would make you more effective. Even if that is not the case, even if there is a sort of media version of Gresham's Law in which specious reasoning drives out careful analysis, then that is a challenge for all of us who are trained as economists. I believe that we have a professional duty to try to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.