Climate scientists debate 'dangerous' climate change 31 January 05

of the University of Alaska. Mr. Walsh was one of the authors of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment that made the headlines recently. He conveys a reasonable and measured assessment of the climate change debate.

I agree with most of what he has to say. I do not agree that we should begin taking measures to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions; we don’t know enough yet.

Read the interview at http://www.adn.com/front/story/6098498p-5985821c.html.

OK, Norbertzangox, I think we are mostly in agreement here. I find your reference to be a very good one and that Professor John Walsh is very credible and he argued in your favor but concluded that the uncertainty mandates that we simply do not know enough right now to be absolutely sure.

The consensus of the majority of people on Mark’s site fit precisely what Professor John Walsh’s opinion is and that was summed up by the last interview question in his article which I share unedited below:

Q.So you would say we ought to start reducing our greenhouse gas emissions?

A. I think it would prudent to do that—that’s my own view. Very prudent to do that.

Norbert, I have absolutely no problem with your response here at all. I think that Professor John Walsh is right on target in everything he said.

I hope you are correct Norbert as I said before. No one knows for sure and you have stated a truth that all of us should agree with. The science is still maturing. You have an opinion and everyone would want it to be correct even if some of us disagree with it.

The major consensus on Mark’s site is consistent with Professor Walsh in that the risk is worthy of immediate action at some level since so much is at stake. I share this view. Why bet the entire planet on a mere opinion when as you said, we simply do not know!

You have shown your true honor in your response here and this does not go unnoticed by me. Good job Norbert!

Best Wishes, Dan

I think we should be taking measures to reduce CO2, even if there’s no climate change, even if doing do has no helpful effect in reducing other environmental harms (most actions that produce CO2 also have other harmful side effect). And that’s because it just make good old fashion economic sense – the more bang for your buck effect. And as I’ve mentioned before, the U.S. can reduce by 3/4+ without lowering productivity or living standards.

It occurred to me that you were in an environment engineering career, and that you perhaps had to develop reactive measures to harms already done, or harms projected. From my own investigations, I have come to the conclusion that reactive measures (mitigating problems) can be extremely expensive, as in the superfund projects. Or even working to prevent harm from effects we know are coming. I wonder what it would cost to build a dike around Florida.

On the other hand, and to my great surprise actually (I was willing to sacrifice), I have found that real prevention, as in stopping the event from occurring in the first place, can be much cheaper, and can even save a lot of money. Really this was a surprise to me. I think it is because there are many different ways to reduce CO2, and we can select the most cost-effective ones, while addressing problems that exist has more contraints on it (it jerks us, rather than us jerking it).

Now, you may say, then why aren’t people doing those things anyway, since they make economic sense. That’s the $64,000 question. Lack of knowledge, inertia, laziness. Who knows. That’s why I think climate change is good for the impetus it should be giving to sensible people to start reducing their GH emissions, which would help them economically and the whole economy.

I must correct this. I am in total agreement with Professor John Walsh. I am mostly in agreement with you since we agree that Professor Walsh provides a balanced perspective.

I agree with Professor John Walsh that we still must take reasonable steps in reducing greenhouse gases which is his expressed opinion.

You do not feel this is so but we are entitled to disagree respectfully.

Dan

to take steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. He did not say that he thinks that we must take steps.

I disagree with this part of Mr. Walsh’s statements.

He also says that he believes that the carbon dioxide-induced part of the ongoing warming is about the same size as the natural part. I believe that the anthropogenic portion is much smaller than the natural portion.

He said that some scientists believe that the climate is in an ups and downs portion of the natural climate variation regime and that there is no trend. I am unaware of anyone who does not think that there has been a trend for at least 150 years. Many, I included, believe that it is part of a normal recovery from the recent cold spell, a.k.a., the Little Ice Age. Many others and I believe that this trend will reverse before the climate temperature increases more than a couple of degrees C.

Now, let’s review a few things that he has said that are at odds with statements that we have seen on this site.

He said that there is no consensus among climate scientists that global warming will be a disaster unless we immediately reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

He said that there was no discernable effect of the warming on local weather.

He said that there is no consensus among scientists about the role that green house gases play in the current warming.

He said that it is not absolutely clear that we have embarked on a permanent warming trend.

He said that the question of the cause of the observed losses of floating ice is unknown. It may be warmer air, it may be wind pushing the ice out from shore or it may be the arrival of warmer ocean water. Nobody knows.

He also said that there was some legitimate scientific concern in the early 1970s that we might be on the verge of an ice age.

(Canada) that provide details and discussion of the ongoing brouhaha between Michael Mann et al. and McIntyre and McKitrick, the two Canadians who have challenged the accuracy of his development of the Hockey Stick version of the history of the climate temperature.

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=108c0400-4e71-4c55-a279-dd43aed1f224

http://www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory4.aspx?id=052554eb-ebdb-483a-8f28-c4ce19458973

They are fascinating reading.

The scientists at RealClimate.org (who bring topnotch science and rational argumentation against both skeptic claims and extreme GW scenarios), have put forth a very good argument that the McIntyre & McKitrick article (not published in a peer review journal, but one with a strong skeptic agenda – Energy & Environment), EVEN IF IT WERE VALID, disproving Mann, would not in the least disprove global warming.

See RealClimate.org

And “What if the hocky stick were wrong?” at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114

And “Peer Review: A necessary, not sufficient condition” at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=111

Actually, the latest McIntyre and McKitrick article is in the January 2005 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, the same journal that published Mann’s 1999 article.

The National Post articles that I linked address the question that you brought up, “What if the Hockey Stick is wrong?” It is not a moot point for a couple of reasons. One is that existing climate models cannot predict a warm period 1,000 years ago when the concentration of carbon dioxide was not elevated. The second is that this entire episode compromises the credibility of IPCC.

The National Post articles also include some of the comments that the peer reviewers of the McIntyre and McKitrick article made about it. It is very interesting stuff.

I read the two RealClimate articles that you linked. I have explored that site previously but the blatant ad hominem flavor in most of their articles always leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. It seems that they believe that everyone who disagrees with them is somehow evil. Michael Mann is especially prone to those tactics. I quickly tire of it.

Your Quote: “he believed that it would be prudent He did not say that he thinks that we must take steps.”

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Here you go again! Why do you do this?

We already agreed that we do not know! Why keep rehashing this!

It would be prudent to take STEPS and that is EXACTLY what he meant and you know it! You are making a case to support your OPINION based solely on WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW!!

Your guy says it would be prudent to reduce emissions. I agree with him on this and you do not so what else is new! He is not sure either is he?

That is good enough for me to continue my belief in being prudent in reducing emissions with the extra associated benefits as Lynn articulates.

That is my opinion and with that I must end our conversation because I have other things to do.

Have a good day!

Two more useful reviews of Michael Crichton’s novel “State of Fear” appeared today. For anyone who has to deal with nay-sayers who have been seduced by Crichton’s polemic, there are two well-informed critical reviews, one literary and the other scientific on the ever-reliable Grist site:

http://www.grist.org/

(I apologize for this not being directly related to Mark’s post on the Hadley Centre conference, but I wanted to bring it to your attention ASAP.)

Keith

...”I have explored the site previously but the fact that it contradicts me always leaves a bitter taste in my mouth”

Where is this belief on the part of the site authors that anyone who disagrees with them is evil? This is a bit strong, the site content seems well balanced to me and responses to the comments made are helpful. Why are you not arguing the science directly with them if you are so sure of your position, rather than cluttering up this site with links to newspaper articles?

I believe that the hockey stick curve may not be the actual hockey stick looking at the graph and noticing the uncertainty behind it. I think there may have been a few significant bumps in the curve over the last 1000 years since all the data for that is from proxy means.

I do think that the most recent data is more certain since scientists can use both proxy data and our actual temperature measurements. This recent part of the record should also help confirm the accuracy of the proxy measurement procedure to an extent since both can be compared.

What the graph shows is that the modern trend is clearly greater than the last 1000 years and even with any uncertainty of the possible shape of the curve of the last millennium, it still seems to suggest to me that human activities have contributed to the current warming trend.

I say that because I always find it an interesting coincidence that the observed warming coincides with our modern times. I am not a climate scientist but this correlation cannot be refuted.

I noticed that Dr. Weart recently updated his site and the graph is better explained and shows more detail then when I first saw it. The site is below:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xmillenia.htm

I invite the interested readers to just take a minute just to look at the graph and the comments and decide for yourself about its significance. Some people can argue based on uncertainties about specific centuries but the trend appears solid even when looking at the raw data’s uncertainty shown behind the actual calculated curve.

Please visit this site above to see this curve including the noted uncertainties and make up your own mind about it. No matter what the controversy is about how the solid line appears, just look at the total graphical representation of the raw data itself and draw any curves you like. Then note the recent trend which has to be the most accurate part of this data set.

I am not a climate scientist and Norbert is not either. We rely on reading the expert analysis of others and often we get drowned in the technical details that we can miss major aspects. Our own ability may be better than we realize in our own observations and even in reading a simple graph. Your intuition in reading a graph has merit. I hope I gave some guidelines that I used so I can arrive at my own conclusion and I hope this helps.

And Norbert, please note that my main point is not to argue what happened 500 years ago on a subset of data. My main point is that even the raw data depicted by the uncertainty of the graph makes the case that what is happening currently is unprecedented in the 1000 year data set. I think it would be difficult to refute that case based on my preceding discussion.

Norbert, If you really want to help us see any contrary point you have, then I suggest that you provide another graph from another credible reference for us to look at. I am looking at the graphical representation of the data and for others to do the same. Any response back should be a graphical one if you can find it. If you do, I would like to look at it.

My reference site below:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xmillenia.htm

Dan