Claims that global warming has ceased since 1998 (or 2002), and even that global cooling has set in, have been the stock in trade of the greenhouse denialists this year. These claims are, for the most part, made by the sort of people who in 1998 (or 2002) were denying the existence of the global warming which they now claim was actually happening but has ceased. However, I digress.
For the purposes of the current discussion, let us note that these claims are also based on two basic failures to comprehend Climate Science 101.
The most immediately obvious failure is that the denialists do not realise, or have conveniently forgotten, that long-term trends in global average atmospheric temperature change are reflected, not in year to year changes in average temperatures, but in trends averaged out over a series of years. When recent global average temperatures are analysed in this light, we find that the evidence does not support the claim that global warming has ceased. This has been amply explained at RealClimate and Deltoid, and by David Karoly of the CSIRO, and requires no further elaboration here.
The more fundamental failure is that the denialists seem not to understand that the global warming hypothesis predicts warming (i.e. increasing energy levels) in the climate system as a whole, which includes the cryosphere (ice sheets, glaciers and sea ice), snow and ice on land, plant life, and most importantly the oceans, not just the atmosphere. “Therefore, flows of energy between the oceans and the atmosphere [which is what drives the El Nino and La Nina phenomena - PN] can have dramatic effects on the global climate.” One corollary of this is that global atmospheric temperature can be static, or even fall, from one year to the next even whilst the climate system as a whole is warming, due in the main to additional energy being stored in the oceans rather than the atmosphere.
For the layperson this can be illustrated by a simple analogy. Suppose I Have two bank accounts. At the start of 2007 one bank account contained $20,000, the other one $80,000 for a combined total of $100,000. At the start of 2008 the combined total in the two accounts is $101,000, but because of money being shifted between the two accounts during the year there is now $19,000 in the first account and $82,000 in the second. You would not - unless you were either puffin’ muffins or a greeenhouse denialist - infer from these figures that I was $1,000 poorer at the start of 2008 than at the start of 2007.
Having said that - and without derogation to the fact that multi-year averages to date do not show a cooling trend in global average atmospheric temperatues in the past decade - movements in observed global average atmospheric temperatures are what immediately grab the attention and shape the perceptions of many people, much media coverage and, one can conjecture, many political decision-makers. And for the reasons I’ve mentioned, it is plausible that global average atmospheric temperatures could plateau for a period of some years even as warming continues in the rest of the climate system, giving a spurious credence to the notion that “global warming has stopped” and giving hard-pressed policymakers a pretext for deferring decisive action and continuing with business as usual.
In an article published in Nature and reported by Planet Ark, some scientists argue that the world is experiencing just such a plateau, with just such political consequences:
…while the study published in the journal Nature last week did not dispute manmade global warming, it did predict a cooling from recent average temperatures through 2015, as a result of a natural and temporary shift in ocean currents… Gary Yohe, climate scientist at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, said that opponents of tougher action on global warming in the United States had seized on the Nature report as a sign that climate change was slowing down.
The Keenlyside et al article is contested, but the salient point is that if the prediction is correct, a temporary period of plateauing, and perhaps cooling, global atmospheric temperatures will occur at a time when world governments will be involved in negotiations over the post-2012 agreements pursuant to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. If this eventuates, it is inevitable that some of the contracting governments and some stakeholders will use the “cooling” trend to argue for less stringent emissions reduction targets, or to argue for deferring action. And if (a) Keenlyside et al are correct about the short-term plateau/cooling of atmospheric temperatures and (b) global climate warming nonetheless continues, any such dilution or procrastination in the post-2012 negotiations will in all likelihood be followed by the mother of all spikes in global atmospheric temperature after 2015, with further warming working its way through the climate system, and the world’s policymakers perhaps having squandered a chance to avoid climate catastrophe.
This has parallels with a notorious episode in Australia’s environmental history, the debate over Goyder’s Line of Rainfall in the 1860s, which Robert Merkel has previously discussed at LP. In 1865 South Australian Surveyor-General George Goyder published his advice to government and farmers that farming would be unsustainable beyond the line and thus should not be encouraged. Goyder’s advice was ridiculed by pro-development boosters at the time in terms not dissimilar to those in which reputable climate science is attacked by contemporary denialists. In an unfortunate twist of fate, 1865, the year in which Goyder drew his line, was a year of bumper rains, and was followed by a series of good growing seasons in the 1870s. As a consequence Goyder’s advice was ignored and a great many farms were established north of the line, only to fail with huge human and environmental costs when long-term climate trends proved Goyder correct.
Keenlyside’s predicted plateau, if it eventuates, will be to the global warming debate what the bumper rains of 1865 were to the Goyder Line debate. If global policymakers and opinion-makers don’t learn from the melancholy history of the Goyder Line debate, they run the risk of repeating it, only on a much vaster scale than colonial South Australia in the 19th century.
Seriously, though, who cares?
Nobody with any influence (apart from maybe Marn Ferguson) is a climate change denialist anymore. Do you really think the government gives a flying fuck about Andrew Bolt?
Great item. I really appreciate you pointing out the distinction “denialists seem not to understand that the global warming hypothesis predicts warming (i.e. increasing energy levels) in the climate system as a whole, which includes the cryosphere (ice sheets, glaciers and sea ice), snow and ice on land, plant life, and most importantly the oceans, not just the atmosphere”
Hmm. One key identifier for cults is a millenial “end of the world” philosophy followed my messianic calls for sacrifice to the greater cause. Check.
But Wilful, although I agree the climate change denialists are in the minority, the new government doesn’t seem to be doing anything about it. We’re still getting huge amounts of money for “clean coal” while failing to boost the solar industry. And I realise giving money to people on incomes over $150,000 is not the way to do it, but they have caused the industry to contract when it should be full steam ahead. It should be full steam ahead on all workable renewables. Instead, everyone’s really relying on the continuing resources bonanza.
I’d like to see the Feds take over the dead mitsubishi plant in SA and transform it into a R&D centre for solar!
Yes, Helen, and in tandem with R&D for solar, actual manufacture of actual solar hotwater and solar PV units to be sent out to those households and businessses that still want to buy and install them.
And wind turbines, large and small.
There’s room for action as well as refinement through research
“clean coal” may prove itself eventually, but
i) it’s a long way off, and
ii) we can’t afford the inaction implied by waiting around to see how/if it works out
Hmm. One key identifier of global warming denialists and associated flea brains is their inability to construct a coherent sentence, let alone argument. Check.
Graham Young’s polling research on the budget found that the biggest concern of ALP voters was lack of action on climate change.
[link]
Are we all tired of waiting for
GodotGarnaut?Helen, I agree that the new Government needs to pick up the pace (without being too critical, they’re only been around five months), but I really don’t think denialists are having any political impact whatsoever now. The lack of urgency, sense of complacency (while again noting it’s still pretty early days) is due to the usual inertia, not a lack of scientific certainty.
I don’t want to go on about photovoltaics, but they aren’t unfortunately workable at this point in time, I don’t think rooftop installers and sparkies have much to do with breakthrough R&D in this area. Boosting the PV industry isn’t a reasonable goal in and of itself, and it’s been demonstrated that there are much cheaper ways of reducing emissions.
Don’t get me wrong, clean coal isn’t the answer. But nor is current technology PV.
I see Bolta is still at this morning on 6pr he was ridiculing Flannery and now says that 31000 scientists are sceptics,and this rubbish is swallowed by his followers without question.
how much longer can this fool get away with it
David Karoly’s actually from the University of Melbourne rather than CSIRO. Also, it was 1866 onwards that was the wet period - 1865 was an extreme drought year in SA (I presume that Goyder’s report was commissioned in response to the 1865 drought, but don’t know this for sure).
I’ve seen Goyder’s report, which was the grand total of two pages long. They did government reports rather more concisely in those days (and for a while longer too - the report of the Royal Commission into the 1939 Victorian bushfires was about 35 pages, whereas a 21st century equivalent would probably have at least 100 times that number).
The problem in this area, as I see it, is the same problem in trying to pick a non-political judge in America. Everyone’s political, and in this area, everyone’s committed to a side, and a strongly defending that point of view. I would like to see some analysis done by scientists who haven’t made their minds up one way or the other, but I fear this is no longer possible.
And the “denialists” are just people who don’t agree with you, and I can see worse things to be.
“I would like to see some analysis done by scientists who haven’t made their minds up one way or the other, but I fear this is no longer possible.”
No, what you have done is assert that the actual scientists out there reading existing literature, and conducting their own research, have “already made their minds up”.
This assertion is (unless you are very well acquainted with a very large number of climate scientists) absolutely baseless.
Fact is there has allready been no upward trend in global temperatures for 8 or 10 years, despite ever increasing atmospheric CO2 - and the supposed lagged warming from previous rises in CO2 as well. That’s not a long enough period to prove that CO2 sensitivities in those GCM models are considerably too high, but it is becoming very suggestive of exactly that.
If it actually does happen that temps remain flat or declining until 2015, it would become ridiculous to believe in 5 degree temperature rises by 2100 etc etc.
You may have to move on to your next envirodoom theory - “Ocean Acidification” is my pretty confident tip
Bill, it helps if you read the opening post before commenting.
Paul - he’s refuted your entire post with his “fact”. Take the helpful advice offered on what to do “if” it turns out this fact is true, or you’ll never keep your seat at the table for the unending gravy train of socialist Envirodoom funding.
Sheesh, a guy tries to help…
Er Paul, I did read your post, or at least skimmed it. (Cant say I bothered too much with the painfully laboured metaphor about bank accounts).
What is the point of your complaint?
john Ryan @9, Bolta’s cheer squad is already bombarding the press with letters ridiculing Flannery.
Thanks for the post, Paul. I think a lot of people are under the impression that it’s only atmospheric temperature which is affected by global warming. I know of plenty of farmers poo-pooing it on the grounds that they haven’t noticed much difference in temperatures. But as you pointed out, atmospheric temperature is only one component in the climate warming bundle.
I don’t think the denialists want to address the fact that the polar ice caps are melting and ocean temperatures appear to be rising. Maybe it’s because they can only think in the short term.
Paul;
Easier just to say that some people don’t understand the difference between the mean and the standard deviation of temperature.
Paul N,
great post
I am continually gobsmacked at the shoddy use of statistics the people are able to get away with in order to pursue their normative goals. The Globe Is Not Warming Swindle is a case in point. These misleading views we then find being aired on the National Broadcaster to somehow achieve “balance”.
In this case, by choosing 1998 as a baseline year from which to do a trend analysis of global mean temperature, to argue that the globe is not warming, is cherry-picking. It is dishonest and is an attempt to mislead, at the very least.
Lines of evidence applied in science include:
Observation
Theory
Mathematical models
Statistical analysis does not serve as an independent line of evidence. It is a tool applied to the various lines above. A single line of argument based on a single statistical test that is being used to disprove a large body of science should be distrusted.
Global mean temperature is constructed from stations on land and marine observations from ships of opportunity and bouys. The data is continually being upgraded and checked. The observational errors are well understood, despite objections from denialists. Best practise guidelines from the World Meteorological Organisation are followed.
The theory, observations and models agree that 1998 was anomalously warm because of the intense El Niño that year. Conversely, 1992-4 was cool due to a previous volcanic eruption (and was used to test climate models, which reproduced that short-term cooling pretty well).
I have subjected both the GISS (US) and HadCRU (UK) global temperature time series to a step-change analysis. They suggest there was a step change from previously static trends (1945-1975) in 1976. It is highly statistically signifant. The linear warming trend from 1976 to 2006 is 0.2°C per decade or 2°C per century.
If we were to be honest about analysing shorter term trends within that sequence we would look at the trends within say, all eight- or nine-year periods since 1976, because we know that climate has varied widely within that time. If we do that, we find that climate trends have ranged from slightly negative to wildly positive.
Blogging scientists James Annan and Tamino have just done that.
The recent article in Nature suggesting an upcoming short-term decrease in warming is highly contested, not least by realclimate. What the paper shows is that integrating 20th century processes into climate modelling improves its performance. This a recent scientific endeavour that aims to bridge historical climate with climate projections in a single simulation framework. The “forecast” is already departing from obs on global basis from 2000-5 (Figure 4 of the paper), so which do we believe? Luckily, we already know that short-term departures are not statistically valid when assessing a longer term trend.
The Nature paper is valuable, not for the results but for its advances in modelling. Getting real world variability into models is critical. For example, I have tested historical Australian rainfall fluctuations using a statistical model. The fluctuations that Goyder warned of with great prescience are an inherent part of our climate. This is relevant to the past decade of low rainfall in south-east Australia today - is it variability, change or a combination of both? It would be great if we had the modelling systems with sufficient skill to integrate real-time variability with change. At present these are invesigated separately.
The use of statistics to argue cooling since 1998 in order to discount risk, can potentially lead to great harm if that risk is ignored. When such an act is carried out by a scientific professional, I believe this is misconduct of the sort associated with plagiarism or falsification of data. Any non-professional who does the same should be ignored.
I would like to see some analysis done by scientists who haven’t made their minds up one way or the other, but I fear this is no longer possible. - HowardC @ 11
If they’ve already made their minds up they’re not scientists. I suggest you google “scientific method” or some such.
The post turned out well, Paul.
From a link in the comments thread of the David Karoly Online Opinion post I came upon a pretty pretty neat post. Figure 4 which graphed net forcing (including aerosols) versus global land ocean temperature anomaly, both from NASA GISS was impressive. I was less impressed with Figure 3 where I thought he should have drawn the trend lines to bring out the mid-century plateau and the 1975+ step up as mentioned by Roger above.
I think I’ve mentioned this before, but in a recent interview Ken Caldeira said:
Definitely an interesting post, Paul. One other thing I would add to your comments about the political dangers implicit in some kind of plateau in rising temperatures would be the issue of positive feedbacks in the system. These feedbacks, such as methane from drying peat bogs and thawing permafrost, as well as the oceans’ decreased rate of absorption of CO2, are only going to increase as temperatures raise, and such complacency would be catastrophic.
In regards to so called ‘Clean Coal’, or carbon capture and storage, I don’t see how we can afford NOT to invest in this technology in parallel with cleaner renewable energy. In Australia, our electricity grid is some 80% or more from coal-fired power stations. There is absolutely no way we can effectively reduce our short to medium term CO2 emissions without CCS. It just isn’t going to happen. However, the important point here is parallel investment into renewables…
And yet the dials at our power stations keep spinning ever faster.
Be interesting to see how many people will actually ‘believe’ in AGW if they have to make serious inroads into their lifestyles?
You see people could use public transport, people could downsize or eliminate their cars, people could build more energy efficient houses, people could cease and desist having children who will grow up into little energy consumers. All this and more (add no meat eating, no jet travel if you like) is feasible, and necessary if global warming is a real threat. However, listen to the alibis - and alibis they are if there really is global warming. Don’t worry about the denialists - they are obvious. It’s the hangers on who say they believe in global warming, but then jet around burning Avgas, have kids, and a fuel guzzler, who are the real enemies of true AGW believers.
Good gracious, people are now putting gas heaters outside so that they can have al fresco dining in mid winter!!
‘Scuse me, Marks, “have kids” should be “have more than 2 kids”! Even then, because some people don’t have’em, and a few of them unfortunately die, you’d get a population decline.
(although I think that in Australia we have a moral responsibility to take in people from countries in the region which have become untenable - so the place wouldn’t have a declining population per se.)
As long as it’s useful.
>
it’s a mistake to think that Bolt or his ilk are seriously interested in the truth of the matter. He’s fundamentally a propagandist. He understands this well enough I think. News Ltd pay him well to compose propaganda which sounds reasonable to his supporters and inflames the opposition. One thing he’s very good at is making those who disagree with him froth so badly they look like lunatics.
>
In aid of this he’s most excellent at cherry picking facts in order to distort data. The deployment of this kind of spin in addition to the decreasing ability of most people to recognize it as such is a big problem for public debate. With Climate Science it’s pretty easy. The phenomena is chaotic, the science is still quite young, there’s a lot of data we don’t have and it’s all hard to understand. Put that into the realm of political discourse and it’s a job for the spin doctors.
>
However denialists like Bolt are going to look increasingly ludicrous. When the shit really hits the fan I look forward to confronting him with his nefarious scribblings and inviting him to dine on ‘em.
>
Good post Paul.
Umm.
Observation is evidence.
Theory is not evidence. It is (consestable) explanation of evidence.
Mathematical models are not evidence. They are constructs of theory and just as contestable, if not more so, as the theory they are built on.
Quite right. It is a tool used to understand and validate observation and to refine the construction of theory and from that the models that are built on theory.
But it is not invalid for being a tool.
Just as theory and mathematical models which are built on careful observation and sound statistical analysis are not invalid just because they are also tools.
Great post, Paul.
In terms of demonstrating he difference between warming of the climate system and increasing global average temperatures, I think it’s hard to go past this video of monthly satellite maps of Arctic ice extent from 1979 to late 2007 compiled by WWF International.
It very clearly shows a collapse in the Arctic ice over the last decade since global warming apparently stopped. I wonder why that happened, then?
Oh, and wilful, you hit the nail on the head with Ferguson. He is tremendously influential and will do pretty much anything to protect coal. Witness his promotion of liquefied coal for transport fuel and, ludicrously, exporting Victoria’s brown coal.
Helen,
I thank you - you have illustrated my point exactly.
We have six billion people on this planet - and having more of em in a country that is characterised by a big per person carbon footprint is hardly acting as if global warming actually exists.
Like I say, the deniers are easy to spot and deal with. I am one. However, for all that, my car odo tells me that I did a whole five hundred km last year - I walk to work and use pt even though it is not that convenient. I have no kids. I tend to fat, so my diet is higher in veg than the average. So my carbon footprint is in fact far less than most. Yet I get more aggro from so called agw believers whose carbon footprint is multiples of mine - and I am highly amused. I am thinking of making myself up a list of all the alibis that agw believers trot out when I challenge their energy profligacy. (Public transport is soooo inconvenient, using the bike is sooo dangerous, I have to go on that trip interstate/overseas because videoconferencing facilities are on the other side of town, we have decided to have children but will bring them up to be responsible users of resources and Aust needs the population, I have to have an SUV to carry all my gear etc etc).
Marks, is there a point you’re trying to make?
Yes Zoot there is:
We already know how to reduce our gg footprint - we did it in the second world war with paper technology - it was called ‘rationing’.
We did it because we believed there was a real and present danger.
We could do the same now - if we wanted to. GG production down by 25% would be an easily achievable target within a couple of years if the cuts of the second world war are anything to go by.
So why don’t we?
From this forum, and with conversations with others who claim to believe in AGW, all I get is twisting and turning and alibis at every point where I say they can make real reductions in their GG emission if they were serious.
My answer to the ‘So why don’t we.’ question is that this use of alibis demonstrates that people do not really believe in AGW, at least they certainly do not act like they believe in AGW.
I shall repeat the point Zoot - because I did make it before. If you really believe in AGW and you are one of those prepared to make the necessary adjustments to help the planet as you see it, your enemies are not the outright deniers, but those people who appear to support you, but then head off with their kids and SUV etc with all sorts of alibis as to why they have to have that carbon footprint - and the spinning dials at our power stations and petrol pumps say I am right.
The energy debate is different to the climate debate. Regardless of whether the planet heats up, coal and oil are going to run out. We need to do something about that either way.
I read scientists saying that the sea levels are going to rise 100 metres, and I read scientists saying that we are about to enter another ice age because of sun spot activity? Who should I believe?
The problem here is if we do nothing and the planet heats up, the consequences will be disasterous. But, also, if we doing everything and the climate does something independent of our efforts, the results (people out of work, and so on) will also be disasterous.
And, yes, first world countries have to lead on this issue. That leadership can only be effective in a “well, I’m not doing it if you ain’t” attitude to developing countries. It’s a lot harder to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
I’m puzzled by those who do not want scientific debate? The whole issues is much too complex to be handled in the media or by politics. Why not allow research on several fronts. It is odd to dismiss or not discuss the sunspot perspective, the ocean currents, etc.
A problem is that much I read on environmental science is not science, but political science with people “fudging data” to dramatize a point. It is more disturbing to read some of those in the climate debate knowingly alter data to “dramatize” their points.
GregM,
observations as evidence, theory and math models as tools
I deliberately did not get into conceptual models because the post was already long. Observations and measurement are interpreted through conceptual models, much as are theory and math models.
Even observations are contestable - it is the rules of “contest” where objections are made outside the realms of what is contestable within a scientific framework that I object to.
Marks @ 30 - thankyou for the clarification.
Facts of warming aside, the use of the term ‘denier’ or ‘denialist’ really offends me.
It is an attempt to draw a connection between holocaust deniers and people who are not convinced by global warming.
I accept most people do not realise thats how the term started, and now its just a meme, but nevertheless, thats where it came from. The two are not morally equivalent, and it offends me.
I accept the science and beleive AGW is happening, but I am happy to acknowledge not everyone agrees. I suspect it is a clever device to stifle debate, much the way anyone who dares question immigration policy is called a racist, regardless of the argument they are making. Shout them down as a denier, and apperently everything they say thereafter is irrelevent.
Stephen, I’m not sure you’re right about the initial use of “denier”. I rather think it came from the simple language meaning of the word. I accept though that it carries the connotations that offend you and some use a different term to avoid offense. Quiggin, I think prefers ‘delusionist’.
I think ’sceptic’ (or skeptic) if based on science is fine. But often when looking at the position of anti-AGW people you find very early outrageous distortions and claims that are blatantly wrong. In that case I think one is justified in not wasting any time on them.
From Wikipedia:
It is in this sense that I continue to use the terms “denial” and “denialist”.
If anyone is interested, Steve McIntyre over at climateaudit just put up a pdf of a talk he just gave at Ohio State Uni. It’s a fantastic presentation of the whole hockey stick saga and is well worth a read.
Steves work, to me, is a great reason why the public has every right, indeed duty, to be skeptical of the way this whole thing is being handled.
His presentation can be found here.