Not just warmer: it's the hottest for 2,000 years (whine alert)

Guardian ^ | 09/01/03 | Ian Sample

[Pikamax]

Not just warmer: it's the hottest for 2,000 years

Widest study yet backs fears over carbon dioxide

Ian Sample, science correspondent Monday September 1, 2003 The Guardian

The earth is warmer now than it has been at any time in the past 2,000 years, the most comprehensive study of climatic history has revealed. Confirming the worst fears of environmental scientists, the newly published findings are a blow to sceptics who maintain that global warming is part of the natural climatic cycle rather than a consequence of human industrial activity.

Prof Philip Jones, a director of the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit and one of the authors of the research, said: "You can't explain this rapid warming of the late 20th century in any other way. It's a response to a build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

The study reinforces recent conclusions published by the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). Scientists on the panel looked at temperature data from up to 1,000 years ago and found that the late 20th century was the warmest period on record.

But the IPCC's report was dismissed by some quarters in the scientific community who claimed that while the planet is undoubtedly warming, it was warmer still more than a thousand years ago. So warm, in fact, that it had spurred the Vikings to set up base in Greenland and led to northern Britain being filled with productive vineyards.

To discover whether there was any truth in the claims, Prof Jones teamed up with Prof Michael Mann, a climate expert at the University of Virginia, and set about reconstructing the world's climate over the past 2,000 years.

Direct measurements of the earth's temperature do not exist from such a long time ago, so the scientists had to rely on other indicators of how warm - or not - the planet was throughout the past two millennia.

To find the answer, the scientists looked at tree trunks, which keep a record of the local climate: the rings spreading out from the centre grow to different thicknesses according to the climate a tree grows in. The scientists looked at sections taken from trees that had lived for hundreds and even thousands of years from different regions and used them to piece together a picture of the planet's climatic history.

The scientists also studied cores of ice drilled from the icy stretches of Greenland and Antarctica. As the ice forms, sometimes over hundreds of thousands of years, it traps air, which holds vital clues to the local climate at the time.

"Drill down far enough and you could use the ice to look at the climate hundreds of thousands of years ago, but we just used the first thousand metres," said Prof Jones.

The scientists found that while there was not enough good data to work out what the climate had been like in the southern hemisphere over that period, they could get a good idea of how warm the northern hemisphere had been.

"What we found was that at no point during those two millennia had it been any warmer than it is now. From 1980 onwards is clearly the warmest period of the last 2,000 years," said Prof Jones.

Some regions may well have been fairly warm, especially during the medieval period, but on average, the planet was a cooler place, the study found.

Looking back over a succession of earlier centuries, the temperature fluctuated slightly, becoming slightly warmer or cooler by 0.2C in each century. The temperature has increased by at least that amount in the past 20 or so years, the scientists report in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

"It just shows how dramatic the warming has been in recent years," said Prof Jones.

Scientists who do not believe that carbon dioxide is driving climate change are unlikely to run up the white flag just yet, however.

Dr Sallie Baliunas at the Harvard College Observatory in Massachusetts, for example, maintains that the recent warming could all be down to changes in the strength of sunlight falling on the planet.

She concluded that during the 20th century, earth went through a cycle of natural climatic change. According to her data, from 1900 to 1940 the planet warmed slightly, then cooled from 1940 until 1970, then warmed up again from 1970 onwards. Given that 80% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions have been produced since 1940, the expected effect, if carbon dioxide was causing global warming, would be higher temperatures not lower, she said.

Dr Baliunas's data also concluded that the period of warming between 1900 and 1940 must have been due to natural causes, most likely increased sunlight hitting the earth's surface, since carbon dioxide emissions were negligible at the time. The evidence, she said, pointed to variations in the sun's brightness being the cause of the planet's warming up, not carbon dioxide.

But other climatologists have welcomed the new study as the most conclusive evidence to date that the increase in temperature is a result of human activity.

"The importance of the finding is that it shows there's something going on in the climate system that's certainly unusual in the context of the last 2,000 years, and it's likely that greenhouse gases are playing the major role," said Prof Chris Folland of the Met Office's Hadley Centre. "If you look at the natural ups and downs in temperature, you'll find nothing remotely like what we're seeing now."

Cold water on climate claims

Not everyone agrees that climate change is largely driven by human activity. Some believe the warming the planet is experiencing now is part of a natural cycle. Historical anecdotes are sometimes used to support their case, but the new study debunks these claims.

· There were vineyards in the north of Britain

There were indeed vineyards in Britain in the 10th and 11th centuries, but only 50 to 60. There are now more than 350 in this country, with some as far north as Leeds.

· The Vikings went to Greenland

In AD980, Erik the Red and his crew headed from Iceland to Greenland, but it wasn't for the good weather. Erik had been kicked out of Iceland for murder so he took his crew westward where, they were told, they would find land.

· The Thames used to freeze over more often

The river's tendency to freeze over frequently in the 16th and 17th centuries is often cited as evidence that the climate used to be more erratic. But, according to the new study, the major cause was the original London Bridge, completed in the 13th century, which had very small spans between its supports for the Thames to run through. The result was that the river was tidal only as far as the bridge, causing the water to freeze over. When the bridge was rebuilt to a different design in the 1820s, the water flowed more easily and therefore became less prone to ice.

[BigAndy]

Just to correct your (knowing) misrepresentation I thought I'd post all our correspondence to this forum. I guess it will be pretty dull for everyone, but I am not prepared to be misrepresented.

So here goes - happy reading.

Re: Not just warmer: it's the hottest for 2,000 years (whine alert)
To JasonC | 09/01/2003 1:28 PM PDT sent
I apologise that this message is private, not public, but I did want to respond to you directly without putting up another post, because I said I wouldn't. It means your points can stand unchallenged in the Forum.

I'm impressed that you've researched this stuff so thoroughly, and I'm grateful for your helpful insights. I find the style of your contribution, a little unhelpful to clear debate. For example, you ask some questions, such as "Tell me the power source..."; "Show me any physical evidence..."

You rightly conclude "You can't." Of course I can't! Otherwise I'd be the one WRITING the IPCC or the NAS reports, not the one suspecting that they probably know what they're talking about!

But your conclusion doesn't undermine my argument. You are blinding people with science - not because you don't believe what you say, clearly you do. But because you know that saying it in such detail in this forum makes it irrefutable without bringing in another scientist to refute it line by line (or not, as the case may be!) The proper forum for scientific discourse is a Scientific Forum and I'll be delighted to hear of any progress you make through established academic and scientific routes in persuading NAS and IPCC of the error of their ways.

Meanwhile for the rest of us, we all need experts to balance and interpret these conflicting ideas. I could choose you as my expert - but that's hard for me, because after all, we've only just met. Instead I choose America's National Academy of Sciences (along with the President, so hopefully not a dumb choice) and the IPCC (co-sponsored by the World Meteorological Organisation and the UN Environment Fund), who both agree that the evidence supports the incidence of human-induced global warming.

The "flat-earth" analogy is all about the fact that politically and economically we are missing opportunities to take advantage of climate change by focusing so hard on refuting the institutional view of what's happening. I just don't think we should be missing those opportunities.

Again, apologies that this is a private post - it's not my normal style.
Re: Not just warmer: it's the hottest for 2,000 years (whine alert)
From JasonC | 09/01/2003 6:09 PM PDT replied
Authority does not exist in science. All the world can proclaim 2 and 2 are 5 and not make it so. You cannot name the power source. You have no reason to believe one exists.

If you go to the documents published by the usual suspects you name, and read their own diagrams, you will find them heroically projecting future power terms from CO2 greenhouse of 2 to 4 watts, max. They can't either.

They can fudge the spin and do, and it apparently can dupe you and those like you. They can't fudge observation numbers without being contradicted immediately.

Anybody who looks at their own numbers can see, plain as a pikestaff, their own estimate of power from incremental greenhouse can't begin to support a temperature change of the size they predict.

They are trading on your basic scientific illiteracy, and that of much of the public. They expect you to ignore the evidence and instead listen to their opinions. That is why they conduct their argument in public reports, as suppose authorities playing to a populist green constituency, not as scientists.

I'm hardly the only one who has noticed the emperor has no clothes. Publicly they can and do excoriate anyone who breaks ranks, whether a Dyson or a Lomberg, but they haven't answered their substantive arguments - or mine, which are distinct.

And incidentally, when you tell me your supposed reasons for answering privately rather than publicly, I don't believe a word of it. You don't answer me in public because you can't, period.

And no, you don't need an expert or to balance anything, you need to drop the pretend stupidity, learn a little basic physics, and use the paperweight between your ears independently, authorities and pieties be damned.
Re: Not just warmer: it's the hottest for 2,000 years (whine alert)
To JasonC | 09/01/2003 7:06 PM PDT sent
Hmm. There are a few factual errors in this response, which I'll deal with first, before I get on to your surprising and unwarranted personal attack. But then, when I read your reply, much of it is a personal attack, so hey, I'll start from the beginning.

First, "Authority does not exist in science." You're right. Consensus, along with some opposing views, however, makes up the normal state of scientific discourse. Sometimes those opposing views turn out to be relevant, sometimes they don't. Indeed, you'll be well aware that the practice of science tends to take evidence that opposes existing consensus and tries to force it to fit the models that are currently accepted. Occasionally, where there is exceptional evidence to the contrary, a new theory will emerge or gain consensus support, and a paradigm shift takes place. This is how science works (at least according to Kuhn, anyway - other philosophers of science differ). Some examples of scientific consensus: Newtonian Mechanics, pre-Einstein; Special Relativity, for much of the 20th Century; Maxwell equations for the behaviour of electromagnetic fields for much of the 19th-20th Century; quantum mechanics for much of the 20th Century. Now, all of these have been challenged in one way or another, and all have been faced with conflicting evidence, but for long periods of time an established consensus existed alongside dissenting views. Significant positive developments were possible as a result of these consensuses (consensi?) - examples would include, well, almost everything that makes up our modern world. You will recall that one of the most eminent critics of the initial wave-particle duality construction applied to quantum mechanics was Einstein himself. But scientific consensus said otherwise and so the transistor, etc was born and the rest is history.

So, I think you oversimplify when you say that Authority does not exist in science.

Second, all the world does not proclaim 2 and 2 are 5. Which is fortunate, because they'd be wrong.

Third, although I can neither name the power source, or have reason to believe it exists, I also have no reason to believe it needs to. See my comments on "Experts" later.

Fourth, if I read the diagrams published by the "usual suspects" I have no reason to believe that I will be able to make more sense of them than they did. See my comments on "Experts" later.

Fifth, "They can fudge the spin..." Who are "they?" The usual suspects, I guess. A collection of government/state appointed experts in the field. I admit it, if they're trying to dupe me, I'm duped! I just don't think they are...because they're "Experts" (see my comments etc etc)

Sixth, I'm not scientifically illiterate (fact).

Seventh, "they expect you to...listen to their opinions". Well, hey, didn't our President ASK the NAS for their opinion? Yes he did - so he ought to listen, and so will I.

Eighth, "Experts". I run a business. When I want to install a new computer network, I hire a computer networking expert to tell me how to do it. I'll generally get a second either internal or external opinion, then I'll go ahead and do it. Or not. I won't, because it would be crazy, teach myself as much as the networking expert knows to decide if he's telling the truth or not. If someone asks me to sign a contract, I hire a lawyer to look at it for me. I don't then go and study as much law as the lawyer did so I can decide if he's giving me good advice or not. That would be crazy. We need experts (so do you - who fixes your car?) The important thing is picking the right ones. I've picked a bunch of eminent US scientists chosen by the President, and a bunch of international scientists chosen by the WMO, UN and international governments. I'm happy to stick with my team. I need them, and frankly I've got more reason to trust their reasoned scientific analysis than I have to trust yours.

Back to point six - just for the record I have a postgraduate degree in Theoretical Physics from Cambridge University, England, where I worked on the theory of macroscopic quantum phenomena with Nobel Physics Prize winner Professor Brian Josephson. I don't consider myself to be scientifically illiterate, and I don't think he did either. I wonder what information you have about me that he didn't that allowed you to reach that judgement. Is it as sound as the information on which you base your climate change theories?

And your point about my private vs public posts - don't embarass yourself by questioning my integrity. I don't question yours.
Re: Not just warmer: it's the hottest for 2,000 years (whine alert)
From JasonC | 09/01/2003 8:08 PM PDT replied
You can question my integrity all you like, it is just fine.

Your stated attitude toward the climate modelers is scientifically illiterate, as is your understanding of the nature of science, and the place of consensus or authority within it. It has no status in science. Only outsiders pay attention to it. Practioners in their own fields judge the men by the argument and evidence, never the argument or evidence by the men. That is what makes it science.

Anyone claiming something is authoritative because credentials (I get more with my breakfast cereal), or appointees, or scientists, or science says so has utterly missed the entire point. The only reason science has been on the whole more reliable than mere opinion is precisely that it resolutely ignores such things.

Science is not a church hierarchy, and when treated like one is just as likely to persist in idiotic errors. It is a method of debunking popular errors (including errors popular among prior scientists), not a method of enshrining sacred truths.

As for running a business, if you know how to do something you can successfully delegate it. If you do not know how to do it and try to delegate it, it will be screwed up 9 times out of 10. Your own experience probably contains examples, if you care to consult it.

As for believing anything they tell you because they are "experts", if a man told you he was an expert on reading sheeps guts and because of the omens they foretell you must do exactly what he says, would you? What if many other people around also regarded him as an expert at reading sheeps guts? What if, heaven forefend, the holy and sacred State regarded him as the Pontificus Maximus, the Highest and Mightest reader of entrails? Would it make the slightest difference?

No, because you are rationally capable of seeing there is no reasonable real relation between patterns in sheeps guts and what you should do. Agreed. And you can see a possible real relation between global climate and what we should do. Also agreed (realizing idiots past also thought so).

But if they tell you something wildly implausible, bordering on physically impossible, will happen - and are repeatedly wrong about it - and it makes no sense - and on examination and questioning they have no answer to even the most obvious quibbles about the seemless relation posited between gut and required behavior - and this is all pointed out to you, perfectly clearly, using only figures agreed by all and arguments you can easily follow - then if you still believed them you'd be a fool.

I'm waiting for a statement of my factual errors in my previous. So far I've seen you claim not to be scientifically illiterate, while thinking science is what historians say it is and is a means of arriving at consensus and enshrining truths, none of which is true even up at the meta level. (You could be right as rain about all of that and still be scientifically illiterate).

When what I was wondering is whether you can understand something nice and simple like the 4th power of temperature law and follow a chain of reasoning through about 3 steps, without saying "I'm not an expert on that" and throwing up your hands. Which should be easy for you.

Instead of engaging, you speak of engagements being for other places and wave authorities and credentials, and for all I know expect pleniary indulgencies for venial transient sins and promulgate doctrines of transubstantiation, because there isn't a particle of actual science in a word you've said.

I'm also still waiting for a power budget.
Re: Not just warmer: it's the hottest for 2,000 years (whine alert)
To JasonC | 09/01/2003 8:36 PM PDT sent
I think we've come as far as we can on this one.

You have your opinion on what constitutes scientific illiteracy, and I have mine. They clearly diverge.

But that's ok.

You're missing my point, and you tell me I'm missing yours (all of them!)

But that's ok too.

You think I need to engage you, I think you need to engage the experts.

And that's also ok!

What's not ok is your pretending that you are part of a rational engaged debate about what's really going on when you seem (by your own admission) to be excluded from the scientific debate. The only reasons I can think of for this exclusion (and I may be wrong) are because: your theories are just bunk, and not worthy of response; or because you refuse to engage the established scientific community seriously rather than speciously; or because you prefer to peddle this stuff as reality to people who (mostly) don't know better and expect to get away with it to support your own political agenda.

I won't proffer any opinion on which of these might be the case, it's just my quick go at analysing the situation. I could be wrong on all three.

I will pick you up on one point though - I (like many other business managers) delagate to an awful lot of people who can do things I can't. That's why I hire them. And if 9 times out of 10, when I delegated to those wxtraordinarily talented people, it got screwed up, I wouldn't be running ANY business let alone one with over 5 million customers a month.

And I wouldn't question your integrity. It's sort of a point of principle - we're all on the same side in this Forum, and we should deal decently, honestly and fairly with each other.
Re: Not just warmer: it's the hottest for 2,000 years (whine alert)
From JasonC | 09/01/2003 8:55 PM PDT replied
"when you seem (by your own admission) to be excluded from the scientific debate"

Hardly. I'm hip deep in it all day long. I just don't play the game of ignoring arguments and evidence and citing, or pretending to, authority instead. It is bunk, and degrades science.

There was a time when at Cambridge any student who disagreed with a premise of Aristotle in public was fined 5 shillings. That's if he recanted when it was pointed out to him. Those that didn't were expelled. We've come a long way, baby, and I ain't going back.

"...to support your own political agenda"

What agenda is that, pray tell? Where in anything I've said on this have you detected the slightest iota of a political agenda? There isn't one. My agenda is to get honest science in place of the politicized group think crap we put up with from the global warming crowd these days. As near as I can figure, yours is to support group think on principle, thinking that is what science is all about. Not so.

"I could be wrong on all three".

Yes, that's true, you could be.

As for us "all being on the same side in this forum", I don't know why you think so. It is an open forum. Anybody can waltz right in, sides be damned. You don't have any particular reason to suppose I'm on your side about anything else. Nor do I about the reverse.

And I for one do not think we've "come as far as we can" on the subject. I don't think we've even gotten started, and I wonder why you want to run off. Here you've got an opportunity to enlighten one of the luddites, who patiently stays to listen to rational argument. Who not only doesn't depend on authority himself, but demands you give him not authorities but science.

You should be pink with glee and bubbling over at a chance to actually explain the substance of the case for global warming. So far, the substance of your case for it is that you'll believe anything, provided the fellow telling you is called an expert by any third body of men.
If that isn't the actual reason for your opinion on the subject, I'm all ears as to what it actually is.

And I'm still waiting for a power budget.
Re: Not just warmer: it's the hottest for 2,000 years (whine alert)
To JasonC | 09/01/2003 9:16 PM PDT sent
Oh dear.

Your paraphrasing is clearly a patent misrepresentation of what I have been saying consistently all along.

But that's ok. I don't have to agree with it!

Here's a plan for you. Just persuade the people that I (and our President) trust as being experts in this field to agree with you, which shouldn't be too hard if your arguments are as obviously right as you claim, and not only will you have convinced me, you'll have convinced many of the world's governments too. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Until you do, I remain thoroughly unconvinced by you and your arguments. Why? Because the people I rely on to give me good advice seem thoroughly unconvinced by you and your arguments.

And in terms of running off - that's a slightly emotive construcion, which I can't agree with. I think, I might put it that, I've made a pretty robust attempt to get across some basic points to you. You're still actively missing those points. I don't know why, because in all other respects you sound fairly smart.

I see no purpose in telling you the same things again, so that you can not understand them again. That's why I think we've gone as far as we can.

But that's ok - you don't have to agree with that either!
Re: Not just warmer: it's the hottest for 2,000 years (whine alert)
From JasonC | 09/01/2003 9:45 PM PDT replied
P.S.

Sunlight total power per sq m of re-radiating earth area is around 370 W (that's 1/4 of the intensity of direct sunlight, because the earth catches a circle and re-radiates the surface of a sphere).

That's without water greenhouse. Down at the surface the total power is higher, because of it. On the other side, a small amount that reaches the surface is re-radiated immediately (earth albedo is about 0.85). Likewise there is some aerosol and cloud reflection. Without any atmosphere at all, the earth would be 30 or 40 below 0 C, whereas actually it is 18 above.

Which means, keeping it rough as the uncertainties require, the absolute temperature (K) goes from something like 240 to something like 290 due to the power difference the whole atmosphere provides. Therefore, up a little over 20%. By the 4th power law, that means roughly 2x the total power. But 2x something less than 370 due to direct reflection etc (the earth wouldn't get all 370 at the surface without an atmosphere).

That back of the envelope-r gives around 650 for the total power at the surface. Perhaps it is 370, perhaps it is 650, minimize the likely error by calling it 500 and mentally leaving a large error bar, +/- 30%.

From then look at the change in power needed as a factor, to go from 291 to 294, or to 296, and stay there against the restoring force of higher re-radiation, following the Stefan Boltzmann 4th power of absolute temperature relation. (294/291)^4 = 1.0419, (296/291)^4 = 1.0705. So to keep the earth glowing 3-5C hotter you need 4.19% to 7.05% more power. From the previous back of the envelope-r, that means 21 to 35 W per sq. meter, plus or minus 30%. 15-45 as a range therefore, with 25-30 as the right order of magnitude.

Now turn to IPCC 2001, table 6.11, figure 6.6. The left hand scale is the absolute power in W per square meter due to net changes in various environmental variables over the last 250 years. First bar on the left, the first segment of it, is CO2 greenhouse, direct. It reads a tad under 1.5. Their figure, not mine.

Add in methane and halocarbons and nitrous oxide (which aren't galloping like CO2), and you can stretch it up to 2.4 maybe. With an uncertainty of half a watt, with the level of understanding for the science involved rated as "high". Aka 1-2 W from CO2, 2-3 W from all the direct greenhouse changes over the past 250 years.

An order of magnitude too small to support a 3-5C increase in global mean temperature, against the restoring force of higher re-radiation.

Put in direct CO2 alone and see what it predicts. 1.5W change to a 500 W original is a 0.3% change. Take the fourth root of 1.003 and you get 1.00075. Multiply by 291 (degrees K), and you get 291.22.

Observed past CO2 greenhouse can account for a 0.22C increase in global mean temperature (over 250 years). It *cannot* account for a larger one. If a larger one is observed, it requires other causes for the remainder of the "signal".

Repeat with the other trace gases included, 2.4 W overall. You get 291.35. All direct greenhouse can account for a 0.35 C increase in global mean temperature over the last 250 years. It *cannot* account for any large one. If a larger one is alleged or observed, it requires other causes.

OK, so I take the whole CO2 effect over the past 250 years. I ignore the diminishing returns aspect of filling up a greenhouse "window" at a particular frequency (once you "saturate" the sky in that color, you intercept fewer and fewer photons for each additional increment of CO2). I accelerate what took 250 years to the next 100. Then just to be generous I double the signal.

So I get 3W of CO2 forcing. From 502.5 I go up to 505.5. That takes me from 291.35 all the way up to 291.785. +.435C, less than half a degree in a century, from double the past power term in 40% of the time. Their headline grabbing predictions are higher by an order of magnitude than what their own numbers are telling them.

Now, wave that away with an appeal to authorities. Pretend you can't follow it despite having a degree in physics. Tell me where it is wrong, not by 30%, but an entire order of magnitude.
Re: Not just warmer: it's the hottest for 2,000 years (whine alert)
To JasonC | 09/01/2003 9:53 PM PDT sent
As I said, I just can't get you to see my point...

Quite separately you may have noticed that someone posted a request for my reply to the forum.

I've forwarded him (privately) our correspondence. I'm assuming you have no problem with that given your expressed wish that it should be public anyway.

With your agreement, I'll forward your latest post also.
Re: Not just warmer: it's the hottest for 2,000 years (whine alert)
From JasonC | 09/01/2003 10:04 PM PDT replied
As I see your point, it is that you will believe anything you are told as long as the authorities doing the telling appear to you to be reputable. Without examination of the actual content of their statements.

If you are trying to get me to see this point, I see it and I despise it. If you have some other point you are trying to get me to see, instead, then so far you aren't doing a very good job of distinguishing it from the previous.

You don't help your cause with games about authorities, credentials, Kuhnian history, public this, request that, private the other. You say you aren't scientifically illiterate and that you know physics. Fine, show it for a change, just to humor me, instead of all the idiot distractions.
Re: Not just warmer: it's the hottest for 2,000 years (whine alert)
To JasonC | 09/01/2003 10:14 PM PDT sent
Ach, seriously, how long do you want this to go on for. Let me repeat what I've already said (which is again different from your paraphrasing):

"We all need experts to balance and interpret these conflicting ideas. I could choose you as my expert - but that's hard for me, because after all, we've only just met. Instead I choose America's National Academy of Sciences (along with the President, so hopefully not a dumb choice) and the IPCC (co-sponsored by the World Meteorological Organisation and the UN Environment Fund), who both agree that the evidence supports the incidence of human-induced global warming."
"We need experts (so do you - who fixes your car?) The important thing is picking the right ones. I've picked a bunch of eminent US scientists chosen by the President, and a bunch of international scientists chosen by the WMO, UN and international governments. I'm happy to stick with my team. I need them, and frankly I've got more reason to trust their reasoned scientific analysis than I have to trust yours."
"I remain thoroughly unconvinced by you and your arguments. Why? Because the people I rely on to give me good advice seem thoroughly unconvinced by you and your arguments."

If you despise that thinking - ok, let's agree to differ.

And sorry to raise the integrity thing again, but I didn't realise we were playing games, I thought we were talking about climate change in a forum where we have respect for the views of other people. If I was wrong, I apologise for wasting your time.

[BigAndy]

Yes, I did log on for the first time yesterday, and it's been great fun! I prefer not to think of myself as having a liberal bent, more representing rational Conservatism. The fun has been realising just how much irrational Conservatism there is out there.

Of course, much less fun is the realisation that these irrational Conservatives (ie the ones I disagree with!) could actually be damaging the Conservative cause in America, which isn't in any of our interests. So, yes, I have been pretty active in taking issue with that.

And wholeheartedly enjoying it too!

[JasonC]

I don't know why you call it mischaracterized, I consider it perfectly accurate. If you think you said something else, all you have to do is explain what that is. So far you've repeated over and over that we should all trust experts because they are experts, which we can tell because they were appointed to things for their credentials.

Remaining bit of private mail -

I really don't care how long it goes on. I'll sit and explain this patiently to anyone who will stay for an answer until hell freezes.

You say "I've got more reason to trust their reasoned scientific analysis than I have to trust yours."

I deny it. You don't understand their argument. If you did, it would be obvious to you that their own empirical, measured numbers and their theoretical projections are, to be as charitable about it as possible, uneasy with one another. You could ask them about this. You could not take hand waving for an answer. But you'd rather not. You'd rather trust them to always be right, implicitly, despite not having a clue whether what they are saying makes any scientific sense.

"I remain thoroughly unconvinced by you and your arguments. Why? Because the people I rely on to give me good advice seem thoroughly unconvinced"

Because the people you rely on to give you good advice, being human beings are falliable, and on this particular subject happen to be wrong. That is all. If you looked into the science instead of remaining forever stuck up at the meta level, you'd probably notice this. Because you and lots of other people don't, they get away with shoddy science.

[JasonC]

Liberal would not be my diagnosis. Centerist Republican spinner for W would be my diagnosis. Notice at one point he said "we are missing opportunities to take advantage of climate change". He does not mean scientific opportunities, or technological ones. He means political ones, and the "we" is W and company.

His campaign here is to rid the right of the odor of flat earthed ness, to increase the respectability of beltway Republicans at liberal cocktail parties and with the editorial pages of the NYT and WP. He'd like the right, which he understands FR to represent (at least as a wacky fringe), to accept this and like it, to see it as politically smart. Let's take credit for fighting global warming, and subsidize agriculture in Red country with tax credits for carbon sequestration or what not. That is concretely what he means.

What he doesn't seem to understand is that opposition to the global warming crowd from the right is not in fact based on anti-intellectualism but on intellectualism. He thinks of the credentialed left as the entire thinking world. He is not aware of the additional split within the intellectual class between a mass of pseudo-intellectuals and a smaller group of rigorous thinkers, the latter of whom incline to conservatism because it makes far more sense, and because it fights against kulturesmog and group think, for actual truth and serious thought. In other words, against the aggressive idiocies of the aforementioned pseudos.

He didn't get the memo on that one. It is above the WP level of analysis.

[Steve Van Doorn]

Thank you very much for posting Jason’s and your comments to one another. I really do appreciate it.

JasonC is a very astute individual. What he is saying sounds complicated but it really isn’t. What he is saying in laymen’s terms is that the so-called ‘experts’ are claiming they can put an infinite burning candle under a very large kettle of water and make the water in the kettle heat up +5 Deg C. It doesn’t take a degree in Chemistry to know that is impossible.

[Hoverbug]

This just in: The sky is falling!!

Hb

[Steve Van Doorn]

That is an interesting chart. Thank you I never seen it before.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Recognize this?

"One of my guiding principles, also, has been the scientist's motto 'Take nobody's word for it' (nullius in verba), a corollary of which is that if scientists as a whole denounce an idea this should not necessarily be taken as proof that the said idea is absurd: rather, one should examine carefully the alleged grounds for such opinions and judge how well these stand up to detailed scrutiny."

---

Global Warming and Cooling are real and observable events. Anthropogenic warming and cooling are not discernable from the natural variation of the system.

To wreck the economies of the world for maybe 1/20th of 1 degree is folly.

[Steve Van Doorn]

“Liberal would not be my diagnosis. Centerist Republican spinner for W would be my diagnosis. Notice at one point he said "we are missing opportunities to take advantage of climate change". He does not mean scientific opportunities, or technological ones. He means political ones, and the "we" is W and company. “

You are good Jason. Very good. (you know I looked up your name and found this thread.
If you where a writer I would subscribe to your news letter Haha )

[JasonC]

Right. Except just to clarify, by "infinite burning" you mean burning for an indefinite length of time. But still just one little candle. (Rather than a possible confusion, an infinitely powerful candle - not meant).

They can get their little candle power source from greenhouse effect of trace gases like CO2. But it can only warm up the giant kettle by 0.2C (past changes), to 0.5C (generous projections of hypothetical future changes).

At one point in the correspondance, which I got late in compared to its place in the series, BigAndy said I should just persuade all the climate scientists they are wrong - "which shouldn't be too hard if your arguments are as obviously right as you claim". It isn't hard to convince people who pay attention to the evidence and are willing to address the substance, instead of hiding behind authorities. But you can't convince someone who stops their ears.

All scientific argument is voluntary. The truth is a free offer, take it or leave it. If many prefer to leave it because they find the truth inconvenient, you can't force it into them. (Which is, incidentally, another reason why authority is useless in matters of truth).

It seems never to have occurred to BigAndy that some of the climate scientists might be political about it all, rather than objective. He thinks it entirely normal that political anti-intellectual flat earth ism should reign at FR, because after all it is obviously a fever swamp of right wing crazies. But of course, learned conclaves of appointed scientists are always objective and politics never enters in to anything they say or do.

That one is a free open forum where any argument can sink or swin on its merits, as science hopes or claims, and the other is an entirely political affair of prestige, has never struck his imagination. He is at bottom a very conventional guy. Presumably all clergyman are holy, too.

To point out the careful delphic phrasing the climate scientists engage in for the sake of headline spin, consider the constant referrence to whether global warming is real, and then whether it is human induced. About such things they claim conclusions. About the actual point in dispute, how large greenhouse warming has been and can be expected to be in the future, they keep as quiet as possible, when it is a matter of getting everyone on board for the Official Pronouncement.

Afterwards they can go back to claiming 5C warming, and just hope nobody notices there is no scientific consensus on that figure, even over whether that figure should have a decimal point in front of it. The honest ones know that it should. The dishonest ones don't care and say that it shouldn't, without a scrap of real evidence (they put that answer in a model, then say "the model says so"). The fanatical ones are frantically looking for a magical hidden power amplifier epicycle to save them from the choice between their scientific integrity and their ideological world view.

[BigAndy]

Hmm. OK, I think I get the basic drift of a kettle argument. I just don't claim to be an expert with all the facts at my disposal to either agree with Jason, or disagree with him. Interestingly, and helpfully, a whole bunch of other people who I respect and trust, who do have all the facts at their disposal, don't agree with Jason. I'm sticking with them. I think that is a reasonable position for an astute individual to take.

What I find MOST interesting about this discussion is the basic thesis that if a non-expert can't disprove a technical theory, the non-expert must be wrong, and the author of the technical theory must be right. Which is clearly nonsense.

[Sloth]

Looking back over a succession of earlier centuries, the temperature fluctuated slightly, becoming slightly warmer or cooler by 0.2C in each century.

Does anyone seriously think you can detect temperature variation of *two-tenths of a degree* by looking at centuries-old tree rings? You might as well read tea leaves.

[BigAndy]

There are two parts to this quote. The first section is patent nonsense ie "Take nobody's word for it." For example, how many scientists do you know who replicated experiments on black box radiation before they believed in the quantum-based explanation of its origins. Er, I don't know any. But I know plenty who believe the theory. All science is based on building on the work of those who have gone before - Newton, I think, said something similar.

The corollary makes more sense, and is broadly along the lines I have been advocating (and I think serious scientists would advocate). When an idea is put forward, it should be examined carefully, and judged against detailed scrutiny. The point is, that examination should be carried out by someone who has the skills and knowledge to do that effectively, not by a layman such as myself. Hence my (very early) recommendation to Jason that he engage in a Scientific Forum where he can convince those who need to be convinced, and who can offer a fair challenge to the details of his argument. Meanwhile I will assume that the smart guys who have investigated this for the President and the IPCC might have considered his views already, and rejected them.

So, thank you for your post - I think it clarifies things splendidly!

[Sloth]

Just persuade the people that I (and our President) trust as being experts in this field to agree with you, which shouldn't be too hard if your arguments are as obviously right as you claim, and not only will you have convinced me, you'll have convinced many of the world's governments too. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Do you believe these experts are untainted by political bias?

[BigAndy]

I think it's hard to find anyone - expert, or non-expert - who is untainted by political bias, overtly or subconsciously.

[BigAndy]

"It seems never to have occurred to BigAndy that some of the climate scientists might be political about it all" - wrong. Quite the opposite.

[BigAndy]

"the other is an entirely political affair of prestige" - come on, be serious. Just because you say these things doesn't make them true. And this isn't true, it's a gross distortion. Why do you want to continually mislead people? I don't get it.

[Sloth]

OK. But given that there are biased people on either side of any contentious issue, and that in some cases bias can prevent one from accepting rational arguments brought by one's opposition -- isn't it a little odd to evaluate a position on the basis of whether a group of people with an opposing agenda find it convincing? You yourself mentioned that the IPCC was a UN creation -- can any objective observer of the UN think that it operates from an altruistic pursuit of knowledge & human welfare? Should President Bush, who you keep referencing, have yielded to the expert opinions of UN weapons inspectors & the Security Council on what to do about Iraq, refraining from any action until he could change their minds?

[BigAndy]

The more I read, the more I think you're intentionally trying to mislead. Which I don't think is helpful.

You have no monopoly on truth. The reason I have invested so much time in this particular debate is that I am passionate about truth, honesty and integrity in debate, science and politics.

Just peddling a technical theory to non-experts over and over and over again does not make it truth. Just because non-experts can't disprove your theory doesn't make it truth. Surely this is OBVIOUS?! To all those of you who can't see that, you need to think about it a little harder.

I suggest you talk to the scientific community, and persuade them with the power of your argument, that you are right. That's a valid test of your theory. Repeating it over and over again to people who can't challenge it is NO TEST AT ALL. Again, to those of you who can't understand that that is obvious, think harder.

Disagreeing with the results of years of scientific research from credible scientific institutions does not make you a paragon of virtue and truth and the people who disagree with you dishonest and liars. Can't you see the absolute hypocrisy in your argument? If not, think harder.

Until then, get a grip. Just because you say something is true, doesn't make it true. Just because you say something is wrong, doesn't make it wrong. The level of this debate deserves to be higher than that.

[BigAndy]

I'm not going to drag Iraq into this one.

The IPCC not a UN creation. It is sponsored by the World Metorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Programme. Any country can gain access to, and representation on, the IPCC. Does that mean they have a political agenda? Possibly. I think their political agenda is probably to try their best to work out what is really going on, and report that to their member governments so that those governments can take appropriate well informed action in response. I welcome the fact the President Bush was sceptical though, and looked for a second opinion, from the National Academy of Sciences. Now, I would think that their political agenda in preparing a report commissioned by the President would be to try their best to work out what is really going on, and report that to the President so that he can take appropriate well informed action in response.

I think rolled up with that there is the fact that a lot of people have careers wrapped up in the global warming phenomenon, and that a report that said it was not human-induced might threaten those careers. And that will have an influence on individual scientists. But overall I believe in the broad integrity of the scientific community, and whilst that is a factor, I don't believe it to be an overriding one. I certainly think that if there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary of an established scientific consensus, that once that evidence was presented it would be rationally evaluated. If it was indeed overwhelming I don't think these institutions would persist with a blatantly fraudulent argument.