A Bad Week for Climate Change Alarmists*

The credibility of climate change science took two more hits this week. The first occurred when it was revealed that a prominent Greenpeace activist Sven Teske had been a lead author of a recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change renewable energy report. The second happened when researchers at the University of Colorado admitted that they had included an unacknowledged "adjustment" in their sea level rise figures.

So to the first: Steve McIntyre, the proprietor of the Climate Audit blog, looked into the IPCC renewables study that claimed: 

Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.

This statement comes from an IPCC press release. The study on which the claim was made wasn't made public until a month later. By then the media had moved on, and the meme that renewables could solve climate change by 2050 launched. What McIntyre found was that the scenario highlighted in the press release was ulitmately derived from a report issued jointly by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council. That's right - activists and lobbyists collaborating. Who would have thought?

Mark Lynas, who is decidedly not a climate change denier*, has called foul on this conflict of interest. To illustrate the problem, Lynas invites readers to consider this scenario:

An Exxon-Mobil employee – admittedly an energy specialist with an engineering background – serves as a lead author on an important IPCC report looking into the future of fossil fuels. The Exxon guy and his fellow lead authors assess a whole variety of literature, but select for special treatment four particular papers – one produced by Exxon-Mobil. This paper heralds great things for the future of fossil fuels, suggesting they can supply 80% of the world’s energy in 2050, and this headline is the first sentence of the ensuing IPCC press release, which is picked up and repeated uncritically the world’s media. Pleased, the Exxon employee issues a self-congratulatory press release boasting that his paper had been central to the IPCC effort, and urging the world’s governments to get on with opening up new areas to oil drilling for the benefit of us all.

Well. You can imagine the furore this would cause at Greenpeace. The IPCC would be discredited forever as an independent voice. There would be pious banner-drops by Greenpeace activists abseiling down Exxon HQ and harshly criticising the terrible stranglehold that fossil fuel interests had achieved over supposedly independent science. Campaigners everywhere would be up in arms. Greenpeace would feel doubly justified in taking direct action against new oil wells being opened up in the Arctic, and its activists could demonstrate new feats of gallantry and bravery as they took on the might of the world’s oil industry with some ropes and a rubber dinghy somewhere near Greenland.

How is the Exxon scenario different from what has just happened with the IPCC’s renewables report? And why – when confronted with this egregious conflict of interest and abuse of scientific independence – has the response of the world’s green campaigners been to circle the wagons and cry foul against the whistle-blowers themselves?

Very good questions. It's possible - not likely in my opinion - but possible that the Greenpeace report bears some resemblance to reality. But the big problem here is that Greenpeace's Teske seems to have been reviewing his own work. That's like an accountant auditing himself.

The second foot-shooting occurred when it was discovered that climate change researchers at the University of Colorado have been quietly adjusting the figures for sea level rise. Sea level rise is considered one of the major problems posed by climate change as glaciers around world melt and drain into the sea. As Fox News reports:

The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

Hold on a minute:

Climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said that the amount of water in the ocean and sea level were two different things.

"To me… sea level rise is what's measured against the actual coast," he told FoxNews.com. "That's what tells us the impact of rising oceans."

Nerem replies that the adjustment adds just an inch over a century to the figures which doesn't amount to all that much when computer models project that the future rise is sea level will be 2 to 4 feet over the coming century.

Now Nerem says that his group is thinking about making both the adjusted and unadjusted data public. Well, yes.

Just a note: Remember the disappearing Pacific island nations? A 2010 study finds:

...86% of islands remained stable (43%) or increased in area (43%) over the timeframe of analysis. Largest decadal rates of increase in island area range between 0.1 to 5.6 ha. Only 14% of study islands exhibited a net reduction in island area.

Climate researchers are reporting results which many claim will require vast economic adjustments. Naturally, a lot of vested interests will push back against these findings. If climate researchers want to be believed, they must be completely transparent about their results and methods. 

Kudos to Maxim Lott for sending along the sea level adjustment item.

*The terms each side calls the other.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hugh Akston||

    The second happened when researchers at the Colorado University admitted that they had included an unacknowledged "adjustment" in their sea level rise figures.

    This should be University of Colorado.

  • ||

    HA: Done.

  • JLT||

    And the AGW crowd meets the standards for honesty and reliability needed to even start to justify massive social changes because........

  • Anoynmous Coward||

    Good. Intentions.

  • Old Man With Candy||

    It would be more transparent if the author of this blog was revealed.

  • ||

    omwc: Never can tell when the server squirrels will attack. In any case, blame me.

  • sevo||

    Ron,
    Your by-line disappeared again.

  • ||

    Yikes. Very mischievous squirrels today.

  • ||

    Probably suffering from heatstroke, what with the elevated temperatures and all.

  • Old Man With Candy||

    It's 104 fucking degrees here in Austin. I'm ready to drink the AGW Koolaid- with lots of ice.

  • Old Man With Candy||

    Blame Tex Avery.

  • Juice||

    How is the Exxon scenario different from what has just happened with the IPCC’s renewables report?

    It's different because Greenpeace doesn't make or sell renewable energy.

  • ,||

    OK, they make and sell alarmism, or only watermellon flavored "social justice"?

  • ||

    But Greenpeace lives financially off the hysteria they concoct, which translates into millions in contributions each year.

  • ||

    "...And it stinks doubly because the Greenpeace report was originally co-authored by the European Renewable Energy Council – an industry lobby group whose prospects depend on state subsidies which can be expected to be further increased once its views are given the ‘official’ stamp of approval from the IPCC. "

    from here: http://judithcurry.com/2011/06.....ment-76944

  • ||

    "It's different because Greenpeace doesn't make or sell renewable energy"

    Ideology is an exponentially more powerful motivator than financial gain. Ask a suicide bomber.

  • ||

    Who needs a byline with a post this long? We all know it's Ron.

  • Colin||

    In the very near future, "global warming" will go down as the greatest scientific hoax ever perpetrated.

  • ||

    No, it will be quietly and conveniently forgotten, just like Silent Spring.

  • ||

    I was dissolved by acid rain right after I froze to death because of global cooling. Also, I had to walk to work because we ran out of gas ten years ago, right after the population hit one hundred billion.

    Plenty of dangers facing mankind, and one of the catastrophic possibilities may actually do us in. But let's be smart about it and not run screaming from every low-probability event. There's probably a much greater chance of us getting clobbered by an asteroid or comet--something we can do nothing to prevent right now--than us being exterminated by climate change. Yet we aren't freaking out about that, even though the planet has been pummeled over the millennia.

  • Sparky||

    As long as Bruce Willis and Robert Duvall are alive no asteroids will ever reach Earth.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    But if they do, they will hit either New York or LA. No other place on earth is possible (such as way out in middle of nowhere in the Pacific Ocean)

    That's the way it always is on those documentary shows on the History channel.

  • mattrue||

    Who's gonna be our chicken little Al Gore of interplanetary doom that can save us from these control freaks?

  • ||

    But it's not about *us* being exterminated. *We* are too clever for that. It's about what we may destroy forever before we work out how to solve the problem. That's what makes me sad.

  • sevo||

    "No, it will be quietly and conveniently forgotten, just like Silent Spring."

    And yet Ehrlich still gets ink for the collection of lies and failed predictions that is "The Population Bomb".

  • Bill||

    Silent Spring has not been forgotten at all. It is still looked upon as a masterpiece that saved the world from DDT and mass extinction of birds.

    Most people don't realize it cost millions of lives to malaria and that DDT is being used again in some places.

    Silent Spring gets the same treatment as The Population Bomb.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    That's what I've seen with my kids in school. I had to inform them about the huge tradeoff in human lives myself.

  • ||

    Apropos of nothing.... friends of mine live directly across from her house where she wrote Spring, about a mile from my house. It's held in a sense of sacred awe.

    I have to constantly resist the urge to do doughnuts on the lawn, as the voices tell me to.

  • ||

    The voices of freedom.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I would have to constantly resist the urge to spray pesticides on the lawn.

  • ||

    Listen to the voices! Listen to the voices!

  • alan||

    Put up a plaque 'This house is where a lie that killed millions was created.' Sounds like your neighborhood needs to be unnerved.

  • Apogee||

    just like Silent Spring.

    No shit, I was just on an 'eco tour' (don't ask - family stuff) where the entire Carson mythology was repeated as though it was scientifically settled fact.

  • sevo||

    "(don't ask - family stuff)"
    Oooh! Sounds painful.

  • Apogee||

    Not the family stuff, the eco tour. Not my idea, and normally I avoid that shit.

  • ||

    I juts discovered that the wife made a $25 donation to some eco-facist .org around here. Now I have to go and blow at least 3 times that amount on an impulse buy to even things out.

    Some transgressions cannot go unpunished.

  • JLT||

    If climate researchers want to be believed, they must be completely transparent about their results and methods.

    No, Our Betters have the right to tell us what facts to believe in order go get the Right Conclusions from us. We can't be trusted w/ the facts. We're too inferior.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    If the data does not fit your assertions, add 0.3mm so that it does?

    The Hadley researchers must have gotten hired on at Colorado.

  • JLT||

    Yes. If the world is not consistent w/ progressive dogma, then the world is wrong.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I can't find any difference between progressivism and various fundamentalist faiths.

  • J||

    There is one difference: religious fundamentalists occasionally question their faith.

  • ||

    And haven't caused quite the body count.

  • sevo||

    But the *intentions* are so good!

  • -_-||

    I can't find any difference between progressivism and various fundamentalist faiths.

    The difference is the externality of major media concurrence.

  • Chony||

    There's a consensus among those who believe in man made global warming that man made global warming is real.

  • ||

    If you are an honest guy like Bailey most certainly is and you actually believe in this hookum, you would think you would want to kick the frauds and communists out of the field before they destroy all of it's credibility.

    As it is, the rest of us nonbelievers are left to ask, if it is so damned certain and such a "consensus" why do these people feel the need to lie all the time?

  • ||

    You don't even need to get to the lying part to question it, dude. Every aspect of the AGW crowd's argument has been textbook "we have no actual evidence", from the demonizing of dissenters, to the constant goalpost moving, to the abbreviated time scales, and more.

    The lying was a given; it was just a matter of when it was finally exposed.

  • ||

    Al Gore was predicting the apocolypse for 2010 in his 1992 Book Earth in Balance. The apoclyspse is always right around the corner. We can always avoid it, if we just act now.

  • ||

    Act now, and you can also save the Moon! Our operators are standing by!

  • ||

    First 25 callers also get our special dinosaur destroying astroid protection free.

  • ||

    Wait! That's not all! We'll throw in this one-of-a-kind Al Gore bobblehead to the first 100 callers!

  • Apogee||

    We can always avoid it, if we just act now.

    And 'acting' somehow always translates to 'taking money from other people'.

  • -_-||

    Some dufus muffs his "rapture" prediction and is justly ridiculed, but Al Gore gets a pass. I like how that works.

  • GSL||

    I've got another one for you. California's Air Resources Board was recently ordered to revise the policy analysis for the cap-and-trade program they're implementing. Now, the C&T-related law requires the state to get down to 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, so CARB updated their 2008 analysis of expected 2020 GHG levels. And, apparently, 3 years of deep recession have gotten California halfway to meeting their goal, as the 2011 forecast shows far lower 2020 GHGs, even without C&T. Suck on that, alarmists.

  • ||

    Great! Then all we need is more years of a terrible economy and we'll have done our part to avert global climate catastrophe! Which will amount to something like a .0001 degree F lower average global temperature. Just imagine the worldwide carnage if California hadn't done its part.

  • ||

    Now you are catching on PapayaSF. You can't use communism as an excuse to destroy freedom and capitalism anymore. So instead they are using this.

  • GSL||

    Exactly. I've been predicting for some time that the CA global warming bill will be a smashing success. Not because its policies will actually work or accomplish anything good, but because they'll drive enough businesses and population away that the emissions come down. Just another day at the office in Sacramento.

  • J||

    Isn't that the whole point of cap and trade, that is will reduce economic activity, hence reducing emissions?

  • JLT||

    " why do these people feel the need to lie all the time?

    BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE AND WE ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN PREVENT IT!!1eleven1!! THAT IS HOW IMPORTANT WE ARE!!! SEE OUR IMPORTANCE??!?!?!

  • ||

    Credibility is really hard to get back, once you lose it. I've been saying all along that it makes sense that we keep an eye on the climate to make sure we're ready for any major changes--caused anthropogenically or otherwise--and to note any human activities that might actually have a detrimental effect on the environment.

    That said, it's amazingly obvious that we have a lot of uncertainty about the climate as a whole, and talk about "consensus" and "certainty" is unwarranted. We've got some evidence of a warming trend that appears to have some anthropogenic factors. Absolutely, this is cause for concern, and we should continue to monitor the climate and learn more about our effect on it. However, the idea that if we don't act now we're all going to die has this weird, infomercially vibe. Kind of makes me wonder what's being sold to me.

    Catastrophic climate change, caused primarily by human factors, is an extraordinary claim. As such, it requires extraordinary evidence, or, at least (given the stakes), pretty damned convincing evidence. That simply does not exist.

  • Barry O||

    But, but, I want the Europeans to like me. If we don't implement cap and trade soon, they will never respect me.

  • ||

    They love you forever. That's why they gave you that nice Peace Prize. Besides, they're ever so grateful that you're protecting their oil in Libya.

  • Barry O||

    OK, but do they RESPECT me? That's a lot harder to earn. I don't want to go down in history as Carter, loved, but not respected.

  • Sparky||

    You're going to wake up one morning and find $20 on the dresser and that's it. Not even a goodbye note.

  • Tony||

    No, you are just not informed that it exists. Your post has all the merit of a creationist trying to sound reasonable by asking that we teach the controversy.

  • sevo||

    Tony|6.17.11 @ 4:27PM|#
    ..."Your post has all the merit of a creationist trying to sound reasonable by asking that we teach the controversy>"

    I guess an ad-hom is an improvement over your standard lies/strawmen.
    But not much.

  • Paul||

    No, you are just not informed that it exists.

    A guy trying to explain religion and Jesus to me once said the exact same thing.

  • ||

    No, you are just not informed that it exists. Your post has all the merit of a creationist trying to sound reasonable by asking that we teach the controversy.

    Darwin relied on extraordinary proof to support his claims....the IPCC relies on pamphlets produced by Greenpeace.

  • ||

    Another major issue is what to do about it. Unfortunately, the people most concerned about climate change seem to prefer the most universal, collectivist solutions, instead of trying to focus on the solutions with the best cost/benefit ratio. Plus, while they say "everyone must share the pain," they want to exempt the largest and fastest growing problems (e.g. China), while attacking the US for not doing enough.

  • ||

    Well, it's clear that the developing countries will not play ball with dramatic changes to fossil fuel use. In fact, it's almost as clear that the rest of the world won't do it, either.

    Given that, what can we do but try to adapt? In the near term, anyway. I fully support cleaner and more efficient energy sources. Heck, there's a level where it's embarrassing that we're so dependent on stuff that burns. So the best solution would appear to be that which stimulates the most wealth creation to fund the most scientific and technological progress. Hard to beat free(er) markets for that. So, their proposed command-and-control solutions are probably the worst possible path to take.

  • Apogee||

    makes me wonder what's being sold to me.

    You don't understand. If you were being 'sold' something, you would receive something for your money.

    In this scenario, they just take your money and you get nothing.

  • sevo||

    "But the big problem here is that Greenpeace's Teske seems to have been reviewing his own work."

    Supposed to be reviewed by peers? Well, who could be more 'peerical' to you than yourself?
    See, this is all on the up-and-up.

  • DJF||

    “””Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.”’’

    This is not a lie, its a threat, if they get their way oil, coal and nuclear powerplants will be shut down and what is left will be renewable, it will also be in very short supply and unreliable.

  • ||

    I picked up on that as well. That's a pretty low bar to set for yourself. I'd say "supplying the same energy used per capita in the US to the entire global population, plus growth for increases in standards of living" would be the appropriate measure for energy usage in 2050. Can we get there with renewables alone?

    If not, your plan ain't happening. There's a billion people in China who want a modern life. And another billion in India who'd like the same. And another billion in Africa who want in on the good life. Any one of those groups will require the energy consumed in the US and Europe combined. Absent a major breakthrough in energy technology that produces renewable energy extremely cheaply, pretending that anything less than 100% of all fossil fuels that can be removed from the earth will be burned is a bit naive.

  • ||

    ooh - I love riding 8 miles to work on the inter-city foot-driven trolley.

  • Sparky||

    If Fred Flintstone could do it then so can we.

  • ||

    But remember: Neither China nor India, the two fastest-growing carbon emitters in the world, will end up being subject to any restrictions on burning coal and oil. They will never agree to cripple their economic growth to please Greenpeace. Only the western industrialized countries and Japan are the targets of the environmentalists. There won't be any reduction in GLOBAL co2 emissions, as the major sources barrel ahead, especially China with its unrelenting building of new dirty coal plants.

  • GrizzlyAdam||

    "Climate researchers are reporting results which many claim will require vast economic adjustments."

    Which is why we are being pounded with catastrophic doomsaying by a self-appointed elite of "scientists', politicians, professors, and moralists. The drum they beat—totalitarianism—has never changed. It just gets beat with different blunt objects.

  • Apogee||

    vast economic adjustments

    Adjusting the funds from your account into theirs.

  • amoral||

    Regardless, I don't understand the urgency of saving the world all of the time. I'm gonna be dead, you're gonna be dead, what the hell do we care? Just in general, think about somebody who sacrifices their life for a cause; what was the point? You're gone now, idiot.

    I'm probably just imagining all of you anyway. In that case though, it's curious that I don't make you a bit smarter than you seem to be.

  • ||

    It's for the children, amoral.

    Thanks, folks, I'll be here all week...

  • Sparky||

    You know, if somebody could convincingly tie everything we do "for the children" directly to childhood obesity I think we could start a good fight. Just think, everything we do for them makes them lazier and more complacent to the point that they won't be able to help themselves in the future.

  • ||

    This is a blow to the scientific theory of climate change in the same sense that Mark Furman was a blow to the prosecution theory that OJ Simpson killed his wife.

  • sevo||

    Danny|6.17.11 @ 4:32PM|#
    "This is a blow to the scientific theory of climate change in the same sense that Mark Furman was a blow to the prosecution theory that OJ Simpson killed his wife."

    You should ask for your money back from that remedial reading course.

  • ||

    Your comeback is even less impressive than John Travolta's.

    Quit while you are behind.

  • sevo||

    Your post was less impressive that a beer fart.
    Don't bother trying to catch up.

  • Apogee||

    You have that backwards - Climate Change is the theory of 'the real killers' that OJ searched for on every golf course in the country.

  • Coeus||

    and its activists could demonstrate new feats of gallantry and bravery as they took on the might of the world’s oil industry with some ropes and a rubber dinghy somewhere near Greenland.

    That guy is lucky he wasn't killed or seriously injured. For starters, just about every rig everywhere is considered a high-value terrorist target. They get very jumpy. Not to mention the the dangers involoved in an untrained person wandering around up there. Highly trained people die every year. He's lucky he didn't get his head knocked off by a crane load.

  • ||

    I love how progressives are always nattering on about critical thinking skills, yet fall flat when confronted with an issue like this.

  • ||

    If the great global warming hoax accomplishes anything, God please let it be getting Romney to lose the GOP nomination.

  • Marcello||

    I've been trying to convince my friends that "libertarian" isn't synonymous with "sticking your head in the sand". You guys aren't helping.

  • ||

    If the science were there they wouldn't be lying about it.

  • ||

    Natural selection has the science behind it....yet some did lie about piltdown man.

    Of course Natural selection predicted genes which turned out to be proven with DNA.

    Climate changes has failed to predict jack shit.

  • Paul||

    They predicted that the climate would change, hence the term "climate change".

    It feels different than it did a few years ago: Climate change is fact, QED.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Predict the future? They can't even explain the past yet.

  • ||

    The IPCC has been consistently wrong in it projections for 15 years in a row....

    When scientific models fail to predict accurately the thing any scientific minded person should do is to question the underlining premise of those models.

    Trying to convince idiots like you to take your blindfold off is not sticking ones head in the sand.

  • Neu Mejican||

    The IPCC has been consistently wrong in it projections for 15 years in a row....

    Citation needed.

  • ||

    http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-c.....alised.png

    “Based on the IPCC Business as Usual scenarios, the energy-balance upwelling diffusion model with best judgement parameters yields estimates of global warming from pre-industrial times (taken to be 1765) to the year 2030 between 1.3°C and 2.8″C, with a best estimate of 2 0°C This corresponds to a predicted rise from 1990 of 0.7-1.5°C with a best estimate of 1.1C. “

  • Neu Mejican||

    Not sure that graph supports your statement.

    You might want to at least post Clive's corrected graph that he posted in response to "valid criticisms" (his words) of the graph you link to.

    For fun, here's another analysis.

    http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....mparisons/

    This one includes the confidence bands.

  • ||

    Huh...both the Best "correction" and the real climate use the IPCC's 2007 predictions....In other words they are predicting the past.

    I showed you how the 1990 report was wrong.

    Also as you well know the 2007 report was also wrong in that it predicted a .2 degree increase from 2000 to 2010....and the actual temperature increase has been flat to slightly negative.

    Which is funny cuz they could not even predict 7 years of the past correctly.

    Anyway it is nice that the IPCC in 2007 made estimates so 20 years from now we can show ho they were completely wrong just as past IPPC reports were wrong.

  • Neu Mejican||

    I showed you how the 1990 report was wrong.

    The thing is, ya didn't. You showed me a graph without any context. Looking at the work of the guy who produced the graph, I am gonna guess he would argue with your assertion as well.

  • ||

    Looking at the work of the guy who produced the graph, I am gonna guess he would argue with your assertion as well.

    Oh really?

    No evidence of any positive temperature feedback with increasing CO2 levels is found.

    http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208

  • Neu Mejican||

    Your assertion was

    "The IPCC has been consistently wrong in it projections for 15 years in a row...."

    You then showed a graph without context that shows how a (somewhat dubious) comparison (e.g., linear assumptions no error bars) puts observations below projections since about 2006.

    Again you take a vague accusation and try to apply specific information to it willy-nilly in a way that does not support your vague accusation.

    So, we are left with "citation needed." Show me the data that supports your assertion.

    1) consistently wrong
    2) for 15 years.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Another look at predictions versus outcomes. This one is a bit more detailed.

    http://www.fool-me-once.com/20.....tions.html

  • ||

    I've been trying to convince my friends that "libertarian" isn't synonymous with "sticking your head in the sand". You guys aren't helping.

    If you think "libertarian" is consistent with "State control of the economy to control CO2 emissions", well, think again.

    It is, however, consistent with "unbridled skepticism of weak science being paraded as a pretext for State control of the economy to control CO2 emissions."

  • ||

    As Fox News reports:

    "Watts up with that" reported on this a in early may....and it was really no secret that they were adjusting the sea levels...they posted on it when they made their new web site live:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.....do-now-up/

    I think they should have two graphs as well and sea level rise is sea level rise...not the sea level rise of some hypothetical world....still they were up front about the adjustment and it really is not that hard to subtract .3 from the graph....this is not something to hyperventilate about.

  • ||

    By the way bigger climate news has hit.

    The sun is about to go sun spot silent.

    The last time that happened was during the little ice age.

    Does that mean it is about to get cold? Who knows...there has not been an established mechanism in which sun spots = warmer and less sun spots = colder.

    But the correlation between sun spots and climate is more closely linked then CO2 and climate.

    It may not mean the Hudson river will freeze over in the winter of 2020 like it did in the 1700s...but it will mean we will find out if there is a link between sun spots and climate.

  • Paul||

    Winter is coming.

  • Ben Wolf||

    "But the correlation between sun spots and climate is more closely linked then CO2 and climate."

    ". . .it will mean we will find out if there is a link between sun spots and climate."

    One of these refutes the other. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which.

  • sevo||

    I got it! Call on me!
    OK, they refute each other, but I'd bet the second is missing a qualifier or two.

  • ||

    Bla bla bla.

    There are those who say there is no link as I am sure you know.

    I suspect it would be harder for them to claim there is no link if temperatures start to drop in the present.

  • Ben Wolf||

    What's fascinating is that so many will reject the ability of scientists to project future temperatures acurrately, but will accept a projection of future solar activity as settled fact.

    Note to all: astronomers failed to predict the recently exited minimum the sun began to experience in 2006. Let's not pick and choose which scientist to believe because we do or do not like what they are telling us.

  • Coeus||

    You got a cite for that crap you were spewing the other day about the sun remaining the same for the last 60 years?

  • sevo||

    Ben Wolf|6.17.11 @ 9:00PM|#
    "What's fascinating is that so many will reject the ability of scientists to project future temperatures acurrately, but will accept a projection of future solar activity as settled fact."

    No kidding! Who are all these gullible folks? I seem to have missed them.

  • ||

    Joshua, increased solar activity (which is correlated with sun spots) produces a much stronger magnetic field around the sun, which reduces the amount of cosmic radiation that strikes the earth. Cosmic radiation has been implicated in cloud formation, which reflects sunlight and reduces global temperature. So increased solar activity reduces cloud formation and lets the earth heat up. There's a lot of research on this right now. Take a look at "The Chilling Stars" by Svensmark and Calder, a book that explains the research and its results so far.

  • ||

    Yeah i know all that...I read watts up with that...but i am holding my cards close to my chest until this stuff is clarified.

    Unlike the "Humans are destroying the earth crowd" i like this stuff to be vetted first.

  • Sean Healy||

    I saw the Hudson frozen as far south as the GWB in the mid 1990s.

  • Paul||

    The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail

    This one reminds me of that chart they put out in the 90s of the U.S. showing red dots for warming and blue dots wherever there was cooling. They used a small red dot to show 'no change'.

  • ||

    More recently Stieg's paper on Antarctica (which was later proven to be complete bullshit and any significant warming he found was shown to be an artifact of his flawed methodology) in which blue shading was used for cooling and red shading was used for warming and in-between was white....only the white shading was shifted well into cooling so the colored temp map looked mostly white with some red and very very little blue.

  • Ben Wolf||

    Ronald,

    One of your own links refutes your characterization of the Sea Level Research Group as being insufficiently "transparent". They announced in 2005 they were correcting for isostatic adjustment by 0.3 mm per year, and that anyone who didn't agree with that decision could ["s]imply subtract 0.3 mm/year if you prefer to not include the GIA correction.

  • Ben Wolf||

    Sorry, should not say in 2005, but rather May of 2011.

  • sevo||

    Yes, but you'll have to search the agate type to find it from the home page:
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
    Look carefully in the upper right. Find it?
    Sorry, 'footnote on Pg 87' looks like an attempt to, well, hide something.

  • Coeus||

    It's actually in the notes underneath the graph. Whether they just did that because of criticism or whether it has always been that way, I don't know.

  • sevo||

    "It's actually in the notes underneath the graph."
    Where?

  • Coeus||

    Included global mean glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) correction of -0.3 mm/yr (Peltier, 2009 & Peltier, 2002) for all missions

  • sevo||

    So footnote on page 89? Got it. See how 'transparent' that is?

  • Coeus||

    I don't know, it jumped out at me, but maybe that was because I was looking for it. I'm far more interested in Bens's threadshitting in a dead thread the other day about solar activity remaining the same for the last 60 years. I think he got his talking points mixed up and is now ashamed to admit it.

  • Apogee||

    I think he got his talking points mixed up and is now ashamed to admit it.

    That's impossible - he'll be along any time now to offer a refutation.

    Any time now.

  • ||

    Look above to my comment about it:

    Joshua Corning|6.17.11 @ 5:43PM|#

    As Fox News reports:

    "Watts up with that" reported on this a in early may....and it was really no secret that they were adjusting the sea levels...they posted on it when they made their new web site live:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.....do-now-up/

    I think they should have two graphs as well and sea level rise is sea level rise...not the sea level rise of some hypothetical world....still they were up front about the adjustment and it really is not that hard to subtract .3 from the graph....this is not something to hyperventilate about.

    They showed their work the day it was presented.

  • sevo||

    Also buried in the 'footnote':
    "You may also note that rate of sea level rise over recent years has been less than the long-term average. This is believed to be due to the recent La Nina's we have been experiencing, though research on this is continuing. We will soon add a plot to the web site illustrating this effect."

    So the home page plot doesn't reflect this? And we're not sure why? And we'll get around to correcting that sometime soon?
    Sniff, sniff; beginning to smell.

  • Ben Wolf||

    It states their belief that La Ninas are impacting sea-level rise, and cautions that research is continuing. They didn't "change" anything, so there's nothing to get around to correcting. They plan on posting an illustration of their hypothesis. And they're telling us all this publicly, so what do you think they are hiding?

  • sevo||

    OK, maybe I'm a bit 'sensitive' to certain claims.
    But this:
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
    Doesn't see to show that leveling. The mean is shown and stated as "3.1mm [..]/year"

  • Nostro||

    "La Ninas are impacting sea-level rise"

    I've never understood this kind of excuse making. They claim to be able to predict some long-term measureable such as a change in the sea level and then, when their prediction proves to be wrong, blame it on a short-term localized weather phenomenon. Shouldn't their long-term predictions account for short-term localized observations? By saying that their predictions are wrong because of La Ninas, aren't they just admitting that their models are flawed? The presence of La Ninas should be an output of their models, a prediction, not treated like an independent input.

  • Coeus||

    Exactly. It's the opposite of how scientific research is supposed to be done. They start with a conclusion, then look for factors to explain why their conclusion was wrong, instead of revisiting the original theory.

  • sevo||

    See: Peak Oil.
    Ooops, well, we really didn't plan on...
    See: the New Ice Age.
    Ooops, well, we really didn't plan on...
    See: Population Bomb.
    Ooops, well, we really didn't plan on...
    Late last year, there was a poster here who mentioned the 10-year temp decline must be some sort of temporary effect, and s/he was quite certain it was a result of X.
    I asked whether the fact that s/he was theorizing the cause of an unexpected decline wasn't a cause for a bit of humility, tempering the demand for government control of (stuff).
    Well, yes, but not too much; the demand still stood. This time, it's different, you see.

  • Neu Mejican||

    By saying that their predictions are wrong because of La Ninas, aren't they just admitting that their models are flawed?

    The prediction is for the long term trend. Short term variations are expected and accounted for. The explanations for those variations are not about the long term predictions. Short term variability also does not disprove the long term prediction. The "weather is not climate" trope raises its head here. The trend lines have stayed within the confidence bands of the long term predictions.

  • Nostro||

    The "weather is not climate" trope raises its head here.

    That's not what is going on here. The researchers are treating La Ninas as if they are an unaccounted for input when they are actually a short-term output, like a hurricane. At the very least, this is an extremely sloppy explanation. If their long-term models cannot account for a probability of La Nina formation and must be kludged by adding the effects of La Ninas as they occur, then their long-term models are useless and nothing the researchers claim about the long-term has any validity.

  • Apogee||

    their long-term models are useless

    For predicting climate, yes, but they work great for fundraising!

  • Ben Wolf||

    Ronald,

    The IPCC gets a great deal of flak for getting everything wrong. It might be helpful if you'd do a post on the Copenhagen Diagnosis which reviewed the 4th Assessment's work and projections.
    http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Co.....s_HIGH.pdf

    Reviewed three years after being published, it turns out the critics are right about the 4th assessment getting a lot wrong. It has consistently underestimated the effects of global warming.

    For example: the observed temperature trend trend is +.17 degrees C, while the IPCC projections are for (you guessed it) +.17 degrees C. So far so good, but here's where that darned alarmist IPCC screws the pooch.

    On page 9 the graph shows that CO2 emissions are now exceeding the IPCC's worst-case scenario.

    On page 30 we see that the decrease in arctic ice has greatly exceeded the IPCC's worst-case scenario.

    On page 37 we discover that sea-level rise has been 80% faster than the best-case estimate of the 3rd assessment, and at the upper boundary of the 4th assessment.

    We read on page 44 that temperature reconstructions using ice cores and lake sediments confirm Michael Mann's tree-ring temperature reconstruction. The hockey stick lives!

  • Coeus||

    You got a cite for that shit you were spewing all over the thread the other day about the solar activity remaining the same for the last 60 years?

  • Coeus||

    On page 9 the graph shows that CO2 emissions are now exceeding the IPCC's worst-case scenario.

    So shouldn't that mean that CO2 has less of an effect than they thought? If the temperature trend remained the same? Should't it have been higher as well?

  • Nostro||

    In other news, three of Jeanne Dixon's predictions turned out to be true.

  • sevo||

    "The hockey stick lives!"
    So when is the rapture now scheduled?

    "On page 9 the graph shows that CO2 emissions are now exceeding the IPCC's worst-case scenario."
    Begging the question. Is the proxy indicative?

    "On page 30 we see that the decrease in arctic ice has greatly exceeded the IPCC's worst-case scenario."
    And how is cherry picking paying these days? See the note about the Antarctic? Sorta left that out, did you?

    "On page 37 we discover that sea-level rise has been 80% faster than the best-case estimate of the 3rd assessment, and at the upper boundary of the 4th assessment."
    On page 37, we find (fudged) data are ~40% lower than the IPCC predictions.
    Check: http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Co.....s_HIGH.pdf
    Compared to:
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
    Note the Copenhagen projection shows 6mm increase by 2010, while the measured amount (including the fudge factors) shows ~3.75mm by 2010.

    "We read on page 44 that temperature reconstructions using ice cores and lake sediments confirm Michael Mann's tree-ring temperature reconstruction. The hockey stick lives!"
    We read on Pg 44 that someone selects data:
    (deleted link; two/post. Google earth's climatic history)

    On page 40, we learn that those who can't get predictions done well are more than willing to 'predict' human response to claimed 'tipping points'.
    Which is the MOST important point: I don't doubt the climate is changing and would be surprised if it was long-term stable.
    But political/economic policy based on those, who like Ehrlich are willing to claim only they (and by extension) gov't policy is the solution need to go soak their heads.
    That'd be you.

  • ||

    +100

    I was afraid I would have to do that work.

  • Neu Mejican||

    a report issued jointly by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council. That's right - activists and lobbyists collaborating. Who would have thought?

    1) Bad judgment by the IPCC.
    2) I can't help but note the irony that this sentence is posted here. I wonder if the same skepticism was ever put forth for CATO Institute/Reason foundation collaborations on this topic.

  • Neu Mejican||

    As a follow up...what would Ron's spin have been had the IPCC used this report instead?

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

  • ||

    Ummm It depends....

    Was it peer reviewed?
    Would the author be his own reviewer at the IPCC?

    Cuz the green peace pamphlet was not peer reviewed and the author of the pamphlet reviewed his own garbage at the IPCC.

    Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

  • Neu Mejican||

    That said, it's amazingly obvious that we have a lot of uncertainty about the climate as a whole, and talk about "consensus" and "certainty" is unwarranted. We've got some evidence of a warming trend that appears to have some anthropogenic factors. Absolutely, this is cause for concern, and we should continue to monitor the climate and learn more about our effect on it.

    I agree.

    However, the idea that if we don't act now we're all going to die has this weird, infomercially vibe. Kind of makes me wonder what's being sold to me.

    That vibe seems to adhere to all policy discussions these days. This one is not special in that sense. I think Nassim Taleb position on this is worth juxtaposing with yours.

    Climate Change. I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion (climate experts, like banking risk managers, have failed us in the past in foreseeing long term damages and I cannot accept certainty in a certain class of nonlinear models). This is an extension of my general idea that one does not need rationalization with the use of complicated models (by fallible experts) to the edict: "do not disturb a complex system" since we do not know the consequences of our actions owing to complicated causal webs. (Incidentally, this ideas also makes me anti-war). I explicitly explained the need to “leave the planet the way we got it” .
  • Nostro||

    I explicitly explained the need to “leave the planet the way we got it”.

    Yeah, the development of agriculture was a really bad thing and people should have stuck to using caves for shelter. Might be hard for Nassim Taleb to get others to sign on to his program though. There are too many people spoiled by steady food supplies and protection from the elements.

  • Neu Mejican||

    I think you are reading too much into that. He is essentially putting forth a "do a little harm as possible" position.

  • Nostro||

    climate experts ... have failed us in the past in foreseeing long term damages

    When did that happen? How could it have happened? The climate experts claim to make long-term predictions and there haven't been people running around calling themselves climate experts long enough for their predictions to have been either proved or disproved. Conveniently, they will have collected their money and fame, lived comfortable lives and died before they ever have to face the consequences of any inaccurate predictions they may have made.

    do not disturb a complex system

    How does one even live life without constantly risking the disturbance of complex systems?

    Incidentally, this ideas also makes me anti-war.

    This last marks Taleb as a non-serious thinker. A person can be as anti-war as they like, but that won't reduce their risk from the actions of people who aren't anti-war. In fact, pronouncing oneself anti-war increases risk since it informs possible aggressors of the lower risk of a negative outcome to themselves should they start a war.

  • ||

    do not disturb a complex system

    the most complex thing that we know of in universe is the human brain...

    Yet anyone posting here is perfectly willing to disturb as many of those complex systems as possible.

  • ||

    But that assumes that CO2 actually changes the climate. It is just question begging. And as far as "leaving the planet the way we go it", that ship sailed by our mere existence.

    I would say Taleb is an idiot. Question begging and bald assertion is not argument.

  • Apogee||

    Taleb isn't an idiot, in that he's refuting the Climate Change methodology by attacking what is arguably it's fatal error - the unwarranted necessity for predictive certainty using fallible modeling to represent a complicated system.

    The only time you need doomsday certainty like that is if you're trying to steal a great amount of money.

    Where he goes wrong is his intimation that non-interference can even be possible - Does he expect us to believe that he never travels by air?

  • Neu Mejican||

    John|6.18.11 @ 1:15AM|#

    But that assumes that CO2 actually changes the climate.

    Yes, it does take our basic understanding of c02's impact on climate as a given. While there is certainly uncertainty about how serious the impact of anthropogenic c02 will be...the basic premise that it has an impact is not really in question.

    It is just question begging. And as far as "leaving the planet the way we go it", that ship sailed by our mere existence.

    As I said above...he is using strong language to put forth a fairly moderate position. Do as little harm as possible. He would probably put it "be hyper-conservative in the face of risks, and hyper-aggressive when you see a chance to benefit."

    I would say Taleb is an idiot. Question begging and bald assertion is not argument.

    You are welcome to say that Taleb is an idiot. But you would be wrong. The quote I posted is not his complete argument. It is a response to someone calling him a climate change "denier."

  • Nostro||

    While there is certainly uncertainty about how serious the impact of anthropogenic c02 will be...the basic premise that it has an impact is not really in question.

    Yes, it is. Not everyone subscribes to your faith.

  • ||

    While there is certainly uncertainty about how serious the impact of anthropogenic c02 will be...the basic premise that it has an impact is not really in question.

    CO2 is not a pollutant...it is plant food.

  • Nostro||

    CO2 is not a pollutant...it is plant food.

    And without CO2, Pringles would be impossible.

  • ||

    "leaving the planet the way we go it"

    I would argue we do not "got" the planet in the first place.

    If we do got it than I would argue that earth in its "natural" state is the mostly deadly thing a mankind can own.

  • The New Paradigm||

    ...New Global Chilling......evil corporations have overreacted by greedily cashing in on carbon offsets resulting in excessive pollution controls, therefore depriving the atmosphere of the beneficial effects of carbon emissions....

  • ||

    My family has lived in the Dallas area for 4 generations. Triple-digit Summers have always been the rule here. Not the exception.

  • ||

    Hell i live in Washington state...the east side of the mountains....

    ...and a winter without a foot of snow and a summer not breaking 100 degrees is considered odd.

  • GILMORE||

    WE REQUEST DISCLOSURES

  • Paul MacRae||

    The last I heard, Ron Bailey had joined the alarmists in believing in human-caused, catastrophic warming. Just asking....

  • ||

    You better hope that climate change is due to human action; if not, what's the alternative?

  • ||

    Ron seems to have missed the point: Some seabeds formerly depressed by glaciers are rebounding, notably Hudsons bay and the Baltic.

    As the sea floor there rises, water flows into the ocean.

    More water there makes sea level rise a little.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement