Eddie:
Your recent post makes some good points some – but not all – of which I agree.
In response to my saying,
“However, there is no evidence (n.b. none, not any of any kind) for significant influence of recent increase of CO2 on climate.”
you say,
“The evidence is the increasing concentrations of heat-retaining CO2 correlating with increasing temperatures. What other evidence do you have in mind?”
But, as I explained and illustrated, correlation can never prove causation (although lack of correlation can disprove it).
Importantly, the “increasing concentrations of heat-retaining CO2” correlates poorly “with increasing temperatures” and, as I said, solar variations correlate better to the increasing temperatures. That does not prove that either or neither or both of these suggested causes is the true cause of increasing temperatures.
In science, those who suggest a hypothesis have a duty to provide some supporting evidence for their case: others only have a duty to demand that they prove it.
Evidence for the AGW hypothesis would be provided by some climate change that the AGW hypothesis alone explains. But there is no observed climate change that requires AGW to explain it.
Humans have been altering local climates since before pre-history. Except for those anthropogenic local changes, all climate changes prior to the industrial revolution were ‘natural’ (i.e. they were not anthropogenic). And, except for local (and understood) anthropogenic climate changes, all observed recent climate changes are similar to climate changes in the centuries prior to the industrial revolution. So, the null hypothesis is that except for local changes only ‘natural’ climate changes have happened recently and are happening at present.
In other words, AGW is not a scientific hypothesis because it attempts to explain nothing. AGW is a political hypothesis that attempts to justify the behaviours of people.
I agree with you when you say;
“although we cannot precisely predict the temperature in any specific week in spring, we can be reasonably confident that overall temperatures will increase over time.”
I agree because you make a probabilistic prediction based on a known climate cycle (i.e. the seasons). But the AGW hypothesis asserts that anthropogenic emissions of GHGs will distort the climate cycles. As I explain above, the assertion is without foundation. And as I explained to you previously, actions taken in response to the AGW hypothesis threaten the lives of millions of people.
In other words, the AGW hypothesis is like somebody shouting “Fire!” in a crowded room because they think a fire could exist although there is no sign of a fire.
Then you assert;
“… ENSO-type events are not directly relevant to global warming, since the ENSO only redistributes the existing energy within the climate system. And since the ENSO is a short-term event, there is no need to make predictions for any specific event to make general forecasts or scenarios for the future.”
Sorry, but that is an error. AGW is a hypothesis that humans are affecting global climate. If GCMs cannot model the climate effects that do affect global climate then there is no reason to accept the GCMs’ ‘projections’of AGW’s effects.
And ENSO events do have global effects ranging from alteration to the Indian monsoon to lowering precipitation in Australia. Indeed, I cited it as an explanation of a climate cycle that has global effects. And I said that the GCM’s failure to model these observed global climate effects must give pause to acceptance of GCM predictions of changes to climate from a not-observed climate effect such as AGW.
I am not alone in making this point. It is based on the empirical facts so several others have stated the same opinion. For example, Roger Pielke Snr has very recently made the same point at
http://climatesci.org/2008/05/19/the-spatial-pattern-and-mechanisms-of-heat-content-change-in-the-north-atlantic-by-lozier-et-al/
Pielke comments on a recent analysis of NAO
(ref. M. Susan Lozier, Susan Leadbetter, Richard G. Williams, Vassil Roussenov, Mark S. C. Reed, and Nathan J. Moore entitled “The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic” originally published in Science Express on 3 January 2008, Science 8 February 2008, Vol. 319., no. 5864, pp. 800 – 803, DOI: 10.1126/science.1146436).
saying,
“This paper illustrates yet another shortcoming of the global climate models that are used to predict the climate system in the coming decades. They cannot accurately simulate the important climate feature of the North Atlantic Oscillation (the NAO). As the authors, themselves write “it is premature to conclusively attribute these regional patterns of heat gain to greenhouse warming“. This shortcoming of the multi-decadal global models applies to other low frequency climate variations, such as ENSO and the North Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which are major factors in the climate that we experience.“
Simply, if the models cannot model the climate effects we experience – and they cannot – then it is not reasonable to suppose that they can predict changes to the climate effects we experience. And that is what I was trying to say.
You say;
“the preface to the Heartland Institute report suggests that there is a worldwide conspiracy of activist scientists and governments to foist AGW theory on an unsuspecting public for the purposes of amassing wealth and power. Not only is this highly unlikely, it also poisons the well and inevitably colours the evidence that follows.”
I agree. Indeed, that Institute is very right wing so I – being an old-fashioned British Socialist – tend to distrust them. However, I see no reason why I should not accept an invitation to speak at their conference, and I did. I only attended science sessions at that conference but I can assure you that the presentations I heard were fair and honest.
A disconnect needs to be made between the scientists who spoke and the organizers of the conference. I think few of the scientists are connected with the Heartland Instute; e.g. I am not.
This raises the broader point that most scientists on both ‘sides’ of the AGW debate are ‘doing their best’ in terms of their work. But we are all human so personal motives do affect our actions and our opinions. As I said, I have my snout in the pro-AGW trough because that is where almost all the research funds are. I wish there were significant funds for alternative climate research. For example, for years I have been trying to get funds to support an experiment to directly measure the radiative effect of atmospheric CO2 concentration but nobody wants it done in case the work shoots the goose laying the golden eggs of AGW research funding. Remember, research is enabled by research funds, research administrators have a duty to sustain the flow of research funds, and researchers can only do the research that is funded.
Tenekes lost his job as Director of the Dutch Meteorological Institute and at least two US State climatologists have lost their jobs because they refused to toe the pro-AGW line. Not everybody needs to be sacked for everybody to get the message.
Then there are the effects of the activists on scientists. The eco-terrorists are despicable. They lie, smear, defame and attack climate realists in every way possible. I have suffered much (two computer systems destroyed by concerted and sophisticated attacks, complaint to the Methodist Church – I am an Accredited Methodist Preacher – that my work in the world was discrediting the Church with result that I had to cease work and so lose income while this was investigated, etc.), but others have had worse. For example, Tim Ball has had death threats and I have not had those. Look at the some of the so-called debate in this forum (it is typical) and consider the proportion of scientists who would be willing to put their heads above the parapet to be shot at like that.
For every scientist who speaks against AGW there are dozens who have been scared off from speaking out.
So, check the science and not who says it. There is good and bad science on both sides of the AGW debate.
And in terms of checking the facts you are completely mistaken when you say;
“Another example is your claim that the IPCC has “dropped” Mann’s hockey stick. This is not the case, as evidenced by the latest report. Like the 1998 claim, the term “dropped” may not be exactly false, since the hockey stick has a less prominent place in the report than previously, but it is certainly misleading.”
The IPCC HAS dropped the hockey stick and it is NOT in the latest IPCC report (AR4). Indeed, AR4 says that historical temperature variation is less than reported in the previous IPCC report that contained the hockey stick. Read AR4 for yourself and see.
Another example of you having been misled is your statement saying;
“Similarly, the sceptic claim that ‘anthropogenic global warming stopped in 1998’ is also subtly misleading, not just due to the cherry-pick, but also because many claimants reject AGW. In that case, any claim that AGW stopped in 1998 is for these people not a scientific claim, but in fact a political one, even if ironic.”
It matters not if some people do or do not accept the AGW hypothesis. The truth of a matter is important not who says. And the truth is that global warming has stopped. Joe D’Aleo puts it clearly at Icecap
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/cold_april_for_the_united_states/
As you say, “subtle misdirections can be more destructive to reasoned debate than outright falsehoods”. I strongly agree, but I observe that it seems somebody has given you some misdirections. So, I again ask you to check facts for yourself. Please do not accept the word of me or anybody else: instead, be skeptical and check all the words you get about AGW.
Richard
