Following the trail of denier lies

AGW deniers, universally known for being totally full of crap, seem to be ramping up their lies and baseless attacks this holiday season.

This is how it works.  One denier makes a  baseless claim, as a comment on a blog:

Personal anecdote:
Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:

Successful candidates will:
1) Demonstrate AGW.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.

Another denier blogger at “Bishop Hill” , taking the unsourced, vague, unsubstantiated, anonymous comment as fact states:

This confirms the stories that I’ve been hearing over the last few years.

There you have it.   That is all it takes to convince a deep thinking “skeptic”.  Not 1 of 48 commentors (at time of this posting) pointed out the obvious, shall we say weakness in this argument.

Then, the stampede starts.  (Also see Jez’s post on this here)  Deniers, not known for their creativity, start linking to the story, making the same point themselves, etc.  Pretty soon, CLIMATEGATE II!

Here is the “climate skeptic” linking to the same comment and going on and on about biases in funding, the corrupting nature of funding only being available for AGW “believers”, etc.  And the dopey commentors – skeptics! –  take it hook, line and sinker.

Here is an example from Pete:

So much of this is anecdotal and hearsay. There is a very easy way to deal with this in the next IPCC report: adopt the judicial model of majority and dissenting opinions for the major findings and recommendations. Since there is alleged bias in selection of IPCC members that might limit dissent, include links to “amicus briefs” from outside individuals and organizations. Construct a website in which outside individuals could register their name, affiliation and simple support or opposition to specific findings and recommendations.

Ironically, the anecdote he refers to isn’t this BS post he is commenting on, but instead the IPCC report, which is sourced, includes figures, all supported by data that can be downloaded, peer-reviewed scientific papers, etc.  But the argument and legend based on a skeptic blog comment gets a free pass.  Yup, these people are really critical thinkers.

I made a comment over at ClimateSkeptic asking for a source of such a funding agency.  Lets see if anyone responds.   We have performed this experiment before at CS;  the skeptics usually shy away when asked for facts, citations, etc to support their nonsence.

UPDATE:

Still no response to my query.  But I noticed two other commenters also had some issues with this logic and science-by-blog-comment approach.

Shills:

I agree that this post relies too heavily on anecdotes. That story about the funding application, if real, was possibly taken out of context.

Hunter:

How fucking gullible can you get? Did you bother to look up who that commenter was? Did you try to find out whether they were actually a scientist, or if they had ever in fact published a climate-related paper? Clearly not. You just found a statement that fitted in with your retarded beliefs, and parroted it unquestioningly.

Nice post about ocean acidification on ClimateProgress

lubSeated

There is a nice post about ocean acidification over at ClimateProgress.  It includes several videos from Jane Lubchencho’s congrestional testimony on climate change and ocean acidification.

The full hearing is online here.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFqu6DpQlO4&w=425&h=344]

There is also a quote from Ove and a link to another good story on the Christian Science monitor.

Corals and plankton with chalky skeletons are at the base of the marine food web. They rely on sea water saturated with calcium carbonate to form their skeletons. However, as acidity intensifies, the saturation declines, making it harder for the animals to form their skeletal structures (calcify).

Analysis of coral cores shows a steady drop in calcification over the last 20 years,” says Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of CoECRS and the University of Queensland. “There’s not much debate about how it happens: put more CO2 into the air above and it dissolves into the oceans.

When CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you put calcification out of business in the oceans.” (Atmospheric CO2 levels are presently 385 ppm, up from 305 in 1960.)

Australian’s singing for their supper at COP15.

http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=8130055&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=00ADEF&fullscreen=1

Australia represent at COP15 from climateshifts on Vimeo.

Coming out of the COP15 meeting, I came across a bunch of rambunctious young Australians. They were protesting Australia’s involvement in supplying 30% of the world’s coal. Their singing was pretty much in tune and their lyrics fitting.

Update – in case anyone missed the cultural reference, the protest song is a cover of a very famous
Australian cricket anthem from back in the 1970’s (click here for lyrics):

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL6mWgioXyA&w=480&h=385]

Coral reefs and climate change, a message for Copenhagen

http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=7962248&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=00ADEF&fullscreen=1

Coral reefs and climate change, a message for Copenhagen from Earth Touch on Vimeo.

Coral reefs are the most biologically diverse habitats of the oceans and face extinction due to climate change by 2050 … We’re hoping that the politicians and heads of state who attend the UNEP 2009 climate change conference in Copenhagen will make positive amendments to global environmental policy and help save coral reefs and ultimately protect the amazing planet we live on. (see more at www.sealthedeal2009.org and www.earth-touch.com

)

CO2 @ COP15: “Coral reefs don’t do well above about 350ppm”

[flickr video=4171621577 secret=ff35e5187f w=400 h=223]

COPENHAGEN. Dec 9, 2009. Extinction of Coral reefs and 10-20% of marine species is likely if greenhouse gases aren’t brought down to 350ppm, warned Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg from the University of Queensland. He gave a presentation at the US Pavilion at the COP15 climate negotiations in Copenhagen about the threat of climate change to the world’s coral reefs. Over 500 million people living in approximately 90 nations are dependant in some way on coral reefs.

Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg was a contributing author to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report in 2007, which shared the Nobel Prize with Al Gore.

“Carbon and coral reef ecosystems are not sustainable at temperatures that increase up to 2 degrees above the pre-industrial or concentrations of CO2 above 450ppm.”

“Eliminating these habitats will inevitably lead to about 10 to 20% of marine biodiversity going extinct. Thats all those organisms that are highly dependant on coral reefs. And losing coral reefs will have enormous issues for 500 million people living in approximately 90 nations.”

“In the longer term we will have exacerbation of the problems of storm damage and sea level rise if we lose the coastal protection service that coral reefs provide.”

“So one of the most difficult things for scientists to do in a policy environment that finds it difficult to deal with emissions is to tell the truth. Now the truth is that coral reefs don’t do well above about 350ppm CO2.”

“So any pathway in terms of policy has to bring CO2 down below 350ppm. Otherwise we are not going to have coral reefs. And on that pathway we must minimise the amount of time where we get close to 450ppm and these thresholds that are looming. This means some dramatic reductions in emissions. If we don’t make that decision, there is a lot of peoples livelihoods hanging in the balance.” (Read More)

Update from Copenhagen: How things have changed.

cop_logo_1_r

Well, I have been here for a little over three days.  The weather remains grey and non-descript with a bone slicing chill that makes wearing a beanie a delight.  I must admit, however, I am a little worn out – crowds have a way of doing that to you.  And it has been a big year.

Wandering around the Bella Centre in Copenhagen, I have been almost overwhelmed by the number of grassroots organisations that are present. There must be hundreds.  Each one proposing clever ideas by which to solve little parts of this global crisis.  One’s head aches with the amount of information that is being pumped out.

I keep asking myself, is this all for naught or will something magical happen here among all this creativity and goodwill?

I have also been reflecting on how different the current meeting is relative to one I attended in The Hague almost 10 years ago. That was COP6, which was suspended without agreement due to disagreements over carbon sinks among other things.  I remember ‘cunning’ proposals from the Australian delegation being greeted by the Europeans who exclaimed “it may be hard to define what a forest is, but we do know that they are something that kangaroo cannot jump over”. Australia was keen to define scrub land as forest and so on.

This was in the dying embers of the Clinton administration and in the period when John Howard was in the ascendancy in Australia.  This was when Kyoto went off the rails.

Several things are different now. One is that rapid climate change is on our doorstep with the dramatic loss of Arctic summer sea ice and the escalation of fire, storm and flood related impacts.  These incredible changes are hard to ignore.

The second thing is the very different attitude to this meeting with respect to science.  I remember wondering around COP6, feeling a little at a loose end.  But here, it seems that everywhere you look, people are hungry to know what is happening and how much time we have left before we see major impacts.

The last thing is a feeling of thinly disguised despair.  Scratch the surface of this meeting, with all its optimism, excitement and drive, and you peer into a chasm.  This chasm is a world in which the climate has run amok, and the future of us and our children has been dashed upon the rocks.

Let us hope that our leaders will steer us away from this chasm.  To do this, our leaders must come out of the negotiations with a firm agreement that cuts emissions by at least 30% by 2020 and by over 90% by 2050.

Nothing less is acceptable.

WMO finds 2000–2009 the warmest decade; so much for that “global warming pause” meme

Geneva, 8 December 2009 (WMO) – The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global combined sea surface and land surface air temperature for 2009 (January–October) is currently estimated at 0.44°C ± 0.11°C (0.79°F ± 0.20°F) above the 1961–1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.2°F. The current nominal ranking of 2009, which does not account for uncertainties in the annual averages, places it as the fifth-warmest year. The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989). More complete data for the remainder of the year 2009 will be analysed at the beginning of 2010 to update the current assessment.

This year above-normal temperatures were recorded in most parts of the continents. Only North America (United States and Canada) experienced conditions that were cooler than average. Given the current figures, large parts of southern Asia and central Africa are likely to have the warmest year on record.

Climate extremes, including devastating floods, severe droughts, snowstorms, heatwaves and cold waves, were recorded in many parts of the world. This year the extreme warm events were more frequent and intense in southern South America, Australia and southern Asia, in particular. La Niña conditions shifted into a warm-phase El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in June. The Arctic sea ice extent during the melt season ranked the third lowest, after the lowest and second-lowest records set in 2007 and 2008, respectively.

This preliminary information for 2009 is based on climate data from networks of land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, as well as satellites. The data are continuously collected and disseminated by the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs) of the 189 Members of WMO and several collaborating research institutions. The data continuously feed three main depository global climate data and analysis centres, which develop and maintain homogeneous global climate datasets based on peer-reviewed methodologies. The WMO global temperature analysis is thus based on three complementary datasets. One is the combined dataset maintained by both the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom. Another dataset is maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the United States Department of Commerce, and the third one is from the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The content of the WMO statement is verified and peer-reviewed by leading experts from other international, regional and national climate institutions and centres before its publication.

Final updates and figures for 2009 will be published in March 2010 in the annual WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate.

Regional temperature anomalies

The year 2009 (January–October) was again warmer than the 1961–1990 average all over Europe and the Middle East. China had the third-warmest year since 1951; for some regions 2009 was the warmest year. The year started with a mild January in northern Europe and large parts of Asia, while western and central Europe were colder than normal. Russia and the Great Lakes region in Canada experienced colder-than- average temperatures in February and January, respectively. Spring was very warm in Europe and Asia; April in particular was extremely warm in central Europe. Germany, the Czech Republic and Austria reported temperature anomalies of more than +5°C, breaking the previous records for the month in several locations. The European summer was also warmer than the long-term average, particularly over the southern regions. Spain had the third-warmest summer, with hotter summers reported only in 2003 and 2005. Italy recorded a strong heatwave in July, with maximum temperatures above 40°C, and some local temperatures reaching 45°C. A heatwave at the beginning of July affected the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and Germany, and some stations in Norway experienced new maximum temperature records.

India had an extreme heatwave event during May, which caused 150 deaths. A heatwave hit northern China during June, with daily maximum temperatures above 40°C; historical maximum temperature records were broken for the summer in some locations.

In late July many cities across Canada recorded their warmest daily temperatures. Vancouver and Victoria set new records, reaching 34.4°C and 35.0°C, respectively. Alaska also had the second-warmest July on record. Conversely, October was a very cold month across large parts of the United States. For the nation as a whole, it was the third-coolest October on record, with an average temperature anomaly of -2.2°C (-4.0°F). Similarly, a very cold October was reported in Scandinavia, with mean temperature anomalies ranging from -2°C to -4°C.

The austral autumn (March to May) was extremely warm in Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and southern Brazil. With daily temperatures ranging from 30°C to 40°C, several records were broken during this season. By the end of October, an extreme weather situation affected north and central Argentina, producing unusually high temperatures (above 40°C). Conversely, November was abnormally cold in the southern part of the region, with some rare and late snowfalls.

So far, Australia has had the third-warmest year on record. The year 2009 was marked by three exceptional heatwaves, which affected south-eastern Australia in January/February and November, and subtropical eastern Australia in August. The January/February heatwave was associated with disastrous bushfires that caused more than 173 fatalities. Victoria recorded its highest temperature with 48.8°C. The northern region experienced a cold summer, however, with anomalies reaching -3°C to -4°C in some places. Winter was exceptionally mild over much of Australia. Maximum temperatures were well above normal across the entire continent, reaching 6°C to 7°C above normal in some parts. The national maximum temperature anomaly of +3.2°C was the largest ever recorded for any month.

read the full report here

trend

Result from three Global datasets: NOAA (NCDC Dataset) , NASA (GISS dataset) and combined Hadley Center and Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (UK) (HadCRUT3 dataset)

About those hacked emails…

There are more than enough detailed posts on the web to convince any fair-minded person there isn’t anything in those emails expect proof that climate scientists, like the rest of us, say some rash things on email.  Here is a list of my favorites with links:

Climatologists under pressure: an editorial in Nature

The CRU Hack-Context: from RealClimate

Steve Schneider on Huff Post

The Union of Concerned Scientists

The Pew Center (a very detailed analysis)

A Pew Center editorial

120909

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY&w=425&h=344]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs6ofn46xUY&w=425&h=344]

The precautionary principle and climate change

friedman-ts-190

Finally, after a multi-year sabbatical of irrelevancy and a long flirtation with American Neocons, Thomas Friedman appears to be back in form.  In yesterdays NYT, he published a great essay about the precautionary principle, relating it, as countless environmentalist have in the past, to the need to consider protecting the environment from potential future degradation that we can never be sure will happen.  Essentially buying life insurance for a highly valuable asset.  I like this argument.

“When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.”

I also agree that there are so many added benefits of reducing CO2 emissions and developing alternative energy sources, it really doesn’t matter whether AGW is real or not.  We should do this anyway.  And as Friedman argues, paraphrasing Dick Cheney,  if there’s a 1% chance that AGW is real, we need to address it given the potentially catastrophic effects.

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: December 8, 2009 in the New York Times

In 2006, Ron Suskind published “The One Percent Doctrine,” a book about the U.S. war on terrorists after 9/11. The title was drawn from an assessment by then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who, in the face of concerns that a Pakistani scientist was offering nuclear-weapons expertise to Al Qaeda, reportedly declared: “If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new type of threat: a “low-probability, high-impact event.”

Soon after Suskind’s book came out, the legal scholar Cass Sunstein, who then was at the University of Chicago, pointed out that Mr. Cheney seemed to be endorsing the same “precautionary principle” that also animated environmentalists. Sunstein wrote in his blog: “According to the Precautionary Principle, it is appropriate to respond aggressively to low-probability, high-impact events — such as climate change. Indeed, another vice president — Al Gore — can be understood to be arguing for a precautionary principle for climate change (though he believes that the chance of disaster is well over 1 percent).”

Of course, Mr. Cheney would never accept that analogy. Indeed, many of the same people who defend Mr. Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine on nukes tell us not to worry at all about catastrophic global warming, where the odds are, in fact, a lot higher than 1 percent, if we stick to business as usual. That is unfortunate, because Cheney’s instinct is precisely the right framework with which to think about the climate issue — and this whole “climategate” controversy as well.

“Climategate” was triggered on Nov. 17 when an unidentified person hacked into the e-mails and data files of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, one of the leading climate science centers in the world — and then posted them on the Internet. In a few instances, they revealed some leading climatologists seemingly massaging data to show more global warming and excluding contradictory research.

Frankly, I found it very disappointing to read a leading climate scientist writing that he used a “trick” to “hide” a putative decline in temperatures or was keeping contradictory research from getting a proper hearing. Yes, the climate-denier community, funded by big oil, has published all sorts of bogus science for years — and the world never made a fuss. That, though, is no excuse for serious climatologists not adhering to the highest scientific standards at all times.

That said, be serious: The evidence that our planet, since the Industrial Revolution, has been on a broad warming trend outside the normal variation patterns — with periodic micro-cooling phases — has been documented by a variety of independent research centers.

As this paper just reported: “Despite recent fluctuations in global temperature year to year, which fueled claims of global cooling, a sustained global warming trend shows no signs of ending, according to new analysis by the World Meteorological Organization made public on Tuesday. The decade of the 2000s is very likely the warmest decade in the modern record.”

This is not complicated. We know that our planet is enveloped in a blanket of greenhouse gases that keep the Earth at a comfortable temperature. As we pump more carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases into that blanket from cars, buildings, agriculture, forests and industry, more heat gets trapped.

What we don’t know, because the climate system is so complex, is what other factors might over time compensate for that man-driven warming, or how rapidly temperatures might rise, melt more ice and raise sea levels. It’s all a game of odds. We’ve never been here before. We just know two things: one, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays there for many years, so it is “irreversible” in real-time (barring some feat of geo-engineering); and two, that CO2 buildup has the potential to unleash “catastrophic” warming.

When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.

If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.

But if we don’t prepare, and climate change turns out to be real, life on this planet could become a living hell. And that’s why I’m for doing the Cheney-thing on climate — preparing for 1 percent.

Abbott’s climate change policy is “bullshit”

Australian politicians are great. Malcolm Turnbull (the ex-leader of the opposition government who was recently ousted from his position) has called the new leader, Tony Abbott’s climate change policy “bullshit“. Tell us what you really think, Malcom? But it’s a fair point – this is Tony Abbot that yesterday declared:

“Notwithstanding the dramatic increases in man-made CO2 emissions over the last decade, the world’s warming has stopped,”

The world’s warming has stopped? Really? Wait, we’ve heard this one before. So has Tamino, who apparently is also sick of hearing that “the last decade of global temperature contradicts what was expected by mainstream climate scientists”. To illustrate this nicely, Tamino plotted the NASA GISS data from 1975-2000:

giss1

His solid red line is a linear regression, and the dashed lines 2 standard error (i.e. most data is expected to fall within these lines). So what happened after 2000? Were all the predictions wrong? Did we really see global cooling?

giss2

To quote Tamino:

Gosh. What actually happened is exactly what was expected. Exactly. By mainstream climate scientists. You know, those folks who keep telling us that human activity is warming the planet and that it’s dangerous.

We’re only 10 years into the 21st century, but so far, global temperature has done exactly what was expected by mainstream climate scientists. Exactly. You know — those folks who keep telling us that human activity is warming the planet, and that it’s very dangerous.

This is undeniable. Unless of course you’re in denial.

Yet people continue to deny it. They tell you it’s all a hoax, and to support that idea they repeatedly claim that the last decade of temperature data contradicts global warming.

Note to Tony Abbott: quit talking bullshit, stop peddling opinion as fact, and start being held accountable for every word you say as a politician.