Krugman: The Climate Cassandras

The New York Times:

Every once in a while I feel despair over the fate of the planet. If you've been following climate science, you know what I mean: the sense that we're hurtling toward catastrophe but nobody wants to hear about it or do anything to avert it.

And here's the thing: I'm not engaging in hyperbole. These days, dire warnings aren't the delusional raving of cranks. They're what come out of the most widely respected climate models, devised by the leading researchers. The prognosis for the planet has gotten much, much worse in just the last few years.

Read the whole story: The New York Times

Comments

[RomeoMD25]

Regardless what you think about climate change, these "end justifies the means" minions are terrifyingly ignorant.
If the science were so goddamn solid why not take a tough question and set the nay sayers straight one time?
Nope. Rather, anyone with an opinion that differs from yours you attempt to berate and discredit without explanation.

Here's a tip; If you want to get a bunch of free thinking people to see your side of things, make and back up you case.

[goodspkr]

Realp,

I saw your posting on using wind speed in lieu of actual temperature to find the "hotspot."
Why would someone go to such lengths to come up with a hotspot .

This is key to the AGW's theory of global warming. Here is a simplified explanation of what it means

http://peacelegacy.org/articles/how-see-yourself-global-warming-climate-models-are-false

The real problem with AGW happens not because of CO2, but because of the feedback from it. And that feedback is water vapor. Increased CO2 raises the temperature which raises the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Here is where the alarmists and the skeptics differ and where the science isn't settled.

What happens with the increased water vapor. It can become high level cirrus clouds which act as a blanket as in the explanation I posted. This is what the climate models call for and what alarmist believe happens. But water vapor can also stay close to the earth as clouds which reflect sunlight back into space which cools the earth and eventually rain again cooling the earth. This is what the skeptics thinks happen.

Right now there is no hotspot and the ERBE satellite system shows that when the oceans get warmer increasing the water vapor in the atmosphere, the amount of solar radiation being reflected out into space increases. Hence the increase temperature from CO2 can actually have a negative feedback. Both of these observed phenomon support skeptics belief.

[texfly]

Might and may are the verbs of science, especially when it involves extrapolation. Even an interpolation requires something other than "is". If there is a secure data point at that point in parameter space, science still requires some skepticism about the validity of a single measurement.

The scientific AGW debate is between one group that has 100s of years of correlated data, and another 20+ years of daily data who are trying to extrapolate a very complex system another 100 years down the road. The other group has proxy data covering thousands of millennia but of too low a temporal resolution to assert any consequences or projections other than "it happened before and we're still here". Neither position can claim any intellectual superiority in this debate.

Three “scientific” questions society seeks answers to are: 1) how high will sea levels rise 2) where will agriculturally viable lands be located and 3) will energy resources be available when climate changes (cold or hot). The answer is not in the thermometer readings, infrared flux balance, CO2 levels. The answer is “keep you eyes open” and watch.

PS - Did you ever think that the Noah story was a hand-me-down saga of a prior global warming event? What was the human population of the the earth then? What is it now? A cup of Gerin Oil to the blogger who answers.

[realpolitic]

Your post is very wise and extremely well written, but I think you err slightly in pretending there is still some AGW debate among climate scientists. Climate scientists know the warming has an anthropogenic signature and all the studies say so. Most of the historical proxy data supports it. It is like having a debate over Natural Selection between serious natural history scientists on the one hand and the Intelligent Design evangelicals. it is really a silly exercise. The recent Yumal controversy contrived by the right is a case in point. One denier with a bachelor's degree in math, Seve McIntyre, is saying an actual climate scientist cherrypicked his tree ring findings. The data has been available on the web since 2002. What makes McIntyre angry is that the scientist did not throw out any data that disagreed with McIntyre's assumptions. McIntyre is the one doing the cherrypicking. The processs will result in McIntyre's having even less mainstream credibility, but being a hero to deniers.

[goodspkr]

Realpolitic, you need to study more. Just what is "the anthropogenic signature" that all the studies say is there? I know what the anthropogenic signature for CO2 warming is. Do you?


BTW, the data has not been available since 2002 or at least it wasn't identified by Mann as the data he used. And since you know enough to write what you did, you also know that a sample of 10 is too small for this study. You also know that there are additional trees available and Mann and the follow on 8 studies did not include them. Now whether or not the didn't because it destroys their conclusions can't be proven, but if it looks like a duck (cherry picked data) and quacks like a duck (cherry picked data), it probably is a duck (cherry picked data).

[realpolitic]

How does Dr. Briffa respond to Steve McIntyre's accusation that he fudged the Yumal Forest data?

"The substantive implication of McIntyre's comment (is that the recent data that make up this chronology (i.e. the ring-width measurements from living trees) were purposely selected by me from among a larger available data set, specifically because they exhibited recent growth increases."

"This is not the case."

"The recent data included measurements from at least 3 different locations in the Yamal region. In his piece, McIntyre replaces a number (12) of these original measurement series with more data (34 series) from a single location within the Yamal region, at which the trees apparently do not show the same overall growth increase registered in our data."

"McIntyre offers no justification for excluding the original data; and in one version of the chronology where he retains them, he appears to give them inappropriate low weights."

"I do not believe that McIntyre's preliminary post provides sufficient evidence to doubt the reality of unusually high summer temperatures in the last decades of the 20th century."

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/

It appears to me Steve McIntyre is the one selectively fudging data to get a desired result the way most deniers do.

[goodspkr]

I love it when alarmist post something that they thinks support their point but have no idea what they are really talking about.

McIntyre's comment specifically didn't charge Briffa with the idea that he purposely selected by from among a larger available data set, specifically because they exhibited recent growth increases. But RP why in the world did Mann et al. studiously refuse to share the data that they used in their hockey stick conclusions for over 10 years???

And why are you so intent on saying that 10 trees are enough to justify the enormous changes you would make to the world?

Remember the duck. This stinks and I would say it appears that if they didn't pick this data to specifically cause the conclusion, they refused to review any other data because they didn't want to go against the conclusion.

[Richard2]

"The prognosis has gotten much worse." Dr. Krugman, the prognosis has gotten much worse from those who peddle global warming alarmism. Perhaps you should consider checking a wider circle of sources.

As an economist, you are familiar with econometrics, and with the use of statistical analysis to reach defensible conclusions.

There is a controversy about the YAMAL tree ring analysis. Major climate studies have relied for years upon an analysis of Yamal tree rings, yet the details of the data behind the analysis had not been released.

They now have been released. It appears the authors used only 10 core samples, out of a much larger pool of samples, to develop their idea that the 20th Century was much warmer than any time in the last 1,000 years. Of the ten trees, one tree indicated extremely strong warming. The other nine did not. So basically one tree is responsible for the conclusion that our century has been exceptional.

So based on your econometric background, is a sample set of 10 adequate to do statistical analysis using regression and other methodologies?

[realpolitic]

Funny that Rixhard suggests Dr. Krugman should consider checking a wider circle of sources when all Richard does is cherrypick data from one or two tidal stations and repeat it each day to try to fool people about how much sea level have risen!

Then Richard is using a single source, Steve McIntyre of the infamous Watt's Up With That blog, who has a BS in mathematics and no climate science background. McIntyre has been making allegations without evidence, as deniers do. There is no controversy and the physical data from the Yumal forest has been available for years.

"So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever."

McIntyre has based his ‘critique’ on a test conducted by randomly adding in one set of data from another location in Yamal that he found on the internet. ... Curiously no-one but McIntyre has ever suggested simply grabbing one set of data, deleting the trees you have a political objection to and replacing them with another set that you found lying around on the web.



http://gcmd.nasa.gov/KeywordSearch/Metadata.do?Portal=GCMD&KeywordPath=&NumericId=16034&MetadataView=Data&MetadataType=0&lbnode=mdlb2

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/adv10k/cam9607/shiyatov/

[goodspkr]

"Steve McIntyre of the infamous Watt's Up With That blog, who has a BS in mathematics and no climate science background"

Errr, RP, isn't what we are talking about-- mathematics? Sampling, averaging, etc.?

Now for some of the big questions. Briffa asks what justification McIntyre used for selecting a larger sample and not including the 10 core samples he had used? Isn't a better question why did he decide to use only 10 trees out of a much larger sample set?

And looking at the 10 trees that justifies so much alarmism, we see “YAD061 reaches 8 sigma and is the most influential tree in the world.” McIntyre sees that there is only one tree in the sample that shows the growth that influences the study and creates the hockeystick. So why in the world didn't Briffa throw out that sample (8 sigma!)? Care to take a guess?

And since Briffa states he hasn't had an opportunity to review McIntyre's work yet, (We have not yet had a chance to explore the details of McIntyre’s analysis or its implication for temperature reconstruction ) it's nice to see you have.

[RomeoMD25]

None of this is about fighting “climate change”. That’s the excuse. It’s all about convincing the American public that they are fighting a “crisis” and using that fight to gain as much power over the public as they can. They hope to come out as “heroes”, until it’s too late for the public to realize how duped they were in surrendering the economy, liberty and freedom to the elites in government. It has happened again and again in world history and is still used today, with success.

[realpolitic]

Yes, it is all a giant conspiracy and only Romeo and Glenn Beck can see through it!

[goodspkr]

RP, you ducked out a while back and never answered any of my questions.

I find that most climate alarmists don't know the basics of what they are talking about.

I was reading some old comments and one of the alarmists was arguing the exact opposite of what AGW science says and he didn't even know it.

So here'a way for you to show your stuff. Explain the science behind there being a hotspot in the troposphere if CO2 is causing global warming.

[realpolitic]

The EPA is moving to reduce greenhouse gas emissions! Good for them!

"The Environmental Protection Agency took steps Wednesday to control the emissions blamed for global warming from power plants, factories and refineries for the first time."

"The EPA proposal would require polluters to reduce six greenhouse gases by installing the best available technology and improving energy efficiency whenever a facility is significantly changed or built. The rule applies to any industrial plant that emits at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year."

"These large sources are responsible for 70 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions – mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels – that are released in the U.S., the EPA said."

""By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the nation's largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wires/2009/09/30/epa-moves-to-regulate-smo_ws_304936.html

[melmoid]

First the weathers got warmer, then my tomatoos got huge and used up any carbons gas hanging around and then the weather gots cool and I have tooo many tomatoos.

[realpolitic]

"Robert Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, said in Ilulissat [Greenland] yesterday: "We have seen a massive acceleration of the speed with which these glaciers are moving into the sea. The ice is moving at 2 meters an hour on a front 5km [3 miles] long and 1,500 meters deep. That means that this one glacier puts enough fresh water into the sea in one year to provide drinking water for a city the size of London for a year." The glacier is now moving at 15km a year into the sea although in surges it moves even faster. He measured one surge at 5km in 90 minutes - an extraordinary event."

"The result, each 'slide' of these multi-ton glaciers sets off an 'ice quake' that register an average of 3 to 5 on the Richter scale. This might sound minor, but these are occurring multiple times a year. This means that the Earth is being jolted repeatedly by these ice quakes, destabilizing faults lines which has many, many consequences."

"A number of geologists say glacial melting due to climate change will unleash pent-up pressures in the Earth's crust, causing extreme geological events such as earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wade-norris/climate-change-whole-lot_b_303677.html

[goodspkr]

So now the earthquakes in Indonesia are caused by global warming and glaciers in Greenland. I actually like the one that said beer would be affected by global warming.

You realize that the first paragraph citing Robert Corell is not the person who prognosticated that the glaciers were causing the earthquakes. In fact is was Wade Norris.

Wade Norris is a graduate of the Iliff School of Theology and has been an advocate and organizer for several progressive political campaigns. Hmmm, now that is a good scientific creditial.

[realpolitic]

Listen, scientists say that ice sliding into the sea sets off an ice quake. Such quakes are measured on Richter scales, as any other earth quake. Then as a denier you preted it is not true and hide your contempt for science by claiming someone else said it. I am sure Robert Correll, a degreed scientist, can speak for himself. I have no idea who Wade Norris and it sounds like you just made it up. Why would a professional scientist like Correll quote Norris about something that can be measured on Richter scales? Ice falling into the sea is either measurable or not and there is no mystery about it. If you think a 3 mile long chunk of ice falling into the sea produces no shock waves then prove it!!

[texfly]

There's sadistic streak in me that wants to see Louisiana disappear. But I live near Houston and that will go too. I am looking to buy some real estate at an elvation higher than 500 ft as an investment for my children and grandchildren. But I don't know whether it would be better for them to be migatting or fending of a migrants.

Best bet is solar, wind and geothermal ... NOW!

[goodspkr]

It's interesting that although I wrote out 5 consecutive posts explaining the science that stands against global warming, not a single warmist made a comment about it.

I assume this is because once you get beyond the science is settled, the people pronouncing skeptics as being deluded fools have very little idea of what the scientific questions are. In fact, I doubt they know even the basics of the AGW theory and how it is supposed to cause all the calamities you read about in the paper.

If you are going to be passionate in your defense or condemnation of something, it's a good idea to at least have a basic understanding.

I didn't think that AGW sounded reasonable, so I went looking to see what was the science behind it.

When you do this, you find it is very slim. It basically comes down to CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases trap certain wavelengths of solar radiation which causes increased temperatures. We have no other explanation of what is causing the warming we are experiencing.

That's it. No smoking gun (at least none that has been found or has held up to scrutiny). All the rest is computer modeling which is based on a lot of assumptions and SWAGs. Not very convincing.

[ReedYoung]

"It basically comes down to CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases trap certain wavelengths of solar radiation which causes increased temperatures."

... and nothing else that correlates with CO2. It isn't JUST the infrared wavelength absorption, and it isn't JUST the correlation. It's both those things, plus the failure of any model to explain warming without CO2 as the driver (and water is an important feedback mechanism, but only feedback; the cause is CO2).

"Carbon Emissions Linked To Global Warming In Simple Linear Relationship"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610154453.htm

"We have no other explanation of what is causing the warming we are experiencing."

You got that right. And the way science works is that if you have a competing theory, your burden is to prove that it (1) explains observations better and (2) predicts future trends better. You can do neither, so you lose, fair and square. Those are the rules of this profession, always have been.

[goodspkr]

RY, welcome to the game.

I was going to chastise you for you statement about CO2 being a driver. Actually any heating could be a driver, but in the past all temperature increases have seen CO2 as feedback. Water is THE major feedback and it is the cornerstone of the AGW predictions of catastrophe.

Now here is another question for you. Since Mann's hockey stick has been shown to be a fraud and the Medieval Warming Period was significantly warmer than it is now, what do you see as the ramifications on the alarmists such as yourself?

[realpolitic]

Great points, Reed!!!!!

[goodspkr]

You got that right. And the way science works is that if you have a competing theory, your burden is to prove that it (1) explains observations better and (2) predicts future trends better. You can do neither, so you lose, fair and square. Those are the rules of this profession, always have been.


But if the original theory fails to explain the observations (using the models that predict the future won't predict what actually happened in the past) isn't it time to throw that model out.

10 years without any temperature increases despite increasing CO2
No hotspot even though AGW theory would require that there be one.
65 years of increasing CO2 and 25 years of increasing temperatures (not a very good fit)
ERBE satellite data showing the earth reflects more heat when temperature in the ocean increase (if you know what you talking about this will make sense to you).

Your turn

[goodspkr]

Reed, you wrote:

Carbon Emissions Linked To Global Warming In Simple Linear Relationship"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610154453.htm

Have you read this yet? I saw where you indicated you post Science while skeptics post opinions.

Since CO2 warming is logarithmic in nature, to come up with a simple linear scale is quite a feat. And using unproven climate models and estimated historic information, you have to question why in the world would you post this? Unless of course you are going to make another climate model using this as the warming factor. In any case this is a tiny bit of science melding with an huge amount of speculation.

It reminds me of a saying we had in my engineering classes. You measure with micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with axe.

[goodspkr]

It appears Michael Mann's Hockey Stick which was used in an early IPPC report to fortify the concept that mankind was causing the warming that was occurring has gone from being discredited, to a major scientific scandal.

The blade of the hockey stick, that is, the part that shows the temperatures in the 20th Century suddenly accelerated and were the highest in the last 2,000 years appears to have come about by cherry picking the data.

For over 10 years, Mann and other allied scientists refused to release their data so other scientists could review it and replicate it. Mann's study was peer reviewed, but evidently without the original data being available to the reviewers.

From a recent report:

"The scandal has serious implications for public trust in science. The IPCC's mission is to reflect the science, not create it.

When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the idea, it declined to include it."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/print.html

[RomeoMD25]

The world's best meteorologists using the most advanced computers cannot predict local weather two weeks!! in the future.
So how can global warming proponents predict the entire world's climate 50 or 100 years in the future?

The answer is that they can't.

The US National Academy of Sciences has since issued a statement that the "hockey-stick" graph was defective.
Significantly, however, the UN has issued no statement of
apology or correction. It continues to use the "hockey-stick" in its publications

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/the-top-10-lobbyists-on-t_n_205868.html

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

I actually put this to the test on my vacation- the weathermen were right- out to 11 days with showers coming in on day 10's afternoon.

So in my opinion there can be correct.

[RTIII]

The problem here is that Krugman, an ECONOMIST, not a climate researcher, gave you fodder by not including commentary that it's real, easily provable and NOT just predictions from models.

Here's a link from THIS site:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/time-lapse-videos-of-extr_n_281413.html

Go educate yourself.
.

[Calinative]

For anyone that still doesn't get it:

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

[ReedYoung]

"Carbon Emissions Linked To Global Warming In Simple Linear Relationship"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610154453.htm

As commenter 'MGhamma' said, of this same exchange of links in another discussion of global warming:

Classic.

ReedYoung references a SCIENCE based publication.

Calinative references an OPINION based publication.

The global warming "debate" in a nutshell.

Classic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/whats-spanish-for-total-a_b_303201.html?show_comment_id=31893273#comment_31893273

[realpolitic]

Yes, well deniers always see out opinion. They really do not know the difference between factual arguments and opinions!

[realpolitic]

What is encouraging is that the nation's largest energy companies are stopping financial support for denial groups. Another large energy producer quit the US Chamber of Commerce over it's climate change denial policy:

"Nation’s largest utility pulls the plug on the Chamber over climate denial. Exelon CEO Rowe says, “Putting a price on carbon is essential, because it will force us to do the cheapest things, like energy efficiency, first.”

http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/28/exelon-leaves-chamber-of-commerce/

[ReedYoung]

That is only mildly encouraging to me. The new "environmentalist" attitude of energy utilities looks to me like angling to maintain their monopolies. Instead, they should be forced by federal law to convert all electrical power plants to spin their turbines using concentrating solar power within five years, and to pay at least as much as they charge for every kilowatt that their customers sell back from rooftop solar power effective immediately. Or be nationalized.

[realpolitic]

Well, when they stop funding denier misinformation, it is an excellent fist step!

[goodspkr]

Errr, Reed, where in the world did you get the idea that this was scientifically possible? The people in Seatlle will be paying through the nose. I'm also concerned about needing electric lights at night. And how much would your hairbrained scheme cost?

[research]

Let's pump gigatons of CO2 and Methane into the atmosphere and see if it changes it.

Let's have needless energy wars, pollutions, environmental devastation, all for energy we can get from

Rooftop solar and Waste BioFuels: FOREVER

cheaper, safe, clean. see my profile.