By Roger Pielke Jr.
Real Climate has an interesting post in which Gavin Schmidt reports that, according to a new analysis, errors in climate data (ocean temperatures) may lead to a reduction in the 1950-2006 global temperature trend of 17%, perhaps more. This is a big deal scientifically and speaks to the certainty - in this case excessive—with which climate science is often reported, especially by the IPCC.
As far as Real Climate is concerned it is interesting that they seem to think that the story here is not the revisiting of the science of global temperatures, but how they can score some points against fellow bloggers (Maybe trying to change the subject?).
Unfortunately, in my case (and according to Steve McIntyre, in his as well) they engage in some fabrication to try to score those points, incorrectly claiming that I had offered a “prediction” of how the science on this issue would evolve. When called on this, Gavin first admitted that he could be confused (he was), but when I pointed out to him exactly how he was confused, he decided to dig in his heels.
Actually, on Prometheus I and a number of commenters did what people normally do when they hear about interesting science—we discussed, probed, questioned, hypothesized, explored. Schmidt seems upset that people engaged the subject at all. For my part, I discussed the issue of temperature adjustments in some depth (e.g., here) and offered up a few conditionals that spanned the scope of possibilities (and event had an exchange with Gavin et al. on the subject). But I offered no predictions of how the science would turn out. As readers here know, I predict football but not science.
Taking a look back at my discussion of the temperature trend issue at Prometheus from 2008 for the first time since it was written, it actually stands up pretty well: I asked, “Does the IPCC’s Main Conclusion Need to be Revisited?” The answer would seem obviously to be “yes” if it is indeed the case that 17% of the global surface temperature trend that the IPCC thought it had fully accounted for was actually measurement error. Oops. But that sort of thing—learning something new about something we thought we had settled—happens in science, and it should not be a surprise or a scandal.
But that is just science. On the apparently much more important issue of the blog wars, Gavin Schmidt has decided to let his fabrication stand and has encouraged and published the usual cheerleaders piling on, adding to the misinformation in the comments, unfortunately making this post necessary. Richly ironic. I do not miss sparring with those guys.
Icecap Note: Ocean heat content is a good measure of the ocean changes. NOAA global OHC to 700 meters showed a warming during the period of the warm PDO starting in 1979 that ended with the PDO cooling after 2003. Atlantic warming which lags the Pacific is delaying the inevitable decline since CO2 warming has been discredited unequivocally and given the cooling oceans and declining solar input.
The tropical Pacific shows little change over that period over the entire Pacific Basin. This may be the strongest evidence that the degree of importance of GHGs is not what you are lead to believe as the theory predicts the warmest atmospheres in the tropics and since the atmospheric warming is allegedly supposed to radiate heat down to the surface, oceans should show significant warming. They don’t clearly.
Kevin Trenberth has called it a travesty they can’t explain the lack of warming. Of course unlike the sun which heats water down to many meters, radiation can only heat the top few mms. Some have responded the heat bypasses the top water and finds its way to the deep oceans without speculating on a mechanism. Do you suppose the increase in these guys has something to do with it.
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow, Weatherbell co-chief Meteorologist
Tom Nelson reports: Warmist Andrew Dessler resurfaces with a laughable suggestion: If we pay a climate swindle tax, the climate won’t change
Texas is vulnerable to warming climate | Viewpoints, Outlook | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
As you sit by the pool and sweat this summer, one book you should be reading is The Impact of Global Warming on Texas (University of Texas Press, June 2011, second edition).
...
It is a particularly appropriate read as we suffer through the hellish summer of 2011. While it is unknown exactly how much human activities are contributing to this summer’s unpleasant weather, one lesson from the book is clear: Get used to it. The weather of the 21st century will be very much like the hot and dry weather of 2011.
...
There are few qualified atmospheric scientists who would argue with the assessment in the book. And there are none in Texas. Attempts over the last few years to stage a debate in Texas about the science of climate change have required flying a skeptic in from out of state.
...This summer, for example, Texans with air conditioning are paying quite a bit more for electricity to cool their houses than they have in the past.
...
Thus, there is no free lunch: Either we pay to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases or we pay for the impacts of a changing climate.
Economists have looked at this problem repeatedly over the last two decades and virtually every mainstream economist has concluded that the costs of reducing emissions are less than the costs of unchecked climate change - the only disagreement is on the optimal level of emissions reductions.
... First, we need to stop arguing about science.
---------
Alarmists like Dessler have said we tend to confuse weather and climate, but they never miss an opportunity with heat or cold, flood or drought, unusual snow, tornado outbreaks or even dust or tsunamis to try and use weather extremes to scare the public into adopting their favored policies.
I had posted a few weeks ago a story on Texas Drought in Perspective featuring Dessler cohort but real scientist at Texas A&M, John Neilson Gammon. He noted this very serious drought was similar to 1918 and 1956 both very strong La Ninas. In fact using the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI). 2010/11’s La Nina fell just behind 1955 summer peak in th 1954-1956 La Nina (negative MEI is La Nina) and using the Southern Oscillation Index from Australia’s BOM, it is the second strongest behind 1918 in the 1916-1918 La Nina (positive SOI is La Nina).
Looking at Texas annual, summer and winter temperature trends from NCDC tells us no warming has taken place in 117 years.
If they are are having to import scientists into Texas, maybe its because with the exception of Gammon and a few at UAH, a real scientist is so hard to find there, certainly at A&M. Andrew stick to clouds.
----------
Following the never less a good crisis go to waste, Joe Romm follows Dessler into the world of hyper and hyperbole
Romm Hysterical About The Drought - Blames It On Global Warming
Posted on July 12, 2011 by stevengoddard
Nearly a fifth of the contiguous United States has been faced with the worst drought in recent years.
Joe being the charlatan that he is, didn’t bother to mention that drought conditions have been much worse in the past - on many occasions.
http://www.ogc.doc.gov/
By Jon Swaine, New York
Governments must invest three per cent of world GDP - about $2 tillion in 2010 - annually for 40 years to stop climate change and famine, according to the UN’s department of economic and social affairs.
At least $1.1 trillion of that will need to be spent each year in developing countries, in order to meet their populations’ increasing demands for resources, the 2011 World Economic and Social Survey said.
Rob Vos, the lead author of the report, said that “business as usual is not an option” if the world were to “reverse the ongoing ecological destruction”.
His report said that to feed a rapidly growing number of mouths, farmers around the world will have to essentially double total international food production between now and 2050.
But to do this sustainably would require huge spending on “clean” energy production, on reducing the non-bio-degradable waste and on other improvements to farming and forestry techniques, it said.
The broader analysis prompted a rise of about 50 per cent in the amount of money said to be required to make human life sustainable. Last year’s survey called for spending of up to $1.2 trillion a year.
The report said that the extent of technological transformation required was greater in scale, and must be done more quickly, than the industrial revolution.
“It is rapidly expanding energy use, mainly driven by fossil fuels, that explains why humanity is on the verge of breaching planetary sustainability boundaries,” the report said.
“A comprehensive global energy transition is urgently needed in order to avert a major planetary catastrophe.”
See post and comments.
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Timothy Wirth quoted in Science Under Siege by Michael Fumento, 1993. Tim Wirth once US senator i now President of the UN Foundation.
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.” Instead, climate change policy is about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...” UN IPCC’s Ottmar Edenhofer.