 |
For some reason, Saint decided to include an anti-global warming rant in today’s Missing Link. It’s part of an “interview” between warming denialist Institute of Public Affairs shill/scientist Jennifer Marohasy and denialist pundit Michael Duffy:
Duffy asked Marohasy: Is the Earth still warming?
She replied: No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what youd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.
You can see how Marohasy manages to utter at least the first two sentences with a straight face by examining the graph at right. 1998 is the peak of a very large El Nino spike, but global average temperatures kept climbing both before and after it. Picking 1998 as the commencing year is also blatantly dishonest.
You can, however, see that the last two years have registered very slight falls in average temperature. Does that mean Marohasy has a genuine point? In fact, if anything it reinforces the fact that human-generated greenhouse gases continue to exert a significant upward impact on global climate. The last two years have seen the combination of a significant La Nina event (which has a downward impact on global temperature just as an El Nino has an elevating impact) and the bottom or solar minimum of the 11 year sunspot cycle. These are two major drivers of climatic fluctuations, so you would expect to see a major fall in global average temperatures back towards the 1960s average if, as the denialists assert, increases in human-generated atmospheric greenhouse gases are having little or no impact on climate.
Instead, the fall has been tiny and the cumulative increase caused by the increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the like remains starkly evident. Indeed it was the undeniable reality of the miniscule scale of the flattening and drop, when it should have fallen markedly if the denialists were right, that two or three years ago convinced me personally of the reality and scale of global warming having previously been moderately skeptical of major warming claims.
People like Marohasy, however, are unconcerned with making objective assessments of the evidence. Their game is to use whatever superficially plausible arguments they can in an attempt to mislead people who can’t or won’t examine the evidence for themselves and prefer to see the broad scientific consensus (that human-generated warming is a reality and a serious threat) as merely the self-interested exaggerations of a small group of unprincipled grant-seeking scientists being touted by a sinister conspiracy of lefties and greenies intent on undermining capitalism (or some such bizarre fantasy).
Shorter Marohasy:
I was on the radio and I put one over Michael Duffy, Christopher Pearson wrote about me in his column and I got lot lots of praise from other bloggers.
Hope you’ve retired to a safe distance now that the blue touch paper is lit, Ken.
She does it deliberately, with the full support of the IPA and a few ventures into astro-turf green groups funded by mining and timber companies. Also, she isn’t dumb and rarely (if ever) responds to debunking efforts on her own blog. It’s a campaign of corporate sponsored misinformation. I suspect she doesn’t believe any of the bullshit she espouses, but it pays the bills. Where someone like Tim Blair or Andrew Bolt push out garbage for contrarian reasons, Marohasy is a different animal altogether.
Duffy’ll give anyone who disputes global warming uncontested air time. I think he’s more like Bolt that Marohasy, though (assuming DR is correct about her motivation).
Marohasy is a shill, plain and simple.
Gummo’s words are not a direct quote – I did not write that.
Ken seems to not have a very good understanding of the available global temperature data. My interview was about the latest satellite data and I put this in context again here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002863.html
As regards the other comments, including from Ken, personal attacks won’t progress your understanding of this important issue.
In conclusions, I am continually amazed at the extent to which some of the supposidely ‘wise old men’ of the Australian blogosphere are so superficial and unnecessarily nasty when it comes to issues on which they have strong opinions.
We can all have our own opinions, but not our own facts.
Jennifer, dear, Gummo’s words were not intended to be a direct quote, but rather a precis.
Oh, and I’d bet Ken’s understanding of the data is deeper than yours, or at least deeper than that implied by your stated position.
Gummos word appeared as a quote and may have been intended as a smear.
As regards the temperature data, lets discuss – but first I would like an apology. Indeed I see little point in having any discussion if those who read this blog consider me nothing more than a shill and denialist.
(This is fun.) I doubt you’ll get an apology from anyone, Jennifer. You’re widely perceived as either a fool or a rogue, and thus not entitled to an apology in either case. Try reading some of the peer-reviewed climate science literature with an open mind (or even looking at Tim Lambert’s blog, or Real Climate) to understand why so many people have this perception. If you’re incapable of that, you’re correct – there’s no point in discussing anything with you.
I think I’ll bookmark this page as a useful reference for when the annual temperature averages spike upwards again – noise in long-term trends being what it is – and we start hearing about all the short-term natural influences on the climate that might be responsible for the increase.
Jennifer Marohasy wrote:
You first. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
If you refer to the effects of the 1998 el Nino then you should also include the effects of all the other el Ninos in 1986-1987, 1991-1992, 1993, 1994, 2002-2003, 2004-2005 and 2006-2007.
Records of ENSO events can be viewed on
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
I don’t think apologies as such are really relevant given the heat this sort of issue generates from all sides (read almost anything by Bolt or Blair if you want to see ad hominem sledging at its best/worst). Nevertheless, if Jennifer asserts that she sincerely believes all that she has written on this subject and is happy to argue the science, then I would be churlish not to accept at least her sincerity. Therefore, and speaking only for myself, I’m happy to withdraw the word “shill” if that will assist in any way in encouraging a genuine exchange of information and arguments on this critically important issue. I frankly doubt that that’s what we’ll get, but I live in hope.
rog,
All of those El Nino effects would have been factored into the annual averages already shown in the graph, wouldn’t they? They would have had the same effect on the five year average too – the line would have wobbled a bit without significantly altering the long-term trend.
Funny thing about trends – you don’t know where they’re going until they’ve already got there. Especially in the short-term. That’s not always the best time to find out.
If all the ENSO events had been factored in – what explains the sudden variation post 1944ish?
ENSO records start 1950 – what if they had started 1880?
Its a can of worms, NOAA predict a continuation then weakening of the current la Nina and some discussion as to its extending thru 2008. The US are usually ahead of Australia with their predictions
Whoops, should have checked – the sudden variation may have been when ENSO records started and were factored in.
Actually Ken you should have done your homework, 1998 is the point of reference that the head of the IPCC remarked on as being the start of the temperature “plateau”
The fact is – it hasnt warmed since 1998 (see above graph).
True, but neither will paying attention to you.
rog
The graph shows a clear continuing warming TREND post 1998 (that being the appropriate way of examining the data). It’s true (as the primary post indicated) that if you cherry pick the commencing date for a graph and ick the peak of the 1998 El Nino then you can say, as Marohasy does, that there has been no warming since 1998. But that is a spurious/meaningless/dishonest point. It’s the trend line that counts.
I’ll be interested in what Jennifer has to say about satellite records, because my understanding is that they now largely mirror the surface record. OTO there is some recent data indicating that ocean temperatures haven’t risen as one would have expected over the last decade (or however long they’ve been measuring them). That would actually be quite a valid point for Jennifer to make, because it actually isn’t explained by the current state of scientific knowledge whereas the surface record is exactly what one would expect (contrary to what Jennifer claims). OTO all it really says is that there are still lots of things we don’t fully understand about the way earth systems interact; it certainly doesn’t cast doubt on the reality of human-generated globalw arming. Similarly, my reading suggests that the role of cosmic rays on cloud formation is a remaining area of some uncertainty that Jennifer could legitimately deploy (although the research is heavily disputed). Thus there certainly are some remaining areas of uncertainty, but they’re not the ones Jennifer claims.
I think Jennifer Marohasy is irresponsible for making these claims which provide doubt about the case for the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis where none are suggested by the data. It is irresponsible because it fuels the passions of denialists who are looking for doubt.
If you have a story Jennifer you should present it and otherwise retract the initial suggestion. On the face of it it seems erroneous.
I still don’t understand why you choose a spike in 1998 and then referred to a trending downwards from that spike. The series has had quite high variance of its history since 1860 and picking a particular spike as a base period for comparisons over a 10 year interval is difficult to understand.
An excellent clearly-presented and well-written post Ken.
I find these ‘debates’ endlessly fascinating, while also being monotonously boring. One believes what one believes. Science, in the matter of global warming, has been prostituted both by the UN and by those who claim to deny. For mine, I believe because fifty years on this planet tells me climate has changed. Winters are not as cold, summers are frequently warmer and storm activity which used to occur with clockwork-like regularity, no longer happens. Sure, my bit of the globe is very small, but my perceptions are all that matter to me. Isn’t that what this issue is all about anyway? Perceptions?
Information putting Rog’s points about La Nina in some more context can be found here: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_Last_Decade.pdf . Scroll down to second last graph.
As regards the issue of satellite data raised by Ken, well our ability to measure global temperature is improving all the time because of the satellites. The interview I gave with Michael Duffy was prompted by my attendance at a climate conference in New York where Roy Spencer told us about the latest findings from the NASA Aqua Satellite. This satellite was only launched in 2002 and collects data not only on temperatures but particularly on temperature anomalies and the hydrological cycle – including water vapour and cloud formation and evolution (so relevance here to the cosmic ray theories – an issue Ken also raises).
In short, the currently accepted theory is:
1. The most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapour
2. As temperatures rise, the oceans warm up and release extra water vapour
3. This water vapour then absorbs energy and radiates some of it to the ground, thus helping global temperatures to rise even more.
So the idea is that the warming effects of carbon dioxide will be amplified by increasing water vapour.
But this is NOT what the latest data from the Aqua satellite shows, it shows that water vapour and high altitude cloud cover dont necessarily increase when there is warming. Rather weather processes limit the total greenhouse effect in proportion to available sunlight. This can happen in a variety of ways through the hydrological cycle, for example low level clouds release water vapour from the atmosphere when it rains.
The new data from the Aqua Satellite was probably the most important issue discussed at the conference. The findings were part of a presentation by Roy Spencer who leads the team analysing all the data from NASAs Aqua Satellite.
Ken,
I found this NPR story on those ocean temperature findings via a post on one of those Bolted on denialist sites.
What’s missing from the reporting of these findings there – and in other places where they’re being hailed as evidence that the IPCC got it wrong, is usually this bit:
Summary: the ocean temperature hasn’t risen enough that we can account for sea-level rises entirely through thermal expansion of the water, ergo we’re getting increasing levels of meltwater from somewhere, but buggered if we know where.
That doesn’t sit too comfortably with the oft repeated cry that the glaciers aren’t really melting.
The other nuance that’s ignored is that this might point to a slow down in the rate of warming, which is nowhere near the same as no warming at all.
Just for fun I’ll throw this into the mix:-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Gummo beat me to the punch by two minutes. Bummer.
There she goes again. More graphs, more obfuscation and cherry picking. What really irks me about the whole denialist manifesto is that it continues to muddy the debate about what (if anything) should be done – about the right and wrong approaches to the problem. If they weren’t all so busy denouncing the vast leftist conspiracy, they might have something interesting to contribute to a solution (or better yet, propose a market so they can bet against it so we can get some liquidity). No, obviously it’s much easier to simply deny and when caught, point to the extreme green solutions as unworkable Stalinist plots to steal your car. Scientific skepticism is fine and more than helpful, These amateur theatrics are just making the nuttier solutions get more air time than they deserve. i.e. Jennifer, it’s just counter productive – give it up while you still have a shred of credibility left.
From Terje’s link. … very interesting.
Dave:
Cut it out.
How the hell do you have a debate if everyone agrees?
And how exactly do you know it’s more economically worthwhile to mitigate with a sledge hammer rather then do other things, such as reforest, remove height restrictions in cities, price the road system on a usage basis, allow the introduction of nuke without the zealot like restrictions, remove subsidies on smelting industries such as aluminum, or introduce a carbon tax in lieu of an income tax. How about moving income taxes to a land tax arrangment making the use of land more efficient. It’s not obvious that we need to suffer any pain in the process of pricing carbon. In fact, with effective policies we could raise our standard of living with less carbon by implementing sound market based policies.
There are a lot of us who are legitimately concerned this issue is being abused from a financial point of view. Pricing carbon ought to be a revenue neutral action, but it doesn’t look likely so excuse us for thinking it’s a con…. not the science but the actions being introduced.
And by the way I think Jen is doing a decent job even if you dont agree with her.
#21 Jennifer Marohasy said:
“In short, the currently accepted theory is:
1. The most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapour
2. As temperatures rise, the oceans warm up and release extra water vapour
3. This water vapour then absorbs energy and radiates some of it to the ground”
The hell it is. The currently accepted theory is that increasing concentrations of absorbing gases – CO2, water, whatever – will warm the earth.
Here’s the thing. The only gas increasing in concentration is CO2, in large amounts, about 50% over the last century. Water vapour? Not so much.
You elide too much Jennifer. Just enough to avoid me accusing you of blatent dishonesty, but too much nonetheless.
What JC said. I’ve never entered into any of the various global warming threads, either here, at Catallaxy, or at Blair’s. I’m making an exception in this case because the level of vituperation is unusual for Club Troppo. Much of the animus directed at people like Jen seems to come about not because people disagree with her science, but because they disagree with (a) her politics or (b) her sources of funding (all of which are disclosed).
Now I may be one of Ken’s ‘moderate libertarians’, but as far as I am concerned, attacks on funding sources are either neither here nor there. How many people here are paid by the state? If you are, may I call you a state sponsored shill?
For those of you who’ve never taken risks, attacking a corporation for funding denialists undoubtedly makes you feel good about yourselves. You don’t imagine that you could ever be in the position of the corporation, either as an owner, director or major stock-holder, let alone as an employee.
There is another issue, which JC raises, and on which I don’t have the expertise to comment in any detail. That concerns our response to global warming. Many of the responses seem to be in the form of empty symbolism, like Earth Hour. Blair and Jason are spot on about this – it’s like peeing in a dark suit, feels good but doesn’t show. Other responses seem to come from people who are simply opposed to economic progress – the ‘hairshirt crew’ as Jason calls them. To my mind, that’s an entirely separate issue, and worth debating on its own merits.
Ken,
You are not being very honest by using the graph that you used in your post but then again what does honesty have to do with climate alarmists?
So let’s look at a better graph shall we which focuses on the two satellite records which are the most reliable sources of temperature data available:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS.html
It certainly appears to support Jennifer’s assertion and contradicts the claims by alarmists of an “accelerating warming!
The shame of it all is that the lies being propagated by the alarmists are diverting focus and resources away from legitimate environmental and humanitarian problems! You should be ashamed of yourself!
My comments are here here
An extract:
Ken Parish criticised Marohasy for her misrepresentation of the temperature record. In her response, Marohasy pointed to this article to support her assertion that the claim that global warming had ended was not even controversial. The second paragraph of the article states:
This seems to me to be both hard to miss and easy to understand. Marohasy surely knew that her assertion was false.
The Disinformation Cycle…
Thanks to Drudge and Instapundit another round of “global warming stopped in 1998 is making the rounds of the blogs. It’s only been a few months since the last time and yet you only have to look at a graph……
What skepticlawyer said.
Jennifer may have any number of reasons for writing what she does, including sincere belief. After all it seems more likely to me that the average socialist twerp is writing for a socialist magazine because of the convergence of opinion, rather than that the average socialist twerp is putting on an act.
Likewise with Jennifer.
So I don’t see why her arguments have to be attacked with such venom. I am rather suprised to see Ken offering ‘they did it first’ as pseudo-justification!
And I emphatically second skepticlawyer’s (and Tim Blair’s and Andrew Bolt’s and Instapundit’s and everyone else’s) concerns about the impossibility of believing people whose actions are almost wholly irreconcilable with their stated beliefs. Most prominent global warmeninists strike me as being like Elliot Spitzer, or like a Catholic priest with a harem, if you prefer.
So whilst I am happy to assume that there is a risk, and even a significant one, I cannot possibly endorse a ‘we should do everything within our power’ approach to combating what remains, to me at least, merely a risk. Nor can I understand such assuredness that the risk is so incontrovertible that it is offensive merely to dispute it.
On that basis I’ve decided to reject the heliocentric, Copernican view of the solar system: I’ve noted that even avowed heliocentrists are wont to speak of the sun rising and setting, when really they should speak of the rotation of the earth bring the sun into view on the eastern horizon and then the opposite happening in the evening if they’re to remain consistent with the beliefs they profess.
Hell, I might even go the whole hog, and join the Flat Earth Society – I’ve noticed that people who avow a belief that the Earth is spherical, speak and behave in daily life as if it were flat. Obviously these people are not so convinced on this point as they profess.
If we kept the time span selected by Ken but instead charted the absolute global temperature rather than the temperature anomaly and if we put the left hand scale in Kelvin rather than in Celcius and if we put the origin in it’s proper place, then wouldn’t it look a lot like temperature platued around 1850. I’d love to see a chart drawn from that somewhat broader perspective. It would really annoy the chicken littles but surely thats half the point of putting things in perspective.
It is very interesting to see how Tim Lambert approaches this issue a man who once accused me of academic misconduct. He has changed the diagram that he uses to illustrate his point. In his commentary on Jennifer Marohasy he uses this diagram
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/the_disinformation_cycle.php
It looks a bit cluttered.
Previously he had used this uncluttered diagram
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/a_picture_is_worth_a_thousand_2.php
He used it more than once
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/04/a_picture_is_worth_a_thousand.php
Here is what that picture looks like now
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
Looks like a plateau to me consistent with the ABC story.
++++++++++++++++
Ken – can you provide a source for your diagram in the main post please?
JC wrote:
I know JC – why you took 3 paragraphs to agree with me is strange though. The problem isn’t with arguments over approaches (that’s fine), the problem is with those who refuse to engage in the debate over approaches as they are too busy denying there is a problem in the first place. You might agree with Ms. Marohasy’s approach, but it goes well beyond scientific skepticism and clearly she isn’t the usual kind of knee-jerk contrarian idiot that espouses this rubbish.
skepticlawyer wrote:
If you have to. “Following the money” is a perfectly legitimate exercise in the case of people involved with blatantly dishonest astro-turf groups. The Australian Environment Foundation is a case in point. Are the skepticlawyer and JC defending this kind of “ends justify the means” dishonesty simply because they don’t agree with the anti-development arm of the green movement?
Well, that’s my day planned for me. I’ll just take all those old university textbooks on microbiology, biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology and immunology, pile them up in the backyard and toss a match into the middle of the pile. After all, if something isn’t visible on the largest possible scale – if you actually have to do some investigation and analysis to find it – it’s clearly of no significance whatsoever.
Sinclair Davidson wrote:
So does 1880, 1900, 1940, and 1960 Sinclair. Does that mean the graph will magically flatline now? How did you discern that?
global warming may be a problem … who really knows? But what we do know and what scares the heck out of me is the massive extinction phase we are currently experiencing. Beats the extinction phase that saw the dinosaurs (and 80% of other species)go west. Most due I suspect to habitat destruction. Global warming gets the press and diverts our attention from what is a real problem for the very basis of life itself.
Dave R:
Go to this link, scroll about 1/3 of the way down and take a look at the chart that shows 200 years of global temps.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
What do you see?
1. I see the current steepness as no different that than the rise for about 1500 years ago
2. The current level of warming doesn’t seem to fit the rhetoric of the alamrmists side.
No, because you have absolutely no way of judging a person’s motivation in these circumstances. Jen and other people like her could actually believe what they are saying.
Furthermore if you apply your argument to one side you ought to be honest and do it for the other side too. Government funding on climate research has gone up by multiples since the scare. Climate science departments that were once the nerdiest of the nerdy are suddenly cast into the limelight. Why is oodles of government money less corrupting than money from Exxon say that may be supporting people who actually believe their own stuff?
David – plateau is consistent with the facts as Jen stated on ABC radio. I cannot say if magic is involved or not, I don’t want to pass judgement on your religious beliefs.
JC wrote:
Flat earthers and young earth creationists seem to have sincere beliefs too JC – that doesn’t make them right or worth listening too.
What makes you think that government (which one? the US government?) has any interest in the outcome? Clearly, the Lavoisier group for example have a vested interest in delaying any action on global warming as it directly affects their clients businesses (hence the efforts at greenwashing). As far as I can see, there isn’t a government in the world who will benefit from global warming being some kind of elaborate and vast conspiracy. Who could believe that governments are so competent and capable that they could instigate and continue something like this?
Are the green groups competent, capable and sufficiently funded to pull the wool over our eyes in a vast global conspiracy instead? Is Bob Brown secretly pulling the strings of research institutions across the globe?
These dates don’t show plateaus. They show temporary trend reversals. However it would have been a little too much if Jen had suggested that we were witnessing a temporary trend reversal. Plateau sounds a lot more conservative and appropriate.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
How much CO2 would that release?
Let’s clear this up right now. Marohasy says “plateau” and Sinclair says “yep” and what exactly does that mean when, pretty clearly, the global average temperature fluctuates but is clearly trending up. Does this latest plateau indicate that global warming has now officially stopped? Does is indicate that Marohasy, while not exactly telling porkies, is allowed to be a little liberal and extremely selective with the facts?
What, if anything, is the significance of this much vaunted plateau Sinclair, given the overall trend in the graph and the undisputable fact that the same “plateau” has occurred multiple times, with each recovery indicating a new high? Here’s a hint: read Ken’s post again.
Nowhere near enough to have a significant impact on the 4.5 billion year cooling trend in global atmospheric temperatures, Terje. Don’t sweat it.
I don’t understand what ‘officially stopped’ actually means. Sounds very strange.
Ken took exception to what Jen said
and provided a graph. Tim Lambert also took exception and provided a graph – but if you look at an updated graph that Tim has previously shown you can see a plateau – which is what Jen said. Her statement is consistent with the facts as they now stand – a scientific approach to things I might add. Now we can debate what will happen in future – but that is opinion and not fact.
OK, perhaps “shill” is too harsh, given that her funding sources are known.
But I’ve read her stuff on occasion. Either she is simply too dumb to realise that she’s talking nonsense – which I don’t believe – or she’s dissembling.
Sinclair, you didn’t answer the question. If that graph was of the SPI futures, would you say overall that the “plateau” had any significance whatsoever, or would you say rising trend?
I never said it makes them right, Dave. I said it doesnt make them autmoatically corrupt in the cash for comment sense. It certainly doesn’t make them any more corrupt than universities seeking government dollars for climate research.
Depends what you mean by the US Government. The administration seems to talk through both sides of its mouth and isnt that sincere for the most part. However they are throwing oodles of cash towards research. They have no real way of controlling where the cash is going. Lots of money goes to groups the US administration doesnt support. The Goddard institute is one example.
Then there are state governments funding state run universities. The private universities aren’t exacly short of cash either. Harvard’s loot is about 30 billion for example.
Really? I saw Hugh Morgan leading a syndicate trying to influence the previous government on giving away nuke power licences to a group he and a few others support. And since when is this group the be all and end all of the right wing? Does the Australia Institute speak for all the left? Hope not.
Listen to Garnauts comments recently? Hes advocating selling carbon credit licences at an auction and the government pockets the cash. He calls this revenue and hes suggesting ways the 20 bill can be spent. So saddling the economy with $20 billion of costs suddenly morphs in a revenue gain. Excuse me while I laugh. If the government was sincere in its efforts the overall consequence ought to be revenue neutral.
Well no one seems to be too worried about 20 billion bucks hitting the government coffers over the next few years. I havent seen anyone raise this as an issue.
900,000 people voted for the Green party at the last election, dave. Every single one of its polices every single one of their economic policies would have a negative impact on living standards. Until they got heat they were even after cancer sufferers as the party platform advocated banning all imports of nuclear isotopes, finding alternatives to nuclear medicine (possibly hot rock therapy?) and closing down nuclear waste dump sites that hospitals use to dispose of such waste. That policy was mysteriously removed from the Green partys website. However I assume it is still active as I never saw any evidence that policy has been retracted..