Dueling experts in the CO2 hockey puck debate (long)
For background reading, here is a recap of major studies in the debate concerning whether proxies for temperatures - tree rings, glaciers, etc. - are sufficient to accurately detect climate change. For those of you who follow the news, you'll probably have a hazy recollection of media reports that correspond to these studies - Mann 1999 (MBH1999), based on proxies like tree rings used in the absence of long-term historical temperature records, suggested that the recent rising levels of atmospheric CO2 were associated with rising global temperatures, with the proviso that "we focus not just on the reconstructions, but on the uncertainties therein, and important caveats." In 2004, Mann (MBH2004) published data corrections. Mann was most quoted in the media regarding the claim that the 1990s were the hottest decade in the last 1000 years. von Storch (2004) concluded that the prior assumptions about the relationship between temperature proxies and past temperatures was flawed and may be off by a factor of two. McIntyre (2005) pointed out that if randomn noise is entered in the model that Mann used, a hockey puck pattern is always produced. See Kerr (2005) for a science news summary of the dispute. Several reports have addressed the ongoing expert disagreement on whether proxies are sufficient to detect climate change and to distinguish bewteen human induced and natural variations. IDAG (2004) reviewed their prior findings in light of recent criticisms on whether proxies are sufficiently accurate to detect climate change and concluded that: "These observed climate changes are very unlikely to be due only to natural internal climate variability, and they are consistent with the responses to anthropogenic and natural external forcing of the climate system that are simulated with climate models. The evidence indicates that natural drivers such as solar variability and volcanic activity are at most partially responsible for the large-scale temperature changes observed over the past century, and that a large fraction of the warming over the last 50 years can be attributed to greenhouse gas increases." Id. (Abstract). and that - "Additional uncertainties, such as the effect of differences in model fingerprints and simulations have meanwhile been addressed. It has been demonstrated that averaging fingerprints from multiple models increases our confidence in detecting anthropogenic climate change and that different implementations of the optimal detection method show consistent results. New detection studies show that anthropogenic climate change is detectable in the surface temperature records of individual continents and that it can be distinguished from climate change due to natural forcing." Id. at 24. The U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations requested a scientific ad hoc committee of statisticians to review "whether or not the criticisms of Mann et al. are valid and if so, what are the implications. To this end, Committee staff asked for advice as to the validity of the complaints of McIntyre and McKitrick [MM] and related implications." Ad Hoc Committee Report on the "Hockey Stick" Global Climate Reconstruction, a.k.a. the Wegman Report (2005). Wegman (2005) validated MyIntyre's criticisms that Mann's methods were statistically flawed as to claims that the 1990s was the hottest decade in the last 1000 years: "Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis." Id. at 49. "In general, we find the criticisms by MM03, MM05a and MM05b [McIntyre and McKitrick] to be valid and their arguments to be compelling." Id. at 48. The Ad Hoc Committee went further and described Mann and others as politically motivated: "Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group ofindividuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility." Id. at 65. However critical the statisticans in the Ad Hoc Committee Report were of Mann, both professionally and personally, in Appendix "B" to the Wegman Report, Committee went on to emphasize that global warming, in their opinion, a fact. The Ad Hoc Committee answered various questions posed by the House, and stated that: "There is strong evidence from the instrumented temperature record that temperatures are rising since 1850 and that global warming is a fact. How accurate the reconstructions over the past millennium are is a matter of debate and we do not believe there is a consensus on this issue." Id. at 65. "Our perception is that principal components (statistical) analysis was used incorrectly and, based on this, unsupportable inferences were drawn about the current magnitude of global warming relative to the historical past. We hasten to repeat that the Earth is getting warmer. What does not appear to be true is that the process mechanism is as well understood as some scholars would have us believe." Id. at 66. "In a real sense the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99 are essentially irrelevant to the consensus on climate change. The instrumented temperature record since 1850 clearly indicates an increase in temperature. Whethe this is unprecedented in the last millennium seems less clear and to what extent the natural planetary processes can mitigate the excess green-house gas release is unknown." Id. at 66. National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (2006) undertook a study of the debate pursuant to a request by Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives. The NRC was asked "asked to describe and assess the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for the Earth over approximately the last 2,000 years." The NRC's conclusions were: 1) The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6 deg C during the 20th century is also reflected in numerous proxies like glaciers and can be simulated with climate models. 2) Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding 1000 years. 3) "It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries." 4) "Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900." 5) "Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods." The Stern Report (2006) starts from the point that the hockey puck is largely settled or at least irrelevant in light of the temperature record since 1850. The Stern Report asks what are the likely economic, social and human misery effects from various warming scenarios. A summary of the above can be found in the Wikipedia entry on "Temperature record for the last 100 years" and in Box 1.1 of the Stern Report. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years - Kurt International Ad Hoc Detection group (IDAG). 2005. Detecting and attributing external influences on the climate system: a review of recent advances, Journal of Climate 18: 1291-1314 http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/papers/fzwiers/idag_2004.pdf Kerr, R.A. Feb. 11, 2005. Global Warming: Millennium's Hottest Decade Retains Its Title, for Now. Science 307(5711):828-829 http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/PAPERS/Kerr.pdf Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 1999. 'Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations', Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 759-762 Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 2004. Corrigendum: Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 430, 105 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6995/suppinfo/nature02478.html McIntyre, S. & McKitrick, R. 2005. Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance. Geophysical Research Letters 32:L03710 http://www.climate2003.com/pdfs/2004GL012750.pdf National Research Council. 2006. Surface temperature reconstructions for the past 2,000 years http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html (The report can be downloaded for free, but you have to create a user account.) Stern, N. (H.M. Treasury). Oct. 30, 2006. Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_cli... von Storch, H., Zorita, E, Jones, J.M. et al. 2004. Reconstructing past climate from noisy data, Science 306: 679-682 http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/vonStorchEtAl20... Wegman, E.J. et al. 2005. Ad Hoc Committee Report on the "Hockey Stick" Global Climate Reconstruction. http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
--- Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote: <snip all> Additionally, all of the debate surrounding Mann's claim that the 1990s were the hottest decade in the last 1,000 years, short-term regional variation plots (popularized in Michael Crithon's "State of Fear", see Don's short-term plot reference) and the "little" hockey stick all concern the 1,000 year period before present - or 1/700 to 1/40 of the left-side of the following ice core gas graphs that are proxies for global temperature: 700,000 year resolution: EPICA and Vostok Ice Sheet Core Plots 018(Temperature proxy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Epica_do18_plot.png 140,000 year resolution: EPICA, Vostok (O18), NGRIP and GRIP (2H) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice-core-isotope.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Epica-vostok-grip-ngrip-o18.png 70,000 year resolution: Heinrich events http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Heinrich-events.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_event 40,000 year resolution: NGRIP and GRIP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grip-ngrip-do18-closeup.png Dansgaard-Oeschger events http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard-Oeschger_event European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPICA EPICA Ice Core Data http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/domec/domec_epica_data.htm... North Greenland Ice Core Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGRIP Greenland Ice Core Project (completed 1989-1992) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_core_project http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/document/gripinfo.ht... Vostok Ice Core (completed 1970s) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_Station#Ice_Core_Drilling - Kurt ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
Kurt, with all due respect- what's the gist of it? I can't possibly read all the referenced urls before springtime. TIA! --- Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote: ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
--- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kurt, with all due respect- what's the gist of it? I can't possibly read all the referenced urls before springtime. TIA!
Looking at the two of the temperature proxy graphs at 700,000 years resolution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Epica_do18_plot.png - and another at the 140,000 year resolution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice-core-isotope.png - shows that there have been four extreme temperature spikes in the last 400,000 years. Forget the numbers - just look at the shape and amplitude peaks of the curves. There are a couple of ways that you can read these graphs. Both are reasonable interpertations IMHO, because the matter is inherently uncertain: 1) (To paraphrase Joe's interpretation): We are in a natural global warming interlude between two extended ice ages. We cannot distinguish between man-made forced warming and a natural cycle. The conservative approach suggests to take no policy action; do no harm by not undertaking unnecessary and expensive governmental intervention. 2) (To paraphrase my read): We are near the peak of a natural global warming interlude between two extended ice ages. Kind of a dumb time, isn't it, to be conducting a global chemistry experiment with man-made forcing of global warming? Human activity is injecting 6.3 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. (Although this is not practical, wouldn't it make more sense to wait for the next ice age - when it is colder - to conduct such an experiment? -:) ) There is no real expert dispute that our best global climate models indicate that man-induced injection of CO2 into the atmosphere contributes (along with volcanism) to increased global temperatures. The conservative approach suggests to stop the chemistry experiment and to take affirmative invervention steps by biting the substantial cost bullet of developing and converting to non-CO2 producing energy sources. Finally, although most of the media attention in the last couple of years has been focused on the temperature changes over the last 1,000 years, that is only one part of the debate - a little sliver on the far left of each graph. The third major component of the debate is whether the global climate models (GCMs) are accurate. (The first component is the short-term changes in the last 1,000 years; the second are ice cores and long-term changes.) Don would probably argue (as he has in the past) that the Earth's carbon cycle - which contains about 750 gigatonnes of atmospheric carbon and an ocean reserve of between 30,000-50,0000 gigatonnes of carbon, can soak up our annual injection of 6 gigatonnes of carbon into the air - or another 300-350 gigatonnes over the next 50 years. There are about 300-350 gigatonnes of carbon in known petroleum and coal reserves. In short, the ocean will soak it up. IMHO, the GCMs are probably right and the oceans will not soak up all carbon that we inject into the atmosphere. Clear Skies - Kurt ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
--- Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kurt, with all due respect- what's the gist of it?
<snip all> P.S. - This graph is a little clearer - and there are five temperature spikes in the last 400,000 years - not four as a misstated in my prior post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png - Kurt ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
Thanks for the short version, Kurt. Helps a lot- I just don't have the time for digesting the mountains of research papers and articles that some of the more dedicated proponents of each side post here. But I definitely agree with you. Too many unknowns to experiment with our life-support system. The continued use of fossil fuels pumps more than just CO2 into the environment. Carcinogenic chemicals, acid-rain, particulates that can cause all kinds of respiratory and other diseases. It also delays the development of cleaner, renewable energy sources. I'm sure even fusion research could benefit from increased funding. How many of us have elected to purchase at least a few blocks of renewable (wind) energy from Rocky Mtn. Power? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
Chuck Hards wrote:
How many of us have elected to purchase at least a few blocks of renewable (wind) energy from Rocky Mtn. Power?
Even a cheapskate like me has signed up. For those who may not know about the program, here's more information: http://utahgreenpower.org pw p.s. Red Bull's take on why the Moon landings needed to be faked. :) http://www.ephinx.com/tvadverts/397/red-bull-moon-landing-advert.html
Patrick, I'm proud of you! --- Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote:
Chuck Hards wrote:
How many of us have elected to purchase at least a few blocks of renewable (wind) energy from Rocky Mtn. Power?
Even a cheapskate like me has signed up.
For those who may not know about the program, here's more information:
____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
participants (3)
-
Canopus56 -
Chuck Hards -
Patrick Wiggins