sábado, 30 de noviembre de 2013

GREAT DEBATE ON GLOBAL WARMING. HERE THE 2 SIDES



GREAT DEBATE ON GLOBAL WARMING. HERE THE 2 SIDES

KNOCK, KNOCK: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR DANGEROUS HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING?

By Robert M. Carter.  ECONOMIC ANALYSIS & POLICY, VOL. 38 NO. 2, SEPTEMBER 2008  In:  http://www.eap-journal.com/archive/v38_i2_03_carter.pdf

-------------  

Introduction by Hugo Adan, Nov 30 2013.

Here a debate on Robert Carter thesis: GLOBAL WARMING: TEN FACTS AND TEN MYTHS ON CLIMATE CHANGE that I re-published in http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/2013/11/global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths.html That art o Carter was preceded by the art below KNOCK, KNOCK: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR DANGEROUS HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING? We re-publish here only subtitles & conclusions and then we present two critiques to Bob Carter thesis

----------  

KNOCK, KNOCK: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR DANGEROUS HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING?
By Robert M. Carter.  ECONOMIC ANALYSIS & POLICY, VOL. 38 NO. 2, SEPTEMBER 2008  In:  http://www.eap-journal.com/archive/v38_i2_03_carter.pdf

I. INTRODUCTION :  Before human-caused global warming can become an economic problem, it first has to be identified by scientific study as a dangerous hazard for the planet, distinct from natural climate change.
     
The IPCC is the United Nations body whose second chairman, John Houghton, wrote in 1994 that unless we announce disasters, no one will listen. From that point forward, it was obvious that IPCC pronouncements needed to be subjected to independent critical analysis; in fact, the opposite has happened, and increasingly the world’s press and politicians have come to treat IPCC utterances as if they were scribed in stone by Moses. This is a reflection, first, of superb marketing by the IPCC and its supporting cast of influential environmental and scientific organisations; second, of strong media bias towards alarmist news stories in general, and global warming political correctness in particular; and, third, of a lack of legislators and senior bureaucrats possessed of a sound knowledge of even elementary science, coupled with a similar lack of science appreciation throughout the wider electorate – our societies thereby becoming vulnerable to what can be termed ‘frisbee science’, i.e. spin. [it continues..]

II. CONTEXT: CLIMATE HAS ALWAYS CHANGED, AND ALWAYS WILL  The issue of dangerous human-caused global warming is a complex one. It can be assessed meaningfully only against our knowledge of natural climate change, which is incomplete and in some regards even rudimentary. There is no Theory of Climate, in the sense that there is a Theory of Gravitation or Relativity. Therefore no computer model, let alone the unvalidated General Circulation Models (GCMs) that are employed, for example, by the IPCC, can accurately predict future global or regional climate. [it continues..]

III. WHAT ABOUT THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS 20TH CENTURY WARMING? Mark Twain reputedly once remarked ‘Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get’.Though it is hard to improve on such a pithy aphorism, scientists prefer to use definitions thatare quantitatively based. Accordingly, since the early 20 th century it has been agreed amongstclimatologists that ‘climate’ is taken to be represented at a particular site by an averaged 30-yr-long span of meteorological data.  [it continues..]

IV. CARBON DIOXIDE, COMPUTER MODELS, AND ALL THAT JAZZ. 1. Cutting Carbon Dioxide Emissions will cause no Measurable Difference to Future Climate. 2. Computer Models are not Evidence. 3. Circumstantial Evidence for Climate Change, and the Null Hypothesis.


V. SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT CONSENSUS, NOR AUTHORITY.  1. The Inadequacy of the IPCC. 2. Alternative Viewpoints to Those of the IPCC.

VI. DISCUSSION.  1. Emissions Trading Legislation.  2. The Precautionary Principle.  3. Prudent Risk Assessment.  4. The Need for a Balanced Policy that Covers the Real Risks of Climate Change. 

VII. CONCLUSIONS. To focus on the chimera of human-caused greenhouse warming while ignoring the real threats posed by the natural variability of the climate system itself is self-delusion on a grand scale.

• That human-caused climate change will prove dangerous is under strong dispute amongst equally well qualified scientific groups. The null hypothesis, which is yet to be contradicted, is that observed changes in climate or climate-related phenomena are natural unless and until it can be shown otherwise. The science of climate change is far from settled. Meanwhile, there is no compelling evidence that human-caused climate change poses a strong future danger

• No measurable environmental benefits have resulted from actions taken under the Kyoto Protocol, nor can they be predicted to result from carbon dioxide emission restrictions more generally. On the other hand, the social and economic dis-benefits of governments deploying such instruments are now reported daily in the media. The available scientific data, and proved relationships, do not justify the belief that  carbon dioxide emission controls can be used as a means of ‘managing’ or ‘stopping’ future climate change.

• Bowen (2005) has well written: ‘Science is based upon empiricism – the objective observation of natural phenomena, and the attempt to encompass them in classifications, models and theories of ever-
expanding scope. This enormously important principle of the Enlightenment still needs  affirming. The principle is under threat, from those of every religious and political persuasion and from those of none, who seek to impose their world view upon scientific enquiry. Science is not more important than morality. But without empiricism, there  can be no science’.  The projections (which are not predictions) of computer modellers that are now almost  the sole basis for IPCC climate alarmism must be assessed against the best available empirical evidence.

 Climate variation has always occurred and always will. Citizens are right to be concerned  about the possibly damaging effects of both the warmings and coolings which lie ahead. As with most potential natural disasters, however, the appropriate action is to  have in place reactive response plans to manage the change when it occurs.  Dangerous climate extremes will not be prevented by reducing human carbon dioxide  emissions, but – as they occur – should be adapted to using similar response strategies to those applied to other dangerous natural events such as earthquakes, volcanic  eruptions, tsunami and sea-level change.

• Attempting to ‘stop climate change’, or, in the present state of our knowledge and  technology, even to modify it, is an arcadian fantasy.  The Australian government should defer its Emissions Trading Scheme bill until  the completion of a thorough and independent judicial review into alleged human-caused global warming – as assessed against the reality of dangerous natural climate change.

 Lastly, because we are far from understanding all the climatic feedback loops concerned, cutting carbon dioxide emissions is as likely to ‘harm’ as to ‘help’ future climate as judged against a human viewpoint.
Therefore, application of the principles of ‘do no harm’ and ‘precaution’ implies that  the correct climate policy is one of monitoring climate change as it happens, adapting  to any deleterious trends that emerge, and compensating those who are disadvantaged  through no fault of their own

Related Stories supporting Carter’s Thesis
Dire Climate Warnings Not Happening   September 30, 2013
The Great Global Warming Swindle  http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/panel.htm



============ 


REVIEW 1 OF CARTERs THESIS:

CLIMATE: THE COUNTER CONSENSUS.  Apr 29, 2011  by Dr James Renwick

Bob Carter  book is a curious read, full of misinformation, straw-man arguments, and poorly-documented assertions. To become immersed in it, we must enter the through-the-looking-glass world of the ’independent’ scientist, where those such as myself are the ones ’…who have dissembled, told half-truths, cherry-picked their data, fantastically exaggerated, and suppressed the circulation of better science’ (Prefatory Essay, p. 19). Meanwhile, the ideas put forward by Prof. Carter are portrayed as representing a balanced appraisal of the issues. From where I sit, that’s the opposite of reality.

The basic premise of the book is that observed climate changes are a result of natural variability, with at most a very gentle nudge from human activity. Carter asserts that future global cooling is at least as likely as warming. And those whose work suggests that human-induced climate change is real and is a significant threat have either become politicised (p. 231), or have been pressured into submission (p. 181). To support his case, Carter lists many references, relying heavily on his own publications plus those of Soon, Loehle, McLean, McKitrick et al., and with extensive reference to the blogosphere — wattsupwiththat.com, co2science.org, climateaudit.org, etc.

Much of the criticism is directed at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body that every few years provides a synthesis of what’s published in the scientific literature on climate change. The IPCC report writing is done by volunteer teams of scientists, and every effort is made to be inclusive, broad-ranging, and authoritative. But in Carter’s book, the IPCC is portrayed as a slick PR machine designed to push a political line, resistance to which is professional suicide. Carter claims that major news organisations, science academies, the Archbishop of Canterbury and even Prince Charles (!) are involved in the relentless drive to squash opposition (p 162). Many authors are quoted out of context, in part to portray the idea that there’s a growing number of brave souls who are starting to see the light 1.

Climate science is seen as ’consensus science’ and so by definition is not science at all. The IPCC is again painted as the major villain. Actually, there’s an overwhelming weight of evidence in the literature that supports the reality of human-induced climate change. This could be described as a consensus, which could then be criticised for being a consensus, if scientific agreement is seen as a bad thing. Galileo is held up as proof that consensus is meaningless — one man turned the consensus of his time on its head. Since Galileo’s time, a general consensus has developed that he was right, because a mountain of observational evidence and theory has built up to back his findings. That adds weight to Galileo’s ideas, rather than detracting from them. There are the occasional Galileos (e.g. Milankovitch, Arrhenius), but most scientific advance is incremental, carried out by large teams who communicate widely, guided by the observational evidence to hand.

The book begins with an overview of the geological context, covering orbital forcing, Milankovitch cycles, abrupt events, and the Holocene. The existence of large natural variations in the past is used to argue that present-day variability is nothing unusual, and that there’s no evidence that human activity is having a significant effect today. The crucial point left out is that the major influence changing the climate today is the increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, a result of human activity. That is true regardless of climate history and the existence of other natural forcings. The tight coupling between carbon dioxide and global temperature is undisputed and is documented through the ice ages and beyond. The basic radiation physics has not changed.

Because we need that geological ’long view’, the instrumental record is seen as woefully inadequate (Chapter 2). Moreover, because it is standard meteorological practice to define climate ’normals’ as 30-year averages, we are told there is only one new climate observation every 30 years, hence the complete instrumental record is only 5 points long!

Chapter 3 covers climate sensitivity and greenhouse gases. Here, CO2 is portrayed as a benign gas with a limited role in the radiation balance. The bulk of the literature on this subject is ignored, in favour of work by Ernst Beck2 and Chris deFreitas. Climate sensitivity is portrayed as low, and uncertainty very high. I wish this were so, but the vast majority of research over recent decades (ignored here) says the opposite. Chapter 4 discusses the oceans. Again we are told that there’s no cause for concern, that sea level rise is all natural (and certainly not accelerating), and anyway, according to Carter the oceans are now cooling (p. 121). Ocean acidification (described as a deliberately ’emotional’ expression) is portrayed as a non-issue. Again, the reality of the situation, and the vast majority of the literature on this topic, is not discussed.

Climate models are roundly rubbished in Chapter 5, being described later as ’playstation games.’ Supporting evidence comes from Soon, McKitrick, Essex et al., again ignoring 99.9% of the scientific literature, and the long list of climate modelling achievements. There are many inconsistencies throughout this book, such as the statement on page 121 that models incorrectly project increasing ocean heat content, while observations show no warming for the last five years. After dismissing 150 years of instrumental observations in Chapter 2, we are given one sixth of one data point to imply (erroneously) that models are wrong.

Chapter 6 claims to show that evidence of (human-induced) climate change is either fraudulent, or exaggerated, or actually the result of natural variability. Amongst many other things, Carter claims that the Great Barrier Reef and its waters are in the same state they were in the 1700s — supported by reference to one of his own papers. That claim ignores well-documented declining water quality from runoff, loss of coastal wetlands, overfishing, invasive species, acidification…  [If the author had a genuine case to make [...] he would be the toast of the science community everywhere [...] a modern-day Galileo.]

Chapter 7 suggests that most of the climate science community has been corrupted by the vast sums of money on offer (certainly not my experience), or intimidated by science academies and others. We’re told that even the US National Academy of Sciences has been ’infiltrated by environmental activist scientists’ (p 167). Chapter 8 implies that ’independent scientists’ such as the author are deliberately shut out of public meetings on climate change. If the author had a genuine case to make, and could demonstrate that the threat of human-induced climate change is not real, he would certainly get entry to public forums. In fact, he would be the toast of the science community everywhere, having overturned thousands of person-years of research effort —- a modern-day Galileo.

Chapter 9 discusses the IPCC at some length. The strength of the IPCC reports is the breadth of research that is surveyed, literally tens of thousands of papers are referenced and woven into the biggest of big pictures on climate change. Carter’s contention that a small politically-motivated clique runs things is just not the case. As Carter notes, peer-review is not perfect, but I, and most in the science community, recognise that it’s a very good start. Yes, mistakes are made, but no document is error-free, and the number of identified errors is remarkably small for the 3000 pages of text and figures in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. Similarly, a small number of scientists have expressed dissatisfaction with the IPCC process. Yet, the more notable thing to my mind is the huge number who have not expressed any disquiet and who are genuinely keen to contribute.

Chapters 10 and 11 discuss two things: that we should prepare for global cooling; and that adapting to regional natural variability and extremes (what Carter calls ’Plan B’) makes more sense than worrying about climate change (Carter’s ’Plan A’). The first point is risible, given that the globe continues to warm3, glaciers continue to melt4 and sea levels continue to rise5. The second point fits closely with strategies already adopted by many central and local government agencies in New Zealand and around the world: Plan B is already under way. At the same time, we need more emphasis on Plan A (climate change mitigation), if we are to avoid really major changes in climate.

The final chapter covers ’Climategate’. The book makes the illegal release of e-mails and other material from the University of East Anglia sound like the death knell for climate science. Again, that is just not so. All the official inquiries into the matter have since vindicated Phil Jones and the Climatic Research Unit, find no tampering with data, and no conspiracy to suppress anything or trick anyone. A huge amount of time and public money has been wasted looking in to crimes that were never committed.
In summary, I cannot recommend this book. Carter’s criticisms of the IPCC and the climate science community are just not true. The book’s scientific arguments are based upon a very selective reading of the literature and do not stand up to scrutiny.

For example the Introduction (p 30) cites Perlwitz et al. (2009), noting that they say ’Doubts on the science of human-induced climate change have been cast by recent cooling.’ We are not told that the Perlwitz paper also states ’The implication is that the pace of North American warming is likely to resume in coming years, and that climate is unlikely embarking upon a prolonged cooling.’
    Check http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/  for a summary of the dubious nature of Beck’s ’research’.
----------- 

=================== 

REVIEW 2 OF CARTERs THESIS:

CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Who’s your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric. 16 June 2011  By Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. Director, Global Change Institute at University of Queensland


This is the fifth part of our series Clearing up the Climate Debate. To read the other instalments, follow the links below:
Articles also by This Author

================= 

OTHER REVIEWS:  REVIEW 3

TAXING AIR: FACTS AND FALLACIES ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE    By Jay Lehr, Ph.D.. Sep 3, 2013


Here only extracts. Go to the website above to read the full article

CARTER SUMS UP THE CLIMATE CHANGE DILEMMA AS FOLLOWS:

“The past 24 years have seen thousands of scientists expend well over $100 billion in studying the influence that human-related emissions may be having on climate. Given these intensive efforts, the absence of a measurable or unequivocal human imprint in the recent temperature record and the absence of any global warming trend at all over the last 16 years both point to frailty in the dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis. A reasonable default conclusion is that any human influence on the global climate lies within the noise of natural variability.”

Carter and friends do a great job of explaining how we know about ancient climates, and they describe the proxies scientists use, such as tree rings and chemical indicators, to determine temperatures before man began to record them. They do an even better job of explaining the Milankovitch cycles of 20,000, 41,000, and 100,000 years determined by the movement of planetary bodies in our solar system which create gravitational interactions. They also explode the myths of coral leaching and polar bear declines.

The authors’ complete explanation of the greenhouse warming theory and the truth about greenhouse gases is really outstanding—and it shows that the matter is not as simple as the public is being told. The authors hit hard on a point I make in all my lectures: the more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the less effective it is at capturing outgoing radiation from the earth, because it works only in a narrow range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Thus there appears to be a natural limit to the greenhouse effect.

Perhaps best of all is the authors’ explanation of the mathematical models used to determine future earth temperatures. These so called General Circulation Models are so reliant on guesses regarding the many variables that affect climate as to be of no real value in planning future policies. They explain it thus:
“Confidence in the projections made by the current generation of deterministic climate models is low because their construction is based on only a short period of climate history, and because they have not been validated on independent data. For the moment, therefore, deterministic Global Circulation Models represent a highly constrained and simplified version of the Earth’s complex and chaotic climate system.”

Their chapter on the gigantic impact of the ocean on climate and carbon dioxide content as compared to the less dense atmosphere is really outstanding. It is followed by a lengthy chapter on Australian climate politics which will be of general interest to some but might be skimmed or skipped by others.

In the final chapters the authors deal beautifully with the fallacies of renewable energy and explain how mankind can prepare for whatever climate changes nature may throw at us.

In summary, this is the very best instructional book I have seen for those seeking a clear understanding of the realities of the earth’s climate and a remedy for the amazing fallacies spread daily by those who wish to make political gains by plying the public with unscientific misinformation.

[NOTE: Printed copies of Taxing Air (A$30 + p&p) can be ordered at TaxingAir.com, and a Kindle version ($7.99) is available from Amazon.]
--------------- 
Jay Lehr, Ph.D. (jlehr@heartland.org) is senior fellow and science director of The Heartland... (read full bio)

-------------- 

REVIEW 4 ON CARTER THESIS
REVIEW BY WIKIPEDIA
GLOBAL WARMING CONTROVERSY

Carter is critical of the IPCC and believes statements about dangerous[12] human-caused global warming are unjustified.[13] In 2005, he argued against climate change being "man-made" by asserting that the global average temperature did not increase between 1998 and 2005, while the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased.[14] In 2007, Carter participated in an expert panel discussion after the airing of The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary on ABC.[15][16]

His position on global warming has been criticized by other scientists such as David Karoly,[17] James Renwick[18] and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.[19]

Carter has published primary research in the field of palaeoclimatology, investigating New Zealand's climate extending back to 3.9 Ma.[20][20][21] He has also published several critiques of anthropogenic global warming in economics journals.[12][22] In 2009, he co-authored a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research claiming the El Niño-Southern Oscillation can account for most of the global temperature variation of the last fifty years.[23] A comment on this paper was published by nine other scientists in the same journal.[24] Carter with co-authors John Mclean and Chris de Freitas submitted a response to this comment but their reply was rejected from pu
Carter appeared as a witness before the 2009 select committee on climate policy of the Parliament of Australia,[27] and testified before the United States Senate [28] on the issue of climate change. He is a contributor and reviewer of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 2009 report Climate Change Reconsidered, and lead author of the 2011 interim report.[29][30]

In 2012, documents acquired from The Heartland Institute revealed that Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 (USD), "as part of a program to pay 'high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message'."[31] While Carter did not deny that the payments took place, he declined to discuss the payments.[31] Carter "emphatically denies" any suggestion that his scientific opinion on climate change can be bought or swayed by funding.[32]

============

REVIEW 5 ON CARTER THESIS  (here the dirty part of this debate)

SCIENTIST DENIES HE IS MOUTHPIECE OF US CLIMATE-SCEPTIC THINK TANK By Ben Cubby. February 16, 2012
Here only extracts:
Confidential documents leaked from inside The Heartland Institute, a wealthy think tank based in Chicago and Washington, detail strategy and funding for an array of activities designed to spread doubt about climate change science, paid for by companies that have a financial interest in continuing to release greenhouse gases without government interference.

The think tank has now issued a statement saying the strategy and budget documents had been stolen, and claiming one of them was faked. Among the documents that Heartland does not claim to be faked, is a budget showing payments to selected scientists.

One of the recipients of funding is Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University, a geologist and marine researcher who spoke at the "convoys of no confidence" protests against the carbon price last year alongside the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, and writes columns for News Ltd newspapers.

The documents show Professor Carter receives a "monthly payment" of $US1667 ($1550) as part of a program to pay "high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message".

 Professor Carter did not deny he was being paid by The Heartland Institute, but would not confirm the amount, or if the think tank expected anything in return for its money. 

"That suggestion is silly and offensive - a kindergarten level argument," Professor Carter told the Herald.

 
==========