The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The temperature trend is not as simple as Garnaut makes out > Comments

The temperature trend is not as simple as Garnaut makes out : Comments

By Tom Quirk, published 14/6/2011

Professor Garnaut's latest report relies heavily on a temperature trend which is not as solid as he says.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
A good contribution Tom, and in my view you raise some important questions.

I suggest that there are three fundamental questions underlying the carbon tax 'debate' that have not been addressed sufficiently.

1. Is warming happening? It is clear that there is some warming. But the question of how much is affected by clear evidence of manipulation of the data - unexplained 'adjustments' to the temperature series, unexplained changes in the population of temperature stations included in the temperature series, and general ignoring of delta UHI effects over time. There is likely modest warming happening, but how much?

2. What is the cause of the warming? The climate scientists and the politicians appear convinced that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the cause of warming, but the evidence for this is far from clear. Roger Pielke Sr argues that man is having an impact on local and regional climate, but through land-use factors such as deforestation, urbanisation etc. There is a case that anthropogenic CO2 is a minor factor. Natural factors are highly likely to be important.

3. What can we do to moderate warming? A tricky question, especially if (as seems likely) the case for anthropogenic CO2 being the cause of the warming is not strong. What is the point of going to great trouble to reduce CO2 emissions if that isn't the main cause.

I would much rather my tax dollars be addressed at these fundamental questions. They have never been satisfactorily addressed in the public sphere. To press on with the CO2 tax is to put the cart before the horse.
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 7:57:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are liars, damn liars and statisticians!

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 8:29:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Prof Garnaut is an economist and that makes him very qualified to know everything about climate,doesn't it?
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 9:20:25 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tom Quirk makes some valuable points with his analysis, however, there has been too much emphasis on whether there has been a warming trend or not. Clearly temperatures increased between mid-70s and the end of the century and then basically flat lined. Nothing much has happened between 1998 and now except that temperatues have been pulled up and down by La Nina and El Nino effects. A La Nina has pulled down temperatures in recent months

Any forecast can only be judged on what it forecast and the first IPCC forecast was in 1990. By any fair reading of that forecast, temperatures should have increased by a MINIMUM of 0.4 degrees. The Hadley graph puts the actual increase at 0.2 degrees.
The IPCC reports in 2000 and 2007 also forecast increases which again don't seem to have happened.

Prof Garnaut should know better than to make public policy recommendations on climate models that have such a limited forecasting track record to date.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 11:25:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that on balance, it should be admitted that the long term trend of temperature is upward, even at a slower rate than has generally been predicted. One only has to look at the physical evidence of melting glaciers all around the world as well as the reduction in the amount of polar ice from year to year.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 11:50:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think one can agonise too much about the detailed meaning and statistical analysis of the graphs Tom Quirk presents. And given that we now have two sceptical contributors to these forums, of whom one (Tim Curtin) trusts only econometric analysis and the other, Tom Quirk, does not, I would suggest that anything beyond simple eyeballing is trying to do too much with the data.

The rolling 13 month average of the actual global temperatures in the bottom part of Figure 1, which is the usual method of applying a degree of smoothing to the data, looks to my eyeballs like a pretty convincing example of what one would expect to see for a steady slow temperature rise superimposed on the normal random fluctuations of climate. Only someone who does not wish to believe that simplest interpretation would bother to go further.

I think that the most fascinating aspect of the temperature data is that the same graph is used to support two completely contradictory statements about temperature trends. One group looks at it and insists there has been ‘no global warming since 1998’. The other says, as I do, that global temperatures continue on their upward trend. Remarkably, both statements can be right, depending on where your eyes rest. It’s that pesky peak in 1998 that’s the problem. However, my eyeballs have no trouble in seeing a long term upward trend as by far the more reasonable interpretation. Another 10 years or so will put 1998 into proper perspective and will almost certainly remove this little fragment of evidence from the sceptics’ armoury.
Posted by Tombee, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:02:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tombee

I agree with your analysis.

However, waiting another 10 years before anyone does anything? Well if that is what it takes. Our children will not be thanking us, methinks.
Posted by Ammonite, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:25:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can anybody explain why we had the coldest day since 1916 last week?
Can anybody please explain why we are having our earliest snows since the 1980's?
Can anybody explain the very cold winter and heavy blizzards in the Northern hemisphere this year?
Can anybody explain that, if as the alarmists clain, we are to be subjected to extreme events, and that these events are now occurring, why they will get worse?
Can anybody present evidence, rather than assetion, that they will indeed get worse?

If they cannot and what we are experiencing now is the effect of global warming, why is there such hysteria over climate change?

I think we can handle the current climate and adapt to a worsening of extreme events ... easily and without a rise in taxes.

And no I won't accept, as an answer, that without global warming it would be a damn sight colder.
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:50:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
VK3AUU - oh sure, glaciers are melting. Sure temperatures are high. The problem is that no-one has been able to present evidence that this is forced warming, as opposed to a natural cycle.

The glaciers melting business is a prime example. Its not enough to show that glaciers are melting. Scientists need to get busy and show that they have melted, on average, past their last low point which would have been during the Medieval Warming Period.

The ground around the glaciers shows marks from previous advances and retreats of glaciers (in response to changes in temperatures), so this point can be established. None of the glaciers in europe have been reported as falling below their MWP low point. What about Franz Joseph in NZ? What about the Himalayas? We never hear anything on that crucial point.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 1:26:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it confusing that the CO2 and temperature charts seem to show little correlation to the actual production of CO2. Check out the data on the BP Statistical Review. You can download in Excel.

http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=7500&contentId=7068481

In 1965 the world produced 11.2 billion tonnes of CO2 but this had increased to 33.2 in 2011, a average growth rate of 2.3%. The CO2 production before 1950 is virtually insignificant compared to current production levels. Last year world CO2 production increased by 5.8%. If you plot CO2 production, it comes out as an exponential curve rather than the nice straight lines we see for CO2 in the atmosphere.

If CO2 really is causing Global Warming, I would suggest that we are already up 8hit creek.
Posted by Wattle, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 2:11:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I also support Tombee’s eyeball analysis. It can be a bit like looking at Rorschach chart. You can see in it what you want to see and others can tell something about you by what you see or fail to see (with apologies to the psychology profession).

For example, my take on Fig 1 is the cycles alternate between warming and plateauing and last about 30 years and we are well into a plateau cycle. This means we will see no more significant warming until 2028. This could be quite fortuitous because we will probably have failed to achieve our emission reduction target of 5% by 2020 and we will be able to calm the Greens down with the comfort of no significant temperature rises. Well at least for 8 years. Then all hell will break loose. The temperatures will start to rise again and the Greens will blame those that didn’t move to reduce the emissions as warned. And fair enough to.

If we can project that the long term trajectory is up (in my eyes supported by the graph) and that we can do something about it then we shouldn’t be stalled by a plateau cycle.
Posted by Martin N, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 2:12:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once again Mark Curmudgeon seems prepared to go to great lengths to ignore or downplay evidence which doesn't suit his ideological position. There are hundreds of scientific papers, freely available, which itemise the decline of glaciers all over the world. Why don't we hear about these? says Curmudgeon. The only answer can be, because we choose not to look. (Even the Wikipedia article on declining glaciers has ninety-six scientific references, with links.) For a general overview, have a look at the UNEP Global Outlook for Ice and Snow (http://www.unep.org/geo/geo_ice/) but be warned it's a b-i-g document.
Posted by nicco, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 2:42:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
curmudgean "Prof Garnaut should know better than to make public policy recommendations on climate models that have such a limited forecasting track record to date."

You are correct, but as we are seeing with the alarmists who like less and less to be questioned, now that the MSM is finally getting around to it, the strategy is based on the belief that the community is basically, stupid.

The problem is, that's quite obvious and people are not buying it. Much to the horror of the ALP, the eco types and other alarmists, who are used to the MSM reprinting their catastraphonica as fact.

Staring a great big new tax in the face has had a sobering effect on the community which previously went along with the herd, because that's what you do. Increasing prices of everything energy based, even before the tax, is causing the herd to falter and reconsider.

The cheerleaders and followers of the alarmists get ever more hysterical, the usual smearing, with a total lack of consistency.

They defend Garnaut with no climate qualifications, but demand anyone who wants to skeptically question climate science MUST be a climate scientist with a well formulated position and be published to their individual satisfaction. Bob Carter and other "known" skeptics are not acceptable of course.

I guess they want to shut down any debate or questioning completely, wouldn't that be convenient? Totalitarian state anyone?
Posted by rpg, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 3:21:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rpg - catastraphonica.. oh wow, I like the word. Fully agree.

Nicco - again, and I think this has happened before, you have completely misunderstood what I posted. I never denied that glaciers are shrinking. In fact I agreed that they are shrinking overall (a few would be expanding or steady state due to local conditions). This is because temperatures are high, as I stated.

The point that has not been explained, and its you who should look again at the documents you have referenced, is just where they are on average IN RELATION TO their low points in Medieval Warming Period. So have they got there or not? Do these trumpeted documents of yours actually address that point at all? I think you will find that they don't.

You will also find that your shots would be much better aimed if you actually read the posts, rather than launch into pre-set denounciations when ever you see the word glacier, without regard to what the post actually says.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 5:11:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
imajulianutter , there are many who would say that AGW is the explanation for such extreme events. Bob Brown would even go as far as to blame coal mining for them.

You are throwing caution to the wind -- or is it the sun? By displaying such inquisitive thinking, you risk being classified as a denier. You will never qualify as an alarmist
Posted by Raycom, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 11:06:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Herbert: before we ask your question

"3. What can we do to moderate warming?"

we need to ask three that you missed:

2a. Is the warming more harmful than beneficial on balance?
2b. If it is harmful, can we feasibly do anything to mitigate it?
2c. If we can, will the benefits of attempting mitigation exceed the costs?

And since the evidence suggests that the answer to all these questions is No, the query stops there.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 6:57:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wattle. The gas CO2 dissolves in water and produces carbonic acid. The excess gas that you are concerned about is dissolving in the sea. The evidence for this is the lowering of the pH which according to researchers on the Great Barrier Reef, is resulting in some of the coral being dissolved.

Try Googling "Dissolving coral reefs" and you will find 1280000 references.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 7:43:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nicco. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Jon J. I would respectfully suggest that the answers to your questions will have to wait for the passage of time before you can be so certain of the answers. The answers in fact may not all be in the negative.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 7:55:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well put John J.

VK3AUU, David, if we could only harvest all the red herrings you warmests pull out of the ether we could feed the poor of the earth for a million years.

The research used to promote that one about acidification has been totally discredited. Using ridiculous levels of CO2 is a con, not science.

In fact the latest results show that slightly increased levels of CO2 in sea water aids coral & shell fish. Must have been a slip up somewhere, the research got published.

If there is anyone who will not see, & hopes like hell they can con the rest of us, it's the AGW crowd , but like our Julie, you don't have much time left.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 11:00:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Curmudgeon is using his familiar debating technique: "You don't understand what I am saying!" - to further muddy the waters. He is not doing his homework, or else getting his glacier information from tainted sources. As I mentioned, there are no less than 96 academic references to the Wikipedia glacier article, which he simply dismisses. Here's a reference, from elsewhere: Koch et al, Springer, 2009: "The advances" (of glaciers during the MWP) "cannot be reconciled with a climate similar to that of the twentieth century, which has been argued to be an analog, and likely were the result of increased winter precipitation due to prolonged La Niña-like conditions that, in turn, may be linked to elevated solar activity."
Posted by nicco, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 12:39:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
References, please, Hasbeen, to your remarkable oceanic climate research stories: (1) that ocean acidification research has been totally discredited, and (2) that "increased levels of CO2 in sea water aids coral & shell fish."
Posted by nicco, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 12:43:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nicco

despite insulting suggestion that I'm engaging in debating tricks, your post is a disguised admission that you misread (or, more likely, simply didn't read properly) my original post.

The references in the Wikipedia article you cited aren't relevent to what I was saying (although you still insist I'm somehow dismissing them), so you had to search for another which you heavily adit.

However, it is valuable in that your desperate search found one of the very few bits of research I've seen in some searching that even refers to the where the glaciers where at in the MWP. That guy has also raised genuine concerns about the timing of the Little Ice Age, among other matters. However, he also seems to be talking about glaciers in a certain region. I note you also had to leave a lot out, to make it say what you want. So closer that time - some part of what I said penetrated - but no cigar.

If you had an exact reference to the research that would be helpful. The quote you've got at the moment is confused. I suspect you've left too much out.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 1:47:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm a live aboard yachtsman with a smaller carbon footprint than all of the acclaimed alarmists. I'm the ultimate enviromentalist.

I think I'd have to throw a bit of caution to both the sun and the wind for the sun provides much of my power and the wind, my sweet darling, provides some power and pretty much all my propulsion.

Julia tax me if you can!

I'd be miserable without an abundance of both!

Oh and the ocean is my mother for it rocks me to sleep.
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 1:58:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Curmudgeon is insulted by my suggestion that he uses debating tricks, in a posting full of loaded language ("desperate search", "Heavily adit" (sic)). He seems unaware of the irony of his classic cry: I'm in step, everyone else is out of step! He insists that we ackowledge his starting point, based on the so-called Medieval Warm Period. If he were genuinely interested in the science, rather than ideological debating (that word again!) he would be aware of the well-researched and shaky foundation provided by the MWP.

The reference for Koch et al: http://www.springerlink.com/content/a42l382370422365/

and another:

"The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally," http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf
Posted by nicco, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 2:36:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nicco
thanks for the references. Just so you know, citing a Michael Mann paper is akin to me quoting an Australian Coal Industry study to you as "proof" of whatever. But in any case the paper seems to be just kicking around the dates of the MWP and Little Ice Age - lots of papers on that point - and does not have anything much to do with glaciers as such.

The second reference is about a subset of glaciers in North America not behaving as they should - that is, actually growing - during the MWP, although I was under the impression conditions were different for centuries in parts of America.

But in any case we are still well short of any average of behaviour and still have only the one reference to glaciers and the MWP, so your arguement, and your original criticism of me, completely fails. But enough of this. Leave it with you.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 5:12:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given that there is no compelling scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the driver of climate change, it was surprising to hear Ross Garnaut brazenly claim that AGW has now been proved beyond reasonable doubt. As Tom Quirk demonstrates, Garnaut's rationale has been shown to be simplistic and invalid. Thus, Garnaut's economic recommendations on climate change policy, need to be qualified as being irrational, as they are based on the erroneous assumption that the AGW science is settled.

Similarly, the Productivity Commission's (PC's) conclusions about the relative efficiency of carbon taxes and emission trading schemes made in its report, 'Carbon Emission Policies in Key Economies', need to be qualified. As its terms of reference did not include reviewing the veracity of AGW 'science' , the PC was forced to assume that climate science is settled, and that there is a need to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere. Consequently, its carbon tax/ETS conclusions are hypothetical, and cannot be regarded as justification for the Government's proposed carbon tax policy which lacks scientific and economic justification. The PC found that the renewable energy incentive policies that have been implemented by governments both here and overseas , are very high cost and their continuation unjustified.

The Government is being deceptive in claiming that Treasury modelling shows that the carbon tax would have minimal impact on the economy. As economist Warwick McKibbin pointed out on ABC Lateline Business, there is a serious shortcoming in the Treasury modelling, as it is based on the erroneous assumption that employment would not be affected by imposition of a carbon tax. In other words, the modelling is too simplistic to have any credibility.
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 16 June 2011 12:14:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tom Quirk is asking us to believe a load of nonsense – and he knows it. He knows that an oscillation such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is not a forcing mechanism. It does not add to the amount of energy in the atmosphere or ocean but merely transfers energy between them.

This is evident from the fact that fitting a line to the century of PDO data which is available does not produce a trend. On the other hand, fitting a line to average global temperature records for the same period does produce a clear and statistically significant upward trend, which is ongoing. Why? Because average global temperature is rising.

He also knows that the red line drawn between carefully selected points to show decline or flat-line temperature movement is equally a nonsense. Take for example the red line shown on Fig 2 of the article, purporting to show a decline in temperature over the period 1947-1975.

Even a cursory inspection makes it clear that this “decline” is false, since most of the recorded temperature points are well above the red-line, making it impossible for the line to show a decline.

By relating chalk and cheese one can, presumably, prove anything to be true!
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Thursday, 16 June 2011 12:18:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Curmudgeon repeatedly claims to have examined the science of climate change, and the science of declining glaciers, and the science of sea level rise, and so on. He also lays claim to having been a science reporter (and by implication, having some background in science).

In his most recent offering, he is disparaging about Professor Michael Mann, suggesting that Mann's scientific papers are in some way unreliable.

This gives the game away. Mann is a regular target, and his work is routinely disparaged - but not by scientists. He is attacked and indeed vilified by political and economic critics, for reasons which have little to do with science.

Among the climate science community he is regarded as one of the major players, whose work has developed and evolved over the past decades, and whose (strong) opinions are always worth considering. He has received awards from Science, Nature, the Association of American Geographers, the American Geophysical Union, and many more, while also having the support of the US National Academy of Sciences.

Curmudgeon's sneer at Professor Mann shows (once again) that science takes second place to ideology in Curmudgeon's cosmos.
Posted by nicco, Thursday, 16 June 2011 2:23:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Those interested in the validity or non-validity of the science behind CAGW will find much of interest at the Climate Etc blog (http://judithcurry.com/). As an economist, my take here is that Garnaut, once a first-rate economist who did some good work, has been seduced by the fame and kudos (in some quarters) of being a highly-partisan point man for the ALP on its most prominent, government-defining, issue, and that his analytical rigour in assessing "climate change" "science" is much less than he once applied in his area of expertise.

If it comes to a choice between Garnaut and Warwick McKibbin, I (and I think the great majority of economists) would rank McKibbin as a superior, more rigorous, source.

As for the article, it seems to raise points in areas which have never been adequately addressed in warmist models.
Posted by Faustino, Sunday, 19 June 2011 7:04:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy