Tag Archives: FUD

Videobreak: The Colbert Report – “Heatsteria”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Jonah Goldberg’s classic know-nothing, non-denial climate denial

Jonah Goldberg has a new op-ed in the LA Times on climate science, and it’s about as confused and asinine as you might expect. First Jonah wants to astound us with his grasp of paleoclimate science:

There was a Maunder Minimum! It had to do with sunspots! It was cold!:

During what scientist call the Maunder Minimum — a period of solar inactivity from 1645 to 1715 — the world experienced the worst of the cold streak dubbed the Little Ice Age. At Christmastime, Londoners ice skated on the Thames, and New Yorkers (then New Amsterdamers) sometimes walked over the Hudson from Manhattan to Staten Island.

Of course, it could have been a coincidence. The Little Ice Age began before the onset of the Maunder Minimum. Many scientists think volcanic activity was a more likely, or at least a more significant, culprit. Or perhaps the big chill was, in the words of scientist Alan Cutler, writing in the Washington Post in 1997, a “one-two punch from a dimmer sun and a dustier atmosphere.”

“What does the Maunder minimum have to do with anthropogenic warming?” you might ask, given that a mere 7 years of 2003-level CO2 emissions alone would make up for the lost radiative forcing. Jonah seems to believe that Revelations of Great Importance about sunspots may throw a monkey wrench in the whole anthropogenic warming scam:

Well, we just might find out. A new study in the American Geophysical Union’s journal Eos suggests that we may be heading into another quiet phase similar to the Maunder Minimum.

I’m not finding any “new studies” in EOS that claim this. Is Goldberg talking about Livingston and Penn’s article Are Sunspots Different During This Solar Minimum? If so, add “study” to the pile of things Jonah doesn’t understand the definition of. And again, given the effect of GHGs vs. a return to Maunder like conditions, Jonah’s barking up the wrong tree.

Meanwhile, the journal Science reports that a study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR, has finally figured out why increased sunspots have a dramatic effect on the weather, increasing temperatures more than the increase in solar energy should explain. Apparently, sunspots heat the stratosphere, which in turn amplifies the warming of the climate.

Scientists have known for centuries that sunspots affected the climate; they just never understood how. Now, allegedly, the mystery has been solved.

Meehl et al.’s paper Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing is certainly interesting, but it’s by no means definitive, and it’s not really clear what impact it is supposed by Jonah to have on our understanding of anthropogenic warming- the paper purports to model the process by which known phenomena are amplified to produce known observations. Again, what point does Jonah hope to make by citing this?

Also, Milankovitch cycles have a significant impact on glaciation cycles! Something else climate scientists were ignorant of. Let Jonah blow your mind:

Last month, in another study, also released in Science, Oregon state researchers claimed to settle the debate over what caused and ended the last Ice Age. Increased solar radiation coming from slight changes in the Earth’s rotation, not greenhouse gas levels, were to blame.

The Clark et al. paper The Last Glacial Maximum helps pin down the timing of various forcings during the deglaciation ending the LGM (i.e. the lag vs. lead issue), identifying insolation as the initial driver. However, the paper confirms the significant amplifying effect of GHGs without which the magnitude of warming would not have been possible, and supports other evidence which shows that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet will not decay linearly but rather abruptly- not exactly a paper I’d want to cite in challenging the consensus on the need to mitigate.

Did you know that periodicity necessitates a long term upward trend, and that this self-evident fact is completely ignored by egg headed climate scientists? Gerald Meehl may think his team’s above referenced paper is only talking about a modest amplified response to the 11-year solar cycle, but Meehl’s actually in denial that he’s discovered a massive long term solar-induced warming trend. Jonah to the rescue:

“Global warming is a long-term trend, Dr. Meehl says. … [the Science 11-year solar cycle] study attempts to explain the processes behind a periodic occurrence.”

This overlooks the fact that solar cycles are permanent “periodic occurrences,” a.k.a. a very long-term trend.

Stupid, stupid Meehl… You have to look beyond what the evidence actually says and force yourself to see the evidence visible only to Jonah.

[Periodicity of course does not imply a long term trend either positive or negative. The existence or lack of any additional long term behavior superimposed on top of the 11-year periodicity is an altogether different kettle of fish, which again I’ll get to later.]

It wouldn’t be a Goldberg piece without some requisite potshots at the deceptive Liberal Fascist Media:

For instance, when we have terribly hot weather, or bad hurricanes, the media see portentous proof of climate change. When we don’t, it’s a moment to teach the masses how weather and climate are very different things.

Of course we get the look-aren’t-I-reasonable non-denial:

No, I’m not denying that man-made pollution and other activity have played a role in planetary warming since the Industrial Revolution.

And you know what’s coming next- an enormous “but”, where non sequiturs and appeal to ridicule abound:

But we live in a moment when we are told, nay lectured and harangued, that if we use the wrong toilet paper or eat the wrong cereal, we are frying the planet.

Presumably the references to toilet paper and cereal aren’t meant to be taken at face value, but rather are to be “enjoyed” as Jonah’s trademark “aren’t enviros nutty little fascists” humor. If on the off chance they were an actual allusion to tropical deforestation, however, the warming effects of such due to increased atmospheric CO2 and decreased evapotranspiration are real enough.

Hey! Did you know that climate science has heretofore completely ignored solar variability in the context of climate change? Jonah breaks this scandal wide open:

But the sun? Well, that’s a distraction. Don’t you dare forget your reusable shopping bags, but feel free to pay no attention to that burning ball of gas in the sky — it’s just the only thing that prevents the planet from being a lifeless ball of ice engulfed in total darkness.

What’s priceless about this little argument from ignorance is that the sun is most certainly not, in Jonah’s words,  “the only thing that prevents the planet from being a lifeless ball of ice.” There’s a little something called the bloody greenhouse effect that warms the Earth by an additional ~33°C, keeping it from being a “lifeless ball of ice” whereas the sole influence of the sun does not.

Jonah then doubles (triples) down on the increased sunspot gambit, a la The Great Global Warming Swindle:

Never mind that sunspot activity doubled during the 20th century, when the bulk of global warming has taken place.

This is presumably where Jonah’s sunspot obsession has been leading all along. The ever-observant Jonah has noted that there seems to be a Correlation between sunspots/solar activity (which he Has Recently Learned causes warming, long term warming mind you) and what the enivro hippie fascist scientists would have us believe is the period of Allegedly Man-made Warming. Case closed, mirite?

Not so much. The correlation falls off completely in the last several decades:

This has been covered at length elsewhere (e.g. here, here, here).

Did you know that climate science predicts anthropogenic warming should be monotonic even though climate scientists actually never make that claim? Jonah, again, sets the scientific community straight:

What does it say that the modeling that guaranteed disastrous increases in global temperatures never predicted the halt in planetary warming since the late 1990s? (MIT’s Richard Lindzen says that “there has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.”)

Of course this has been covered many, many times elsewhere, notably by Robert Grumbine in determining climatologically significant temperature trends (and here), by Tamino in when to expect new record temperatures, and by RealClimate discussing what the IPCC models actually say. This issue is also explicitly addressed by Easterling and Wehner in their GRL paper Is the climate warming or cooling? that demonstrates (as does the RealClimate post) that climate models, contrary to Jonah’s claim they “guaranteed disastrous increases in global temperatures [and] never predicted the halt in planetary warming since the late 1990s” do in fact capture the kind of variability that can give the illusion of a period without warming despite a clear overall warming trend:

Jonah probably has, like Roger Pielke Jr., confused the IPCC projection of the forced component of climate over time with specific temperature predictions. However, the ensemble averaged projection isn’t even monotonic itself, and the individual modeling runs certainly are not:

Jonah asks:

What does it say that the modelers have only just now discovered how sunspots make the Earth warmer?

If it were remotely true, it would say quite a lot. Of course, there’s the pesky little issue of Jonah not knowing what the frack he’s talking about. Sunspots don’t themselves warm the Earth, but rather sunspots coincide with increased solar luminosity, and changes in solar forcing certainly have an impact on the climate system- something known for decades. While the precise mechanism by which this occurs may not have been modeled until now (and still might not), the magnitude of the effect is small enough so as to be irrelevant in the context of end-of-century projections of future warming.

Jonah’s own referencing of the Maunder minimum clearly demonstrates that the sunspot/solar variability/climate link is far from new information, and solar variability both pre-industrial and current are of course taken into account in modeling the climate. What does it say about Jonah that the implications of his own column debunks this ridiculous proposition?

And of course, we end with Jonah’s actual bottom line. All of this whinging about toilet paper and sunspots and cereal, and ignorance of the meaning of scientific “study”, what climate models actually say, etc. is merely the pretext for a political argument from ignorance in opposition to climate legislation:

I don’t know what it tells you, but it tells me that maybe we should study a bit more before we spend billions to “solve” a problem we don’t understand so well.

Although the scientific process is obviously deeply mysterious to Jonah, to the rest of us things aren’t so terribly opaque. While our understanding of the climate system increases, the broad strokes of the anthropogenic warming issue are well understood. This is why the national science academies of the US and other major science producing nations are united in their calls for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Jonah’s argument is the equivalent of  telling an HIV-positive patient that she should hold off on taking the recommended antiretroviral cocktail that will help her lead a relatively normal life because ‘we are still learning new things’ about the virus every day. It’s nonsensical, and more to the point grossly negligent advice.

The only meaningfully true statement Jonah makes in his entire column is this one:

What is the significance of all this? To say I have no idea is quite an understatement, but it will have to do.

Indeed. I believe in Jonah’s line of work we call that burying the lede.

This is what we can expect as blatant climate denialism becomes ever more ridiculed and politically untenable- the non-denial denialism. The lip service to anthropogenic warming that is ultimately revealed to be concealing the same old anti-mitigation arguments based upon economic/ideological opposition to the feared remedy of emissions reductions. This is what so many people who naively believe that “if only people were more accepting of science, they would be less opposed to preventing disastrous climate change” don’t get. The Jonah Goldbergs of the world are not, have never been, and will never be interested in what the science actually says. They are ideologically opposed to the implied solution of emissions reductions, and they shift their arguments accordingly.

Even if Jonah is made aware of the inanity of his specific complaints in this column in terms of policy relevance, he will simply move to a new but inevitably anti-mitigation position, be it geo-engineering, a gamed cost/benefit stance in the tradition of Jim Manzi, the Breakthrough fallacy of magical future clean energy, etc. Once those arguments are rebutted, we’ll still see a “But, but, China/India!” And by the time those arguments (or their successors, or their successors) are thoroughly debunked and untenable, there probably won’t be need of any further ones as the clock will have effectively run out on meaningful mitigation due to political and energy infrastructure inertia.

This is not, and will never be, about science for them. It’s about running out the clock on a perceived threat to economic interests.

AEI on geo-engineering: A badly broken record

Although I don’t have much to add to the Alan Robock guest RealClimate post on Lomborg/AEI’s profoundly misleading cost-benefit “analysis” on geo-engineering, I will shamelessly point back to a post I wrote over a year ago on AEI and geo-engineering that covered much of the same ground in terms of ignored negative consequences.

Ones for the Road

“Honest Broker” bemoans lack of “common decency” and in the same breath accuses others of plagiarism

In his seemingly endless assault on the reputations of the scientists who blog at RealClimate, Roger Pielke, Jr. is accusing some of them of plagiarism. This is a grave accusation, one that Roger does nothing more to substantiate than repost an email whose own author acknowledges that it does not itself offer solid evidence for such a claim. In a bit of delicious irony, Roger does all this while bemoaning RealClimate authors’ lack of “common decency”. We will recall that this is the same Roger Pielke, Jr. who:

  • accused RealClimate authors and others of censoring debate by “seek[ing] to shut down… discussion with intimidation, bluster, and name-calling” because they were so unkind as to point out Roger’s numerous errors regarding temperature trends (of course Roger’s grandiose and unsubstantiated persecution claims also extend to answering bloggers’ questions)
  • accused RealClimate of being on par with paid denialist shills like Pat Michaels in pushing a political agenda, merely for debunking denialists’ claims
  • accused RealClimate of not making falsifiable predictions, and upon being presented with one, falsely accused RealClimate of reversing themselves on the relative importance of multi-year “trends”, and accused RealClimate of “looking for suckers”, playing with a “stacked deck”, etc. for simply offering odds to a team on their published forecast
  • accused Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate of being a thief by falsely claiming Schmidt had “admit{ted} to stealing”

Etc. I’m all for a little more “common decency” in these discussions.

After you, Roger.

Ones for the Road

Reliable sources: Climate Realists, Craig Idso, ocean acidification edition

Robert Grumbine has explored the unreliability of a particular source in several of his posts, and I thought I’d comment on a similar experience with the same group, “Climate Realists (formerly CO2 Skeptics)”. Looking for media coverage of the InterAcademy Panel’s statement on ocean acidification (more on that later), I came across this post by Craig Idso, entintled- I kid you not- “The Ocean Acidification Fiction”.

Idso is a favorite of the denialists, as unlinke the vast majority (e.g. the gruesome twosome of Monckton and Inhofe) he has a science background (and ostensibly some relevant publications), and can at least mantain a veneer of sanity. This by no means makes him or “Climate Realists” a reliable source on climate change and associated issues however, as the post in question reveals in short order.

Idso cites Liu et al.’s Instability of seawater pH in the South China Sea during the mid-late Holocene: Evidence from boron isotopic composition of corals as the first supporting study for his claim that ocean acidification is “fiction”.

Idso [emphasis mine]:

Working with eighteen samples of fossil and modern Porites corals recovered from the South China Sea, the nine researchers employed 14C dating using the liquid scintillation counting method, along with positive thermal ionization mass spectrometry to generate high precision δ11B (boron) data, from which they reconstructed the paleo-pH record of the past 7000 years that is depicted in the figure below.

As can be seen from this figure, there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the two most recent pH values. They are neither the lowest of the record, nor is the decline rate that led to them the greatest of the record. Hence, there is no compelling reason to believe they were influenced in any way by the nearly 40% increase in the air’s CO2 concentration that has occurred to date over the course of the Industrial Revolution. As for the prior portion of the record, Liu et al. note that there is also “no correlation between the atmospheric CO2 concentration record from Antarctica ice cores and δ11B-reconstructed paleo-pH over the mid-late Holocene up to the Industrial Revolution.”

But as Liu et al. explicitly state in their abstract [emphasis mine]:

The paleo-pH records of the SCS, reconstructed from the δ11B data, were not stable as previously thought but show a gradual increase from the Holocene thermal optimal and a sharp decrease to modern values. The latter is likely caused by the large amount of anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution but variations of atmospheric pCO2 cannot explain the pH change of the SCS before the Industrial Revolution. We suggest that variations of monsoon intensity during the mid-late Holocene may have driven the sea surface pH increase from the mid to late Holocene. Results of this study indicate that the impact of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 emissions may have reversed the natural pH trend in the SCS since the mid-Holocene. Such ocean pH records in the current interglacial period can help us better understand the physical and biological controls on ocean pH and possibly predict the long-term impact of climate change on future ocean acidification.

This is a beautiful example of the classic denialist tactic of citing studies that explicitly refute your argument as though they support it. As the utter dearth of refereed studies supporting denialists’ claims became ever more apparent (highlighted memorably by Naomi Oreskes’ metanalysis of the consensus view in Science), they had little choice but to pretend the opposite. Hence the Heartland Institute claiming Michael Mann and others’ published work “Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares” when it consists of years and even decades of supporting it.

Idso then cites Pelejero et al.’s Preindustrial to Modern Interdecadal Variability in Coral Reef pH as further support that ocean acidificaiton is “fiction”. However, Pelejaro et al. open [emphasis mine]:

The oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorption of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The impact of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems is unclear, but it will likely depend on species adaptability and the rate of change of seawater pH relative to its natural variability. To constrain the natural variability in reef-water pH, we measured boron isotopic compositions in a È300-year-old massive Porites coral from the southwestern Pacific. Large variations in pH are found over È50-year cycles that covary with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation of ocean-atmosphere anomalies, suggesting that natural pH cycles can modulate the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere from È280 to more than 370 parts per million per volume (ppmv), a level unprecedented in the last 420,000 years (1). To date, a large part of anthropogenic CO2 emissions has been absorbed by the oceans (2), which have become more acidic, thus reducing their capacity to continue to absorb CO2. Estimates of global oceanic pH trends to the year 2000 indicate that the oceans have already acidified by 0.1 pH units relative to preindustrial times (3, 4). Geochemical models forecast an exponential decrease of nearly 0.8 pH units by 2300 (4), a scenario for which there is no obvious precedent over the last hundreds of millions of years (5), with the possible exception of abrupt changes such as those associated with the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum 55.5 million years ago (6).

Although Pelejaro et al. quite explicitly contradict Idso’s broader assertion (that acidification is a “fiction”), what Idso/Climate Realists is attempting here is better viewed as a different tactic than that used with Liu et al., another favorite of denialists- the cherry pick.

If a study cited by a denialist doesn’t outright refute what he claims it supports, it will almost assuredly consist of a study that deals with an isolated instance or location and concern itself with phenomena that have nothing to do with or in no way obviate the broad effects of climate change (or as here ocean acidification).

Idso cites the lack of a statistically significant decline decline in pH in addition to the large amount of variability experienced by Flinders reef as though it somehow invalidates ocean acidification:

These researchers also found that “there is no notable trend toward lower δ11B values.” Instead, they discovered that “the dominant feature of the coral δ11B record is a clear interdecadal oscillation of pH, with δ11B values ranging between 23 and 25 per mil (7.9 and 8.2 pH units),” which they say “is synchronous with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation.”

Pelejaro et al. explain the likely cause of the variability:

The most likely explanation for the variability in pH at Flinders Reef is that coral reef calcification combined with limited flushing of reef water exerts an important local control over the extent of the buildup of partial pressure of CO2 (PCO2) within the reef…

And discuss their findings in context of the acidifying ocean:

The interdecadal cycle in seawater pH observed at Flinders Reef has relevance for predicting its response to future ocean acidification, given that it will either enhance or moderate the local effects of the projected long-term decrease in pH (3, 4). For example, the next rise in the ~50-year cycle of reef-water pH should counteract the lowering of pH values at Flinders Reef until ~2035 A.D. Conversely, the subsequent fall in the reef-water pH cycle will lead to an abrupt shift toward low pH reef water. The extent to which corals and other calcifying reef organisms can adapt to such rapid decreases in pH is largely unknown.

Our findings suggest that the effects of progressive acidification of the oceans are likely to differ between coral reefs because reef-water PCO2 and consequent changes in seawater pH will rarely be in equilibrium with the atmosphere. Although the relatively large variations in seawater pH at Flinders Reef suggest that coral reefs may be resilient to the shorter term effects of ocean acidification, in the coming decades many reefs are likely to experience reduced pH that is unprecedented relative to “natural” levels. Additional paleo-pH records are required from a range of coral reef ecosystems to improve our understanding of the physical and biological controls on reef-water pH, and the long-term impacts of future ocean acidification.

Note that Pelejaro et al. explicitly are not claiming that the natural variability in pH that Flinders reef experienced due to its particular geographic circumstances is evidence that Flinders will be immune to the negative consequences of acidification on longer timescales, and in no way refute (and as we’ve seen extensively reference) the reality of acidification generally. Indeed, they repeatedly state that Flinders reef’s local geography cannot be compared to open ocean for purposes of discussing pH and dissolved CO2 in response to comments about the implausibility of their findings.

Idso proceeds to cite, if you can believe the chutzpah, Evidence for ocean acidification in the Great Barrier Reef of Australia. The abstract [emphasis mine]:

Geochemical records preserved in the long-lived carbonate skeleton of corals provide one of the few means to reconstruct changes in seawater pH since the commencement of the industrial era. This information is important in not only determining the response of the surface oceans to ocean acidification from enhanced uptake of CO2, but also to better understand the effects of ocean acidification on carbonate secreting organisms such as corals, whose ability to calcify is highly pH dependent. Here we report an 200 year δ11B isotopic record, extracted from a long-lived Porites coral from the central Great Barrier Reef of Australia. This record covering the period from 1800 to 2004 was sampled at yearly increments from 1940 to the present and 5-year increments prior to 1940. The δ11B isotopic compositions reflect variations in seawater pH, and the δ13C changes in the carbon composition of surface water due to fossil fuel burning over this period. In addition complementary Ba/Ca, δ18O and Mg/Ca data was obtained providing proxies for terrestrial runoff, salinity and temperature changes over the past 200 years in this region. Positive thermal ionization mass spectrometry (PTIMS) method was utilized in order to enable the highest precision and most accurate measurements of δ11B values. The internal precision and reproducibility for δ11B of our measurements are better than ±0.2‰ (2σ), which translates to a precision of better than ±0.02 pH units. Our results indicate that the long-term pre-industrial variation of seawater pH in this region is partially related to the decadal–interdecadal variability of atmospheric and oceanic anomalies in the Pacific. In the periods around 1940 and 1998 there are also rapid oscillations in δ11B compositions equivalent changes in pH of almost 0.5 U. The 1998 oscillation is co-incident with a major coral bleaching event indicating the sensitivity of skeletal δ11B compositions to loss of zooxanthellate symbionts. Importantly, from the 1940s to the present-day, there is a general overall trend of ocean acidification with pH decreasing by about 0.2–0.3 U, the range being dependent on the value assumed for the fractionation factor α(B3–B4) of the boric acid and borate species in seawater. Correlations of δ11B with δ13C during this interval indicate that the increasing trend towards ocean acidification over the past 60 years in this region is the result of enhanced dissolution of CO2 in surface waters from the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, mainly from fossil fuel burning. This suggests that the increased levels of anthropogenic CO2 in atmosphere has already caused a significant trend towards acidification in the oceans during the past decades.

Idso finishes [notation mine]:

In light of these several diverse and independent assessments of the two major aspects of the ocean acidification hypothesis — [1] a CO2-induced decline in oceanic pH that [2] leads to a concomitant decrease in coral growth rate — it would appear that the catastrophe conjured up by the world’s climate alarmists is but a wonderful work of fiction.

On the first point, not one of the studies Idso cites backs his claim that this is not occurring, and in fact they all explictly refute him. Indeed the general decline in ocean pH due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is a robust finding, apparently unchallenged in the primary literature.

On the second point, Idso appears to be passing off the Pelejaro et al. paper, which explicitly rejects the claim that longterm acidification will have no effect on the corals studied, as a complete rebuttal to the threat of acidfication to corals and coral growth. Idso also necessarily ignores the numerous papers published testing and confirming the “alarmist” view that he claims is unsubstantiated, e.g. Hoegh-Guldberg et al. Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification, 2007; Guionette and Fabry Ocean acidification and its potential effects on marine ecosystems, 2008; Jokiel et al. Ocean acidification and calcifying reef organisms: a mesocosm investigation, 2008; Anthony et al. Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders, 2008; Doney et al. Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem, 2009; Silverman et al. Coral reefs may start dissolving when atmospheric CO2 doubles, 2009; etc.

Bottom line: Climate Realists [aka CO2 Skeptics] and Craig Idso are an unreliable source engaging in deliberate falsehoods designed to mislead readers. Whenever possible, and especially when dealing with claims that are far outside the mainstream, check references and read primary sources. Denialists have no qualms about misrepresenting papers or even citing studies that directly refute their claims.