From the pen of Chris de Freitas comes this short but compelling narrative, inspired and inspiring, and calming, like a cool balm on an inflammation. Read it and watch the heat from the global warming debate dissipate and important issues clarify. Reprinted here with Chris’ kind permission.
Chris de Freitas: Emotion clouding underlying science of global warming
First published in the NZ Herald, 5:30 a.m. Wednesday Jan 5, 2011
Professor de Freitas
Unlike most other hot-button environmental issues, global warming is widely misunderstood. As a climate scientist, thinking about this, it struck me that it was not surprising, since accounts of the scientific basics of global warming almost never appear anywhere in the press.
There is not space here to include all the charts and numbers that might accompany such an account. In their place is a necessarily brief summary.
Most people are not shocked to learn that global warming discussions evoke polarised views, but many are surprised to discover that the scientific basics are not contentious. An awareness of these is helpful in building an understanding of the extent to which there is a problem and how it might be addressed.
On average, heat gained by the Earth from energy received from the Sun is equal to heat lost to space. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane, regulate this heat loss.
Global warming theory says that mankind’s burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal adds to the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, which controls how fast the Earth loses energy to space.
More carbon dioxide causes warming in the lower atmosphere until Earth-to-space energy balance is once again restored.
The degree of warming directly caused by the extra carbon dioxide is, by itself, relatively small. This is not controversial. What is controversial is whether this initial change will trigger further climate changes that would be large or damaging.
Debate focuses on climate feedbacks that may or may not suppress, perpetuate or amplify an initial change caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. A doubling of carbon dioxide, by itself, adds only about one degree Celsius to greenhouse warming. Computer climate models project more warming because the modellers build in feedbacks from water vapour and clouds that amplify the initial change. These are the so-called positive feedbacks. For example, higher temperature would mean more evaporation globally, which in turn means more heat-trapping water vapour is put into the atmosphere, leading to even higher temperatures.
On the other hand, negative feedbacks might prevail. For example, more water vapour in the atmosphere could lead to greater cloud cover. Clouds reflect the heat from the Sun and cool the Earth, offsetting the initial rise in global temperature.
The role of negative feedback processes are played down by global warming alarmists, whereas sceptics point to the four-billion-year-old global climate record that shows runaway global cooling or warming has never occurred because negative feedbacks regulate the global climate system.
It is important to consider the above in the proper context. Change is a constant feature of climate, even through recent human history. During the Medieval Warm Period, from 900 to 1200 AD, the Vikings sailed in Arctic waters that by 1700 had turned to permanent sea ice, and farmed in Greenland soil in a climate that soon became too cold for agriculture.
The Medieval Warm Period was followed by the Little Ice Age which ended around 1850. It in turn was followed by another warm period. The hottest year since 1850 was 1998. In the nine years since 2002 average annual global temperature has not risen.
Most people are surprised to hear that no one has uncovered any empirical real-world evidence that humans are causing dangerous global warming. Finding this evidence is crucial, since scientific issues are resolved by observations that support a theory or hypothesis. They are not resolved by ballot.
Scientific opinion is like climate models; neither is evidence of dangerous global warming.
None of this is to say we should simply walk away from considerations of a global warming threat, but prudent consideration of the scientific facts is essential.
No science should have to rely on one group or authority saying, “Just trust us,” particularly when tens of millions of dollars of public policy decisions are on the line.
Dr Chris de Freitas is an Associate Professor in the School of Environment at the University of Auckland.
Views: 101
I made this point a while back on an internet forum. The issue of feedbacks has never, to my knowledge, been mentioned in the MSM. So this article is long overdue, thanks to Chris de Freitas.
Interesting that they haven’t published any comments on the Herald. I added mine about two days ago.
Oh dear. This response from Gareth is just full of inaccuracies. Its mind boggling how little he knows.He really hasnt got it yet has he?
I’d go through it and “fisk” it but since only 18 people read his blog its hardly worth it…
http://hot-topic.co.nz/de-freitas-politics-cloud-his-understanding-of-climate-science/
Yes, R2D2 gives a good reply on those grounds — he’s on the money.
I want to agree with you about it being a waste of time reasoning for the benefit of a small number of people, but if we all said that, blogs like this wouldn’t exist, because when I started, nobody was reading it!
When good men remain silent, evil may triumph.
It’s understandable you don’t want to get the mud on your shoes, which always happens when visiting HT, but I can’t get in there. Could you just give R2D2 a round of applause, perhaps?
After all, the fact remains that no papers confirm the link between human actions and dangerous warming. Indeed, there’s none even setting out the premise, only about the greenhouse effect itself.
Also, warming is not all due to CO2, much less the man-made increment.
It is good occasionally to hear voices raised against the nonsense.
Given that Gareth describes the Herald article as “denialist claptrap”, perhaps we might suggest to him or one of his co-authors that they write an article for the Herald outlining their case.
I would imagine most of the public would read the de Freitas article and see a calm and reasonable argument.
Not a bad idea. But the essence of your point is that insults, though they feel good and, well expressed, sound impressive, never refute an argument, and some of Gareth’s arguments have not even addressed what de Freitas said, much less refuted them. We must keep to the facts and the arguments.
18 people?? Have a look at the current blog rankings. Hot Topic is currently 7th in NZ with 1400 page views/day average!
Mind you climate change deniers probably smooth our 1400, correct for natural effects and get 18 – that’s the level of their maths!
Hey, Richard Treadgold. What about putting a stat counter on your blog and allowing public access. I would love to include you in the blog rankings.
Heh, heh! The 18 readers was said with tongue firmly in cheek, I’m sure.
Yes, denier maths, smoothing, etc., very funny.
A stat counter could be fun. I noticed your little exercise the other day. It’s a low priority, but maybe some day.
The CCG seems to be running at about 2.5 times those daily average page views for the last several months, so we’re certainly competitive. That’s raw data, by the way — no smoothing, no adjustments.
“The 18 readers was said with tongue firmly in cheek, I’m sure”
Actually, no.
Thats how many seem to give thumbs down on Gareths cute little censoring system so I guess that how many supporters the site actually has.
I note that HT has been mentioned on both Kiwiblog and WUWT several times in the past couple of months. In a negative and scornful manner too so those sites have probably been driving traffic to HT.
If Ken thinks that all the visitors are supporters then I am afraid he is probably wrong (again)
Well, Richard – I do look forward to you including a stat counter. It requires very little effort and its automatic once set up.
My only motive is to get as many NZ blogs as possible on the list as possible and I know others use it. It has been running for about 18 months now and has about 230 blogs.
What do you mean by “The CCG seems to be running at about 2.5 times those daily average page views for the last several months, so we’re certainly competitive.”?
Are you talking about 2.5 times 18? Or 2.5 time 1400? Or what?
See the advantage of objective data.
You can understand why I am suspicious of numbers quoted around here!
Ken, you stated Hot Topic’s “daily average page views” were 1400. Ours have been 2.5 times that for several months. I don’t promise to set up a counter. It’s of minor interest, like judging the worth of an argument by the authority of the protagonist. That’s a no-no.
I can understand suspicion; it raises a desire to verify information.
Meanwhile: Do you agree with taking a temperature reading and applying it 1200km distant?
Richard Treadgold – so your claimed daily average page views ar 2.5 * 1400 = 3500.
Currently Hot Topic is ranked 7 th at 1515 page views/day. Your claim would rank your blog at 4th above SciBlogs and “here comes the Sun.”
If that is so you should shout it from the roof tops! It would be great publicity for your cause – a higher rank than the leading scientific blogs in the country!!
I actually don’t believe you – you have made a mistake (perhaps monthly page views”?) or it is just bravado. But it is extremely easy for you to confirm.
I don’t know what your problem is with “taking a temperature reading and applying it 1200km distant?” Are you seriously considering Cunning’s little challenge? – even he is now conceding that applying global data to correct regional data is wrong!
Mind you his new proposal is even sillier.
How about some evidence, eh. I am happy to accept o copy of your stats by email but ideally think you should make them public here. Maybe even a special post (after all this would be great news for you).
So shout it from the roof top – but provide the evidence.
Or better still make your stat counter public. probably only takes one click – you must already be collecting the stats.
Actually, Richard Treadgold If you send me the evidence of your claim for you stats (approx 3500 page views per day over the last few months) including visit number (which the ranking is based on) I promise to write up a post on my blog bringing your amazing success to the attention of my readers.
Fair deal, eh? You may want to be modest – i don’t mind advertising your success. I often write about NZ blog rankings.
Yes, that’s what I said, they are our figures.
When you suggested I shout it from the roof-tops I was on the point of replying: “Oh, maybe I should.” But then you said without evidence that you don’t believe me. Do you take irritating pills, or do you just practise a lot?
This post is about global warming basics and the site discusses the climate. Please stop engaging in O/T silliness. I don’t feel obliged to respond to what you believe about our site traffic.
Responding to your second message: I think you do mind advertising our success but you’re inciting me because you hope I’m wrong.
Now you say the ranking is based on visit numbers. Make up your mind.
Must say I am not surprised Richard. Just a repeat of your refusal to provide the data used in your “Are we getting warmer yet?” press release. My analysis shows some cock ups with your data so you want to hide it.
So again you make a claim that can’t be substantiated …[snip] Even when you would get great publicity for your blog.
…[snip]
What about sharing the average daily visit numbers for the last week?
No?
[Snipped for ad hominem remarks.]
Ken,
Maybe you can take this personal discussion of “mine is bigger than yours” offline with Richard?
Richard Treadgold – Alexa actually ranks websites. I don’t think their ranking is as reliable as actual visit numbers. However its worth people going to alexa and having a look – in light of Richard’s claims.
Climate Conversation blog doesn’t even show up there (an indication of minuscule traffic.
Wordshine does but is ranked very low. it has only 3 incoming links from Alexa surveys.
Sciblogs has 183 incoming links and Hot Topic 139.
Both these blogs are ranked very much higher than Wordshine.
I repeat – climate conversation blog doesn’t even rank.
Best explanation – Treadgold has been telling porkies again.
“Best explanation – Treadgold has been telling porkies again.”
Or could it be that Alexa ranks US traffic?
Alexa ranks based on readings taken from those who have got the Alexa toolbar installed. If none of your visitors has the Alexa toolbar installed, then you will rank zero.
Thanks, guys. Your support is priceless! But Ken just makes me sick, so I’ve given in and posted the last seven days’ traffic figures. Let’s see whether he continues to malign us or recognises our “achievement”.
Alexa also usually gives a ranking for NZ if there is significant traffic. It gives a very low ranking for Moonshine (nothing at all for conversations). It doesn’t rank Hot-Topic in NZ presumably because most visitors are from outside NZ (it ranks for US).
We could look at other rankings sites – but if Alexa doesn’t list conversations I don’t think they will either.
No Richard – I am not making you sick – I am simply calling you out on your claims. You refuse to support them.
Of course your sickness could be guilt?
This is what I get at Technoraiti:
“No results in your search for “https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/.” Try refining your search in the form above to get more results”
“even he is now conceding that applying global data to correct regional data is wrong”
No Ken, that’s not the case and you know it. You really do have a serious English comprehension problem.
“taking a temperature reading and applying it 1200km distant?”
Reading about and understanding this situation would be a good start to broadening the mind.
Remember:-
“The mind doesn’t work if it’s closed” – Open Parachute.
I’m curious Ken, why you are averse to subtraction of normal global warming from a regional record but not averse to the same from the global record?
Has it not occurred to you that the global record is aggregated from regional records?
If my proposal is “sillier” then what is your proposed alternative method?
The +0.5 C/century rise since the LIA has been established in peer reviewed papers by:-
1) Solar variation
2) Climatological cause
3) Statistical analysis
i.e.It’s not going away so you may as well get used to it now.
Oh come on Richard C. You should know by now that Ken only demands answers of others and never never responds to questions or requests to back up his own claims.
He thinks he doesnt have to. He is “above” all that being right about everything of course!
He is a superior being and we are just little bugs.
…
[Snipped for ad hominem remarks. Appreciate the support, (not so) Silent, but we must bite our tongues and set a better example than this.]
I actually value opposing views to aid my learning process and have advanced my knowledge on other occasions as a result of being taken to task and this is one more of those occasions.
In the case of normal global warming, Ken has a point that the entire 0.5 C/century should not be subtracted from the 7SS to ascertain the NZ anomaly from that trend but I have NOT conceded that it should not be done at all, contrary to Kens assertion.
The two temperature records – Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere clearly show more warming in the NH than in the SH. For NIWA to say that the 7SS is consistent with the composite global record (NH + SH combined) is bizarre. If the 7SS is not consistent with the SH then there is something wrong with it.
That leaves the question: how much of the normal 0.5 C/century trend to be apportioned to the 7SS in order to determine the 7SS anomaly from the normal climate since 1850?
Should that be done on a land distribution basis as I have proposed? Latitude basis? Some other basis?
Ken has gone silent on this both here and at his own OP blog. I think he’s twigged that the normal trend is only a smaller facet of a bigger picture but his big picture is framed in the AR4 report in 2007 so any new science does not enter his realm of consideration (a closed mind?).
The next mole that Ken will have to thwack is the relatively recent papers that relegate Ken’s beloved linear regressed trends of temperature series to irrelevancy.This development must be highly disconcerting for Ken’s non-progressive mind-set – hence the silence.
I think Ken’s tactic might be to give these notions a solid ignoring in the hope that they will go away – NOW! Otherwise if he addresses them he will be giving them substance and (perish the thought) credibility.
“Should that be done on a land distribution basis as I have proposed? Latitude basis? Some other basis?”
Using a decadal trend basis:-
DECADAL TREND:
Global: +0.14 °C
Northern Hemisphere: +0.21 °C
Southern Hemisphere: +0.08 °C
Last update: December 9, 2010
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
A NH : SH ratio of 0.21 : 0.08
Apportionment of the 0.5 C/century rise to SH = 0.138 C
This is exactly consistent with 0.14 C/century arrived at using landmass distribution.
“probably smooth our 1400”
Considering the 1200km smoothing and the practice of putting temperatures in for regions which dont have temp measurement sites which is done by Hansen at GISS, the gall of this comment is breathtaking.
Well, Ken?
Do you agree with taking a temperature reading and applying it 1200km distant? If so, do you consider it could introduce errors into the temperature series? Would you tolerate such a practice with the NZTR?
What qualifications are required to be syndicated in SciBlogs?
You sparked my interest, I had a look. No requirements are stated, just “apply”, so they’ll make it up as they go. I might apply, because having a quick look around at the posts, I found a whole lot of unscientific, ad hominem opinion from Renowden, Walker and Perrott. Much of it names yours truly and speaks of me in deeply unflattering terms, so in fairness, Sciblogs ought to give me a chance to answer their criticisms.
Why bother Richard? There are none so blind as those who will not see.
A university teacher of mine once said that he disliked those who wrote to news papers – because they are always right. With all due respect to your contributors, blogs are a bit like that too. Comparative numbers of page views have no real meaning because they tend to be generated by those who are adherents to a philosophy, or have particular axes to grind (for and against). Unless, of course, they are important in trying to generate and/or sustain advertising revenue.
I find the whole argument about trends of fractions of a degree over a century mystifying when we know that the errors of measurement at any given station are likely to be in the range of ±0.5 to ±2°C.
“I find the whole argument about trends of fractions of a degree over a century mystifying…”
That puts the conclusions drawn from these fractional ‘trends’ into proper context. Thanks.
In my view, the absolute number of page views is of little relevance, unless you are trying to drive advertising revenue.
If you get high search rankings for certain phrases For example, if you search Google for “Don Easterbrook”, you will see Hot Topic and Deltoid in the first page. These will undoubtedly drive traffic to these sites.
A good blog is probably measured more by its “stickyness”, to use the vernacular. If you have a regular group of commenters and contributers, then then is a sticky site – i.e it is getting repeat visitors.
Facebook is probably the most sticky site on the net.
Another metric is Google’s “page rank” which gives an indication of relative importance of the site from a citation perspective.
You can use various tools such as Google Analytics to measure some of these metrics.
However, unless you are trying to make money from your blog, they are primarily of academic interest.
Ken, I’ve thought about your objection to my subtraction of a global trend from a regional dataset and it does have merit.
What is required then is apportionment of the 0.5 C/century between Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
I propose using landmass distribution North : South so that:-
39 : 19 = 67.2% : 32.8% = 0.336 C : 0.164 C
This gives a normal SH rise of +0.14 C/century rise that can be subtracted from the 7SS NZTR.
What say you?
Most if not all their arguments rely on circular reasoning. In particular, the whole issue around the CO2 “Control Knob” – viz the Lacis et al paper.
Roy Spencer did a fairly good critique of this a while back.
If you read some of the comments on HT, it is surprising how little understanding there is of some of the basic issues, even amongst the fervent believers. In particular, quite a few seems unable to distinguish between the black body CO2 theoretical warming, and the implied climate sensitivity due to the behaviour of CO2 in the real world.
Another comment that frequently irks me is the “you cannot argue with physics” line.
A rock and a feather will, according to the laws of basic physics, fall at the same rate. Yet in the real, non-linear, world, the feather will blow away and land in a tree. (I found that rather illuminating analogy from a commenter on Bishop Hill)
I enjoyed the feather analogy, too. I agree with the apparent lack of understanding.
Stressing the theoretical warming is done only to avoid discussing the possibility of humans causing dangerous warming now or later, a discussion they will lose. But it’s the essential one, since nobody disagrees with the greenhouse effect, and it’s not dangerous!
And nothing much to be gained by arguing the toss in the zones of physics, modeling and paleo. More weight to my proposal to focus on alternative climate hypotheses, recovery from LIA and extraction of temperature trends via intrinsic stats methods e.g. Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD).
I’m encouraged that Chris points out the LIA. The recovery from that is one of the most important issues to come out of 2010 on a number of fronts I’m sure. Note how vehemently Ken whacks that mole.
——————————————————————————————————————————
Re EMD.
I have a command line utility that I want to run (emd.exe) to analyze the 7SS. Do you Andy (or anyone) know how to run it at the Windows command line prompt? i.e.It’s a utility binary program, not an command that the interpreter recognizes.
I am not familiar with emd.exe. Put it in the same directory as your dataset and run it from the command prompt, or set up an environment variable in Windows. Email me if you need help
“Could you just give R2D2 a round of applause, perhaps?”
Done.
Hes only scratching the surface in what could be said too.
“Gareth describes the Herald article as “denialist claptrap”, perhaps we might suggest to him or one of his co-authors that they write an article for the Herald outlining their case.”
They have. Check out Bryan Walkers and Gareths submissions. They all look like a ‘copy and paste” from a handout by a WWF “journalist”..
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10687561
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10687099
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10675392
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10680285
etc etc
I would challenge Chris on a couple of points, which are:-
1) water vapour, CO2 and Methane do not compare in their quantities, but Chris’ statement could be misconstrued as indicating so.
2) The hottest year of the 20th century is actually 1934, not 1998. Jim Hansen at NASA-GISS has been caught out changing temperatures of the last decade more than once.
Other that these, I agree with Chris.
Thanks for the comments. Those guys are impossible. I try to have a balanced discussion but get painted into a corner. I am not a climate scientist but do work in a related field. My personal opinion on AGW is actually undecided (I think there are intelligent honest scientists on both sides of the debate and I do not have the expertise to conclusively judge who is right), but when I see some of the deceptions used over at HT I cannot resist commenting. Because I disagree with aspects of their mantra I am painted the villain and they all attack. I always tell myself this is the last comment but I can never resist but reply to the crap they write – probably a mistake.
Sometimes before I post I imagine a wasps nest. All the wasps are angrily swarming around the nest but happy in their own little domain. A comment is the equivalent of disturbing the nest; suddenly they have a common enemy to attack! And next thing a thread has over 100 comments on it and I feel like I have been attacked by brainless wasps. ……Yet I still can’t resist but to disturb that wasp nest
Richard, how has Gareth banned you? There doesn’t seem to be much securty on comments. All it requires is an unverified email address and a user name. If Gareth bans the user name ‘Richard Treadgold’ and you desperately want to make a comment why not just use ‘Rich T’ and the email address you@hello.goodbye? Or any other variation.
R2D2,
What honest remarks you make. I know how you feel about being drawn once again against your will into disturbing the evil wasps.
As to the banning: it’s largely voluntary, since I know Gareth detects my contributions. Some months ago I created a hotmail address or similar and posted a comment because my patience was at an end but Renowden saw the IP address of the sender was my own. I could work through a proxy server but I’ve not bothered.
At the moment I am determined not to venture near the place again. In other words, the sine curve of my negative emotional heat has reached the zenith. As it cools, I may look for a proxy server.
But the conversations here are genial, intelligent, honest, generous, rewarding and useful. I want for nothing.
Anybody spot the error?
Thanks Richard. Yes if he is detecting the IP address then there is no point bothering.
In arguing with the warmists, one needs to chose your battles wisely. Chose only ones you know you can win.
They have got all their answers off pat. They have their firefox add-ins, their “denier cards”, and their standard list of approved and disapproved websites and blogs.
This isn’t restricted to AGW of course. It is prevalent across the whole spectrum of the “liberal left”. Melanie Philips refers to this as the “secular inquisition”.
Thanks for a clear and excellent explanation.
I now just hope our politicians can digest it and realise they are currently following a folly.
“I don’t know what your problem is with “taking a temperature reading and applying it 1200km distant?””
What a fantastic admission.
Lets think about what that means for the NZTR and their sites. Bluff and Cape Reinga the same, are they?
Ken really hasn’t read any criticism of Hansen, GISS and how they work has he.
[Snipped for ad hominem remarks.]
Ok Richard, fair enough for the snip(s)
Off topic but I see Wayne Mapp is going to retire.
Now that Rodney Hide has pretty much finished with the Supercity perhaps he could get himself assigned as, say, Assoc Minister of Science, Tech, etc.
I’m sure he’d make a good boss for Niwa and Sci-blogs…
Rodney in charge of NIWA? Oh, ho, ho! What a delicious thought!
But he tells me there’s a lot of work left to make the new arrangements come together properly, so he’s still quite busy with it.
This is the kind of drivel we get from our NZ academics on this topic.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/how-to-believe-in-impossible-things/#comment-22730
Is this for real?
“But as an example of successful whacking I would like to cite the case of the McLean, de Freitas and Carter paper. It was shot down mercilessly”
Not quite the way I would have put it – but close.
No comments up in the NZ Herald for CdF’s article yet… Almost a week now.