Posts
Five Reasons Fox News Climate Article is Wrong
I can't speak to the true frequency, but it doesn't seem like it is that often that almost everything in a news article is wrong. But FoxNews.com's article, Five Reasons the Planet May Not Be Its Hottest Ever is one of them. It's almost as if it was written on what, as children, we used to call "opposite day." If you are willing to dig behind it a little, the article is almost educational--in a backwards kind of way. Media Matters has a pretty thorough takedown (Fox Tries To Debunk Global Warming, Fails Miserably), which is how I found out about the article in the first place, but I thought I would chime in.
Things get off to a bad start with the headline because it suggests that scientists believe that the planet is the hottest it has ever been in its whole history. Nobody is making that claim--only that it is the hottest on record (and likely for last two thousand years). But bad headlines are a dime a dozen, so let's move on.
The article sets up the World Meteorological Organization's recent announcement that 2010 ties 2005 and 1998 for the warmest (globally speaking) years on record as the backdrop. This is true--the WMO did make that announcement. The article then turns to absurdities with this transition:
But how reliable is the data? Here are five good reasons some scientists are skeptical of these claims.(Attention editor: "data" is a plural word.)
Reason #1: First the article impugns the instrumental temperature record by suggesting (via Anthony Watts) that the warming is an artifact of sensor placement, and second, by claiming that satellite measurements are better and more pure. Let's break this down for a moment.
A. Anthony Watts is one of the better known climate skeptics. He has organized an effort to photograph and catalog the nation's temperature sensors. His shtick is to show photos of sensors near asphalt, air conditioners, BBQ grills, or whatever and suggest that the instrumental warming is simply a reflection of these conditions. He has yet to provide any kind of systematic analysis. However, since he made the information public, scientists at NOAA did an analysis and found that there was almost no difference between suspicious sensors and unobjectionable ones. In fact, the purportedly artificially warmed sensors actually showed a cool bias. Of course Watts does not accept this outcome, but so far it is the only non-anecdotal analysis done.
B. Roy Spencer is an actual climatologist and is a favorite of climate skeptics because he thinks the warming is mostly natural, not caused by CO2 emissions. But note that he does accept that the planet is warming. In fact, here is a direct quote from his blog:
WHO WINS THE RACE FOR WARMEST YEAR?Gee, isn't that kind of like what the WMO said?
As far as the race for warmest year goes, 1998 (+0.424 deg. C) barely edged out 2010 (+0.411 deg. C), but the difference (0.01 deg. C) is nowhere near statistically significant. So feel free to use or misuse those statistics to your heart’s content.
Media Matters notes that the the satellite data are also adjusted and processed, and they quote Spencer saying Fox News goofed on this one. A little history makes this claim even more rich and ironic. In the late 1990s the UAH satellite data showed no warming even though the ground-based instruments did show warming. It's because the satellites were more accurate, right? Wrong. It turned out that an adjustment for orbital decay was not being made, and when the adjustment was implemented--surprise!--the two data sets fit together a lot better. In fact, if we compare some of the surface instruments with satellites, we get the following picture (from Skeptical Science):
(A quick and dirty guide: GISS = NASA, RSS and UAH = satellites; HADCRUT = British.)So let's just pause and take stock for a moment. The surface instruments are unreliable because they are next to BBQ grills and whatnot and the data are manipulated, so satellites are better. But satellites show the same trend as surface instruments--and, in fact, a previous disagreement between the two led to the discovery that a needed adjustment for satellites was not being done. Meanwhile, one of the quoted "skeptics" basically endorsed the WMO statement at the top. Need we go on? Yes, but very quickly.
Reason #2: Lord Monckton says global sea ice is not declining. My rule of thumb: Don't believe anything Monckton says.
Reason #3: Japan agrees that the warming is all due to El Niño...and CO2. (doh!)
Reason #4: Britain had the coldest December on record. But the cited temperature record is limited to the interior of Britain. The ways of Britain are no longer the ways of the world.
Reason #5: Failed predictions. Climate is not the same as weather. And the quote about snow being rare is goofy, but ultimately taken out of context.
25 comments:
Jared,
Thank you for your great effort in this "The Onion" style of 'serious' parody! So much work done keeping a 'straight-face'. The delayed suprise of being had!
To pseudo-paraphrase the self-Esteemed Senator John Forbes Kerry (D-MA): Can I git me some carbon credits heah?
Jared,
These scientific arguments become endless. Here is another one.
http://www.climateviews.com/Climate_Views/Download_Articles_files/CookRebuttalb.pdf
The question is, so what? What do you suggest we do about anthropogenic global warming? The answer to that question is where the “rubber meets the road” so to speak.
Matt,
Thanks for bringing that material to my attention. I'll have to look at it in more detail. Some of the claims are beyond my level of understanding. For example, I am totally unprepared to enter into debate of climate sensitivity. Others, strike me as just lame, such as Indiana producing more corn/acre (as if farming practices have nothing to do with it), or the objection that nobody denies that the earth is warming (what impression does the Fox News article give?).
"These scientific arguments become endless."
That's not unique to climate science. Pick any public controversy surrounding science--evolution, vaccines, etc--and you will find an endless fight of claims and counter-claims.
"What do you suggest we do about anthropogenic global warming?"
I'm not really qualified to pontificate on policy solutions. Obviously we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, but I make no claim about the best way to do so. But so long as articles like the one I criticized above continue to misinform the public, we're going to have difficulty even discussing policy options.
Jared,
I have no problem with scientific claims and counter claims. As you said, that is the way science is done. So I assume you are not one to claim that the “science is settled”, therefore we must take some political action (i.e. Cap and Trade) now before we reach a “tipping point” of no return, resulting in dire consequences. If so, I would find that refreshing indeed.
As for misinformation in the fox news article, I assume you are open minded enough to admit that there is a tremendous amount of misinformation on both sides of this issue. Again, I would find that refreshing.
I agree that the Earth is warming, and a certain percentage is probably from man made emissions. The questions I have are regarding feedback. What is the sensitivity of the climate? When do we reach the tipping point where everything folds up? (assuming positive feedback) What if the feedback is actually negative and that the more CO2 will actually in the long run cool the planet?
These are questions that should be answered prior to making reactionary policy decisions.
I am onboard with doing what we can to reduce fossil fuels and be good stewards of the Earth. I am however very skeptical of any political movtives using climate as a soapbox.
Sorry for the delay.
Matt,
I look to the judgment of the major scientific organizations on these things--IPCC, NAS, etc. I do not consider them to be spreaders of misinformation, which is not to say that they don't make any mistakes. I have no reason to doubt that misinformation can be found on both sides, but in a debate where the IPCC is often treated as the extreme of one side, I'm not sure how important the misinformation beyond the IPCC is to the current controversy.
I do think some political action is needed because I don't think the problem will take care of itself within a time frame that avoids the negative consequences, though I don't know what form that action should take. I would oppose draconian measures. On the other hand, in the current political climate it seems like the bar for 'draconian' isn't set very high.
Jared,
By calling for political action your true colors are revealed. This issue is about politics, not science, and politics is largely about economics, and that is where I have strong opinions and care greatly. This is not a dispassionate scientific debate. Would that it were! This is a political debate where your side has largely co-opted the environmental movement to further your political agenda. If that is not truly your political agenda, then you are being played.
You cite the “judgment” of the IPCC and the NAS who claim a “consensus” among their members. Well what if that consensus is wrong? I assume I do not need to recite to you all the examples from history when the scientific consensus has proven to be wrong. So why should we put our faith in the consensus of scientists to make the critical political and economic decisions we face? Why try and put a scientific veneer on your politics? Let’s just debate the politics and economics.
The Fox News piece may well have errors in it. I would never claim that Fox News is an unbiased source. Would you claim that Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” is unbiased? There are plenty of fools on both sides of this debate.
Oh, for heaven's sake, Matt. You might as well accuse someone who not only observes a broken water pipe, but also has the termidity to suggest that it might be a good idea to call a plumber, of being part of a pro-labor union agenda. And I should think my true colors wouldn't be particularly vivid, since I've not endorsed any particular political solution. Nor did I "call" for political action--I gave you my opinion since you brought it up. All the same, I'm interested to know exactly what political agenda is driving--or playing--me. And you, for that matter.
I suppose any issue could be labeled political. If the president got it in his head that NASA should power their rockets with pickles because the pickle industry was important to America's economic well-being, you might expect that rocket scientists would demur and insist that that is a terrible way to power rockets. They might even warn that attempting to do so would likely kill people. Would it be fair to accuse people opposing the powering of rockets with pickles as having a political and economic agenda?
It's pretty straightforward for me. The planet is warming and most climate scientists agree that it is largely because we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Apart from warming, CO2 is also changing the pH of the ocean. A variety of effects are expected to flow from this that will directly and indirectly affect humans around the world, though not all in the same way--and of course many of them cannot be predicted. Some of these effects may be good, but there is serious concern that the balance of the effects will be bad. From there it comes down to cause and effect and how to address the cause effectively while taking our values into account. I happen to think that government is going to need to be involved. If this puts me on the same side as Al Gore, hippies, Al Qaeda, or the illuminati, it's not because of any affinity for them.
It is conceivable that mainstream science could be wrong. But I'm curious as to who you think I should take as my guide to how the world works instead. Heaven forbid I ever get cancer. But if I do, I'll want my doctor's best advice even if I know he can't predict the outcome with certainty, and in spite of the fact that doctors have been wrong about many things in the past.
Since you ask about "An Inconvenient Truth," I think too much has been made of it by both sides. Clearly, it has a message and is intended to persuade that we have an issue of importance before us and advocates that we take steps to address it (though as I recall no large poltical actions were specifically endorsed). Its discussion of effects was perhaps toward the worst-case end of the spectrum, but it wasn't out in fantasy land in its representation of the science, either. Further, I think you'll find that it compares well with documentaries by NOVA, National Geographic, etc. But it's also important to note that it represents popularization of science, not the origination of science. It had its day in the sun, but these days it seems to me that the movie mainly comes up when climate skeptics need a punching bag.
Jared,
You are right. You have not endorsed any particular political solution, but you do “happen to think that government is going to need to be involved”. So let’s hear it. What particular political solution do you endorse? It doesn’t seem reasonable for you to call for government intervention without some idea what form that intervention might take.
The planet has indeed been warming since coming out of the Little Ice age approximately 150 years ago. That is not in dispute. The relevant questions are; has that warming been abnormal? If so, what are the probable causes of that warming? And, if some of those causes are determined to be anthropogenic, what, if anything can (science), or should (politics), we do about them? Now I understand that answers to these questions can get complicated, but that is what you scientists get the big bucks for, to distill these complex questions and answers down to something the rest of us can comprehend and act upon. “Trust me, I’m a scientist” (or a scientific organization), is not good enough for me to risk our fragile economy.
The cancer analogy has been used before. Here is where the analogy breaks down. In the case of cancer, even though there is no guarantee, I probably would take my doctor’s advice after receiving a concurring second and probably third opinion. The difference is that decision would impact only me (and my family). To further abuse your analogy, government intervention in climate change would be the equivalent of compelling all cancer patients to accept the recommendation of my doctor.
My political agenda is, less government, more freedom and personal accountability for that freedom. That government is best which governs least. My view is that the environmental movement has been co-opted by people who view more government as a good thing. If that’s not you, sorry about the guilt by association, but then I really would like to hear your political solutions that do not involve expanding the role of government.
Al Gore and his movie have indeed become something of a punching bag, sort of like Fox News.
Matt,
I've already given you as much of an answer on policy as I think I should. It's not something I've studied much, so I don't see why my opinions should matter unless you are on some kind of ideological duck hunt, hoping that I will send up my thoughts so that you can shoot them down and gloat about what an ignorant communist/socialist/liberal (or whatever) I am. (To be clear, I don't claim any of those labels for myself.)
“Trust me, I’m a scientist” (or a scientific organization), is not good enough for me to risk our fragile economy.
On the one hand, you don't really have much of a choice. Whatever the merits and weaknesses of my cancer analogy, unless you are prepared to personally master every facet of climate science, you're eventually going to have to make a decision to either trust the scientists or not. I don't know your background, but you presumably have already decided to trust particular economists, climate skeptics, or political commentators--the difference being that their conclusions apparently fit your political agenda.
On the other hand this is a straw man because there are lots of places on the internet that attempt to explain the science. I've collected some of them here. If you think scientists aren't trying to boil the science down for you, you're not looking very hard.
BTW, do you follow Barry Bickmore's blog? He's not fond of the government either, but he is helping to lead the charge against climate ignorance.
Jared,
You are right. I have decided to put my trust in particular economists, climate skeptics (enough with the pejoratives already), and political commentators. Just like you. Nobody can know everything, so we all tend to be biased towards those with our point of view.
I don’t blame you for not wanting to put forth your political positions. They would prove very unpopular in the court of public opinion. All survey data I have seen shows that Americans rank anthropogenic global warming (AGW) dead last of their list of concerns. As the saying goes, “It’s the economy, stupid”.
Yes, I follow Barry Bickmore’s blog. I am a huge fan of his book, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity. It pains me to find myself opposite one of my heroes. By the way, what’s up with his obsession with Orrin Hatch and Christopher Monckton? That’s the equivalent of me focusing on Al Gore and his movie. Come on! If you are going to argue your position, you should go up against the best the other side has to offer, not the clowns. There are plenty of clowns on both sides of this issue.
I also follow Steve Peck’s blog. He position is the same as yours; I’m not worthy of an opinion on AGW until I have read the bibliography he provided. Until then, I just have to take his word for it. I hope you are open minded enough to admit that I could also provide you with a bibliography of real scientists who have published work questioning the claims of AGW. I will admit that your bibliography is probably larger than mine, but that is gradually changing.
Your side really needs to come up with simple answers to simple questions or you are never going to win the hearts and minds of the non scientist public.
• Is the warming we have experienced since the Little Ice Age abnormal? Human influence on climate has only been significant for something like the past 50 years, so why has climate varied in the past without human influence? In other words, why reject the null hypothesis? i.e. if the climate has naturally changed in the past, why should we reject natural causes now? Given all the natural drivers of climate change in the past, how can we be sure that CO2 is the primary driver now?
• If we accept that AGW is anthropogenic, what realistically can we do about? What are the cultural, political and economic implications of what you propose?
I realize answers to these questions can get very complex, but if you don’t have answers the rest of us can comprehend without scare tactics, how can you expect our political support?
Matt,
I don't think it's fair to judge Barry's efforts based on your personal preferences. You may think Monckton is a clown, but not everyone does, and he's been quite visible. (His graphics have been used by Joe Bastardi, for example.) However, I think his relevance is declining.
You might suggest to Barry who you think he should actually be rebutting--I'd be interested to know myself.
If it's simple answers you are after, you need to be familiar with this site.
Just for fun--your side has put out a slick new publication (here) which is referenced in a letter to Congress. Get your popcorn ready.
FYI, I'll be unavailable for blogging for a couple of days.
Faux News has dropped all pretense at objectivity. When they routinely present clowns like Bastardi as climate experts, no wonder the general public (and guys like Matt) confuse science with political spin. Sean Hannity takes time in his show (on nearly a daily basis) to trash-talk climate concerns as nothing more than "a liberal agenda". And let's face it, anytime Al Gore is brought into the argument these days, it's fairly clear the discussion has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with seeing the world through conservative political rose-colored glasses. Jared, I'm impressed that you show as much patience as you do for all the willful ignorance masquerading as concern here.
Jared,
With regard to Christopher Monckton, I could say almost the exact same thing about Al Gore. Let’s try it. “You may think Al Gore is a clown, but not everyone does, and he’s been quite visible. I believe he even won the Nobel Prize. (His graphic was used by the IPCC, for example.) However, I think his relevance is declining.” What do you think? Both sides have their clowns, but I’d pay good money to see my clown debate your clown. Al Gore refuses because, in my opinion, he knows Monckton would destroy him.
You ask who I think Barry should be rebutting. The pdf at CO2 Science you linked to above would be a good start. There was a link to it on Climate Depot (pause for your derisive laugh) a couple days ago. I started reading, but its 168 pages long. Should be plenty there for Barry to sink his teeth into, and I think it might be a more worthy subject for you to blog about instead of this Fox News article.
Thanks for the link to Skeptical Science. I like the format and I’ve started reviewing the content, but there are 148 skeptical arguments with rebuttals. It’s going to take me a while, and that’s my point. Most people are not willing to put in the time. Unlike you and me perhaps, they have a life. Your side needs to frame the issue more simply if you ever hope to win the hearts and minds of the people.
Your challenge, as I see it, is that you can’t afford to take the political position you must take to solve the supposed problem. For you, the only way to solve the problem is for government to take actions that will put our already fragile economy further at risk. You know that is a loser. Hence your refusal to disclose the political policies you would support.
Look, earth’s climate has been naturally changing for billions of years, so the null hypothesis has to be that current changes are natural. The onus is on your side to provide simple, understandable reasons to reject the null hypothesis. No reasonable person doubts that the climate has been warming (less than 1 degree Celsius) over the past 150 years. Most people probably don’t understand the physics of greenhouse gases, but I think I do (roughly), and I don’t dispute it. What you do need to convince me of is that increases in anthropogenic CO2 over say the past 50 years are the primary cause of that increase, and that the dire consequences you predict are worth committing economic suicide. There are perhaps scenarios for which I might be willing to commit economic suicide, but you haven’t sold me yet.
Have a nice couple days away from blogging.
"The onus is on your side to provide simple, understandable reasons to reject the null hypothesis. No reasonable person doubts that the climate has been warming"
Given that:
1- CO2 is a green house gas and traps heat in our atmosphere
2- We have been rapidly emitting greenhouse gases that have been sequestered in the earths crust since the carboniferous period 300 million years ago
3- The planet is warming and started warming around the same time we started emitting the gases
reasonable people would ask why our human activities would *not* cause the warming we observe.
The simple solution that science could give to solve the problem is to turn off CO2 emissions completely. Problem solved, right? Nobody sees that as even close to reasonable for very good reasons. So science can't really provide an optimal solution. Scientists must work with government to come up with compromised solutions that are not as effective. The real issue is that we need to move past the bickering over the science, recognize that something should be done (or not be done) and focus our energy on what, if anything, we are willing to do about it. Either way, this bickering is pointless.
The world environment organization wants a new world
government based on the fake climate crisis
Lord Christopher Monckton on how NWO using fake climate crisis
Thursday 2/17/11 6pm pst 9 est
on Hardtail News at http://www.thewatchmen.fm/
This is your chance big mouth, its a call in show.
Stan,
Your points prove nothing. Correlation is not causation. Many things are correlated that are caused by something else. This is a weak argument, certainly not enough to induce me to support economic suicide.
Again, given that the earth’s climate has been changing naturally for billions of years, the null hypothesis has to be that the recently observed changes are natural. Before I will support economic suicide, you need to convince me that the recent observed warming is outside normal variability. You need to convince me that CO2 is the primary driver of the observed warming and not all the other things, known and unknown, that have been causing the earth’s climate to change for billions of year. It really shouldn’t be that difficult for you, if it is true.
Stan I agree this bickering is pointless. I’m more than ready to just accept the null hypothesis and move on. How about you?
Ping, you scare me!
Anon, my intent was not to prove anything, only to show that the table has been set for anthropogenic global warming.
Ping, Mockington has been discredited. Keep up with the conversation.
Stan,
Sorry about the previous anonymous post. I hit something wrong.
Mockington has been discredited? By who Al Gore or the CRU ? The puny 0.2 degrees C we’ve had since 1940 we have experienced the most stable weather in 6000 years. The kind the Cahokia indians prayed for, the 2200 B.C., a “little ice age” victims sacrificed for,“little ice ages” have since brought down five more-recent Chinese dynasties. The last to fall was the fabled Kublai Khan during the Little Ice Age.
For one convenient source on Monckton, see here. I even got in on the action once, here.
On natural as the null hypothesis, see here.
And while were at it, it seems reasonable to question whether addressing climate change would, in fact, be economic suicide. (Dare I call that alarmist?) Examples here and here.
Jared,
Glad to see you back!
With regard to the null hypothesis, your side resorts to LEPRECHAUNS? Really? “For example, there have been no peer-reviewed papers ruling out leprechauns as the cause of most of the recent global warming, either.” That’s it! The null hypothesis that natural causes account for recent observed global warming is equivalent to the hypothesis that leprechauns account for the warming? That’s insulting! No wonder your side is losing ground.
At the end, the article references the large body of scientific “evidence” for AGW and then says we should accept that “humans are causing dangerous global warming…until the skeptics can provide can provide solid reason to believe that this scientific theory is wrong.” No we don’t! You can’t turn logic on its head like that.
Natural causes have been causing the earth’s climate to change for billions of years – I assume you will agree with that. Then the null hypothesis has to be that nature is the cause of the recent observed warming over the last 50 years. In spite of the “very large body of evidence”, the onus is still on your side to prove natural causes are not the primary cause of recently observed warming, not the other way around.
I don’t see why this has to be so difficult. Your side refers to this as “the hottest decade on record.” OK, how long is the record? Perhaps a 100 years for land (70% of the earth is covered by water) based thermometers, and perhaps 30 year for satellites. So what about before those records? Has the earth’s climate been hotter or colder before these records? If so why? And by how much, and when? And why is CO2 now the primary driver and not those other factors? You’re making this more difficult than it has to be.
As for the links to the economic impacts of addressing the climate with the ideas your side is promoting, now we’re getting somewhere! So Jared, if you think we need to do something to address climate change, you can’t keep ducking the question. What would you have us do? All this other stuff is just academic, until you are willing to take a stand.
Matt,
Strictly speaking, in the absence of intervention, the hypothesis that the warming is natural is not falsifiable. No matter how well scientists nail down the various factors and relationships that influence climate, you can always postulate that some unknown factor is to blame. (Hence the reference to leprechauns.)
Climate is influenced by many things--the output of the sun, the reflectivity (albedo) of the earth, alterations in the earth's tilt and orbit, the presence of volcanic aerosols, and so on and so forth.
The basic concept is not that difficult: First there is the physics. Then there are observations in the way the earth is warming that are consistent with greenhouse effect. Finally, when scientists add all the things that they know influence climate together, it becomes apparent that CO2 is playing an important role. (For further elaboration, see here and here.)
Although the search for other contributors continues, at some point the null hypothesis begins to look unlikely and clinging to it becomes an unwillingness to face facts.
Finally, the notion that I have to recommend a policy makes as much sense as having to recommend a bridge design just because you want a way to cross the river. All I will say is that Congress asked the National Research Council to look at this issue, and their broad recommendations (also here) make sense to me. Of course, the devil is in the details.
Jared,
Since you do not have the courage to put forth your own recommendations, even though you think something must be done, I will cut and paste them from the web site for which you provided a link, and which you said makes sense to you.
• Adopt a mechanism for setting an economy-wide carbon-pricing system.
• Complement the carbon price with a portfolio of policies to
realize the practical potential for near-term emissions reductions through energy efficiency and low-emission energy sources in the electric and transportation sectors;
establish the technical and economic feasibility of carbon capture and storage and new-generation nuclear technologies; and
accelerate the retirement, retrofitting, or replacement of GHG emission-intensive infrastructure.
• Create new technology choices by investing heavily in research and crafting policies to stimulate innovation.
• Consider potential equity implications when designing and implementing climate change limiting policies, with special attention to disadvantaged populations.
• Establish the United States as a leader to stimulate other countries to adopt GHG reduction targets.
• Enable flexibility and experimentation with policies to reduce GHG emissions at regional, state, and local levels.
• Design policies that balance durability and consistency with flexibility and capacity for modification as we learn from experience.
So you must be in favor of;
• Cap and Trade
• Carbon capture
• New generation nuclear (what about old generation nuclear?)
• Government “investment” (what you really mean is spending) to simulate innovation
• Special attention to disadvantaged populations (I assume that means non Americans)
• Adoption by the United States of Kyoto style GHG reduction targets
Is that about right?
Matt,
Your comment got flagged as spam, so I didn't realize it hadn't gone through. However, I must admit that I'm growing weary of discussing whether I should make policy recommendations, and your accusation that I lack courage isn't helping.
In response to your comment, I should first note that the reference to disadvantaged populations was to poor Americans, for whom rises in energy costs would be most painful. Having said that, none of the specifics you listed are objectionable to me in principle, though depending on how they were carried out I might find them to be so.
Post a Comment