Enough ado about hockey sticks: the worst is yet to come

Global warming deniers are making another attempt at discrediting the famed "hockey stick" graph, based on a paper (McShane and Wyner 2010) that purports to show mistakes in its statistical methods. While I don't have the statistical chops to assess the validity of either party's math, I did want to make two observations.

First, as others have noted, even if you assume that the new paper is the "correct" version, it doesn't look much different from other hockey stick graphs - if anything, the hockey stick shape in the new study is more pronounced.

More importantly, the hockey stick graph ultimately matters very little for what we should do about CO2, since it only measures past temperatures up to around the year 2000. What we really care about isn't the past temperature increase we've already observed, but rather the much larger future increase that's still to come assuming we do nothing about CO2. And that isn't accounted for in any existing hockey stick graph. I've taken the liberty of (unscientifically) adding this onto the McShane and Wyner hockey stick graph, using a simple average of the IPCC's low-end (1.1 degrees C) and high-end estimates (6.4 degrees C) for 21st century temperature increase:

Looks more like a hockey skate! Despite deniers' strange obsession with the past and lack of concern for the future (perhaps by virtue of their conservatism), the bottom line is this: the reliability of past temperature reconstructions matter very little compared to what we have in store... and it's about to get a whole lot hotter.

If this looks familiar, here's why:

RELATED POSTS

The only thing you need to know about global warming

The cold logic of hockey sticks

Ending the use of coal overnight: new study shows it's possible

One of the common arguments against climate legislation is that clean energy technology just isn't ready yet. Most often, it's made to defend coal, and usually goes something like this: "Sure, maybe eventually we can replace coal, but right now that would be too expensive. For the next 50 years, we'll need to continue using coal at the same time we're developing cleaner alternative fuels."

This argument has always been illogical. Just because alternatives to coal are expensive now does not mean they always will be, and a major national push would soon bring down costs through economies of scale. But a new study goes even further, showing the "technology not there" argument to be not just illogical, but factually incorrect. In fact, the United States could replace nearly 100% of its coal-fired power generation--and do so almost overnight. How? With natural gas (which emits 50% less CO2 than coal). The Financial Times reports:

The shift from coal-fired generation to gas- fired generation sounds like something that would be lengthy and difficult to accomplish. But a new report by PFC Energy, the consultancy, indicates it is anything but. The report says US gas fired power plants average about 25 per cent utilisation, compared with 70-75 per cent for coal.

So operating existing plants at 72 per cent utilisation would theoretically increase gas demand by 30bn cubic feet per day - a rise of about 50 per cent - and displace almost all coal fired capacity. In doing so, carbon dioxide from the power sector would be cut 50 per cent, according to PFC.

Note that this is referring to existing power plants. In other words, we could completely eliminate the use of coal in this country without building hundreds of new power plants.

Also note that this is a recent development. Just three years ago, the idea of abundant natural gas replacing coal actually was ludicrous, and coal's defenders at least had a point. But that's no longer true. The difference is new technology that has unlocked previously out-of-reach shale gas formations such as the Marcellus Shale in Appalachia.

Providentially, much of the nation's most promising gas potential is in the very states where coal is currently strongest politically: West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

All of a sudden, coal miners who fear job losses from shutting down coal mines now could have gas fields in which to work. Looks like King Coal could have some competition for its most supportive Senators. (Indeed, last month The Hill reported that the natural gas lobby is "pushing new incentives to encourage utilities to switch from coal to natural gas, [and] in doing so, the sector is starting a lobbying fight with the coal industry." All I can say is, go get 'em boys.)

The bottom line: any time you hear someone say that the technology isn't there to switch from coal, you're being fed PR dog food. We don't have to wait for solar and wind costs to come down before abandoning coal, because natural gas is already cheap and abundant - and we can make the switch overnight. All that's needed is political will.

A fraction of infinity is still infinity: everything you need to know about climate change in seven sentences

I just finished reading Paul Krugman's 8,000 word masterpiece on climate economics, "Building a Green Economy." If you read one thing on climate change this year, read this.

It's true, Krugman essentially replicates an argument I made in a previous post, which interestingly enough was cited in the New York Times blog "Dot Earth" (maybe THAT'S where Krugman stole my argument from!). It's okay though - he does the job so much more thoroughly and precisely than I ever could. After all, he is a Nobel laureate.

I highly suggest reading the whole piece, but I know you may not have time for 8,000 words. So I'll summarize the four main points of Krugman's argument:

1. Nearly all economists agree that the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be negligible, and likely cheaper than expected.

2. Nearly all scientists agree that the risk of catastrophic climate change is non-negligible, and likely worse than expected.

3. When absolute catastrophe is among the possible risks, decisions should be made on the basis of that worst-case risk, NOT the most likely scenario.

4. Therefore, the prudent, conservative, personally responsible choice is to invest in an insurance policy to mitigate against the threat of climate change.

You don't have to believe your house is going to burn down to know you should buy home insurance. In the same way, you can be skeptical about global warming and still think it's a good idea to insure against the risk that you're wrong. In the words of writer Jonathan Schell (words which became a popular piece of evidence in my high school debate days), "though the risk... may be fractional, the stakes are infinite, and a fraction of infinity is still infinity."

RELATED POSTS

Climate craps: Global warming and uncertainty (or what to say when you hear "the science is not settled!")

Don't believe global warming scientists? Ask an economist

Keep your carbon off my property: Paul Krugman explains externalities

Don't believe in global warming? Ask an insurance company

Watts vs. Bolt: Who's the Dumbest Denier?

You have to see this to believe it. Anthony Watts, perhaps the most influential global warming denier, just cited an article from 1989 to prove there's no global warming. You read that right: 1989. Check it out:

Here’s a blast from the past. Dr. James Hansen’s view in 1989 seemed a lot more temperate than it does today. Back then, he’s ready to accede to a study that says something counter to what his theory predicts, saying “I have no quarrel with it”. Today, he uses labels like “deniers” (see here) when such contradictory essays and facts are made public. What a difference 20 years makes...

Well yes, Anthony, actually it does, because over those 20 years, scientists have been accumulating data, and temperatures have been increasing. That's sort of how you become more sure of something: by collecting evidence over time. The fact that Hansen was "temperate" back in 1989, when the evidence for global warming was less unequivocal, would seem to prove that his current views are based on accumulated evidence rather than conspiracy.

Here's the beginning of the NYT article Watts cites:

January 26, 1989
U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

By PHILIP SHABECOFF, Special to the New York Times
Correction Appended

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25— After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

...

The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.

So Watts's logic is that 22 years of additional data should not allow James Hansen to become more certain of his conclusions?

This bit of boorishness follows right on the heels of another denier, Andrew Dolt Bolt of Australia, making the bizarre accusation that Apple is behind a new "answers to global warming skeptics" iPhone app. Here was his Twitter post:

Breaking News: Al Gore is funding iPhone apps to create secret new world order. First to be sent to the chambers - me. He must be stopped.

Even many of Bolt's commenters were able to squint through the fog and realize that Apple hosts, not develops, iPhone apps. No one's stopping skeptics from developing their own app.

So I propose a vote. What's dumber: Anthony Watts insinuating that a 21-year-old New York Times article disproves global warming, or Andrew Bolt claiming that Apple is nefariously developing global warming iPhone apps? I report, you decide.

Snowed in

Two feet of snow have cost me two days of my Christmas vacation, and possibly three. After 24 hours and three cancelled flights at Dulles airport, here I am, sitting in a hotel room, waiting to go back to the airport tomorrow to see if I can get on standby.

I've lived in the DC area for a little over two years, and haven't seen more than an inch of slush, much less snow, in my time here.  Everyone I talk to says this is the most snow they've seen in 20 years.

And of course, the irony of the whole thing is that President Obama is flying back from the Copenhagen summit on global warming.

So the question is, how unusual is the snowfall?

Well, according to the New York Times:

Officials in Washington said the storm was likely to produce the area’s heaviest snow since February 2003, when about 16 inches fell on the region.

2003 was also the sixth warmest year on record.  2009 is tied for the second warmest.  The moral of the story is, heavy snowfall can occur even in the presence of global warming.  Don't let the weather fool you.

I'm about to become an Exxon Mobil shareholder...

... and that's a good thing.  I think.

Yesterday's big energy news was Exxon Mobil's $31 billion acquisition of natural gas producer XTO Energy.  In the New York Times:

In the biggest energy deal in years, Exxon Mobil said Monday that it agreed to buy XTO Energy, a domestic producer of natural gas, in an all-stock deal valued at $31 billion to increase its holdings in unconventional resources in the United States.

The deal includes the assumption of $10 billion in debt.

The purchase allows Exxon, the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, to expand in shale gas, an area that has seen tremendous growth in the last few years. It will give Exxon the equivalent of about 45 trillion cubic feet of natural gas throughout the United States.

“XTO is a leading U.S. unconventional natural gas producer, with an outstanding resource base, strong technical expertise and highly skilled employees,” Rex W. Tillerson, Exxon’s chief executive, said in a statement.

“XTO’s strengths, together with Exxon Mobil’s advanced R.&D. and operational capabilities, global scale and financial capacity, should enable development of additional supplies of unconventional oil and gas resources, benefiting consumers both here in the United States and around the world.”

In recent years, energy companies have discovered large reserves of natural gas tightly trapped in shale rocks in Texas, Colorado, and Wisconsin, as well as in the Northeast. The discoveries have led to a gas drilling boom that has greatly expanded domestic resources, while also raising some environmental concerns.

As a *small* shareholder in XTO, I'll get about 0.7 shares of Exxon Mobil (XOM) for every share of XTO when the deal closes in Q2 of next year.  But as someone who cares deeply about climate change, how should I feel about having a financial stake in the success of a company so reviled by environmentalists?

On the one hand, Exxon spearheaded much of the faux science that is behind many of the climate denial myths that persist to this day.  Simply put, without Exxon's efforts in the 90s to cast doubt on climate science, we would probably already have passed climate legislation.

On the other hand, my stock in XTO jumped 15% yesterday, and the bullish news for natural gas boosted my stock in Chesapeake Energy (CHK) by 6% .  And hey, Exxon's going to go about its business regardless of whether I take a stand by not purchasing shares in it, so might as well profit from Exxon's success, right?  At the very least, now no one can say that financial concerns are driving my beliefs about climate change (although full disclosure, the other 90% of my stocks are related to clean energy).

And actually, I have less cynical reasons for being enthused by Exxon Mobil's $31 billion bet on American shale gas.  Because ultimately, I think it signals that Exxon Mobil is finally getting on board with America's clean energy future.

The important point is that generating electricity from natural gas emits half the CO2 as burning coal. Putting a price on carbon (through cap-and-trade) would make it comparatively more expensive for utilities to continue burning coal, and many would switch to natural gas.  Demand for gas would surge, lifting currently-depressed gas prices - as well as profits for gas producers.

I'd originally bought Chesapeake and XTO earlier this year after reading a series of ClimateProgress articles arguing that shale gas would prove a "game changer" in the climate debate, bridging America's dirty energy present with its clean energy future - at a cost much lower than current economic models predict. Now Exxon Mobil agrees with me. 

How does this affect cap-and-trade's chances of passage?  All you have to do is check out where these unconventional shale gas reserves are located:

Most of that pink and purple is over Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio - big coal states with key swing votes on the climate and clean energy bill.  The prospect for natural gas development in their states should dampen these Senators' concerns about hurting the coal industry.  Same goes for Arkansas and Louisiana, where there are also big shale gas plays.  Exxon clearly believes there's a future for these huge gas reserves.

And this isn't the first investment in clean energy Exxon has made - back in July, the company announced a plan to invest $600 million in a venture to produce fuel from bio-engineered algae.

This of course doesn't make up for Exxon Mobil's past misdeeds.  While I'm holding on to my XOM stock, I won't start buying gasoline at Exxon Mobil gas stations any time soon.  Still, any investment in cleaner technologies is welcome.

Random note to close out the post: many Wall Street analysts seem to think Exxon overpaid for XTO - mainly because natural gas prices are still abysmal.  Last time I checked, buying low was a good thing.  Yet more evidence that few people on Wall Street understand business beyond the next quarter's earnings report.

Bottom line: if you think cap-and-trade will pass, time to start stocking up on gas stocks.

Climate of Hypocrisy

UPDATED (1/23/2010) with suggestions from the comments

For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul? Will God hear his cry when trouble cometh upon him?
-Job 27:8-9

Deniers of climate change like to castigate Al Gore and others for the supposed hypocrisy of preaching the benefits of CO2 reductions while flying on jets, living in big houses, etc.  I won't defend the big house (although Gore did respond to accusations by installing renewable energy onsite), but there's no problem with jetting around to climate conferences, because those trips result in net CO2 reductions.


But those are technicalities.  The real problem with gloating over climate activists' small specks of hypocrisy is that it ignores the hypocritical planks inherent in the philosophical underpinnings of opposition to CO2 reductions.  Here are some ways in which deniers are hypocritical (feel free to add suggestions in the comments):

1. They profess that markets can solve all problems while simultaneously preaching that businesses will never be able to adapt to higher energy prices.

2. They argue that siting problems (e.g. urban heat island) render temperature data useless, while simultaneously arguing that adjusting for those problems constitutes scientific fraud/ fudging the data.


3. They say they support free markets, but oppose cap-and-trade (the free market solution to climate change).


4. They advocate skepticism and oppose proclamations that "the science is certain," while simultaneously claiming certainty that all climate science is one big hoax.


5. They argued that averting a 1% chance of catastrophic terrorist attacks justified spending $100 billion a year on the Iraq war, but oppose investing billions of dollars per year in averting a much higher risk of catastrophic climate change.  (see this Tom Friedman article)


6. They said the US did not need a permission slip from other countries to go to war in Iraq, but don't want to act on climate change until poor countries have done so.

7. They claim that the US temperature record is unreliable when it reports warm temperatures, but have no problems using the US temperature to report cool temperatures.

8. They say it is arrogant and "elitist" for climatologists to defend their science, but have no problems with the arrogance of laypeople questioning a science they have never studied.

9. They support subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power but not for renewable energy.

10. They claim to believe in property rights, but don't stop polluters from sending their CO2 onto other people's property (or the common property of the atmosphere).


11. They call themselves "conservatives" but oppose efforts at conservation.


12. They claim humans are not wise enough to intervene in the economy without causing unintended consequences, but have no problems with humans massively intervening in Nature by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (WAG).


13. They say it's unwise to make decisions off of uncertain climate models, while basing their own predictions of economic doom off of uncertain economic models (WAG).


14. Humanity adding ~15Gt/year (net) to ~3000Gt baseline atmospheric CO2 is "pissing in the ocean" but spending 0.1% of GDP per year on reducing emissions will precipitate world-wide economic collapse (anonymous).


15. They removed regulation from banks in the name of free markets, then spent trillions of dollars to rescue banks because they were too big to fail.  But they refuse to spend smaller amounts on the greater damage of climate change, even though it's more important that the planet not be allowed to fail (anonymous).

16. They say 30 years is too short a time to conclude there's a global warming trend, but base their own claims of "global cooling" on a 10-year trend (Tony O'Brien).

17. They say scientists don't respect skepticism or disagreement, then point to disagreements between scientists as evidence of conspiracy or that the science isn't "certain" (Tony O'Brien)


18. They say CO2 can't affect climate, but also use the argument that CO2 must be saving us from an ice age (Tony O'Brien)


19. They demand more science/research before we can make a decision, then oppose funding for that research (Tony O'Brien).


20. They never criticise each other even when taking opposite sides. Just ignore the discrepancies and charge ahead. When one argument looses traction recycle an old one, e.g. they say it's the sun causing global warming, and when the sun cools down they say it's cosmic rays (Tony O'Brien).


21. Denier Willis Eschenbach falsely accuses Australian scientists of fraud for "blatantly bogus" adjustments of temperature data - without ever contacting the scientists to ask why the adjustments were made, or even mentioning their previously-published explanations.  Then, when The Economist calls him out, Willis whines, "the Economist did not contact me before publishing an article full of false accusations, incorrect assumptions and wrong statements." (WAG)


22. They accuse university scientists, small renewable energy companies, and Al Gore of manufacturing "alarmism" for money, while ignoring the far greater financial incentives of the giant fossil fuel industry to manufacture doubt, denial, and delay. (WAG)


23. They call their opponents "alarmists", but warn of impending economic doom should we try do anything to counteract AGW (anonymous). [I particularly like this one - I'm going to dedicate a whole post to it soon.  In the meantime, here's a previous post to help visualize what "economic doom" looks like.]


24. They promote nuclear power (and pooh-pooh small scale "roof-top" photovoltaics), while decrying government control over anything else (anonymous).


25. They plead for balance and respect of dissenting opinions, and yet they continually insult people who disagree with them. (Steve Carson) [e.g. "Leftists, Communists, eliteists snakes that prey on our children in their quest to take over the world."]


26. They say, "You can't trust proxy data so the hockey stick is wrong," but then they claim "Loehle's reconstruction shows the Medieval Warm Period is warmer than today!" (Prof. Mandia) [One of my favorites]


27. Denier S. Fred Singer: "From the very beginning, the IPCC was a political rather than scientific entity, with its leading scientists reflecting the positions of their governments or seeking to induce their governments to adopt the IPCC position."  But then: "A reviewer of IPCC reports, Singer now shares the 2007 Nobel peace prize with Al Gore,” according to materials announcing his keynote speech at a one day conference 'Have Humans Changed the Climate?,' hosted by Roger Helmer, a British conservative member of the European Parliament." (Prof. Mandia)


28. They claim that temperature data that shows warming cannot be trusted because it has been fraudulently adjusted, but then use that same data when it shows temporary cooling to say that "observations prove the models' predictions wrong." (WAG)


29. They say climate scientist have a "bad scientific attitude", never criticising each other. And when there is a scientific discussion they claim it proves that "the science is not settled". (Anonymous)


30. They demand full disclosure of data and code from scientists who agree with the IPCC's conclusions; and yet, when asked for their code or data to replicate denier studies, they try every weasel way to avoid sharing code and data (see Scafetta's dodging at RC) (True Skeptic)


31. They challenge the scientific consensus and demand empirical "proof" that it is correct, yet at the same time insist that they don't have to prove anything themselves.  "I'm just asking questions!"  (Rumble) [Here's where the proof is]


32. They oppose government regulation to control CO2 emissions, improve fossil fuel efficiency, encourage energy conservation and encourge research into and development of renewable energy, because that would be "too much government intervention in people's lives." Yet by and large they are the same people who will pass laws to prevent/regulate abortion, gay marriage. (Anonymous)


33. Climate change deniers demand unequivocal proof that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming, even though they are unable to present any evidence at all that it is safe to allow atmospheric CO2 levels to continue to rise indefinitely. (RF Shop)


34. They do not trust the reliability of modern instrumental records, citing poor calibration and inadequate coverage, but are quick to point to anecdotes of Vikings or of other early Europeans as evidence that the entire planet was warmer in preindustrial times. (Mike G)

35. They claim proxies are also unreliable during modern times when they show dramatic warming in agreement with the instrumental record, yet denialists use them to show with great certainty that it was much warmer at various points in Earth's history, back to several million years, or that CO2 was much higher at certain times in the past to high degrees of precision. (Mike G)

36.They say instrumental measurements are unreliable for measuring surface temperatures and as evidence of such, deniers point out that the measurements are being corrected constantly. Then they say that it is much more accurate to measure temperatures from 200 miles up by converting microwave measurements to temperature and then attempting to filter out signals from each layer you're not interested in. The constant corrections for computational errors and orbital drifts are not evidence against reliability in this case. (Mike G)

37. They say it's disingenuous to point to extreme weather events (Hurricane Katrina, wild fires, etc.) as evidence of warming, but crow joyously over every cold weather event ("it's snowing in Texas!).  (WAG)

38. They point to the "decline" in tree-ring proxy data as evidence that Michael Mann is covering up cooling temperatures, but criticize proxies as unreliable when they show past temperatures cooler than today's (and when temps look warmer in the past, they accept the proxy data as reliable again). (WAG)


39. They say the US can't act on greenhouse gas reductions until other countries agree to, and then fly to Copenhagen to try to prevent other countries from acting (WAG)


40. When climate scientists don't speak publically about their work they are accused of hiding in their ivory towers'. When they do talk publically they are accused of politicising science. (Anonymous)


41. When climate scientsits don't respond to attacks and smears they are again accused of hiding in their ivory towers', when they do defend themselves they are accused of circling the wagons and promoting the party line. (Anonymous)


42. Deniers claim that projections of warming can't be trusted because (they think) scientists made doom and gloom predictions of global cooling in the 1970's. However they accept the claims that regulation will be ineffective and/or economic suicide despite the fact that the think tanks and lobbies that are pushing those predictions also made (incorrect) doom and gloom predictions that phasing out CFCs and leaded gasoline would be ineffective and/or economic suicide. (Anonymous)


43. Deniers claim that anthropogenic global warming is a partisan, political line rather than legitimate science, and then argue against it by citing talking heads and press releases from industry front-groups, or "free market" think-tanks. (Wheels)

44. Taking as gospel truth sources which up until that moment they had previously castigated as never to be trusted (e.g. last year's Pravda article claiming the Sun was the cause of GW) (Sergei Rostov)

45. Criticizing AGWers [people who accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming] because of their political and/or religious leanings while complaining they are being criticizing solely because of their political and/or religious leanings. (Sergei Rostov)

46. They say that we know nothing about clouds and subsequently they say that clouds can explain the warming trend. (Jesús)

47. They say there hasn't been any warming, but later they explain the warming with mechamism different than CO2. (Jesús)

48. They explain the warming with mutually exclusive theories (eg. cloud albedo, sun, ocean currents...) (Jesús)

49. They criticize climate advocates for "wanting to send us into a technological dark age," even though they themselves advocate the use of 19th century energy production technologies over innovation and research. (WAG)

50. They favor the UAH satellite data and say it is the most accurate - until that data also shows warming, and they start looking for errors in it. (WAG)

51. They claim the peer review process is broken and yet cite (the occasional) peer reviewed studies as proof when it suits them - trumpeting the fact that it's peer reviewed! (Anarchist)


52. Uber-denliast and oil-funded Senator Inhofe uses arguments from paleoclimate to 'disprove' global warming yet is also a Young-Earth creationist who belives the earth was created around 6000BC - well before the data he cites. (Anarchist)


53. They claim to support "good science" and technological process while citing people whose ideas retard technological progress - e.g. who don't belive in evolution and an expert in the made-up field of 'Orgone Energy' (this is energy from your libedo! As seen in the Cato Institure Ad featuring 'Dr' James DeMeo (Anarchist)


54. They claim that they are sticking up for liberty and against big government while opposing the development of markets and technologies that would lead to micro-generation and so free us from centralized production energy that requires state regulation (Anarchist)

55. They have no problems judging with absolute certainty a body of work in which they have no hands on experience, and yet accuse climate scientists of arrogance and elitism (WAG).

If you have more suggestions, leave them in the comments.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
-Matthew 7:3-5

RELATED POSTS

Follow the money trail to the global warming conspiracy?  It leads straight to 1211 Avenue of the Americas

What "hiding the decline" really looks like

Pork barrel spending for climate denial research?  Earmarks from Alabama

Pork barrel spending on skeptical climate research? Earmarks from Alabama

Andrew Sullivan weighed in on “swifthack/climategate” yesterday morning. There’s nothing interesting in the post except for this assertion:

Scientists are as prone as anyone to taking part in "informational cascades," particularly when they are being funded by granting agencies that reward those who continue in an established line of inquiry (can you imagine funding going to a scientist who found a climate counter-trend?) and when they are trying to publish in peer-reviewed journals whose editorial staff refuse to consider papers that do not come up with the expected results.

It's a constant meme that scientists exaggerate claims of global warming to win research grants, but actually, it's pretty easy to imagine skeptic scientists also winning funding. In fact, two of the most vocal skeptics, Drs. Roy Spencer and John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), recently had $1.8 million earmarked for their research by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) in the FY 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations bill (p. 144).

Of course, it's not exactly breaking news that Spencer's and Christy's research is funded by the US government. On his website, Roy Spencer makes pains to point out that "Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil." (Funny that deniers don't think that government funding biases him - that only happens to the scientists they disagree with.)

What's interesting here is how the funding this time around comes from an earmark - one of only two climate research earmarks in the above appropriations bill. And it seems as though the earmark's author has in mind a very specific outcome for the research he's sponsoring. Here’s the press release from Sen. Shelby’s office:

The University of Alabama in Huntsville Climate Model Evaluation Project - $1.8 Million

This project will directly address the cost of energy for manufacturing, industrial, and residential electricity. This research will show how effective potential policies will be in impacting the climate and how confident one can be in their achieving the intended outcome. The University of Alabama in Huntsville will examine and evaluate climate model simulations to determine the level of performance these models achieve so that policymakers may develop a better understanding of the reliability of these forecasts.

“Given the tremendous burden that any climate change legislation would place on the U.S. economy, it is imperative that any steps are taken only after achieving reasonable certainty that they will produce the benefits necessary to justify the associated costs,” said Shelby. “Information gained from the Climate Model Evaluation Project will be of great benefit to policymakers, ensuring that they are better informed as climate legislation is debated."

Now it's possible that Shelby is just bringing research dollars home to Alabama, but he could have chosen any project at any state university. From the statement above, it's pretty clear why he chose this project: Sen. Shelby is opposed to climate legislation, and was looking for hired guns to make the case that there's not enough certainty about global warming to justify the costs of abating it; it's no coincidence he picked these two scientists to receive helpings from the pork barrel. Indeed, Drs. Spencer and Christy have long been darlings of the denialist community, publishing satellite data which for years showed little to no warming (although after correcting for errors, even their data now show a warming trend, albeit a smaller trend than other data show). If you want to "examine and evaluate" and poke holes in pesky climate models, these are the guys you want doing it. 

What this means, of course, is that the UAH scientists' vocal skepticism about climate changed has not prevented them from winning research dollars, as many deniers would have you think it would. Far from it - after years of telling conservative politicians what they want to hear, they've won a powerful patron in the US Senate. A small Alabama newspaper described it this way:

This might seem a little ironic, but taking the fight to global warming alarmists can be done with aid of the federal government.

None of the seven Alabama congressmen, four Republicans and three Democrats voted in favor of the cap-and-trade legislation that passed in the U.S. House of Representatives last month, so it’s probably safe to assume based on their votes, the global warming issue isn’t a huge concern for the constituency in Alabama.

One of the tactics used by colleges and universities to secure grant money for research has been to apply for it under the guise of using it to achieve a better understanding of global warming, or climate change. However, the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) managed to get in on this with the help of Sen. Richard Shelby.

UAH is the home of Dr. Roy Spencer, a leading global warming skeptic and is also known as the official climatologist of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. And with your tax dollars, for better or for worse, Shelby has managed to secure money for Spencer and his colleagues to conduct research on global warming – some $1.8 million for the Climate Model Evaluation Project.

Here's where it could get more interesting. Because a project with an identical goal as the UAH project is mentioned in the East Anglia emails, and it reveals Dr. Christy was corresponding with a former oil industry PR man to try to win funding for it. In the email to two Energy Dept. officials in the Bush administration, Christy describes how he would like to use his satellite data to vet climate models, and how past requests for funding had been rejected:

From: John Christy [_mailto:john.christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx_]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:16 AM
To: Strayer, Michael
Cc: Salmon, Jeffrey
Subject: Climate Model Evaluation

Dr. Strayer:

Jeff Salmon is aware of a project we at UAHuntsville believe is
vital and that you may provide a way to see it accomplished.

This is pretty clearly an introduction - Salmon had passed along Strayer's contact info to Christy to help him win research funding for the "vital" project. Strayer seems like an innocent bystander, but who is this Jeff Salmon anyway? According to Climatesciencewatch.org:

Prior to moving to DOE, from 1991-2001 he was Executive Director of the George C. Marshall Institute, a key actor in the global warming disinformation campaign. In 1998 he participated in the development of a now-notorious oil industry-sponsored plan to wage a campaign against the mainstream science community on global warming. Before that, he was senior speechwriter for Dick Cheney, when Cheney was Secretary of Defense.

The purpose of the 1998 campaign was to

Recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry’s views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that trap the sun’s heat near Earth... Victory will be achieved when… recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the "conventional wisdom."

So a man responsible for much of the disinformation out there about global warming is the same person who was helping Christy navigate the DOE in his search for funding. What was he hoping to fund? The email continues:

As you
know, our nation's energy and climate change policies are being
driven by output from global climate models. However, there has
never been a true "red team" assessment of these model
projections
in the way other government programs are subjected to hard-nosed,
independent evaluations. To date, most of the "evaluation" of
these
models has been left in the hands of the climate modelers
themselves. This has the potential of biasing the entire process.

It is often a climate modeler's claim (and promoted in IPCC
documents - see attached) that the models must be correct because
the global surface
temperature variations since 1850 are reproduced (somewhat) by
the
models when run in hindcast mode. However, this is not a
scientific
experiment for the simple reason that every climate modeler
saw the
answer ahead of time. It is terribly easy to get the right answer
for the wrong reason, especially if you already know the answer.

A legitimate experiment is to test the models' output against
variables to which modelers did not have access ... a true blind
test of the models.

I have proposed and have had rejected a model evaluation
project to
DOE based on the utilization of global datasets we build here at
UAH. We have published many of these datasets (most are
satellite-based) which document the complexity of the climate
system and which we think models should replicate in some way,
and
to aid in model development where shortcomings are found.
These are
datasets of quantities that modelers in general were not aware of
when doing model testing. We have performed
a few of these tests and have found models reveal serious
shortcomings in some of the most fundamental aspects of energy
distribution. We believe a rigorous test of climate models is in
order as the congress starts considering energy reduction
strategies which can have significant consequences on our
economy.
Below is an abstract of a retooled proposal I am working on.

If you see a possible avenue for research along these lines,
please
let me know. Too, we have been considering some type of
partnership
with Oakridge since the facility is nearby, and this may be a way
to do that.

John C.



Understanding the vertical energy distribution of the Earth's
atmosphere
and its expression in global climate model simulations

John R. Christy, P.I., University of Alabama in Huntsville

Abstract

Sets of independent observations indicate, unexpectedly, that the
warming of the tropical atmosphere since 1978 is proceeding at a
rate much less than that anticipated from climate model
simulations.
Specifically, while the surface has warmed, the lower troposphere
has experienced less warming. In contrast, all climate models we
and others have examined indicate the lower tropical atmosphere
should be warming at a rate 1.2 to 1.5 times greater than the
surface when forced with increasing greenhouse gases within the
context of other observed forcings (the so-called "negative lapse
rate feedback".) We propose to diagnose this curious phenomenon
with several satellite-based datasets to document its relation to
other climate variables. We shall do the same for climate model
output of the same simulated variables. This will
enable us to propose an integrated conceptual framework of the
phenomenon for further testing. Tied in with this research are
potential
answers to fundamental questions such as the following: (1) In
response to increasing surface temperatures, is the lower
atmosphere reconfiguring the way heat energy is transported which
allows for an increasing amount of heat to more freely escape to
space? (2) Could there be a natural thermostatic effect in the
climate system which acts in a different way than parameterized
convective-adjustment schemes dependent upon current
assumptions of
heat deposition and retention? (3)
If observed atmospheric heat retention is considerably less than
model projections, what impact will lower retention rates have on
anticipated increases in surface temperatures in the 21st
century?

This last paragraph probably gives a sense for what Sen. Shelby's $1.8 million in pork spending is going to fund: "evaluating" climate models using the UAH satellite data that are so prized by the denial movement. The motive? "We believe a rigorous test of climate models is in order as the congress starts considering energy reduction strategies which can have significant consequences on our economy." Which is code for, "we want to cast doubt on climate models so Congress never passes energy reduction strategies."

In other words, it's possible that Christy was receiving help on the inside - not from a climatologist or a bureaucratic grunt, but from a PR professional who had previously led climate science disinformation campaigns on behalf of the fossil fuel industry. I'm making some conjectures here, but we at least know that Christy sought help from Salmon, and that Salmon made introductions for him. 

It's long been known that the fossil fuel industry has funded junk science against global warming. But Spencer and Christy have made pains to distance themselves from the carbon lobby. Remember, Roy Spencer's website states bluntly that "He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil." But now we find out that in 2007, an ally of the oil companies was helping skeptics at UAH to secure funding for research. What happened after that letter is anyone's guess, and who knows what role Jeff Salmon played in follow up. But two years later, your tax dollars are being earmarked for vocal skeptics to “evaluate” climate models, by a US Senator who fears climate legislation will “place a tremendous burden on the U.S. economy.” And remember, Jeff Salmons is still in the DOE.

I don't really have a problem with my tax dollars going to fund skeptical research. It's good to have the models subjected to analysis by devoted skeptics - if even Christy and Spencer can't find anything wrong with them, it strengthens the case further (so I guess we ought to be watching for what comes out of UAH in the next year or so).

My point is simply this: the myth of the climate scientist raising alarm to generate research dollars is officially busted. The fact is, there are plenty of politicians who want this global warming business to just go away so they don't have to ask their constituents for sacrifices. Meaning there are plenty of government dollars to go around for research skeptical of climate change - if only there were enough scientists to take advantage of it. As I've argued before, every conceivable material incentive should be pushing scientists away from the consensus, given the number of people desperate to believe that global warming is a hoax. Getting research grants from oil companies or think tanks, selling books, getting time on talk shows – it’s all easier when people are looking for a viewpoint, and you’re one of the few people who’s got it. And yet, 97% of climatologists have refused to buck the consensus, despite the vast economic rents to be earned by doing so.

Pork barrel spending for skeptical climate research? Who’s feeding at the trough now?

RELATED POSTS

Follow the money trail to the global warming conspiracy? It leads straight to 1211 Avenue of the Americas

Hackers, health care, and hot air: should we protect "climochondriacs" from too much information on the web?

What "hiding the decline" really looks like

A lesson in denial: Eric Cantor videos, global warming deniers, and how to say something without saying anything

What do Climategate and the Simpsons have in common? Skeptics hit "Rock Bottom"

What do Climategate and the Simpsons have in common? Skeptics hit "Rock Bottom"

If you've been confused by the Hackergate/Climategate slugfest, there's a good post over at ClimateProgress in which one of the accused scientists, Michael Mann, puts some of the most talked-about emails in context. Watching how deniers have taken quotes out of context and cobbled them together to say what they want, I immediately thought of this classic Simpsons segment, in which a sensationalist TV program called "Rock Bottom" portrays Homer as a sex-crazed lunatic:



Maybe someone can edit the video to go something like this:

Godfrey Jones: He was an everyday TV weatherman who devoted himself to kids. Until the night a grossly smug intellectual named Michael Mann gave him a crash course in elitism. "Weatherman, and the Wonk!"

Michael Mann: Somebody had to look at the data. Then I noticed it was sitting in the way of some sweet grants. I grabbed the sweet grants. Just thinking about the grants. I just wish I had the sweet, sweet, sw-sw-sw-sweet grants.

Godfrey Jones: So, Dr. Mann, you admit you massaged the data. What do you have to say in your defense? [freeze frame]. Dr. Mann, your silence will only incriminate you further. [freeze frame]. No, Dr. Mann, don't take your anger out on me! Get back, get back! Dr. Mann, noooo!
(falsification of data may not have happened)

We could even call it "Michael Badmann" after the name of the Simpsons episode ("Homer Badman").

Godfrey Jones, meet Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre - some of their tactics would put even you to shame. One of the most egregious examples of deniers hitting Rock Bottom is how they've taken this email out of context:

At 16:54 27/10/2009, Michael Mann wrote:

thanks Phil,

Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t?

As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

Sounds bad, right? Except that, as Mann points out, he is referring to denier Steve McIntyre as the person for whom "this isn't about truth," not Mann himself. I can vouch that Dr. Mann is talking about skeptics, because I also called out McIntyre for using the "plausibly deniable accusations" tactic - on this exact same issue - three weeks before the above email was written. Comparing McIntyre to House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), here's what I wrote:

This is a time honored strategy of political rhetoric. Ask questions, make insinuations, repeat the same falsehoods over and over, without saying anything of substance - it creates doubt in the public's mind, while still allowing you to deny charges of "lying." If someone points out that nowhere does the health care reform bill "require" you to drop your current insurance plan, Cantor can plausibly maintain, "I never said that it would," while still convincing a sizeable portion of the public otherwise...

What's clear is that McIntyre and his ilk aren't interested in the debate over evidence, or even in proving global warming false - the strategy is simply to sow doubt... ask vague questions to create an atmosphere of doubt and suspicion; when those questions are in fact answered, continue to assert that the questions were never answered to make it look like scientists are hiding something. And when people get tired of repeatedly answering the same debunked claims, cry foul and proclaim your views are being suppressed.

With the CRU emails, deniers have swung into full strategy execution mode. Speaking of which, here's the relevant section from the very next email in the chain, which makes clear Mann was referring to McIntyre as the party who doesn't care about "truth":

I'll let you make up you own minds! It seems to me as though McIntyre cherry picked for effect.

There is an additional part that shows how many series from Ch 6 of AR4 used Yamal - most didn't! Also there is a sensitivity test of omitting it - which comes from the Supplementary Info with Osborn and Briffa (2006). As expected omitting it makes very little difference. To get to this follow the links from the above link.

McIntyre knows that the millennial temperature record is pretty robust, otherwise he would produce his own series. Similarly the instrumental temperature is even more robust, which he also knows.

In other words, disingenous people actually took an email calling out SKEPTICS for not caring about truth, and untruthfully took it out of context to insinuate that climate scientists were talking about themselves! Case in point #24,601 why you should never believe a skeptic who says, "I just want transparency so we can get to the truth." I'm expecting something like this from the skeptic community:



Maybe I shouldn't wait up.

RELATED POSTS

What "hiding the decline" really looks like

A lesson in denial: Eric Cantor videos, global warming deniers, and how to say something without saying anything

The cold logic of hockey sticks

Finally! Fox News admits it isn't really news

What "hiding the decline" really looks like

The week's big global warming news continues to be "hackergate" - emails stolen from a few climate scientists that purport to reveal a global science conspiracy. The most talked-about email continues to be Dr. Phil Jones's (of the UK's Met Office) containing this sentence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Skeptics jumped on the quote as the "smoking gun" - proof scientists were altering data to show warming. But as always, their rush to judgment was premature, and as more evidence came to light, it quickly became apparent that the "trick" was completely innoucuous: Dr. Jones had simply tacked the instrumental temperature record onto the end of a reconstruction based on tree rings. Skeptical Science has the best explanation of why this trick is necessary:

"Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

But let's give skeptics the benefit of the doubt, and assume Dr. Jones was nefariously altering data. We'll throw out his dataset and use NASA's (which is more accurate anyway), starting in 2000 (2 months after Dr. Jones wrote his email). Here's what the "decline" looks like:

Here's another way of looking at it, showing that global temperatures were 0.23 degrees warmer over the 10 years after Jones wrote the email than the 10 years before:

So even if you grant skeptics' most wild-eyed accusations, the datasets Dr. Jones had nothing to do with confirm that temperatures continue to rise - most of all in the Arctic.

In fact, what's interesting is that the British data which were hacked show LESS warming over recent years than NASA's. If British scientists are altering data to "hide the decline," they aren't doing a very good job.

And yet this is unlikely to make skeptics more skeptical of their climate conspiracies. What is it about global warming that inspires such passion among the conspiracy theorists? More on that to come.

RELATED POSTS

Pork barrel spending on skeptical climate research?  Earmarks from Alabama

Follow the money trail to the global warming conspiracy? It leads straight to 1211 Avenue of the Americas

Hackers, health care, and hot air: should we protect "climochondriacs" from too much information on the web?

How is Peyton Manning like global warming?

The cold logic of hockey sticks

The only thing you need to know about global warming.