Monday, January 15, 2007

2007 Prediction #2: Robert Carter Will Not Reply to This Post

Prof. Carter is the author of a number of articles that take a skeptical view of climate change, of which the most provocatively-titled is definitely "There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998". The good professor, who frequently feels the need to remind people that climatology is very complex and that "alarmists" often base broad-ranging conclusions on relatively small sample sizes, unveils an astonishing fact in this article
Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Can it be true? It is true! I acknowledge it, and in fact I agree with Carter's assertion about the alarmists too.

But...

As luck would have it, I also take a fairly skeptical view of climate change, and as a result have read a few things. When one has read a few things on this topic, the number '1998' sends up a little red flag: for a long while, it was the hottest year on record. Our skeptical professor sees fit to declare that climate change has stopped, based on the fact that mean temperature has not steadily broken its own record each year since 1998 (it broke its record only once: 2005 is now the hottest year ever).

You may recall that in a previous post I extolled the virtues of decentralized information systems like the internet and all that good "Web 2.0" stuff. Sure enough it did not let me down; I found a wonderful quote in a Wikipedia talk page about this very article:
To give you an idea how wily Carter is being, consider that all the following would be true according to the data set he used:
For the years 1995-2005 global average temperature increased
For the years 1996-2005 global average temperature increased
For the years 1997-2005 global average temperature increased
For the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase
For the years 1999-2005 global average temperature increased
For the years 2000-2005 global average temperature increased
For the years 2001-2005 global average temperature increased
For the years 2002-2005 global average temperature increased
For the years 2003-2005 global average temperature increased
For the years 2004-2005 global average temperature increased
-"Nethgirb"
I'd be willing to bet that Carter did not put all those time-periods into a hat and then pick one to write about
. This, of course, is called "selective evidence".

Okay, time to lay off Carter. This comes up because in a booklet issued last month I find some curious phrasings. Chiding Mr. Stern's famous report on climate change, Senator Jim Inhofe says: "Stern has surely accepted his IPPC-centric science advice in good faith, yet that turns out to be his fatal mistake... global temperature has not increased since 1998, despite continuing increases in carbon dioxide".

Look: that year, 1998 again! Sure enough, Carter's article is referenced in the booklet. Sen. Inhofe accusing Stern of uncritically accepting IPPC arguments, but himself uncritically accepting Carter's, who selectively included evidence in a piece attacking "alarmists" for selectively including evidence.

While we're on the subject of predictions, it's being widely anticipated that 2007 will break the temperature record again.

5 comments:

  1. Re Robert Carter, you might find this interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This, of course, is called "selective evidence".

    A/K/A "cherry-picking."

    Speaking of global climate change, one thing I've noticed here in NM is a drastic change in wildlife: They no longer seem to know where to be when. It's January 15, and bitterly cold, and in the back yard this morning, I saw not the first, but the first six robins of spring (so to speak). I don't recall ever seeing them that early - not even in the 70-degrees-plus January of 1980. That would be the year of the Southwest's killer heatwave - you folks in Texas lost a lot of people to it, as I recall.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Job? Oh, Jo-ob???

    You around?

    [crickets]

    Rats.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Matt, you just lost your prediction!

    You also missed the point.

    It is indeed true that choosing 1998 and 2005 as your end points results in a T trend line which is flat or cooling slightly. That is a FACT. What you make of the fact is and entirely different matter.

    It is also true that if you choose 1980 and 2005 as your end points, then the trend line is warming. That too is a fact, and what you make of it is your choice.

    What I make of both these facts is that neither is relevant to climate change. It is simply ridiculous to treat periods of 7, 20 or even 100 years as the way to define climate trends.

    To show that human-caused climate change is occurring, you need to demonstrate that either the magnitude or the rate of change of 20th century warming exceeded previous natural limits. So far as I know, no evidence exists to support such a notion.

    That was the whole point of my Telegraph article, but you seem to have missed it.

    Best.

    Bob Carter

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would appreciate more visual materials, to make your blog more attractive, but your writing style really compensates it. But there is always place for improvement

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.