Matthew Yglesias » Yes, The World is Really Getting Warmer

Jun 28th, 2009 at 9:55 am

Yes, The World is Really Getting Warmer

Paul Krugman offers us the data on global climate, rather than the random cherry-picking of temperatures technique favored by the denialists:

Now you don’t really need that trendline (which he tells us is a third-degree polynomial) to see what’s happening here. On the one hand, the temperature is subject to a lot of fluctuations. On the other hand, temperatures are rising over time. And we have very solid scientific evidence to suggest that the increasing presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to blame. And unless we shift policies, every year not only will there be more CO2 in the atmosphere, but we’ll continue adding CO2 at an increasing rate, making the climate curve steeper and steeper.

Comments
71

71 Responses to “Yes, The World is Really Getting Warmer”

Glaivester Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 10:01 am
The problem comes down to this here. Trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels is fine, as long as other means of generation (hydroelectricity, nuclear, biomass) are subjected to much less regulation so that alternatives can appear. The problm is that the liberals want to more or less restrict us to exploring wind and solar, without considering whether or not wind and solar can actually meet our energy needs. (Of course, some of them don’t care and want us to jsut go without).

The idea seems to be that if we are restricted to wind and solar, then somehow we will find a way to make it work. This is simply another exmple of the “Green Lantern Theory” which Matt makes so much fun of in the context of foreign policy.
Adam Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 10:21 am
The problm is that the liberals want to more or less restrict us to exploring wind and solar, without considering whether or not wind and solar can actually meet our energy needs. (Of course, some of them don’t care and want us to jsut go without).

This reads to me like a massive strawman. It would be just as productive for me to say that Republicans’ alternative is merely to build tons of nuclear plants and allow full offshore drilling and assume the market will somehow adopt the right energy sources (and hey, less regulation always fixes everything!)
Sonic Charmer Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 10:31 am
-I accept the rising trendline at face value. What is the ‘cost’ to us of that rising trendline?

-What can we do about it (realistically) – and what will be the effect of the things we do?

-How much will those thing(s), in turn cost?

These are the only questions that matter. If they could be answered, a policy would suggest itself as the ‘cheapest’. One possible such policy, by the way, is ’status quo’.

But the people who support the proposals espoused by the left on climate change (e.g., Matthew Yglesias) do not have answers for these questions. They have beliefs.
shooter242 Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 10:33 am
This data says Krugman is wrong, and it includes NASA.
James Robertson Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 10:34 am
How is that not cherry picked? It starts in 1880, after the little ice age had ended. It also uses a scale that makes the rather trivial rise in temperatures look extreme.

It’s like picking just the last 12 months of govt spending, and using $100s of dollars for my scale. Can we call that fair, too?
Sonic Charmer Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 10:53 am
P.S. The idea that we have a complete and accurate picture of what the “average global temperature” (however that is defined, exactly!) was in 1880 – or even the same accuracy/completeness as we do today – is dubious at best. What is the size of the error bars in this timeseries? Answer: “not shown”. The error bars could dwarf the fluctuations and even the “trend”, for all I or Matthew Yglesias knows. Also, to some extent this timeseries portrays a large aggregated number of apples-to-oranges comparisons. To what extent, and how should one separate the consistently-measured from the apples-to-oranges? Matthew Yglesias doesn’t know. Nor does Paul Krugman. But don’t bother them about such things. They have their beliefs to nurture.
Why oh why Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 10:53 am
This data says Krugman is wrong, and it includes NASA.

Poor shooter can’t even find good flat-earther link anymore. In this very link an update added a reply from the author:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/05/twelve-months-of-cooling-doesn%E2%80%99t-make-a-climate-trend/

Summary in the title: Twelve Months of Cooling Doesn’t Make A Climate Trend.
Note that this pseudo-debate (one side spouts nonsense, the scientists roll eye) was settled more than one year ago. During how many decades will the likes of shooter refer to that post?

How is that not cherry picked? It starts in 1880, after the little ice age had ended. It also uses a scale that makes the rather trivial rise in temperatures look extreme.

What is JR going to believe, his lying eyes or the tiny ice age in his brain?
malatesta Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 10:55 am
shooty, are you even trying?
Jake Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Apparently shhoter242 missed the entire point of the post. Well played, wingnut.
James Robertson Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 10:58 am
#7 – we have accurate global data measures since about the 70’s, when satellite data started to come in. Before then, it’s all very haphazard – and based on instruments that can’t be used in conjunction with modern ones (based on their accuracy alone).

We have nearly 40 years of temperature data that we can look at as reliable. That’s not long enough to make any kind of conclusions about.
Why oh why Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 11:03 am
P.S. The idea that we have a complete and accurate picture of what the “average global temperature” (however that is defined, exactly!) was in 1880 – or even the same accuracy/completeness as we do today – is dubious at best. What is the size of the error bars in this timeseries? Answer: “not shown”.

It is interesting to type this rant without bothering to click twice and get to the source, NASA’s GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) Surface Temperature Analysis and a page that answers those questions and more, with reference to other studies:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Among other things, you will learn:

The analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time. Meteorological station data provide a useful indication of temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics for a few decades prior to 1880, and there are a small number of station records that extend back to previous centuries. However, we believe that analyses for these earlier years need to be carried out on a station by station basis with an attempt to discern the method and reliability of measurements at each station, a task beyond the scope of our analysis. Global studies of still earlier times depend upon incorporation of proxy measures of temperature change. References to such studies are provided in Hansen et al. (1999).

Also, to some extent this timeseries portrays a large aggregated number of apples-to-oranges comparisons.

Why don’t you write to NASA and point out this flaw in their measurement of temperature? Obviously they have never thought of this problem and are waiting for geniuses like you.
SLC Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Re shooter242

Anthony Watts, a real authority on climate change (not). Mr. Watts, like most deniers, is a multiple denier who also denies the relationship between CFCs and ozone depletion. In addition, Mr. Watts is associated with the Heartland Institute, a shill for the tobacco companies and energy production companies. This is, of course, typical of the types of clowns that deniers like Mr. shooter242 like to cite.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts
mattski Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 11:05 am
The idea that we have a complete and accurate picture of what the “average global temperature” (however that is defined, exactly!) was in 1880 – or even the same accuracy/completeness as we do today – is dubious at best.

Who said we have “complete & accurate” knowledge? Kindly show us.

We don’t need perfect knowledge to act. We just need sufficient knowledge. OTOH, if you’re too lazy to change and too fearful to seek understanding then your opinions might tend to be focused on justifying inaction.
DTM Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 11:11 am
From long experience, trading charts with denialists isn’t going to get you anywhere. Really, we need to combat the very notion that any layperson (or, worse, scientist or engineer from a different field) with a cherry-picked chart becomes an expert on climate science.
Eli Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 11:15 am
I’m still not convinced my limited scientific knowledge is sufficient to parse the details of this issue. So I defer to overwhelming scientific consensus.

Which, fortunately for me(!), is in line with my core ideological values: I am not generally opposed to regulation, and place great value on the sanctity of the Earth.

I wish that more conservatives were as honest about laying their own cards on the table, and admitting that their doubt comes less from scientific disagreement and more from ideological predisposition: principled dislike of regulation, and human providence over the Earth.
Sonic Charmer Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Why oh why

So you read that excerpt from NASA as refuting, rather than confirming, what I said, do you? Fascinating.

mattski

Who said we have “complete & accurate” knowledge?

Nobody “said” it, but it’s implicit in the notion of speaking about a purported timeseries and trend of what “the” average global temperature was over such-and-such time period without even a nod to the possibility of error bars and changing methodologies.

We don’t need perfect knowledge to act.

Who said we need “perfect” knowledge? I’d settle for reasonable error bounds and separation of actual trend from methodology/coverage noise.

We just need sufficient knowledge.

Precisely. And sufficient knowledge is precisely what we lack. In particular, it’s what people like Matthew Yglesias lack, since (in a literal sense, not meaning this as a pejorative) he doesn’t really know what the hell he’s talking about.

OTOH, if you’re too lazy to change and too fearful to seek understanding

It’s fascinating to read someone lecturing me on being “lazy” and “too fearful to seek understanding”. What the hell does posting on blogs, and stridently advocating behemoth legislation you haven’t actually read (have you?), have to do with “seeking understanding”? Just the opposite, more like. What “understanding” of anything does Matthew Yglesias have to actually have to type the above? The people who “seek understanding” are those who do the, y’know, actual climate research and modeling. Something I’ve done BTW. How ’bout you? How ’bout Matthew Yglesias?
Sonic Charmer Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Really, we need to combat the very notion that any layperson (or, worse, scientist or engineer from a different field) with a cherry-picked chart becomes an expert on climate science.

This is a category of person that includes both Paul Krugman (economist and political columnist) and Matthew Yglesias (um, Harvard grad, screenwriter scion, and indie-rock/basketball fan) as they fling these climatology charts around.
DTM Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 11:25 am
This is a category of person that includes both Paul Krugman (economist and political columnist) and Matthew Yglesias (um, Harvard grad, screenwriter scion, and indie-rock/basketball fan) as they fling these climatology charts around.

Absolutely, and that was my point. Rather than Krugman and Yglesias trying to beat the denialists at their own game–which will never be possible, because the denialists will simply change the rules–I think they should simply be stressing over and over again that the scientists who actually work in the relevant fields have repeatedly gotten together to discuss this issue. And although there are a few notable dissenters, the vast majority view among those scientists is that manmade climate change is happening and is a significant threat.
snoey Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Sonic Charmer:

If you don’t like the opinions of laypeople, what about scientists?

To my knowledge, this is the complete list of peer-reviewed publications seriously challenging the consensus on anthrogenic global climate change:

1)

Feel free to add any others.
Sonic Charmer Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 11:28 am
the vast majority view among those scientists is that manmade climate change is happening and is a significant threat.

Indeed. Which takes us back to the 3 questions I asked above, loosely

-what’s the cost? (i.e. how much of “a threat”)?

-what is our range of options, and what would they accomplsih (or not)?

-what is their cost?, therefore

-which one is ‘the best’?

Again: even taking the trend at face value, these are the real questions. Note: climate scientists are in fact lay people with regard to these questions; they are not qualified to answer, definitively, any of them. (At most their work may help inform/guide the answers to some of them….)
mattski Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Nobody “said” it, but it’s implicit in the notion of speaking about a purported timeseries and trend of what “the” average global temperature was

No it is not implicit. Not by any means. Krugman’s chart represents the best available data. There hasn’t been any attempt to pass it off as “complete”. Do you have any basis for believing the data cited is deceptive?

What the hell does posting on blogs, and stridently advocating behemoth legislation you haven’t actually read (have you?), have to do with “seeking understanding”?

You are accusing me of “stridently advocating…legislation”? Perhaps you suffer from delusions? Could you try sticking to the facts?

As to whether I make a habit of reading legislation, no I don’t, unless I see cause. If a controversy arises as to the content of the climate legislation then maybe I will. Maybe I’ll rely on the commentary of persons I find trustworthy. It isn’t a critical issue, as a rule.

OTOH, there IS a scientific consensus on climate change and by all appearances you’re not a part of it.
Jeffrey Davis Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 11:42 am
What is the cost? If there were scant increases due to feedbacks, probably not much. If feedbacks become as bad as the original forcing? As much of a threat to civilization as a nuclear war.
roger Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 11:58 am
It seems to me that we have gone past the temperature chart phase. It is time to start charting damage. For instance, charts of the glacial ice pack shrinkage in the American West, which will spell doom for, oh, a coupla trillion dollars worth of economic development and the 40-100 million who are projected to live in the West over the next forty years. And there is the pack shrinkage in the Himalayas, which – if continued – would shut down the water supply for about a billion people in China and India. We need charts showing the advance of warm weather biota into northern climates – which is massively happening in Montana and British columbia. A chart of the increase of ground temperatures melting the tundra, for which we have quite good records from alaska, Russia, Canada.

In other words, popularizing this issue means showing the effects of the change. Some effects are going to be showing up sooner – for instance, there is no way Las Vegas can survive as a water using sieve, given both the drought cycle in the west and the decrease in the glacial ice packs. Some effects have already been showing up – diseases that are wiping out lumber resources in Washington and B.C. – Some present problems that could simply ramify – the release of methane trapped by the tundra could be a very, very bad thing.

The denialists aren’t simply evil – although some of them are – but are defending a way of life, with big cars and distant suburban houses. That way of life has to change a lot, and they dimly realize it. Already they are dealing with the symbols of a sudden change in their world – Obama being a perfect symbol of all that threatens them. The question is, how to deal with this deadender group.
Jeffrey Davis Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Half the CO2 put into the atmosphere has been put there since 1970. I imagine that the trendline starts where it does because it’s after industrialization had become a global phenomenon.

And (from wiki) “Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia (Grove and Switsur, 1994). However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation.”

Similarly, the Medieval Warm Period was not a concerted global phenomenon. It was warmer at irregular intervals around the globe. Current global warming is more widespread. And, as has been pointed out MANY TIMES in the past, the amount of energy needed to increase global temps by the observed amount is the amount of energy that has been trapped in the atmosphere due to the increase in GHGs. (AGW denialists are like someone finding a body with a .45 bullet in his head and a smoking .45 nearby who then goes and tries to prove the murder victim drowned.)
DMonteith Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
…we have accurate global data measures since about the 70’s, when satellite data started to come in. Before then, it’s all very haphazard…

James Robertson, of course, is highly qualified to pass judgment on the methodologies of historical climatology. I know this because he has exhaustively supported his assertions with other assertions.

Also, what DTM said.
Barbar Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
It’s odd that Robertson doesn’t trust any climate data since before 1970, and yet he seems to have this idea that there was a “little ice age” a few hundred years ago.
tomemos Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Shooter, do you think the graph is in conflict with there being cooling in the last 12 months? You can see the decline right there at the end of the graph. But one swallow doesn’t make a summer.

SonicCharmer: “So you read that excerpt from NASA as refuting, rather than confirming, what I said, do you?”

Yes, because NASA is saying that they don’t have accurate data before 1880, but they do have accurate data since then—there were monitoring stations all over the world. You can disagree, but that would require good reasons, which you haven’t provided.
El Cid Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
If that chart is correct, one shudders to think about the plague of naked drunken Republican ex-mayors about to be unleashed within our public parks.
DTM Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Sonic Charmer,

It is true the issue of exactly what to do about manmade climate change is subject to considerable debate. Of course “doing nothing” and its cousin “delaying action indefinitely” have to be evaluated just like the other options (meaning we can’t simply assume those are the lowest-cost/lowest-risk paths). Also, I’d note we don’t necessarily have to choose the absolutely most optimal path–it would be nice if we could, but again it is entirely possible that at a given point the plausible benefits of trying to optimize further would most likely be outweighed by the costs/risks of the associated delay in action.
Just Dropping By Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
This graph completely fails to tell me if Ryan.M.Powers is typing.
judd Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
The title of this post is misleading. The earth is not warming, it is actually cooling. Look at the chart. See, I can cherry pick data just like the next guy. But don’t worry AGW fools, you are saving the planet.
shooter242 Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I will happily grant that I know little about the global warming/cooling battles, other than that there are large scale disagreements. That alone tells me the “consensus” isn’t science, and that’s all I need to know about passing a tax bill, that no one has even read. This is right up there with spend trillions we don’t have on healthcare, to “save money”. In short, not believable.

By the way, how’s that stimulus working for you?
DTM Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I will happily grant that I know little about the global warming/cooling battles, other than that there are large scale disagreements. That alone tells me the “consensus” isn’t science . . . .

I’m not sure what “large scale disagreements” is supposed to mean, but anyone who thinks that running disagreements in science aren’t typical just doesn’t know anything about science. So for policymakers, it has to be good enough that a strong majority position has emerged in the relevant scientific communities. Waiting for total unanimity would just mean permanent paralysis.

By the way, how’s that stimulus working for you?

Personal Income and Outlays Boosted by Stimulus

The upshot is that in May, the stimulus was significantly increasing personal disposable income, which is good. The problem is that it was boosting personal consumption somewhat less, because a lot of that disposal income was going to repair household balance sheets. In the long run that is good too, but in the short run that is moderating the stimulus effect. What this underscores is that ultimately the most effective forms of stimulus are going to be the direct government spending and not the transfers to personal consumers, and of course those are just getting started.
Why oh why Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
there are large scale disagreements. That alone tells me the “consensus” isn’t science

That’s all you need to know about conservatives. Nevermind that in this case the scientific consensus has been reached years ago; as long as one Neanderthalian Republican disagrees, it’s impossible to know what is real.

Science is too important to be left to scientists, and shooter’s ignorant opinion is as good as anyone’s. I only wonder if shooter goes to a Christian healer when he’s sick, or to a physician.
tomemos Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Judd: Yeah, and I should be getting richer the more time I spend at my job…but I just bought groceries, and now I’m forty bucks poorer! Obviously my financial situation is getting worse, not better, based on that overwhelming data.
Arun Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Hehe, when shooter242 is not infesting Glenn Greenwald, he’s over here!

Lest anyone think that global warming is a lefty trick, my very democratic representative Rush Holt held a town meeting last year at which he brought a conservative.
http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2008/07/my-congressman.html

The punch line:
“Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney (Ret.), President of Monmouth University made the actual presentation of scientific knowledge about climate change; a rather conservative presentation which made the points that climate change is happening, there are many potentially bad things (and some good things) that could happen; we should throw all the government resources including ocean data from the Navy and nuclear labs’ supercomputers to monitor, predict and plan for the consequences; and that we should try to at least slow down the rate of change so we have time to adapt.”
James Robertson Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
DMonteith – are you asserting that the temperature data we have before the satellite era can be used with the same level of accuracy as what we have since then? If so, I just have to laugh. We have good data only since the first weather satellites went up. Before then, we have data of verying levels of accuracy collected without any attempt at standardization. That’s historical fact.
Why oh why Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
We have good data only since the first weather satellites went up. Before then, we have data of verying levels of accuracy collected without any attempt at standardization. That’s historical fact.

How does JR manage to pack so much bullshit in one post?

JR, one day you will provide a link supporting one of your various fantasies.
hum Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
This post contains a very good extended demonstration, based on detailed statistical analysis and refutation of “it’s really cooling” claims, that warming is real.
Jeffrey Davis Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
There aren’t “large scale disagreements” in the science. There are large scale disagreements between the science and political BS. If there are “large scale disagreements” in the science, what are they?

Any disagreement that trace gases in the atmosphere trap LW radiation? Nope. Any disagreement that this energy can be both calculated and measured? Nope.

OK. At this point, the “largeness” of the scale simply disappears.

After this, we’re dealing with ocean circulation patterns. Land use feedbacks. Etc.
Nimed Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Sonic Charmer says:

What is the size of the error bars in this timeseries? Answer: “not shown”. The error bars could dwarf the fluctuations and even the “trend”, for all I or Matthew Yglesias knows.
The people who “seek understanding” are those who do the, y’know, actual climate research and modeling. Something I’ve done BTW.

Well, if you worked in the field, maybe you can tell us what is the approximate size of the error bars.

I’m a layman, but there are pretty good reasons to think there’s a tendency here:

1 – It’s pretty clear that, whatever the error bars are, there is a trend. Why? Because there is clear an auto-correlation in the time series data. In English, what this means is that, if noise was the only thing going on here, you wouldn’t expect time points close to each other to be correlated. And they clearly are.

2 – Speaking of noise, we must not forget that a yearly average temperature is itself an average over a lot of time-points. Suppose that temperature is measured daily (it’s at least measured daily), and has a standard deviation of, say, 1˚C. The yearly average temperature would then have a standard deviation of 1/sqrt(365)≈0.05˚C. Pretty small compared to this.

Again, I know nothing about this, but I expect the error bars on the daily measure are actually smaller than 1˚C. We’re measuring temperature here, something I expect to be fairly accurately.
tinisoli Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Conservatives simply do not give a shit about evidence, data, “consensus,” or facts when those things suggest a reality that does not suit their agenda or does not match up with their fantasies. And yet they demand centuries of reliable data and an unattainable degree of consensus when it’s an issue they can’t be bothered with, or it’s an issue over which their political enemies are raising a fuss.

Iraq? Let’s just invade now and worry about the legal, moral, and financial concerns later. (Actually, let’s never worry about that stuff at all, at least not until Bush is out of office and Obama can be blamed.) Fiscal responsibility? Regulation of Wall Street? No thanks…until it’s Obama’s problem. But climate change, or any other environmental issue that Al Gore keeps prattling on about? Fuck that shit. That’s all a giant hoax perpetrated on the innocent American people by commie homos wusses who hate America. We need to see some hard data and we need every retard like shooter242 and James Inhofe to be walked through the science until they too agree that anthropogenic climate change is real. And not only do you have to walk them through it, it all has to feel believable and it had better not conflict with their primitive fairy tales about the creation of the Earth and mankind.
wiley Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Guess cynics want to know the projected cost of everything.
The Lorax Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I really think the best thing to do at this point is to Dead Parrot Sketch this argument. It’s over. It has ceased to be. Same goes with arguments over the existence of macro-evolution. Those of good will and open minds already have been convinced of the reality of climate change.

Next issue please.
DMonteith Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
DMonteith – are you asserting that the temperature data we have before the satellite era can be used with the same level of accuracy as what we have since then?

I’m really not qualified to assess the efficacy of the techniques (tree ring samples, ice cores, etc.) that climatologists use to determine past temperatures. I am not a climatologist. I also am not qualified to perform root canals. I am not a dentist. I do, however, follow the advice that dentists routinely give and brush and floss my teeth twice every day. Similarly, I am inclined to believe what the vast majority of climatologists say is occurring vis a vis global warming.

That’s why we have experts. I will not stop brushing my teeth even if you, random conservatroll, insist very strongly that the dental lobby is perpetrating a hoax upon us all. Is this hard for you to understand?
judd Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Nevermind that in this case the scientific consensus has been reached years ago;

The data is different then it was “years ago.” But you are still convinced based on that “years ago” data. Who are really the denialists? The earth was warming, now it is cooling. Period. Matt’s chart even says so.
judd Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Terrible analogy, but I’ll play. What if that same dentist told you that you had to have all your teeth pulled because you have one cavity? He wants to fit you with dentures, and he just so happens to be a major shareholder in the denture company he is recommending. Would you just say, you’re the expert, whatever you think is right?
Ernst Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
@ Judd

Yes true, the data is different from where it was years ago and all that did was further strengthening the theory. Seeing that the chart has about 25 “cooling” periods and just as many “warming” periods I would be extremely worried that the low point of the current “cooling period” is still the seventh highest point out of 126.

If you can somehow guarantee that the cooling will continue instead of rising again I’d be very impressed.

And no I would not trust that dentist and I’d get a second opinion or a third or fourth or four thousand opinion, Luckily the vast, vast majority of those dentists didn’t have have any financial connections and merely wanted to fill the cavity and keep me from eating so much sugar.

In fact I find it strange that you didn’t mention the opinion of the sugar manufacturers whose financial interests is several times higher and claim that is no cavity at all, and if even if there was a cavity any limiting of your sugar intake would be bad for you…
SLC Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Just to demonstrate how phony the denialists are, one of them, Prof. Lindzen of MIT, said he was willing to bet that the temperature 30 years from now would be no higher then it is now. When he was called on it, he then shifted his position and demanded 50 to 1 odds. Doesn’t exactly provide us non-experts much confidence in the good professors’ expertise.
Climate bill would be 'biggest tax in American history'... - Page 8 - The Political Asylum - Forums for Intelligent Discussion & Debate Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias Yes, The World is Really Getting Warmer __________________ They say love conquers all, you can’t start it like a car, you can’t stop it with a gun – Warren Zevon The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice-Martin Luther King, Jr. …the right wing apparently spent the last eight years combining the highly successful tactics of Code Pink and the comedic stylings of Hee Haw-John Cole The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion – Molly Ivins Mark Sanford-Just another politician with a conservative mind and a liberal penis – Jon Stewart [...]
DMonteith Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
What if that same dentist told you that you had to have all your teeth pulled because you have one cavity?

I would say that a dentist who wants to pull all my teeth for one cavity would be like someone who looks at the chart above and claims that we are currently experiencing global cooling. If, however, 99% of the thousands of second opinions I got said the same thing, and they could point to plausible reasons for pulling all my teeth (thereby violating this scenario’s stipulated condition that a simple cavity is known to be the only problem), I would be inclined to think that maybe these dentists are on to something. Thanks for playing.
judd Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
If you can somehow guarantee that the cooling will continue instead of rising again I’d be very impressed.

I would counter that if you could guarantee that warming will persist if we do nothing to curb carbon emmissions, I would also be impressed, or that cutting emmissions by any percent will reverse warming. Which you or no living scientist can do. We simply cannot control the weather or climate.
judd Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
someone who looks at the chart above and claims that we are currently experiencing global cooling.

You are the true denier if you claim that we are not in a current cooling trend. Look at the chart.
judd Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Yes true, the data is different from where it was years ago and all that did was further strengthening the theory

Only if you cherry pick.

In fact I find it strange that you didn’t mention the opinion of the sugar manufacturers whose financial interests is several times higher

You sure you want to compare who is making money on AGW? where the majority of the funding comes from and goes to?
Because, last time I checked, it was about 50 to 1.
wiley Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Look at the chart?! LOOK AT THE CHART!

JUDD??? If this little bit of random variation leads you to read a chart upside down, then I encourage you to invest everything you’ve got in the Stock Market with the same logic you’re using here. Look for the same squiggly picture daily, in the business section. You’re fucking brilliant.
DTM Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
You sure you want to compare who is making money on AGW? where the majority of the funding comes from and goes to?
Because, last time I checked, it was about 50 to 1.

I’m not sure I even understand this claim. Obviously, there is way more of a vested interest in denying the existence of manmade climate change than in promoting it. But it is true those vested interests don’t spend a lot of money buying off scientists. In part that is because it would be hard, probably impossible, to buy enough previously credible scientists to swing the denialist position into a majority. But even more importantly, they are spending that money where it counts–buying politicians, instead of mere scientists.
judd Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
I’m not sure I even understand this claim.

No, you understand it clearly.
DMonteith Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
You are the true denier if you claim that we are not in a current cooling trend. Look at the chart.

If you’re not even going to read the link in the original post then who am I to get in the way of your public display of ignorance?
tinisoli Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Don’t like the meaning of trend? Well, here in Conservative Reality we simply redefine it to mean ‘any datum at any given point that suits the needs of a given argument or contention.’ For example, if decades of data show that the long-term trend is one of global warming but the last year or two have shown cooling, simply claim that the “current trend” or “recent trend” is actually one of cooling and not warming, ergo global warming is a big fat hoax made up by big fate Al Gore.

Yay!
DJ Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
I assumed people would make up bizarre attacks on the credibility of the data (like JR). I never considered the possibility people would attempt to seriously argue it shows a downward trend.
ConservaTroll Says:
June 29th, 2009 at 12:44 am
So many arguments to choose from!

1. You can’t trust the historical data.
2. The historical data shows a cooling trend.
3. There is a warming trend but it’s not caused by human behavior.
4. There is a warming trend caused by human behavior, but government can’t do anything about it.
5. There is a warming trend caused by human behavior, but government intervention is going to make things worse.
6. There is a warming trend caused by human behavior, and government intervention can make things better, but don’t we have other priorities we should be focusing on?

It’s like an all-you-can-eat buffet!
Nimed Says:
June 29th, 2009 at 3:52 am
ConservaTroll thinks that if you sum up a lot of weak arguments, you can build a strong case. You just have to rely on the numbers.

1. You can’t trust the historical data.

Why? Is there a valid reason for this? Something wrong with thermometers from 1900?

2. The historical data shows a cooling trend.

See discussion above on difference between noise and trend. Also, read this short post

3. There is a warming trend but it’s not caused by human behavior.

So, you mean carbon dioxide doesn’t provoke a greenhouse effect? Man, you really have to spread the news to the scientific community.

4. There is a warming trend caused by human behavior, but government can’t do anything about it.

If the problem is carbon dioxide and methane emissions, well, maybe government could try to pass legislation to regulate emissions…. Wait a minute, this sounds familiar…

5. There is a warming trend caused by human behavior, but government intervention is going to make things worse.

Same argument as before, only slightly more stupid.

6. There is a warming trend caused by human behavior, and government intervention can make things better, but don’t we have other priorities we should be focusing on?

Huh… You mean this is going to wait for us to handle other stuff?

It’s like an all-you-can-eat buffet!

Well, I guess you’re not a very demanding person. Or even particularly bright, for that matter. That’s fine. Somebody has to mindlessly repeat catchphrases.

If only, 6 years ago, wingnuts had one tenth the strictness of criteria they recently found for AGW evidence, we would never even have considered invading Iraq. I guess we would probably have spent our time doubting the Holocaust or something.
DTM Says:
June 29th, 2009 at 6:53 am
Nimed,

I think your sarcasm detector may need recalibration. One tipoff: trolls don’t usually call themselves something like “ConservaTroll”.
SLC Says:
June 29th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Re Conservatroll

This, of course, in legal circles is known as the Racehorse Haynes defense. Richard “Racehorse” Haynes is a celebrated Texas defense lawyer whose defense strategy proceeds as follows.

1. My client was 10,000 miles away at the time the murder took place.

2. My client was in another town when the murder took place

3. My client was in town but was 10 miles away when the murder took place.

4. My client was near the scene of the murder but didn’t commit it.

5. My client committed the killing but it was in self defense.

6. My client committed the murder and the son of a bitch deserved it.
Tim B Says:
June 29th, 2009 at 9:49 am
It is truly a sign of the times that climate change debates draw more right wing nutters out of the woodwork than abortion debates. Perhaps we should start providing police protection and kevlar vests to climatologists too?
joe from Lowell Says:
June 29th, 2009 at 9:51 am
judd doesn’t know what the word “trend” means.

In a series with a great deal of internal variability, movement that is the same size as, and the same length as, the normal variation is not a trend.

Each little spike and each little drop in that temperature graph is not a trend. A trend is, by definition, movement of greater length and scale than can be explained by the underlying variability of the data.
hum Says:
June 29th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Judd should look at the post I linked to up in comment 39. The part with the graphs explains the mistake Judd is making pretty well.
Neil B ♪ Says:
June 29th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Conservatroll was a tip-handle, sarcastic and able parody; showing the silly (and self-contradictory) evasions conservative deniers employ. Sadly I think Judd is for real. There are many more out there, listening to Rush and Faux, weighing down our civilization’s prospects for health and survival.
JamesG Says:
June 29th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Fine why not just call skeptics silly names and get on with saving the planet. So what’s to be done? Well all of you planet-savers need to dramatically reduce your carbon footprint. And here’s the kicker. You should have done it 25 years ago when this issue was first raised. But what happened instead. Let’s see..

Ok you forced your elected officials to consider gas prices to be the single main issue they should concern themselves with, Culminating in Clinton agreeing with Chavez to keep oil at 30 dollars a barrel. You were happy then in boom-time. Now of course you blame the oil companies for profiteering, when it’s blatantly obvious that oil companies make far more money from high oil prices.

You then, thanks to this oil bonanza, bought gas guzzlers in droves then later blamed the car companies for forcing you to buy them. In fact the car companies also made economical cars too but few people bought them. Fashion won out over environmentalism.

You blame the Republicans for starting an oil war then ignore that 80% of the US public were for it. Oh they lied you say. Why of course, but the rest of the world managed to work out before the war happened that it was all about oil. You guys tried to pretend it was about something other than oil. Why so I wonder: Was it really rank stupidity or did you just basically think you’d get cheaper oil from taking over the Iraqi fields. Think hard now – search that planet-saving soul!

Time for some introspection and less hypocrisy I think. Yes conservatives believe pretty much what confirms their own simplistic views of the world. What a revelation! But guess what, so do liberals! Will all these threats of thermageddon make any of you change your lifestyle? Will you buy that tiny car, avoid retiring to the coast, freeze in Winter and roast in Summer to save the planet? Or will you wait for big daddy government to force you to do it while handing out you generous subsidies to soften the blow – all paid for by nasty big business?

Here’s what will really happen. Taxes will go up, jobs will be lost, you guys will decide you don’t like Obama after all because, like Clinton and even Bush, he gave you what you asked for. Scientific studies will then confirm what many people, who have bothered to look, already know: That there are no statistical anomalies in bad weather event anywhere, not in hurricanes, droughts, floods, wildfires etc, etc. All that is happening is that people are ignoring threats of rising disasters and sea levels and are moving to the coast in droves hence putting themselves in the way of nature’s abundant fury.

As for that chart of rising temperatures it will finally dawn on people to look at the provenance of the data and realize a huge lump of the trend comes purely from adjustments – as indeed you might see in a more recent post at Wattsup. No I’m certain you won’t look there now – it’s just not fashionable to do so: You’ll wait ’till it’s all an unmitigated economic disater and then you’ll shriek – “they lied to us”!
um Says:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Cleanup on aisle 6!
Arun Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 9:40 am
James G asked:
Will all these threats of thermageddon make any of you change your lifestyle?

Short answer, yes.
The long answer includes the fact that you have a lot of strawmen and false assumptions in your post.

Matt Yglesias

Yes, The World is Really Getting Warmer

71 Responses to “Yes, The World is Really Getting Warmer”

Blogroll