Bob Carter – same old stuff

There’s one thing worse than “an old geologist making incorrect statements about AGW” and that is “an old geologist making incorrect statements about AGW after having been repeatedly made aware of the flaws in his arguments”. Either Bob Carter is a crap scientist, or he is deliberately being misleading.

Not surprising Nova swallows and promotes his errors in usual unskeptical fashion. http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/bob-carter-speaks-wednesday-in-port-kembla/

Let me waste no time more time on being nice and jump into debunking Carter’s videos as promoted on his website.

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 1 of 4

@2:09 Carter says “Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant”. Carter will find that if you take the time to examine the science (outside the area of his expertise), then CO2 is definitely a pollutant.

A pollutant is “the introduction of contaminants into a natural environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem”.

It will cause great damage, not only from the warming, but more directly in Ocean Acidification.

@2:40 Carter asks, “Is it warming or not?” and then points out some areas of a temperature graph that are not warming as if somehow this implies warming is not happening.

Of course AGW is only going to show warming over the last 150 years when man has been emitting large quantities of GHGs, yet Carter repeats the word “cooling” as if this can be some kind of evidence against AGW.

Perhaps Carter should be explaining why the slight cooling trend for the last 8,000 years is now abruptly changed to a warming trend in the last 150 years!

@2:52 Carter admits, “I’m not in the least bit being clever”. With this comment, I agree.

@4:10 looking at the last 2,000 years Carter says, “It’s cooling and it’s cooling at a faster rate.”.

Yet again Carter is emphasising the word “cooling” as if this somehow was relevant whilst not explaining why we are warming now.

Not only that, Carters graph of the temperature for the last 2,000 years looks a little strange, quite unlike most reconstructions of global temperatures. On closer inspection of Carter’s slide you see a reference to David and Bohling 2001 – the graph turns out to be the LOCAL temperature as depicted in ONE Greenland ice core. Global temperature reconstructions use MANY different sources of temperature data from many parts of the planet in order to construct a GLOBAL picture of temperature. Carter uses one – that’s not good science – or perhaps he does this intentionally in order to mislead his audience.

The Greenland data that Carter uses is shown in this document (pg 66) alongside three other similar data from different parts of the world. From the variation between the graphs it is obvious one graph alone cannot represent the planet, yet this is what Carter is telling the audience.

@4:56 Carter says there is a problem because the last 8 years has levelled out. That’s weird because Greenland data doesn’t even contain the last eight years of data. The last sample point is some 95 years ago, the one before that 107 years ago. The Greenland data doesn’t contain the level of detail required for that kind of analysis.

@5:00 Carter says the lines 5 & 6 are statistically insignificant. That they are too short a period over the dataset – interesting then that just recently he claims there is slight cooling over the past 10 years, a time period, in his opinion, too short for statistical significance.

Whilst I would agree, using the Greenland only dataset, line 5 & 6 would not be statistically significant; when using the modern thermometer data of the last 150 years that contains a lot more data with far less uncertainty then it shows the warming IS significant and the trend is not just a random feature of the data.

@5:18 Carter, referring to the rate of warming, says “This is absolutely not unusual”. And I would agree that in the local Greenland data, the ups and downs, partly caused by the nature of ice core data and partly and example of local changes in temperature show rapid changes in temperature. Where Carter gets confused is that this is not the same as having a sharp, GLOBAL statistically significant increase in temperature.

@5:24 Carter repeats “Is warming happening or not”. Obviously one sample of ice core data from Greenland is not suitable for answering that question since it barely enters the last 150 years of data, and it’s LOCAL data not GLOBAL. Using modern thermometer data of the last 150 years from around the entire planet shows there is definitely warming. Thanks for asking Bob, yes it does depend – on whether you wish to bury your head in the sand or whether you wish to ask a sensible question and use data that is best equipped to answer it.

@5:27-6:38, Carter continues to analyse the last 5,000 years, again using just one set of Greenland ice core data, and again ignoring all other useful, freely available sets of data. He also ignores the theory of polar amplification ( http://www.clivar.es/files/cape_lig_qsr_06.pdf ) which tells us that the poles warm more than the global average, so Greenland temperature in the ice core show greater change than the rest of the planet. Carter also forgets that we are not concerned about TODAY’s temperature, we are concerned about the temperature 100+ years from now which at current business-as-usual rates could be as bad as 6 degrees higher.

Carter is only a few minutes into his speech and has already made so many fundamental errors – it really makes you realise there is a vast difference between peer-reviewed material from experts in their field vs the web-science Carter presents.

@6:38-7:20 Carter talks about the possibility that we’re heading toward another little ice age. Wouldn’t it be good if that countered the GHG emissions we’ve made – oh if only. And recent solar activity indicates we may well be in for an extended quiet period, but as Joanna Haigh, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, said …

Even if the predictions are correct, the effect of global warming will outstrip the Sun’s ability to cool even in the coldest scenario, and, in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary.  When the Sun’s activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won’t have gone away.

Hoping that the sun might stay cooler, for a while, isn’t a practical long-term solution and quite possibly not even a short-term one. I suggest Carter work out the forcing values first before thinking that the solar change would outweigh the effect of GHGs.

@7:30 onwards Carter talks about the last 400,000 years and highlights a few points in time when it was about a degree warmer than today (again he forgets about Polar amplification) and moments when it was much much colder than today. Then he asks that if people were to look at that and asked to place bets, would it get warmer or colder. If all you had was the graph to go on then you would agree with him, it would most likely get colder. But if you have knowledge that during all of that time the large change in temperature was supposedly caused by small changes in the Earth’s orbit (Milankovitch cycles) and that during the last 400,000 years that CO2 levels were far below the current 390ppm we are currently at, and if you know this GHG causes a radiative force greater than the current, very slow, Milankovitch cycle, then you’d expect temperatures to continue to go upwards.

Carter also seems unaware than at no point during human evolution have we lived through a period 6 degrees warmer than today – a scenario that has a good chance of occurring within the next 200 years.

Sorry Carter, simply looking at the graph and guessing which way temperature might head is overly simplistic. We’ve much more information about what changes the planet’s temperature. Perhaps you should get an education in climate science!

@8:57 Carter highlights another section claiming it to be 5 degrees higher than today. That disagrees with Nova and with peer-reviewed science and it’s in Antarctica, not a global representation.

@9:20 Carter now enthusiastically and sarcastically concludes that polar bears don’t currently exist because they must have gone extinct during the many warmer interglacial periods; then points to several places on the graph – roughly 400,000, 320,000 and 200,000 years ago.

Carter makes two mistakes, firstly he’s pointing at a graph of Antarctic temperatures, polar bears do NOT live in Antarctica! You can’t just assume the temperature in the Arctic mirrors that in Antarctica, the differences are proven to be great as shown in this comparison of GISP (Greenland) vs Vostok (Antarctica) data.

Secondly, polar bears evolved roughly 150,000 years ago, so Carter’s suggestion that they died out even before the had walked the planet is utterly ridiculous, yet it does gives us insight into Carter’s knowledge of the ecology.

Climate change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 2 of 4

@0:47 Carter says “Yet every week I read some idiot biologist in the newspaper telling me that biodiversity of the planet is going to be destroyed by another temperature rise of a degree or two.”.

I have to laugh. The first thing that springs to my mind is an image of biologists, experts in their field, gathered at their annual meeting and saying, “No matter how many times we tell that idiot geologist, he still doesn’t get it!”. On the topic of animal species extinction, who would you trust more a geologist (studies rocks) or a biologist (studies animal species). Hmmm, tough call but let’s plough on to the obvious result.

I would dispute Carter’s claim that they are always focussed on one or two degrees of temperature. As already mentioned the warming we will be facing, without reducing emissions, is likely to be between two and six degrees by the end of the century. It is this possible warming that most biologists refer to when citing evidence for the extinction of ecosystems.

Look at the papers Google finds when searching for “climate change biodiversity” shows that the people involved are performing in-depth analysis of many species, their environments and the multiple influences that are encroaching on their habitat.

More recently there has been evidence showing One in 10 species could face extinction by the year 2100.

By comparison, Carter’s reasoning is “It is complete nonsense and it mostly comes again from computer models.”.

Welcome to the computer age! Most scientists have evolved to make use of these wonderful calculating devices beyond just powerpoint presentations. Adapt or become extinct!

@1:15 Carter explains to us that life here on Earth now can obviously cope with rapid climate change “because look at what they’ve just been through” pointing to the last 400,000 years. Carter’s suggesting all species alive right at this moment can cope with rapid change because he thinks it all existed 400,000 years ago and has experienced rapid change already. Recall at the end of video 1 Carter wasn’t even aware that polar bears only evolved relatively recently, and he probably forgot about Woolly Mammoths. I suggest the ignorant Homo Sapien Carter looks up his own ancestry – Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago – admittedly this is a cheap shot.

The situation Carter is referring to is known as the Quaternary Conundrum, a few million years of rapidly changing climate yet most of the species of animals survived, so therefore why worry about future rapid change. There are a few problems with Carter’s analysis and a few differences between previous climate changes and the one we’re heading towards.

This is echoed by recent science http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101001144037.htm

The results show temperatures appear to have been more than 5°C warmer in polar regions while the tropics only warmed marginally; strikingly similar to recent trends. Not only this, but taken together, the world appears to have been some 1.9°C warmer when compared to preindustrial temperatures.

  • Just because species survived cooler climates doesn’t automatically mean they will continue to survive in climates that are much warmer.
  • When food is scare, people will eat every last animal for their own survival rather than respect conservation areas.
  • Ocean Acidification – the oceans will not support the diversity of life because of the higher carbon content. This did not happen in the last 400,000 years because it is related to CO2 levels, not temperature.
  • Pollution is a serious problem in many parts of the world, not just for people.
  • Many species have already suffered great habitat loss/fragmentation.
  • Invasive species already wreak havoc.
  • The rate of GLOBAL warming is much higher this time.

Extinction may not be caused by climate change alone, mankind has been killing of species for thousands of years.

There are 7 billion people on the planet now vs approximately 1 million at the end of the last interglacial. We’ve manipulated the land in order to eek out more than ever before. Greater periods of drought and more intense rainfall/flooding will not help feed the growing population.

“Surviving” climate change may well be possible for some humans, but that doesn’t mean it will be a pleasant existence or one we should strive to achieve.

@3:00 Carter shows the current warming for the past century. Again he fails to realise, we’re not worried so much about the previous century, it’s the next few centuries that we should be concerned with. Carter also states it could have just as easily been cooling, but I doubt he’ll ever provide evidence of his “off the cuff” remark.

@3:10 Carter say “Further more, what about this peak up here? That’s 1998 El Nino, nothing to do with greenhouse gas.”

El Nino causes temporary warming as it cycles with La Nina’s causing temporary cooling. They both affect surface temperature on a short term basis. If El Nino was the only cause of 1998’s very high temperature, then Carter should explain why it didn’t return to pre-1998 temperatures shortly after when El Nino had disappeared. Instead the temperature has remained high despite some large La Nina conditions and reduce solar activity.

This graph http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.gif shows how the surface temperature is affected by El Nino / La Nina as it cycles about a dozen times, but the long term warming trend is obviously caused by something else.

@3:25 Carter claims that two volcanoes were responsible for “Pulling the line down”. Yes volcanoes that emit Sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere do cause a dip in global temps, perhaps for a few years. But Carter seem to be suggesting that without them the line wouldn’t warm from left to right. This is utterly ridiculous because you can look at the record prior to 1980 (where Carter’s graph starts) and see that temps were previously lower, without volcanic activity “pulling it down”.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/trend

@3:40 Step Shift Stupidity! Carter draw’s two flat lines across the graph and says “there no change over that period of time except perhaps for a slight step shift across the 1998 El Nino.”. Carters offers no explanation of what causes such a sudden and phenomenal “Step Shift” in temperature. He just accepts it and moves on. This “step shift” method of Carters could be applied to the entire global temperature history and therefore show there’s never been cooling or warmer, ever. Just a whole lot of “Step Shifts”, whatever causes those!

@3:56 Carter says “There’s no warming in the twenty first century, we’ve had stasis for the last eight years, the same time carbon dioxide in the atmosphere’s increased by four percent. … That hypothesis is tested by that dataset and the hypothesis fails that test.”

Recall back in Carters first video he claimed that 8 years was too short a time period to get statistical significance. Now not only is he claiming that the warming has stopped (something a scientist would only do if the data showed statistical significance) because surface temperatures remained high and levelled after the very large increase in 1998, he also seems to expect a direct and immediate relationship between CO2 and temperature. This is something the climatologists do NOT expect to see. Over many decades a relationship will emerge as the radiative forcing from CO2 continues to climb. On a short timeframe the surface temperature is affected by many natural cycles and other forces such as solar and aerosols so the trend is always obscured.

On longer timescales, the relationship can become quite easy to see … http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1955/mean:20/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.4 .. although even this is over-simplistic. To be thorough you’d want to remove the influence of all known forces from the temperature in order to see the final CO2/Temperature relationship.

@4:47 Carter claims to be a professional scientist. Given how easy it is to spot, even with just basic climate science knowledge, how flawed Carter’s argument are, then I suggest Carter should stick to his area of expertise and leave climate science for those with climate science education.

@5:13 Carter claims “there is no empirical data for the greenhouse hypothesis being true, the dangerous one. And if you test it against the sort of data I’ve just given you, it fails that test and many others.”

Stop cherry picking small 8 year datasets, explaining away warming as a “Step Shift” and start looking at the long term temperature trend, then you start to see the empirical evidence!

@5:30 Carter suggests that a member of parliament should decide whether the theory of AGW is real or not. Since when do politicians decide whether the science is correct. It’s not their field of expertise, developing policy and communication with the public is their domain, so why on earth would you EVER take the advice of a politician over that of climate scientists? Would Carter consult a politician if he had bowel cancer, rather than a surgeon that specialises in bowel cancer?

@8:30 Carter writes “AGW Religion – Rule 1 – Never discuss the science, Attack the man, Repeat the Mantra.”

As shown above, the science is well discussed. I posed several questions to Carter in Nova’s forums; he’s not replying. What a fuckhead.

Whoops, one out of two’s not bad.

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 3 of 4

@0:00 Carter spends a lot of time explaining why one report by Spencer et. al. produces a low climate sensitivity, in this case that clouds negate the warming effect that GHGs have.

Science is usually built up over time with observation building to support a case so can one report by Spencer undo all of AGW science? Cloud feedback still remains the largest uncertainty, but should we automatically accept Carter’s one report over all others? And if so, why?

Other reports also looking at cloud feedbacks over longer periods of time using observational data arrive at other conclusions.

A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade – Dessler (2010)

Estimates of Earth’s climate sensitivity are uncertain, largely because of uncertainty in the long-term cloud feedback. I estimated the magnitude of the cloud feedback in response to short-term climate variations by analyzing the top-of-atmosphere radiation budget from March 2000 to February 2010. Over this period, the short-term cloud feedback had a magnitude of 0.54 ± 0.74 (2s) watts per square meter per kelvin, meaning that it is likely positive. A small negative feedback is possible, but one large enough to cancel the climate’s positive feedbacks is not supported by these observations. Both long- and short-wave components of short-term cloud feedback are also likely positive. Calculations of short-term cloud feedback in climate models yield a similar feedback. I find no correlation in the models between the short- and long-term cloud feedbacks.

Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback – Clement et al. (2009)

This observational analysis further indicated that clouds act as a positive feedback in this region on decadal time scales

Many more studies on cloud feedback can be found here … http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/papers-on-cloud-feedback-observations/

@3:31 Carter says “The climate is highly homeostatic, that is it self-regulates.”

Carter makes yet another contradiction. Earlier when assuring us ecosystems could adapt he was telling us that large and rapid climate changes were not uncommon. Now he’s telling us that the climate regulates itself so that rapid change doesn’t occur. You can’t have it both ways Carter!

Interestingly, the interglacial periods, thought to be caused by small solar variations (Milankovitch cycles) are one way the climatologists estimate climate sensitivity by measuring how much the climate changes in response to the given change in solar radiation.

@3:46 “you get the alarmist figures, by invoking positive feedbacks and ignoring negative feedback.”

No they are not ignored, they are included in the IPCC report, there is just not the evidence to support strong negative feedbacks.

@3:53 Carter cites Stephen Schwartz (2007) as having shown the feedback to effectively cancel each other out. Carter didn’t realise it then but Schwartz made a mistake for which he has since corrected.

After accepting the criticisms of his paper, Schwartz (2008) says:

This upward revision results in an increase in climate sensitivity ls 1 to 0.51 ± 0.26 K/(W m 2), corresponding to an equilibrium temperature increase for doubled CO2 DT2 = 1.9 ± 1.0 K.

So  now Schwartz’s paper says we’ll get 1.9 degrees of warming instead of the 1 degree Carter talks about. I can’t blame Carter for not knowing since his video was made prior to this research.

Read more about climate sensitivity here http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-intermediate.htm including links to more results based on empirical data Carter is so keen for.

@4:47 Carter shows an article by him published saying that warming had stopped. He says that there were the usual criticisms, but rather than address those criticisms he highlighted some funny comment. Carter cherry picks, knows he does, has been accused of it before, yet here is the perfect opportunity to defend against that accusation and “set things right”, he chooses not to. Who’s not discussing the science now?

Yes, Carter does cherry pick, but even so, the trend from 1998 – 2007 was warming.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2007/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2007/trend

Cherry picking is the need to carefully chose a particular year from which to start/end your analysis in order to show the desired result – in this case Carter wishes to show it level or cooling. When you move the start date back just ONE year then the result becomes definite warming. Start from any year prior to 1998 and the result is ALWAYS warming.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2007/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2007/trend

As discussed so many times before, surface temperatures are influenced greatly by natural variation, so a short timeframe will yield no statistically significant result; longer timeframes do. There are many times in the past 150 years that surface temperature flatten, or cool for many years. Eventually the long term trend returns and the warming continues.

Long term, the planet is warming. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/mean:20/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/trend

@5:36 Carter now shows off a paper that was showing how climate models are and have improved over time and then continues through to 6:26 to demonstrate a hate for computer modelling or a lack of understanding about how much computing power it takes to model internal variability and for what gain. The paper says:

It is very likely that the climate will warm over the coming century in response to changes in radiative forcing arising from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols (1). There is, however, particular interest in the coming decade, which represents a key planning horizon for infrastructure upgrades, insurance, energy policy, and business development. On this time scale, climate could be dominated by internal variability (2) arising from unforced natural changes in the climate system such as El Niño, fluctuations in the thermohaline circulation, and anomalies of ocean heat content. This could lead to short-term changes, especially regionally, that are quite different from the mean warming (35) expected over the next century in response to anthropogenic forcing.

The internal variability influences surface temperatures of a decade, but they don’t actually add or remove heat from our system so the long term warming is unaffected.

@6:30 Carter says “These people were amongst those that rose up and crucified me because I pointed out there was no warming since 1998″.

And rightly so. They are not saying the warming stopped, nor are they cherry picking a small timeframe to hold up as evidence. They acknowledge the internal variation overwhelms, at least for a short while, the long term trend.

Carter grumbles about them suggesting the warming will continue, but offers no argument as to why they might be wrong.

@7:36 Cater says the model didn’t account for the solar 11 year cycle. Wrong again. If he’d bothered to read the paper he would have noted that it does:

Solar irradiance is projected by repeating the previous 11-year solar cycle.

Carter’s eyeballing of the graph almost doubles the figure Camp and Tung (2007) arrived at:

we obtain a global warming signal of almost 0.2°K attributable to the 11-year solar cycle.

And do you hear Carter mention that this therefore means the 2010 global temp would be another 0.2 degrees warmer, if it wasn’t for the sun being in an extended solar minimum.

Carter would love to hear that Camp and Tung continued their work in 2008 with this paper that finds a climate sensitivity figure of between 2.3 and 4.1°C – very much in line with the IPCC’s estimates.

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 4 of 4

@0:00-4:20 Carter now talks about weatherman Watts and a project he initiated to gather photos of all weather stations and categorise them on whether they were well-cited or poorly cited, from 1 – 5 (Excellent – Poor).

Firstly let’s put this into perspective, scientists know it’s warming because we have multiple lines of evidence:

  • thermometers show the land surface temperatures are increasing.
  • thermometers show the oceans are gaining heat.
  • the surface of the ocean is rising more than just due to land-ice melt – it rising because as it gains heat it expands.
  • satellites show the land and ocean surfaces have warmed.
  • satellites show the atmosphere has warmed.
  • animal species are migrating polewards as their ideal climate shifts.
  • plant species are moving upwards in the mountains as the climate changes.
  • land-ice is melting and at an accelerating rate.

Watts’ study is looking at just the first of the above items, and then only at US land data which makes up about 2% of the entire surface of the planet.

I could go on at length about each of Carter’s complaints, but let’s take the shortcut that time has provided us. Years later we have two papers based upon the data gathered by Watts’ team. Where has all the photo-taking led us?

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperature. … In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.

The poor-cited stations had been slightly underestimating Max temperatures and slightly overestimating Min temperatures and overall no effect on the actual trend.

Read more here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html

The second paper includes Watt’s himself is summarised on Watts’ site.

They find almost the exact same result:

  • The temperature is getting warmer as seen in data from well-sited stations.
  • Minimum temperature warming trends are overestimated at poorer sites.
  • Maximum temperature warming trends are underestimated at poorer sites.
  • Mean temperature trends are similar at poorer sites due to the contrasting biases of maximum and minimum trends.

What a thrilling waste of time.

@4:20 Carter directs us to the last 40 years of temperature data and asks the question “Is this warming in here largely due to the Urban Heat Island Effect that I’ve just shown you example of? And virtually all experienced climatologists will say yes; just a degree of how much.”

Well we just saw that Watts’ report didn’t show the Urban Heat Island Effect at all. Well cited Rural stations show just as much warming as the Urban stations. Carter wasn’t to know the results of these recent papers, so we can’t blame him too much for not knowing this fact.

What we say for sure is that his claim that “virtually all experienced climatologists will say yes” is false. Studies of UHIE have conclusively shown that, whilst the effect is real and does exist, it almost has zero effect when looking at global temperatures. Carter’s “largely” claim cannot be met with evidence to support it.

@4:49 Carter shows a slide highlighting that now famous (thanks to climategate) example of Chinese station data going missing. Jones didn’t have data to prove their location changes had no impact on the results. Poor record keeping perhaps, but how does this affect the results? The same test was done again using more updated and comprehensive data and it achieved effectively the same result.

Other studies also show the Effect is negligible on a global scale.

@6:18 Carter now moves on to economics and uses Nordhaus’ estimates of the cost of unabated global warming to ridicule Gore and Stern’s estimates. What he didn’t show you is  Nordhaus’ estimates on pg 171:

Our estimate is that the present value of global abatement costs for the optimal policy would be around $2.2 trillion, which represents 0.11 percent of discounted world income.

The optimal policy reduces the global temperature rise relative to 1900 to 2.8 °C in 2100 and 3.4 °C to 2200. If concentrations or temperature limits are added to the economic optimum, the additional cost is relatively modest for all but the most ambitious targets. For example, imposing a constraint in which CO2 concentrations are limited to doubling of pre-industrial levels has an additional present-value cost of $0.4 trillion, while limiting global temperature increases to 2½ °C has an additional present value cost of $1.1 trillion over the optimum.

Note that while the net impact of policies is relative small, the total discounted climatic damages are large. We estimate that the present value of climatic damages in the baseline (uncontrolled case) is $22.6 trillion, as compared to $17.3 trillion in the optimal case.

Conclusion

It is with regret that a scientist like Bob Carter presents such misinformation, especially since the flaws in his arguments have been pointed out repeatedly.

Cherry picking is not good scientific practice, yet Carter does this time and time again. Carter, who’s expertise lay in sampling and analysing sediments assumes he has greater knowledge of how a species might cope in a warming planet than the biologists dedicated to this field. He also makes numerous mistakes and assumptions when trying to interpret climate data.

As shown in the science explored above, Carter is out of touch with the reality of climate science – any political movement he suggests based upon his own brand of “science” will be equally flawed.

Tags:

2 Responses to “Bob Carter – same old stuff”

  1. Vince Whirlwind Says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)

  2. Nice One Says:

    Looks like they got fed up with Bob

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/jcu-caves-in-to-badgering-and-groupthink-blackballs-politically-incorrect-bob-carter/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: