Fair-ish and Balanced-ish

 
Ian Castles Email

Mr Castles has given me permission to post his email, so here it is:

Dear Keneth Miles,

Attached is the text of an article "Economics, Emissions Scenarios and the Work of the IPCC" (by Ian Castles and David Henderson) which has appeared in the most recent issue of the UK-based journal Energy and Environment. It is in part a response to an article in the previous issue of that journal ("The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical Critique"). You may recall that on 24 June last you provided the readers of The UnAustralian with a link to the latter article, which had been posted on the website of one of the authors - Professor Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois.

Also attached is an article by James Schlesinger, former US Secretary of Energy, which appeared in the Washington Post on 7 July. Your readers might well find this article no less interesting than the paper co-authored by his namesake.  

In your issue of 24 June you said that I and "to a lesser degree [my] co-conspirator David Henderson" are "a pet obsession" for you. Your speculation some days previously about my relationship with the Lavoisier Group suggests that this must indeed be the case - you may recall that you suggested that I must have left the Group some time between 10 September 2002 and 10 January 2003, so that "at best" my statement to the IPCC meeting about this matter on the latter date was "very misleading".  

Pasted below is the text of a letter that Professor Henderson sent to the Editor of USA Today on 3 April last. I believe that it is self-explanatory.

You also told your readers on 24 June that I had been "slammed" by the SRES Team for making the mistake of describing the IPCC scenarios as predictions rather than projections. In fact, I made no such mistake, and the SRES Team did not suggest that I had. They said that the mistake was made by Cambridge University Press - see their footnote 4 on p. 194.

I am copying this message to Professor Henderson and to Mr. Ray Evans, with whom you are free to confirm that I am not and have not been a member of the Lavoisier Group.

With best wishes,

Ian Castles   


[Text of Letter from Professor David Henderson to the Editor of USA Today begins]
Dear Sir,
 
In your issue of April 2, your science correspondent, Dan Vergano, in referring to some recent work by Ian Castles and me, makes two statements which give the wrong impression. First, he describes us as being  'associated with the Lavoisier Group' in Australia. It is true that we both know well the founder of the Group, and we agreed to his request to post our work on their website. But neither Castles nor I are members of the Group; no member of it is or has been involved on our work; and what we have written does not purport to be on the Group's behalf or to represent its views. We are independent persons, holding no official position, and we speak and write for ourselves alone.
 
It is also not correct to say that what we have written has 'appeared in The Economist' : they published an article (18 February) on our work. They too asked permission to post our critique on their website, and in this case also we agreed.
 
David Henderson
Westminster Business School
London NW1, England.
posted by Ken at 5:30 PM

 
A Correction Or Two

As readers of this blog, I've written many words on the rebuttal of the IPCC emission scenarios by Ian Castles and David Henderson. Ian Castles has recently emailed me, and it seems only fair to publicly note a couple of mistakes that I've made (I've asked for permission to post the whole email, but in the mean time this will have to do).

I've stated in the past that he is a member of the Lavoisier Group. This is incorrect. The cause of the incorrect assumption comes from the Presidents Report of the Lavoiseier Group, where Peter Walsh the President stated:

"Two of our members, Bob Foster and Ian Castles, represented the Lavoisier Group at a workshop conducted by the Australian Academy for Technological Sciences and Engineering (AATSE) to review an Addendum to their 1995 Report on Climate Change on April 4 last. Although our representatives were arguing against people who have invested a great deal in global warming, it was good that they able to present in person the evidence now accumulating against the Kyoto protagonists."

and

"There is a new development, however, in the Kyoto debate which may be just as important as the debate about the science. One of our members, Ian Castles AO, who was formerly Australian Statistician, and who is internationally recognised for his expertise in the field of comparative statistics, took it upon himself to examine carefully the assumptions and methodology behind the IPCC's predictions of global CO2 emissions during the 21st century."

Ian Castles has stated that he (or David Henderson) isn't (nor has he been) a member of the Lavoisier Group. Rather they both know the founder, and have given permission for the Group to post their work.

Mr Castles other complaint is that I stated the he had been "slammed" by the SRES team for describing the emission scenarios as predictions rather than projections, and that the mistake actually comes from the publishers of the report. This come from an earlier post of mine which stated:

"the IPCC scenarios are projections, not predictions (he got slammed for making this mistake in his Energy & Environment paper)."

This statement referred to the SRES teams rebuttal which read:

The concept of scenarios (emphasis on plural!) owes its origins to military contingency planning and more recently various strategic planning exercises. Consequently, the objective is not to “predict” what will, but rather what could happen under a sequence of (sometimes extreme) events. Scenarios are therefore mind experiments to assess possible consequences of a series of “what if… then” developments. Appropriate evaluation criteria are internal consistency, reproducibility and plausibility of scenario “logic” rather than “likelihood” or conformity with a priori expectations of “most likely” chain of events under any particular temporal (e.g., before or after the “Asian financial crisis”) or geographical (e.g., OECD) bias. Scenarios are therefore neither predictions, nor forecasts.4 Consequently, the SRES writing team has explicitly refrained from assigning (inherently subjective)
likelihoods or “probabilities” of occurrence to the scenarios and has repeatedly cautioned against the interpretation of any scenario as “most likely” or as “business as usual” in the traditional deterministic sense of a “forecast” or “prediction” (even if these terms continue to be used in the popular media). The appropriate use of scenarios refrains from “picking” any particular chain of events, but rather focuses on how a range of scenarios describes the most important uncertainties at stake."

The footnote 4 states "This is clearly stated in SRES (2000), but unfortunately the publisher mistakenly used the word “prediction” in the short text on the back of the jacket as Mr. Castles was quick to notice (document 2(1):1 in this issue) that we as authors unfortunately caught too late to correct."

While, the term "slammed" may not be the best term, the language this blog uses is pretty informal. From my readings of the Emission Scenarios Report (as a interested amateur with no qualifications in any sort of economic modeling) I noted the difference between projections and predictions, so it seemed reasonable that Ian Castles and David Henderson (who have written on the Report in a professionally manner) should have done the same (however, one interesting twist is that I read the online version which doesn't include the publishers jacket - whereas, I presume, they read the hard-covered version). So, in a nutshell, I'm not 100% convinced that the mistaken projections vs. predictions blame can be placed entirely on the publisher, but as it is extremely peripheral to the important issue on hand (are the IPCC projections of future levels of greenhouse gases realistic), I'll concede on this point.

Mr Castles, has also sent me a copy of their rebuttal to the SRES team rebuttal, for which I'm very thankful (the Journal which it is either has been or will be published in, Energy & Environment, is the most obscure journal that I know of), as well as an article by James Schlesinger, former US Secretary of Energy. I'll blog about both of these later, when I've read them more fully (which will take some time in the case of the former, as it's quite theoretical, and my knowledge of economics is woefully inadequate).

posted by Ken at 5:23 PM

 
Bias at the BBC

The ever alert Tim Blair spots this piece of BBC spin:

US forces in Iraq have discovered dozens of Iraqi fighter aircraft buried in the desert, US officials have said.

A Pentagon official told the Associated Press news agency that several MiG-25s and Su-25 attack planes were found hidden at al-Taqqadum air base west of Baghdad.

The planes were unearthed by teams hunting for alleged weapons of mass destruction.

The word "alleged" was bolded by Tim.

No comment is needed about the quality of Tim's detective work.
posted by Ken at 4:19 PM

 
Dixie Chicks

Having heard so much about a consumer backlash for making anti-Bush remarks, the Dixie Chicks are apparently set to gross $60 million. Oh yeah, that's US dollars, not Australian.

Maybe I should hunt down some James Morrow's past quotes...


posted by Ken at 4:04 PM

 
Global Warming and Cosmic Rays

A recent hypothesis put forward by Nir Shaviv and J Veizer (Shaviv 2003) has triggered some interesting posts on Troppo Armadillo. This post is a modified version of a comment I left at the Armadillo.

Their study essentially finds a good correlation between galactic cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last billion years. When the variability of cosmic rays is compared with surface temperatures, the residues (unexplained variability) is low. From this (and also that the correlation between CO2 variability and temperatures on the geological scale is also weak), they suggest that the effect that CO2 has on global warming is also low.

What needs to be remembered is the massive uncertainties involved here. Reconstructing the earth's past, is fraught with error (ironically Michael Mann's reconstruction of the past 1000 years temperatures has been critiqued for it's uncertainties - this reconstruction is six orders of magnitude longer, and the errors tend to grow as we look further back into time).

The study relies upon the following reconstructions being accurate 1) past levels of cosmic rays 2) past temperatures 3) past levels of CO2.

The first reconstruction should be viewed with some skepticism as there is very little data available. As far as I'm aware Shaviv's reconstruction of past cosmic ray flux is the only reconstruction.

The second reconstruction is debatable. Paul Olsen has pointed out that one of the cool periods in the reconstruction is actually considered to be a warm period (Clarke 2003). As Scheffler and co-workers in their study of the past glaciation of the Karoo Basin note:

As the solar system passes through one of the four galactic spiral arms, the cosmic ray flux increases, which may trigger global glaciation... The poor correlation between the cosmic ray flux maximum and the timing of the Pennsylvanian glaciation excludes this external forcing mechanism and underlines the need for further investigation (Scheffler 2003).

The third reconstruction suffers from the same problem. The reconstruction is taken from measurements of isotopes in sedimentary rocks. Gregory Retallack, has suggested that this style of dating can be effected methane to give dodgy results. His reconstruction of past CO2 levels based of stomata, gives a much better fit between temperatures and CO2 (Retallack 2001).

Shaviv has detailed the problems with the first two reconstructions in his paper in New Astronomy (Shaviv 2002).

This isn't to say that the last two reconstructions are wrong - it's just that we don't know. And if any of them is significantly wrong (especially 1 and 2) then the whole hypothesis falls apart (The match between 1 and 2 is quite good, if either of these are wrong, it will significantly increase the residue variability, gives CO2 more room to play a bigger role).

It should be noted that the authors have put forward a case for cosmic rays being a major determent of the earths climate on the geological time scales, which is at least (in my humble uniformed opinion) as strong as any existing theory.

Lets for the sake of argument, assume that the conclusions of the authors are entirely correct. When we look at what this means for the recent 20th century warming, we get a very interesting result.

Contrary to Ken Parish’s statement, that “new research suggesting that much of the observed 20th century global warming is actually caused by variations in the activity of supernovae (rather than carbon dioxide generated by evil western capitalists)" the solar systems transition through the galaxy isn't the cause of the 20th century warming - simply because the solar system's movement over the last 100 years has been next to nothing on an astronomical time-scale. Or as John Quiggin notes “All of this is based on the assumption that you can go directly from a 500 million year time scale to one of 50-100 years”

However, this isn't too say that cosmic rays haven't varied over this time period. Since 1953, we've been keeping records of cosmic radiation flux at several locations. In the decade time period, cosmic radiation flux variability is mostly effected by the sun's magnetic field (ie. it oscillates with the solar cycle) - in fact, cosmic rays have been used in the past to argue as too how the small variations in solar intensity can cause a greater than expected effect on the earth's atmosphere.

As we have good records of cosmic radiation and global temperatures, it is possible to check the correlation between the variation in cosmic ray intensity and global temperatures. Needless to say, the correlation isn't good (since the mid-1980's the cosmic ray flux has increased - this should lead to a decrease in global temperatures, if they dominate, temperatures during this period have increased).

My conclusion is that Shaviv and Veizer have produced a strong case for cosmic rays playing a dominant role in the earth's climate on a geological scale, however, it is unlikely that they play a significant role in the 20th Century warming.

Sources

T. Clarke. Galactic Dust Cooling the Earth Nature, July 2003 (news article).

G. Retallack. A 300-Million-Year Record of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Plant Cuticles Nature, May 2001, vol 411, page 286.

K. Scheffler, S. Hoemes and L. Schwark. Global Changes During Carboniferous-Permian Glaciation of Gondwana: Linking Polar and Equatorial Climate Evolution by Geochemical Proxies Geology, July 2003, vol 31, page 605.

N. Shaviv. The Spiral Structure of the Milky Way, Cosmic Rays, and Ice Age Epochs on Earth New Astronomy, 2002.

N. Shaviv and J. Veizer. Celestial Driver of Phanerozoic Climate GSA Today, July 2003.
posted by Ken at 12:17 AM

 
Gay Marriage

I've been meaning to post on how John Howard should stop making up idiotic reasons as too why gay marriage is wrong, and just come out and say what he thinks. However, Stewart Kelly has beaten me to it.

PS. The same goes for the Vatican.
posted by Ken at 5:36 PM

 
Just Say No To Chemical Weapons

This would really suck. A standard run of the mill owner of a methamphetamine laboratory has been charged with manufacturing a nuclear or chemical weapon.

That wasn't a mistype. The authorities have decided to medieval on him, by charging him with manufacturing chemical weapons - a crime, which surprise surprise, carries a worse penalty than making methamphetamines.

(article via. Volokh Conspiracy)
posted by Ken at 12:00 AM

 
Malaria and DDT: Reality vs. Propaganda

Now that I've been reading other blogs for a while, it's being apparent that one of the memes that floats around the blogosphere is that environmentalists are responsible for the malaria deaths of millions because of the bans on DDT.

Having done some very basic research (ie. rereading the malaria section of Laurie Garrett's, The Coming Plague and some googling), it seems that this statement is pretty far from the truth.

As usual info-pollution is the best source for information on the ban.

The problem with the anti-environmentalist meme is that it provides such a simplistic picture that it is next to useless. Countries like India that didn't ban DDT, are still plagued by malaria. DDT resistance tends to either be ignored or brushed over. The massive malaria eradication effort which started in 1958 was mostly funded by the US. After 5 years, it's funding was cut. This (and the use of DDT in agriculture) are responsible for significant insect resistance to DDT.

The geographical range of malaria has been shrinking over time, for a number of reasons. One of which is the use of chemical controls such as DDT. However, other variables such as human habit also play a major role. Simple things such as window screens can play a massive role (by isolating humans from mosquitos one can kill off malaria - while the mosquitos live off other animals, the malaria parasite needs a human host to progress through it's lifecycle).

If you want someone to blame for the resurgence of malaria, then the use of DDT in agriculture and the incomplete eradication program are much better targets than environmental fears.



posted by Ken at 10:28 PM

 
Iran

According to this LA Times article, Iran is pretty close to being able to build a nuclear bomb. Even if it isn't as far as long as the article suggests, it's still considerable further ahead than Iraq, who's nuclear project just needed a warhead and a delivery mechanism.

(article via. Calpundit)
posted by Ken at 7:05 PM

 
Global Warming Links

I've just found this page, which has one of the biggest collections of links relating to many aspects of global warming. Well worth a read.
posted by Ken at 12:29 PM