Yet More Historical Climate Blogging by James DeLong

Yet More Historical Climate Blogging

8/5/09 10:33 PM

Grasping Reality with Both Hands The Semi-Daily Journal of Economist Brad DeLong: A Fair, Balanced, Reality-Based, and More than Two-Handed Look at the World J. Bradford DeLong, Department of Economics, U.C. Berkeley #3880, Berkeley, CA 94720-3880; 925 708 0467; delong@econ.berkeley.edu.

SunPower for your Home High Efficiency Solar Systems. Request An Evaluation Now!

Solar Panels Go Solar - Lower your Electric Bill Call Us for Your Solar Quote Now.

www.researchSOLAR.com

www.SunPowerCorp.com

www.IESolar.com

Weblog Home Page Weblog Archives Econ 115: 20th Century Economic History Econ 211: Economic History Seminar Economics Should-Reads Political Economy Should-Reads Politics and Elections Should-Reads Hot on Google Blogsearch Hot on Google Brad DeLong's Egregious Moderation July 25, 2009

Yet More Historical Climate Blogging Sorry deniers, hockey stick gets longer, stronger: Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years ÂŤ Climate Progress:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/07/more-climatic-hockey-sticks.html

Page 1 of 10

Yet More Historical Climate Blogging

8/5/09 10:33 PM

Michael Mann (2002), "Climate Reconstruction: The Value of Multiple Proxies":

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/07/more-climatic-hockey-sticks.html

Page 2 of 10

Yet More Historical Climate Blogging

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/07/more-climatic-hockey-sticks.html

8/5/09 10:33 PM

Page 3 of 10

Yet More Historical Climate Blogging

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/07/more-climatic-hockey-sticks.html

8/5/09 10:33 PM

Page 4 of 10

Yet More Historical Climate Blogging

8/5/09 10:33 PM

Rich Muller emails: Dear Brad: I enjoyed skimming through your discussion of the hockey stick. I was a referee on the National Academy Report on the hockey stick (I am named in their report for this service), and so I am very familiar with what the report actually says. It is frequently misrepresented as "verifying" the hockey stick. That is very inaccurate. The report concluded that Mann's assertion that there was no medieval warm period was not supported by the data. (Mann really did have an error in his analysis.) The National Academy explicitly concluded that the most we can say about the last 2000 years is that we are now in the warmest period of the last 400 years. They criticized Mann for greatly underestimating his error bars on the data prior to 1600, and they concluded that nothing of value could be concluded for that period. The fact that we are now in the warmest period of the last 400 years was well known to everybody prior to Mann's work. That is not disputed. What Mann had "shown" was that there was no little ice age -- the cold period preceding the 20th century had extended back 800 -- then 1000 -- then 2000 years. But this conclusion is not valid according to the NAS review. The NAS review said, in effect, that the hockey stick still exists, but that it extends back only 400 years. That was known in all the earlier IPCC reports. It was the extension to 1000 AD that lead to the dramatic metaphor of the "hockey stick". So some Mann supporters are still defending him. But, in fact, there is nothing left of his publications that is new, or that disagrees with what the IPCC was saying back in 1995. Mann has defended his work by claiming that the hockey stick is still there when he does the analysis after removing the program bug. But if you read his paper, you discover that the hockey stick component that he is claiming is no longer the principle component of the analysis. (I think it was the 3rd component.) The excitement over his data was largely over the fact that the principal component, typically the only one with small error uncertainties, was hockey stick in shape. I am also amused to see that I am not considered a climate expert. I did spend over ten years of my life studying climate cycles, the details of the data and methods of analysis. I published a series of papers in Science, Nature, and elsewhere, and wrote a highly respected technical book on climate change titled "Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes." That is not a popular book. As I mentioned earlier, I was chosen by the National Academy of Sciences to be an expert reviewer on their review of Mann's work. Michael Mann, who had a major mathematical error in his published analysis, is considered an expert but I am not? Michael Mann, who has (I believe) not done any experimental work in the field, is considered an expert, but I am not? (I've analyzed Greenland ice cores for their climate record.) I guess some people pick their experts by looking at the conclusions first, and then eliminating the people who do not agree with them. Rich I am definitely a believer in the Medieval Warm Period. In a middle ages in which the stone to build Norwich Castle is shipped by sea from France, it makes absolutely no sense to argue that high costs of transport from France made it efficient to grow wine grapes in England if England then had the same climate that England does today or had in the Little Ice Age. And I am definitely not a believer in principal components analyses like those used by Mann et al.--we economists have a religious faith instead in Bayesian Kalman filters. RECOMMENDED (4.55) by 2 people like you [How? ] You might like:

Republicans: The Party for People Who Are Simply Bats--- Insane http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/07/more-climatic-hockey-sticks.html

Page 5 of 10

Yet More Historical Climate Blogging

8/5/09 10:33 PM

I Am Using This Quote in a Manner Highly Derogatory to the Associated Press 2 more recommended posts Âť Brad DeLong on July 25, 2009 at 05:19 PM in Science, Science: Climate | Permalink TrackBack TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e551f08003883401157140756a970c Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Yet More Historical Climate Blogging:

Comments You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post. "deniers" is a funny word. I initially took it for the plural of the smallest unit of account in pre-1789 France (livres; sols/sous; deniers). It's like "deskilling" (why not de-skilling? otherwise, we have desk-illing?) and "demister" (vs. de-mister; or, the nonexistent, demi-ster). What is it about "de" that makes it so opaque? I have had this conversation with others, and I am not the only one so perplexed... though I do think many of us who find this problematic work in French as often as in English. (This leaves delong to be discussed, methinks!) Posted by: Rebecca | July 25, 2009 at 08:21 PM The steepest hockey stick is the exponential price reduction of solar power since 1958, when it was $300/W of solar panel to today when solar panels are produced at $1/W. The price of solar panels has dropped 3X every decade for the last 50 years, and will reach parity with retail grid electricity from Coal, Oil, Nukes and Gas over the next 5 years just about everywhere on earth. In 2007, renewable energy became the majority of new installed capacity in the US. By 2012, wind and solar will account for 90% of all new power generation facilities on the planet. This entire debate over the climate has been a major waste of mental energy for all parties. Anyone who has followed technological development curves in IT or the DNA-world has known that solar would inevitably and soon be the cheapest form of energy on the planet, and at that point would begin to systematically replace all other sources just on the strength of basic competitive economics. It is perhaps the biggest irony that at the zenith of the Internet revolution, the IPCC issued their 2001 report with their emissions scenarios, yet failed to comprehend that the same type of relentless exponential cost reduction which has dominated our lives in the amount of GFLOPS of compute power per $, the amount of GB of RAM/$, GB of storage/$, bandwidth/$, is based on the exact same fundamental semiconductor technologies in silicon and opto-electronics and has been at work in solar power for the last 50 years with no slowdown in sight, in fact, only an acceleration of the rate of advance. The real "Deniers" are the Solar Deniers! The IPCC emissions scenarios will never happen, because the solar revolution is already here, and emissions are falling 40 years ahead of their most 'optimistic' scenario, "B1" for those who read the IPCC 2007 anti-historical report. The IPCC not only couldn't take into account a clear 50 year trend in solar power cost reduction of 3X per decade, but also imagined that somehow there would have been no economic crisis from 1945 to 2050. Anyone who has even lightly studied economic history can trace world-shaking, generational financial crises at regular 70-80 year intervals going back to the Renaissance Art Mania/bankruptcy of Bank Medici in the 1490's to the bankruptcy of Spain's monarchy in 1557, to Dutch Tulipmania in 1637, to the British/French South Seas/Mississippi Bubbles in 1720, to the bankruptcy of the French monarchy in 1789, to the Panic of 1857 to Wall Street 1929, and would have seen that we were in the midst of MortgageMania already with an exponentially growing probability of collapse.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/07/more-climatic-hockey-sticks.html

Page 6 of 10

Yet More Historical Climate Blogging

8/5/09 10:33 PM

The IPCC has engaged in complete denial of technological developmental history and economic history. "Climate change" as a slogan has played ZERO role in the development in the technology. Rather, all along, the principal driver for the development of solar, from the Space Race between US and USSR which started the solar march, to the responses to the oil shocks from the Arab Embargo and Iranian Revolution in the 1970's, to the 90's when Germany and Japan began their systematic subsidies, to the response to the Peak Credit oil spike in the mid-2000's has always been National Security through Energy Security . "Climate Change" has been a convenient cover to mobilize progressives for the narrow nationalist energy independence objectives that have always been paramount. These narrow nationalist objectives are now clearly on display with the recent American "carbon tariffs" against foreign goods, which India, China and today Germany have all rightly condemned as "eco-imperialism." The Energy Riots by the masses in Soweto, South Africa and Karachi, Pakistan against the inadequate, unreliable and expensive electricity situations which underlies many of their problems with water, sanitation, refrigeration, smooth running factories and employment, air conditioning, education, telecommunication, lighting, safety, reveal the ultimate issue of our times is not Climate Change, but Global Energy Equality. Equal Watts! I am writing about this and hope to have it ready later this year. Posted by: Joel Bellenson | July 26, 2009 at 09:51 AM "...yet failed to comprehend that the same type of relentless exponential cost reduction ... is based on the exact same fundamental semiconductor technologies in silicon and opto-electronics and has been at work in solar power for the last 50 years" Well, no. It isn't based on anything remotely similar. The reason Moore's Law has worked for decades is that transistors keep getting *smaller* every year or two, so a constantly increasing number of circuit elements could be put onto the same area of silicon. But, the cost of the ever-more-complex fab lines to create these tiny transistors has been increasing very rapidly as well, so only economies of scale have prevented us from being unable to fund those next generations of fabs. With solar cells there can be improvements in efficiency of converting light to electricity, and there can be improvements in processing techniques - but there is only so much energy falling onto a given area of silicon and thus no "exponential" cost reduction. Though it does get cheaper as we fall down the production curve and find slightly better conversion techniques. Which is all to say that yes, solar power is increasingly appealing on an economic basis, and no, it does not and cannot improve at the breakneck pace associated with computers, because the underlying physics are unrelated. Posted by: Jon | July 26, 2009 at 12:12 PM The phrase "Global Warming" usually means "Atmospheric Warming", and this leaves some people confused about ENSO and ocean temperatures. If the earth is warming, the oceans must also be warming. Otherwise it's just a shifting of heat around between the air, land, sea and ice. Posted by: Fred2 | July 26, 2009 at 02:06 PM Joel, carbon taxes will hasten the deployment of solar. You're saying solar is inevitable and coming sooner than we think. So, the anti-carbon camp wants what you think is inevitable. Then, why are you wasting your time scoffing at us? You should go convince the pro-carbon-pollution crowd that their industries are doomed anyway and, for example, that further investment in coal infrastructure would be malinvestment. If you want to scoff, you're scoffing at the wrong crowd. Posted by: wunsacon | July 26, 2009 at 02:15 PM Jon, Actually the fundamentals of computing advances are not just, or even mainly, the miniaturization of features on chip, but the Experience or Learning Curve, which is basis for all improvements in costs of production. And every technological generation follows its own S-curve until replaced by the succeeding one. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/07/more-climatic-hockey-sticks.html

Page 7 of 10

Yet More Historical Climate Blogging

8/5/09 10:33 PM

There has been a consistent 20% - 45% Learning Curve for Solar Panels spanning now for decades, which translates into the 3X4X/decade cost reduction as the pace of doubling of installation of solar power has been at a CAGR of 45%. This describes the fact that for every doubling of solar panel manufacturing capacity, there is a 20% - 45% drop in the cost of manufacturing. The Learning or Experience Curve is the same general principal, but with different % that is the basis for Moore's Law in semiconductor manufacturing cost efficiency, and which has its complement in LED lighting with Haitz's Law. In a separate field, but also heavily impacted by IT and semiconductors, in which I have a great deal of experience - DNA information extraction - the Learning Curve has also proceeded at a breakneck speed - 10,000X/decade since the 1980's - and has very little to do with the scale of the chemistry, and everything to do with greater production of something teaching the engineers, scientists, workers and managers how to make it cheaper. So your objection is not only incorrect on the foundations of why the price reductions occur in all of these technologies, but is falsified by the longstanding, unarguable history of the 3X - 4X /decade of cost reduction of solar panels regardless of the efficiency of the solar panel's energy collection or conversion. wunsacon, Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't formulate my views in kneejerk response to anyone left or right. And i'm doing much more than scoffing, but scolding for hypocrisy and sociopathology. The historic data on solar installation doubling times and 3X - 4X price reductions per decade are unarguable; and I don't care whether I piss off the Coal, Oil, Nuke or Gas folks or the Green Imperialists by hanging my hat on the historic trajectories. Carbon taxes are regressive and hurt the poor, and punish the victims of the suburban sprawl brought to us through real estate speculation. They are also misdirected compared to direct subsidies whether through feed-in-tariffs, low interest loans, or tax credits on the solar buy side. In terms of acquiring the funds to support the direct solar installation subsidies: Increase real estate transaction and holding taxes, and eliminate the Mortgage Interest Tax deduction. Plenty of opportunity to raise money from taxing real estate which is the cause of the sprawl instead of the poor victims of the sprawl. Finally, the biggest need and immediate opportunity for solar power is in the Global South, which through Black Carbon, ie soot from cooking fires, slash and burn agro, old diesel vehicles, and hand-me-down industrial plants that the West dumped on the Global South after the Clean Air Act, is responsible for 1/2 of all Arctic melting/sea level rise, and 1/3 of total AGW. Attacking the black carbon with solar subsidized solar cookers, LED lights, and electric scooters, would be cheap and get an almost immediate benefit for the humans living in the misery of energy poverty. If those so worked up about the issue of the impacts of Climate Change actually care about the people that they claim to, they would focus on the only issue that matters: Equal Watts! My background: I was the co-founder of Pangea Systems/DoubleTwist which made history when we assembled and annotated the Human Genome in 2000 leveraging the world's public data, beating Celera, and keeping the human genome predominantly in the public domain, through offering it academics for $50/month subscriptions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/741022.stm Posted by: Joel Bellenson | July 26, 2009 at 02:36 PM Muller, the Mankiw of Physics? Posted by: vkn | July 26, 2009 at 10:05 PM one that that cant be denied is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide to levels never before seen in the planets history... http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/07/more-climatic-hockey-sticks.html

Page 8 of 10

Yet More Historical Climate Blogging

8/5/09 10:33 PM

http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html Posted by: rjs | July 27, 2009 at 01:04 PM Muller is misstating what the NAS report says. He writes: "They criticized Mann for greatly underestimating his error bars on the data prior to 1600, and they concluded that nothing of value could be concluded for that period." The report's summary says: "Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900." and then, later, "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence..." and then "Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium." This is a good deal more than "nothing of value". Posted by: jbw | July 27, 2009 at 01:59 PM Not just Norwich Castle, but also Norwich Cathedral, Canterbury Cathedral, and the White Tower of the Tower of London, all built with Caen stone imported from France. He was very particular, that William. No shoddy local materials for his monumental buildings, no sir. Posted by: Jacob Davies | July 27, 2009 at 06:27 PM

Verify your Comment Previewing your Comment Posted by: | This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted. Post

Edit

Your comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been posted. Post another comment The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again. As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments. Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate. Continue

Me:

Economists:

Juicebox Mafia: Moral Philosophers:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/07/more-climatic-hockey-sticks.html

Page 9 of 10

Yet More Historical Climate Blogging

Paul Krugman Mark Thoma Cowen and Tabarrok Chinn and Hamilton Brad Setser

8/5/09 10:33 PM

Ezra Klein Matthew Yglesias Spencer Ackerman Dana Goldstein Dan Froomkin

Philosophers: Hilzoy and Friends Crooked Timber of Humanity Mark Kleiman and Friends Eric Rauchway and Friends John Holbo and Friends

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/07/more-climatic-hockey-sticks.html

Page 10 of 10