JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Global warming: a classic case of alarmism

This is a Guest Post by Dr David Evans

Akasofu-graph

The big temperature picture. Graph and insight from Dr Syun Akasofu
(2009 International Conference on Climate Change, New York, March 2009).

The global temperature has been rising at a steady trend rate of 0.5°C per century since the depths of the little ice age in the 1700s (when the Thames River would freeze over every winter; the last time it froze over was 1804). On top of the trend are oscillations that last about thirty years in each direction:

1882 – 1910    Cooling
1910 – 1944    Warming
1944 – 1975    Cooling
1975 – 2001    Warming

In 2009 we are where the green arrow points, with temperature leveling off. The pattern suggests that the world has entered a period of slight cooling until about 2030.

There was a cooling scare in the early 1970s at the end of the last cooling phase. The current global warming alarm is based on the last warming oscillation, from 1975 to 2001. The IPCC predictions simply extrapolated the last warming as if it would last forever, a textbook case of alarmism. However the last warming period ended after the usual thirty years or so, and the global temperature is now definitely tracking below the IPCC predictions.

The IPCC blames human emissions of carbon dioxide for the last warming. But by general consensus human emissions of carbon dioxide have only been large enough to be significant since 1940—yet the warming trend was in place for well over a century before that. And there was a cooling period from 1940 to 1975, despite human emissions of carbon dioxide. And there has been no warming since 2001, despite record human emissions of carbon dioxide.

There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence. Although the models contain some well-established science, they also contain a myriad of implicit and explicit assumptions, guesses, and gross approximations—mistakes in any of which can invalidate the model outputs.

The pattern suggests that the world has entered a period of slight cooling until about 2030

Furthermore, the missing hotspot in the atmospheric warming pattern observed during the last warming period proves that (1) the IPCC climate theory is fundamentally broken, and (2) to the extent that their theory correctly predicts the warming signature of increased carbon dioxide, we know that carbon dioxide definitely did not cause the recent warming (see here for my full explanation of the missing hotspot). The alarmists keep very quiet about the missing hotspot.

No one knows for sure what caused the little ice age or for how many more centuries the slow warming trend will continue. It has been warmer than the present for much of the ten thousand years since the last big ice age: it was a little warmer for a few centuries in the medieval warm period around 1100 (when Greenland was settled for grazing) and also during the Roman-Climate Optimum at the time of the Roman Empire (when grapes grew in Scotland), and at least 1°C warmer for much of the Holocene Climate Optimum (four to eight thousand years ago).

Addendum

Measuring the global temperature is only reliably done by satellites, which circle the world 24/7 measuring the temperature over large swathes of land and ocean. But satellite temperature records only go back to 1979. Before that, the further back you go the more unreliable the temperature record gets. We have decent land thermometer records back to 1880, and some thermometer records back to the middle of the 1700s. Prior to that we rely on temperature proxies, such as ice cores, tree rings, ocean sediments, or snow lines.


The powerpoint and audio from Dr Akasofu’s presentation at The International Climate Change Conference 2009 can be downloaded here.

Dr Akasofu published a paper explaining the above graph last week (thank you to Rick Werme).

A less serious commentary on the graph, written with Joanne’s help, is here.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (13 votes cast)
Global warming: a classic case of alarmism, 9.1 out of 10 based on 13 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yyebl3s

605 comments to Global warming: a classic case of alarmism

  • #
    Steve Meikle

    Indeed it is a knowledge of history that sees through the global warming nonsense. I knew this as soon as the issue arose or came to my notice about 10 years ago. And now this graph confirms what I had deduced for myself over the last few months, namely epi cycles over a large cyclic trend lasting centuries. My thanks to the author and to Ms Nova for posting it here.

    The trouble is Global Warming has become its own mass movement and religion, fed by propaganda and government fiat. I cannot see people listening to reason here. Too many egos have staked too much on this for them to back down now, and as Kuhn pointed out in his unreadable book on scientific revolutions they, the die hard scientists who still cling to AGW, will have to die off and a new generation see the thing with fresh eyes. SO i do not expect a change soon.

    I wish people would listen to reason, but we cannot have what we want, and there is no evidence to expect such a sea change in human nature as listening to reason would require, especially when history shows how mad the human race is. So I expect the idiocy of AGW to continue unabated.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    While “blame it on the PDO” works quite nicely over the last 30 years, the previous 30 has this nagging “it’s not cooling as fast” look about it. At first blush, the obvious thought is “that must be the CO2 signature.” However, over another PDO cycle, the same pattern emerged, which makes it harder to blame CO2, because the AGW camp wasn’t worried about CO2 that far back. Personally, I think they should move the start of rising CO2 impact back closer to the start of the Industrial Revolution. Not that far, but maybe back to the early assembly lines and the start of automobile and truck/lorry production.

    The idea that we’re recovering from the LIA has been around, but Akasofu-san’s paper very nicely combines the LIA and PDO and doesn’t leave much room for CO2. I’ll be including the above graph next year in my 2010 State of the Climate report. (See my web site for the 2009 version.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    There was no global warming scare in the 1970s – certainly not with consensus scientific backing.
    The Thames used to freeze up as it had wide shallow banks, and ice got held up at the various bridges, unlike the modern urban thames.
    Why is O degrees anomaly not in line with 1940? More like 1960?
    IPCC do not simply extrapolate the graph
    Where is a cite for 1940?
    You know very few agree with the hotspot issue you raise.
    I’ve seen alarmist give significant attention to the hotspot – hardy keeping quiet.
    should it surprise that romans tried to grow grapes wherever they went? Oh look they STILL grow grapes in scotland: but I guess they jsut figured they were better at scotch! http://guide.visitscotland.com/vs/guide/5,en,SCH1/objectId,SIG48327Svs,curr,GBP,season,at1,selectedEntry,home/home.html

    Since there are no decent records prior to 1880… how come your graph shows the same gradienty confidently extrapolated?

    Cheers:)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wildman

    Hi. You are missing the point in the entire debate. The EPA needs to find a never ending series of crisis’s to justify their existance and to make them relevant. Rules and regulations are being proposed that deal in quantities of parts per million. As i understand it, the chart above was derived via linear regression and presented as a fait accompli. What was always missing and never produced was the residuals from the regression run to determine if the variables being projected were autocorrelated which would invalidate the model. Based on the results of the graph above, Venus should be a lot hotter based on the co2 concentrations and pressures found there.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Boris

    The global temperature has been rising at a steady trend rate of 0.5°C per century since the end of the little ice age in the 1700s

    It is clear that warming has accelerated, especially over the last 50 and 30 years, so I’m not sure what is meant by “steady.” Even the UAH satellite analysis shows a temp increase of 0.39degC since 1979.

    “Measuring the global temperature is only reliably done by satellites…”

    I’m wondering why you believe this to be true. I understand some people have problems with UHI, but satellites have their own issues. The two major satellite analyses are quite far apart (and there are two other infrequently updated analyses which differ as well). UAH in particular was in error for years. That satellite measurements are superior is often claimed by skeptics, but the reasoning behind this choice is never explained.

    it was a little warmer for a few centuries in the medieval warm period around 1100 (when Greenland was settled for grazing)

    This is a controversial area of study; however, there are far more studies that show the medieval warm period was not as warm as today. Of course, the anecdotal evidence of grazing in Greenland is unconvincing because Greenland is used for grazing today–and has been for over a hundred years.

    I see you are still espousing the missing “fingerprint” argument. But can you explain upper stratospheric cooling, which theory and models indicate to be caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect? How would changes in the PDO reduce upper stratospheric temperatures?


    Report this

    02

  • #

    MattB, have you ever thought of a career in comedy? I love this idea that whether rivers freeze or not is determined by whether they have smooth banks or not, nothing to do with temperature! And this idea that that there ‘was no global warming scare in the 1970s’. I think you mean cooling but you’ve got yourself a little bit confused. I guess you are too young to remember the 70′s, but those of us over 40 can remember it well – yes it did happen and yes it was supported by many scientists. (who is it who calls who the ‘deniers’?).
    And if you followed up that link you posted you would find they don’t grow grapes in Scotland! They make wine from Elderflower and Silver Birch! Thanks Matt, you’ve really given me a good laugh, Cheers:)

    That’s a great comment by Steve Meikle. Who was it who said something like ” The most important lesson from history is that people never learn any lessons from history “? Logic and reason have been lost completely, as illustrated so beautifully by MattB.


    Report this

    21

  • #
    MattB

    lol yeah I followed a few winery links and it seems Scottish tourism websites will lead to whiskey distilleries from a winery link:) Crazy scots eh? One does have to ask though if they ever grew good wine in Scotland…

    here is a nice link to the history of english wine: http://www.english-wine.com/history.html

    Which lead me to wonder why no mention of scottish wine… ever.. lead me to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_from_the_United_Kingdom

    “Roman to 19th Century
    The Romans introduced wine making to the United Kingdom, and even tried to grow grapes as far north as Lincolnshire. ”

    Being a pom, I know Lincolnshire is not Scotland… so I’m now interested in some sort of cite of scottish wine production as it seems the web has not heard of it…

    well the thames references are all from web sites detailing the history of the thames. Shallow water impeded downstream freezes… and build up if ice at impediments causes further freezing. You can read all about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs

    ANd for the record yes I have considered some stand-up in my time:)

    1970s cooling scare is a total beat up… you are flat out lying to say you remember it;) fair dinkum. As a child of the 70s a vividly remember public concern about nuclear war… not global cooling.


    Report this

    02

  • #
  • #

    Matt: “There was no global warming scare in the 1970s – certainly not with consensus scientific backing.

    And your point? That the ‘weight’ of committees and bureacracy and budgets proves something? C’mon Matt. We’ve just had inflation in bureaucrats. Now when they whip up a scare, they have funding.

    Matt: “The Thames used to freeze up as it had wide shallow banks, and ice got held up at the various bridges, unlike the modern urban thames.”

    Could be true. Still doesn’t matter. There are dozens of other examples – parts of European farmland froze down to 1m deep. Animals died inside barns. The Baltic was still frozen enough to walk on in mid spring. From many anecdotal records of people who lived and died in different countries, it was colder than ever. And there were thermometers then. London – 15 degrees C. Paris – 12 degrees. For weeks.

    Matt:“You know very few agree with the hotspot issue you raise.”

    The Alarmists can’t ‘agree’ with the missing hot-spot. By definition, they would not be alarmists any more if they did. I showed here how top guns like Santer and Sherwood agree it was missing. The only question now is whether you think it’s ok, nine years after the data was in, to discover uncertainties that increase the error bars far enough to include the observations. And even if you do accept the uncertainties are real, they didn’t ‘find’ the hotspot. They just found it could be hidden in the noise. OR – you could use windgauges (aka Sherwood), and throw out the temperature readings. That’s where the debate is at.

    Matt: “I’ve seen alarmist give significant attention to the hotspot – hardy keeping quiet.”

    BTW – Alarmists have not been making announcements about the hotspot til recently. The hotspot has been missing since 1999 when the warming era of data came in. The AGW crowd didn’t mention that for years while they recalculated, reestimated and statistically reworked the data. It is only because realists started to speak up they they’ve had to announce anything. Where were all the press releases before 2006 saying, gosh – the numbers aren’t even close? There have only been press releases of late saying “yes we’ve finally ‘found’ it”. Doesn’t it speak volumes that they didn’t issue the ‘lost’ annoucements – only the ‘found’ ones? How honest are they being?

    Boris on the Midieval Warming Period:“This is a controversial area of study; however, there are far more studies that show the medieval warm period was not as warm as today.”

    What studies? (Apart from fraudulent Mann and other tree-ring proxies?) The people who lived in greenland buried their dead in ground that is under permafrost now. Not nice to live in, not nice to dig large holes with primitive spades in. Those under-frost bones speak loudly, and there are plenty of other examples from the real world. It’s hard to use them to calibrate a temperature scale, but how, how could Greenland have been as cold then as it is today? They abandoned it when the little ice age comes in. Some proxies agree with the human records, migrations, and anthropology, the other proxies agree with computer models.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    MattB

    Those 1st two points Jo, you are quite correct, there was no point in the Thames freezing or 1970s cooling (or the supposed Scottish wine) being included in the argument of the initial entry from David. They are neither here nor there – and just the kind of comments you would rightly expose as being non-science were they in a warmist article like at desmog. The fewer frills and trimmings the easier it is to get to the core arguments.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB, no wonder you are so confused if you are getting all your misinformation from Wikipedia, or should I say Willipedia. If you can’t see the blatant distortion and spin there, you are beyond hope.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    MattB

    That’s right – it is all a left wing conspiracy Paul! How could I forget!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Matt, you can ask non-core questions anytime you like. It’s good to see friendly discussion. You are one of the few willing to acknowledge when others provide a reasonable answer.

    So, do I score even a small point for the missing hot spot? I mean if you’re not going to read the Santer and Sherwood papers and wade through the convoluted writing, and you really do need some other non-scientific test (which I guess applies to 99% of the population), the don’t-mention-it’s-missing-until-you’ve-’found’-it attitude tells you a lot about how forthright the Alarmists are.

    For years, it would have been obvious to those close to the data that things were not even close to stacking up, but they didn’t say anything. There was no period where the public knew it was ‘lost’ prior to it being ‘found’.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Boris

    What studies? (Apart from fraudulent Mann and other tree-ring proxies?)

    Well, it is your opinion that Mann’s work is fraudulent. Since Mann is still highly respected across many fields of study, it doesn’t appear that this is a widely held belief. Be that as it may, there are plenty of borehole reconstructions and other tree ring reconstructions (Moberg) which show present warmth greater than medieval warmth.

    The people who lived in Greenland buried their dead in ground that is under permafrost now.

    I’d like to see a cite for this claim. In any case, skeptics cannot point to global reconstructions to support a warmer MWP, so they point to vague anecdotal evidence, which, even if true, would serve only to show that Greenland may have been warmer in the past–rather than the entire planet. The certainty with which Evans claims that the MWP was warmer than today does not seem to be backed up by the available evidence.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Boris, even the IPCC’s own proxies show that the MWP was as warm as today, see their fig 6.10b, http://globalwarmingquestions.googlepages.com/ar4mwp

    Talking of claims not being backed up by evidence, what about “Mann is still highly respected across many fields of study”. This is the guy who recommends smoothing by reflecting data horizontally and vertically at the end points, and didnt realise that this forced the smoothed curve to go through the final gridpoint until Steve Mc pointed it out to him (Mann described it is forcing the 2nd derivative to be zero which is also true but less relevant). Also the guy who uses a ‘proxy screening’ method that is guaranteed to produce a hockey stick even when fed a random walk. He is not highly respected, he is a laughing-stock outside his little clique of friends.

    “skeptics cannot point to global reconstructions to support a warmer MWP”. This is false and Boris (regular frequenter of skeptic blogs) knows that it is false. There’s Craig Loehle’s to start with. I expect
    David and Joanne can provide others.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    PaulM,
    Yes, I know what McIntyre thinks of Mann’s work. McIntyre doesn’t seem to be gaining much traction against Mann, and Mann continues to publish in the literature. I’d take that as pretty good evidence that most researchers don’t think Mann is some kind of “fraud.”

    Yes, the IPCC’s proxies show similar warmth in 1979 as the MWP. Is it warmer or colder now than in 1979?

    Loehle’s reconstruction only goes up the 1930s, as you should know.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “Is it warmer or colder now than in 1979?”
    According to the IPCC proxies, about the same!
    Of the three that extend to the 1990s,
    the b2000 proxy has negative anomoly for 1985-1993.
    ecs2002 is negative 1986-1992 except for 1990.
    dwj2006 has anomolies of .04 and .06 for 1995 and 1994.
    According to the proxies the 1990s were no warmer than the 1940s!
    I’ll have to add another graph to that page…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Boris,

    Anyone with a scientific background can review the critiques on SteveMc’s site. The evidence is damning and makes it clear that Mann’s work is nothing but an exercise in data mining designed to produce a predetermined result. The fact so many climate scientists ignore these widely publicized and documented problems is evidence of a deep intellectual rot within the climate science community.

    BTW – SteveMc did reply to the Mann 2008 but was limited by the 250 limit. Anyone who wants to understand the criticisms has to go to Steve’s blog. The fact that the journals do not allow more detailed critiques is a problem with the journals – not Steve Mc.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian

    I’m no scientist (but I stayed at a Holiday Inn once) but it seems to me the bottom line is, this is not as the great Al Gore says it is, perhaps we should “chill” a bit on restructuring the economy based on the unproven hypothesis of global warming in general, man-made specifically.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian

    I meant to say “this is not settled science as the great Al Gore…..” Sorry…working!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom

    [the] “1970s cooling scare is a total beat up… …As a child of the 70s a [sic] vividly remember public concern about nuclear war… not global cooling.”

    Actually the fear in the ’70s WAS about global cooling – caused by widespread nuclear war. The term at the time was nuclear winter, the theory being that smoke and dust clouds from multiple atomic bombs going off would blot out the sun and cause a massive deep freeze on the Earth’s surface.

    In contrast to the current warming predictions, nuclear war is still a viable threat. Who knows, maybe THAT scenario will be latched onto by the AGW alarmists as the best and fastest way to combat global warming.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John

    Very interesting discussion. Here is what bothers me – even if the earth is warming, why is that “bad”? It seems to me that global cooling has the potential (and the historical record tends to bear this out) to be much worse. Why is it that no one explores the possible benefits of warming? People retire to more temperate climates, baseball has its spring training in temperate climates, there is by far more biodiversity in temperate climates.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    BTW – SteveMc did reply to the Mann 2008 but was limited by the 250 limit. Anyone who wants to understand the criticisms has to go to Steve’s blog.

    Ah, yes, he did publish a letter response.

    However, in that letter was evidence of SteveM’s hypocrisy. He lambasted Mann for not providing references to canonical statistics texts, and then, when he had only 250 words to respond, what citation does he give? A newsletter. I had to laugh at that one.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Raven

    Boris,

    SteveMc said Mann should use well established and understood methods. He never said that Mann specifically had to use ‘textbooks’.
    The newsletter is more than sufficient to provide an example of the type of reference that Mann should have been using.

    In any case, the climate science community has repeatedly demonstrated that it is not interested in anything that does not support the case for alarmism so most will ignore Steve’s comment (using bogus rationalization like the one you used). So the fact that Mann continues to publish and has his work accepted by the climate science community is not evidence of the worth of his work but evidence that climate science community cannot be trusted to objectively analyze the facts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    Boris: These authors show the MWP as warmer than present:

    Grudd, H. 2008. Torneträsk tree-ring width and density AD 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers. Climate Dynamics, DOI 10.1007/s00382-007-0358-2.

    Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058.

    “Edwards, T.W.D., Birks, S.J., Luckman, B.H. and MacDonald, G.M. 2008. Climatic and hydrologic variability during the past millennium in the eastern Rocky
    Mountains and northern Great Plains of western Canada. Quaternary Research 70: 188-197.”

    And, as I recall, Soon and Baliunas did a meta-study and found 240 previous papers that showed the MWP as a global event, equal or greater in warmth to the present.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sundevil

    Has AGW Theory produced any meaningful predictions? If trillions of dollars were not at stake, would anyone really care if it was a 1/2 degree warmer?

    Americans get it. Global warming/climate change/ ranked dead last in a survey of issues Americans were concerned about. There is no crisis. Now let’s move on to something better.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Layne

    Here’s a link to a series of videos on the cooling scare in the 70′s. Terrifying, actually. :-)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZKtJSlhFsA

    It isn’t relevant whether or not the fear held consensus….only that cooling was significant enough to garner attention and alarm.
    It’s an example of the power of the media to create false legitimacy… an impression that “scientists believe..XXX”.

    Any so called “data” from Mann, Hansen, or the IPCC simply can’t be relied on to be accurate. They’ve destroyed their credibility with fraudulent reports. IPCC bureaucrats simply removed lead author conclusions that AGW wasn’t certain or wasn’t occuring, and substituted statements saying it was. The oscillations noted in this article have been cataloged in the past, long before the AGW hoax.

    http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/061/mwr-061-09-0251.pdf

    And here’s an eye opening story on the saga of AGW, and its bloated prince of pompousness, Al Gore. Enjoy.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3312921/The-deceit-behind-global-warming.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Now Tom, the 1970s cooling issue, minor as it was, was quite unrelated to nuclear winter… it was the concern that the planet was heading to ice age as a natural variation in climate. This is also a claim of a significant proportion of modern non-AGW-theorists, which I think is as wrong today as it was in the 1970s, or as correct as it was in the 1970s depending on how you look at it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    The NOAA has a good history of the Cooling scare. (my summary below)

    1972 – Kukla-Mathews publishes in Science, an article about the end of the current inter glacial. Also writes a letter to Nixon in 1972, specifically warning about global cooling.

    1973 – First Climate office started in Feb 1973 (ad hoc Panel on the Present Inter Glacial). This was after a meeting of 42 of the most prominent climatologists, and apparently there was consensus about cooling. Especially as the NOAA, NWS and ICAS were involved.

    1974 – Office of Climate Dynamics opened.

    1978 -Carter signs Climate Program Act, partly due to the SEVERE WINTER experienced the preceding winter.

    Click here for NOAA history


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    From a UNESCO meeting in 1961, published in 1963. The meetings discussed cooling, and its implications on the world. Some 115 scientists from 36 countries took part in the symposium. The following is from the wrap up speech.

    Perhaps the most interesting part of the evidence presented by Dr. Murray Mitchell, Dr. Rodewald and some of the other speakers is the way in which it falls into a pattern. Not only air temperature, but also subtropical rainfall, the tendency of hurricanes to move along certain tracks or sea surface temperatures, show a reversal of the preceding [warming] climatic trend during the last one or two decades. The true physical significance of Dr. Murray Mitchell’s result lies perhaps in the combined evidence, based on so many different variables.

    it has been extremely difficult by this means to avoid the conclusion that the warming trends [up to the 1940s] for the world as a whole, and for the Northern Hemisphere in particular, are truly planetary in scope. On the other hand, it cannot yet he demonstrated in this way beyond a reasonable doubt that the net cooling since the 1940s has likewise been planetary in scope. That this cooling is of such nature, however, seems reasonable and this should be verifiable if the cooling in the data areas were to continue for another decade or two in the future.

    All authors have been able to show, by using records dating back to the end of the eighteenth century that the warming up of large parts of the world from the middle of the nineteenth century until recently has been statistically significant. However, as pointed out especially by J. M. Mitchell and also shown for sea temperatures by M. Rodewald this increase in temperature has recently declined.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/1792334

    A paper by Lamb (who founded Hadley Climate Center) about the cooling observed since 1960.

    ….an abrupt return to conditions as they were before the well known warming of climates in the early twentieth century….

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v223/n5212/pdf/2231209a0.pdf

    A 1969 paper by Lamb, on cooling. He stresses that the growing season may be shortened. A subscription is required.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom G(ologist)

    Matt:
    “The Thames used to freeze up as it had wide shallow banks, and ice got held up at the various bridges, unlike the modern urban thames.”

    Sorry – it was not ice floes jamming from upstream. It was solid ice across the Thames at London, where Londoners held ‘frost fairs’ all winter long. It was the time of year that commerce was conducted between the two banks without the inconvenience of the bridges. People had tents and horses, and sledges out on the Thames. It wasn’t simply ice flotsom. But as you say, what does that mean?

    And as a geologist, I am not certain what your point is about wide shallow banks contributing to ice formation, nor how bridges are related to that condition.

    Oh well. I won’t be back on line for some time as I am traveling and not able to get to my laptop very often right now, but I thought I wold make the little historical correction, as anecdotal as it all is.

    See you

    Tom


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    Boris: your It is clear that warming has accelerated, especially over the last 50 and 30 years, so I’m not sure what is meant by “steady.” Even the UAH satellite analysis shows a temp increase of 0.39degC since 1979.

    And what does UAH show since 1997? And RSS since 1997? And Hadley since 1998? And GISS since 2001?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The “hockey stick” paper was dead on arrival since that absurd chart contradicted DECADES of published research in history,geology,paleoclimatology …etc.When I first saw that chart I knew it was bad.I had by then had 20+ years of reading about a real MWP and LIA that showed up worldwide.That is why I never fell for the propaganda that came with it and afterwards.That is what happens to people who are well read enough to spot such an error.

    THe MWP and LIA are well proven climatic divergent trends.That hanging onto an absurd statistically contrived paper will only confirm that you are not rational.Such a person is in denial of historical facts.

    It has been taken down and exposed by The Wegman panel,The NAS panel and of course the M&M team.It would be real smart to drop it and try some other possibly more credible arguments favoring the AGW hypothesis.

    The Thames river froze repeatedly during the LIA period.The bank edges shape are irrelevant since the ENTIRE river froze across from bank to bank.This is a well known historical fact.1804 is the last year I know it did that.I first read about in the 1970′s.It was known that long ago.LOL…..

    I lived through the latter part of the worldwide cooling trend concerns.Reading about a number of scientists who noted the cooling and were thinking it might be a portent of a new prolonged cooling trend.The media reflected that with their publications covering it.I even have a few books written by Imbrie,Bryson and Stommel.

    AGW believers for some reason try hard to downplay the truth that indeed a number of scientists were concerned about a cooling climate trend in the 1960 and 1970′.Thoughts of a new ice age surge possibility showed up in their comments in the mid 1970′s.It makes no sense since it is a SEPARATE climatic trend from a warming one.Why tilt against it?

    I have seen it and read all this in the above.Reality is not that hard to live with if you work with it and go on with your life.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “1882 – 1910 Cooling
    1910 – 1944 Warming
    1944 – 1975 Cooling
    1975 – 2001 Warming”

    Has anyone looked at the historical PDO trends?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 10:30 pm

    > There was no global warming scare in the 1970s – certainly not
    > with consensus scientific backing.

    I guess I wasn’t scared, I was rather intrigued. I subscribed to Science News and their cover story once was on the coming ice age. I distinctly remember talking with my father about it and something he had read (probably in Science or Scientific American) that all it would take to kick things off was a summer where the snow didn’t melt in Canada. Not too long after that I flew across the country and concluded from all the pine trees that the only way snow wouldn’t melt is if the snow covered the trees. Pines have a very low albedo. Between Kodachrome 64 slide film (contrasty) and printing on Cibachrome paper (also contrasty) it can be hard to get a green pine without washing out the rest of the scene. A couple factors leading to cooling were posited to be air pollution aerosols (people later concluded they were too regional to have a wide enough impact, that doomed the nuclear winter risk too) and contrails.

    There wasn’t a consensus, but there was more concern that Peterson claims. Too much of his report just doesn’t ring true to my memory.

    The thing that killed the ice age talk was the first report of CO2 concentrations from Mauna Loa. The data was so wonderfully clean and descriptive that everyone wanted to embrace it. The thing that killed the cooling temperature trend turned out to be the PDO flip to positive, but we wouldn’t know about the PDO for a decade or two.

    Were you around in the 1970s? I’d guess not. If you were and were interested in science you’d remember more about it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Boris asked about references to MWP. I don’t think he ‘really’ wanted them, but anyways …

    see here for a big list:
    http://www.co2science.org/subject/g/globalmwp.php

    My favorite is:
    http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025

    see http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html for a graph of what the IPCC ‘used’ to believe (nice graph with MWP and little ice age in 1990) and has never really been challenged/disputed … just dropped as it was terribly inconvenient.

    Ian


    Report this

    00

  • #

    trends watch : Global Warming: A Classic Case of Alarmism | JoNova…

    …The only question now is whether you think it’s ok, nine years after the data was in, to discover uncertainties that increase the error bars far eno……


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kuhnkat

    Boris;

    “I’d like to see a cite for this claim.”

    Tell you what Boris. Since that seems to be your main point in life, show me a cite in a peer reviewed paper [snip inflammatory comment...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Posted by ruach on April 4, 2009 A link to a site that explains simply the flawed thinking of those who are warning us about global w… [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike Davis

    JoNova:
    While it is known that we are exiting the LIA or have been. Looking at a longer time scale like 15,000 years since the glacial maximum. It appers we may be slideing into the next glaciation period. I saw this while studying the Vostock and Greenland ice cores. The information from the Swiss Alps and other locations. To me the question is will we even return to the temperatures of the MWP or will the globe continue the long slide into glaciation in a few thousand years. Here is a link to a recent paper:
    http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/pdf/10.1623/hysj.54.2.394?cookieSet=1

    This shows a slight decline in temperatures since the HO.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    John Marshall

    Dr Evans has it right apart from the Romans growing grapevines in Scotland. They never went further north than Newcastle, from where Hadrian’s Wall was built. But they did produce wine in York where grapes will not grow today. The same grapes are now produced in France just south of Dijon so it was much warmer in those times and no SUV’s.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Meikle

    I remember the global cooling scare of the 1970′s. I was in high school. I turned 15 in 1973 s you can guess how ancient i am now by doing the maths:)

    But for them to deny, all in the name of protecting their theory, that there ever was a cooling in the 70′s, or a medieval warm period, or a roman warm period, as you show here, is, beside being almost unbelievably ignorant, is an intellectual dishonesty that boggles the mind.

    If they want to convince skeptics of their theory they have to account for facts that seem to deny it, like these phenomena I have cited here, and not deny they happened.

    All of which shows that they do not want to be confused by facts. They are a bad faith religion, even to the point of candle light vigils such as they had in my home town last weekend, the so called earth hour, and all the truth speaking by us will not persuade them.

    This leads me to suspect that the sciences, being human endeavour, are in fact corrupted. I did see a book called “teh corrupted sciences” by one Arnold Arnold. But could not afford it and have never read it. Does anyone know of this book?

    I must note that by corrupted i do not mean totally useless, but i do mean tha they are a mixed bag of fad, fancy and faction. I no longer regards the priesthood which are the scientists as disinterested seekers after truth and i certainly no longer think that the aspiration of the scientsts, ie objective truth, is in fact their atainment, for in no field of human endeavour is the attainment ever reached.

    After all a century ago all the scientific establishment were racist, believed in eugenics and were largely social darwinist. in fact it was not scientific enquiry that discredited these, i think, but the horror that was the second world war


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    I don’t know if it matter much, but last year I read an article that archaelogists were excited because thawing in Greenland was allowing the excavation of Norse homesteads that were previously inaccessible. That would suggest to me that only now are temperatures in Greenland what they were in the Medieval Warm Period. Of course, it also begs the question, what kind of CO2 spewing/AGW causing engines did the Vikings have on their long ships: gas, diesel, ethanol, or what?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    TomG – since you are a geologist I’m not surprised you don;t really understand much about estuary processes… what is it about geologists think they have some Gold Pass to be experts in unrelated fields:)

    no one denys there was some cooling in the 70s Steve… I’m not even sure who is denying there are cycles that naturally cool and warm regardless of what we do.

    And Mike davis… lets face it those guys in the 70s were right if you are right… being 30 years out is pretty good on those kinds of timescales…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I dont know if Ric in #38 is a warmist or a skeptic, but form his thames links:

    ” This was to be the last frost fair. The climate was growing milder; also, old London Bridge was demolished in 1831, and the river was embanked in stages during the 19th century, both of which made the river less likely to freeze.”

    so TomG you may want to take it up with them.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB:
    April 4th, 2009 at 10:35 pm

    > I dont know if Ric in #38 is a warmist or a skeptic.

    Check the Ric in #2 or the first two links at my web site. Actually, those might not provide the answer….

    Before people get too excited about warming since the LIA or 1977, there seems to have been an interesting period 5000-7000 years ago that some people are wringing their hands over because evidence is getting exposed to weathering. Personally, I think some people wring their hands over it because it’s solid evidence that it was warmer back then. See
    http://wermenh.com/climate/6000.html

    It makes me wonder what else is hiding under glaciers.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB: #46


    TomG – since you are a geologist I’m not surprised you don’t really understand much about estuary processes… what is it about geologists think they have some Gold Pass to be experts in unrelated fields:)

    I wanted to see what TomG wrote to annoy you, but apparently it’s not on this blog. I tend to value intelligence over training, after all James Hansen has an astronomy and physics training. Geologists bring an important perspective to the current climate change debate as they know the Earth has seen much worse. Well “worse” is the wrong word. Then normal state of the Earth in the last megayear or so is ice age, and we’ll likely get back there before reaching some tipping point that turns us into New Venus.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Tell you what Boris. Since that seems to be your main point in life, show me a cite in a peer reviewed paper [ snip inflammatory comment...]

    Wow, how unscientific of me to ask for evidence of claims. For all the skeptics’ bluster, they are the ones who believe things without evidence. Please keep your promise and ignore my posts. k?thk

    [I've snipped his comment Boris. Ahem, you did say there were lots of studies in #5, and you didn't provide them in #14, tho'...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Boris

    Les Johnson,

    The Grudd paper also claims that 1750 was warmer than today, so do you think they have disproved the little ice age?

    Loehle’s reconstruction only goes up to the 1930s or so, as I’ve already noted. But it has many other problems as well.

    Edwards is a localized study.

    Your posts on the “cooling scare” are not convincing. Yes, it cooled somewhat, and scientists reacted to that information. That’s all your evidence shows.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Boris…Just curious. Do you have a degree, or an advanced degree in atmospheric physics or climate science? Or, are you just interested in the debate? Not that it matters as consensus does not equate to truth, but there are 100s of atmospheric and climate scientists out there who cannot speak out publicly who are skeptics.

    Climate models are so much BS, and the physics does not make sense. And yes Mann is a egotistical scoundrel who I believe will be shown for the scientific and statistical fraud that he is soon enough.

    We can pontificate and theorize about 1st and 2nd order effects, and dependent variables all we want. But time will tell…likely in the 3-5 years the impact a 1st order effect such as the prolonged solar minimum will have on the short term climate trends.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raven

    Boris,

    Loehe’s recontruction only goes up to 1939 because that is the only honest way to represent proxies without good time resolution. The fact that alarmists think that they can slap a thermometer onto the end of proxy record does not make it meaningful or honest.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kasphar

    Re debate about the global cooling scare prior to 1975.
    I remember very well in the sixties my science teacher telling us that an ice age was coming. Confirming this was the claim by Stephen Schneider, (now a AGWer) who wrote; ‘We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.’ Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141. He also says in the same article that ‘….our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C.’ Time and Newsweek ran articles in the mid 1970s. Of course he later recanted but the idea that global cooling theory was seriously entertained at that time is a fact.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    Boris: 2 are localized studies. But different localities.

    As we are talking about events (MWP and LIA)well before 1930, I am uncerain what your critiscm is of Loehle. I would love to hear of the other problems.

    your

    Your posts on the “cooling scare” are not convincing. Yes, it cooled somewhat, and scientists reacted to that information. That’s all your evidence shows.

    UNESCO, Lamb, Kukla and the NOAA are not convincing? Hmmmm.

    But, that was my point, BTW. It cooled, and most scientists reacted to it.

    Sound familar?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    Boris: your

    The Grudd paper also claims that 1750 was warmer than today, so do you think they have disproved the little ice age?

    yes. At least in the Tornetrask area.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    encore post.

    Boris: your

    It is clear that warming has accelerated, especially over the last 50 and 30 years, so I’m not sure what is meant by “steady.” Even the UAH satellite analysis shows a temp increase of 0.39degC since 1979.

    And what does UAH show since 1997? And RSS since 1997? And Hadley since 1998? And GISS since 2001?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Castles

    kasphar, The first-named author of the 1971 paper in Science that you cite was Rasool, not Schneider.

    It is, however, true that Schneider gave credence to the threat of an impending Little Ice Age. He wrote in The Genesis Strategy (1976) that ‘I have cited many examples of recent climatic variability and repeated the warnings of several well-known climatologists that a cooling trend has set in – perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age – and that climate variability, which is the bane of reliable food production, can be expected to increase along the cooling’ (p. 90).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kasphar

    Ian Castles
    Everytime I see this paper referred to, Schneider’s name is mentioned first (I haven’t seen the originally document). However, Wikipedi notes he was the second author, so point taken. However, he still co-authored the report and must have agreed with Rasool that CO2 was not a real threat to inducing global warming but then. This is also the year in which he received his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics so he would have been looked on as somewhat of an expert in the field.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    My:

    yes. At least in the Tornetrask area.

    I should have added:

    , and in 1750. There were at least 3 minimas during the LIA, with slight warming in between.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert Williams

    Has anyone considered what the Chinese researchers have had to say? Search “Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian”. 60-year cycle dominates, CO2 effect excessively exaggerated, high time to re-consider trend of global climate changes.
    When the governments of developed nations ignore the Chinese, and impose costs on their industries, the Chinese Government will go along with it and laugh all the way to the bank. Why wouldn’t it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark A

    I absolutely remember Global Cooling as a big deal in the ’70′s. We lived in Maine, and wondered when the Glaciers would come. I remember the big ice storm in Connecticut(1974?) was “proof” of the coming ice age. Really, people were talking about it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Maybe North Americans were more exposed to this supposed “scare”… I guess they have always been lightyears ahead in championing cheap sensationalist journalism…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    Global cooling was big in the media in the 70s, because we’d just begun collating global temperatures and we’d seen a few years of cooling.

    And there were indeed a few studies that projected cooling, but what is little mentioned is that the majority of these studies were talking about cooling over milenia in line with Milankovitch cycles. For example:

    Hays et al 1976: “Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends − and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe
    only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.” Indeed, a number of the cooling papers pointed out that greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming in the short term (geologically short).

    Arrhenius first posited in the late 1800s that CO2 increase would lead to warming. This concept was picked up again in the 40s and 50s and became the prevailing theory of climate change in science. A formal investigation was recently taken on the state of the science in the 70s.

    http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

    This is the definitive work on this meme, and covers the media to some degree, but mostly the science of the time. It is a must read for any honest participant in this debate who believes this particular issue is meaningful. In short, 7 scientific studies in the 70s predicted cooling, and 42 predicted warming.

    Even from the 50s (and 60s and 70s etc) there were public service announcements about global warming from CO2 emissions broadcast in the US.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg

    But the last example is anecdotal, as is the entire conversation about the global cooling story of the 1970s. The media grabs the story of the day. The evolution of the science is the real story because it is the science, not the popular media, that is being taken to task here. I recommended the pdf file above to anyone sincerely interested.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Ric – see post 33 for TomG comments. Not really annoying me:) But he prefaces his opinions 99% of the time with “As a geologist”.

    Anon: “I’ve got a sore back”…

    TomG: “As a geologist I can strongly recommend…”

    yes geologists are awesome, I even dated one for a while, but maybe as a geologist he should walk to a river and winter and see if it is more likely to freeze at the banks where it is shallow/obstructed or in the middle where the fastest flows are…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    There are a few problems with the argument in the top post.

    Firstly, it is circular reasoning, stating its conclusion as its premise. The ‘prediction’ (not projection or scenario) given is that warming will continue at the rate seen since the Little Ice Age. The basis of the argument, while not expressly stated is heavily implied – the warming we have seen is natural and therefore will continue to be naturally derived.

    This conclusion must perforce undo the extraordinarily large body of work stetching over decades and even back to the late 1800s that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmopshere will increase the temperature of the planet. This is not done in a remotely comprehensive way. Indeed, the plethora of radiation studies, empirical evidence and analysis over many decades has been dismissed in a couple of unreferenced paragraphs. A truly skeptical reader won’t buy that for a second, and will look for more comprehensive analyses. (But there are fewer true skeptics debating climate change than you would think).

    No mention is made that the rate of warming has increased over the last century, and again in the last 50 years, and again in the last 25. (A shorter period than that would be climatically unstatistical)

    The flat or cooling period mid-20th century has been discussed at length in the literature (including in some of the global ccoling sutdies of the 70s). No mention of that in the top post. An interesting place to start for curious people is ‘global dimming’. There are other hypotheses – aerosol cooling is only the more prevalent. It is disingenuous to suggest that this phenomenon scuttles AGW theory.

    “There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming.”

    True only in the narrowest sense. There is no ‘smoking gun’. Just as there is no ‘smoking gun’ for germ theory, evolution theory, that smoking increases the risk of bad health etc. Correlation is the evidence in all of these.

    There are multiple lines of evidence and correlative studies. Even the much-vaunted satellite measurements (which measure temperature by proxy) have shown altered spectra in the wavelengths bands absorbed by CO2. Over time, this shows as an increasing dark band in the spectra where CO2 absorbs upwelling infrared radiation.

    But the strongest line of evidence of all is probably one mentioned by MattB above, and which I note has had no real takers.

    If increasing GHGs in the atmosphere absorb more infrared radiation rising from the ground, and as the massive proportion of GHGs is in the troposphere, it should follow ththe stratosphere should be cooling. This was predicted from models (strange how computer modeling is sneered at only in the climate science debate – they are used all the time in a wide variety of sciences and engineering). It turns out that the stratosphere is cooling. This pretty much debunks any sun-driven global warming theory, as the stratosphere should warm as well as the troposphere (and the upper levels of the atmoshere, too), if the sun is causing global temperatures to rise (and the much-vaunted satellite data show a cooling sun over the last 30 years). The stratopshere is cooling because heat is being prevented from reaching it by a thickening layer of greenhouse gases in the layer of atmosphere immediately beneath it.

    That is the most significant, but hardly the only evidence for the theory of anthropogenic global warming. (The author of the top post refers to it as “the IPCC climate theory”. This is an inaccurate designation.)

    One glaring flaw – a contradiction really (among several) – is this.

    “The global temperature has been rising at a steady trend rate of 0.5°C per century since the end of the little ice age in the 1700s”

    followed later by

    “Measuring the global temperature is only reliably done by satellites, which circle the world 24/7 measuring the temperature over large swathes of land and ocean. But satellite temperature records only go back to 1979. Before that, the further back you go the more unreliable the temperature record gets.”

    Of course, one has to wonder how certitude in the former statement can be upheld considering the latter. One thing is clear. This is not a science-based article. It’s a decidedly unskeptical opinion piece with no balance whatsoever. But then I’m new here, so I don’t know what standards are meant to apply.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spadecat

    I am an attorney, not a scientist, and know well enough not to engage in disputes beyond my expertise; but it seems to me that the “evidence” of global warming fails to justify the trillions contemplated “to defeat it”.

    Sure, there may be a quantum of evidence to support it as a philosophical movement, but from a scientific standpoint? Enough to alter public policy and economic systems?

    These are curious, bedevilling, times.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    If the dispute is beyond your expertise, on what do you base your opinion?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Barry, spadecat will be paying taxes and extra fees presumably. He has every reason to expect that someone who wants his money for their project ought to be able to give him a reasonable civil answer. (That’s what the free press is supposed to do…).

    Just because people don’t have training in climate science doesn’t mean they have no ability to judge whether others are providing a convincing answer.

    “Just as there is no ’smoking gun’ for germ theory, evolution theory, that smoking increases the risk of bad health etc. Correlation is the evidence in all of these.”

    No smoking gun in germ theory? Isolate the germ, infect someone, create the disease, isolate the germ…analyze the DNA…isolate the protein, the toxin. Some infectious agents and diseases are in doubt, but not ‘Germ theory’?

    Where are the correlations for carbon and temperature?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Barry,

    Are you trying to sound more educated than you are? The 19th Century prose doesn’t help your argument, but rather obfuscates and weakens it and that’s before you present a single coherent argument.

    You might want to take a primer and read Joanne’s “Skeptics Handbook” for starters. You clearly have no idea what constitutes “evidence” or the logarithmic effect of CO2. Nor do you have the slightest clue about the number of assumptions involved in climate modeling, or how the climate modelers assume away observable natural phenomena like clouds.

    Computer modeling in a closed system or where most of the variables are fully understood is indeed useful. The point about climate models is that most of the variables are not fully understood, a point even the IPCC makes.

    Even the surface temperature data fed to climate models comes via a lot of statistical “infilling” (models) because there isn’t adequate global station coverage. And that’s even before you consider any issues about UHI.

    The argument isn’t about whether heating or cooling occurs, the argument is about the anthropogenic versus natural components. At the moment there is absolutely no empirical evidence that can prove that human activity is the primary cause of the recent warming.

    I’d be willing to bet that most informed skeptics agree that humans may have an impact, but at the moment there is no empirical way to measure that impact.

    As Spadecat pointed out, so far the “non-evidence” hardly justifies spending trillions to solve a problem that might not be a problem and which may be entirely natural and beyond our ability to significantly influence anyway.

    We’d be better off spending our money on problems we can definitely address like disease, starvation, education and other purely human issues.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Ted Rado

    The whole AGW issue could easily be resolved. Someone should organize a formal debate, where each side could present their data and arguments. The other side could then offer rebuttal.
    The debate could be in sections, covering such items as rising sea level, melting ice, etc. The debate would be run by a respected, non partisan person. No emotional harangues, personal attacks, or other nonprofessional behavior would be tolerated. Statements would not be allowed without supporting data. At the end of the debate, it should be clear whether there is AGW or not, and he current looney toons business would end.

    Since the tracking of CO2 with temperature and the Mann graph have been discredited, there is no evidence to support the notion of destroying the world economy. However, lots of people remain convinced of AGW. Let’s have the debate, open and professional, and put it to bed once and for all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Ted Rado: “The whole AGW issue could easily be resolved. Someone should organize a formal debate…”

    The problem is that most scientists on the AGW side refuse to debate (Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, Santer just to name a few). Joe Romm attempted to debate the AGW side last month, but even with a PhD, all he could manage was ad hominem, argument from authority, name-calling and exaggerated assertion. But at least I’ll give him a vote for having the guts to stick his neck out there, unlike the other named individuals.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    “Barry, spadecat will be paying taxes and extra fees presumably. He has every reason to expect that someone who wants his money for their project ought to be able to give him a reasonable civil answer”

    I’m not sure how this relates to my question, which was based specifically on what Spadecat said, not on anything else.

    Unless you are trying to say Spadecat’s opinion is based on his wallet?

    I’m all for skepticism, and criticism. But I would add that without any genuine curiosity behind it it is simply cynicism.

    “Just because people don’t have training in climate science doesn’t mean they have no ability to judge whether others are providing a convincing answer.”

    How does someone with no training in climate science effectively ‘judge’ climate science?

    Gotcha.

    That theory lived for hundreds of years before some experiments in the 1800s provided the smoking gun. Germ theory was resisted by many in the public and by medical practioners, probably to the cost of many lives. Even today there are serious articles written against it (not in the science literature, though, to my knowledge).

    http://www.homoeopathytraining.co.uk/docs%20main/downloads/Exposing%20the%20Myth%20of%20the%20GERM%20THEORY.pdf

    You will be getting the analogy by now.

    Smoking and disease is an even better analogy, for reasons you are no doubt familiar with. Or have you published a column debunking that theory, too – because there is no ‘evidence’, just correlation.

    “Where are the correlations for carbon and temperature?”

    I think you meant to say “CO2 and temperature”.

    For starters, it is an empirical fact that increased CO2 in a controlled volume of atmosphere will absorb more energy passing through that volume. This is the basis of global AGW theory.

    We have correlation in ice records – when the planet’s temperature changes considerably, CO2 follows closely. In the glacial changes associated with ice changes, CO2 lags temperature changes by a few hundred years and then amplifies the warming already underway. These are clear correlations, albeit from proxy records. The details are interesting and we might discuss them later. But this answers your question shortly.

    In the modern era, we have rising CO2 concentrations and rising global temperatures. Two caveats are applicable:

    1) Neither the yearly temperatures not CO2 emissions are expected to rise monotonically.

    2) The cool or flat temperature trend mid-20th century is climatically significant and is addressed in the literature. The fact of this phenomenon does not undo AGW theory, but it does pose interesting questions.

    The implication n the top post – that we are experiencing natural weather variation – is missing a fndamental premise. If not CO2, what has driven the increased temperature?

    It can’t be “Mutli-decadal oscillation” (ENSO or PDO?) because these trends are short-lived. If these were the main drivers of temperature change, we should have seen roughly equivalent temperatures at the beginning of the 20th century, in the 1930s and in the 1990s. Instead, each period has been warmer than the last.

    This is the fundamental problem with the skeptical canon. No mechanism proposed has withstood scruitny. We are asked, as we are implicitly asked in the top post, to assume that a natural mechanism is the cause of overall warming since 1900, but we are not told – cdonvincingly – what that mechanism/s is.

    When I began reading David Evans’ post, I was interested because I thought it might be about mainstream projections. I think there is room for debate about how fast we are warming. But I don’t think there are many (any?) experts left who refute the basic premise. John Christy, in charge with Roy Spencer of the UAH satellite temperature record and a strong critic of the mainstream view, is in no doubt that the warming recorded is due to greenhouse gases. This particular contention, as with doubts about germ theory, is no longer pushed by informed people.

    I wonder if you read the study on 70s cooling I linked previously. There are a number of absolute claims in the top post that should be balanced – particularly since they are increasingly outlying views or just plain wrong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    “Are you trying to sound more educated than you are? The 19th Century prose doesn’t help your argument, but rather obfuscates and weakens it and that’s before you present a single coherent argument.”

    I don’t know if I’m trying to sound more educated than I am, but I’m sharp enough to recognize an ad hominem opening with no substance.

    Are you anti-intellectual?

    “You might want to take a primer and read Joanne’s “Skeptics Handbook” for starters. You clearly have no idea what constitutes “evidence” or the logarithmic effect of CO2. Nor do you have the slightest clue about the number of assumptions involved in climate modeling, or how the climate modelers assume away observable natural phenomena like clouds”

    I’ve done much better than that. I’ve read a lot of the literature. That’s where anyone should start. I’ve also read far more than I can remember from contrary sources. And I know the difference between empirical and a priori evidence. Assuming you’ve also familiarised yourself with the mianstream literature (rather than getting all your information from contrary sources), and seeing as you seem to be more intelligent and modern than I, you can perhaps point out to me what is and isn’t evidence.

    If only you knew how much I have discussed the ‘logarithmic effect of CO2′! I know enough to say that your phrase makes no sense. You meant to say “the logarithmic effect on heating from increasing concentrations of CO2″. I also know that the ‘effect’ isn’t strictly a logarithm, but the profile is similar. As an aside, the ‘logarithmic’ effect becomes linear and finally exponential after a certain atmospheric density is reached – but that won’t be an issue for us here. We’ll never get that much CO2 in the atmosphere (barring some astronomical cataclysm).

    Climate modelers assume nothing about clouds. It is one of the greatest areas of uncertainty and still being heavily investigated. Whatever is put into models represents the best understanding of physics and climate/weather systems. No one says it’s perfect. Are you perhaps thinking of Lindzen’s recent post at WUWT? Chris Colose posted an excellent response.

    Of course there are areas of uncertainy. One of the benefits of this modern age that my vernacular is so ill-suited for, is that lay people like us have almost instant access to the cutting edge. This should be exciting. But there are a lot of cynics out there who premise their ‘interest’ on pecuniary, political or ideological grounds. They are not fit to judge the science because they are not able to think objectively, to open their minds and damn the consequences. They think they are talking science, they use scientific words, but ultimately they are talking politics and using sciencey words to sound convincing. And they clutch any tract from unqualified people, or cherry-pick a study or two to warm their prior convictions. But what they never, ever will do is consider the matter boradly and dispassionately. Joanne defended Spadecat’s right to question the economic impacts on him personally and at large – as if I was somehow preventing him or criticising him for it. Then she advised anyone was fit to ‘judge’ this complex field of knowledge. I found neither comment dispassionate or objective. All this is more in the vein of advocacy.

    As you can see from my last paragraph, that kind of ‘logic’ begets a bit of philosophising in me. :-) Should we continue, I’d rather stick to the science, which is what this thread is about, I assume.

    We ‘alarmists’ can’t win. We’re either catty, or appeal to authority, or long-winded, or indulge in 19th century prose. I’ve read complaints upthread and elsewhere that AGWers are rude, and this seems to be meaningful in some way. I’ve not been that at least. Because you’ve impugned my intelligence, does that mean you lose?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Ted,

    You are describing the scientific publishing process.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kasphar

    ‘We have correlation in ice records – when the planet’s temperature changes considerably, CO2 follows closely. In the glacial changes associated with ice changes, CO2 lags temperature changes by a few hundred years and then amplifies the warming already underway.’
    Your quote, Barry. So what caused the warming in the first place? And why, when CO2 amplifies the natural warming, doesn’t it just keep warming to Venus-like proportions? And all this temp variance (15C) and CO2 only banded between 200-300ppm. Maybe because CO2 is not the driving force! Now that would make sense.
    Read Ferenc M. Miskolczi analyses of finite v infinite atmospheres at http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf to get some idea as to the effect of CO2 on temperature and why the current models could well be wrong.
    And then try to make sense of this.
    From 1880 – 1910 there was a CO2 increase of 9ppm which resulted in a 0.15C drop in temp.
    From 1910 -1940 there was a CO2 increase of 10ppm which resulted in an 0.5C increase in temp.
    From 1940 – 1975 there was an increase of around 25ppm which resulted in a drop of 0.1C in temp (aerosols, pollution?).
    From 1978 – 2008 there was an increase of around 50ppm which resulted in a rise of 0.45 in temp.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mark

    A non technical question: why would anyone assume the Cosmos would not have a more profound effect on Earth than accumulation of industrial gases?
    Why would anyone not want to wait to see if AGW is going to be the crisis it is predicted to be, that is, wait until the observations confirm or deny the hypothesis? Why the bias against observation?
    Why would anyone not think humanity could adapt until then?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    barry

    i So what caused the warming in the first place?

    I should declare that I am no scientist, have no formal training in any of the physical sciences, and my maths is weak, too! All I’ve got to serve the debate is what I’ve learned from 3 years of intense and broad reading. All I can do is try to present want I’ve learned honestly and as clearly as I can.

    Ice ages are initiated by periodic (but not exactly symmetrical) changes in the orbital patterns of the Earth, which saw the earth closer to the sun and with a greater tilt, bringing polar ice sheets further into the glare of the sun. The largest impact was felt (roughly) every 100k years, but there are smaller impacts at other periods within that.

    The combination of decreased albedo and CO2 released from warming oceans amplified the rather weak forcing of insolation change. It is calculated that the solar ‘forcing’ can account for a fraction of the final heat after approx 5000 years of warming to an interglacial. Greenhouse gas amplification is considered to account for between 33 and 50% of the total warming.

    The reason that CO2 concentrations have rebounded is likewise because of changing orbital patterns. When the oceans cool, they start reabsorbing CO2. Over the longer term, rocks and sediments absorb carbon from the atmosphere. This slower process is evident in the ice-core records. During deglaciation, CO2 rises quite rapidly once it gets going. As the Earth cools into glaciation, the CO2 draw down happens at a much slower rate.

    In the last few deglaciations, the periods for which have been fairly consistent, the CO2 rose from 180 – 280ppm over roughly 5000 years. but it took milenia to get back to 180ppm. We now stand at about 385 ppm. It is unlikely that atmospheric CO2 concentrations will return to pre-industrial levels for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

    You can get a primer on the Milankovitch theory of ice ages from here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

    If you’re curious about relative attribution to the warming, this paper was one of the first to undertake the analysis.

    http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    “Ice ages are initiated by periodic (but not exactly symmetrical) changes in the orbital patterns of the Earth, which saw the earth closer to the sun and with a greater tilt, bringing polar ice sheets further into the glare of the sun.”

    So much for being clear! That should read: Ice ages are initiated by periodic (but not exactly symmetrical) changes in the orbital patterns of the Earth. Major deglaciations have occurred when the earth moved closer to the sun and with a greater tilt, bringing polar ice sheets further into the glare of the sun.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    “From 1880 – 1910 there was a CO2 increase of 9ppm which resulted in a 0.15C drop in temp.”

    The forcing effect of CO2 was rather weak at the beginning of the instrumental temperature record and was overwhelmed by natural variability. This still happens today.

    “From 1910 -1940 there was a CO2 increase of 10ppm which resulted in an 0.5C increase in temp.
    From 1940 – 1975 there was an increase of around 25ppm which resulted in a drop of 0.1C in temp (aerosols, pollution?).”

    Yes, aerosol cooling is the leading hypothesis.

    “From 1978 – 2008 there was an increase of around 50ppm which resulted in a rise of 0.45 in temp.”

    Just so. And there is no natural mechanism that explains the rise as effectively as the CO2 rise. An alternative theory would not only have to pinpoint a different mechanism, it would have to explain why CO2 increase has NOT been the cause. This would take some doing as you would then be arguing against the emiprical fact of the spectral properties of increased CO2 in a volume of atmosphere. It might be possible but I’ve not seen that done convincingly yet.

    At least we know the sun is not responsible for the last 30 years, and “multi-decadal oscillatons” can’t explain the temperature rise of the last centry (althought ENSO does correlate with changing trends to a fair degree).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kasphar

    Barry It is as you say – warming releases CO2 back from the oceans and ice and back into the atmosphere. You then say, ‘Greenhouse gas amplification is considered to account for between 33 and 50% of the total warming.’ This amplification would also include water vapour, which is >90% of all GHG. As oceans warm, there are higher levels of evaporation. Depending whether it creates high or low level cloud will mean the earth could warm faster or cool. Since the earth has never kept exponentially warming (or cooling) there must be naturally occurring negative feedback mechanisms in place.
    Look at the rise in warming and CO2 levels between 1910-1940 and 1978-2008. Doesn’t really add up, does it? I think the rise may be caused more by ‘urban heating’ than CO2.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve

    Barry – I was interested to read in your post a particular AGW defense against the embarrassing fact that temperature changes in the Vostok ice core data appear to lead changes in CO2 concentration by about 800 years (I think I first saw it on realclimate.org)- the idea being that CO2 amplifies observed temperature increases after they begin. This could of course be true, but the time lag certainly tends to weaken the proposition that CO2 concentration is a major driver of temperature. WUWT has an excellent article on this which suggests that, given a detailed analysis, comparisons of CO2 concentrations and temperature trends in the data indicate that CO2 is in fact a minor factor next to whatever is causing the original warming. They may of course be wrong – do you have specific support for the claimed amplification of rising temperature trends by CO2? I’m interested in seeing the basis for that argument.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    “This amplification would also include water vapour, which is >90% of all GHG. As oceans warm, there are higher levels of evaporation. Depending whether it creates high or low level cloud will mean the earth could warm faster or cool.”

    That’s right.

    “Since the earth has never kept exponentially warming (or cooling) there must be naturally occurring negative feedback mechanisms in place.”

    In terms of the ice ages, the initiating mechanism for both deglaciation and reglaciaton is the orbital changes.

    “Look at the rise in warming and CO2 levels between 1910-1940 and 1978-2008. Doesn’t really add up, does it? I think the rise may be caused more by ‘urban heating’ than CO2.”

    I don’t see why it ‘doesn’t add up’. The warming signature remains virtually unchanged when data from urban centres are removed.

    I’ve been interested in Anthony Watts examination of US weather stations. The public discusion was cut off last year when the stations they had accumulated (they were about a third of the way through the project) as ‘good’ sites showed a warming signature almost identical to the formal temperature records. I wish they had kept the discussion open. I’ve been informed by Watts that the results will be made public in a month or two.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Evans

    Barry (post 69)

    ““There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming.” True only in the narrowest sense. There is no ’smoking gun’.“

    Good to see an admission that there is no evidence.

    “Just as there is no ’smoking gun’ for germ theory, evolution theory, that smoking increases the risk of bad health etc. Correlation is the evidence in all of these.”

    If only there was a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature! AGW asserts that there is a linear relationship between CO2 levels and temperature: as Gore said in his movie, the higher the CO2 level the hotter the temperature. Therefore if AGW was correct there would be a (linear) correlation between CO2 and temperature – correlation is not causation, but a lack of correlation proves there is no linear causation.

    On a millions-of-years time scale, there is no correlation worth speaking of. See http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif.

    On a thousands-of-years timescale the correlation is excellent, as illustrated by Gore with the ice cores in his movie. But the new ice core data with higher time resolution from the late 1990s showed that changes in CO2, both up and down, lagged temperature changes by an average of 800 years. So the CO2 changes cannot have caused the temperature changes. This was firmly established by 2003: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1728. (Note that Gore’s movie was made in 2005, two years later. Imagine if he had told the whole truth: the temperature changes occurred 800 years before the cause he was alleging. Absurd!) Alarmists propose there was amplification of the temperature rises by the subsequent CO2 rises, but there is no evidence of this – the data is consistent with either there being no amplification or with there being some amplification.

    On a tens-of-years time scale, the correlation between CO2 and temperature is poor: As the article notes, there is cooling for about 30 years every three decades, while CO2 keeps increasing. See http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanom1880.html (CO2 in blue and temperature in purple).

    If AGW was true, there should be good correlations on all time scales between CO2 and temperature. There aren’t, and the good correlation in the ice cores is due to causation – where temperature changes caused CO2 changes, due to changing CO2 vapor pressure over warming and cooling oceans that contain dissolved CO2.

    Barry, you agree there is no evidence that CO2 caused the recent global warming “in the narrowest sense” and point to correlations instead – yet instead the correlations prove that CO2 is NOT the main driver of global temperature in the linear sense asserted by AGW. You continue
    “There are multiple lines of evidence and correlative studies.”

    Sounds good, what are they? Seriously, please don’t keep them secret. If you mean that the models incorporate much sound science, that is correct. But those models also incorporate many guesses, gross approximations, and assumptions, so the models are not an expression of sound science – they are an expression of sounds science AND assumptions, guesses, and gross approximations.

    You quote as evidence that the satellites show increased absorption of upwelling infrared radiation in the CO2 bands. Well of course: CO2 is a greenhouse gas (proved a century ago in labs) and its levels are increasing. Extra CO2 adds to the blanket at the CO2 absorption frequencies. Yes, every extra molecule of emitted CO2 heats up the planet a bit. But the relevant question is: how much? Evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not evidence that it was the main or even a significant cause of the recent global warming.

    Here are three indications that “how much” the extra CO2 of the last century is responsible warming the planet is somewhere between “insignificant” and “not much”:

    1. The climate models assume net positive temperature feedbacks that amplify any surface warming by about 3. In the case of a CO2 doubling , the rise of 1 deg C for no-feedback warming gets multiplied up to the IPCC central estimate of a 3.2 deg C rise by these positive feedbacks. But the ERBE satellite (Earth Radiation Budget Experiment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Radiation_Budget_Satellite) results of measured outgoing longwave radiation contradict the models. They show that the temperature feedback is in fact negative, reducing the expected temperature rise due to a CO2 doubling to about 0.3 deg C. See
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/

    2. The climate models show a pronounced hotspot at the top of the tropical lower troposphere in the warming pattern (signature) of the recent warming, 1979-99. Radiosonde measurements show the hotspot did not occur in the recent warming. Therefore the climate models are wrong – and fundamentally wrong, because the hotspot in central to the large temperature increases predicted by the models for a CO2 increase. The mechanism in the models that creates the hotspot is the water vapor feedback, which is assumed by the models to be strongly positive. If we reduce the water vapor feedback in the models to a small positive value in line with the non-observation of the hotspot, then the temperature rise predicted by the models for a CO2 doubling drops from 3.3 deg C to less than 1.5 deg C. See
    http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf.

    3. Miskolczi has the most advanced, empirically-backed, and detailed climate theory. He has been working on detailed models of radiation going through the atmosphere spectral line by spectral line, since the 1980s. His Hartcode is more detailed than anything in the IPCC climate models. He solved the climate theory mathematically using a realistic top-of-atmosphere height, instead of the infinite height previously assumed for mathematical convenience. He used to work for NASA. Ok, this third point is only theory – not evidence like the last two – but it is a credible theory. He found that a CO2 doubling would give rise to only a 0.24 deg C warming. He shows that an increase in the CO2 blanket causes a corresponding reduction in the water vapor blanket (remember, water vapor is a GHG too, with mostly different absorption frequencies from CO2). That is, his theory is that the climate system should exhibit negative feedback to temperature changes, exactly as found observationally in point 1. Miskolczi points out that the atmosphere can pick up as much water vapor from the oceans as it wants from the ocean, and discard any water vapor it wants as rain, to maintain its preferred energy balance. See
    http://miskolczi.webs.com/
    http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

    So Barry, even though the obvious thickening of the CO2 blanket is of course occurring, there are good theoretical and experimental reasons to expect it to have little effect on temperature. Even though one GHG band is getting thicker, perhaps another (the water vapor blanket) responds by getting thinner! Net effect: not much.

    Your “strongest line of evidence of all” is the observed pattern of broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric cooling. This is caused by GHG blanket thickening (on the outgoing radiation), and in a mirror image, by ozone blanket thinning (on the incoming radiation). Two reasons why this is not evidence that CO2 was the main factor causing the recent global warming: (1) the effect is confounded by ozone depletion, which did in fact occur during the period in question, and (2) it doesn’t tell us how much warming is the result of the CO2 increases.

    BTW, a cooling stratosphere does not debunk any “sun-driven global warming theory”. First, an increase in radiation from the sun would result in a warmer stratosphere as you say, but that effect on the stratosphere may be outweighed by the cooling effect of ozone depletion and CO2 increases that occurred at the same time. Second, the stratosphere has nothing to do with the most likely solar effect, shielding us from cosmic rays – that is a result of the sun’s magnetic field.

    Finally, speaking as an engineer and modeler, the reason we dismiss the climate models as fairly useless is because they extrapolate while containing many guesses, assumptions, and gross approximations. (Oh, and some people are trying to use these models to justify actions that will cause widespread poverty and misery, particularly for poorer people who can barely afford energy at current prices.) Models are used all the time in science and engineering, but a lot of effort goes into finding the values of all the mechanisms and parameters. Some woolly values can be tolerated in a model that is essentially interpolating in some parameter space between points for which there is good data. But most importantly, when the models contradict the data we change the models so that they match the data.

    Climate models on the other hand contain an unusually high level of assumptions, guesses and gross approximations. They are used to extrapolate – into the future, which is unavoidable because that is what we really want them for. But they are so poor that they cannot be given all the data to say 1995 and successfully predict the next 14 years. Even the IPCC doesn’t call their outputs “predictions”, because it is not confident enough. And most crucially, the models contradict the data (missing hotspot, wrong outgoing longwave radiation, temperatures since 2001) but they are not changed! Instead, every effort is made by alarmists to change or ignore the data, while preserving the models and the political theory that they support. That is not in the spirit of science or successful engineering. I hope you no longer find it “strange how computer modeling is sneered at only in the climate science debate”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    I have reached the conclusion that AGW makes Scientology look respectable (almost), and Michael Mann makes L Ron Hubbard look like another Einstein.

    Seriously, I cannot think of a junkier form of “science” than AGW. Alchemy, N-rays, hormone interrupters, acupuncture, you name it – AGW is the culmination of 10,000 years of thought put into sorcery, witchcraft, and every other delusion put into words that strung together, give the appearance of rational thought.

    Humans have finally reached the nadir of their intellect – but the good news is, the only direction possible to go now – is up


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    “do you have specific support for the claimed amplification of rising temperature trends by CO2? I’m interested in seeing the basis for that argument”

    Steve, did you read the study I linked in my post you referred to?

    http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

    There are others on the subject if you’re interested enough to search for them.

    “the embarrassing fact that temperature changes in the Vostok ice core data appear to lead changes in CO2 concentration by about 800 years”

    I’m not sure what you mean to imply by ‘embarrassing’. The CO2 lag has been part of climate science for nearly 20 years (yes, the lag is figured to be 800 +/- 200 yrs). You can find mention of it in the IPCC reports. There is no contradiction or weakening of the AGW theory here. Obviosuly, we’re not coming out of an ice age (we’re heading into one – in tens of thousands of years). The study of atmospheric changes during glacial changes informs rather than leaches at AGW theory. The ice core records help establish, or test, climate sensitivity, for example.

    An interesting feature that can be found in some papers, is that CO2 apears to have driven temps n the hemisphere facing away from the sun during deglaciation. That is, one hemisphere warms up, temps leading CO2 rise, and because the gas is well-mixed in the atmosphere, it leads temp rise in the ‘shaded’ hemisphere. I’m not sure if this strand is robust – I’ve only read papers available online.

    There is one event in the geological record that is also intriguing, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) event. While the knowledge is far from definitive, the leading theory is that greenhouse gases (methane in this case) were suddenly released into the atmosphere, driving temperatures (and CO2) up. I’ve not read any studies on this, but here’s the wiki page on it to begin with if you’re interested in following it up.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum


    Report this

    00

  • #

    barry – #67

    http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

    This is the definitive work on this meme, and covers the media to some degree, but mostly the science of the time. It is a must read for any honest participant in this debate who believes this particular issue is meaningful. In short, 7 scientific studies in the 70s predicted cooling, and 42 predicted warming.

    Thanks for posting the link, this is Peterson’s paper I mentioned above. I suppose it must be the definitive paper, though I’m not real impressed. Peterson does have a strong AGW bias, and his reports just don’t “feel” right, as in, they just don’t match what I recall of that period. Also, the current AMS leadership itself is horribly biased as Joe D’Aleo and Bill Gray would be glad to tell you.

    A much more interesting report to my mind is “Fire and Ice” at http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf . It looks at media reports on the imminent Ice Age (1895), the benefits of ongoing CO2-related warming (1938), how the cooling since 1940 … will not soon be reversed (1975), “Our ability to live is what is at stake” (2006). One of its recommendations is “Don’t stifle debate.”

    However, neither of these are of much practical use. The PDO was described only 10 years ago, the satellite record is only 30 years old and started after the PDO entered a warm phase. We know a lot more than we did even in the 1970s, and while forgetting the past is foolish, what we’re learning this decade is so much more important than what people though in the past.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    barry – #69

    No mention is made that the rate of warming has increased over the last century, and again in the last 50 years, and again in the last 25. (A shorter period than that would be climatically unstatistical)

    It’s easy to argue that 100 years is not enough to time to describe the climate, shouldn’t we look at least at an entire ice age plus interglacial?

    There are case where a period shorter than 25 years is interesting. Some of the rapid climate shifts disclosed in the Greenland ice cores cover a timeframe like that or less. When the PDO last flipped warm around 1977, the “Great Pacific Climate shift” happened quickly. Given the recent flip to its cool mode I think it’s worth looking for short term effects and the recent cooling is what we’d expect.

    There are multiple lines of evidence and correlative studies. [for CO2 and GHG mediated warming.]

    Two things that made me conclude that CO2 has less effect than the “consensus” says are:

    1) CO2′s IR window is very nearly saturated, that’s why there’s the logarithmic response to additional CO2, (and then the feedback function used in the models tries to increase the warming effect).

    2) Joe D’Aleo’s conclusion that PDO vs. temperature correllation is much greater than CO2 vs temperature is quite striking. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/

    One glaring flaw – a contradiction really (among several) – is this.

    “The global temperature has been rising at a steady trend rate of 0.5°C per century since the end of the little ice age in the 1700s”

    followed later by

    “Measuring the global temperature is only reliably done by satellites, which circle the world 24/7 measuring the temperature over large swathes of land and ocean. But satellite temperature records only go back to 1979. Before that, the further back you go the more unreliable the temperature record gets.”

    Akasofu-san’s talk was based on http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf which says:

    “When examining Figure 1a, it is natural to consider intuitively, as a first approximation, that the temperature changes may be approximated by a straight line, together with “fluctuations” superposed on it (Figure 1b). After an early version of Figure 1b was constructed in about 2003, the author found that Bryant (1997) approximated the changes already by a straight line and mentioned that there are only a few points outside the 95% confidence limits (Figure 1c), but he did not elaborate further on the significance of the linear trend. The gradient of the straight line is about 0.5°C/100 years, in agreement with that in Figure 1b.”

    (NB. The context of that caption is the temperature record over the last 100 years.) The paper goes into more detail and expands the reach of temperature records. It lists as some goals:

    Referring to Figure 2b [the figure at the top of this topic], the purpose of Sections 1 and 2 of this paper is to show:
    (1) There existed the Little Ice Age (LIA) between 1400 and 1800, during which the Earth experienced a relatively cold period.
    (2) The recovery from the LIA was gradual.
    (3) This gradual recovery from 1800-1850 was, at a first approximation, linear and that the same linear change continued until about 2000.

    It would be nice to have better temperature records, but you have to work with the available data.

    If Akasofu is right, then there may not be much room for CO2 as a global warming source. Someone will ask “Why?” and that should spawn a new round of research.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dennis James

    Being a first time commenter here, I first have to commend Joanne on Her Web Site. I love the way you “communicate”. I love your Web Site.

    Second, I wish to say “Thanks” for a great post, Mr. Evans. It’s further verification in My Minds Eye towards AGW and one more nail in the so called “Coffin”.

    I was just getting my start in the World during the 70′s. In 1978, I went thru a Blizzard for the first time and hope my last because of my age now. That was an experience you do not forget. Anyway, I remember all the Hype in the papers and magazines on how the Ice Age was returning. Environmentalists were warning Us all. Here’s an article I posted at GWH.com:

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html

    It’s an article from Time Magazine in 1974! A good perspective I think. I would like to invite anyone here to check Us Out. http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php We have a lot of good material and keep up with the latest on AGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Barry #78

    “I don’t know if I’m trying to sound more educated than I am, but I’m sharp enough to recognize an ad hominem opening with no substance.”

    Actually, it was a direct question because your sentence structure and word choice lead me to believe that you are posturing. That suspicion comes from experience. At no point did I employ the second half of what is required to create an ad hominem, namely saying your argument was invalid as a result.

    “Are you anti-intellectual?”

    No, but I am against convoluted prose that obfuscates an argument.

    “I’ve done much better than that. I’ve read a lot of the literature. That’s where anyone should start. I’ve also read far more than I can remember from contrary sources. And I know the difference between empirical and a priori evidence. Assuming you’ve also familiarised yourself with the mianstream literature (rather than getting all your information from contrary sources), and seeing as you seem to be more intelligent and modern than I, you can perhaps point out to me what is and isn’t evidence.”

    Your initial posting made clear that you do not know what evidence is, and so far you’ve provided none to counter any arguments here. Nothing in your writing so far indicates that you’ve read any primary sources from either side. You are, however, hitting all the Grist talking points quite nicely.

    “If only you knew how much I have discussed the ‘logarithmic effect of CO2′! I know enough to say that your phrase makes no sense. You meant to say “the logarithmic effect on heating from increasing concentrations of CO2″. I also know that the ‘effect’ isn’t strictly a logarithm, but the profile is similar.”

    No, I meant to keep the sentence simple rather than adding words that make the meaning no clearer. Those who know more than the Grist script know exactly to what I was referring.

    “As an aside, the ‘logarithmic’ effect becomes linear and finally exponential after a certain atmospheric density is reached – but that won’t be an issue for us here. We’ll never get that much CO2 in the atmosphere (barring some astronomical cataclysm).”

    Only in climate models that make that assumption.

    “Climate modelers assume nothing about clouds. It is one of the greatest areas of uncertainty and still being heavily investigated.”

    In fact they do assume. Read the primary literature and not the secondary and tertiary literature. They state that fact quite openly precisely because cloud effects are not understood.

    “Whatever is put into models represents the best understanding of physics and climate/weather systems. No one says it’s perfect.”

    And they are loaded with assumptions and estimates based on assumptions. This point is even admitted in the IPCC AR4.

    “Are you perhaps thinking of Lindzen’s recent post at WUWT? Chris Colose posted an excellent response.”

    No, I’m actually referring to: Roy Spencer, “Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)” 20 October 2008. However, I did see Dr. Lindzen’s post and the not so excellent response by Chris Colose. Dr. Lindzen’s discussion was about negative feedbacks – a completely different issue from direct negative RF caused by cloud albedo.

    “They are not fit to judge the science because they are not able to think objectively, to open their minds and damn the consequences.”

    That’s rich. Who are you to say who is or is not fit to judge anything? That’s more of the alarmist talking points and you talk about objectivity?

    “They think they are talking science, they use scientific words, but ultimately they are talking politics and using sciencey words to sound convincing. And they clutch any tract from unqualified people, or cherry-pick a study or two to warm their prior convictions.”

    NMore humor no doubt, since it was the AGW side who dragged the whole debate into the political and media sensationalist arena in the first place.”

    “But what they never, ever will do is consider the matter boradly and dispassionately.”

    Right, think Al Gore’s forklift, think Hansen’s “death trains”. That’s truly dispassionate discourse, eh?

    “Joanne defended Spadecat’s right to question the economic impacts on him personally and at large – as if I was somehow preventing him or criticising him for it.”

    Actually you did criticize him.

    You said, “If the dispute is beyond your expertise, on what do you base your opinion?”

    Sure looks like you are criticizing to me and obviously it did to others.

    “Then she advised anyone was fit to ‘judge’ this complex field of knowledge. I found neither comment dispassionate or objective. All this is more in the vein of advocacy.”

    Joanne is correct. Your line of objection is the normal AGW tactic of trying to silence anyone who dares question the orthodoxy, by declaring them unfit to comment.

    “As you can see from my last paragraph, that kind of ‘logic’ begets a bit of philosophising in me. :-) Should we continue, I’d rather stick to the science, which is what this thread is about, I assume.”

    For someone who wants to stick to science, you certainly stray all over the place.

    “We ‘alarmists’ can’t win. We’re either catty, or appeal to authority, or long-winded, or indulge in 19th century prose. I’ve read complaints upthread and elsewhere that AGWers are rude, and this seems to be meaningful in some way. I’ve not been that at least. Because you’ve impugned my intelligence, does that mean you lose?”

    Well, you’ve pretty much described the AGW argumentative technique and sorry, your initial post was convoluted and archaic. Straightforward prose is best when presenting an argument. I didn’t impugn your intelligence I questioned whether you were “posing” a higher level of education. Again, this question was based upon past experience.

    Barry #82 you say: “I should declare that I am no scientist, have no formal training in any of the physical sciences, and my maths is weak, too! All I’ve got to serve the debate is what I’ve learned from 3 years of intense and broad reading. All I can do is try to present want I’ve learned honestly and as clearly as I can.”

    Fine, not a problem. Knowing your background helps others frame their responses to your comments more appropriately. Some of the people commenting here are scientists, statisticians and other disciplines well-qualified to comment on the science, they just don’t make a big deal about their qualifications. And some of these commenters have been studying this issue for well over 10 years. Heck, Joanne is a “convert!” :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    Greetings, David Evans.

    Good to see an admission that there is no evidence.

    You appear to have a narrow definition of ‘evidence’. You would be arging that there is no evidence that smoking causes disease, I think, or that motive, posession of the weapon and lack of an alibi do not constitute evidence in a murder case where there are no witnesses. Correlation IS a form of evidence – not a case-closer by itself, but as part of a broad framework, or case.

    I will list what I consider evidence for AGW theory.

    Tyndall demonstrates CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    Arrhenius posits that CO2 concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere, and that this will lead to warming. The rise of CO2 is definitvely established by Keeling.

    Lab tests the world over corroborate what is now an empirical observation. Increased CO2 in a sealed volume of atmosphere in the lab retains more radiative energy pasing through that volume.

    The ‘smoking gun’ that shows the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is almost entirely anthropogenic is revealed in studies of changes in its isotopic signature.

    The globe has been warming, generally, since the late 19th/20th century. The evidence for this is numerous – the surface temperature records, satellite temps, receeding glaciers, poleward regression of tree lines, the decreasing Arctic sea ice (the Antarctic is thermally isolated, comparitively, form the rest of the globe – most of the heat is transported northwwards).

    The sun’s output and glalactic rays have not changed appreciably over the last 50 years, but warming turned up sharply in the last 30. Multi-decadal oscillatons account for variability over 20 – 30 year periods, but not for the warming signatre over the last 100 years or so. As far as I know, no competing theory to explain the temperature changes of the last 100 years, and especially the last 30 has withstood investigation.

    The theory of anthropogenic global warming has an empirical basis and is corroborated by observation.

    Caveats: interannual variability is not expected to be overwhelmed by rising concentrations of greewnhouse gases. We will still have colder and warmer years in the short term. The cooling or flat period mid-20th century is a true anomaly, and has been much discussed in the literature, It does not undo AGW.

    If the above list does not constitute ‘evidence’, I’m not sure how you’re using the word. I believe the term you mean to employ is ‘proof’ – of the smoking gun variety.

    Of course, policy is made all the time on statistics, correlations and projectons. That’s a different discussion, though, about politics and risk management.

    Alarmists propose there was amplification of the temperature rises by the subsequent CO2 rises, but there is no evidence of this – the data is consistent with either there being no amplification or with there being some amplification.

    ‘Alarmists’? Are you a serious enquirer or a propagandist?

    The amplification process has been examined by serious scientists for twenty years. Here is a 1990 study attmepting to quantify CO2 feedback during the last deglacitation.

    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2003Q4/211/articles_required/Lorius90_ice-core.pdf

    The science has stenghtened around that propositon ever since. Also in that paper (and many others) is the reference to insolation changes being to weak to account for the warming. I’m not sure where you are getting your infrmation from.

    So the CO2 changes cannot have caused the temperature changes. This was firmly established by 2003: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1728

    Clearly you did not read my post very carefully. I cited that exact study (my link is to the full document) and averred that orbital changes are the trigger for changes in glaciation.

    I mentioned in that post that CO2 led temperatures in the hemisphere facing away from the sun during deglaciation. From the study we’ve both linked:

    This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation. Rather, deglaciation is probably initiated by some insolation forcing (1, 31, 32), which influences first the temperature change in Antarctica (and possibly in part of the Southern Hemisphere) and then the CO2. This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (5000 years). Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation (Fig. 3).

    You now refer to multi-decadal oscillations:

    On a tens-of-years time scale, the correlation between CO2 and temperature is poor: As the article notes, there is cooling for about 30 years every three decades, while CO2 keeps increasing

    I have already mentioned above that these decades-long oscialltions can account for variability in the temperature record, but do not account for the rise in temperature over the century. As I said several posts ago, if there was no warming over the period, temperatures in the early 1900s should be similar to those of the 1930s and 1980s+. As the graph you have referenced shows, this is not the case. Each period is warmer than the last. ENSO (the strongest climatic influence of ocean-atmosphere couple systems) has a strong signature in the oscillating nature of the temperature record, but has no impact on the warming trend. So what is the mechanism driving the overall warming? Further, you’ve ignored completely the literature on aerosol cooling mid 20th century. Why have you omitted this from your review of the temperature record? There is some balance missing here.

    If AGW was true, there should be good correlations on all time scales between CO2 and temperature.

    No. The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere, rising or falling, does not preclude other climate system variability. There is no reason to expect a monotonic, linear response year to year or even decade to decade. The signal becomes aparent over the long-term.

    I cannot comment cogently on correlation in the distant, geological past, but I would point out that the Earth system was very different million – hundreds of million – billions of years ago. Continental arrangement was quite different, for starters, as well as circulation patterns and albedo. AGW theory does not imply that extremely long-term, large-scal changes in geology, snow cover, biomass, or the sun have little impact on the climate system.

    On clouds you cite: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/

    It would appear that Lindzen is using outdated data (and still trying to make his IRIS theory work when it has been reviewed and rejected).

    http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback

    The Watts post has been updated, but hardly satisfactorily – there is no quantfication. I will be monitoring it for updates further, but I don’t think Lindzen’s hypothesis is going to get much traction.

    I don’t know why you back this article over the wealth of literature on the subject. Why so selective? Why do you not balance Lindzen’s views against the mainstream?

    I read last year on the hot spot issue, but don’t remember much of it. I’ll have a look, and at the Miskolsci paper. I am, unfortunately, completely unqualified to formulate my own opinion, but I will try to follow the debate – I’m sure there are some web pages devoted to Mskolsczi’s paper. It seems to be inevitable whenever an outlier attempts to completely overturn mainstream theory on this subject.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    Actually you did criticize him.

    You said, “If the dispute is beyond your expertise, on what do you base your opinion?”

    Sure looks like you are criticizing to me and obviously it did to others.

    Spadecat himself said the dispute was beyond his experise and then ventured a strong opinion on the topic. My question was a logical follow on from that. No malice or criticism in it. It was, in fact, a genuine query, not rhetorical. I quite liked the tone of his/her post. Climate science is definitely beyond my expertise – why would I malign another for the same deficit?

    You may ask me the question I put to Spadecat without worrying whether I feel insulted.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    It’s easy to argue that 100 years is not enough to time to describe the climate, shouldn’t we look at least at an entire ice age plus interglacial?

    Perhaps you missed the many posts here where that has been discussed?

    CO2’s IR window is very nearly saturated, that’s why there’s the logarithmic response to additional CO2

    The logarithmic aspect is not predicated on saturation.

    You may be interested in these posts:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/

    And Spencer Weart’s fine site on the history of AGW theory has a few remarks on saturation also.

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    and particularly:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm

    If Akasofu is right, then there may not be much room for CO2 as a global warming source. Someone will ask “Why?” and that should spawn a new round of research.

    What leads you to believe this has not been examined in the literature to date?

    David Evans asked for studies that provide multiple lines of evidence for AGW. I refer you both to the extensive list of scientific papers referenced in the IPCC reports (several thousand, IIRC, and which have references to previous studies that the work was built on).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Barry #95: “You may ask me the question I put to Spadecat without worrying whether I feel insulted.”

    I would have never asked the question in the first place as it was irrelevant to Spadecat’s questioning spending on something that hasn’t been proven to be a problem.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    From the top post:

    The pattern suggests that the world has entered a period of slight cooling until about 2030

    I expect to be alive by then so I’ll be able to verify that hypothesis or otherwise. :-)

    It is sometimes asked how long a period of cooling it would take to convince people who endorse the mainstream position that AGW theory is overblown/refuted. I’d like to ask a similar question.

    Understanding that there is stochastic variability in the short-term that masks a climate signature, what would be a reasonable condition to undermine the above posit. For example, if by 2015 it was still the case that 10 of the preceeding 12 years were the hottest in the instrumental record, that warming had *resumed*, and that the record for the hottest year globally (1998/2005) had been broken, would that overturn the above hypothesis?

    For me, if the previous record had not been broken by 2015, and if warming had not *resumed*, I would begin to seriously doubt that AGW theory was robust. If that was still the case by 2028, I think the theory would be in tatters (barring a series of volcanic erutons or other cataclysmic event).

    Looking at the ENSO and PDO records, it apears we’ve had, like now, previous coincident cool periods for both, and yet the global temperatures today are hotter than at those times. Doesn’t this suggest an underlying warming mechanism?

    And if this is just ‘warming from the LIA’, what is actually driving it? I don’t think that question has been answered here. I haven’t been able to download Akasofu’s paper yet.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    JLKrueger, Spadecat’s query was based on his opinion of the mainstream theory of climate.

    Spadecat:

    I am an attorney, not a scientist, and know well enough not to engage in disputes beyond my expertise; but it seems to me that the “evidence” of global warming fails to justify the trillions contemplated “to defeat it”.

    Sure, there may be a quantum of evidence to support it as a philosophical movement, but from a scientific standpoint?

    Spadecat is saying there is insufficient evidence to support the science and questions whether that justifies spending trillions, isn’t he/she? My query is entirely relevent to that. Part of the scientific study has to do with the (physicl) costs of doing nothing v mitigation. Economic reports based on the mainstream science have tackled the fiscal projections but I did not attempt to reply to his economic concerns because they are not detailed in any way. which reminds me of something upthread…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    David Evans:

    Even the IPCC doesn’t call their outputs “predictions”, because it is not confident enough.

    That is completely wrong. This is a semantic issue. The reasons model runs are called ‘projections’ or ‘scenarios’ and not ‘predictions’ is that these are the appropriate terms to use when considering a range of conditons. Because future CO2 emissions can not be predicted*, for example, a variety of scenarios are modeled under different rates. Different outcomes follow and these are, as an ensemble and individualy, rightly called projections.

    * Scenarios include ‘business as usual’, increased rates of emission and scenarios where the emissions decrease.

    I will try to respond to your other points as time allows.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Barry #96: “I refer you both to the extensive list of scientific papers referenced in the IPCC reports (several thousand, IIRC, and which have references to previous studies that the work was built on).”

    It’s rather amusing that you presume to refer Dr. Evans to scientific reports after openly admitting that you are not a scientist and have only three years of reading under your belt. You are evading the arguments by trying to redirect.

    The reports referenced by the IPCC are based upon climate models, which are based upon assumptions. Climate models tend to operate on circular logic. They are not evidence. Try again.

    If you were to actually read the referenced reports, you would find that most do not state the AGW case quite as strongly as you seem to think. They are laced with qualifiers as are the susequent IPCC reports.

    And yes, I rather think many here know Gavin Schmidt and The Team on “Real Climate” quite well. Why would you think you are pointing us to something new?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Evans

    Barry #98: Along the lines of what constitutes success or failure of the AGW hypothesis, Brian Schmidt and I made a public bet for US$9,000:
    http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-global-warming-bet-for-7-10.html
    http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/04/climate-skeptics-guest-post-why-david.html
    Somewhat arbitrary, but we put our money where our mouths were.

    Akasofu’s site seemed a little slow earlier today, but I left it to load for a few minutes and his pdf turned up in my browser.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Barry #100: “The reasons model runs are called ‘projections’ or ’scenarios’ and not ‘predictions’ is that these are the appropriate terms to use when considering a range of conditons.”

    No, Barry. A scenario is not output. A scenario is not analogous to a projection (which is output), but the entire framework of the model run. A scenario includes the input assumptions and other parameters in the total modeling enviroment.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Castles

    The reason that IPCC projections are not called ‘predictions’ was explained with emphasis by Dr John Zillman, Chief Delegate for Australia to the IPCC, in his World Meteorological Day address ‘Our Future Climate’ on 21 March 2003. Here is an extract from Dr Zillman’s address:

    “The IPCC community have employed the concept of ‘scenarios’ to describe a set of alternative inputs to the climate models that are used to demonstrate, for example, how the global climate system might respond to a range of different concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The input scenarios are not forecasts and the IPCC has been meticulous in refusing to attach relative probabilities to their occurrence. They are ‘what if?’ devices aimed at demonstrating the modelled sensitivity of the global climate system to different levels of greenhouse forcing. By the same token, the outputs from the models are not, in any sense, to be regarded as predictions of actual future climate. To underline this point, the IPCC has, since 1992, referred to model outputs as projections and, when numbers are quoted (be they global warming rates or anything else), they are always directly tied to the input scenarios from which they derive…

    “Even though – and we are going back to the late 1980s – the IPCC scientists stressed that the ‘predictions’ from the climate models were nothing more than ‘what if?’ assessments to indicate how the real climate system might be expected to respond to enhanced greenhouse forcing, and that the estimates of warming must always be linked to the input scenarios, the media and those who sought to make the case for greenhouse gas emission reduction, almost invariably quoted the highest values of warming, avoided any reference to the input scenarios and presented them as IPCC forecasts of actual future global climate. The IPCC – and I place on record that it was Brian Tucker of CSIRO who was instrumental in achieving the change – soon realised that we had to find a different word from ‘prediction’ to describe the output of the climate models. And so the word ‘projection’ entered the IPCC lexicon in 1992.

    “Regrettably, however, it made little difference to the media. Over the following decade, no matter how meticulously the IPCC reports have linked the climate model projections to their input scenarios and no matter how forcefully the IPCC has asserted that it has no basis for attaching any probabilities of occurrence to the emission or concentration scenarios, the media and greenhouse gas reduction advocates have continued to strip away the caveats and quote the highest global warming numbers to convey the impression of impending climate catastrophe; and the IPCC critics and greenhouse sceptics either quote the lowest numbers to suggest that there is no problem or strip away the caveats and quote the highest numbers to discredit the IPCC as irresponsible and driven by a green agenda.

    “It may be that the posturing and debate that this has produced have ultimately helped in enhancing communication and understanding of the issues at stake but no aspect of the work of the IPCC has brought me closer to despair about our ability to use science wisely to inform policy-making. The distinction between scenarios, projections and predictions is fundamental to the whole process, yet the more forcefully one makes the point as a scientist, the more resolutely many in the policy community seem to turn off. The most frustrating response after a much more detailed and, I would like to believe, more lucid explanation that I have had the time to present here is “what you’re really saying is …”, followed by a statement that makes absolutely clear that the respondent has completely missed the point.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Dennis James #93

    > [In 1978] I went thru a Blizzard for the first time and hope my last because of my age now. That was an experience you do not forget.

    Was that the midwest blizzard (lowest recorded barometer at Cleveland, Ohio) or the New England blizzard (broke an all-time 24 hour snowfall that was set less than a month earlier).

    I was in the latter – http://wermenh.com/blizz78.html – and my wife was in the former, I have a few comments about that at http://wermenh.com/blizz78a.html . People find those pages pretty much every day throughout the year. While some of the New England storm’s records have since been broken, nothing has matched the ferocity and timing of that storm.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    barry:
    April 6th, 2009 at 5:44 pm

    It’s easy to argue that 100 years is not enough to time to describe the climate, shouldn’t we look at least at an entire ice age plus interglacial?

    Perhaps you missed the many posts here where that has been discussed?

    Likely, I don’t spend too much time here. I do spend too much time at WUWT….

    You may be interested in these posts:

    So, why does Joe D’Aleo come up with a better correlation for PDO vs temp than for CO2 vs temp? My guess is that increased low level warming, assuming it happens, causes greater convection and more heat radiates from higher in the atmosphere. OTOH, Some of the cold nighttime temps that have been reported in the last few years aren’t supposed to be happening. Convection isn’t at play then. My suspicion is that the feedback factor is much lower than models have assumed. Perhaps it’s just that cold lows in the temperate zone are associated with Continental Polar air masses that are inherently dry. Ultimately the answer may lie in clouds and albedo. While it’s important to study the individual components of a system, it’s important to remember there’s a system out there.

    David Evans asked for studies that provide multiple lines of evidence for AGW. I refer you both to the extensive list of scientific papers referenced in the IPCC reports (several thousand, IIRC, and which have references to previous studies that the work was built on).

    I’d be a lot happier if the politics infesting the field would go away, that’s one of my main arguments in http://wermenh.com/climate/science.html . Until the recent PDO flip, we were faced with a situation where CO2 said warming and PDO said warming. Now the two drivers are saying the opposite and that will make it a lot easier to tease apart those two drivers in the thousands of future papers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Dr. Evans writes:

    AGW asserts that there is a linear relationship between CO2 levels and temperature

    This is simply untrue. AGW recognizes that there are many influences on climate and CO2 is merely one of them. All things being equal, rising CO2 should raise temps. All things are rarely equal, otherwise attribution studies would be easy as pie.

    They show that the temperature feedback is in fact negative, reducing the expected temperature rise due to a CO2 doubling to about 0.3 deg C. See
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/

    But Lindzen uses an obsolete version of that data set to reach his conclusions. See http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/

    If we reduce the water vapor feedback in the models to a small positive value in line with the non-observation of the hotspot

    Unfortunately we cannot get rid of observed humidity changes. Global humidity data is still pretty uncertain, but it shows the WV feedback is positive. In addition, models predicted the humidity changes associated with the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

    Miskolczi

    Miskolczi has not quite overturned 100 years of atmospheric science yet. There are serious questions about M’s application of Kirchoff’s law to give one example. Of course, his tiny climate sensitivity would leave glaciations completely unexplained as well.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ian Castles #104

    The reason that IPCC projections are not called ‘predictions’ was explained with emphasis by Dr John Zillman, ….

    So, given the hypotheses behind warming due to CO2 (and increasing H2O), we need predictions to verify the hypotheses. One reason people hang onto the IPCC scenarios is because there is little else that is verifiable. Some that are out there, e.g. increased global hurricane activity, have been failing. A warming Earth means that heat has to be stored somewhere, but Argos hasn’t found it in the top two km or the oceans. Predictions about Arctic Ice Cap loss/thickness/etc are mired in bias and lately a failing sounding unit, but at least some of those predictions have deadlines not too far away.

    Frankly, I’d be glad to junk all the IPCC projections to help get us to understand that we really don’t know what’s happening. We should reduce our focus on CO2 (it was a good idea at the time) and spend more time studying other known and potential drivers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ms. Smith

    If you want to disagree with the 4800 IPCC 4 scientists who all AGREED that global warming is occuring at an “unnatural” rate and that it is antrhopogenic that’s absolutley fine. But please buy a house on Florida’s coast or somewhere in Bangladesh and promise to LIVE it when it goes underwater. Please.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Re: Dr Zillman’s address

    If the good Dr. Zillman’s remarks are to be believed, it certainly seems that he was saying the science is not settled. I suspect the vast majority of scientists referenced in the IPCC reports share Dr. Zillman’s more open view at least as stated in the extract provided by Ian. Of course his remarks are after the TAR and prior to the release of AR4.

    Indeed the wording in the FAR and SAR was far more open to this interpretation. Beginning with the TAR, however, there is a nuanced shift in language that manifests itself more as political in AR4.

    The efforts of many true scientists simply seeking truth were hijacked by a politically motivated few. No amount of dissembling can alter that fact. Since AR4 presentations coming out of the IPCC, the Summary for Policy Makers in AR4, and remarks by people like Dr. Rajenda Pachauri (Chairman IPCC) speak to a political motivation that subsumes the scientific.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Boris #107: “This is simply untrue. AGW recognizes that there are many influences on climate and CO2 is merely one of them.”

    Ye gads! A heretic in the AGW tent!

    If what you say were true, people like James Hansen and Rajenda Pachauri would not be pushing so hard for what amounts to international economic suicide by focusing on CO2 reduction. To be fair, Pachauri likes to add cow farts as a major problem too.

    The Radiative Forcing Components table on page 4, Summary for Policy Makers, AR4 graphically presents that CO2 overwhelms all other factors. Policy makers aren’t going to focus on nuanced language filled with qualifiers, but they will zero in on the huge red bar. You can’t possibly think that the IPCC weren’t trying to drive policy makers to a particular conclusion with this distorted graphic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    I have already a home on Florida’s Eastern coast, Ms Smith, the inheritance from my family.

    I pay a lot of money for hurricane insurance coverage, although the consequences of AGW do not seem to be covered under the policy.

    If anything, I have seen the waterfront boundary possibly increase, very slightly, over ten years. Although I have not had the property surveyed to make an accurate assessment. The value of the property has remained pretty flat over twenty years, as a result of its location.

    I sincerely doubt that I will live to see the property underwater, and I doubt any owner of the property will see any measureable change to the land boundary within one hundred years.

    If I had but one goal in my life, it would be to divert people’s attention away from the meaningless issue of AGW so that people could focus on issues that are real and capable of being addressed with human thought and action.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Ms Smith #109: “If you want to disagree with the 4800 IPCC 4 scientists who all AGREED that global warming is occuring at an “unnatural” rate and that it is antrhopogenic that’s absolutley fine. But please buy a house on Florida’s coast or somewhere in Bangladesh and promise to LIVE it when it goes underwater. Please.”

    That number is bunk. John McLean has already shown why: IPCC Can’t Count.

    And over 31,000 US scientists on the Petition Project disagree along with over 700 on US Senator Inhofe’s report plus similar petitions being circulated in other countries.

    So what? Lining up numbers of scientists on both sides only shows that there isn’t “consensus.” It doesn’t prove anything either way. Science isn’t “settled” by votes.

    Not all of us are stupid enough to build at or below sea level along coasts. Sea levels have been rising since the start of the Holocene Interglacial. Nothing new.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Hey Brian,

    I wonder why the insurance companies haven’t thought of that yet (AGW insurance).

    Given the highly unlikely scenario of AGW resulting in your property going under, they could be raking in the money from the terrified lemmings who worry about it without worrying about ever paying out! ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    As shrewd as insurance companies are – even THEY don’t appear capable of pushing this fraud upon the public, at least without more evidence that AGW is real.

    Evidently the (apocryphal) authority of

    4800

    1900

    1261

    952

    312

    88

    29

    of the world’s smartest scientists from IPCC4 just doesn’t seem to be enough evidence for some “doubters”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ed Pardo

    RE: “1970s cooling scare is a total beat up… you are flat out lying to say you remember it;) fair dinkum. As a child of the 70s a vividly remember public concern about nuclear war… not global cooling.”

    I grew up in the 1950′s and Early 1960′s (JFK was assinated when I was in 10th grade). After the Cuban crisis and JFK’s death, people were not as worried about nukes, that era of paranoia was over for most of us. The coming Ice Age in the LATE 1970′s was a big scare at first, before everyone realized that the news got their facts wrong on the timing (it was not as imminent as reported). Between the JFK asassination and the Ice Age scare the big thing was Viet Nam, not nukes, just never ending war.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    AGW asserts that there is a linear relationship between CO2 levels and temperature

    Strawman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    The reports referenced by the IPCC are based upon climate models

    Rubbishing climate models as become such a mantra that you might be forgiven for thinking that the scientific papers supporting the IPCC are all about GCMs. But you could not be more wrong. Climate modeling is only one avenue of research and development among many under climatology. Referenced in the IPCC docs are papers on ice-core records, sediment analysis, geological analysis, geochemichemistry of the oceans, dendrochronology, spectral analysis, bore holes, OBSERVATIONS of glaciers, ice sheets, precipitation, drought, wind, temperature (regional, sea, land, stratospheric, global), the sun, hurricanes, aerosol particulates, sun-like stars, statistical analyses, isotpoic ratios, sea level, biomass… the majority of papers are not products of global or regional climate models.

    Have you ever looked at the list of studies referenced at the bottom of any of the main chapters? Your assertion is fantastically wrong.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    (My last post vanished after clicking submit. If it reappears, please delete it)

    The reports referenced by the IPCC are based upon climate models, which are based upon assumptions.

    Rubbishing climate models has become such a mantra that you might be forgiven for thinking that the studies supporting the IPCC are all about climate modleing. But you could not be more wrong. Many (perhaps most) studies are OBSERVATIONAL. Sediment analysis, bore holes, the temperature record (sea, land, global, regional, stratospheric, the sun, biomass, spectral analysis, dendrochronology, sea level, carbon cycling, sun-like stars, glaciers, ice sheets, ocean geochemistry, contrails, isotopic analysis, radiosnde data, cyclonic activity, the effects of urbanization on sunlght activity, river disharge events, ice dynamics, multi-decadal ocean atmosphere systems, heatwaves, cold snaps, flora, fauna… Much of this can be found in the 3rd chapter alone – entitled ‘Observations of Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change’. Your assertion is fantastically wrong.

    If you were to actually read the referenced reports, you would find that most do not state the AGW case quite as strongly as you seem to think. They are laced with qualifiers as are the susequent IPCC reports.

    That is so – it would be suspicious if they were not qualified. There are very few papers in the IPCC that focus specifically on the question “Is AGW happening”. The focus of most papers is much tighter, more specific. Studies are not written to satisfy the needs of lay-people in blogs looking for simple answers.

    Have you actually looked at the list of references in the IPCC docs?

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

    You’ll also find numerous studies on GCMs in the later chapters.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    The hypothesis might well be straw; but straw, nevertheless, is a real substance

    Thus far nothing more tangible than the 1′s and 0′s of some silicon chips has been put forth as “evidence” that AGW is any more real than anti-gravity machines.

    Is that a “one”? or a “zero”?

    That’s a Zero.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    The scientists (about 2500) that contributed as authors, lead authors and reviewers on the IPCC have not been polled as to their opinions on the product. But if you want an idea on any consensus on AGW, this page is a good start.

    http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The hypothesis might well be straw; but straw, nevertheless, is a real substance

    I realise that you are being deliberately obtuse.

    David Evan’s misrepresentation of AGW is a strawman that he proceeds to gleefully knock down and pretend that he has falsified AGW.

    CO2 is not the only factor which influences the temperature. The relationship between the two is not asserted to be linear. Temperatures are not expected to rise monotonically.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    I’m not sure you have assumed so, but if you have, whoever told you that a “monotone” function is “linear”?

    The function f is montonone increasing whenever x>=y => f(x)>=f(y) and similarly for monotone decreasing.

    I don’t think AGW would support a “monotone decreasing” relationship betw. CO2 and temperature, and I don’t think AGW would mean much without the assumption of a “monotone increasing” relationship between the two


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Evans

    Strawman? Oh seriously.

    AGW asserts that there is a linear relationship between CO2 levels and temperature in a statistical sense: as Al Gore said in his movie, the higher the CO2 level the hotter the temperature. Obviously AGW doesn’t say the correlation is perfect, because obviously there are other factors that influence temperature.

    The central alarmist assertion is that higher CO2 levels are highly correlated with higher temperatures. They used to point to the old ice cores as proof — in Gore’s movie it is the only reason offered for blaming global warming on carbon emissions. And Barry in post#69 agreed that “There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming” only in the narrowest sense, and went on to imply that “correlation is the evidence”.

    The lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature at all time scales is a serious problem for AGW. So many excuses for why CO2 didn’t drive temperature in the past, but does now! Even though temperatures are not currently going up, but CO2 is rising — again!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I’m not sure you have assumed so, but if you have, whoever told you that a “monotone” function is “linear”?

    Nobody.
    One of the strawmen that both Joanne Nova and David Evans are hitting with an oversized club is that AGW asserts that temperatures should be increasing monotonically because CO2 levels are.

    http://www.viddler.com/explore/ceivideo/videos/46/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    AGW asserts that there is a linear relationship between CO2 levels and temperature in a statistical sense: as Al Gore said in his movie, the higher the CO2 level the hotter the temperature.

    That does not logically imply a linear relationship. Even Al Gore said the relationship was more complicated than this. Al Gore does not equal AGW.

    Even though temperatures are not currently going up, but CO2 is rising — again!

    Nobody except “skeptics” are asserting that temperature should follow CO2 concentrations over the time scale of a few years. Go ahead keep on beating the strawman.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “Nobody except “skeptics” are asserting that temperature should follow CO2 concentrations over the time scale of a few years.”

    Chris creates a strawman. The point we refer to is that there is NO cause and effect correlation on any timescale: not over a few years, a hundred years, a thousand years, a million years or a billion years.

    “One of the strawmen that both Joanne Nova and David Evans are hitting with an oversized club is that AGW asserts that temperatures should be increasing monotonically because CO2 levels are.”

    Chris is asserting something neither of us have said.
    Thus Chris creates yet another strawman so he can accuse us of making a strawman. The absurdity is pathetic.

    Chris, back it up with a direct meaningful quote, or apologise for making up yet another strawman. In the paragraph you quoted in #124 (from #122) David is obviously referring to any and all time frames, and not just ‘a few years’. The sentence you snipped is a note of observation, that just happens to repeat all of history, not something the argument depends on.

    Notice how some people shift the thread away from discussing the evidence and we end up discussing dependent clauses in comment sentences instead?

    No more posts from you until this point is resolved.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Chris, back it up with a direct meaningful quote

    http://www.viddler.com/explore/ceivideo/videos/46/

    At 20:30 David says “They [the IPCC] said back in 2001 that with the Hockey Stick graph that the temperatures would be monotonically increasing very rapidly”

    He then puts up a graph showing the last 13 years.

    I challenge you to find a direct quote from the IPCC to support the assertion that temperatures should be increasing monotonically over this time scale.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dennis James

    Ric Werme, Post 105, Hi Ric! The Blizzard of 1978. I live in N.W.Ohio. Yes, that’s what I’ve heard. Record Barometric Low!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Chris Noble #124

    Nobody except “skeptics” are asserting that temperature should follow CO2 concentrations over the time scale of a few years. Go ahead keep on beating the strawman.

    As I mentioned before, my understanding is that temperature follows the state of the PDO better than it does CO2, so there’s no reason to expect there’s a correlation. Since it’s been demonstrated there is only a poor correlation anyway, I’d expect the recent PDO flip to dominate any CO2 warming over the last few years. That’s what happened, and I think will continue for several more years. Thnk Snow!

    So, if I’m not a skeptic, what should I call myself? Realist? Mr. Right?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    grumpy

    The big difference between the sceptics and the alarmists (believers) in this debate is this.

    The sceptics don’t have to prove that there is no warming because they don’t want to spend trillions of our dollars on their unproven theory.

    It is incumbent on the alarmists to provide the evidence that this is a problem and that it can be solved by throwing vast sums of other people’s money at it.

    And no, computer model predictions, projections or scenarios are not evidence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Patricia Wrightson wrote a book called “The Ice is Coming” and it was first published in 1977, probably she started writing it a few years before publication. It’s a fairy story mixed with Aboriginal mythology (not science by any means) but it’s one more piece of the general cultural conscience showing an expectation of global cooling back in the 1970′s.

    It does also bring up the possibility that Aboriginal mythology could contain traces of earlier ice ages.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Chris Noble, I don’t know where you are going with your objections to what Joanne and David have presented, but returning to the meaning of “monotone increasing” function, you are evidently asserting that IPCC would not disagree with claims that for some increasing compositions of CO2 in the air during a specified time period (of years, albeit perhaps a few), it is possible that global temperatures could decrease over that period.

    If that’s so, wouldn’t the whole IPCC thesis be wiped right off the map?

    Wouldn’t that be equivalent to the assertion, “there is no relation between CO2 composition in the air and annual global temperature that we can discern or project”?

    I will go along with the last statement all the way; then IPCC and I aren’t at odds with anything.

    But if you want to argue with what Joanne and David have said, then you must accept the consequences of what your contentions are


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom G(ologist)

    Matt: Re: No. 68

    “Ric – see post 33 for TomG comments. Not really annoying me:) But he prefaces his opinions 99% of the time with “As a geologist”.

    Anon: “I’ve got a sore back”…

    TomG: “As a geologist I can strongly recommend…”

    yes geologists are awesome, I even dated one for a while, but maybe as a geologist he should walk to a river and winter and see if it is more likely to freeze at the banks where it is shallow/obstructed or in the middle where the fastest flows are…”

    I will steer clear of an ad hominem reply, which you fully deserve.
    Let me respond only that AS A GEOLOGIST, a large percentage of my practice is in Fluvial Hydrology and Geomorphology – for your btter understanding, that is the action and landforms associated with streams. I can guarantee that I know more about streams than you even know CAN be known about them. Why don’t you take a walk to a stream and jump in.

    And your response did NOT provide an answer.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Off the topic: I have been married for forty years and so it is irrelavant to me, but I think the LAST THING I could date or marry is a scientist or engineer; the thought of that gives me a violent headache.

    Alright now back to our regularly scheduled programming.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Lol Tom I was being fairly light-hearted;) As a geologist I figured you’d be an expert on picking tone;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Brian

    “Chris Noble, I don’t know where you are going with your objections to what Joanne and David have presented, but returning to the meaning of “monotone increasing” function, you are evidently asserting that IPCC would not disagree with claims that for some increasing compositions of CO2 in the air during a specified time period (of years, albeit perhaps a few), it is possible that global temperatures could decrease over that period.”

    of course the IPCC would not disagree with that.

    “If that’s so, wouldn’t the whole IPCC thesis be wiped right off the map?”
    No – because it is what the IPCC is saying.

    “Wouldn’t that be equivalent to the assertion, “there is no relation between CO2 composition in the air and annual global temperature that we can discern or project”?”

    No. all it says is that the IPCC accepts that from time to time other forcings will knock temperature the other way. Say for example a significant volcanic eruption may well introduce a cooling trend. This is all part and parcel of mainstream climate science.

    What is true, I believe, is that the IPCC says that forcing from increased co2 in the atmosphere will always raise temperatures… ie there is never a stage where adding CO2 would force temps lower… but it never says that CO2 will always be the strongest forcing at any given time.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ok, Chris – congratulations, you’re half right. I didn’t say it, but David did say, as you quote: “They [the IPCC] said back in 2001 that with the Hockey Stick graph that the temperatures would be monotonically increasing very rapidly.”

    Chris asked: “I challenge you to find a direct quote from the IPCC to support the assertion that temperatures should be increasing monotonically over this time scale.”

    If this 2001 IPCC graph could speak, it would say ‘monotonically’.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/2001wg1/large/05.02.jpg
    There is no downward trend even considered in the range.

    David’s comment matches the hockey stick style graph he referred to, so it’s not a strawman; the IPCC and other alarmists do paint a picture that there is such a strong correlation between CO2 and Temperature that they ‘go up together’; and he’s hardly “hitting it with an oversize club” to just point out there is another 13 year period out of 500 million where a cause and effect correlation can’t be found.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Thank you Matt we are now in perfect agreement

    “There is no relation between CO2 composition in the air and annual global temperature that we can discern or project.”

    All this argument over nothing, many arguments end this way.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] To read the rest of this article on the JoNova.com site, click here. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kasphar

    I’m just a plodder trying to sort through this AGW discussion so I did a little research re post 136 et al.
    From 1880 – 1909 there was a CO2 increase of 9ppm and the temps dropped 0.15C (annual means from the NASA GISS global temp map).
    From 1910 -1940 there was a CO2 increase of 10ppm and the temps rose 0.50C.
    From 1941 – 1975 there was an increase of around 25ppm and the temps dropped 0.01C.
    From 1976 – 1997 there was an increase of around 33ppm and the temps rose 0.55C.
    Since 1998, CO2 has risen 22ppm and the global temp dropped 0.15C.
    So, since 1880, CO2 increases monotonically. Temps however fall, rise, fall, rise, fall (annual means from the NASA GISS global temp map land-ocean).
    Overall there appears some correlation between CO2 and temp rise but it is so inconsistent (especially the rise between 1910-40 as compared to the past 30 years). As the earth warms, maybe more CO2 is released from oceans/ice which provides both negative and positive evaporation feedbacks such as higher levels of water vapour (causing higher nighttime temps) but more cloud cover (lowering daytime temps). There must be so many other natural influences which impact on the climate which the models do not address it makes the AGW position almost untenable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Untenable? Or nonexistent, would be a better choice of wording I think.

    There isn’t a method to correlate CO2 composition of the air and annual global temperature OF THE PAST.

    Ladies and gentlemen, HOW in the WORLD can this POSSIBLY be done FOR THE FUTURE?

    Sometimes I think this whole AGW idea is a dream that I will awaken from, and realise that no one actually believes it, and I was needlessly worried about rational thought vanishing as a defining characteristic of human beings.

    When that happens, I will report back – but meanwhile, I feel considerable unease that this might not simply be a (bad) dream


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    The IPCC (and any serious climatologist) emphasises that long-term trends do not cancel out short term weather variability, including no-trend or cooling periods of as much as 20 years (some model runs have periods like this, but with overall warming to the end of this century). The largest natural forcing on decadal scales is ENSO, which moved into a cool period recently. Meanwhile, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is also in a cool phase. It’s no surprise that the temperature trend does no show warming/as much warming over the last few years. Natural variability doesn’t disappear while we pump out CO2.

    There is nothing whatsoever in the IPCC documents that claims CO2 rise would be closely tracked by global temperature in the short term. Argument to the contrary is a straw man. If anyone can cite otherwise, please do so.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Kasphar presents data going back more than 100 years, we don’t have a good handle on that, do you want to call 100 years “short term”?

    The “100 year straw man”. I like it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    barry: your
    The IPCC (and any serious climatologist) emphasises that long-term trends do not cancel out short term weather variability, including no-trend or cooling periods of as much as 20 years (some model runs have periods like this, but with overall warming to the end of this century).

    The IPCC states that anthropogenic influence to be at least twice that of natural variability.

    Best-estimate projections from models indicate
    that decadal average warming over each inhabited
    continent by 2030 is insensitive to the choice among
    SRES scenarios and is very likely to be at least twice
    as large as the corresponding model-estimated natural
    variability
    during the 20th century. {9.4, 10.3, 10.5,
    11.2–11.7, Figure TS-29}

    Also, as Joanne pointed out, there are no one or two decadal dips in projected temperatures, in the chart located in the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    That sounds fairly “monotone increasing” to me.

    IPCC4 is right out to lunch with their projections.

    Actually, it is the people who prepared the “Summaries for Policy Makers” who are guilty of the distortion and projection based on nothing more tangible than wishful thinking.

    The careful reading of the IPCC Reports themselves demonstrate (to me) that the investigators themselves are well aware of the limitations to what they have concluded or suggested about the future.

    The politicians of the IPCC such as Pachauri have distorted the true scientific work of the IPCC4 to meet their own agendas.

    A fraud, sham, disgrace. I am surprised no more contributing scientists spoke out against the distortion and lies of the people interested in designing policy.

    Fear.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kasphar

    Barry The idea of warming ‘in the pipeline’ has been discussed by many AGWers (including Barry Brook) at http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/03/06/how-much-warming-in-the-pipeline-part-ii-abcs/.
    I just checked my town using the BOM site which has averages for 30 year periods. The max av temp between 1971 – 2000 was 0.2C below the long-term average. This is in a time when temps were supposed to be rising. So I checked the max av temps from 2001 and 2008 and guess what? Still below average. Also, the max av temp for the first three months of this year is almost 0.9C per month below average.
    I looked at Sydney and Melbourne av max temps for the same thirty year period and they were 0.6C and 0.3C above av respectively, Perth was 0.1C above, Hobart 0.3C above and Darwin 0.1C above but Canberra was average.
    I just checked a few country areas and came across Murrurundi’s 30 year max av temp (1971-2000) and found it was 0.6C below average. In 1911-1940 it was 0.4C above average – thus a drop of 1.0C over that time. So we will have to wait until 2010 to find the past 30 year max averages to see if this warming ‘in the pipeline’ has any substance.
    It appears that city temps seem to be rising at a faster rate than country areas (UH)?) but this would require a lot of time to research the data and compare. Also many stations don’t have adequate 30 year data because of a change to another the station during that period.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I’m still waiting for a direct and meaningful quote from the IPCC that temperatures are supposed to rise monotonically.

    The projected average temperature rise from the IPCC is about 0.02 C per year. This is much less than the expected year to year fluctuations from the ENSO etc.

    Displaying a graph of CO2 concentrations and global temperatures for the last 13 years and asserting that this disproves AGW is a strawman.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jeff

    Hi David Evans,
    Somethings I find that are more alarming than any of the scenarios the AGW true believers can create is the “Geo Engineering” scenarios that are being suggested.

    Tons of iron sulphate dropped into the southern Atlantic to create a large algae bloom, absorb CO2 in it’s growth, consumed by plankton that die and drop to the ocean floor, taking the encaptured CO2 with them.
    Failed – M.V. Polarstern did this experiment last month, and it failed as the plankton was eaten by larger critters.

    Tim Flannery’s sulphur dioxide shot into the upper atmosphere or emitted from high flying aircraft – (sunglasses for the planet) – not yet!!

    Millions of small mirrors to be shot into the upper atmosphere – reflects sunlight away from the Earth – not yet!!

    Millions of man made CO2 absorbing trees, to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and store it underground (goes with fairies in the bottom of the garden)

    Now the latest idea from John Holdren, POTUS Obama’s science advisor, as posted on “Watt’s Up with That:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/08/6871/

    The concept of putting particulate matter pollution into the upper atmosphere to reduce temperature(similar to volcanic discharges).

    As the green Warmista smog appears to have overtaken reason in the US, this latest threat to the planet could be implemented.(only as an emergency matter of course)

    These concepts of Geo-engineering are the real threats to the planet, unlike the non-threat caused by a colourless, odourless, non polluting gas CO2, an essential part of our atmosphere.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    In the 2007 Summary for Policy makers, the temperature chart going forward; “Multi-Model Averages and Assessed Ranges for Surface Warming” (pg 14) shows no decadal or multi-decadal declines nor even slow downs. Just a steady rise.

    And, as I stated earlier, the IPCC, in the same document, also says that decadal warming will be at least twice that of natural variability. (pg 12)

    In other words, monotonic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    or this, from the 2007 SPM:

    For the next two decades, a warming of about
    0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES
    emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of
    all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept
    constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of
    about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3,
    10.7}

    Nope. No mention of a slowdown or a cooling in the near (20 yr) future.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    In other words, monotonic.

    Do you really expect people to believe that the IPCC is predicting that the temperature will rise by about 0.02 C every year, year after year, without any fluctuations?

    The ENSO and PDO are supposed to disappear? Year to year fluctuations that are in the temperature record before 2001 are going to disappear?

    [snip: another unfounded insult / unknowable motivations. - JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    Where are you getting 0.02 deg/yr from?

    The IPCC expects that temperatures will increase at least 0.2 deg/decade over the next two decades. No mention of any slow downs. And no slow down observed in its averaged models.

    For the next two decades, a warming of about
    0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES
    emission scenarios.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    Chris: I am talking decadal, and you are talking annual.

    Actually, I am quoting the IPCC, who is talking decadal.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    3. also mon·o·ton·ic (mn-tnk) Mathematics Designating sequences, the successive members of which either consistently increase or decrease but do not oscillate in relative value. Each member of a monotone increasing sequence is greater than or equal to the preceding member; each member of a monotone decreasing sequence is less than or equal to the preceding member.

    And, the IPCC shows each decade temperature as greater than or equal to the preceding decade.

    Monotonic.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    David Evans displayed a graph showing the variation of global temperatures over a 13 year period. He complains that the temperature variations on the scale of years or even months within that time period do not correlate with CO2 concentration.

    This is a strawman.

    Nobody, not the IPCC, nor any climatologists have ever asserted that they should.

    The 2001 graph that Joanne linked was based on simple climate models that only looked at anthropogenic forcings with a few different scenarios. This is why the graph is smooth and monotonic. It does not include natural fluctuations but this does not imply that they magically disappear. It was only meant to show the anthropogenic contributions.

    The 2007 graph uses more realistic models but again does not imply that natural variations will disappear.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    The IPCC has shown in its graph in the SPM, and implied in the same document, that temperatures will rise on the decadal scale, with no pause; ie; monotonically.

    And, sorry, it does imply that natural variations, over the decadal timescale, will disappear. The document explicitly states that natural variation will be 1/2 or lower, of decadal warming. ie; monotonic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    simple test Chris. “monotonic” is defined as each following period being greater or equal to the preceding period.

    Show me on the IPCC SPM chart (pg 14), where any decades projected temperature is less than the preceding decades.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    And, sorry, it does imply that natural variations, over the decadal timescale, will disappear. The document explicitly states that natural variation will be 1/2 or lower, of decadal warming. ie; monotonic.

    Then at least show a graph with temperatures averaged over 10 years.

    Any correlation between CO2 and temperatures is only expected to show up on time scales greater than 10 years.

    The graph that David Evans displayed is a strawman.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    Why averaged over 10 years? The IPCC SPM graph is yearly, but no decadal period temperature is less than the previous decade. ie; monotonic.

    If we averaged it over 10 years, you would get the same result.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    chris: your

    Any correlation between CO2 and temperatures is only expected to show up on time scales greater than 10 years.

    yeeesssss… which is why the IPCC quotes on decadal scales. And their charts show no decadal period temperature being less than the previous decade. ie; monotonic


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    This is why these “climate debates” never get anywhere; Chris Noble has been shown the same thing seven times, and tells people they’re trying to project their own stupidity onto him.

    Obviously nobody is getting anywhere with Chris and nobody is going to.

    Chris, let’s face it, some people who wrote the “Summaries for Policy Makers” kind of faked it, like it or not. And clean up your act with the “you’re stupid” remarks. That doesn’t belong here.

    For a revealing, somewhat entertaining, and quite shocking behind the scenes look at the preparation of the IPCC Summaries, read about Rutu Dave here

    http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/02/very-revealing-talk-by-ipcc-rutu-dave.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    chris: and lets get this in order: You had asked for data from the IPCC showing or saying that temperatures will rise monotonically. I have done that. Repeatedly.

    Why do you keep bringing up David’s chart?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    yeeesssss… which is why the IPCC quotes on decadal scales. And their charts show no decadal period temperature being less than the previous decade. ie; monotonic

    Here are some simple question.

    Does it make sense to compare annual temperatures over a 13 year period with CO2 concentrations and expect a correlation?

    Does the IPCC or any climatologist assert that there should be a correlation over this sort of timescale?

    If not why does Davide Evans put up this sort of graph?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    Chris: again. from your post 126.

    I’m still waiting for a direct and meaningful quote from the IPCC that temperatures are supposed to rise monotonically.

    I have given you the quotes and the data from the SPM that show, state and imply monotonic increases.

    I have not seen or analyzed David’s graph. If you would like me to, let me know, and then we can discuss David’s graph.

    In the meantime, we were discussing your request for quotes from the IPCC on monotonic temperature increases.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Chris Noble #162

    > Here are some simple question.

    > Does it make sense to compare annual temperatures over a 13 year period with CO2 concentrations and expect a correlation?

    Of course not, CO2 correlates with temperature only poorly. The PDO correlates better, and the effect of a PDO flip between its warm and cool phases does show up over a short time frame.

    Haven’t we been through this above?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I have given you the quotes and the data from the SPM that show state and imply monotonic increases.

    I was talking about monotonic on an annual scale. David Evans did not mention ten year averages. His graph only covered 13 years.

    [David did not mention yearly scales either. - JN]

    If you take decadal averages then the temperature is still increasing in recent decades. It hasn’t stopped despite 1998 being a record year. The ten year trends are positive.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I guess the lesson here is:

    “Climate Science… it’s not Rocket Science.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [David did not mention yearly scales either. - JN]

    What does monotonic over a 13 year time period mean then?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Evans

    Barry #94:
    [Sorry, Joanne only just noticed a couple of hours ago that your #94 got caught by the spam filter (because it contained more than three links). Then the blog software put it in the Comments in the sequence it was submitted, not in the sequence it appeared in the Comments.]

    “Evidence” in this context means observations that prove or suggest that human emissions of CO2 are the main cause of the recent global warming.

    Yes, CO2 was proven to be a greenhouse gas in laboratories over a century ago. Yes, every extra molecule of emitted CO2 heats up the planet a bit. But the relevant question is: how much? Evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not evidence that it was the main or even a significant cause of the recent global warming.

    (BTW, I wouldn’t be too sure that most of the extra CO2 in the last century is anthropogenic. Isotopic analysis shows that the extra CO2 has a C12/C13 ratio that much closer matches CO2 from the ocean, not the C12/C13 ratio of biogenic CO2 (from plants and fossil fuels). See ‘Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide’, by Tom Quirk, Energy and Environment, Volume 20, pages 103-119, unfortunately not online.)

    Yes, temperatures are increasing at a trend rate of 0.5C/century, and CO2 is rising. But no, those two factors are not well correlated. See original article: “human emissions of carbon dioxide have only been large enough to be significant since 1940—yet the warming trend was in place for well over a century before that. And there was a cooling period from 1940 to 1975, despite human emissions of carbon dioxide. And there has been no warming since 2001, despite record human emissions of carbon dioxide.”

    Evidence that global warming was not mainly due to increased irradiance from the sun, or aliens with ray guns, is not evidence that CO2 done it.

    Assertions by august authorities that “CO2 done it” are not evidence (in other words, proof by authority is not evidence). Likewise, proof by repetition by government bureaucrats, scientists in the media, famous ex-politicians, celebrities, and multiple scientific committees does not constitute evidence (although of course in any non-science context that mix would be exceptionally persuasive).

    Yes, there is plenty of evidence that global warming has been occurring. But proof of global warming is not proof that CO2 is mainly responsible. Most of AR4 is about observations that global warming occurred, and its effects, but there is no evidence in AR4 that CO2 is mainly responsible. (I have searched chapter 9 many times for such evidence and failed to find it. I find assumptions, assertions, and modeling results, but no evidence.)

    Correlations would be supporting evidence, but either the correlations are weak (decadal and million-year time scales), or we know the causation is running the wrong way (thousand-year time scale in ice cores).

    Yes, seasonal and PDO-type variation makes it harder to detect a CO2 signal in the temperature, but as Akasofu’s graph shows, the warming we are currently seeing is adequately explained by the usual 30 year oscillations around a rising trend that was in place well before human emissions of CO2 could have been significant. (And could the rising trend be linked in any way to the trough in solar activity around 1700 and its gradual rise to the grand solar maximum in the 1990s? Interesting coincidence, heh? What if the sun becomes less active again? I notice none of your post mentions solar-magnetic effects, and I noted previously that your reason for ruling out increasing irradiance had a loophole. Note: the inevitable alarmist “proof” that it wasn’t the sun is still not evidence that CO2 done it.)

    Which is why I changed my mind about AGW, Barry – I used to be an alarmist, and worked as a consultant and carbon modeler for the Australian Greenhouse Office. But I became skeptical after the ice core data reversed. And when I learned about the missing hotspot I became pretty sure that AGW was wrong, or at the very minimum that heating due to our carbon emissions was sufficiently minor not to be a problem.

    BTW, if the AGW people call me a “skeptic” and “denier”, I cannot see how they can object to being referred to as “alarmists” – especially in light of Akasofu’s graph at the top. “Alarmist” is a neat term that encompasses their stance and instantly identifies them as AGW believers. “Alarmist” and “skeptic” seem like reasonably fair and complementary labels.

    Amplification has been “proved” and “disproved” several times each way. Obviously bunk on both sides. Ask any control theorist – from the limited data, you cannot tell whether there is significant amplification. The ice cores are compatible with either hypothesis. (By the way, if there was amplification, what stopped warming in each previous episode? Cannot have been much amplification!)

    If CO2 is the strong driver hypothesized in AR4 then there should be strong a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and presumably on all time scales (the alternative, that CO2 is only a strong driver sometimes, is too silly to be falsified).

    Miskolczi is a hard read, but I recommend a skim to try and get the main ideas. He has some interesting ideas in there.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    Les, the IPCC quote specifically says “to 2030″. That’s a long term trend (20 years) and an average derived from a range of model runs. It says nothing about short-term variablility.

    Joanne:

    If this 2001 IPCC graph could speak, it would say ‘monotonically’.

    Those profiles are likewise not examining short term variability.

    If you want to see model runs showing interannual variability of temperature, including cool periods, just have a look at the graphs in Chapter 10 of the latest IPCC product.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf

    page 764

    (For a quickload page just of the charts – http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-10-5.jpg)

    What should be absolutely clear at a glance is that temps are expected to go up and down in the future in line with natural variability while the long-term trend is warming.

    If it’s not immediately obvious that some model runs show flat or cooling periods for even up to 10 years (some individual runs not shown here even show 20 year cooling periods – with overall warming), magnify the page. Check out the run that peaks in 2020 (A2 scenario) that has a cool trend to 2030. There’s also a runs that show a similar trend to the last few years. In some products the ensemble mean is presented as a smoothed line. This is the type of projection cited by Joanne, here: http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/2001wg1/large/05.02.jpg – totally inappropriate in a discussion about short-term variability.

    From Chapter 10 IPCC:

    Interannual variability is evident in each singlemodel series, but little remains in the ensemble mean because most of this is unforced and is a result of internal variability, as was presented in detail in Section 9.2.2 of TAR. Clearly, there is a range of model results for each year, but over time this range due to internal variability becomes smaller as a fraction of the mean warming….Internal variability in the model response is reduced by averaging over 20-year time periods. This span is
    shorter than the traditional 30-year climatological period, in recognition of the transient nature of the simulations, and of
    the larger size of the ensemble.

    The ensemble mean shows a ‘monotonic’ rise simply because it is not geared to show short-term variability, NOT because short-term cool or flat-line periods are unanticipated.

    The various quotes cited by Les and others are products of ensemble averages. Much of the conversation on this reflects a failure to distinguish between products.

    None of this is a commentary on how accurate the models are – just a clarification on what is and isn’t said in the last IPCC report.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I downloaded the GISSTEMP dataset and did a linear regression on the last 13 years.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

    The trend for that data is 0.2 deg/decade which is exactly what the IPCC projected.

    Trends for other datasets will be different but they are all positive and do not in any way falsify the connection between CO2 concentration and temperature


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Chris #172: “Trends for other datasets will be different but they are all positive and do not in any way falsify the connection between CO2 concentration and temperature.”

    More to the point, such trends don’t prove that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing the temperature rise. And that is the crux of the debate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Reply to misplaced Barry post:

    “Rubbishing climate models has become such a mantra that you might be forgiven for thinking that the studies supporting the IPCC are all about climate modleing.”

    Given that statement, there is no way you comprehend AR4 and by extension, no way you have read or comprehend the underlying referenced studies.

    “But you could not be more wrong. Many (perhaps most) studies are OBSERVATIONAL.
    Sediment analysis, bore holes, the temperature record (sea, land, global, regional, stratospheric, the sun, biomass, spectral analysis, dendrochronology, sea level, carbon cycling, sun-like stars, glaciers, ice sheets, ocean geochemistry, contrails, isotopic analysis, radiosnde data, cyclonic activity, the effects of urbanization on sunlght activity, river disharge events, ice dynamics, multi-decadal ocean atmosphere systems, heatwaves, cold snaps, flora, fauna… Much of this can be found in the 3rd chapter alone – entitled ‘Observations of Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change’.”

    You don’t know what you are talking about.

    First and most important, NONE of these things are evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused the modern warm period, which is the underlying assumption of the AGW crowd and the IPCC. Again, you fail to understand evidence. NONE of those observations prove a causal link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and climate change. They are simply observations of events which may have other causes.

    Second, ALL projections ARE based upon models, which rely on numerous assumptions. It is the projections that have policy implications and which therefore draw the greatest attention.

    You clearly do not understand that sediment analysis, bore holes, temperature anomalies, etc. are statistical reconstructions. MODELS! The fact that any graphs with lines and curves can be created at all is due to statistics, which involves assumptions, in other words, MODELS.

    Even satellite temperature anomalies are the result of statistical reconstruction, but are thought more accurate because less statistical infilling is required to produce the resulting anomaly. ALL temperature reconstructions involve assumptions and are models.

    The fact that I might observe a rise in CO2 and a correlated rise in temperature does not prove causality. The seemingly simple task of producing a global temperature anomaly at all requires assumptions and statistical modeling. The linkage between anthropogenic CO2 and temperature is provided by models, which are dominated by assumptions, one of which is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are now driving climate change over and above natural forcings and feedbacks.

    A climate study simply stating observations is meaningless. Such a study could not possibly draw useful conclusions (it got hot, it got cold, ice melted). So what? Therefore the conclusions of the reports require models. Models require assumptions. The reports are based on models. I have not misstated anything.

    “Your assertion is fantastically wrong.”

    Mine is not an assertion, but a demonstrated fact. I challenge you to produce a single report referenced AR4 that does not reference a model.

    You are creating a red herring in an attempt to divert the discussion again, or you are simply clueless. I suspect a combination of both given your robust adherence to Grist talking points.

    The core issues we are discussing are:
    1. Proving causality (anthropogenic CO2 emissions causing the modern warm period).
    2. The utility/accuracy of model-based climate projections in relation to observations.

    Reports attempting to provide the causality link are based upon models, not observation. Reports making projections are wholly based upon models, not observation. Observations help in parameterization for models, but the complexity of the real world system requires significant corresponding assumptions in order to make curves fit the statistical hypotheses.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    The rest of misplaced barry:

    “There are very few papers in the IPCC that focus specifically on the question “Is AGW happening”.”

    No, but that is the conclusion reached by the IPCC and the main AGW proponents like Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, Santer, etc. It is the conclusions of the IPCC that are driving policy decisions and those decisions are focused on AGW, specifically as driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

    “The focus of most papers is much tighter, more specific. Studies are not written to satisfy the needs of lay-people in blogs looking for simple answers.

    Have you actually looked at the list of references in the IPCC docs?”

    This is typical condescending AGW drivel.

    Given that you’ve admitted to having no formal scientific training, background, weak math skills, and ONLY three years of reading under your belt, your condescending tone throughout your comments is hilarious.

    You’ve already been told that many of those commenting here (including some of your allies) are formally trained scientists, statisticians (meaning their math skills far exceed yours), computer modelers and people who’ve been studying this far longer than a mere three years.

    Condescension from Gavin Schmidt over at “Real Climate” or Tamino at “Open Mind” or James Hansen is annoying, but at least they have a professional leg to stand on. From you, it is high comedy.

    I got the email notification of Barry’s comment to which I’m replying here and my immediately preceding, but can’t find it here.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    More to the point, such trends don’t prove that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing the temperature rise. And that is the crux of the debate.

    They are certainly consistent with the IPCC projections based on what is expected from anthropogenic CO2.

    David Evans used a strawman to claim that they were inconsistent.

    If the “skeptics” have such a strong case then why do they create these strawman versions of what “AGW asserts” and what the IPCC says?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Evans

    There was a snafu. Barry’s post at 94 got sent to the spam folder by the spam filter for having more than three links, and sat there for about a day until discovered a few hours ago by Joanne. She classified it as “not spam”, whereupon the blog software put it in as 94 — in the correct sequence for the reception of posts, but not the correct sequence for appearance of posts in the comments.

    Barry’s two subsequent posts got treated as spam too I believe, presumably because of the previous spam classification.

    I think the three links rule sucks, and I have fallen foul of it myself. Presumably there is a good reason for it. BTW, this blog (like others) get a lot of spam — machine-generated posts of keywords and links.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Chris #172:”I downloaded the GISSTEMP dataset and did a linear regression on the last 13 years.

    The trend for that data is 0.2 deg/decade which is exactly what the IPCC projected.”

    In order to do a linear regression you need a dependent variable and at least one independent variable. The GISSTEMP dataset is only one variable (the anomaly). Therefore it sounds like you really did a simple trend on observed data, which is not a linear regression.

    Could you show your linear equation demonstrating at least two variables?

    “Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.”((IPCC AR4, Summary for Policy Makers, page 12)

    Given that 70% of the datapoints you used occur prior to the 2005 IPCC cutoff for AR4, (observed data already in the 0.2°C per decade glide path) what exactly have you proved? Your trend, not regression, was bound to be in the ballpark.

    At the moment causality is still not proven.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Chris:

    If the IPCC were being honest they would include the possibility that temperatures could go down in their graphs. They don’t. You defend the spin-meisters.

    You asked for a quote. David spoke about a graph, so I gave you a graph that exactly matched what he said. As usual you deny that we’ve supplied the evidence, and we end up nitpicking dependent clauses instead of discussing the climate. Even if you had won your point here, you would have achieved, what? The wild success of showing one person talking about the climate did not include every possible qualifier he could have in the sentence, and could have phrased things differently?

    This is about one man, on behalf of himself, talking against billion-dollar-bureaucracies that publish 800 page reports who spent years writing with professional teams and graphic designers, and yet somehow run out of space to put in any qualifiers in their summaries.

    You interpret unpaid commentators to the imaginary literal letter in a spoken presentation, and yet you are happy to let the fully funded IPCC produce unbalanced, inaccurate graphs. That graph does not imply temperatures below 2000 are even possible. The IPCC would know that most readers will not have time to assess fine points about the ‘simplicity’ of climate models. If these models are so simple and inadequate that they can’t even get the next seven year trend right, would it not be honest to include error margins from say plus or minus 5 degrees? (Why bother making a graph at all?)

    David’s point about the disparity with models and temperatures over the last 13 years has never been more than incidental. As with the Skeptics Handbook, we claim that it shows the models are poor, not that it disproves AGW. You ignore the real reasons AGW is falsified: no causative correlation on any time scale, no empirical support, and no hot spot.

    We are only interested in honest polite discussion here. You make excessive demands about inconsequential points, never say thank you, and never acknowledge when we (or JLKrueger, or Les Johnson) answer your questions and prove to be right (yet again).

    If you acknowledge we met your demand for a quote, that it doesn’t qualify as a strawman, that you don’t judge the IPCC by the same standards you expect of us, you may make a new point. We have better things to do than be one-on-one coaches for those who lack manners, honesty and the ability to assess logic. — JN


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    Hello again, David. This post on your post of a couple of days ago, which I didn’t finish answering.

    I am hopelessly unqualified to determine the validity of Lindzen’s and Miskolczi’s work. Miskolczi’s paper – the math – is Greek to me, unfortunately. However, I investigated as best I could in a number of different ways, leading me to put some questions to you.

    Reading the debate at various places I came across similar contentions noted by Boris at April 6th, 2009 at 10:42 pm upthread.

    Lindzen has used outdated data (when he should have been aware of it, apparently).

    According to a number of independent and clearly genuine enquirers (and others more snarky) at a variety of web sites, Miskolczi has inappropriately applied Kirchoff’s law and the climate sensitivity he comes up with would make ice ages impossible.

    Assuming you do not have the skill to assess the validity of these two papers, I have to ask why you give them such credence – above and beyond anyone else’s. You said that M had ‘solved’ the climate theory. On what grounds do you say so?

    As far as I have learned, science progresses piecemeal. Rarely does a single author or paper overturn established understanding. Thus, I find it strange that you have elevated Miskolczi’s work as opposed to, say Ramanathan 1978 (and later), or, as Miskolczi cites, Trenberth’s study – or any of the other papers on the subject.

    Why is HARTCODE better than the 60 year-old HITRAN database or any of the other spectral LBL databases/coding systems (aside from Miskolczi’s say so)? I unearthed a paper saying HARTCODE showed a warm bias across the spectra, for example.

    I accessed M’s paper through google scholar. One way a layman can check if a peer-reviewed paper has been given credence by the scientific community is to see how many times it has been cited. For this paper, there is only one cite, in a newsletter of the AIG (not a formal study), which included the word ‘catastrophists’. (AIG has a particular interest representing geologists working in the mining and fossil fuel indistries)

    Of course, this by itself does not demonstrate the validity or otherwise of M’s paper, but it makes me even more puzzled that you assign superior credibility to it against mainstream understanding of spectral analyses and the earth’s radiation budget under rising GHG emissions. Are you competent in the field of spectral analysis and radiative transfer? Or what other reason do you have to favour this particular paper – or Lindzen’s? What gives you such confidence in outliers?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    David – interesting bet. I’ve visited those pages previously rummaging around the netb. I have read you around the web a bit and already know you are a polite participant. I still don’t like the denialist/alarmist labels, though. They’re antagonistic. And I would not describe many who participate in these debates as actual skeptics. Sorry if my replies are slow – I’m researching/re-researching as we go and checking that against my own opinion along the way, as a result – as all good skeptics should! :-)

    A real skeptic doubts their own opinions, too. Reserves a modicum of doubt for everything, really. Anyone who expresses certainty is selling something.

    That’s an absolute fact. ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    Joanne,

    If the IPCC were being honest they would include the possibility that temperatures could go down in their graphs.

    You may have missed my post upthread (171) where I linked to AR4 graphs rebutting this idea. Here’s the quick-link again.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-10-5.jpg

    Can you honestly say that these graphs, from AR4 Ch 10, do not show temps going up and down?

    Please check my post 171 for details. I would be interested in your answer to that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    JLKreuger

    The reports referenced by the IPCC are based upon CLIMATE models, which are based upon assumptions.

    That is what you said, and which I answered in my post listing a range of topics covered by papers which are observational.

    If you meant to say that IPCC projections are based on climate models, then we have no argument. But what you wrote was rather more general.

    You reply that the observational studies use ‘models’. Sure – pretty much any science or engineering employs modeling. An equation can be said to be a model. But this is a different kettle of fish. You moved the goal posts. You specifically said ‘climate models’. You meant GCMs, right? Clearly, a enormous amount of references in AR4 are not papers on climate models.

    You are right – I’ve read very few of the papers referenced (but I have read the report and have an idea of what is referenced). Many of them are inaccessible on the net – I’ve actually paid for a few. But I doubt that anyone here could claim to have read more than a handful either. Have you read a majority yourself?

    I don’t know you or any of the other participants here. I do not assume your level of knowledge and respond simply to what is writen. I will judge your competence for myself and I will learn that from example, not from stentorian admonishments. If you feel that I have been condescending, I apologise.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    David

    And could the rising trend be linked in any way to the trough in solar activity around 1700 and its gradual rise to the grand solar maximum in the 1990s?

    As I understand it, satellite records show that the sun has been waning slightly (or no trend) for 30 years. How does this correlate with rising temps from 1976? And isn’t the general consensus that solar variation (and insolation changes due to orbital dynamics) has a small impact on global temperatures?

    http://cce.890m.com/solar-cosmic-rays/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    Thanks, by the way, for retrieving my posts.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    LKrueger #173
    April 9th, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    Chris #172: “Trends for other datasets will be different but they are all positive and do not in any way falsify the connection between CO2 concentration and temperature.”

    More to the point, such trends don’t prove that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing the temperature rise. And that is the crux of the debate.

    Nor do they support only the hypothesis that CO2 is the dominant cause. For example, a 13 year positive trend is also consistant with 11 years of a warm PDO and a two years of a cool PDO.

    I avoided getting involved in this acrimonious debate until solar or PDO (et al) effects predicted a cooling trend. While they all pointed to a rising trend observations can not easily be used to assess the strength of each cause.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Amplification has been “proved” and “disproved” several times each way. Obviously bunk on both sides. Ask any control theorist – from the limited data, you cannot tell whether there is significant amplification. The ice cores are compatible with either hypothesis. (By the way, if there was amplification, what stopped warming in each previous episode? Cannot have been much amplification!)

    It is perfectly possible for the amplification to have been quite large (over some regions), and yet for warming to have stopped. It merely implies that the system has nonlinear gain (as does every physical system ever discovered), or possibly that there are additional dimensions to the problem that no one is bothering to measure (or both of the above). Nor is it difficult to come up with a plausible theory for why this would happen.

    Consider factor A is the amount by which a small increase in CO2 will cause increase in temperature, and factor B is the amount by which a small increase in temperature will cause an increase in CO2. The small-signal loop gain will be A times B.

    Suppose that the primary physical cause of factor A is greenhouse warming which is throttled at high CO2 concentrations because only so much infra-red is available in the right window to be captured by CO2. Thus as CO2 gets higher, the small-signal gain of factor A limits towards zero (think about starting with a white wall and spray painting it red, a little bit of spray paint is very obvious but once the wall is red you can spray as much as you like and there will be no visible change).

    Further suppose that the primary physical cause of factor B is solubility of CO2 in the ocean. This is known to be a complicated equilibrium depending on the available calcium ions, pH, stratification and other factors. Let’s keep it simple and say that when there is a high availability of carbon the ocean will grab some significant fraction of that and move close to saturation and so changes in temperature will move substantial amounts of carbon. When there is a global shortage of available carbon, the ocean will be far from saturation and won’t have much carbon to deliver so changes in temperature won’t have much effect. In short, factor B limits towards zero for low CO2 concentration (especially if temperature is also low).

    Thus the small-signal loop gain (which A times B) reaches its maximum value only for a middling range of CO2, and approaches zero at either extreme value.

    That are no doubt many other plausible explanations for why effective system gain would be non-linear and have limited regions of relatively high small-signal gain, just about all of chemistry behaves like this (try titration for example, you can plink and plink and plink drops into solution and nothing happens, then one more plink and a huge colour-change occurs, after the colour change you can go back to plinking more drops into solution but the show is over, nothing more to see).

    If CO2 is the strong driver hypothesized in AR4 then there should be strong a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and presumably on all time scales (the alternative, that CO2 is only a strong driver sometimes, is too silly to be falsified).

    “Silly” that the world might be non-linear? Are you serious?

    Is it really implausible that this problem might include dimensions that are currently being ignored? As far as I can see from reading IPCC AR4 ch5, they really have no working model of the CO2 equilibrium between ocean and air, and only a relatively small number of measurements of what is a rather complicated problem. Factors such as the availability of calcium ions, the availability of nutrients for microscopic sea life, change in pH, change in relative concentration of types of microscopic sea life, availability of silicon for diatoms, deep ocean circulation, stratification and probably heaps more are highly likely to have changed over the lifespan of the earth.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Evans

    Barry#184
    The sun has two quite distinct ways of affecting weather here on earth:

    1. Irradiance — the amount of radiation emitted by the sun

    2. Magnetic — the sun’s powerful magnetic field shields us from cosmic rays, and cosmic rays have a cooling effect on the earth because they precipitate low clouds. Measured by number of sun spots, or Ap index. The number of sunspots was very low in 1700, coinciding with the little ice age, and rose gradually to be quite high in the 1990s, corresponding to the warming trend of 0.5C/century in Akasofu’s graph. It’s only correlation, but it is suggestive.

    AFAIK, climate models omit the cosmic ray link to cloudiness. And again, models aren’t evidence anyway.

    Waxing and waning of the sun refers only to the irradiance from the sun. The magnetic fields or solar activity however is quite a different story.

    There seems to be a pronounced lull in sunspots right at the moment, suggesting (again, only correlation) lower temperatures ahead for the next solar cycle.

    I understand that David Archibald noticed the correlation between sunspots and earth temperature. The correlations between solar activity or cosmic rays and temperatures are good on all time scales (see Shaviv, Svensmark), better than with CO2 — though of course this is hotly disputed by alarmists (most of whom, ahem, draw paychecks for jobs that would not exist except for belief in AGW — not that that makes them wrong, just prone to bias).

    Give it another few decades and we’ll have this sorted out. There is *so* much to be skeptical of in climate science!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Not that I am the great moral voice of reason – but I think you are harsh on Chris Noble’s posts (ie saying no more)… I think he is worth more of a fair go.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB: #189
    April 9th, 2009 at 11:35 pm

    > … I think you are harsh on Chris Noble’s posts

    You’re right – if we had any sense we’d ignore him.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Evans

    Barry#180
    The Lindzen data is an unfinished story: I await to hear what Lindzen’s reply is. Even if Colose is completely correct, Lindzen’s methodolgy still implies that the models should have approximately zero temperature feedback, not negative as Lindzen claimed, or positive as currently in the models.

    Miskolczi came up with an obviously more complete and better solved theory (eg finite height to atmosphere instead of infinite as previously) that seems to be supported by data (including the missing hotspot). But it contradicts too much of AGW, so it cannot be supported in any way by the climate science establishment. Again, we’ll probably have to wait a few decades to see whose theory is best. Obviously AGW has problems such as the missing hotspot, Lindzen’s analysis, the temp. evolution expressed in Akasofu’s graph, weak CO2 correlations, etc; at least Miskolczi’s theory seems ok with those (which is why it is more attractive).

    Yes I do have the skill to assess Miskolczi’s papers. But I don’t want to invest a month to fully understand them because everyone will just ignore anything I say about them anyway. My involvement in global warming skepticism is unpaid and I’m too busy.

    Miskolczi’s theory is complicated enough that only paid professionals are going to bother to fully understand it. But all the professionals in climate theory are paid by AGW sources (exception: a handful of tenured professors are relatively independent of who pays them). So his theory is going to lie ignored and not seriously evaluated (because only us skeptics would ever champion it, but we are part time and unpaid). In a more perfect world that wouldn’t happen. And just because nearly all professionals are paid by AGW funding does not make non-AGW types “outliers” — there is only right and wrong, and AGW is obviously looking fairly-wrong at this stage (litany reminder: missing hotspot, weak correlations with CO2, temperature evolution shown in Akasofu’s graph, satellite observations of OLR, etc). Maybe Miskolczi is right, or maybe just more right than AGW, or maybe even more wrong. I think his theory deserves a better hearing. Again, we’ll see in a few decades.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Evans

    Tel#187

    Yes, all that is possible (and your understanding of linear systems stopping when driven into non-linearity is good, IMHO).

    Something more powerful than CO2 both started and stopped the previous warming episodes.

    “Silly” in the sense that while the AGW hypothesis is basically that “CO2 drives temperature”, which is falsifiable, the alternative “CO2 drives temperature sometimes” is not falsifiable (without further specifying when it does and when it does not) and is not being proposed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    But all the professionals in climate theory are paid by AGW sources

    What are “AGW” sources? How much does the IPCC pay the scientists that review and author the reports?

    Am I mistaken in thinking that people lke Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen work for government bodies – that their wages are paid for by the government? Then, how do you account for NASA and NOAA (for example) publishing papers and publicly speaking on global warming through the Bush years, when their ‘paymasters’ would quite obviously have preferred a different message?

    This is an unfortunate turn in the conversation. We’ve entered the realm of politics. I don’t cast aspersions on scientists who receive funding, directly or indirectly, from ‘fossil fuel’ sources. Poisoning the wells is hardly a helpful way to assess the science. Neither does appealing to authority (well, I’m not going to give cred to a neuroscientist for a blog on climate sensitivity).

    I am impressed that you can assess Miskolczi’s paper. If a complete analysis would take too long, have you considered taking up just an analysis of a particularly controversial portion of his paper – that of his application of Kirkoff’s law?

    Your answer – that you have not assessed the paper – again makes me wonder why you give it credence. What on earth makes you think he’s ‘solved climate theory’, then?

    Cosmic rays: the link I provided shows a breakdown in correlation between clouds and cosmic rays.

    Hot spot: is a product of moist adibiat, isn’t it? Not radiative transfer? And there are a number of fairly recent papers positing that the inconsistency is to do with poor data.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopshere-ii/ (links to relevant papers included in the post)

    I had read briefly on it when the issue first came up a while back. No doubt you’ve followed the argument. What do you make of this paper?

    http://www.realclimate.org/docs/santer_etal_IJoC_08_fact_sheet.pdf

    I, too, look forawrd to Lindzen’s reply to Chris Colose. And for a more detailed critique on Miskolczi’s paper.

    And just because nearly all professionals are paid by AGW funding does not make non-AGW types “outliers” — there is only right and wrong

    You are seriously saying that my interpretation of what is an outlier is bound by funding sources? Or is that your own interpretation?

    In this context, Outliers are hypotheses or papers that call into question or dismiss scientific understanding supported by a weighty body of work.

    Please tell me this discussion is not going to boil down to who is lining their pockets. I won’t discredit serious papers on that basis, no matter who is paying whom. If there is a political or percuniary influence, that can only ever be speculated upon. There’s never any proof – unless you’re going to adjust your view of what constitutes ‘evidence’. In any case, it always boils down to the science, doesn’t it? Not right and wrong, I think, but degrees of validity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    Yes, we will see as time unfolds. Though I provisionally accept the mainstream view (what else can I do without the skill to assess the work?), I am certainly not ‘alarmed’.

    A wonderful corollary of trying to muddle through the debate and papers, for me, is a greater interest in weather and climate phenomena generally, whether it be an expanded context for local events or a new appreciation for the fluxes in the environment (ice dynamics, for example). My accelerated interests now go beyond the theorized human influence, but is a result of that discussion. I wonder if I would have keyed in so much if it hadn’t been for debating opponents of the mainstream view and reading others wrangling over it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Barry #183:“If you meant to say that IPCC projections are based on climate models, then we have no argument. But what you wrote was rather more general.”

    These red herrings are getting tiresome.

    The IPCC does no original research. Their projections are a synthesis of reports and the work of others. The conclusions of those reports are based upon models. Models are the foundation.

    “You reply that the observational studies use ‘models’. Sure – pretty much any science or engineering employs modeling.”

    In engineering we never have as many unknowns, the systems are not as complex, and they are generally closed/semi-closed systems. Models work very well in those kinds of environments. Few sciences try to model systems as complex as Earth’s climate. Climate science is in its infancy with so many admitted “not understood” parameters that ascribing certainty to the main AGW hypothesis is lunacy.

    “An equation can be said to be a model. But this is a different kettle of fish. You moved the goal posts. You specifically said ‘climate models’. You meant GCMs, right? Clearly, a enormous amount of references in AR4 are not papers on climate models.”

    Equations are models there’s no “can be said to be” about it. We aren’t talking about kettles of anything. Kettles are relatively closed systems and easy to model.

    I’ve moved nothing. Moving goal posts is a tool of AGW apologists (see climate change vs global warming, see wind proxy for missing troposphere hotspot vs actual observation of no hotspot).

    The projections showing the linear increase in temperature come from GCMs, agreed. Are there other references in AR4 that do not use GCMs? Yes, they use other models that are still trying to define complex non-linear processes in an open, somewhat chaotic system and are loaded with assumptions. Models are virtual reality. Models are not reality.

    “You are right – I’ve read very few of the papers referenced (but I have read the report and have an idea of what is referenced). Many of them are inaccessible on the net – I’ve actually paid for a few. But I doubt that anyone here could claim to have read more than a handful either. Have you read a majority yourself?”

    I don’t believe I criticized you about not reading a “majority” of the reports. I expressed doubt based upon your responses as to whether you have read and understood any of the reports referenced in AR4.

    I also challenged you to produce one referenced report that was not based upon a model, since you made the assertion that “lots” of AR4 was based upon observation.

    You are the one who produced a laundry list of alleged observations as proof that something other than models fed the IPCC projections/pronouncements. I will be happy to accept your above statement as surrender on this point.

    I’ve never made the claim that I’ve read a “majority” of the reports. I’m selective, have many interests and at the moment I do this as a mental break from far more immediately life-changing issues like bullets and IEDs.

    “I don’t know you or any of the other participants here. I do not assume your level of knowledge and respond simply to what is writen. I will judge your competence for myself and I will learn that from example, not from stentorian admonishments. If you feel that I have been condescending, I apologise.”

    A danger of diving into arguments on these “layman’s blogs,” as you called them, is that they are oft frequented by both real scientists with impressive credentials and laymen who have significant scientific and statistical training and people who’ve been reading the material a lot longer than you have claimed for yourself.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Barry #194:” Yes, we will see as time unfolds. Though I provisionally accept the mainstream view (what else can I do without the skill to assess the work?), I am certainly not ‘alarmed’.”

    Given your conclusion, not being alarmed, your acceptance of the “mainstream” view is illogical.

    These points are pressed by alarmists with the “mainstream” view:

    1. Temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate and are already “higher than ever.”
    2. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary overriding cause of this allegedly unprecedented temperature rise.
    3. As a result of the above two points:
    a. Immediate and drastic action is required to halt anthropogenic CO2 emissions even if such action destroys world economies.
    b. If we don’t take this action, the planet will be uninhabitable within a few centuries (The Gore proposition).

    Point 1: Neither the “higher than ever” claim nor the “unprecedented rate” claim have been proven. In fact, if you are looking for a “consensus” there is agreement that for 96% of Earth’s history, there was no ice anywhere. The threshold for permanently melting the polar icecaps is a sustained mean temperature exceeding roughly 18°C. Earth’s long-term mean temperature (for 96% of Earth’s history) is roughly 22°C. Earth has been there before and life adapted and survived. If we are truly the apex life form on this planet, we will do just fine. It is easier to adapt to warmth than to cold.

    Point 2: Not proven (models aren’t proof). This is a hypothesis and nothing more. The AGW hypothesis is that man’s contribution to a trace gas (less than .01% of the atmosphere) overpowers all other natural climate forcings and feedbacks.

    NOTE: I’m saying that man’s contribution is less than .01%. I’m well aware that the total CO2 atmospheric is currently just below .04%…still a trace gas.

    The fact that other natural forces have, in the past, overpowered the total atmospheric CO2 component falsifies the hypothesis. The fact that we are currently in such a period where the total atmospheric CO2 is being overpowered by other forcings and feedbacks falsifies the hypothesis. Current understanding of ice cores demonstrates that warming precedes CO2 increases. If that is true, it falsifies the hypothesis.

    Since neither of the first two points are proven, accepting the “cure” is completely illogical.

    The “cure’s” alternative (3.b.) is likewise nonsense because it is circular logic based upon an already falsified hypotheses supported only by model assumptions.

    If you are not “alarmed” then you should have no objection to not rushing into cures for a problem that may not exist, or for which man may not be to blame.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    Barry: your

    Can you honestly say that these graphs, from AR4 Ch 10, do not show temps going up and down?

    Yes, I can honestly say that these charts do not go “up and down”, on the decadal scale.

    I again invite you to pick any year, in any scenario, and go back 10 years. In no case is the temperature 10 years earlier lower than the year you pick.

    Monotonic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    “But all the professionals in climate theory are paid by AGW sources.”

    It would be more accurate to state that research into alternative hypotheses is deliberately starved of funding. Generally any statement in a study proposal that runs counter to the orthodoxy will result in the study being denied funding. In this sense the current reliance on government funding is corrupting science.

    Given that people like Gavin and James are funded through tax dollars, they should be more open with their methodologies, code and raw data. They are not. The fact that they stonewall and refuse to disclose information is what leads to conspiracy theories and speculation on motives.

    In an objective environment where scientists and the media were fulfilling their obligation to seek truth, this would not happen. This discussion morphed long ago from a scientific one to a political and sensationalist one.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    “But all the professionals in climate theory are paid by AGW sources.”

    Ha – I am a pure denier and am paid by the US Government; I work for the US Department of Energy.

    The official DOE policy is that “man-made climate change” is real, but the DOE can neither silence me nor stop my activities.

    The reason is that James Hansen of the US NASA is far more politically active than I am; depite repeated attempts by the conservatives to stop Hansen from doing it by removing him from an official position, Hansen remains protected by his political allies.

    And since Hansen cannot be stopped, neither can I.

    Hooray for Jim Hansen!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    chris: your

    I was talking about monotonic on an annual scale.

    Why? That is just plain silly, when I, and the IPCC are talking on decadal scales.

    If you take decadal averages then the temperature is still increasing in recent decades. It hasn’t stopped despite 1998 being a record year. The ten year trends are positive.

    The 10 year trends are only positive on GISS data. You should know, but apparently don’t, that GISS does not have 1998 as the record year, but 2005 instead.

    Also, since 1998, using GISS data, the slope, while positive, is insignificant at 0.0104/yr (with R2 = 0.123. The 8 year trend (since 2001) is negative, but still insignificant.

    On RSS, UAH and Hadley data, the trend over the entire 10 year period is negative. RSS and Hadley are negative since 1997.

    On all data sets, R2 approaches unity, the closer to the present.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Barry #193: “I won’t discredit serious papers on that basis, no matter who is paying whom. If there is a political or percuniary influence, that can only ever be speculated upon.”

    Great, a positive sign. Who funds the research is indeed irrelevant.

    However, starving funding for alternative theories, denying publication of well-founded studies and refusing to fully share the methodologies, data and code from publicly funded research is open to criticism because it leads to a skewing of available information.

    The fact that you currently find a weight of papers leaning one way is due to political influence on the funding. Hansen et al ruthlessly exploit their political connections to shut down debate and push their political agenda.

    Want proof of Hansen’s political and activist bias? I’m not making it up. You can read his own words on his web site at Columbia University. Dear Michelle and Barack.

    And then think of Hansen’s “death trains.” Very objective and scientific, eh? No hyperbole in that line.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Les Johnson

    JL: your

    However, starving funding for alternative theories, denying publication of well-founded studies and refusing to fully share the methodologies…because it leads to a skewing of available information.

    A good example of this is the federal (Canadian) government putting out a call for the government funding research on wet lands, and the NEGATIVE effects that climate change would have on swamps and ponds.

    The government is telling the researchers what the conclusion is, before the study ever starts. Obviously no papers will be submitted showing positive consequences.

    They are also inviting only the most dire of predictions, as it is obvious that only the most dramatic scenario will receive the funding.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Les #200:”You should know, but apparently don’t, that GISS does not have 1998 as the record year, but 2005 instead.”

    And 1998 is only in 3rd place…2007 beat 1998 in the GISS dataset too.

    In multi-decadal plots (30, 60, 120), the slope becomes even more insignificant, consistent with natural rebound from Ice Age temperatures and nothing alarming. Admittedly, the 120-year plot is based upon very few data points, but then that’s really the point.

    I find it very difficult to get excited over climate trends that operate on geologic time scales and for which we have limited instrumented data. We are only scratching the surface in our knowledge of climate. Alarmists are getting excited over climate occurring within a blip of geologic time (roughly thirty years of warming).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    Hello again Les,

    I again invite you to pick any year, in any scenario, and go back 10 years. In no case is the temperature 10 years earlier lower than the year you pick.

    Do you not mean *higher* than the year you pick?

    I can do that, but I don’t think this is the point you are trying to make. If you’re looking at decadal changes, you’d need to average the years of one (projected) decade and compare with a subsequent averaged decade (that’s a simple way of doing it).

    But to answer your challenge, look at the run that has a peak in 2019 in A2. It’s the top line in the ensemble at that point and easy to pick out. In 2028 (and 29), the temperature is lower.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-10-5.jpg

    I saw a nice graphic of a greater number of model runs somewhere a while back, and there was a run that showed a cooling trend for 20 years. I’ll see if I can find it.

    And let me contextualize my post you replied to once again – it was a reply to Joanne who linked to a smoothed line graphic from the IPCC in response to the challenge from Chris Noble “I challenge you to find a direct quote from the IPCC to support the assertion that temperatures should be increasing monotonically over this time scale.”

    There is no such quote, so Joanne posted a graph of a smoothed line instead, with the comment “if graphs could speak…”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/2001wg1/large/05.02.jpg

    I think you’ll agree that Joanne did not meet the challenge. I simply wanted to show what annual scale projections actually looked like.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    However, starving funding for alternative theories, denying publication of well-founded studies and refusing to fully share the methodologies, data and code from publicly funded research is open to criticism because it leads to a skewing of available information.

    There are a number of published papers out there that belie that claim. David Evans has posted one (Miskolczi’s). Roy Spencer and John Christy are still being paid and are still being published. Even Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s woeful paper was published.

    On the one hand you approve my rejecting the political (funding) angle. On the other you begin to make argument on that basis.

    I’ve only got one answer to that, and it bears directly on the personalities you cite. Jim Hansen and his colleagues were being paid by the Bush administration. If they were economic slaves to their paymasters, why did they publish directly against the tendencies of their benefactors?

    You can have the last word on that. I’m not interested in this sort of speculation – and speculation it is. Unless you can specifically cite a few examples of funding being cut off for alternative analysis, or scientists using political associations to shut down anyone else’s work.

    Specifically. Hansen’s letter to Obama is definitely not evidence of him interfering with anyone else’s work.

    One more thing. I never cite Gore. Anyone else who does should be subjected to Godwin’s law and immediately be dismissed. The case for or against AGW is purely a scientific matter. That is the basis of this discussion according to the top post. Political and pecuniary motivations and associations are always speculative at best. If there’s too much mission creep, I’m out of here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    barry

    David, do you think it will take as much as 20 years to ascertain the veracity of Akasofu’s thesis? I think less. If temps are correlated to PDO, and if the premise, as it seems to be, is that temperature trends change immediately with PDO flips, then I’d wager a few dollars that we’ll see a clear temperature rise in this purported cool phase by 2020. In other words, I bet we won’t see a repeat of the profile from the 1940s to 1970s and that should be clear by 2020. I presume that CO2 warming will overwhelm the PDO cool phase. I’m sure you have a sound statistical reason for waiting longer, but nevertheless…

    I’m not a rich person, so I’ll make a modest wager of AUS$100. I hope the economy doesn’t keep tanking to 2020!

    Writing from Bondi Beach, by the way.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    Krueger,

    climate change differences aside, travel safe, fella.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    Regarding correlations with ocean/atmosphere cycles, this video displays a graph showing excellent correltation of ENSO with themperatures. (from 4:00)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM

    It also briefly looks at the difference between weather and climate – brought to mind by some posts above about local cold weather events.

    Regarding the topic of the top post, ENSO is an oscillatinmg cycle as well, and, as it oscillates, is not responsible for the overall warming of the 20th C to now.

    We’ve had suggestions of what might be responsible for the overall warming trend of last 100 years or so, but sun spots and cosmic rays have poor correlation with temps.

    (that link again) http://cce.890m.com/solar-cosmic-rays/

    And the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation is not well established.

    The top post premises with a continued warming out of the LIA. If that is so, still we need a better idea of the physical mechanisms that are causing this alleged continuation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Yes, all that is possible (and your understanding of linear systems stopping when driven into non-linearity is good, IMHO).

    Thanks, I prefer to start with the premise that there are no linear systems. There are systems for which a linear approximation gives plausible answers, and there are systems for which a linear approximation gives complete rubbish. We already know that weather is chaotic and highly nonlinear so we already know that linear approximations of weather are useless.

    Climate is essentially weather, averaged over space and time, so maybe this averaging process brings it closer to a linear approximation and maybe it doesn’t, but that’s a question that neither side of the argument has bothered addressing (I believe Edward Lorenz was trying for many years to get people interested in this issue, then finally gave up).

    Something more powerful than CO2 both started and stopped the previous warming episodes.

    I’m fully convinced that the sun is the primary forcing function for the Earth’s climate, everything else has to be secondary to that. Other than some residual radioactivity in the earth, there are no available energy sources. However, using a solar concentrator and a vacuum bulb you can produce high temperatures relatively easily from the sun, so the sun has no shortage of available energy to make things hot (under the right conditions).

    On the other hand, the historical record shows the climate moving over a wide range and remaining stable (i.e. not triggering any runaway mass destruction). To me, that spells out that some non-linear rule of diminishing returns must be kicking in to prevent a similar scenario to the vacuum bulb. I see nothing shocking in this, we see a law of diminishing returns popping up in all aspects of engineering and economics so it makes a lot of sense to see it in climate science as well.

    Learning where and why the non-linear effect becomes significant is the most important thing to study, that tells you where the boundary is.

    “Silly” in the sense that while the AGW hypothesis is basically that “CO2 drives temperature”, which is falsifiable, the alternative “CO2 drives temperature sometimes” is not falsifiable (without further specifying when it does and when it does not) and is not being proposed.

    Agreed, I don’t have any theory good enough to warrant an attempt at falsification but I’m confident that a theory based on linear “X causes Y to this degree” formulas will never closely match historic data (except over a limited period) and be a very poor predictor of future data as well. I’ve actually found it very difficult to explain to people the difference between “small-signal” gain (i.e. the local derivative of the curve) and “bulk” gain (i.e. the overall effect of a large change). I’ve come to the conclusion that the entire concept of coming up with a magic number “climate sensitivity” (which is supposedly three degrees) is just a PR stunt because it means nothing in terms of real understanding of the system.

    I wonder how James Annan is feeling about his $10k, if the above cyclic theory is correct then those Russians are looking pretty good for the period between 2012 and 2017. My personal feeling is that some warming is occurring, but the IPCC has totally overstated their case and they are going to be a laughing stock in 10 years time. I see myself as an environmentalist and I don’t see alarmist panic as being in any way beneficial to the environmental movement.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    NOTE: I’m saying that man’s contribution is less than .01%. I’m well aware that the total CO2 atmospheric is currently just below .04%…still a trace gas.

    I get a figure of about 6.5% anthro contribution.

    Like this:

    CO2 is (averaged) 17% of the greenhouse effect.

    Industrial emissions have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by about 105ppm – from pre-industrial levels of about 280ppm. That’s an increase of 37.5%

    37.5% of 17% = 6.35%

    I’m sure those calcs are naive, but I know you cannot properly calculate anthro contribution from just the mass of various atmospheric gases – you have to use greenhouse contribution as your base point, otherwise you’re including non-GHGs and not accounting for the spectral nature of different GHGs, which are certainly not derived from comparisons of total mass in the atmosphere.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Barry #205:

    “There are a number of published papers out there that belie that claim. David Evans has posted one (Miskolczi’s). Roy Spencer and John Christy are still being paid and are still being published. Even Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s woeful paper was published.”

    The fact that there are resilient and resourceful scientists who still believe in scientific integrity and who find ways to get published does nothing to negate my argument. These very same people you have cited will all tell you that the system is stacked against them.

    One need look no further than Obama’s budget, the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” aka Stimulus Bill, or the “Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009” in the US to see that all research funding is directed to one side of the argument. And in the Budget, you see that the real goal is collecting revenue, not mitigating climate.

    “On the one hand you approve my rejecting the political (funding) angle. On the other you begin to make argument on that basis.”

    You are twisting what I said. Nowhere did I make any argument that funding source invalidates the study, though that is the common argument on your side (shills for big oil). At least you claim not to support that argument.

    Les pointed out that if the Grant Offer stipulates a particular viewpoint, then that is the viewpoint that will be funded and ultimately published, not a contrary study. You’d be pretty hard-pressed to counter that fact.

    “I’ve only got one answer to that, and it bears directly on the personalities you cite. Jim Hansen and his colleagues were being paid by the Bush administration. If they were economic slaves to their paymasters, why did they publish directly against the tendencies of their benefactors?”

    Hansen et al were in place long before President Bush and they have political allies who shield them. Hansen is now on Obama’s “Science Team.” President Bush had a hands-off apolitical approach to staffing at the major government science centers, despite the fact that certain quarters like to pillory him for being “anti-science.”

    “You can have the last word on that. I’m not interested in this sort of speculation – and speculation it is. Unless you can specifically cite a few examples of funding being cut off for alternative analysis, or scientists using political associations to shut down anyone else’s work.”

    I’ve already answered that above and it isn’t speculation. Government money flows exclusively to the AGW crowd. I’ve cited three specific pieces of US government action/legislation where all the money flows one way (billions of dollars). Show me a single government funding source that supports any alternative research, let alone reaching those funding levels.

    “Specifically. Hansen’s letter to Obama is definitely not evidence of him interfering with anyone else’s work.”

    Hansen’s letter is evidence of Hansen’s shift from science to politics and that is how I presented it. It was not presented in any way to show that Hansen interfered with other’s work. However, it is obvious that you prefer to ignore Hansen’s public statements. You’ve never replied to Hansen’s “death trains.” Hansen’s public political and alarmist posturing is a matter of…well…public record.

    “One more thing. I never cite Gore. Anyone else who does should be subjected to Godwin’s law and immediately be dismissed.”

    Good, but ole Rajenda K. Pachauri (chairman of the IPCC) talks up Gore as if he’s the savior of the scientific world. He’s happy to share the Nobel and happy to remain silent on the utter trash of Gore’s science fiction.

    “The case for or against AGW is purely a scientific matter. That is the basis of this discussion according to the top post.”

    So it should be, but it isn’t. The AGW side dragged this into the political and sensationalist arena. That’s the significance of Al Gore’s involvement.

    BTW, as far as the science goes, causality still hasn’t been proven. Y’all have failed on that one.

    “Political and pecuniary motivations and associations are always speculative at best.”

    Not when there is publicly available legislation to read. Not when people like Gore are hip deep involved in companies that will profit from selling carbon credits. Public record dude. Not speculation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Barry #212:

    I’m talking the entire system, not the GHG subset. GHGs only account for about 4% of the total atmosphere. Of that 4%, about 99% is H2O vapor. The human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is negligible on those scales.

    Your calculation goes right back to the assumption that GHGs and CO2 specifically drive warming and totally ignores any potential negative feedbacks that may be present in the entire system.

    Second, your calculation also assumes that 100% of the CO2atmospheric increase is due to human emissions.

    Your side is arguing that a trace atmospheric gas dominates all other mechanisms. It is a point you have yet to prove.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Barry #209:

    Thanks for the kind thoughts.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The algorithms on the spam filter picked up a recent post by Chris Nobel. I don’t know why, since I cleared his post yesterday. Askimet is getting spookily effective. (Could be the repetitive nature?)

    Chris has postulated a strawman (and a few variations) that we use the last 13 years to prove AGW is falsified, when neither of us do. We use it as incidental evidence. Chris ignores those points we do claim falsify AGW. He has repeated his theme, #122 #125 #126, #128, #148, #152, #156, #159, # 164, #167, #169, # 176. Way back in #124 David replied. I replied # 127, 138, 179.

    I’ve emailled his latest post back to Chris to ask him to repost it without:
    1. unscientific comments on motivations
    2. with acknowledgement that I provided the quote he asked for, and that we do not and have never claimed that lack of a recent linear rise falsifies AGW. (The quote in question, BTW was about a specific graph. I provided that specific graph.)

    Since he now wants to change tacks and refer to the Skeptics Handbook, I’ve asked for direct quotes. (So we can discuss points that were said, not points that were misconstrued, inferred or invented.)

    We need more discipline and clarity of thought. C’mon Chris. Are manners really that difficult?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    barry: #209

    Regarding correlations with ocean/atmosphere cycles, this video displays a graph showing excellent correltation of ENSO with themperatures. (from 4:00)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM

    That’s probably a nice series (I’ve only watched a couple of those “Climate Denial Crock of the Week”), sort of a RealClimate without the rancor but with the all the one-sidedness. At least, a nice series if that’s what you want.

    This DCW says ENSO is making things warmer. The starting point of this blog entry is well beyond that lesson with the short-term (60 year cycle) that the state of the PDO causes (or is caused by?) the frequency of El Nino/La Nina. The long-term cycle or event is the recovery from the the LIA.

    If there’s a DCW that addresses Akasofu’s paper, I’d like to see it. If there isn’t one, please request Peter produce it.

    Others can save 6 minutes of their lives and see a similar graph at http://wermenh.com/climate/climate2009.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    Hi Ric,

    This DCW says ENSO is making things warmer.

    It doesn’t, as is clear from the graphic. It only correlates with short-term variability (warm and cool years/short periods). It’s not suggested ENSO is the cause of long-term warming.

    I read your pdf, Ric. Though this is not the place for a discussion of it, it seems to me you have misrepresented mainstream views. For example:

    Why does the temperature anomaly go up and down? A lot of people say “It’

    s the CO2, stupid!”

    Ignorant people might say that, but I, as ignorant as I am, would say that many factors influence temperature, including ocean/atmosphere systems.

    Your graph laying PDO over temps shows a rising trend for the PDO+AMO. Is that a proper representation? I’m not sure if the temps are scaled properly. And, most strangely, why does the graph finish in 1996 when the paper was written in 2009? Does the purported correlation continue beyond?

    There are other issues I would like to ask you about. If you are interested in a conversation, perhaps there is a free thread somewhere you could direct me to? If not, I have an idle forum standing by for just this oppurtunity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    At least, a nice series if that’s what you want.

    You wouldn’t be implying some kind of motivation on my part, would you? :-)

    The series is entertaining, but mostly I like it because the points are made simply and clearly, with pretty graphs and all. I rarely cite it (that was my first time, in fact), but I did in this case strictly for the 2 reasons I mentioned. The ENSO/temp overlay is the main one, my point being that oscillating variability doesn’t equal long-term upward trends. That appears to be something of a contention on this thread.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    David, if you’re still around, Barton Paul Levenson has posted a rebuttal to Miskolczi’s paper.

    http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Miskolczi.html

    I have read around at various sites discussing the paper, and this seemed to be the most condensed version of criticisms. For your interest.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    Les, how did you go spotting that cooler year after ten years thing?

    I found the graphic with more model runs and longer cool periods.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

    If you’re interested, you can follow the link to CMIPS products. Either you can run simulations yourself, or check out this ensemble assuming 1% per year increase of CO2.

    http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/overview_ms/tseries.pdf

    Following the red line (I’m slightly colour blind, so I hope I have that right) you can see a cooling trend of nearly 20 years in that run early in the series – finishing with an overall warming trend consistent with the other runs over the 80 year series. The red line ends up being the mean – just by eyeballing. You can also see a cooler year in the red line than one 30 years previous.

    To wrap up, some model runs do indeed show decade-long (and longer) cooling periods, but wind up warming in the long-term. When profiles are represented as an average of the ensembles, the stochastic variability is damped, just as the IPCC says. There is nothing about the last few years of cooler temperatures that is inconsistent with expected variability.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    And no monotonic warming is anticipated, either annually or at ten-year intervals. Any periodicity greater than that overstretches the meaning of ‘monotonic’ in this context, IMO.

    Monotonic:

    of a sequence or function; consistently increasing and never decreasing or consistently decreasing and never increasing in value.

    changing in one direction only; thus either strictly rising or strictly falling, but not reversing direction.

    A sequence of values increases monotonically if and only if they never decrease. Conversely, a sequence decreases monotonically if and only if they never increase.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    Sorry about my monotonic posts! I figure most contributors here are asleep or enjoying Easter. Happy Easter!

    New paper out saying that cool spells are anticipated in a warming world.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/cool-spells-in-a-warming-world/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    If it’s cold, that’s consistent with AGW, if it rains, that’s consistent with AGW, if the weather changes, it’s consistent, and if it doesn’t, well that is caused by AGW as everyone knows by now.

    The following presents a view of AGW that is far too balanced, in my opinion

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/sebastianjer/comment.html?entrynum=126


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Castles

    Barry, Roger Pielke Jr says that Andrew Revkin of the NYT was duped by this paper, because the authors wrongly interpret it as showing that the CURRENT period of no rise in temperature is “likely”, rather than that SUCH periods are likely (‘Spinning probabilities in GRL’, 7 April 2009, http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/spinning-probabilities-in-grl-5113#comments ). Pielke considers it remarkable that a paper embodying ‘such basic confusion and spin’ should have passed peer-review.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Geophys55

    Quoting:
    “This is a controversial area of study; however, there are far more studies that show the medieval warm period was not as warm as today.”

    Commenting:

    It’s not controversial at all. To deny the Medieval Warm Period is ignoring history, observation and science. High in the Rockies, you find bristlecone pines that are thousands of years old. Higher yet, above the present tree line, you find frozen stumps whose deaths date to near the end of the MWP. Besides that there are a plethora of historical accounts. Vikings grew crops where today nobody can. Ask a Norwegian.

    Some of those famous retreating glaciers are uncovering tree stumps, as well. Wasn’t warmer? Tough doggone trees they had back then!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    If it’s cold, that’s consistent with AGW, if it rains, that’s consistent with AGW, if the weather changes, it’s consistent, and if it doesn’t, well that is caused by AGW as everyone knows by now.

    What I tend to find is that spurious claims are made about what is expected under AGW, and when those claims are shown to be spurious, that prompts people to throw up their hands and say “anything goes under AGW”. In this thread, the spurious claims were that temperature rise should be monotonic, and the implication that a cool period of X number of years undermines the projections.

    What is expected is long-term warming averaged over the globe. The shortest ‘prediction’ we have from the IPCC is of a warming over 20 years. Someone quoted it upthread. When people try to make argument against AGW theory by latching on to a briefer period, all it takes is a few cites to correct the misapprehension. That’s what I spend most of my time doing in this debate – distinguishing what has and has not been said by various parties. Misrepresentation is THE most comon fault.

    Ian, I haven’t paid for the paper, so I haven’t read it, but I believe I’ve cited actual model projections properly to establish that ‘cool’ or flat periods like the current one appear in model runs that wind up with overall warming. Whether such periods are ‘normal’, ‘likely’, or ‘rare’ is of some interest, but the concept that cool periods of a few years to a decade or a bit more fatally undermines AGW theory – is wrong. Please read my recent posts where I attempt to substantiate this and tell me if I’ve failed to corroborate my argument.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Castles

    Barry, In my opinion, the IPCC chart to which you provided a link (#220) neatly illustrates the point under discussion.

    It is true that a projected future cooling was exhibited according to ONE realisation of ONE scenario (one of those in the A2 family) over ONE or maybe more decadal intervals. But, to take an extreme case for purposes of illustration, saying that ‘cool spells are anticipated in a warming world’ is like warning that ‘plane crashes are anticipated in a world in which there are thousands of flights every day.’ It can’t be inferred from this accurate statement that the crash of any particular flight is ‘utterly normal’ or ‘likely’ (to use Revkin’s words to characterise the current period of no warming).

    Your statement that ‘There is nothing about the last few years of cooler temperatures that is inconsistent with expected variability’ is correct as far as it goes, but one could equally say that there’s nothing about a coin coming up ‘heads’ ten times in a row that is inconsistent with the expectation that there’ll be about 500 heads in 1000 throws.

    At some point, however, after 10 or 20 or 50 successive ‘heads’, the suspicion will arise that the results may be attributable to the coin rather than than to an extraordinary coincidence. Equally, a prolonged period of no warming or cooling will at some point lead to justifiable suspicious about the GCMs.

    There are some pertinent discussions of these issues on Lucia Liljegren’s blog at http://rankexploits.com/musings/ (see her posts in the category ‘GCMs’ and, in particular, her patient and thorough replies to inquirers in comments).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    The paper is on NOAA’s website. Here it is.

    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf

    I note that Pielke Jnr’s post directly supports my argumentation above. He goes on to discuss likelihood of cool periods. Fair enough.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    It is true that a projected future cooling was exhibited according to ONE realisation of ONE scenario

    Not so. I’ve provided three references, and there are quite a few runs with cool periods that match the current situation at various intervals. In the paper above, the authors avow they picked one at random.

    At some point, however, after 10 or 20 or 50 successive ‘heads’, the suspicion will arise that the results may be attributable to the coin rather than than to an extraordinary coincidence. Equally, a prolonged period of no warming or cooling will at some point lead to justifiable suspicious about the GCMs.

    I completely agree. Let’s stay tuned.

    I have a busy weekend ahead. I will visit Lucia’s blog at your recommendation when I have time again – thanks for pointing to it. In the meantime, could you provide a more specific link? There’s a lot to choose from!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    barry #217

    > This DCW says ENSO is making things warmer.

    It doesn’t, as is clear from the graphic. It only correlates with short-term variability (warm and cool years/short periods). It’s not suggested ENSO is the cause of long-term warming.

    Well, okay. The important part is that the PDO correlates with temperatures over the PDO record.

    I read your pdf, Ric. Though this is not the place for a discussion of it, it seems to me you have misrepresented mainstream views. For example:

    Why does the temperature anomaly go up and down? A lot of people say

    “It’s the CO2, stupid!”

    Ignorant people might say that, but I, as ignorant as I am, would say that many factors influence temperature, including ocean/atmosphere systems.

    Actually, that line is going to get replaced and shouldn’t have survived my review. It adds nothing and is distracting. I just get distracted with too much other stuff to get back to it.

    I wasn’t really trying to represent or misrepresent mainstream views. I wanted to write something reflecting the state of the climate, interesting events, observations, and papers over the year, and let it be somewhat biased toward my views. If the mainstream views include what the Society of Environmental Journalists advocates, then I should have things that don’t match! As for picking on the sillier of mainstream (and An Inconvenient Truth) claims about polar bears and news media reporting on single years of data as evidence of climate change, well too bad. I’ve seen worse on Realclimate.org

    Your graph laying PDO over temps shows a rising trend for the PDO+AMO. Is that a proper representation? I’m not sure if the temps are scaled properly. And, most strangely, why does the graph finish in 1996 when the paper was written in 2009? Does the purported correlation continue beyond?

    The graphs come from Joe D’Aleo. I haven’t verified the temperature Y-axis on the left, the axis on the right is likely scaling Joe did as part of his correlation work. Joes has an even better correlation with PDO+AMO+Solar, but I wanted just PDO in part because it stands on its own pretty well and in part to avoid claims about combining enough curves lets you match almost anything. (Mann’s hockey stick suffers from some of that.) The curves end in 2000, which is neither the 1996 you suggest nor the 2008 when they were produced. I did ask Joe for an updated set, figuring the recent cooling would improve the PDO fit, but all he could offer was something without r^2 figures. He’s busy too. Recent cooling and cool PDO means the PDO correlation should improve and the CO2 correlation become worse, though the century-long periods means the figures shouldn’t change significantly. I think I asked Joe for data over the satellite era, in part for the better data and in part because the recent cooling would have a greater effect within the shorter period.

    A primary goal this year is to learn scipy and numpy, mathematics codes for one of my favorite programming languages, and maybe R, and produce some of my own presentation-quality graphs with them. I can also make a strong case for spending less time on climate stuff and catch up on everything I’ve let slip!

    There are other issues I would like to ask you about. If you are interested in a conversation, perhaps there is a free thread somewhere you could direct me to? If not, I have an idle forum standing by for just this oppurtunity.

    Email works, see http://wermenh.com/contact.html , though I’d rather have a discussion in a more public arena to influence(?) more people.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Castles

    Barry, I suggest going to ‘GCMs’ in the list headed ‘Categories’ at the right of the home page of the link that I’ve posted. This links to five posts (but many relevant comments on the threads).

    And, at the risk of undermining what I’ve said about Lucia’s patience, I commend her comment (#12697) on the ‘Look, I can use made-up data, just like Gavin!’ thread, in which she criticises Dr Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate as follows:

    ‘Because Gavin fails to consider type II error, he is misintepreting “failure to reject” as “supporting” models. This is a typical undergraduate error made by those who don’t understand what the results of a statistical test even mean. So, he seems to be suggesting that something falling inside the +/- 95% bounds somehow means support [for] the models and therefore contradicts the current “reject”. Assuming this is what he means (and it seems to be what his readers think he means) then he is making an utterly foolish, ignorant claim. In reality, if we consider the power of this statistical test, we would anticipate failing to reject to occur even if the models are well off track.

    ‘The fact that, using real honest to goodness data we are observing “rejects” so shortly after the 2007 publication of the AR4 when the projections were actually dissemimated to the public is very meaningful.”

    I don’t follow what you mean about Roger Pielke Jr’s post ‘directly supports’ your argumentation above. Pielke strongly contests the argument in the Easterling and Wehner paper in GRL, as interpreted by Andrew Revkin, to the point of suggesting that E&W should not have passed peer review.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Girma

    The reason why I am a sceptic of the theory that ‘global warming is caused by human CO2 emission’ is the following.

    Let us do the following experiment to verify the validity of the above theory: put in a vessel 0.03% carbon dioxide (the proportion before industrial revolution, 300 ppm), 1 % Water vapour, 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen and 0.9% of Argon. We next expose the vessel to a given amount of solar radiation for a given period of time and we record its temperature.

    On another identical vessel we repeat the same procedure except we change the proportion of carbon dioxide to its current proportion of 0.04% (400 ppm). I will be surprised if you see a temperature difference of even 0.1 degree centigrade between the two results.

    That is why I am sceptical about global warming caused by CO2 emission. Even if this is proven I am against increasing tax on energy. Tax on energy means increase in living cost, which will bring misery to the millions of the world’s poor. With out control and social engineering, let us better use nuclear energy, like France, where the country has enjoyed this reliable energy source for 30 years.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Girma

    UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Barry in #226, you are rejecting what David Evans has written this article about, there is nothing more I can say than you’ll have to wait another 30 years or so to decide who is right, and I’ll stick with “if it didn’t happen before this time it isn’t going to happen.”

    In the meanwhile I’m not going to live in Green Hell (as Steven Milloy has named the utopia the evironmental “movement” would like to condemn the human race to),

    and I will fight that with every single thing I have available to use


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    GIrma why would you be convinced either way by an experiment that has no relationship whatsoever with our atmosphere? Strange way to go about things?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Planet Gore: Below, a graph from the presentation by Dr. Syun Akasofu at the recent Heartland conference here in New York, which offers some useful historical perspective on temperature trends. Jo Nova guest blogger David Evans discusses it here. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB #235

    > Girma why would you be convinced either way by an experiment that has no relationship whatsoever with our atmosphere? Strange way to go about things?

    When learning the internals of an unfamiliar complex computer program I like to start with fixing bugs in it. It provides a goal and reaching there involves learning new material and discarding erroneous assumptions along the way.

    While Girma’s starting point explains nothing about radiative transport of energy (hint, you need gases and external environment at different temperatures) (hint, you need a sample size large enough to capture IR photons and reradiate them), it is a good starting point.

    How did you arrive at your current understanding? I hope you didn’t blindly accept the output of the IPCC without accounting for their political goals first.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    The curves end in 2000, which is neither the 1996 you suggest nor the 2008 when they were produced.

    So they do – my fault for skimming.

    I’d rather have a discussion in a more public arena to influence(?) more people.

    I’d rather have a public dscussion, too, to allow more people (hopefully with better skill than me/us) to weigh in. I don’t imagine we’ll influence many people in blogsites. Partly because most people seem to come to the table with their minds made up, and partly because not many people read these discusions (I imagine less than 50 read the comments section here).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    I don’t follow what you mean about Roger Pielke Jr’s post ‘directly supports’ your argumentation above.

    To distill the flow of argument, it has been posited (here and elsewhere) that the last few years of cooling is unanticipated by the IPCC and therefore projection models are falsified, and therefore AGW theory (I don’t know how better to phrase this) is falsified. Further, it has been claimed that the IPCC recommends that warming will be monotonic (the time scale – annual/decadal? – has not been clear), and I intended to demonstrate that this was not so by pointing out individual model runs. As far as I can see, having plotted first and second order polynomials over a range of periods to December 2008 (10, 20, 30 years for example) and with a variety of surface records, the current ‘cool’ period began 2004 – 2005. For the period from 1998, the trend is (roughly) flat. I have responded with the latter in mind, calling it a cool period for the sake of argument.

    All I have tried to show is that cooling/flat periods of these lengths are not unexpected and therefore don’t ‘disprove’ climate models (and the theory of global warming). Nothing else. Pielke writes:

    it is fair to say that the current period of an extended lack of warming certainly does not disprove global warming over the longer term

    That is a specific cite in between other comments he makes in line with my own argument.

    As I said in that post referencing Pielke’s support, he goes on to talk about the likelihood of such cool periods occuring. His argument is that the lack of robust discussion on this in Easterling’s paper means the paper is of poor quality.

    He does not make much of a case out of this thread himself, other than that it is ‘rare’ – and he, too, references Lucia’s blog. Otherwise, he misrepresents some of what is actually said in the the paper. To whit:

    Pielke:

    Given that we are in the midst of a rare event, it is strange to see a peer reviewed paper claim that “misleading” to raise questions about model predictions or to question established theory in such a context.

    The word “misleading” is used once in the paper. Here is what is actually said:

    Claims that global warming is not occurring that are derived from a cooling observed over such short time periods ignore this natural variability and are misleading.

    His criticisms in this vein have much more traction when citing Revkin’s article on the study.

    Pielke is making argument on a premise quite different to that of Easterling’s document and is claiming that Easterling’s premise is not worthy. I disagree, as would, I hope, many of the posters here, who wish to see their criticisms answered directly by the science community. As the criticism rebutted in Easterling’s paper – that the current cool or flat period undermines the theory of global warming – has significant presence in the semi-popular literature (and, by the way, on this thread), why are ‘skeptics’ annoyed that it has been answered directly?

    However, I think it is a pity that the science community feels the need to address such canards. I reckon that’s indicative of the amount of noise the canard generates, rather than the quality of it. Pielke would like scientific papers strictly to consider deeper matters. So would I. Less informed critics want their questions answered now. Mercifully, this paper is brief, as is the work behind it. Appropriately so.

    Here are the two links again – the first to the paper, the second to Pielke’s criticism of it – so that you can make your own mind up where Pielke has accurately or inaccurately represented the purpose and claims in the paper. (I don’t assume you haven’t read it – just in case)

    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf

    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/spinning-probabilities-in-grl-5113

    The meaningfulness of the ‘rarity’ of the current period is worth discussing. I don’t dispute that. I’ll try to find the relevant posts at Lucia’s after the weekend.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    Hello Girma.

    Let us do the following experiment to verify the validity of the above theory:

    I’m not sure if that is an appropriate way to conduct the experiment (someone more qualified may clear that up). You may be interested in a likewise simple test done in a laboratory.

    http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

    Not with the parameters you specified, unfortunately.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    Reviewing Akasofu’s paper, I find the hypothesis that we are experiencing continued warming out of the LIA unconvincing. No physical mechanism is posited – instead, it’s just the planet returning to some implied ‘normal’ state. Also problematic is that recent temeratures are well above the implied baseline, and that the rate of warming has increased over the last 50 years/century. Akasofu has simply assumed (ok – he presents his hypothesis as a ‘possibility’) that somehow the Earth is rebounding from the LIA – that the LIA is an anomaly beneath a ‘normal’ earth temperature, rather than just a fluctuation with no tension against this implied normal. This is in contrast to studies of these periods that look for physical mechanisms rather than assume a mean state (not to be confused with statistical interpretations).

    This premise has to be firmer in order for his thesis to work. As far as I’ve read on the LIA in the popular semi-media, this case is not a strong one. That fluctuations correlate to some degree with multi-decadal oscillations is not too surprising. What is missing from Akasofu’s thesis is the physical basis for the overall warming signature. Assumptions that it is natural rebound aren’t good enough.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    This premise has to be firmer in order for the thesis to work. As far as I’ve read on the LIA in the popular semi-media, this case is not a strong one. That fluctuations correlate to some degree with carbon dioxide in the air is not too surprising. What is missing from IPCC’s work is the physical basis for the overall warming. Assumptions that it is not natural variation of climate aren’t good enough.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    What is missing from IPCC’s work is the physical basis for the overall warming.

    I know you’re being rhetorical, but this assertion simply isn’t true. There is an empirical basis for an enhanced greenhouse effect from increased CO2. There is a physical basis in radiative transfer analysis.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Oh, OK, Barry. Got it now. Cool.

    Right now I feel like telling some AGW jokes.

    Next to AGW, Jim Jones and Jonesville doesn’t even look like a “cult.”

    “Scientists” got involved with the IPCC because they were stupid to make a living selling bridges they didn’t own.

    The Government doesn’t put out a warning not to buy into AGW because it has concluded that people are smart enough not to buy bridges that other people try to sell them that they may not in fact own.

    There was a time that a number of factors were used to evaluate whether someone was “stupid.” Now there’s only one.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    AGW = Acquiescing Governments Win :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    How do you get into politics these days? Become a climate scientist.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JLKrueger

    Assumptions that it is natural rebound aren’t good enough.

    The null hypothesis should always be that changes are a natural variation.

    The specific mechanism, whether natural or manmade, is a different story.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    Agreed. But the null hypothesis has no impact on the implied condition of rebound.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    If anybody is interested in temperature trends across Western Australia from the 1800s to the present day … http://www.waclimate.net


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    “But the null hypothesis has no impact on the implied condition of rebound.”

    Barry, I think you have missed the whole point of the article. Dr. Akasofu has stated that the “rebound” IS part of the natural variation of the climate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    That’s exactly what I’ve been talkng about. He just states it.

    This is the sum of Akasfu’s premise.

    This 150~200-year-long linear warming trend is likely to be a natural change. One possible cause of this linear increase may be the Earth’s continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age (1400-1800); the recovery began in 1800~1850.

    Akasofu is clearly saying here that the earth has some ‘ideal ‘normal’ temperature that the LIA has departed from. The key word is “recovery”.

    No discussion of that mechanisms caused the LIA, no discussion of what caused it to *end*. No defintion of what the ‘normal’ climate regime or temperature may be. Just a statement.

    It’s odd. Usually I see critics hammering proponents for assuming some sort of ‘normal’ climate conditon that we’ve supposedly strayed from. This is exacly what Akasofu is inferring with LIA, but no one seems to mind so much today.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Boy, you’re a pretty hard case, Barry.

    It is assumed that the LIA and a “recovery” from the LIA are based on astonomical influences, Barry, and the Earth’s relative position with respect to the Sun.

    The thirty-year ocillations within the overall actronomical cycle(s) are normal climatic events, caused by a number of factors, none of which identify CO2 as responsible for a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a degree change in temperature.

    One doesn’t add “addtional” mechanisms to accout for observations if there are enough known physical mecahinsms to explain observations within the limits of measurements.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kasphar

    The warming after the LIA would have started before any significant CO2 impact so I would conclude that would have been a ‘naturally occurring change’. If you look at the Vostok record, temps fall and recover all the time (there is a temp range of some 14C without any influence from CO2 at all). I don’t assume there is any ‘normal’ climate so the 1961-90 average temps used for comparison seems a rather flawed basis for climate anomalies. If temps can vary so much in the past, then an 0.8C increase is well within normal temp range.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    As far as the UN goes, I can understand why they WANT the AGW to be true.

    But for others (unless they have a yearning to control other people, especially people they don’t like) – why do they WANT AGW to be true?

    My impression is based on the comments of the AGW enthusiasts here, and elsewhere. Beneath the surface they appear to have a longing for the truth of this AGW nonsense – why?

    It would seem “noromal” to me that anybody in their right mind would be HAPPY if such a thing as AGW was not valid, and they would be enthusiastic to learn there is no basis at all to it.

    Mysteriously, the reverse is true


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    I meant to add that the 30 year (or so) cycles are the culmination (or the integration, really) of a number of climatic events known not to be tied to astronomical influences, including the Southern Oscillation (inaccurately associated with El Nino); the NAO, the PDO, etc. A number of factors are indicators of these, but not the actual “causes.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Brian (254): Believers in AGW want, nay NEED, their belief to be true because it underpins their world view, which is that humans are wicked, there are too many of us and we are wrecking the natural world by virtue of our very existence and “obsession” with growth, technological progress, comfort etc. etc. We can atone for our collective wickedness by renouncing our energy-hungry lifestyle and revert to a simpler life in “harmony with Nature”. They need AGW to be true so they can justify the demands they are making of us all.

    A lot of them are Gaia-worshipers or neo-pagans, either explicitly or implicitly. See fairly recent interview with Tim Flannery on ABC’s “Enough Rope”
    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s2369164.htm

    (How Tim Flannery was named “Australian of the Year” a few years ago defies imagination: In the interview linked above he is quoted as saying, among other outrageous claims: “I don’t think the 21st Century is going to be as carefree as the 20th Century”. The 20th Century “carefree”????)

    Australian Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, made worldwide headlines when he said, “some of the more hysterical and extreme claims about global warming appear symptomatic of a pagan emptiness, of a Western fear when confronted by the immense and basically uncontrollable forces of nature. Years ago,” he added, “I was struck by the fears that middle-class kids without religion had about nuclear war. It was almost an obsession with a few of them. It’s almost as though people without religion, who don’t belong to any of the great religious traditions, have got to be frightened of something. Perhaps they’re looking for a cause that is almost a substitute for religion [...] In the past pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions”

    The now deceased writer Michael Crichton also spoke about environmentalism as a (substitute for) religion:

    “… But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

    Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

    There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    There is another, more prosaic reason: No one likes to be wrong! I have possibly posted this quote somewhere here before, but it’s so good, I’ll post it again:

    “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
    - Leo Tolstoy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Yes I have seen the quote from Count Tolstoy and it surprises me to see someone’s writing and sentence structure that reminds me so much of my own in Post #256.

    One possible reason for this observation is, we both read the same authors when we were younger and I’m not going to speculate any more on that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Extending what Anne-Kit has said just a bit, it seems universally characteristic of humans to need an “enemy.”

    The devout find this enemy in the Devil, and fifty years ago Westerners found the enemy in the form of Communists.

    A decade ago Westerners found the enemy in “terrorists” (of Middle Eastern descent).

    Conveniently (or inevitably, possibly) this “enemy” has reappered in the form of the Human Race, and this rather abstract entity takes the more personal form of one’s neighbour (if they don’t buy a hybrid automobile, solar panels, etc and appear to be unconcerned or nonchalant about the state of the “environment”)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    It is assumed that the LIA and a “recovery” from the LIA are based on astonomical influences, Barry, and the Earth’s relative position with respect to the Sun.

    It’s been a couple of years since I read much on it, but at that time there were a number of hypotheses competing: volcanic activity, multi-decadal and centennial oscillations (internal processes), and also solar changes (external forcing), for example. I’m not aware that any of these have recently achieved a remarkable prominence since then.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

    I’m also not aware of any LIA hypothesis centred on orbital variations. AFAIK, orbital variation is considered an initiator of large scale, long term glacial events at 40k yr – 100 k yr intervals. IE, orbital changes are too slow to be held responsible for significant centennial changes.

    If you have references for studies in line with your assertion, can you link them here? Peer-reviewed studies, preferably, but news items in reputable science publications would do as well. I’ve just started reading on the subject again.

    Akasofu’s paper does not mention any particular cause for the LIA or the climb out of it – except for the vague assertion of ‘recovery’, implying that the event is an anomaly with respect to a ‘normal’ climate state. Because this premise is asserted rather than substantiated, I think the paper suffers from circular reasoning – the 20th century temperature rise is natural because the temperature rise is natural. His conclusion is an iteration of his unsubstantiated premise.

    I don’t mean to be hard. I’m just being skeptical. Peer-reviewed science papers are filled with qualifiers and usually mention competing hypotheses. Akasofu’s paper is rather more certain and devoid of any discussion of the physical causes of LIA, although there is plenty of substantiation for the event itself. It reads more like advocacy than a science paper. His premise may be sound, it’s just that he hasn’t demonstrated that.

    I would be delighted if AGW was wrong or greatly exaggerated, by the way.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Here you are Barry and I hope you read Russian

    http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/acp-7-2003-2007Russian.pdf

    I also hope you’ll forgive me if meet your last assertion with a certain amount of scepticism


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    The period for the LIA is not exact, by the way, but in the literature is bounded, at a maximum, between 1200 and 1950 (but more often at 1850). Akasofu works from an assumption that is at odds with the science to date. Some work is needed, then, to validate that assumption. That’s basically what I’m saying.

    Just for interests sake, Schmidt and Mann co-authored a paper discussiing the influence of solar irradiance on the LIA. The lead author was Drew Schindell.

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_etal_1.pdf

    Not saying that hypothesis the winner or anything, just something I was looking at. The common criticism that solar influence is under-examined by the ‘orthodoxy’ also floated into my mind.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    The best news I have heard today is, Michael Mann appears to accept that the Little Ice Age existed at all


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    Afraid I don’t read Russian, Brian. Is there anything in English?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    The best news I have heard today is, Michael Mann appears to accept that the Little Ice Age existed at all

    The conclusions are based on models, so I don’t know how much traction that will get with you. :)

    Mann acknowledges there was a slight global cool period that is sometimes called the Little Ice Age (he’s referrd to it as such, and as a “mini ice age” and more formally as the Maunder Minimum), and considers that the effect was not uniform globally, mainly centred on NH continents. I don’t know what you mean by

    Michael Mann appears to accept that the Little Ice Age existed at all

    I suspect you’ve oversimplified your premise.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    barry

    In this power point presentation

    http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/Mann/lectures/SantaCruz-Public06.ppt

    backing up a talk Mann gave at the University of California at Santa Cruz on Wednesday 10th May 2006, Michael Mann replicates the wiki graph which includes “Little Ice Age” captioned under the period.

    I found reference to the lecture at climateaudit, where a contributor who attended noted that Mann talked about the “mini ice age”.

    I googled for a text on the lecture but only came up with the ppt.

    http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Michael+Mann+at+University+of+California+at+Santa+Cruz+on+Wednesday+10th+May+2006.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

    Here’s the graph he used.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

    As I said, most of my time in this debate is spent trying to tease out what has and has not been said – mainly regarding the mainstream view, which is misrepresented very frequently. Misrepresentation is THE most common fault, and by no means limited to critics. I wish people would take more care.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] The big temperature picture. Graph and insight from Dr Syun Akasofu (2009 International Conference on Climate Change, New York, March 2009). The global temperature has been rising at a steady trend rate of 0.5°C per century since the end of the little ice age in the 1700s (when the Thames River would freeze over every winter). On top of the trend are oscillations that last about thirty years in each direction: [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    So sorry, Barry, if I seemed to suggest in any way that Michael Mann might be perceived as a “denier.”

    [A short story that relates to Michael Mann: With the promotion of the notorious "hockey stick" graph of Mann's, a 13-year old boy from the USA became convinced that it was impossible for him to reach the age of 20 and he hence wrote his own obituary. The boy is now 17 years old and I don't know if his views of his own liklihood of reaching 20 years have changed, or if the discrediting of that particular fraud had any impact on his apparent fatalism.]

    Barry, I can’t shake the feeling that your statement “I would be delighted if AGW was wrong or greatly exaggerated …” is not a completely forthright representation of your true views of this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Brian, why would anyone not be delighted if AGW were in fact not happening? How strange that you would question Barry’s sincerity? I certainly get the feeling, however, that many skeptics would jump for joy were we to plunge in to a pulverising ice age.

    And Brian in 259 – yes indeed it seems that many many humans have nominated Al Gore, James Hansen, and “greenies” to be their enemy of choice.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Why would I question Barry’s sincerity? Because Barry doesn’t seem satified to hear that “global warming” or “global” anything else for that matter is governed by natural forces and not human activity.

    Would I be happy to see an ice age come along? I would be sad to see an ice age happen when the Government had taken steps to limit fuel for people that is for sure. Once the Government does something like that it is very difficult to reverse the laws.

    Do I have animosity toward Al Gore and his sycophantic ilk? No more animosity that I have toward anyone else who, through their misguided arrogance, are either obblivious or wilfully malicious toward fellow human beings, who are not as well off financially as they and who cannot possibly survive under the atrocious demands these people would place on others.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    No more animosity that I have toward anyone else who, through their misguided arrogance, are either obblivious or wilfully malicious toward fellow human beings, who are not as well off financially as they and who cannot possibly survive under the atrocious demands these people would place on others.

    I feel exactly the same way about you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    As I view myself, Boris, SOMEONE has to has to be a strong and willful as Gore is, and otherwise Gore and his coterie would just ride roughshod over innocent victims with his menacing demands, people who have no idea of what it was Gore would like to do to them.

    Sorry about that Boris, but I am going to keep it up until the public has rejected AGW and everything that goes with it, or I die, which ever comes first.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    The IPCC thought it would foist something on the general public without too much resistance or legitimate question.

    The IPCC did not plan on a couple of hundred people in the world dedicated to making sure that did not happen.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Cheer up, Boris. There are lots of web sites where they put out the welcome mat for global warmers and alarmists, and people with that philosophy can shout off their distaste for sceptics and “deniers.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] global warming (AGW) scare continues to lose ground to scientists willing to point out the obvious about the Emperor’s New Clothes (hat tip to Jerry [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John (Jack) Leicester

    Dave Evans has already pointed out that scientists 2003 studies of ice cores clearly show that atmospheric increases in CO2 FOLLOW, NOT LEAD, atmospheric increases in temperature by 800 years. Therefore, one can say that CO2 does NOT cause global warming and, therefore, global warming, as hypothesized, and, if it exists at all, is not human caused.

    Further, the global warming models and the climatologists who make them are simply playing heuristic games. A proper scientific model of climate cannot be created on grids with wide meshes. It would take hundreds of Fourier series 2nd order equations of all of the relevant parameters to even begin to model the environment. The equations are unsolvable with any of today’s computers. Nor will they probably ever be solved. Most of the climate models have set the heat transfer of the atmospheric components to zero. That is an unscientific fraud. Also, Water vapor is not taken into account properly because it is not accurately measureable in the atmosphere. Yet, atmospheric water has the greatest capability of intercepting infrared heat; and, especially, heat FROM the sun, of which the infrared component is about 45%. No mention of this is made in any climatological modeling or data.

    No one seems to have questioned the mechanisms of exactly how atmospheric gases “trap” heat in the atmosphere or how it is retransmitted back to earth’s near surface atmosphere. Climatologists appear to have forgotten that heat rises and that most of the heat transmitted from earth to the troposphere is through conduction and convection. Gas molecules get excited when heated. Their kinetic energy increases. They expand. They ascend to higher altitudes, transmitting this heat to their colder surroundings until stability is achieved. Radiation in the infrared spectrum is not a factor in the heat transmission to the atmosphere just as it is not the main cause of heat rising (temperature increasing) in a greenhouse. This is scientific misconduct to suggest such a similarity. The radiant heat earth transfers to the atmosphere is virtually insignificant.

    Physicists have tried to duplicate this ‘heat trapping’ mechanism in the labs. They have doubled the current atmospheric value of CO2 and measured the two most important characteristics: the capability of the gas to transmit heat and to diffuse it, isochorically. There were no changes in theseheat transfer or diffusivity values in any of the gas components or with atmospheric air with the doubling of Atmospheric CO2. The conclusion was that, if there had been significant changes in these characteristics, “we would have found a new ‘superinsulator’ never previously found on earth”.

    Atmospheric trace Gases, such as CO2, Methane, etc. cannot reflect heat. Heat can be reflected only by a gas in a liquid or solid phase, such as water (clouds). So, no heat is ‘reflected’ back to earth from such fictitious sources as “greenhouse gases”.

    Finally, and obviously, heat from a cold source (the atmospheric temperature averages – 18 Deg. Celsius) cannot be transmitted to a warmer area (earth’s near atmosphere with avg. temperature +15 deg. Celsius) without mechanical work, as in a refrigerator. Climate models that have created this are in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They have created a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.

    The ‘greenhouse effect’ is a scientific falsehood. Climate models are unscientific. The whole hypothesis of global warming is a scientific fraud. It was created by a Discredited United Nations IPCC, which studies were never of the reliable double blind type and whose published results were never peer reviewd or allowed for comment by the government ‘scientists’ involved.

    It is a sad era where science has been so distorted for political gain.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ann Kit-Littler posts a particularly stupid ad hominem about AGW theory being a neo-pagan religion. How does that cover people like me, a born-again Christian, or Dr. John Houghton of the IPCC, ditto? Neither of us is a pagan in any way.

    How about debating the actual issue instead of finding ways to insult the people you disagree with?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John “Jack” Leicester posts a message so chock full of scientific errors it’s hard to know where to start pointing them out. I guess I’ll just take each one in the order it appears.

    “Dave Evans has already pointed out that scientists 2003 studies of ice cores clearly show that atmospheric increases in CO2 FOLLOW, NOT LEAD, atmospheric increases in temperature by 800 years. Therefore, one can say that CO2 does NOT cause global warming and, therefore, global warming, as hypothesized, and, if it exists at all, is not human caused.”

    Your “therefore” is a non sequitur. Yes, in a natural deglaciation, CO2 follows temperature, because the slight warming from Milankovic variations causes the oceans to emit carbon dioxide, solubility of CO2 in seawater going down as temperature increases. That is not what is happening now. The new CO2 is not coming from the ocean, it is coming from fossil fuels, as we can tell from the radioisotope signature (Suess 1955). And carbon dioxide is still a greenhouse gas. In glacial cycles, the Milankovic variations are not, in and of themselves, enough to explain the observed temperature variations. You need CO2 as an amplifier.

    “Further, the global warming models and the climatologists who make them are simply playing heuristic games. A proper scientific model of climate cannot be created on grids with wide meshes. It would take hundreds of Fourier series 2nd order equations of all of the relevant parameters to even begin to model the environment. The equations are unsolvable with any of today’s computers. Nor will they probably ever be solved.”

    Manabe and Strickler published a pretty good radiative-convective model of the atmosphere back in 1964. Since then the models have improved considerably. Your assertion that they can’t model climate accurately is pretty lame in view of the fact that they DO model climate accurately.

    Most of the climate models have set the heat transfer of the atmospheric components to zero.

    Huh? What? What does “the heat transfer of the atmospheric components” even mean?

    “That is an unscientific fraud. Also, Water vapor is not taken into account properly because it is not accurately measureable in the atmosphere.”

    Every RCM and GCM in the world accounts for the radiative effect of water vapor, and where in the world did you get the idea that it can’t be measured in the atmosphere? There are all kinds of ways to measure it, varying from sampling bottles to satellite radiative transfer methods.

    Yet, atmospheric water has the greatest capability of intercepting infrared heat; and, especially, heat FROM the sun, of which the infrared component is about 45%. No mention of this is made in any climatological modeling or data.

    That last sentence is just wrong. As I said, they all take it into account. And there are reams of data about it.

    “No one seems to have questioned the mechanisms of exactly how atmospheric gases “trap” heat in the atmosphere or how it is retransmitted back to earth’s near surface atmosphere.”

    I think John Tyndall pointed out that it worked back in 1859, as a result of his lab experiments, and the explanation for how it happens is a consequence of quantum mechanics. This is all something you could have learned with a Google search.

    “Climatologists appear to have forgotten that heat rises and that most of the heat transmitted from earth to the troposphere is through conduction and convection.”

    Sensible heat transfer from Earth’s surface to the atmosphere averages about 17 watts per square meter. Latent heat transfer is about 80. Radiative is about 356. See Trenberth et al. 2009, which I believe is available on the web as a preprint. An earlier Earth atmospheric energy budget, Kiehl and Trenberth 1997, is also available and gives similar figures.

    “Gas molecules get excited when heated. Their kinetic energy increases. They expand.”

    Molecules expand?

    ” They ascend to higher altitudes, transmitting this heat to their colder surroundings until stability is achieved. Radiation in the infrared spectrum is not a factor in the heat transmission to the atmosphere”

    356 watts per square meter, Jack.

    ” just as it is not the main cause of heat rising (temperature increasing) in a greenhouse. This is scientific misconduct to suggest such a similarity.”

    No, it is scientific illiteracy on your part not to understand the process and sheer bloody-mindedness to infer from your lack of understanding that scientists are somehow being dishonest. Physician, heal thyself.

    ” The radiant heat earth transfers to the atmosphere is virtually insignificant.”

    356 watts per square meter, Jack.

    “Physicists have tried to duplicate this ‘heat trapping’ mechanism in the labs. They have doubled the current atmospheric value of CO2 and measured the two most important characteristics: the capability of the gas to transmit heat and to diffuse it, isochorically.”

    Huh? What? Come again?

    ” There were no changes in theseheat transfer or diffusivity values in any of the gas components or with atmospheric air with the doubling of Atmospheric CO2.”

    That would certainly come as a surprise to the guys at NASA who compiled the HIGHTRAN and HIGHTEMP databases. Wonder where they got their figures? Or where Tyndall got his way back in 1859?

    ” The conclusion was that, if there had been significant changes in these characteristics, “we would have found a new ’superinsulator’ never previously found on earth”.
    Atmospheric trace Gases, such as CO2, Methane, etc. cannot reflect heat.”

    Nor does the greenhouse effect depend on gases reflecting heat, or anything else. Where did you get the idea that reflection was involved? Scattering in the thermal IR is almost zero.

    ” Heat can be reflected only by a gas in a liquid or solid phase, such as water (clouds). So, no heat is ‘reflected’ back to earth from such fictitious sources as “greenhouse gases”.”

    See above. The greenhouse gas doesn’t work by reflection.

    “Finally, and obviously, heat from a cold source (the atmospheric temperature averages – 18 Deg. Celsius) cannot be transmitted to a warmer area (earth’s near atmosphere with avg. temperature +15 deg. Celsius) without mechanical work, as in a refrigerator. Climate models that have created this are in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They have created a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.”

    Nope. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says there cannot be a NET transfer of heat from colder to warmer object without added work. But there is no net transfer from the colder atmosphere to the warmer ground. The atmosphere at about 255 K mean temperature radiates about 333 watts per square meter to the ground, and the ground at about 288 K radiates 356 watts per square meter to the atmosphere, so the net transfer is from ground to atmosphere and there is no violation of 2LOT. I’ve given all you the figures you need above to calculate the entropy. Do the math.

    “The ‘greenhouse effect’ is a scientific falsehood.”

    No, it’s physics established now for 150 years.

    ” Climate models are unscientific.”

    Scientists use them all the time.

    ” The whole hypothesis of global warming is a scientific fraud.”

    You are too easy with accusations of fraud, friend. Just because you don’t understand the science doesn’t mean the scientists are lying. Stop bearing false witness.

    ” It was created by a Discredited United Nations IPCC, which studies were never of the reliable double blind type and whose published results were never peer reviewd or allowed for comment by the government ’scientists’ involved.”

    Well, of course not, since the IPCC reports are reviews of the literature, not the literature itself. But they list the studies they are reviewing. Read the AR4 and see. Plenty of peer-reviewed papers there.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    JLKrueger

    Barton Paul Levenson:
    April 24th, 2009 at 3:56 am
    How about debating the actual issue instead of finding ways to insult the people you disagree with?

    I concur wholeheartedly with that sentiment. Nevertheless, I found myself laughing when I read it.

    Given the ad hominem that we on the Skeptic side endure on bastions of principled scientific debate such as “Real Climate,” “Open Mind,” “DeSmog,” “Climate Progress,” “Grist” and “Manbiot,” just to name some of the most prominent, I found it ironic that an AGW adherent would whine about ad hominem.

    In fact, you ought to be happy you aren’t simply banned from contributing on most Skeptic blogs, as the above named blogs do to anyone capable of carrying a reasoned argument against the AGW hypothesis. As a general rule, the thing that most likely gets you banned on this side of the fence is excessive profanity.

    I’m willing to bet you haven’t lectured your co-conspirators on the blogs I named above about “sticking to the science.” Go clean your own tent before you start lecturing Skeptics about the evils of ad hominem.

    In the beginning all skeptics wanted to argue was the science, only to be shouted down with claims that “the science is settled.” Your side dragged this debate into the political and sensationalist arena. The scientists on your side rarely correct the media when they distort nuanced scientific reports with sensationalist nonsense. They let the distortions go uncorrected because it fits their political agenda and feeds the money machine.

    One side tried arguing science while the other side made slick science fiction documentaries and preached to scientifically illiterate politicians. Arguing science against emotion won’t work. You’ve got people on your side arguing that Skepticism should be classified as a mental illness.

    You might be a principled AGW adherent willing to argue only science, but if that is true you are a rare bird. Your most prominent “spokespeople” are not so principled, nor do they have the courage to openly debate the subject. They just keep repeating the mantra, “the science is settled” and “you are just deniers.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian Dodge #280:

    >I wonder why Dr. Akasofu didn’t use all the available data for his regression?

    My guess is that what appears to be a new paper is mostly a reissue of his original. I would have preferred he extended the data, but perhaps he didn’t want to include a new short cooling segment. The PDO flip is a bit ambiguous, it appeared to flip around 2001, but went back up until 2007 and has been negative since. The net effect since 2001 has been cooling.

    If you use Akasofu’s time splits based on the PDO (why didn’t you?):
    1882 – 1910 Cooling
    1910 – 1944 Warming
    1944 – 1975 Cooling
    1975 – 2001 Warming
    and add 2001 – present Cooling, you’ll get:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:10/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1882/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1944/trend/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.005/offset:-1.75/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1944/to:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend

    N.B. – I plotted the last segment twice because the first one was too faint to see well.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Barton Levenson, #278

    Nearly all statements you have made in your long response, which purport to be factual, are in fact inaccurate. But I am weary of writing long-winded responses, and shall refrain, unless there is some gain for me to do so.

    In this case the gain for me would be, for you to agree that your statements or conclusions are not valid.

    If you feel so inclined, pick any of your statements that are taken as your evidence of the veracity of AGW, which you believe would compel you to reject AGW – if those statements were found to be invalid.

    Go ahead.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod B

    JLKrueger says, “You’ve got people on your side arguing that Skepticism should be classified as a mental illness.”

    Not to mention a crime, too.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert Williams

    I refer you to a report “UN IPCC Scientist Dr Steven M.Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Second and Third Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions, challenged the IPCC’s climate claims.”
    (he said) “Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    JLK, you really should have your own blog. Oh, I see that you do. http://accskeptic.blogspot.com/
    Excellent. You can never have too many climate skeptic blogs.

    As for BPL’s complaint about insulting people you disagree with, it’s amusing to see that on his page he writes:
    “Explaining climatology is great fun, but it’s even more fun to point out why some other poor slob is wrong about it. Especially when the slobs in question are trying to keep humanity from taking badly needed steps to avert the worst effects of the coming crisis. I’ll add to this list whenever I run across another egregious example of denier error or dishonesty.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    By the way, Barton, if you can take a swat at Anne-Kit for suggesting that AGW is a neo-Pagan religious cult involving rather bizarre rituals and very questionable canonical figures who represent this cult

    - then you might as well do the same to me, because everything Anne-Kit suggests is true about this synthetic religious pseudo-scientific crypto-paranoid quasi-neolithic semi-nihilistic revanchist answer to civilisation, I will tell you is true about it, tenfold.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    Excuse me Barton: Where exactly did I say “ALL believers in AGW are neo pagans”?? Obviously, with you as a prime example, there are a few out there who are true believers but who really should know better than to fall for this kind of grand scale deception. What does the Bible say about deception, Barton?

    I do not indulge in ad hominem attacks, I leave that to your camp. My post consisted mainly of quotes from other people and was only specific in one instance, where I referred to Tim Flannery’s pagan beliefs. Which, if you cared to actually read the transcript from the interview I linked to, are pretty obvious from the man’s own lips.

    You, on the other hand, called my comments “stupid”. Now THAT’s ad hom! (ad fem? ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian Valentine writes:

    pick any of your statements that are taken as your evidence of the veracity of AGW, which you believe would compel you to reject AGW – if those statements were found to be invalid.

    The argument for AGW, reduced to a bare minimum, is:

    1. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859).
    2. CO2 is rising (Keeling et al. 1958).
    3. The new CO2 is coming mostly from fossil fuel combustion (Suess 1955).
    4. Therefore the surface temperature should be rising, and the increase in temperature should be related to the rise in CO2.

    The confirmation is:

    5. Temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley Centre CRU, UAH, RSS, etc., etc.).
    6. ln CO2 accounts for 76% of the variance of temperature anomaly from 1880-2008.

    Which of the above do you dispute?

    Brian Valentine writes:

    everything Anne-Kit suggests is true about this synthetic religious pseudo-scientific crypto-paranoid quasi-neolithic semi-nihilistic revanchist answer to civilisation, I will tell you is true about it, tenfold.

    I’m sure you would say all kinds of things, and very vehemently. The question is whether you have any evidence at all to back up your charges. (“Quasi-neolithic?” You think climatologists chip stone tools? Cool skill, if true.)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Anne-Kit,

    Do you understand what “ad hominem” means? It’s a formal logical fallacy: The arguer is a bad person or has bad traits, therefore we can disregard what he/she says. Did you not mean to infer, from calling believers in AGW neo-pagans, that their beliefs were therefore invalid?

    Sorry if the word “stupid” offended you. I didn’t say you were stupid, which would have been an ad hominem. I said your argument was stupid. Logical fallacies are stupid arguments, by definition.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Anne-Kit is diplomatic.

    On the other hand, I have reached the point where I don’t mince words:

    AGW is a STUPID concept.

    By extension, the flock of sheep that have bought into AGW (for whatever reasons) are STUPID.

    AGW is beyond the anti-intellectual basis of Pagsnism. AGW is gut-wrenching MISANTHROPY applied with sickening ELITISM.

    The only concept remotely similar to AGW in modern times is STALINISM.

    AGW is so extreme it would SICKEN a NEO-NAZI.

    There. And as far as I am concerned, this is a “polite” evaluation of it.
    [Before anyone replies... yes, this comment will be rephrased... - JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Alarmists seem to find most everything that is anti-AGW or anti-alarmist “offensive” in some way;

    in my remarks, they needn’t look too deeply to identify something that might “offend” them.

    I have had it with global warmers. Their belief system becomes their idea of a legal system for everyone else, and I make no apologies on behalf of the people who would suffer greatly as a result of their very misguided “idealism.”-BV


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian Valentine writes, in his usual gentle, logical style:

    AGW is a STUPID concept.

    What is stupid about it? Try to be precise.

    By extension, the flock of sheep that have bought into AGW (for whatever reasons) are STUPID.

    All those thousands of scientists are stupid? How did they get their degrees?

    AGW is beyond the anti-intellectual basis of Pagsnism [sic]. AGW is gut-wrenching MISANTHROPY applied with sickening ELITISM.

    What is either misanthropic or elitist about it? Please be specific.

    The only concept remotely similar to AGW in modern times is STALINISM.

    AGW is a theory that technological emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the Earth, and that this will have dangerous effects. Stalinism is the direction of a vanguardist Marxist-Leninist party to center it around a dictator with extraordinary powers. I fail to see the connection.

    AGW is so extreme it would SICKEN a NEO-NAZI.

    What is extreme about it? Please be specific.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian #289, 290:

    You really need to learn not to hold back so much! Let ‘er rip! ;)

    Concur wholeheartedly. The economic misery these people are aiming will cause more than just discomfort. It will kill people.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    I suggest everyone do the same thing:

    - Take no prisoners when dealing with AGW and alarmists

    – Make no apologies for doing so.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian Valentine writes:

    - Take no prisoners when dealing with AGW and alarmists

    - Make no apologies for doing so.

    May I suggest a third?

    - Make sure you know what you’re talking about before posting.

    Might help.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    OK Barton, thanks. I’ll keep that in mind.

    Maybe if I go back and study some fleabag sci-fi novels involving vampires and lesbians my writing style might improve.

    Ya think?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    PS Captain Kirk and the Klingons all think that AGW is stupid, too.

    I don’t know if that has any influence on your thoughts about AGW or not, Barton.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    no prisoners this week. Maybe next week. This week, we’re not taking prisoners.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Barton Paul Levenson: #293
    Can I play through?

    The argument for AGW, reduced to a bare minimum, is:

    1. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859).
    2. CO2 is rising (Keeling et al. 1958).
    3. The new CO2 is coming mostly from fossil fuel combustion (Suess 1955).
    4. Therefore the surface temperature should be rising, and the increase in temperature should be related to the rise in CO2.

    The confirmation is:

    5. Temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley Centre CRU, UAH, RSS, etc., etc.).
    6. ln CO2 accounts for 76% of the variance of temperature anomaly from 1880-2008.

    Which of the above do you dispute?

    5 & 6, and your blinders that have you looking at CO2 and nothing but CO2.

    1. Hopefully science has improved since 1859. BTW, Royal Astronomer Sir William Hershel in 1801 linked sunspot activity with the price of grain and hence weather for growing crops.

    2. No complaint there. Plants are doing great.

    3. Okay, won’t argue.

    4. Yeah, but why is the correlation poor? Why is there a better correlation with the PDO? I think it will take less that 150 years to figure it out. Just because increasing CO2 levels suggests that temperature should be rising doesn’t it can be the only factor or even that there are processes that work against greenhouse warming.

    5. Temperature was rising. With the PDO in a cool mode, it will likely fall for the next few decades. There’s more involved that CO2.

    6. R^2 correlation over the 20th century between CO2 and temperature is 0.44. Between PDO+AMO and temperature it’s 0.83 (per Joe D’Aleo). See http://wermenh.com/climate/climate2009.pdf for more.

    Please reread the top of this post. David Evans summarizes empirical evidence that can explain warming as due to the recovery from the Little Ice Age and the PDO. If that holds up over time, then CO2 may not cause warming after all. Perhaps we can let this discussion end – the various posters are the only ones reading this deeply and we’re likely not going to change our mind based on what other posters say.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Splendid, Ric – masterful.

    My only point of contention – item 3, the origin of the additional CO2 of the air.

    The (delta)-13C and (delta 1)-13C of the additional CO2 of the air are consitent with CO2 of fossil fuel combustion, and the stoichiometric loss of oxygen in the air is consistent with fossil fuel combustion, although the isotopic compositions of the oxygen associated with the additional CO2 supposedly arising from sossil fuel combustion are NOT consistent with the oxygen assumed to be associated with the carbon arising from hydrocarbon fuels.

    All three are consistent with carbon dioxide arising from ancient carbonate of ocean origin, whence it arose from rising atmospheric temperatures, of deep ocean strata, some 800 years average diffusion and convection through the ocean.

    We are just now emerging from the LIA, you know.

    Come on over to the skeptical side, Barton, lots more people are needed to counter proposed “climate” legislation that would do such unfathomable harm to our fellow humanity.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Just came across this post.. The global warming debate sounds very much like the Y2K bug alarm, where we were told that the world was going to come to an end because our dishwashers, microwaves and VCRs will stop working. A lot of $ was spent to “fix” that.

    It concerns me that this is sooo commercial.

    GM


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian Valentine writes:

    Maybe if I go back and study some fleabag sci-fi novels involving vampires and lesbians my writing style might improve.

    Ya think?

    You don’t have to be a professional writer to debate scientific and political issues on the internet. But in order to convince people, you have to have a reasonable approach and to know what you’re talking about.

    PS Captain Kirk and the Klingons all think that AGW is stupid, too.

    I don’t know if that has any influence on your thoughts about AGW or not, Barton.

    Captain Kirk and Klingons are fictional characters, Brian.

    BTW, considering what a huge fraction of Americans are fans of horror and science fiction, is it wise to imply that they are all divorced from reality? There are a lot of SF fans on the internet, you know. If you don’t like those genres, that’s fine, but why insult everybody who does like them?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ric Werme writes:

    1. Hopefully science has improved since 1859. BTW, Royal Astronomer Sir William Hershel in 1801 linked sunspot activity with the price of grain and hence weather for growing crops.

    Every repeat of Tyndall’s experiment since 1859 has confirmed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we now have a quantum mechanical explanation as to why. No physicist or chemist in the world denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas these days.

    2. No complaint there. Plants are doing great.

    Not really. Global warming means more drought in continental interiors (and it turns out that weeds do better at higher temperatures than crops do). Australia has lost a third of its agricultural production just in the last few years due to massive drought.

    3. Okay, won’t argue.

    4. Yeah, but why is the correlation poor? Why is there a better correlation with the PDO? I think it will take less that 150 years to figure it out. Just because increasing CO2 levels suggests that temperature should be rising doesn’t it can be the only factor or even that there are processes that work against greenhouse warming.

    The correlation is very close, r = 0.864 for 1880-2008 for dT and ln CO2. And, agreed, CO2 isn’t the only factor that affects temperatures. In addition to other greenhouse gases, variations in sunlight, albedo, cloud cover, aerosols, and many other factors all play a role. But for the global warming of the past century and a quarter, CO2 accounts for most of the variance.

    5. Temperature was rising. With the PDO in a cool mode, it will likely fall for the next few decades. There’s more involved that CO2.

    Temperature is still rising. Remember that a trend has to be statistically significant. The World Meteorological Organization defines climate as mean regional or global weather over a period of 30 years or more. A few years cooling doesn’t mean anything; the trend is still up.

    6. R^2 correlation over the 20th century between CO2 and temperature is 0.44.

    Radiative forcing is proportional to the logarithm of CO2 level (see, e.g., Myrhe 1998). For dT and ln CO2 r = 0.864 (76% of variance accounted for, which means every other factor together only accounts for a quarter).

    Between PDO+AMO and temperature it’s 0.83 (per Joe D’Aleo). See http://wermenh.com/climate/climate2009.pdf for more.

    Note that D’Aleo’s sample is a quarter smaller than mine.

    Please reread the top of this post. David Evans summarizes empirical evidence that can explain warming as due to the recovery from the Little Ice Age and the PDO.

    What is the physical mechanism for “recovery from the Little Ice Age?” If David Evans is under the impression that the climate acts like a spring in simple harmonic motion, he’s wrong. Where is the energy coming from?

    If that holds up over time, then CO2 may not cause warming after all.

    There’s no question that CO2 causes warming. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Put more of it in a planet’s atmosphere and the ground must warm, unless some countervailing force cancels it out. They’ve been looking for such a force for decades without finding one. Some types of aerosols work, but they’re just not present in large enough amounts, or persistent enough, to disrupt the trend for any length of time.

    Perhaps we can let this discussion end – the various posters are the only ones reading this deeply and we’re likely not going to change our mind based on what other posters say.

    I’m not sure that the posters are the only ones reading. I often find out later that a lot of people (“lurkers”) are reading but not posting, and often it’s those people who haven’t mind up their minds yet. Those are the people I’m trying to reach. I’m not expecting to convert someone like Brian Valentine.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian Valentine writes:

    Splendid, Ric – masterful.

    Good call. Ric’s post was polite, stuck to the issues, and cited sources. Try it.

    All three are consistent with carbon dioxide arising from ancient carbonate of ocean origin, whence it arose from rising atmospheric temperatures, of deep ocean strata, some 800 years average diffusion and convection through the ocean.

    The ocean is giving off 90 gigatons of carbon a year and taking in 92. You could have looked this up. The new CO2 is not coming from the ocean. And if it were, you’d have to explain what was happening to the CO2 coming from fossil fuel combustion. The various sinks (including the ocean) only take in about half of it. Absent nuclear reactions, matter can’t disappear.

    We are just now emerging from the LIA, you know.

    As I asked Ric, what is the physical mechanism which drives “emerging from the LIA?” Where is the energy coming from?

    Come on over to the skeptical side, Barton,

    It’s not realistic to ask someone with a degree in physics, who has been writing atmosphere models for twelve years, to suddenly embrace climate pseudoscience. It’s like asking an astronomer to come over to Velikovsky or an archaeologist to embrace von Daniken.

    lots more people are needed to counter proposed “climate” legislation that would do such unfathomable harm to our fellow humanity.

    It wouldn’t harm humanity at all; it would prevent a disaster.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Guennadi M writes:

    The global warming debate sounds very much like the Y2K bug alarm, where we were told that the world was going to come to an end because our dishwashers, microwaves and VCRs will stop working. A lot of $ was spent to “fix” that.

    Y2K was not a disaster because people spent a lot of time, effort and money correcting the problems beforehand. And the problem wasn’t household appliances, it was mainframes handling financial applications and running air traffic control and hospital software. Losing those would indeed have been a disaster.

    Because the disaster was averted doesn’t mean there was no threat in the first place.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    There was NO Y2K bug as such, at all. Countries like Russia, with a lot of nuclear heads, didn’t do anything to “fix” it and nothing has blown up. I remember a news segment where Americans were saying “oh my God!” when talking about the fact that Russia was not doing anything about that Y2K bug. The Y2K bug was very much a western thing, and a very commercial one. If the Y2K bug existed, they would be able to test and replicate “the problem”, instead of instilling fear into people’s minds. There was no disaster to avert.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    You’re a good writer, Barton Paul – balanced, and graceful.

    And yes, I am too vitriolic at times.

    Why am I so corrosive? Because of the potential harm to people that anti-CO2 laws would cause to people, especially poor people, and which, in the long run, would invite nothing more than gangsterism and Soviet-style plutocracy.

    So, with your fime writing skills you could be a persuasive skeptic – why not do that, and this would be a benefit to humankind. – BV


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Readers out there not posting – you know that AGW is one big fraud set up by governments and so-called “scientists” with an agenda.

    You know without even studying it that AGW makes no more sense than blaiming “global warming” on the Moon.

    It doesn’t matter how “scientific” people like Levenson sound, their agrguments can be squashed in ten seconds flat, and if something’s a fraud and you’re not getting swept up in it, then tell your lawmakers BEFORE a lot of people get hurt.

    Human beings have common sense, fictional characters don’t. Don’t allow sci-fi writers become your reality. – BV


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew Simpson

    Barton Paul Levinson in post #306 says “Y2K was not a disaster because people spent a lot of time, effort and money correcting the problems beforehand”

    I agree 100%, however, it was the alarmism beforehand that has parallels with AGW.

    With the Y2K bug, we were breathlessly told that planes would fall from the sky, entire electricity grids fail, water shut off, etc. etc. Pure alarmism. There were plenty of people I know (sane, sensible people) who stocked up on bottled water and torch batteries just in case. Portable generator sales where I live went through the roof.

    There was never any chance of the above scenarious happening. Maybe some bank accounts would have gone astray and a few data bases mucked up, but fixing this “bug” would have happened quietly in the background anyway until it was beaten up by the media quoting “experts”.

    You can only cry wolf so many times before the public catch on and stop listening. Perhaps AGW alarmists would have more people listening if their claims weren’t so ridiculous.

    When the AGW alarmists can start having a reasoned debate, without the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it alarmism, then I may start listening again.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sounding the alarm makes perfect sense when there’s something to be alarmed about. If we continue business as usual with regards to burning fossil fuels and deforesting the world, the world will warm noticeably, with the following consequences:

    1. Increased drought in continental interiors. This, in my opinion, is the single biggest and most short-term threat from AGW. Ask the Australians, who have lost a third of their agricultural production in just the past few years due to drought. And it’s going to get worse. If we lose agriculture, our civilization falls with a massive die-off.

    2. More violent weather along coastlines.

    3. The retreat of glaciers which provide fresh water to a billion people in Asia and Latin America. This will create a lot of “climate refugees,” which will in turn create a lot of wars. Consider how Americans feel about Mexican immigrants, then think about how India or China would welcome 100 million refugees from Bangladesh.

    4. In the long run, the loss of trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure to rising sea levels. And note that a city does not have to be under water to be uninhabitable. All that has to happen is for the sea to rise high enough to seep into aquifers and back up sewers. Without fresh water and sewage, a city becomes uninhabitable within a matter of days. We’re talking about losing Miami, Jacksonville, Houston, New Orleans, San Francisco, London, and many others.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian Valentine writes:

    Readers out there not posting – you know that AGW is one big fraud set up by governments and so-called “scientists” with an agenda.

    According to one recent survey, 97% of climatologists agree on the broad outlines of AGW theory. That’s thousands of scientists around the world. That they’re all fabricating results as part of a political conspiracy is hard to believe.

    You know without even studying it that AGW makes no more sense than blaiming “global warming” on the Moon.

    But you know with studying it that it explains observations so well that no other theory is even in the running.

    It doesn’t matter how “scientific” people like Levenson sound, their agrguments can be squashed in ten seconds flat,

    Give an example?

    and if something’s a fraud and you’re not getting swept up in it, then tell your lawmakers BEFORE a lot of people get hurt.

    People will be hurt a lot more by doing nothing. The cost of business as usual is not free.

    Energy infrastructure doesn’t last indefinitely. It gets replaced to the tune of tens of billions of dollars worth of capital per year. There’s no reason the new grids shouldn’t be smart grids, the new power plants based on solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass energy, the new cars hybrids or running off biodiesel or methanol, and that we shouldn’t lay lots of track for rail lines both inside and between cities, and insulate homes.

    Human beings have common sense, fictional characters don’t. Don’t allow sci-fi writers become your reality

    Is that a swipe at me? Yes, I’m an SF writer. I also have a degree in physics and I’ve been writing atmosphere models for twelve years. I got into this field originally not because of concern over global warming, but because I wanted to be able to predict the temperatures of hypothetical Earthlike planets. When you study planetary astronomy you learn about the greenhouse effect and how it works, and once you know that the problems with letting CO2 rise in the atmosphere become obvious.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I’m stepping in on one point only because I’m getting tired of hearing it. I’ll let Brian deal with the rest.

    According to one recent survey, 97% of climatologists agree on the broad outlines of AGW theory. That’s thousands of scientists around the world. That they’re all fabricating results as part of a political conspiracy is hard to believe.

    Would you care to actually reference the study as opposed to handwaving? Are you perhaps thinking Doran and Zimmerman, published in EOS, 20 Jan 2009? That seems to be the one your side keeps flinging out there on the table this year.

    If that is the one and if you bothered to actually read the report, you’d find that the 97% figure comes from 75 out of 77 respondents who could be classified as “climatologists.” (The climatologist classification was provided by the respondents and not independently verified.) That’s hardly thousands of climatologists. Nor was the invitation to participate sent around the world, but to only US institutions.

    The “consensus survey” consisted of only two leading questions, neither of which says what you say the survey measured except in perhaps the broadest terms:

    1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

    2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

    More to the point, what they think is irrelevant.

    How they voted is irrelevant.

    Consensus is the last refuge of poor science.

    If you are perchance referencing another flawed “consensus survey” please provide the reference.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Is that a swipe at me?

    No it’s a swipe at Jim Hansen. Stop acting like a paranoid.

    Ladies and gentlemen, ignore alarmists like Levenson. The Human Race has made it this far just fine, and the World Isn’t Coming To An End next week, or next year, or next century, either.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael Smith

    The single most revealing thing about the alarmists pushing the man-caused global warming nonsense is this: they positively and desperately WANT global warming — especially in all of its most outlandish claims — they WANT it to be true. They WANT mankind to be facing an utter disaster that will require us to forgo most of the benefits of living a civilized existence and instead exist in stinking poverty.

    If some new evidence were discovered tomorrow proving beyond all doubt that global warming is not a problem, would they celebrate? Hell no, they’d be thrown into such a black depression they’d need severe psychological counseling to have any hope of regaining their sanity.

    You may judge for yourself the nature of creatures — and some can be found in these very comments — who drool over the prospect of seeing human civilization destroyed and mankind forced to shiver or swelter in the dark, deprived of freedom and sentenced to a short, brutal existence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael Smith

    One alarmist/statist tried to paper over the deadly impact anti-CO2 legislation will have on our economy with this:

    “There’s no reason the new grids shouldn’t be smart grids, the new power plants based on solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass energy, the new cars hybrids or running off biodiesel or methanol, and that we shouldn’t lay lots of track for rail lines both inside and between cities, and insulate homes.”

    This is pure, unadulterated Gore-bot fantasy. There isn’t the proverbial snowball’s chance in hades that “solar, wind, geothermal and biomass” can produce enough energy — that we can afford — to replace fossile fuels. The real reason this alarmist favors these changes is because he knows that the only way to make these technologies “work” is to force mass rationing of energy use — and he looks gleefully forward to the day when government will control the setting on your thermostat and dictate which days of the month you’ll be permitted to leave your home in your government-approved Pelosimobile so that you can go to market and stand in Soviet-style food lines for your weekly ration of meat and bread.

    Make no mistake about it folks, these global warming alarmists are out to destroy everything that makes your existence comfortable and safe.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    these global warming alarmists are out to destroy everything that makes your existence comfortable and safe.

    “… out to destroy everything that makes your existence possible.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew Simpson

    Barton, Post #311 – “If we continue business as usual with regards to burning fossil fuels and deforesting the world, the world will warm noticeably”

    Got any proof?

    As for your 4 doomsday scenarios – got any proof that these are caused by man-made CO2? I’d be happy to read any papers that link any of these to man made CO2.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Proof?

    What the hell “proof” do you want?

    This is real, because Bsrton says so, got it?

    That’s all the damned “proof” that you or anybody else needs.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael Smith

    Brian Valentine offered this correction:

    “…out to destroy everything that makes your existence possible.”

    I agree with this correction. These bastards aren’t merely out to extinguish our comforts — they seek to extinguish our very lives.

    As John Galt says of the looters that destroy America in “Atlas Shrugged”: “They do not wish to live — they wish to see you die.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    So? What makes you think you’re so much better than a cartoon polar bear that can’t swim to an ice floe to rest uopn because the ice is disappearing so rapidly, anyway.

    Barton Levenson asks, rhetorically, “what is it that makes you so sick about global warming alarmism?”

    Yeah. What, indeed, is it that makes me so sick.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    J L Krueger writes:

    the 97% figure comes from 75 out of 77 respondents who could be classified as “climatologists.” (The climatologist classification was provided by the respondents and not independently verified.) That’s hardly thousands of climatologists.

    Have you ever had a course in statistics? Do you understand the idea of sampling a population as opposed to examining every member of the whole population?

    Consensus is the last refuge of poor science.

    Peer review and consensus are how modern science works. It has been an unbelievably productive system. It works, and it works well.

    The scientific consensus isn’t a vote. It’s an acknowledgment of what’s known and what isn’t known, reflected in what gets pursued in research and what doesn’t. For example, it’s part of the scientific consensus that the Earth orbits the Sun and not vice versa. There are, believe it or not, scientists who disagree, like Gerardus Bouw, who has a Ph.D. in astronomy but is trying to revive geocentrism. But he’s outside the consensus, and can therefore be safely ignored. The theory he’s proposing was massively falsified a long time ago. There’s no need to examine it again.

    Same with the idea that global warming isn’t happening or isn’t caused by human greenhouse gas production.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Michael Smith writes:

    they positively and desperately WANT global warming — especially in all of its most outlandish claims — they WANT it to be true. They WANT mankind to be facing an utter disaster that will require us to forgo most of the benefits of living a civilized existence and instead exist in stinking poverty.

    1. What they want is irrelevant. It’s an ad hominem argument. The only relevant criterion is: is what they’re saying true or false?

    2. Nobody is proposing that we deal with global warming by “forgo[ing] most of the benefits of living a civilized existence and instead exist[ing] in stinking poverty.” Where did you get the idea that anyone in their right mind was saying anything of the kind?

    It’s not okay to just make stuff up about the people you’re arguing with.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Michael Smith writes:

    There isn’t the proverbial snowball’s chance in hades that “solar, wind, geothermal and biomass” can produce enough energy — that we can afford — to replace fossile fuels.

    Nonsense. The potential for any of them, with the possible exception of biomass, is huge. More solar power falls on the Earth by many orders of magnitude than human energy use. You’re just wrong.

    And the “that we can afford” is wrong as well. If you check current electricity costs, wind now costs nine cents per kilowatt hour in California, the same as natural gas, as opposed to ten for coal and fifteen for nuclear.

    The real reason this alarmist favors these changes is because he knows that the only way to make these technologies “work” is to force mass rationing of energy use — and he looks gleefully forward to the day when government will control the setting on your thermostat and dictate which days of the month you’ll be permitted to leave your home in your government-approved Pelosimobile so that you can go to market and stand in Soviet-style food lines for your weekly ration of meat and bread.

    Listen, you insolent little twerp, I had relatives who died in the GULAG. Don’t you EVER accuse me of being a Communist. If you want to do that, do it to my face so I can rearrange yours.

    Needless to say, your fantasies about what I believe have no basis in anything other than your own psychological problems.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Andrew Simpson writes:

    Barton, Post #311 – “If we continue business as usual with regards to burning fossil fuels and deforesting the world, the world will warm noticeably”

    Got any proof?

    As for your 4 doomsday scenarios – got any proof that these are caused by man-made CO2? I’d be happy to read any papers that link any of these to man made CO2.

    Go back and read what I said in my first post in this thread. Science doesn’t deal in “proof,” which properly belongs to mathematics and formal logic. It deals in evidence, and the evidence that

    Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas
    CO2 is rising
    The rise is coming mainly from fossil-fuel burning
    Temperature is rising
    The temperature increase correlates closely with the CO2 increase

    is overwhelming. The fact that you’re not familiar with it doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist.

    If you want to start studying the subject, you might start with Spencer Weart’s (2003) book, “The Discovery of Global Warming,” which is also available on the web, updated, at:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

    Another good summary is George Philander’s (1998) “Is the Temperature Rising?”

    To begin to understand atmosphere physics, try J.T. Houghton’s “The Physics of Atmospheres” (2002), and do the problems. Another good intro is Grant W. Petty’s (2006) “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian Valentine writes:

    Barton Levenson asks, rhetorically, “what is it that makes you so sick about global warming alarmism?”

    Where did I say that?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Barton Paul Levenson:
    May 8th, 2009 at 9:57 pm

    Have you ever had a course in statistics? Do you understand the idea of sampling a population as opposed to examining every member of the whole population?

    For you to make that condescending comment makes it clear you did not read the actual survey or their methodology. Yes, Barton. I’ve got an advanced degree in Operations Research and Systems Analysis. Statistics is what we do. Their sample set was not created as a representative sample of all climatologists. Read the actual study before you make such asinine comments.

    Peer review and consensus are how modern science works. It has been an unbelievably productive system. It works, and it works well.

    No, peer review is a publishing process. It’s actually fairly new historically and driven by the fact that journals can’t possibly publish everything. Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity was not “peer reviewed”. There is no way he could get it published today given his credentials at the time he developed it.

    In climate science, the peer review process is dominated by a small group of referees who frequently collaborate and this induces bias. When your referees block studies by researchers eminently qualified in their fields simply because the studies do not conform to “consensus” it’s time to take a long hard look at that process.

    Let’s see, some famous scientific consensuses:

    The Earth is flat.
    The Earth is the center of the universe.
    Maggots come from rotten meat.
    Two objects of different size falling from a height will fall at different rates.

    And like your crowd is doing with your beloved AGW hypothesis, the proponents of these consensuses tried to silence dissent. Simply shouting “the science is settled” does not pass muster as scientific refutation.

    For example, it’s part of the scientific consensus that the Earth orbits the Sun and not vice versa.

    No Barton, the Earth orbiting the sun is an observation that can be measured. The former consensus, defended by the Church on the basis of Scripture, not science, was proved false.

    There are, believe it or not, scientists who disagree, like Gerardus Bouw, who has a Ph.D. in astronomy but is trying to revive geocentrism. But he’s outside the consensus, and can therefore be safely ignored. The theory he’s proposing was massively falsified a long time ago. There’s no need to examine it again.

    Gerardus Bouw is basing his “theory” on Scripture, not science. It doesn’t matter what degree he has if he’s taking that approach. He’s one of those creationists who acquired a PhD with the specific goal of attaining “scientific credibility” when pressing his creationist ideas.

    You are presenting a strawman.

    His “theory” is invalid because it isn’t based upon science. He uses easily falsifiable calculus in order to make his “theory” look adequate and it probably passes for the mathematically challenged, but his main underpinning, stated clearly in his presentations, is Scripture.

    Those of us who don’t buy your AGW hypothesis do so because your side has yet to produce any actual evidence that overturns the null hypothesis. We ask for evidence, you give us computer models and Al Gore.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Look out, girls – Barton is doing his “Raging Bull” number.

    Barton – go back and write some more s/f novels involving lesbians, will ya?

    You’re a lot more entertaining that way


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Barton Paul Levenson:
    May 8th, 2009 at 10:06 pm

    Listen, you insolent little twerp, I had relatives who died in the GULAG. Don’t you EVER accuse me of being a Communist. If you want to do that, do it to my face so I can rearrange yours.

    Ah, the real BPL steps forth. You are part of a socialist drive to destroy Western economies. You are supporting socialist, nay communist actions. If that defines you as a communist, so be it.

    You want to make more threats Barton? Come on over to Afghanistan, where real men play for keeps and I’ll give you the opportunity to try.

    You people don’t even have the guts to honestly debate the topic, but you can act real brave over the Internet, especially in forums where you can pile on and where your “Closed Mind” and “Virtual Climate” moderators ensure that no one with any real skill or understanding can post. What a joke!

    Your condescending tone doesn’t make your non-evidence any stronger. You have a crap case that you can’t support with real evidence. Nothing you or your co-religionists have presented overturns the null hypothesis. Correlation is not causation. The shrillness of your side’s attacks and your constant repitition of the mantra demonstrates the utter weakness of your case.

    Even with all the advantage of getting out there first with your slick packaging and the mainstream media totally in bed with your socialist agenda, reality is hitting you in the face and people are waking up to your junk science.

    Right now the only question is whether your socialist agenda will be firmly in place and the West ruined before enough people wake up to your fraud.

    Go on back to your Tamino sycophant buddies at “Closed Mind.” I’m sure they’ll give great “high-fives” for your efforts as you guzzle your communist, AGW kool-aid!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Me Barton, you Jane


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “Come on over to Afghanistan, where real men play for keeps “

    Krueger calls Barton’s bluff… and doubles it. Thank you.

    We are so enjoying the slam-dunk performance out here in blog-spectator-land.
    #329 is up for ‘Top-Ten-replies-of-2009′ :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Right now I’m programming a video game called “AGW” –

    this game features a super-hero named “Barton” who trashes people who make fun of him


    Report this

    00

  • #
    charles tetlow

    Not to get back on subject or anything, but has anyone thought to point out to the “anti-CO2-ists” that the input to this thermal system is not static. The temperature record tracks the Sun’s output record much better than the emissions estimates. Also, does it seem a bit egotistic to think that increasing any gas content of the atmosphere by less than .01% would cause a major change in temperature by itself? Put bluntly, if the house is hot you check the thermostat first, not uncle charlie’s flatulence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Chris

    You have conveniently left out the carbon feedback responses in your warming model. Simply extrapolating linearly when there is an exponential or semi-exponential CO2 and other GHG release totally ignores the increased radiative forcing due to these releases. You also are ignoring that with increased warming as well as deforestation we are losing our CO2 sinks. The IPCC report includes these and other feedbacks and responses that the simple extrapolation model you have used ignores.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Chris, your avatar on this website appears to show the eyeglasses upside down.

    Is that what is causing you to perceive in an upside-down fashion how the world actually operates?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    J L Krueger writes:

    Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity was not “peer reviewed”.

    It was published in Annalen der Physik in 1905.

    Those of us who don’t buy your AGW hypothesis do so because your side has yet to produce any actual evidence that overturns the null hypothesis. We ask for evidence, you give us computer models and Al Gore.

    The evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas was first provided by John Tyndall in 1859.

    The evidence that CO2 is rising was firmly established by the work of Keeling et al. since 1958 and by ice core work since then.

    The evidence that the new CO2 is coming mainly from fossil fuels was provided by Hans Suess in 1955 and Suess and Revelle in 1957.

    The evidence that temperature is rising is provided by land surface temperature readings, sea surface readings, balloon radiosonde readings, borehole readings, satellite temperature measurements, melting ice caps and glaciers, tree lines moving toward the poles, earlier hatch dates for eggs of fish, frogs, insects, and birds, and earlier bloom dates for flowers and flowering plants.

    The evidence that the rise in temperature correlates with the rise in CO2 can be established by anyone with access to the internet and a copy of Excel. Here, I did the work for you:

    http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Correlation.html

    How much evidence do you want? There’s a hell of a lot more evidence than just “computer models and Al Gore.” Have you actually studied the peer-reviewed literature on the subject? Have you read copies of the Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheric Science, Geophysical Research Letters, or even the articles in Science and Nature dealing with global warming? How in the world could you possibly conclude that there’s no evidence? The evidence is overwhelming.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    J L Krueger, in yet another demented post, writes:

    You are part of a socialist drive to destroy Western economies. You are supporting socialist, nay communist actions. If that defines you as a communist, so be it.

    If you don’t understand the difference between putting controls on CO2 emissions and switching to renewable sources of energy on the one hand, and state-socialist dictatorship on the other, then you understand neither climate science and proposed climate policy, nor communism. For the former, I’ve recommended some good sources. For the latter, you might want to read Marx and Engles’s 1848 The Communist Manifesto, Lenin’s What Is To Be Done? and Robert Conquest’s many histories of the Soviet Union. Antonov-Ovseyenko’s The Time of Stalin (1982) is indispensible for understanding what real Communism is like. Hint: it ain’t a cap-and-trade policy for controlling CO2 emissions.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    charles tetlow writes:

    The temperature record tracks the Sun’s output record much better than the emissions estimates.

    Well, no. I regressed temperature anomaly for 1880-2007 on ln CO2, dust veil index, and four measures of solar influence (one at a time to avoid multicolinearity) — TSI, sunspot number, years since maximum, and years since minimum. Ln CO2 accounted for 76% of variance, DVI about 2%, and none of the solar measures were statistically significant. Not one. The best I got was t = 1.4 for sunspot cycle.

    Also, does it seem a bit egotistic to think that increasing any gas content of the atmosphere by less than .01% would cause a major change in temperature by itself?

    CO2 in 1750 was 280 parts per million by volume. It is now 387 ppmv. That’s an increase of 38%, not 0.01%.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    It was published in Annalen der Physik in 1905

    Oops. Score -1 for Barton.

    Hint: it ain’t a cap-and-trade policy for controlling CO2 emissions

    What a silly statement. Look at how Stalin controlled the population – by collectivization of the land. What does this cap and trade thing do?

    It is COLLECTIVIZATION of the WHOLE ATMOSPHERE for God’s sake – can’t you see that?

    If you lost relatives in the Gulags – why the hell aren’t you anti-Communist? Go to Czechoslavakia – ask them – what “communism” is – ask THEM if Green Euphoria is communism or not

    They’ll tell you what communism is

    And I can’t believe for the life of me that you are trying to sell this crap to other people.

    You’ve outdone yourself with s/f Barton – you have gone and frightened your self.

    Do everybody a favour and DON’T try to sell your own brand of s/f mysticism as what “ought” to be somebody else’s reality


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Chris

    Brian, honestly you are delusional, for your own sake please do some serious research on the subject. Barton is backing his views up with facts and other credible information and you are spouting rhetoric and misunderstood information. I assume your are an intelligent man so I suggest you take a step back and analyze the information instead of deciding before hand and looking for information to support your view.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    please do some serious research on the subject

    how’s 35 years of it is that enough for you?

    Chris please put your glasses on right so you don’t fall and take a hike.

    Thanks.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Barton #336:
    You’re right – there is lots of evidence the world has warmed, and also evidence that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas in the lab. But I don’t think anyone is disputing these points, so you can stop defending them. OK? The guys you’re debating here are way past that.

    “How much evidence do you want?”
    One paper would be a good start. What we who-are-not-convinced would like to see is evidence that the laboratory effect of carbon (at current ppm levels) translates to global atmospheric warming. We won’t accept climate models. We want observational evidence (like all good scientists have for hundreds of years). We want someone who has recorded a meaningful correlation of co2 to temperature. We won’t accept a backwards correlation ‘as meaningful’. Nor will we accept a recent short term correlation which – like almost all the other recorded events, began first with temperature and carbon rose later. Temperatures have been rising since 1800, long before SUV’s. See also the postage stamp plot. http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/03/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges/. I can make a correlation between any two rising properties. It doesn’t prove anything.

    If you had a situation where carbon moved ahead of the climate, where the turning points were obviously correlated (not just a ‘slope’), then I’d be impressed. As it is, no one can point to even one paper. Not One – that has observational evidence from the real world. CO2 turning points don’t correlate well with temperature ones.

    You have nothing. Bluff and bluster count for zip among thinkers, (though they apparently achieve a lot among those who like to herd.)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian Valentine writes:

    Hint: it ain’t a cap-and-trade policy for controlling CO2 emissions

    What a silly statement. Look at how Stalin controlled the population – by collectivization of the land. What does this cap and trade thing do?

    It is COLLECTIVIZATION of the WHOLE ATMOSPHERE for God’s sake – can’t you see that?

    Well, no. We’ve had a cap-and-trade policy in the US since 1989 for controlling sulfate emissions–it was a Bush administration initiative. It has worked very well in controlling the acid rain problem in North America. Contrary to industry warnings at the time, it didn’t cripple the power industry or induce economic collapse. Nor did the US become noticeably socialist afterwards.

    If you lost relatives in the Gulags – why the hell aren’t you anti-Communist?

    I am. Have been for a long time.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    JoAnne Nova writes:

    What we who-are-not-convinced would like to see is evidence that the laboratory effect of carbon (at current ppm levels) translates to global atmospheric warming. We won’t accept climate models. We want observational evidence (like all good scientists have for hundreds of years). We want someone who has recorded a meaningful correlation of co2 to temperature.

    Does comparing the greenhouse effect on other planets count? Venus and Mars also have measurable carbon dioxide greenhouse effects. How about paleoclimate data? CO2 and temperature track pretty well for the ice ages (yes, I know about the 800-year lag time). Are you familiar with the Faint Young Sun paradox?

    No planetary astronomer in the world doubts that the CO2 greenhouse effect in the lab translates to real atmospheres. Neither do climatologists.

    We won’t accept a backwards correlation ‘as meaningful’.

    Huh? What? Come again?

    You don’t accept statistical analysis of historical time series data as meaningful? Why not?

    Nor will we accept a recent short term correlation which – like almost all the other recorded events, began first with temperature and carbon rose later.

    I get r = 0.86 for ln CO2 and dT for 1880-2008. That’s in the same year.

    Temperatures have been rising since 1800, long before SUV’s.

    But after the industrial revolution started. Solar variation played a role, too, since TSI rose after the Dalton Minimum.

    See also the postage stamp plot. http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/03/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges/. I can make a correlation between any two rising properties. It doesn’t prove anything.

    Right, correlation is not causation. But AGW theory doesn’t rest on climate correlations. They only predict them, and the evidence bears out the predictions. We have a physical mechanism that accounts for the correlation, and the physical mechanism was known for a century before the correlation could be observed.

    Note, also, then I perform Cochrane-Orcutt iteration on my time series analysis to correct for autocorrelation in the residuals, I still wind up with 60% of variance accounted for when rho-hat has fallen to negligible levels.

    If you had a situation where carbon moved ahead of the climate, where the turning points were obviously correlated (not just a ’slope’), then I’d be impressed.

    The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is a good example, and the Permian mass extinction may involve one as well. The recovery from the “Snowball Earth” episodes of the Huronian and Vendian probably show it as well–that’s something to look for in future research; I’m making a prediction here. And, as I said, the same-year correlation has been very close for the past 130 years.

    As it is, no one can point to even one paper. Not One – that has observational evidence from the real world. CO2 turning points don’t correlate well with temperature ones.

    See above.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Venus and Mars also have measurable carbon dioxide greenhouse effects.

    Score -2 for Barton, now you are down to -20 for your remarks about what Communism is (or isn’t) – acid rain comes from sulfur, which one can do other things about, but zip can be done about CO2 from burning fuel and you know that.

    Venera surface heat MOSTLY comes from the heat of solution of sulphur trioxide in water that forms the ubiquitous sulphuric acid clouds covering the surface, and I don’t care what else you have read about Venera surface heat, whatever it was, it was wrong. (Ray Pierrehumbert was DEAD wrong about it.)

    Martian atmosphere has a higher rel partial pressure of CO2 than Earth does, and the diurnal surface temps can be calculated EXACTLY from the s.h. of Martian soil, the size of the planet and the density of the atm as an ideal gas and nothing else is involved.

    I don’t care what else you have read, it was wrong.

    (Even Eli agrees with me about Mars, and he ain’t no skeptic for sure)

    If you’re as anti-Commie as you say you are then quit acting like a Trotskyite


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    “Peer review and consensus are how modern science works. It has been an unbelievably productive system. It works, and it works well.” – B P Levenson

    Oh yeah? I’m a peer, and I didn’t review it, and if I had, it would have ended up in the toilet.

    You don’t accept statistical analysis of historical time series data as meaningful? Why not? – B P Levenson

    JoAnne has written a column about postage stamp rates as a joke to demonstrate “why not”

    The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is a good example, and the Permian mass extinction may involve one as well. The recovery from the “Snowball Earth” episodes of the Huronian and Vendian probably show it as well–that’s something to look for in future research; I’m making a prediction here. And, as I said, the same-year correlation has been very close for the past 130 years.

    Barton doesn’t believe in Asteroids, as rightfully, he shouldn’t. That’s cooked-up crock from deniers, asteroids doen’t even exist.

    Every science fiction writer knows that.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Reference: Barton Paul Levenson #326

    I said: “Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity was not “peer reviewed”. There is no way he could get it published today given his credentials at the time he developed it.”

    To which you replied:

    It was published in Annalen der Physik in 1905.

    Two points:

    1. It was the Special Theory that was published in 1905 and not peer-reviewed, not the General Theory.

    2. The General Theory of Relativity was published in 1916, also in Annalen der Physik and also not peer-reviewed.

    I didn’t say it wasn’t published. I said it wasn’t peer-reviewed and I framed my statement in the context of today’s peer review process.

    The evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas was first provided by John Tyndall in 1859.

    Comprising less than 4% of all greenhouse gas and less than .04% of the atmosphere. H2O vapor comprises about 96% of GHGs. And your point is?

    The evidence that CO2 is rising was firmly established by the work of Keeling et al. since 1958 and by ice core work since then.

    And the most recent ice core work shows that warming precedes CO2 increase. Causality link broken.

    The evidence that the new CO2 is coming mainly from fossil fuels was provided by Hans Suess in 1955 and Suess and Revelle in 1957.

    It is Hansen’s obsession with this study that has driven his overestimation of greenhouse gas effects. Most climate research ignores stratospheric influences that dampen greenhouse effects. For example MODTRAN, used heavily in climate studies, does not incorporate stratospheric downward thermal radiation.

    There still is no universally accepted value for the anthropogenic component of CO2. Even the IPCC expresses it in terms of multiple scenarios due to high uncertainty. In the period that Suess and Revelle studied this, it is unlikely that the oceans would have been outgassing as much as during the period between about 1977 – 2001 since the colder oceans at that time could sequester more CO2.

    Additionally, even the IPCC in AR4 points out that up to 1/3 of the CO2 that should be in the atmosphere (based upon models) can’t be accounted for, so something we don’t understand is at play.

    The evidence that temperature is rising is provided by land surface temperature readings, sea surface readings, balloon radiosonde readings, borehole readings, satellite temperature measurements, melting ice caps and glaciers, tree lines moving toward the poles, earlier hatch dates for eggs of fish, frogs, insects, and birds, and earlier bloom dates for flowers and flowering plants.

    AGW alarmism concentrates on the last 30 years during which there are a number of natural factors involved like PDO in positive phase (recently switched negative), AMO positive (recently switched to negative), NAO positive (now negative), solar activity last 30 years highest since record-keeping began (now in significant decline).

    Let’s start the instrumental record:
    1. Land surface temperatures. Highly suspect due UHI and poor coverage. Significant bias likely in readings.
    2. Sea surface readings. Are currently flat to declining, to be expected since solar activity was declining toward minimum the last five years and will likely continue to drop as SC24 struggles to start up.
    3. Radiosonde readings. Flat to declining the last 7 years.
    4. Satellite readings. Flat to declining for at least 7 years.

    While temperatures may have risen somewhat over about a thirty year period the increase has not been proven to be outside the range of natural variation.

    As for the rest of your evidence about warming, it’s all within natural variation for the planet. Glaciers advance and retreat, wildlife and plants adjust to their environment, or they die, just as they have since before humans showed up.

    The Antarctic icecap is not declining, but increasing, as recently reported by the British Antarctic Survey. With the exception of the western quarter of the continent where temperatures may have increased slightly, temperatures have been declining.

    Global sea ice extent is near an all-time high in the approximately 30 years that records have been kept.

    In 2008, the Arctic started its recovery and it’s currently near the average, well above the melt of 2007 that was due to factors other than temperature. A recent German airborne expedition to measure thickness found the first year ice to be nearly twice as thick as expected.

    The evidence that the rise in temperature correlates with the rise in CO2 can be established by anyone with access to the internet and a copy of Excel. Here, I did the work for you:

    Correlation does not equal causation, even if your measurements for CO2 and temperature were infallibly accurate, which they aren’t.

    You have demonstrated:
    1. Temperatures may have increased some over about a thirty year period.
    2. Atmospheric CO2 may have increased by some unverified factor due to human activity over and above natural variation.

    You still have not proven:
    1. That any observed increase in temperature is outside natural variation.
    2. Causality (That the rise in CO2 caused the perceived increase in temperature.)

    How much evidence do you want? There’s a hell of a lot more evidence than just “computer models and Al Gore.”

    I want proof that the temperature increase is significantly outside natural variation and that CO2 caused that increase before I’m willing to destroy our economy with extra taxes, starve the poor of the world through the diversion of food crops to fuel, or prevent poorer countries for using the most abundant, proven and cheap resources available to develop their economies. I’m not willing to settle on correlation.

    Have you actually studied the peer-reviewed literature on the subject? Have you read copies of the Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheric Science, Geophysical Research Letters, or even the articles in Science and Nature dealing with global warming? How in the world could you possibly conclude that there’s no evidence? The evidence is overwhelming.

    And what are these studies based upon? MODELS! Yes, Barton I’ve been reading the literature for over 25 years, however, I only recently became active in the fight due to the insanity put out by Gore and the impact that had on gullible, scientifically illiterate people easily swayed by polar bears on ice cubes.

    Your side is locked on a trace atmospheric gas and you have assumed, not proven, that climate is highly sensitive to variations in that gas. You are ignoring or downplaying virtually every other separate climate component and assuming you have near perfect understanding of all the complex interactions between all the climate components. Given that: no model can accurately predict ENSO, all existing models failed to predict the current cooling trend, existing models predicted a tropospheric hotspot that has never materialized, it is clear we don’t know as much as your side thinks we know.

    As long as it was a normal scientific debate with real give and take in search of truth, I could watch from the sideline and not get any more concerned than I do for other scientific debates. Now that it’s become sensationalized and politicized by your side, I’m fighting back.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Krueger you’re flogging a dead horse, Barton knows that CO2 causes mass extinctions because that’s what he learned doing his science-fiction writing.

    I don’t know how much outside research was required for his stories about lesbians, he doesn’t discuss that issue.

    The only act Barton can respond with is his Tarzan chest-pounding stunt when people call him a communist, and he has already demonstrated himself to be one.

    Like I said before – ask a Czech what a “communist” is. Maybe Barton can go beat up everyone in the Czech Republic for identifying him as a “Communist”.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian Valentine:
    May 12th, 2009 at 3:04 am

    Krueger you’re flogging a dead horse, Barton knows that CO2 causes mass extinctions because that’s what he learned doing his science-fiction writing.

    Brian, not for him do I expend the energy, but for those reading who are not actively participating in the discussion and who are trying to learn something.

    I fully concur that the Tamino-Gavin-Hansen-AlGore sycophants won’t change even if buried up to their necks in snow and ice. They’ll still be claiming that there is “hidden warming” in the system and any minute now we’ll all be roasted. Their models say so.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Barton Paul Levenson:
    May 10th, 2009 at 1:23 am

    J L Krueger, in yet another demented post, writes:

    “You are part of a socialist drive to destroy Western economies. You are supporting socialist, nay communist actions. If that defines you as a communist, so be it.”

    If you don’t understand the difference between putting controls on CO2 emissions and switching to renewable sources of energy on the one hand, and state-socialist dictatorship on the other, then you understand neither climate science and proposed climate policy, nor communism.

    Demented? If I recall correctly, it was you who first went demented and threatened to rearrange someone else’s face.

    I understand fully. I don’t have blinders on like you do. Maybe you need to do a better job of actually reading instead of skimming. And read the legislation that is being proposed instead of the biased press synopsis.

    For the former, I’ve recommended some good sources. For the latter, you might want to read Marx and Engles’s 1848 The Communist Manifesto, Lenin’s What Is To Be Done? and Robert Conquest’s many histories of the Soviet Union. Antonov-Ovseyenko’s The Time of Stalin (1982) is indispensible for understanding what real Communism is like. Hint: it ain’t a cap-and-trade policy for controlling CO2 emissions.

    For the former, most of us on this side of the debate have read the sources. It is your side that tends to ignore anything contrary to your AGW view.

    As for the latter, again you display your presumptiveness and condescension. What makes you assume I don’t know about communism? While you were sitting on your ass writing in safety and comfort, I was facing our communist enemies. I’ve seen first-hand what communism is and what it does to people.

    HINT: Cap-and-Trade isn’t about controlling CO2 emissions, it’s about controlling people’s lives and collecting revenue to fund the enactment of a socialist agenda.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian Valentine writes:

    Venera surface heat MOSTLY comes from the heat of solution of sulphur trioxide in water that forms the ubiquitous sulphuric acid clouds covering the surface,

    The clouds don’t cover the surface. They begin about 45 kilometers above the surface. And heat of solution is nowhere near enough to account for surface heat. You’d need to have it happening continuously on a much larger scale (orders of magnitude larger) than observed.

    and I don’t care what else you have read about Venera surface heat, whatever it was, it was wrong. (Ray Pierrehumbert was DEAD wrong about it.)

    I’m afraid it’s not wrong. The high surface temperature of Venus is due primarily to the carbon dioxide in its atmosphere.

    Martian atmosphere has a higher rel partial pressure of CO2 than Earth does, and the diurnal surface temps can be calculated EXACTLY from the s.h. of Martian soil, the size of the planet and the density of the atm as an ideal gas and nothing else is involved.

    There’s a slight effect from the scanty amount of water vapor in the air (about 210 ppmv), but most of the effect is from the carbon dioxide.

    I don’t care what else you have read, it was wrong.

    Prove it.

    (Even Eli agrees with me about Mars, and he ain’t no skeptic for sure)

    If you’re as anti-Commie as you say you are then quit acting like a Trotskyite

    Trotskyites are distinguishable from Stalinists from their belief in the “continuing revolution,” and that worker states will degenerate unless the revolution becomes worldwide. I haven’t said anything remotely relevant to that issue. The SWP doesn’t really interest me.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    J.L. Krueger writes:

    Comprising less than 4% of all greenhouse gas and less than .04% of the atmosphere. H2O vapor comprises about 96% of GHGs. And your point is?

    By what measurement does water vapor “comprise[] about 96% of GHGs?” Mass? Volume? Fraction of greenhouse effect? Try as I might I can’t reproduce that number. Where did you get it?

    And the most recent ice core work shows that warming precedes CO2 increase. Causality link broken.

    Yes, in a natural deglaciation, temperature rises first and CO2 follows. CO2 warming then raises the temperature further. The Milankovic Cycles which govern ice ages time when ice ages and deglaciations occur, but the mechanism by which they work — changes in the distribution of sunlight on the Earth’s surface due to orbital changes — is not enough to account for the observed changes in temperature. You need CO2 as an amplifier.

    Saying “temperature has led CO2 in the past, so CO2 can’t affect temperature” is like saying “chickens produce eggs, so eggs can’t produce chickens.”

    There still is no universally accepted value for the anthropogenic component of CO2. Even the IPCC expresses it in terms of multiple scenarios due to high uncertainty. In the period that Suess and Revelle studied this, it is unlikely that the oceans would have been outgassing as much as during the period between about 1977 – 2001 since the colder oceans at that time could sequester more CO2.

    The oceans give off about 90 gigatons of carbon dioxide a year and take in 92. They are a net sink for CO2 under present conditions, not a source. We know the new CO2 is coming mainly from fossil fuel combustion by its radioisotope signature.

    Additionally, even the IPCC in AR4 points out that up to 1/3 of the CO2 that should be in the atmosphere (based upon models) can’t be accounted for, so something we don’t understand is at play.

    This was true about ten years ago, but they have closed off more and more of the “unknown sinks” every year. Most of them apparently involve biomass and soil.

    AGW alarmism concentrates on the last 30 years during which there are a number of natural factors involved like PDO in positive phase (recently switched negative), AMO positive (recently switched to negative), NAO positive (now negative), solar activity last 30 years highest since record-keeping began (now in significant decline).

    Solar activity has shown no significant trend for the last 50 years. Here are some time series for TSI if you want to look for yourself:

    http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/LeanTSI.html

    http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/SvalgaardTSI.html

    Let’s start the instrumental record:
    1. Land surface temperatures. Highly suspect due UHI and poor coverage. Significant bias likely in readings.

    They account for UHI. Here are some of the studies:

    Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., Imhoff, M., Lawrence, W., Easterling, D., Peterson, T., and Karl, T. 2001. “A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change.” J. Geophys. Res. 106, 23947–23963.

    Peterson, Thomas C. 2003. “Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found.” J. Clim. 16(18), 2941-2959.

    Peterson T., Gallo K., Lawrimore J., Owen T., Huang A., McKittrick D. 1999. “Global rural temperature trends.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 26(3), 329.

    2. Sea surface readings. Are currently flat to declining, to be expected since solar activity was declining toward minimum the last five years and will likely continue to drop as SC24 struggles to start up.

    You’re confusing depth temperatures with surface temperatures, and BTW, the ARGO readings turned out to have problems. Ocean temperatures are still rising. See:

    Domingues, C.M., J.A. Church, N.J. White, P.J. Gleckler, S.E. Wijffels, P.M. Barker, and J.R. Dunn 2008. “Improved Estimates of Upper-Ocean Warming and Multi-Decadal Sea-Level Rise.” Nature 453, 1090-1093.

    3. Radiosonde readings. Flat to declining the last 7 years.

    Cite a source, please.

    4. Satellite readings. Flat to declining for at least 7 years.

    Cite a source, please.

    While temperatures may have risen somewhat over about a thirty year period the increase has not been proven to be outside the range of natural variation.

    No, the Earth at times has been much warmer and much colder. Which is relevant how, exactly? Our agriculture and economy are adapted to the unusually stable climate we’ve had for the last 10,000 years. The fact that it was colder during the Ice Ages or warmer in the Mesozoic isn’t really relevant.

    As for the rest of your evidence about warming, it’s all within natural variation for the planet. Glaciers advance and retreat, wildlife and plants adjust to their environment, or they die, just as they have since before humans showed up.

    See above.

    The Antarctic icecap is not declining, but increasing, as recently reported by the British Antarctic Survey. With the exception of the western quarter of the continent where temperatures may have increased slightly, temperatures have been declining.

    According to the GRACE satellites, the mass of the Antarctic ice cap is down, not up. See:

    http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/

    Global sea ice extent is near an all-time high in the approximately 30 years that records have been kept.

    No it isn’t. See:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/02/wapo_ombudsman_agrees_that_wil.php

    In 2008, the Arctic started its recovery and it’s currently near the average, well above the melt of 2007 that was due to factors other than temperature. A recent German airborne expedition to measure thickness found the first year ice to be nearly twice as thick as expected.

    See above.

    Correlation does not equal causation, even if your measurements for CO2 and temperature were infallibly accurate, which they aren’t.

    No, correlation isn’t causation, but when the theory predicts the correlation and empirical evidence finds it, that’s a pretty nice bit of confirmation.

    I want proof that the temperature increase is significantly outside natural variation and that CO2 caused that increase before I’m willing to destroy our economy with extra taxes,

    Didn’t they say the cap-and-trade for sulfates would destroy the economy, too? And the Clean Air Act? And pretty much any environmental legislation that has ever come up? Once thinks of the boy who cried wolf.

    The proposed cap-and-trade regime in the US refunds most of the money to the taxpayers and uses the rest for R&D, which, historically speaking, helps the economy rather than hurting it.

    starve the poor of the world through the diversion of food crops to fuel,

    I agree that would be a bad idea.

    or prevent poorer countries for using the most abundant, proven and cheap resources available to develop their economies.

    Fossil fuels are only cheap if you don’t count the environmental damage. And it’s the poorer countries who will suffer most from global warming, especially the ones that will have their agriculture devastated and their fresh water taken away. (Though it seems to be a wealthy country, Australia, that was first to have its agriculture collapse due to drought.)

    I’m not willing to settle on correlation.

    Neither am I. It’s just one bit of evidence among many.

    And what are these studies based upon? MODELS!

    No. Models and field work and lab experiments and statistical analysis.

    Yes, Barton I’ve been reading the literature for over 25 years,

    Then it’s hard to understand why you think evidence for AGW comes only from models.

    Your side is locked on a trace atmospheric gas and you have assumed, not proven, that climate is highly sensitive to variations in that gas.

    It is. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Earth’s temperature is intimately affected by how much there is. In fact, Earth’s habitability depends on something called “the carbonate-silicate cycle” which works partly through the effect of CO2 on surface temperatures. See if you can google for the extensive research on this subject by Berner, Lasage, Kasting, etc.

    You are ignoring or downplaying virtually every other separate climate component and assuming you have near perfect understanding of all the complex interactions between all the climate components. Given that: no model can accurately predict ENSO,

    ENSO is an oscillation. That means it doesn’t show a trend. It goes up and down. We’re talking about the overall trend when we’re discussing global warming.

    all existing models failed to predict the current cooling trend,

    There is no current cooling trend. See:

    http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Ball.html

    http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Reber.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    J.L. Krueger, continuing the deranged political stuff, writes:

    What makes you assume I don’t know about communism?

    The fact that you confuse it with doing something about global warming.

    HINT: Cap-and-Trade isn’t about controlling CO2 emissions, it’s about controlling people’s lives and collecting revenue to fund the enactment of a socialist agenda.

    See what I mean?

    Was the first Bush administration trying to control people’s lives snd collect revenue to find the enactment of a socialist agenda when they put in a cap-and-trade regime to control sulfate emissions? I didn’t know the GOP was socialist. When did that happen?

    Let’s look at how we might control carbon dioxide if rising carbon dioxide is indeed a threat to human well-being, as thousands of scientists agree it is.

    1. A socialist or communist approach would be to establish an extensive bureaucratic organization to oversee all production facilities, and lay out in long, detailed documents how much CO2 can legally be produced by each type of process, which processes can legally be used, and exactly how each type of industry should control its CO2 output.

    2. A more market-oriented approach would be to levy a tax on CO2 emissions, or put in a cap-and-trade regime. This would allow companies to figure out whichever way was cheapest and most cost-effective for them to control the emissions, without having to rely on complicated government regulations. The vast majority of the decision-making would be in private hands.

    See the difference?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    See the difference between bright pink communism and flaming scarlet communism?

    In one case, people are left to suffer a little while longer before they die, which is more entertaining for Tamino Royales.

    As for Venus, look at Russian data from Venera 1, which landed on Venus and transmission lasted for all of two hours before sulphuric acid ate through the whole thing.

    As for Mars, prove it youself by looking at the difference in diurnal surface temperatures.

    Since you’re the expert on Outer Worlds in Outer Space, that ought to be a snap for you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Thump Thump Thump

    Me Tarzan

    Me gonna bash you

    Thump Thump Thump


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Barton said: “2. A more market-oriented approach would be to levy a tax on CO2 emissions, or put in a cap-and-trade regime. This would allow companies to figure out whichever way was cheapest and most cost-effective for them to control the emissions, without having to rely on complicated government regulations. The vast majority of the decision-making would be in private hands.”

    Market oriented? The guys are trading something that has NO INTRINSIC VALUE except by government decree. Hahahhahaha – I own some slightly less dirty air over remote regions in China – want to buy it off me? This isn’t market oriented – take out the ‘government input’ and see what value the free market puts on that dirty air over China. Zip. Nada. Nothing, 6 less than a half-dozen. Those carbon contracts would be a ‘free’ – as in ‘lets give them away’ – market.

    Barton said: it would “allow companies to figure out whichever way was cheapest and most cost-effective for them to control the emissions, without having to rely on complicated government regulations”

    Yes, yes. I want to buy carbon credits from Nigeria where the government probably doesn’t put complicated regulations on them, like auditing them with trained people to see if they are actually saving any carbon. Remember the value of these carbon credits is so obvious no one will be able to cheat, I mean, the gold embossed certificate for $100 billion in credits is as good as … gold right? You can feel it, see it, notice the light reflecting off the type face.

    You must be kidding to suggest that a free market would spend anything on imaginary credits if the government wasn’t ‘guaranteeing’ their value, (with the full force of the police and the army.)

    Hello Fiat currency. Hello crime, corruption, fraud, and the inevitable unnecessary crashes and booms. See http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/04/carbon-credits-another-corrupt-currency/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    In her last paragraph JoAnne described the Ruble of the Soviet Government, which had no value in free markets – Rubles could be exchanged for dollars only within black markets


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Re: Barton #352

    Barton, continuing his red-herring sidestepping tries to equate the first Bush Administration’s goal of controlling substances that are actually poisons with the Obama administration trying to regulate one which is essential to life. The Bush Administration, unlike the Obama Administration, was also not otherwise trying to fund government take-over of the banking industry, the healthcare industry, auto industry and eventually the energy industry. While Bush’s goal achieved results in reducing real pollutants, his method was the final nail in the coffin of the US steel industry.

    Comparing the goal of reducing SO2, NO2, NOMx and Hg (harmful to life as in will actually kill) to reducing CO2 (beneficial and essential to life) is distortion.

    A socialist or communist approach would be to establish an extensive bureaucratic organization to oversee all production facilities, and lay out in long, detailed documents how much CO2 can legally be produced by each type of process, which processes can legally be used, and exactly how each type of industry should control its CO2 output.

    Of course Barton is too blind to recognize the difference between goal and approach. It’s not the specific approach that makes something socialist/communist, but the desired end-state or goal. The desired end-state of this Administration is a socialist nation and they are using every “crisis” to bring that about. As the Administration has not yet achieved totalitarian power, it must use indirect methods to achieve the goals.

    Regardless, the mechanisms that you described are being discussed in Congress by his socialist allies. (HINT: Read the President’s Budget to see how important this nonsense is to keeping his proposed deficit…cough…cough…manageable.)

    This would allow companies to figure out whichever way was cheapest and most cost-effective for them to control the emissions, without having to rely on complicated government regulations. The vast majority of the decision-making would be in private hands.

    Cap-and-Trade = Smoke-and-Mirrors. Obama is simply masking his broader socialist agenda in trappings of “environmentalism.” He’s simply using the imaginary AGW crisis to further his other objectives. The communists failed in their direct approach, so they are using and indirect one and gullible, blind idiots are swallowing the whole thing.

    “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” (Obama interview with SF Chronicle, 17 January 2008)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I have some real dirty air here in Kabul, Afghanistan that I’ll sell Barton for only about $100,000. He can get in on the ground floor and probably trade up for dirty Chinese air in about a year and make a fortune.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    So how do you like Kabul?

    I was going to go there in 2005 but I went to Baghdad instead.

    No regrets.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    By the way I happen to LIKE some pollution (not CO2, either).

    Pollution means money and jobs.

    Three cheers for pollution!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian Valentine writes:

    As for Venus, look at Russian data from Venera 1, which landed on Venus and transmission lasted for all of two hours before sulphuric acid ate through the whole thing.

    Venera 1 never made it to Venus. The first Venera probe to land on Venus was Venera 7. The probes (Venera 7 through 14 and Vega 1 and 2) were destroyed by temperature, not sulfuric acid, of which there’s too little to matter near the surface. The surface temperature of Venus averages 735.3 K (Venus standard atmosphere of Seiff et al. 1986), which simply melted the metal and silicon the probes were made out of after an hour or so.

    As for Mars, prove it youself by looking at the difference in diurnal surface temperatures.

    Prove what? What are you referring to here?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Joanne Nova writes:

    Market oriented? The guys are trading something that has NO INTRINSIC VALUE except by government decree. Hahahhahaha – I own some slightly less dirty air over remote regions in China – want to buy it off me? This isn’t market oriented – take out the ‘government input’ and see what value the free market puts on that dirty air over China. Zip. Nada. Nothing, 6 less than a half-dozen. Those carbon contracts would be a ‘free’ – as in ‘lets give them away’ – market.

    Barton said: it would “allow companies to figure out whichever way was cheapest and most cost-effective for them to control the emissions, without having to rely on complicated government regulations”

    Yes, yes. I want to buy carbon credits from Nigeria where the government probably doesn’t put complicated regulations on them, like auditing them with trained people to see if they are actually saving any carbon. Remember the value of these carbon credits is so obvious no one will be able to cheat, I mean, the gold embossed certificate for $100 billion in credits is as good as … gold right? You can feel it, see it, notice the light reflecting off the type face.

    You must be kidding to suggest that a free market would spend anything on imaginary credits if the government wasn’t ‘guaranteeing’ their value, (with the full force of the police and the army.)

    Hello Fiat currency. Hello crime, corruption, fraud, and the inevitable unnecessary crashes and booms.

    I think you have cap-and-trade confused with carbon credits. Also, the proposed law would be internal to the US, not international.

    The fact that the credit permits might have no intrinsic value is like the fact that paper money has no intrinsic value. The value of a commodity in a marketplace is set by the interaction of supply and demand. If you were only permitted to emit so much, there would certainly be a demand for the emission permits; thus they would have value. US currency is no longer backed by gold, but people still want it.

    No doubt the law, like any law, would be vulnerable to corruption if it were poorly written and/or poorly enforced. That doesn’t seem to be a valid argument against passing such a law. The laws against murder are routinely violated, too, but things would be worse if murder were legalized.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    J.L. Krueger writes:

    While Bush’s goal achieved results in reducing real pollutants, his method was the final nail in the coffin of the US steel industry.

    The nail in the coffin of the US steel industry was that US steelworkers were being paid $20 an hour for little more than pressing a button every few minutes, while their counterparts in Europe and Brazil and Korea were paid $7. And the big decline of the steel industry took place in the 1970s and 1980s. The cap-and-trade regime for sulfate emissions was passed in 1989.

    Cap-and-Trade = Smoke-and-Mirrors. Obama is simply masking his broader socialist agenda in trappings of “environmentalism.” He’s simply using the imaginary AGW crisis to further his other objectives. The communists failed in their direct approach, so they are using and indirect one and gullible, blind idiots are swallowing the whole thing.

    Reminds me of how the John Birch Society used to “prove” that Eisenhower was a Communist back in the ’50s. BTW, the AGW crisis isn’t imaginary.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian Valentine writes:

    By the way I happen to LIKE some pollution (not CO2, either).

    Pollution means money and jobs.

    Three cheers for pollution!

    Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ayn Rand. Pollution means foisting a cost of production onto other people instead of covering it yourself. It’s a form of theft.

    I live in western Pennsylvania. I’d love to see what the people of Donora, PA would say to your paean to pollution.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    koth442

    Global Warming, an issue that virtually every man, woman, and child knows at least something about. The People are finding ways to cut their Carbon Dioxide (CO2) output. The People buy hi-brids, because it’s “going green” (ain’t gonna lie, i could use one myself, gas prices are killing me) and releases less CO2. Most large media companies claim that Global Warming is destroying our atmosphere, which could result in out Earth being completely destroyed. Personally, I don’t believe everything I hear in the media, rather, I believe almost nothing that the media says. Which results in me doing my research, finding out whether the media tells the truth or not. Turns out, the media was right, well sort of….

    Here’s the research/math. According to F. A. Davis’s Medical Dictionary, the average male exhales approx. 550 CC’s of mixed gases upon every exhale. It turns out, only about 28 CC’s are actually Carbon Dioxide (CO2). There are about 6.6 Billion inhabitants of the Earth, so:

    28CC’sX6.6Billion= 184.8 Trillion CC’s of CO2 released when the whole world takes a breath.

    1 CC of CO2 equals about 0.00000198 Kg’s so: 184.8 Trillion CC’s X 0.00000198 equals 365,904 Kg’s of CO2.

    The average man breaths approx. 13 times a minute. Which translates to approx. 6.8 million times per year. Multiply that to the total amount of CO2 humans exhale in one breath, and it turns out that approx 2 Trillion Kg’s of CO2 is exhaled a year, just by humans.

    For a reference, in 2004 The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center in Oak Ridge Tennessee found that in 2004 humans had burned approx. 7910 million Metric tons which equals 7,910,000,000 Kg’s (approx 8 Billion Kg) burned since 1751.

    The ratio of Carbon burned (over 250 years) compared to the ratio of Carbon exhaled (over one year) looks something like this: 8Billion Kg’s to 2 Trillion. Which simplifies to: 8 to 2,000 Kg’s. To put this on a more universal scale, there was approx. 400 Million Kg’s of CO2 burned in the year 2004. Compared to the annual exhalation rate, the simplied ratio looks like this: 1/5,000. So for every Kg of CO2 burned, five thousand Kgs was exhaled.

    So in conclusion, humans exhale WAY more CO2 than we could possibly burn in 250 years, in just one short year. And that is just humans exhaling, what about our furry little friends of the animal kingdom? They exhale CO2 also. So I think this proves, that global warming is completely natural, and any person telling you different needs to look at this proof.

    http://globalwarming-solowing.blogspot.com/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Barton Paul Levenson #364

    > I live in western Pennsylvania. I’d love to see what the people of Donora, PA would say to your paean to pollution.

    That’s probably not a well known place to Australian readers here, but it’s worth reading about. http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/heritage/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=533403 is a collection of stories, http://www.docheritage.state.pa.us/documents/donora.asp

    BTW, I went to Carnegie-Mellon Univ (BSEE 1972) in Pittsburgh while working steel mills still lined the river. While the particulates were cleaned up then, when the air inversion settled in overnight the smoke from the mills would fill Panther Hollow and gradually engulf the campus. After bicycling home, my shirt would smell of smoke, not sweat.

    Pittsburgh is a lot cleaner now, but I think there’s still one coke plant and several coal power plants. Made me appreciate nukes.

    An another ex-Pittsburgher is James Peden. Then he attended the University of Pittsburgh and was an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. Now he lives in Vermont and is “better known as Jim or ‘Dad’”.

    His comments about this sordid field are at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    George Ford

    May 13, 2009:
    I worked in the HVAC field for 15 years. I remember cleaning my clothes after servicing a unit with the hose from my drum of freon back in the old days. We used freon like compressed air (which wasn’t right). I think the “Inconvenient Truth” is a bunch hooey. I think our regulatory folks (EPA)are a bunch of political stooges maintaining the current politicos agendas. I also believe we are in a global environmental crisis, which only includes global warming.

    Air pollution and water pollution are causing significant health issues in highly populated areas such as China. I am convinced global warming has already occurred, but the fact it will or has occurred may not be a bad thing for humanity, but nobody knows. Everyone should try to minimize their personal environmental impact in my opinion. Drive Hondas (made in the USA)instead of F-350s, live in smaller homes (unlike Albert Gore), use dorm refrigerators instead of full-sized units, heat water only when needed, ect…

    The primary problem currently facing humanity is over-population. Global warming, air pollution, water pollution, food shortages, water shortages, and fuel shortages are all symptomatic of explosive population growth. We must deal with this issue. All other environmental debates are meaningless, until we can maintain a sustainable population which could be as low as 1 or 2 billion versus the nearly 7 billion on the earth now.

    We are goldfish in a bowl…..anyone who has had an aquarium can understand the issues we face. The earth is not boundless.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Barton for someone who claims to be anti-Communist you write like a bureaucrat for the Socialist Worker’s Party.

    You couldn’t be any more anti-Capitalist than Engles was.

    You ARE indeed anti-Nazi and any rational hiuman can understand that.

    But Capitalism isn’t Third Reich-ism and somehow or other you have to stop equating the two.

    - Mars exhibits dirunal; surface temperature differences of up to 200 K because there is no greenhouse effect from anything.

    - The Venera probes were destroyed by sulfuric acid, which they could do nothing about. Don’t you think the Russians knew how hot the surface was there?

    - Don’t you think people who have measured radiant properties of gases in furnaces would have noticed some “enhanced greenhouse effect” from carbon dioxide mixtures a long time ago? It’s funny how this miracle works only in the atmosphere, and cannot be reproduced in furnaces.

    Another ESP trick. Can’t reproduce it in the lab – doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

    All I can do is fight you ideas, which I continue to do. I’m trying to make sure that people like you don’t get your wishes about cap and trade or any other Communist agenda.

    That’s how it stands


    Report this

    00

  • #

    koth442 posts:

    So in conclusion, humans exhale WAY more CO2 than we could possibly burn in 250 years, in just one short year. And that is just humans exhaling, what about our furry little friends of the animal kingdom? They exhale CO2 also. So I think this proves, that global warming is completely natural, and any person telling you different needs to look at this proof.

    Human and animal respiration is balanced by plant respiration. Humans breathe in oxygen and breathe out CO2, plants breathe in CO2 and breathe out O2.

    In general, natural sources are matched by natural sinks, which is why the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was stable for so long.

    Imagine a bathtub with the faucet rushing in water at huge speed, but a big hole in the bottom of the tub such that as much rushes out as rushes in. The level of water in the tub is stable.

    Now add a tiny trickle from an additional faucet. The level in the tub will rise and eventually pour over the side.

    That’s the situation with human-produced CO2, and the reason the level in the air around us has risen from about 280 ppmv in preindustrial times to 387 ppmv this year.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian Valentine writes:

    Barton for someone who claims to be anti-Communist you write like a bureaucrat for the Socialist Worker’s Party.

    You’ve never read anything by the SWP, have you?

    You couldn’t be any more anti-Capitalist than Engles was.

    I believe in private ownership of the means of production and that in general, prices should be set by the interaction of supply and demand, not by fiat. That means I’m a capitalist, not a Communist of any variety.

    But I do believe in government regulation where the market doesn’t take care of externalities.

    But Capitalism isn’t Third Reich-ism and somehow or other you have to stop equating the two.

    I haven’t.

    - Mars exhibits dirunal; surface temperature differences of up to 200 K because there is no greenhouse effect from anything.

    The radiative equilibrium temperature of Mars is 210 K. The average surface temperature is 214 K (Mars standard atmosphere of Barh 1985). Rampino and Caldera give 218 K. Where do you think the extra heat is coming from?

    - The Venera probes were destroyed by sulfuric acid, which they could do nothing about. Don’t you think the Russians knew how hot the surface was there?

    Of course they did. They expected the probes to melt. And they did. Sulfuric acid had nothing to do with it.

    For a good overview of the Russian planetary probes, see Yuri A. Surkov’s “Exploration of Terrestrial Planets from Spacecraft” (1997). It’s expensive, but if you live near a university with a physics and astronomy department they probably have a library copy.

    - Don’t you think people who have measured radiant properties of gases in furnaces would have noticed some “enhanced greenhouse effect” from carbon dioxide mixtures a long time ago? It’s funny how this miracle works only in the atmosphere, and cannot be reproduced in furnaces.

    It is reproduced in furnaces. Carl Sagan’s original paper (1960) on the Venus greenhouse effect used absorption data from engineering studies of furnaces. The classic paper on infrared absorption by greenhouse gases in furnaces is Hottel et al. 1941 (Transacations of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 63, 297). Hottel goes into more detail in his 1967 book on Radiative Transfer.

    Another ESP trick. Can’t reproduce it in the lab – doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

    It was first found in lab work by John Tyndall in 1859.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “prices should be set by the interaction of supply and demand, not by fiat.”

    Yay – way to go Barton. I totally agree, so that means you’re against cap N trade now? Congratulations for spotting the new fiat-currency-we-don’t-have-to-have. The non-existent demand for “less carbon in the air” will kill off the carbon credit market in a day. Do yes, let the free market in.

    As far as comment #369 goes: Barton – what if God put an overflow outlet in the bath?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Global Warming: A Classic Case of Alarmism Someone needs to send this to Al Gore This is a Guest Post by Dr David Evans The big temperature picture. Graph and insight from Dr Syun Akasofu (2009 International Conference on Climate Change, New York, March 2009). The global temperature has been rising at a steady trend rate of 0.5


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    I’m going to write an essay, titled “Going No Where At All with Barton and Getting Frustrated Because of It,”- but the essay would be so boring no one could stomach the first paragraph.

    I’ll be real brief here because a long winded response would mean nothing anyway

    Tyndall proved that CO2 absorbs in the IR – the effect was probably already known to Berthelot, and only recently, upon the rise of AGW as Religion, has Tyndall become revered as a Founder of the Church of Global Warming of the Latter-Day Saints, and otherwise Tyndall would stay more well associated with experiments that demonstrated how to estimate the composition of colloid from mixtures, as well he should have.

    The same sainthood has been bestowed upon the image of Arrhenius, whose own work on “greenhouse effects” was decimated in 1904-1907 papers that appeared in the Phil Mag.

    Otherwise, no one would associate Arrhenius’s name with more than the equation

    k(T) = ko exp-(Ea/RT)

    I am a student of Hottel’s student; I helped my own thesis professor complete tables of alpha(lambda,T)for CO2/H2O in furnaces

    If you don’t realize what I mean about the “claimed greenhouse effect on Earth for CO2/H2O gas mixtures not demonstrated in furnaces” – then go be a denier, darn it – because if that is your evidence for the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere than by definition you ARE a denier

    You’re dead wrong about Venus, you’re dead wrong about Mars, Surkov’s book has been in paperback on bookshelves in Dalton for years; all I remember is his speculations about the surface chemistry and atmospheric chemistry of Venus, the physical chemist Boris Derjaguin speculated (in a Russian article) some years ago about the fate of the Venera on Venus, Sagan was wrong about the Early Sun paradox on a million year old Earth with liquid water, which he claimed came from the greenhouse effect of methane and it was the geothermal heat and not the greenhouse effect that allowed liquid water to form on an Earth with a still too cool early O-sequence Sun for the presence of liquid water on Earth.

    I probably seem like a right-wing lunatic to you, and you strike me as an s/f nut who continually claims he finds “messages from beings in outer space” that are “hidden” in Sagan’s SETI microwave data, and we went no where after all of that.

    /end of wearisome discussion with Barton


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    one last itmem to Barton

    Sure I’ve read stuff from the SWP they used to leave copies of their newspaper all over the college library when I was a kid.

    The words “dialectic” and “dialectical” probably appeared at least thirty times of each and every page they published

    Other than the usual harangue about Corporations, I remember that the Editor wrote and article about “homosexuality” “vanishing” in a utopian Marxist society that was wasn’t “polluted” with Capitalist “hatred” – a professed Lesbian provided an incensed reply, that must have been, 1964 or 65


    Report this

    00

  • #
    phil

    I think all (many) of us can agree that we don’t know the precise causal relationships of humanity -> atmosphere -> temperature. I think, however, that even those who disagree with the conclusions of the scientific community as a whole should agree that the consequences of global warming would be very severe. The bad outcome-averse part of all of us feels a tug towards reducing our emissions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Spuffler

    Argue, bicker, piss and moan. Excuse those, deride this, justify that, exclude these… Will the main slope of ‘recovery from little ice age’ remain linear?

    If we arrive at a consensus one way, it M A Y already be too late. If we conclude to the opposite, we rest on the laurels of the doctorates. Until next upswing. Then we do all this bickering AGAIN, so the real question becomes this: exactly when will this curve of the sum of events finally turn asymptotic? I believe we will ask for yet another ‘consensus of the doctorates’, but by then, we will have wasted n*30 year oscillations. I’ll be gone by n=1, so my best to you youngsters.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian Valentine:
    May 13th, 2009 at 3:40 am #360

    I was going to go there in 2005 but I went to Baghdad instead.

    After spending most of the last five years in Iraq, I came to Kabul as a change of scenery…right when things started heating up a bit.

    Kabul itself is great. It’s a bit overcrowded because people from the countryside have migrated here for jobs and security.

    Aghans are wonderful hospitable people and I’m frequently in situations where I wouldn’t have wanted to be caught dead in Iraq. Our “Green Zone” here is a lot less secure than Baghdad’s was – things are more open. We live in “safe houses” in town rather than on the base if that’s an indicator. The florist around the corner from my house sold Christmas trees and Christmas decorations this past Christmas season and did a fairly brisk business.

    Weather here is pleasant enough, even in the summer. Last year we only hit 100°F once (31 July). It’s nowhere near as humid as Baghdad either. This spring has been both wetter and cooler than “normal” whatever that is. We didn’t break 80°F until this past Monday (11 May). There, threw in some climate/weather. ;)

    Seriously, the Afghans are convinced that between the Soviets and the Taliban, the loss of trees contributed most to their local climate turning hotter and dustier. They’ve been planting trees at a record pace this spring and we frequently see Afghans on bicycles clutching saplings and cars with trunks loaded with young trees as we travel around town.

    Back to our regularly schedule arguments. ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    BPL #364:
    BTW, the AGW crisis isn’t imaginary.

    Prove it. You haven’t.

    If not imaginary, I’ll settle for contrived because it sure isn’t a real crisis except for your side wanting desperately to destroy Western economies. In that sense it is a political crisis, but it isn’t and an evironmental one at all.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Spuffler #377:
    “Will the main slope of ‘recovery from little ice age’ remain linear?”

    Spuffler, that’s it isn’t it. We really Have No Idea. We don’t know if at some point whatever mysterious factor that caused the little ice age either stopped pushing down, or some other mysterious force started pushing up… so when will this thing that we can’t name stop, or this lack of a different thing we can’t name start? Who-the-heck knows. Not climate modelers, that’s for sure, because it doesn’t correlate with carbon.

    So – yes there’s a risk in doing nothing, but there’s also a risk in doing something.

    How many people do you want to starve in order to protect us from mysterious forces we can’t name?

    Do the easy stuff… don’t waste energy if there IS an alternative. Don’t burn forests for the fun of it. Riding bikes can be great….yada yada yada

    Do ONE hard thing… lets do more research to figure out what mysterious forces do control the climate, but we need real research, with a real debate: no name-calling, no intimidation, and full balanced coverage in the press.

    That’s right, us young radicals are asking for honest polite intelligent debate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod B

    George Ford (368), did you just recommend the elimination (Stalin style??) of 5-6 billion people??

    koth442 (366), I think your math has at least one error that I noticed – a high factor of 1000. (28 x 6.6G = 185 billion, not 185 trillion)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    JLKrueger #378 – I went to Kabul in Sep last year – as a tourist – here are some of my notes http://www.guennadi.com I agree that lack of tress is the greatest disaster for this country. (Maybe there will be a way to use the $ from carbon trading to setup some tree farms in AF)..

    On the other note, I came across Flood Maps where NASA data is integrated into Google Maps. You can set the sea level rize to see what areas will be flooded.

    http://www.ausbusiness.net/review/flood-maps-global-warming/

    GM


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Well, Krueger, I’m actually glad I went to Iraq instead,

    it sounds kind of morose, but somehow I preferred the company of suicide bombers and lunatics, they made the days move along a lot faster than being in the company of “nice people,” which I am now and have been prior to that


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Barton Paul Levenson:
    May 12th, 2009 at 11:16 pm #352

    By what measurement does water vapor “comprise[] about 96% of GHGs?” Mass? Volume? Fraction of greenhouse effect? Try as I might I can’t reproduce that number. Where did you get it?

    Nice try Barton, now you are being very disingenuous. Hell, I was being generous going as low as 96%. At 0 – 4% of the total atmospheric volume, measured in ppm, you can do the math. 98% H2O vapor by volume is most often quoted figure I’ve seen. Of course your side mostly ignores or downplays H2O vapor, being very inconvenient for your arguments and not even the IPCC bothers to quote a value, preferring instead to talk generally that H2O vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas.

    Yes, in a natural deglaciation, temperature rises first and CO2 follows. CO2 warming then raises the temperature further. The Milankovic Cycles which govern ice ages time when ice ages and deglaciations occur, but the mechanism by which they work — changes in the distribution of sunlight on the Earth’s surface due to orbital changes — is not enough to account for the observed changes in temperature. You need CO2 as an amplifier.

    You’ve yet to prove that the current warming is not a natural climate variation similar to the MWP or RWP within the current interglacial. Milankovic Cycles may govern the deep Ice Ages, but they didn’t account for the DCP or the LIA, which were cooling periods within the general warming of the current interglacial.

    Saying “temperature has led CO2 in the past, so CO2 can’t affect temperature” is like saying “chickens produce eggs, so eggs can’t produce chickens.”

    Influence/affect and cause are two different propositions and yours is a pathetic analogy.

    The oceans give off about 90 gigatons of carbon dioxide a year and take in 92. They are a net sink for CO2 under present conditions, not a source. We know the new CO2 is coming mainly from fossil fuel combustion by its radioisotope signature.

    As measured how? Exactly how many stations globally are taking empirical measurements of CO2 and its signature? Hint: the number is smaller than three digits. The satellite meant to take more empirical and global measurements never escaped the atmosphere and crashed.

    This was true about ten years ago, but they have closed off more and more of the “unknown sinks” every year. Most of them apparently involve biomass and soil.

    The cutoff for data in AR4 was 2005. That’s not even four years ago and there are no current studies that have “closed the gap.”

    Solar activity has shown no significant trend for the last 50 years. Here are some time series for TSI if you want to look for yourself:

    According to NASA the last fifty years were the most active on record.

    In talking about the currently quiet sun, NASA’s David Hathaway says: “Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high,” notes Hathaway. “Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We’re just not used to this kind of deep calm.”

    NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center has pushed back the next solar maximum to mid-2013 and predicts it will be a weak maximum.

    Additionally, Willson, R.C. 1997. Total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21 and 22. Science, 277, 1963-5, demonstrated that solar irradiance had been increasing and predicted that if the trend continued, it would add .5°C to global surface temps.

    Hmm, that’s just about what the most recent increase was. But then SC 23 died a quiet slow death and SC24 still hasn’t really gotten started.

    They account for UHI.

    If you look at the surface stations that GISS, NOAA and Hadley use in calculating the anomaly, and then filter for those labeled “rural” and then plot those stations and view them even from Google Earth, you’ll see that most are no longer rural. So there is no way they are adjusting for UHI for those stations, let alone the questionable nature of the adjustments they do make. Given the problems with US surface stations (almost 70% of those surveyed to date have Type 4 or 5 errors), it is likely that these problems are magnified in other lesser-developed countries.

    You’re confusing depth temperatures with surface temperatures, and BTW, the ARGO readings turned out to have problems. Ocean temperatures are still rising.

    No, I’m not confused but I’ll admit to being loose with terminology on that one.

    James Hansen, Josh Willis, Gavin Schmidt et al, “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications” (Science, 3 June 2005, 1431-35), state that ocean heat is a robust metric for measuring global warming.

    However, heat is not temperature and ocean heat content has declined since 2003.

    Loehle, 2009: “Cooling of the global ocean since 2003.” Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 101-104(4)

    Josh Willis of NASA corrected for the cold bias in ARGO and his numbers still show declining ocean heat. Willis, J. K., 2008: “Is it Me, or Did the Oceans Cool?”, U.S. CLIVAR, Sept, 2008, Vol. 6, No. 2.

    Domingues, et al, 2008 was not about rising sea temperatures, but about thermal expansion factors in determining sea-level rise “using statistical techniques that allow for sparse data coverage and applying recent corrections to reduce systematic biases in the most common ocean temperature observations.” The end-point of their data was 2003 and since then the oceans have lost heat.

    3. Re: Radiosonde readings. Cite a source, please.

    Angell, J.K. 2009. Global, hemispheric, and zonal temperature deviations derived from radiosonde records. In Trends Online: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.A.

    Re: Satellite readings. Cite a source, please.

    Try UAH, RSS, and CRU. RSS data reads the highest, but it is still flat to falling. In calculating their anomaly they used a different baseline that tends to induce a higher anomaly than UAH or CRU. Additionally, the RSS satellite is suffering orbit degradation, which affects their readings.

    No, the Earth at times has been much warmer and much colder. Which is relevant how, exactly? Our agriculture and economy are adapted to the unusually stable climate we’ve had for the last 10,000 years. The fact that it was colder during the Ice Ages or warmer in the Mesozoic isn’t really relevant.

    Hmm, it’s been much warmer and much colder without human influence in the past, so we are in agreement. That’s called natural variation and we are well within the bounds which is exactly what I said. Within this interglacial, we are well within the boundaries of the RWP, MWP at the high end and the DCP and LIA at the low end, still natural variation.

    According to the GRACE satellites, the mass of the Antarctic ice cap is down, not up.

    No, according to the model that made estimates of data collected from the satellites between 1996 and 2006 there was an estimated loss. GRACE does not take direct measurements. Eric Rignot et al, based estimates on a glacier analysis and extrapolated those results to the rest of the continent.

    According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, it is up. You can easily compare the years since 1980 for both extent and concentration.

    I said: “Global sea ice extent is near an all-time high in the approximately 30 years that records have been kept.”

    No it isn’t.

    Yes it is, do the math. Add up the sea ice extent for each icecap using the data available at National Snow and Ice Data Center

    Re: My comment about Arctic Ice your answer:

    See above.

    Getting weak Barton. See Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

    No, correlation isn’t causation, but when the theory predicts the correlation and empirical evidence finds it, that’s a pretty nice bit of confirmation.

    What empirical evidence? You’ve yet to show any empirical evidence linking CO2 increase to the current temperature increase. You’ve yet to overturn the null hypothesis. You are ignoring all other climate components.

    Didn’t they say the cap-and-trade for sulfates would destroy the economy, too? And the Clean Air Act? And pretty much any environmental legislation that has ever come up? Once thinks of the boy who cried wolf.

    The proposed cap-and-trade regime in the US refunds most of the money to the taxpayers and uses the rest for R&D, which, historically speaking, helps the economy rather than hurting it.

    And somehow you think the energy industry won’t raise consumer prices to cover the costs. Businesses don’t pay taxes Barton, they collect them for the government. Anything the government forces a business to pay, gets passed to the consumer. Economics 101. But I suppose that if the Obama Administration succeeds in nationalizing everything, it could be possible to not pass on costs. I’m sure as hell not holding my breath about getting any “refunds” from the government. Giving me back some of what I paid out in the first place, isn’t a gain for me, especially when my other expenses go up.

    Try digesting this from a White House memo released this week:

    “Making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide … for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.”

    Sorta like the guys pushing this crap agree with those who are opposed in recognizing the economic consequences. And don’t forget the Obamasiah’s quote from my earlier post about bankrupting power companies. Your side is admitting the potential economic damage.

    Barton’s reply to my statement about starving the poor due to diverting food crops to fuel.

    I agree that would be a bad idea.

    And yet that’s exactly what the asinine ethanol mandates do. That’s even before we start discussing the destruction of land carbon sinks in the process to produce more material to make ethanol, or the diversion of water to produce ethanol.

    Fossil fuels are only cheap if you don’t count the environmental damage.

    Easy for you to say when you already have energy in abundance, while they need the energy NOW! You are asking them to commit national economic suicide. The poorer countries will suffer far more from cooling than from warming.

    And it’s the poorer countries who will suffer most from global warming, especially the ones that will have their agriculture devastated and their fresh water taken away. (Though it seems to be a wealthy country, Australia, that was first to have its agriculture collapse due to drought.)

    Are you trying to say there were never droughts before we started burning fossil fuels? Drought projections, like all the other doomsday scenarios, are based upon models. Given the models can’t predict temperature, I rather doubt they’ll be very successful predicting droughts. What was that about a boy crying wolf? Why exactly do you think the public is waking up to this scam and skepticism is growing, not declining?

    Neither am I. It’s just one bit of evidence among many.

    A statistical correlation isn’t evidence and you’ve yet to produce any empirical evidence proving that the current warming (what little there is) is outside the bounds of natural variation or that anthropogenic CO2 caused it.

    No. Models and field work and lab experiments and statistical analysis.

    You’ve not produced an iota of empirical evidence. No lab experiment or field work has demonstrated that climate is sensitive to CO2. The output from which your AGW hypothesis draws breath is the result of models and is based upon assumptions. Statistical analysis is more modeling.

    Then it’s hard to understand why you think evidence for AGW comes only from models.

    I actually read the studies rather than reading the abstracts and press releases. Every single study that you, or any of your AGW brethren, have produced is the output of modeling with hundreds of assumptions, estimates and WAGs.

    It is. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    So is H2O vapor. There’s a lot more H2O vapor than CO2 and your models mostly ignore it because, as the IPCC admits, it isn’t understood.

    Earth’s temperature is intimately affected by how much there is. In fact, Earth’s habitability depends on something called “the carbonate-silicate cycle” which works partly through the effect of CO2 on surface temperatures.

    You are assuming that climate sensitivity to CO2 outweighs all other forcings and feedbacks.

    ENSO is an oscillation. That means it doesn’t show a trend. It goes up and down. We’re talking about the overall trend when we’re discussing global warming.

    Gee Barton, I had no idea that the “O” at the end of “ESN” meant oscillation. If models can’t accurately nail the start and end of even one major ocean cycle that is, by definition, somewhat predictable (ESNO is just one of many), they can’t accurately project climate trends. That is why most models do not address oscillations, even though they impact climate. The recent solar cycle shift is another example where the models could not get it right. Why? Because we don’t know all we think we know.

    Fact is: The major oceanic oscillations are not well-understood, clouds are not well-understood, H2O vapor is not well understood, solar input is not well-understood, to name just a few uncertainties that the IPCC admits to in AR4.

    If you have little understanding of multiple system components, then you can’t have a good understanding of how it all fits together to create the climate equilibrium that makes life on this planet possible. You can only make gross approximations based on assumptions.

    There is no current cooling trend. See:

    http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Ball.html

    http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Reber.html

    I’m now on the floor laughing! Barton cites himself as a reference! What a hoot! Gee, maybe I should try that. I’ll bet you weren’t “peer reviewed” so, by typical AGW debate logic, that means it doesn’t count! I noticed that you couldn’t help lacing your erstwhile “refutations” with ad hominem.

    Barton you are not going to convince me with what you’ve managed to produce. I’m not likely to sway you. You want to believe that a trace atmospheric gas comprising less than .04% of the entire atmosphere overpowers all other climate components. That’s an assumption and a hypothesis that has yet to be proven.

    The difference between us is that I recognize and accept that we humans don’t know everything. It doesn’t hurt my sense of worth to know that we are pretty damn insignificant in the universe. There are too many uncertainties, none of the forces work in isolation, the interactions are complex and poorly understood, and not all the interactions produce a net temperature gain. We are not more powerful than nature.

    No matter what the politicians decide, anthropogenic CO2 will likely continue to rise over the next five years. In about five years, my own WAG, we will have the opportunity to see whether the currently quiet sun (projected to remain fairly quiet the next 20 – 30 years, yeah models), the ocean cycles, cloud feedbacks and all the other things that make climate what it is falsify your CO2 hypothesis.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    phil:
    May 14th, 2009 at 6:18 pm #376

    I think, however, that even those who disagree with the conclusions of the scientific community as a whole should agree that the consequences of global warming would be very severe. The bad outcome-averse part of all of us feels a tug towards reducing our emissions.

    That’s sort of why there’s disagreement Phil, we don’t agree.

    The main points of the AGW hypothesis include:

    1. That the current observed temperature increase is unprecedented.

    2. That the current observed temperature increase is not natural and is caused by anthropogenic (human created) CO2.

    From those two points, the AGW community concludes that the negative effects of warming will be catastrophic to life on the planet and outweigh any potential benefits, therefore requiring drastic immediate action to stop it. This conclusion is reached not by evidence, but by model output.

    We on the Skeptic side don’t by the first point, because there is historical evidence to the contrary (Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period to name just two).

    We don’t buy the second point because there is no evidence that increasing CO2 has ever preceded temperature rise on earth. There is evidence that temperature rises have preceded CO2 rise. There is plenty of evidence that CO2 has at times in Earth’s history been orders of magnitude higher than today and life thrived.

    Hence we don’t buy the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused the current warming. We tend to believe that it is a natural rebound from the last Ice Age and part of the natural cycles that have been taking place on Earth for over 4 billion years.

    We don’t buy the hypothesis that warming would necessarily be bad. We tend to think that trying to stop a natural change is a waste of money and effort. We should be dealing with problems we can solve right now like disease, hunger, providing shelter and energy to our growing population, education…the list is long and resources are finite.

    Additionally, we need to recognize that interglacials tend to be short, while Ice Ages are long. We may be nearing tail-end of the Holocene Interglacial and if that is true, the potential effects of cold will be far worse than those of warmth. Our time, effort and resources would be better spent in mitigation for both extremes, rather than trying to stop something over which we have no control.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    A couple of broken links in my post #384 to Barton:

    Yes it is, do the math. Add up the sea ice extent for each icecap using the data available at National Snow and Ice Data Center

    Re: My comment about Arctic Ice your answer:

    See above.

    Getting weak Barton. See Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Guennadi M #382

    Maybe there will be a way to use the $ from carbon trading to setup some tree farms in AF.

    Afghanistan doesn’t need our help planting trees. They have the means to handle that and are already planting trees. They get it, they’re on it.

    What Afghanistan needs is reliable energy so that they don’t have to rely on wood and old tires (they burn tires in the winter since there is neither enough electricity nor wood). Think of the immediate health implications of that fact.

    Thousands of Afghans die every year due to the cold. Last winter the family a couple houses down from me lost four children due to hypothermia (50% mortality rate). The UN failed to deliver wood because it was too cold. Sadly, though our guys had befriended the family, they were too proud to ask for help and our guys were unaware of their plight.

    This past winter seven of the Afghans I work with lost one or more relatives to hypothermia and, in Kabul at least, it was a mild winter by Afghan standards. Cold kills more human beings than warmth.

    Afghanistan has coal, natural gas and probably oil, and they have rivers that can produce hydroelectric power. They need help developing those resources and the infrastructure to distribute it, none of which will be possible without security.

    On the other note, I came across Flood Maps where NASA data is integrated into Google Maps. You can set the sea level rize to see what areas will be flooded.

    To see what areas may be flooded assuming the models are correct. However, even under the model scenarios this flooding will not happen overnight, or over decade, or even over a hundred years. It will take thousands of years for this to happen. A timelapse model gives a false impression of the speed with which these things occur. We’ve got plenty of time to adapt even if the models are correct and, given their track record, I’m not holding my breath on that one just yet.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Look, Krueger, Barton’s got all this figured out, he wrote a scientific article about how the Venusians went extinct because one of them figured out how to make an SUV, and now look what a mess their atmosphere is.

    That ought to serve as a warning to all


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brian Valentine writes:

    You’re dead wrong about Venus, you’re dead wrong about Mars,

    Not at all. There isn’t a planetary astronomer in the world who denies that there’s a CO2 greenhouse effect on Venus, and to a lesser extent on Mars.

    Surkov’s book has been in paperback on bookshelves in Dalton for years; all I remember is his speculations about the surface chemistry and atmospheric chemistry of Venus, the physical chemist Boris Derjaguin speculated (in a Russian article) some years ago about the fate of the Venera on Venus,

    Well, some other good sources if you’re interested are Maron and Grinspoon’s “Venus” (1997), and the “Venus” and “Venus II” compilations from the University of Arizona. See especially Taylor’s papers on the Venus greenhouse effect.

    Sagan was wrong about the Early Sun paradox on a million year old Earth with liquid water, which he claimed came from the greenhouse effect of methane and it was the geothermal heat and not the greenhouse effect that allowed liquid water to form on an Earth with a still too cool early O-sequence Sun for the presence of liquid water on Earth.

    I think the Faint Young Sun paradox is still resolved with the assumption that there was a higher level of greenhouse gases in the early atmosphere, though there’s still much dispute as to what the mix was. A lot of Jim Kasting’s papers deal with that.

    Not sure what you mean about the Sun being “O-sequence.” If you’re referring to spectral class, the sun was never an O-class star.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    JL Krueger posts (at great length):

    Nice try Barton, now you are being very disingenuous. Hell, I was being generous going as low as 96%. At 0 – 4% of the total atmospheric volume, measured in ppm, you can do the math. 98% H2O vapor by volume is most often quoted figure I’ve seen. Of course your side mostly ignores or downplays H2O vapor, being very inconvenient for your arguments and not even the IPCC bothers to quote a value, preferring instead to talk generally that H2O vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas.

    The mean volume fraction of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere is about 0.387%, coincidentally ten times the level of CO2 at the moment. That would make it 91%, not 98%.

    Of course, a molecule of carbon dioxide has 2.44 times the mass of a water vapor molecule, so water vapor would be 80% by mass.

    And while water vapor provides 60% of the clear-sky greenhouse effect (Kiehl and Trenberth 1997), carbon dioxide provides 26%, so it would be 70% of the greenhouse effect caused by the two (there is also a small effect from ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide, of course).

    You’ve yet to prove that the current warming is not a natural climate variation similar to the MWP or RWP within the current interglacial. Milankovic Cycles may govern the deep Ice Ages, but they didn’t account for the DCP or the LIA, which were cooling periods within the general warming of the current interglacial.

    We have a physical theory that predicts the current warming. We have statistical evidence that verifies it. We pretty much know what the natural and artificial forcings have been for over a century. Yes, we can pretty well rule out a natural variation.

    “The oceans give off about 90 gigatons of carbon dioxide a year and take in 92. They are a net sink for CO2 under present conditions, not a source. We know the new CO2 is coming mainly from fossil fuel combustion by its radioisotope signature.”

    As measured how? Exactly how many stations globally are taking empirical measurements of CO2 and its signature? Hint: the number is smaller than three digits. The satellite meant to take more empirical and global measurements never escaped the atmosphere and crashed.

    Carbon dioxide is a well-mixed gas in the troposphere. You don’t need many samples, just enough to be statistically significant.

    According to NASA the last fifty years were the most active on record.

    Right, they were higher than the previous fifty years. They’re still static as far as trend goes. You can’t explain a steep rise in temperature starting 30 years ago with an effect that’s been flat for 50 years. It doesn’t make any sense.

    If you look at the surface stations that GISS, NOAA and Hadley use in calculating the anomaly, and then filter for those labeled “rural” and then plot those stations and view them even from Google Earth, you’ll see that most are no longer rural. So there is no way they are adjusting for UHI for those stations,

    You mean they’re lying about doing so in the papers I cited? We’re verging into conspiracy theory here.

    However, heat is not temperature and ocean heat content has declined since 2003.

    Loehle, 2009: “Cooling of the global ocean since 2003.” Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 101-104(4)

    Energy and Environment is not a peer-reviewed journal. It was set up for climate deniers to publish sciency-sounding papers. Note the recite rate compared to real journals.

    Try UAH, RSS, and CRU. RSS data reads the highest, but it is still flat to falling. In calculating their anomaly they used a different baseline that tends to induce a higher anomaly than UAH or CRU. Additionally, the RSS satellite is suffering orbit degradation, which affects their readings.

    But it is neither flat nor falling. To call the recent downtick a “trend” it would have to be statistically significant. It isn’t.

    Look, examine any chart of temperatures for the last 100-150 years. There are many, many times temperature has jogged down for a few years, and just as many time when it has jogged up. To isolate the trend you need a large sample, and 5-7 years just doesn’t do it.

    The World Meteorological Organization defines climate as mean regional or global weather over a period of 30 years or more. There’s a reason they came up with that number (and incidentally, they did it long before global warming was an issue).

    Hmm, it’s been much warmer and much colder without human influence in the past, so we are in agreement. That’s called natural variation and we are well within the bounds which is exactly what I said. Within this interglacial, we are well within the boundaries of the RWP, MWP at the high end and the DCP and LIA at the low end, still natural variation.

    No, we’re not. The Medieval Warm Period was not warmer than now. It’s warmer now than at any time in the past 2,000 years.

    “No, correlation isn’t causation, but when the theory predicts the correlation and empirical evidence finds it, that’s a pretty nice bit of confirmation.”

    What empirical evidence? You’ve yet to show any empirical evidence linking CO2 increase to the current temperature increase. You’ve yet to overturn the null hypothesis. You are ignoring all other climate components.

    What kind of evidence do you want? We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know there’s more of that. Ergo, the temperature should rise. The temperature has risen. The rise closely matches the rise in CO2. What more do you want? Seriously, what evidence would you accept?

    And somehow you think the energy industry won’t raise consumer prices to cover the costs. Businesses don’t pay taxes Barton, they collect them for the government. Anything the government forces a business to pay, gets passed to the consumer. Economics 101.

    Fallacy of composition. You’re assuming that if the price of one commodity rises, the price of all other commodities must rise as well. No. In the short term spending is a zero-sum game. You can’t drive inflation by increasing the cost of one commodity. You can’t do it at all unless you either increase the money supply, increase the velocity of money, or decrease the growth rate.

    Easy for you to say when you already have energy in abundance, while they need the energy NOW! You are asking them to commit national economic suicide. The poorer countries will suffer far more from cooling than from warming.

    Nonsense. First of all, there isn’t any cooling. Second, poor countries stand to lose most of all from global warming, especially the billion or so people in Asia and Latin America who stand to lose their fresh water supply due to glacier retreat. And how will it benefit poor countries to have agriculture collapse due to runaway drought?

    Are you trying to say there were never droughts before we started burning fossil fuels?

    No, I’m saying the incidence of drought at any one time is increasing, as predicted by the climate models. Check FAO statistics for the details.

    You’ve not produced an iota of empirical evidence. No lab experiment or field work has demonstrated that climate is sensitive to CO2.

    It’s field work that has established that

    CO2 is rising.
    Temperatures are rising.
    Glaciers and ice caps are melting.
    Tree lines are moving toward the poles.
    Drought is increasing.
    Eggs are hatching earlier for fish, frogs, insects, and birds around the world.
    Flowers and flowering trees are blooming earlier around the world.

    There are tens of thousands of scientists around the globe working their butts off in the field to collect and correlate data, analyze samples in the lab, and published their results. That you’re not aware of the work being done doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Why don’t you read a few recent copies of Geophysical Research Letters or Journal of Geophysical Research or Atmospheric Science or Journal of Palynology, or just visit the NOAA web site? The information is out there if you’re willing to look for it.

    The output from which your AGW hypothesis draws breath is the result of models and is based upon assumptions.

    Well, yes. Every argument in the universe depends on premises at some point, including your arguments. Is there an argument somewhere that isn’t based on assumptions? That would be news to philosophy departments worldwide.

    Statistical analysis is more modeling.

    Huh? What? Come again?

    Statistical analysis is statistical analysis. Modeling is modeling. They’re not the same thing. Statistical analysis is basically reporting the data. Modeling is assuming you know the relationships and seeing what happens when you feed in different scenarios.

    So is H2O vapor. There’s a lot more H2O vapor than CO2 and your models mostly ignore it because, as the IPCC admits, it isn’t understood.

    Nonsense. Every climate model in the world includes the radiative effect of water vapor. I know mine do.

    Gee Barton, I had no idea that the “O” at the end of “ESN” meant oscillation. If models can’t accurately nail the start and end of even one major ocean cycle that is, by definition, somewhat predictable (ESNO is just one of many), they can’t accurately project climate trends.

    No, you’re still not getting the difference between an oscillation and a trend. Repeat after me: “An oscillation has no trend.”

    ENSO is weather. Global warming is climate.

    I’m now on the floor laughing! Barton cites himself as a reference! What a hoot! Gee, maybe I should try that. I’ll bet you weren’t “peer reviewed” so, by typical AGW debate logic, that means it doesn’t count! I noticed that you couldn’t help lacing your erstwhile “refutations” with ad hominem.

    JL, I didn’t cite myself as a reference. I pointed you to an analysis I did. The references are to Hadley Centre temperature data. That’s the reference.

    You can perform the same analysis I did. Please do so. The data is publicly available and all you need is a copy of MS Excel or some program that can do a regression analysis.

    Barton you are not going to convince me with what you’ve managed to produce. I’m not likely to sway you. You want to believe that a trace atmospheric gas comprising less than .04% of the entire atmosphere overpowers all other climate components. That’s an assumption and a hypothesis that has yet to be proven.

    “Proof” applies to formal logic or mathematics, not science. Science works by induction, not deduction. Evidence is what counts.

    And the fact that CO2 is a trace gas has no relevance to its radiative effect. The almost 100% of the atmosphere made up of nitrogen, oxygen and argon is not radiatively active. Water vapor and carbon dioxide are.

    The difference between us is that I recognize and accept that we humans don’t know everything.

    So do I. But unlike you, I don’t assume that because we don’t know everything, we know nothing. That would be a non sequitur.

    We know enough to know that global warming is really happening, that human technology is doing it, and that it’s the biggest problem humanity has ever faced after nuclear war.

    We are not more powerful than nature.

    Carbon dioxide molecules don’t know whether they’re produced naturally or artificially. The same rules of physics apply.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    J.L. Krueger writes:

    We on the Skeptic side don’t by the first point, because there is historical evidence to the contrary (Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period to name just two).

    Neither were warmer than now.

    We don’t buy the second point because there is no evidence that increasing CO2 has ever preceded temperature rise on earth.

    Google “Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum” and “Snowball Earth.”

    Hence we don’t buy the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused the current warming. We tend to believe that it is a natural rebound from the last Ice Age

    The Milankovic Cycles that govern ice ages are mathematically predictable far into the future and retrodictable far into the past, since they depend on the well-understand mechanisms of celestial mechanics. If you do the matrix math that governs Milankovic cycles, you find that we passed the peak of the interglacial 6,000 years ago and have been cooling since then. We would still be cooling if AGW hadn’t interrupted the trend.

    We don’t buy the hypothesis that warming would necessarily be bad.

    Increased drought in continental interiors. More violent weather along coastlines. Loss of fresh water to a billion people who depend on glacier melt to feet their rivers and streams. Possible complete collapse of human agriculture, followed by collapse of human civilization as we know it.

    Earth will survive. Humanity will survive. Comfortable lifestyles like we’re used to will not–unless we stop burning fossil fuels and tearing down forests.

    Additionally, we need to recognize that interglacials tend to be short, while Ice Ages are long. We may be nearing tail-end of the Holocene Interglacial and if that is true, the potential effects of cold will be far worse than those of warmth. Our time, effort and resources would be better spent in mitigation for both extremes, rather than trying to stop something over which we have no control.

    The next stade in the Milankovic Cycles isn’t due for about 20,000 years, and we’ve probably already ensured that it won’t become an Ice Age (too much CO2). The one after that is 50,000 years in the future. Human agriculture may collapse due to AGW in the next 50 years.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    There you go, Krueger, Barton proved it, Q.E.D.!

    Now trash that dammed Hummer brfore we’re all extinct, will ya?

    As he quell’ed every vain attempt
    To remove from the Sereph’s hand
    The sword that once belonged to Michael,
    Brushing aside vainglorious futility
    As he took his place upon the throne
    Facing the north side of the Hill of God


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Barton,

    I dealt with Venus here: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/03/22/desmog-accidentally-vindicates-the-skeptics-handbook/
    With 90 times Earth’s atmospheric pressure there’s no way Venus wouldn’t be hot. We don’t need a ‘greenhouse’. The pressure pretty much covers it. Think ‘lapse rate from hell’.

    And regarding the PETM. I’ve dealt with that too… See comment #10 on http://joannenova.com.au/2008/11/26/attempting-to-intimidate-a-skeptic/

    There’s a nature paper out in 2008 that estimates that carbon rose 3000 years after temperature. Once again, carbon is a back seat driver.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    And if you think all I can write is doggerel, have I got news for YOU:

    Oh, awful Sea-OH-Two
    Making the world so dreadful
    For Me and for You.

    Our selfish addiction
    To gasoline and oil

    Will bring the world’s end
    Right down to the soil.

    It’s time to say “Cool It!”
    And give it our Best

    To give Mother Nature
    Some well-deserved rest.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “:Human agriculture may collapse due to AGW in the next 50 years.”

    Human civilization might implode due to superstitious beliefs in trace gases.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    [Copywrited and permission to publish elsewhere is not granted.]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    DISCLAIMER: I’m not responsible for any illness arising from my poetry.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    I will give 100,000 Saddam Iraqi dinars (worth exactly nothing) to the first person who can provide a more stupid statement made within the past month than

    “Human agriculture may collapse due to AGW in the next 50 years.”

    Submissions for this contest may not include one’s own words.

    Decisions of the judges is final.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    duh im so weetodd did i dunno howta guugul sumptn like dis

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Type-O_stars


    Report this<