Former director of International Arctic Research Center says: “Global warming has paused”

We still need to study nature’s contribution to trend

Published Saturday, September 27, 2008, Fairbanks AK News-Miner


Photo by Anthony – not part of original article

Recent studies by the Hadley Climate Research Center (UK), the Japan Meteorological Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of East Anglia (UK) and the University of Alabama Huntsville show clearly that the rising trend of global average temperature stopped in 2000-2001. Further, NASA data shows that warming in the southern hemisphere has stopped, and that ocean temperatures also have stopped rising.

The global average temperature had been rising until about 2000-2001. The International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and many scientists hypothesize rising temperatures were mostly caused by the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide (CO2), and they predicted further temperature increases after 2000. It was natural to assume that CO2 was responsible for the rise, because CO2 molecules in the atmosphere tend to reflect back the infrared radiation to the ground, preventing cooling (the greenhouse effect) and also because CO2 concentrations have been rapidly increasing since 1946. But, this hypothesis on the cause of global warming is just one of several.

Unfortunately, many scientists appear to forget that weather and climate also are controlled by nature, as we witness weather changes every day and climate changes in longer terms. During the last several years, I have suggested that it is important to identify the natural effects and subtract them from the temperature changes. Only then can we be sure of the man-made contributions. This suggestion brought me the dubious honor of being designated “Alaska’s most famous climate change skeptic.”

The stopping of the rise in global average temperature after 2000-2001 indicates that the hypothesis and prediction made by the IPCC need serious revision. I have been suggesting during the last several years that there are at least two natural components that cause long-term climate changes.

The first is the recovery (namely, warming) from the Little Ice Age, which occurred approximately 1800-1850. The other is what we call the multi-decadal oscillation. In the recent past, this component had a positive gradient (warming) from 1910 to 1940, a negative gradient (cooling — many Fairbanksans remember the very cold winters in the 1960s) from 1940 to 1975, and then again a positive gradient (warming — many Fairbanksans have enjoyed the comfortable winters of the last few decades or so) from 1975 to about 2000. The multi-decadal oscillation peaked around 2000, and a negative trend began at that time.

The second component has a large amplitude and can overwhelm the first, and I believe that this is the reason for the stopping of the temperature rise. Since CO2 has only a positive effect, the new trend indicates that natural changes are greater than the CO2 effect, as I have stated during the last several years.

Future changes in global temperature depend on the combination of both the recovery from the Little Ice Age (positive) and the multi-decadal oscillation (both positive and negative). We have an urgent need to learn more about these natural changes to aid us in predicting future changes.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu is a former director of the Geophysical Institute and the International Arctic Research Center, both on the campus of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

About these ads

204 thoughts on “Former director of International Arctic Research Center says: “Global warming has paused”

  1. Recent studies by the Hadley Climate Research Center (UK), the Japan Meteorological Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of East Anglia (UK) and the University of Alabama Huntsville show clearly that the rising trend of global average temperature stopped in 2000-2001.

    Very odd. Hadley have this on their webpage :

    Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming.

    Not to mention “Anyone who thinks global warming has stopped has their head in the sand.”

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/warming_goes_on.pdf

    Somebody has their wires crossed.

  2. Pingback: Former director of International Arctic Research Center says: “Global warming has paused” « An Honest Climate Debate

  3. Of course, Syun-Ichi Akasofu can only say this because he is a FORMER head of a Research Centre. If a CURRENT head said this sort of thing, he would out immediately.

    As well as revisiting climate change ‘science’, we need to revisit the way we organise science, which lets it be hijacked by political interest groups…

  4. John Philip,

    Likely it’s you who has his wires crossed. Just because Hadley’s official statement is one thing doesn’t mean they haven’t conducted studies which show something contrary to the official position. Kind of like the Argo data vs. what you hear coming out of the Goddard institute.

  5. I wonder how many more years of cooling/flat temps would be required until CAGW is generally accepted as having been discredited.

  6. Same old same old!
    If you don’t look to the ‘original data’ (whatever that means in this new supersophisticated world of double-speak) you simply don’t know what’s really going on.
    First this expert says x, then this other expert says not x. And generally, people have become so intensely involved with protecting their reputation, their jobs and certainly their egos (see Richard Lindzen’s paper), that nothing will be admitted, nothing retracted, no position abandoned. Remember phlogiston. Remember the luminiferous eather.
    I am driven to the conclusion that people are the same everywhere, and that they have always been this way.
    Apparently the scientific method is only a veneer of respectability hiding a much deeper well of human nature, and it is human nature to win, to be right and never ever be seen to be wrong.

  7. John Philip:

    So it’s “John Philip” now, instead of “John Philips”?

    OK. Whatever.

    But I have to point out that by claiming GW has “paused,” it indicates a prediction. Which was, of course, avoided.

    For how long will this ‘pause’ be? Six months? Sixty years? A century and a half? After millions have died from a cooling climate? What’s the length of this predicted ‘pause’?

    They should have said, “Global warming has stopped, at least temporarily.” That would have at least been an honest statement.

    If GW has only paused, please let us know when it will resume.

  8. Likely it’s you who has his wires crossed

    Always a possibility. I remain puzzled, though. The Professor asserts that there exists a Hadley Centre study showing the pause in warming. Hadley, however, tell us anyone holding this view has their head in the sand. Maybe the powers at WUWT, who after all, chose to cross-post the article, can enlighten us as to where the HC study was published? Thanks.

    BTW not everyone holds the veracity of Viscount Monckton in such high regard … Arthur Smith, for one

    http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

    JP.

  9. DOE data shows a pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2 of 288 ppm. This concentration of atmospheric CO2 increased to 368.4 ppm in October, 2008, an increase of 80.4 ppm. The contribution by natural causes was 68.52 ppm and the man-made contribution was 11.88 ppm. The ratio of natural CO2 emission to man-made CO2 is 5.76.

    The Global Carbon Project (GCP) report gives the yearly increases of CO2 as: During the years 1970-1079, the increase was 1.3 ppm per year; During the years 1980-1989, the increase was 1.6 ppm; During the years 1990-1999, the increase was 1.5 ppm; and during the years 2000-2007, the increase was 2.0 ppm. Given the ratio of natural emission to man-made emission of 5.76 (before the year 2000), man-made CO2 contributed 0.226 ppm per year during 1970-1979, 0.278 ppm per year during 1980-1989, and 0,25 ppm per year during 1990-1999.

    Now it seems that everyone assumes that the CO2 concentration increase of 2.14 ppm per year (Mauna Loa Station) is entirely man-made (GCP). What happened to natural CO2 emissions after the year 2000?

  10. Could there be a possible link where global warming and NASA are interlated?

    Refering to each time a space adventure opens and tears through the protective layer of the atmosphere?

    With the return entry of the radiation drag being pulled back into the atmosphere with the turbo thrust? Since the atmosphere does protect us from the radiation heat which would, under normal conditions burn to nothingness if something were to try to enter the atmosphere.

    I am just wondering.

  11. Mr. Philip:

    Perhaps Hadley is being a bit disingenuous.

    These are the Hadley numbers, from Hadley’s site. I used Hadley’s 2008 projected average temp, which is no danger of actually being reached.

    If you plot and trend the data, its a negative trend since 1998. If you exclude 2008, its still slightly positive. If you start from 2001, its negative, regardless.

    Just for giggles, plot and trend from 2005 to 2008 (4 years). It gives a negative trend of -0.5 deg/decade COOLING.

    Using these 4 years, R2 = 0.9872, BTW.

    1998 0.600291
    1999 0.354782
    2000 0.307351
    2001 0.424473
    2002 0.484325
    2003 0.50359
    2004 0.493032
    2005 0.530529
    2006 0.463274
    2007 0.41
    2008 0.37

  12. This is the best photo since you added the trash burn barrel to the rural scene.
    Simple and understated. Maybe next month you’ll need to use a reverse logo. :-)

  13. Les,

    Its more usual to use a 5-year mean to smooth the inter-annual variability. If you do this I think the 2000-2007 and the 2001-2007 trends become positive? Anything under a 20 year time period is more properly described as weather than climate, however. A 4 year trend is certainly meaningless.

    BTW, which data set are you using? I have HADCRUT4GL here and the numbers are subtly different to the ones you posted.

    JP

  14. > Former director of International Arctic Research
    > Center says: “Global warming has paused”

    It’s not paused! It’s passed on! This global warming is no
    more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone to meet
    its maker! It’s a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you
    hadn’t nailed it to the perch it’d be pushing up the daisies!
    Its meteorological processes are now history! It’s off the
    twig! It’s kicked the bucket, it’s shuffled off its mortal coil,
    run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir
    invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-GLOBAL-WARMING!!

  15. Global Warming Theory really has become the paramount example of the adage that “something that explains everything ultimately explains nothing”. Everyday it seems that we are presented with new data that would appear to contradict aspects of Global Warming Theory, but it’s always somehow presented as something much less than contradictory. Present researchers always first pay homage to the Gods of Global Warming, and only then can they present their data and the lesser theories they have uncovered or are working on.

    It reminds me such much of the Creationism-Darwinism argument from the 1920’s. If you think about, Al Gore really is becoming the William Jennings Bryan of our time. The man is telling the young and naive to engage civil disobedience to prevent power plants from being built. That really sounds crazy.

  16. Superposition.


    have been suggesting during the last several years that there are at least two natural components that cause long-term climate changes.

    The first is the recovery (namely, warming) from the Little Ice Age, which occurred approximately 1800-1850. The other is what we call the multi-decadal oscillation.

    Please explain why there should be a slow, long-term linear signal interpreted as recovery from the LIA.

  17. It doesn’t matter what news releases Hadley et al publishes, the data speak for themselves. Global warming advocates (including many in the climate “science” community) have sold their souls and hinged their reputations on AGW and the IPCC so-called consensus. They will not go down easily.

    Now that the Arctic did not meet its doom and the NH is approaching winter with indicators it will be gripped in brutal cold, what will these prognosticators of catastrophe have to offer us next year as reassurances it is only temporary? Ah, that’s right…..it’s the long term trend we are concerned with and must therefore wait 30 more years for confirmation of a cooling period and falsification of the modeling industry.

  18. Hay Smokey
    When I first hear about our planet cooling, the modelers said “CO2 induced warming” would be back in 2009. Now they say 2015.

  19. “Dr. Akasofu was born in Japan in December of 1929 in a village near an active volcano, inspiring his interest in geology. World War 2 took his father away for many years, leaving his mother in dire economic straits. He once offered to quit school to work as an interpreter for the US Military, but his mother would not allow him to give up his education.

    He claims never to have been a good student, but to have taken pride in passing his exams without studying or attending class. Instead he spent his time mountain climbing. When he discovered that the magnetic effect of the Northern Lights could be measured on mountaintops in Japan, his interest switched from geology to astrophysics and he began to apply himself in school. In 1958, he wrote a letter to Sydney Chapman, the leading aurora expert at the time, asking questions he felt were not sufficiently answered by his masters’ degree. The response was that the questions were unanswered and would he like a job as a graduate student?

    Akasofu’s most important find in aurora research was the concept of the auroral substorm. Originally, Journal of Geophysical Research rejected his research until he, with the assistance of a NASA jet, filmed proof of the exact events he predicted. Akasofu’s paper was published in 1964, and remains the standard explanation of the aurora today. He also co-published a paper first suggesting that a factor or factors other than solar wind controlled the intensity of the aurora. Dr. Chapman, Akasofu’s boss and mentor, advised him to drop the research to avoid endangering his (Chapman’s) scientific reputation. In the 1980s, scientists discovered that the Earth’s own magnetic field also altered the auroras intensity, proving Akasofu’s criticism of established theory correct again.

    In addition to his continuing Arctic studies, Akasofu writes about his experiences overturning scientific dogma and encourages students to challenge the accepted explanations, even when many of them are his.”

    http://gwd.wikispaces.com/Syun-Ichi+Akasofu#source_3

  20. Cringe.

    I am convinced that CO2-driven warming is probably too small to measure, and that there is still ZERO evidence of it, but it bugs the heck out of me when scientists make silly statements:

    The first [natural component that causes long-term climate change] is the recovery (namely, warming) from the Little Ice Age.

    This is equivalent to saying “the warming is the cause of the climate change.”

    I expect better of the former director of the International Arctic Research Center.

  21. It’s getting so bad on the AGW side, that a call has gone out for civil disobedience to stop coal plants and Lord knows what else. Desperation from Al Gore to the youth via his speech the other day. Just terrible!

  22. Walter great MPFC “Dead Parrot” rant.

    I think we all have to face it that it will take 15 years of cooling to have anyone in the AGW camp admit something is going on.

    Which I find amazing because only 10 years of warming in 1988 started the call to arms.

    All I can say if rate of change is important, as AGW supporters point out with the rise, I think that 5 years of cooling would be required, so 2013 would be the closest mark to for them to even start any debate.

    Of course one year of El Nino in the next 5 and we will see the greatest media blitz to date. Did anyone notice the huge amount of Arctic Ice stories coming out ahead of the September Average to try and stem any sort of traction for the increase?

  23. Pingback: STAY WARM, WORLD… Roger Carr « Stay Warm, World…

  24. Somebody has their wires crossed.

    So it would seem.

    Here’s their surface temperature graph. Sure seems like a slight downward trend over the last ten years. Also after 2001 (excluding the preceding El Nino and La Nina which more or less cancel each other out for purposes of the trend).

    Maybe it’s consistent with AGW theory and maybe it ain’t. But the decadal trendline seems to be slightly down how matter how you slice it.

    Of course once we head into 2009, that may change as we’ll be including the 1999-2000 La Nina without the 1998 El Nino.

  25. I wonder how many more years of cooling/flat temps would be required until CAGW is generally accepted as having been discredited.

    With just multidecadal oscillations at work?

    Fifty. Give or take.

    If the sun gets in on the act, maybe thirty.

    If some other “crisis” intervenes (climate-related or not), maybe twenty.

    But I think we’ve “very likely” (to use IPCC lingo) got at least another two decades of good, fun blogging ahead of us.

  26. John Philip (17:46:51) :

    Les,

    Its more usual to use a 5-year mean to smooth the inter-annual variability. If you do this I think the 2000-2007 and the 2001-2007 trends become positive? Anything under a 20 year time period is more properly described as weather than climate, however. A 4 year trend is certainly meaningless.

    Ordinarily I’d agree with you or argue for a 30 period. However, the last time the PDO flipped interesting things happened in a year or two and set the stage for the subsequent warming. So given the 2007 PDO flip, I’d say much shorter periods are meaningful with the caveat that the weather signal brings along significant uncertainty. I.e. don’t shout the data too loudly, lest you have to eat humble pie next year. On the other hand, don’t hide behind a 20-30 year history lest you miss the boat.

    We’ll be able to say soon enough “Since the PDO flip, global temperatures ____.”

  27. the data speak for themselves.

    John Philip(s):

    Now that’s proper number that sits up and speaks for itself. Surely you can see the man speaks truly.

    P.S., Do get your OWN number right! Is it “Philip” (as here) or “Philips” (a la el Reg)?

    We need the datum for our errata.

    (P.S., for the others, the above is an inside joke.)

    Walter Dnes: So September 27th is International Talk Like A Parrot Day?

  28. Pingback: Time they are ‘a changing - Jay Currie

  29. The BBC is being investigated by television watchdogs after a leading climate change sceptic claimed his views were deliberately misrepresented.

    Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, says he was made to look like a ‘potty peer’ on a TV programme that ‘was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming’.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1063110/BBC-investigated-peer-says-climate-change-programme-biased-sided-polemic.html

  30. John Philp (Hadley Climate Research Center (UK)): “Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming. “

    Would you be more specific on your understanding of natural fluctuations: what they are, what are their dynamics, how we could expect they to behave in future? Now every AGW proponent says that the deviation from the model predictions in the last years are “natural fluctuations”, but no one bother to explain the nature of these “natural fluctuations”. Yes, every complex process oscillates over a main trend, and the magnitude of this oscillation can not predicted (theory of determined chaos), but the main reason for this is that every chaotic process is a result of vectors with different and changing values. So, when some one says that he understands a chaotic process we should expect at least that he would be able to identify the processes that drive the oscillation over the main trend. Saying that here are natural fluctuations is not a knowledge itself.

  31. This is a great example of what Richard Lindzen’s paper says, about the transition in science from theory tested by observation to simulations (or models) tested by observation. (See the paper, a MUST read, here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf)

    His point, I believe, is that our previous successes came from the old way of doing things (theory vs observation) and our present problems and failings come from parting ways with it. He gives quite a few reasons, but the following will suffice. He says: “In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage.”

    The IPCC is well known for its GCMs (global climate models) and they are notorious for their inaccuracies. But when you are convinced by their “results” it is easy to read that into Nature’s actions too. It cannot be overemphasized too that the IPCC is as its name states, an intergovernmental panel. If the governments have an interest in there being global warming, with its attendant policies designed at mitigation (meaning taxation), then there is going to be global warming. And come hell or high water, there won’t be anything else. Period.

    On the other hand, a simple hypothesis has no preliminary “results” to cloud vision. It is as simple as “If A and B occur, they should produce C.” Then we go out into Nature and see if indeed A and B are occurring. If one or both are not, we go back and adjust our hypothesis. That’s given us plenty of success in the past.

    Now we expect Nature to be shaped around us insted of us being a part of Nature. Whatever happened to the people who constantly reminded us that Nature could wipe us out in a blink (floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfires), and that we were as speck in the universe? Now apparently we are giants, and even the merest clearing of our own throats makes the globe rattle, according to the AGW hypothesis.

    Absurd. We have our place.

  32. “Anyone who thinks global warming has stopped has their head in the sand.” Ah, that might be me, but then again I always found the premise of human CO2 output alone being responsible for global temperature change a little more than far fetched.

    Just as a matter of interest, until 26th September 2008 there have been 54 major (Vertical Ash plumes over 1500m) volcanic eruptions since January 1st 2008 pumping huge amounts of CO2, SO2 and other particulate matter into the atmosphere. That’s disregarding all the low level eruptions like smallish lava flows, Geysers and other geothermal activity. If relatively big ones like Kasatochi and Chaiten can cause temporary regional temperature drops, what might be the result of many smaller eruptions?

    (Resumes Ostrich like posture)

  33. “I wonder how many more years of cooling/flat temps would be required until CAGW is generally accepted as having been discredited.”

    I think that will depend on the atitude of the public. If the next few winters are particularly cold the British public at least will not be too impressed with politicians telling us we have to make sacrifices to prevent “climate change.” With the Met Office still modeling in global warming to their long range forecasts it will come as a bit of a shock.

    “Winter temperatures are more likely to be above normal over much of the European region. However, this winter is likely to be less mild than last winter, when above-average temperatures were widespread.
    For the UK as a whole, winter-mean temperatures are more likely to be above normal. Although a winter milder than the 1971-2000 average is favoured, temperatures are likely to be lower than those experienced last year.”

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/seasonal/winter2008_9/

    There is also a possiblity of winter blackouts. Although denied by the national grid I assume their projected power demands may take the above winter forecast into account.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7638564.stm

    I’ve got candles

  34. Here’s a hypothesis: When the Professor writes

    Recent studies by the Hadley Climate Research Center (UK), the Japan Meteorological Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of East Anglia (UK) and the University of Alabama Huntsville show clearly that the rising trend of global average temperature stopped in 2000-2001.

    we should read this as ‘my interpretation of the data from the HADCRUT, NOAA and UAH datasets shows a flat trend over the last eight years. (HADCRUT is a joint effort of the Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, bit of double counting there).

    Fits the facts huh? Explains why Hadley put out a contradictory statement and explains why nobody is able to find a link to these ‘studies’ from the institutions concerned.

    This 8 year period ends in a La Nina and an unusually quiet solar activity phase, both effects which over the short term are capable of masking the GHG forced warming. The IPCC projections from the TAR, treated as a straight line, would project an increase of 0.132C over the period, the peak-to-trough variance from the solar cycle is estimated at 0.1C, and there is considerable noise in the signal, which has a standard deviation of about 0.1C.

    Since 1970, there have been 6 other periods when the eight year delta was flat or negative and one where the rise was 0.43C. Global warming continued regardless, average temperatures are now approx 0.5C higher than then and the top 11 warmest years occurred in the last 13 years. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm

    The Professor is a distinguished scientist but holds no qualifications at all in climatology.

    Reply: Nor does James Hansen (astronomy) and Al Gore (politician). Should we exclude them too? – Anne

  35. Walter Dnes, it’s a Norwegian Blue parrot. I’d love to see its picture here one day. Blue with Norwegian cold, no doubt.

    John Philip: Have you read Monckton’s reply to Smith’s reply? Monckton replied in clear mathematical and scientific detail to Schmidt’s rude reply “Cuckoo Science” to Monckton’s Telegraph article – and Schmidt never replied to that reply, in fact Schmidt recently referred to Cuckoo Science as if that were the last word. You’ve got to google for replies to the rebuttals, remembering that Nature and New Scientist often refuse to give such replies space, as they should do and used to do and still do for other issues.

    Glenn – thanks for that admirable account of Akasofu’s story and credentials.

  36. John Philip (17:46:51) : says

    Les,

    Its more usual to use a 5-year mean to smooth the inter-annual variability. If you do this I think the 2000-2007 and the 2001-2007 trends become positive? Anything under a 20 year time period is more properly described as weather than climate, however. A 4 year trend is certainly meaningless.

    So is a 20 year trend if, as happened, the largest volcano in a century erupted early on in the 20 year period.

    Although the “warming pause” is evident only over a relatively short period, there is no apparent reason for it. There have been no major volcanos and there have 3 El Ninos between 2001 and 2007 (i.e. 2002/03, 2004/05 & 2006/07). Yet we only hear about the cooling effect of La Nina.

  37. What I want to know is why people STILL believe that because global temperatures do not rise in a straight line that long term global warming has stopped? It has paused many times since the industrial revolution only for it to continue afterwards, as it will undoubtedly do again.

    Nobody has ever doubted that other factors influence temperature besides the greenhouse gas element. So why do sceptics still argue that AGW supporters think that greenhouse gases alone affect temperature?

    But I see no evidence of temperatures plummeting today despite the much trumpeted cyclical reduction of solar activity. Why?

  38. climateheretic:
    “I think we all have to face it that it will take 15 years of cooling to have anyone in the AGW camp admit something is going on.

    Which I find amazing because only 10 years of warming in 1988 started the call to arms.”

    The science may take that long but the public is anther matter. Howard Bloom wrote that fame needs renewing. A celebrity has to do something new every 18 months or the public will forget about them. It could be getting arrested for obscene behavior, for example.

    So intuitively, with some imagination, what could the climate change camp do to recapture the public’s interest? The North Pole didn’t melt this year… and that news item won’t be new next year. Disease? We’ve heard about. Hurricanes? Had Katrina, got the T-Shirt. Polar bears? Heard a lot about them, so they won’t be new unless they actually make themselves extinct, or get themselves arrested for attacking humans.

    I mean, if the 18 month fame cycle is roughly true, given that we’ve already heard of so many disasters, what could they possibly think up next to reignite the public’s interest? Madonna can buy new clothes and change her image for every album. What new issue is available to climate change?

    Fashionable environmentalists aren’t going to go away (to distinguish from the practical kind)–many people have a feeling for a simpler way of life, something less mechanical and more “human”, but the current fascination with the weather er I mean climate may be short lived.

  39. John Philip,

    The point about not being a climatologist is, as usual, a complete red herring. The point you make requires little more than basic statistics to understand. Why cloak it in the climatology religion?

    But having seen this point – that previous interim peaks have been followed by temporary declines – let me ask the key question. Can climate science PREDICT when theses peaks and declines will occur? After all, the science is settled, isn’t it? Or is climate science making claims it can’t back up when faced with new data?

    David Hume would be spinning is his grave – but then again, he wasn’t a climate scientist either.

  40. John Philip (con:stan:tly):

    Seed article:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/22/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange

    “The new research confirms that the world has cooled slightly since 2005″

    “Vicky Pope of the Met Office said the new research was in response to high-profile claims made by Lawson the former chancellor, and others that the recent cooling showed that fears of climate change are overblown, and that temperatures are unlikely to rise as high as predicted.” She said: “It has confused people. We got a lot of emails asking whether global warming had stopped and it prompted us to look at the data again.”

    “Despite the recent cooling, average temperatures are still rising at 0.09C per decade, the office says – down from the record 0.33C per decade measured during the 1990s.”

    “The evidence is clear, the long-term trend in global temperatures is rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise. Global warming does not mean that each year will be warmer than the last.”

    Spin 0.09 into 0.33 again for us please. Did CO2 levels drop at the same precipitous rate over the same period?

  41. Re John Philip “The Professor is a distinguished scientist but holds no qualifications at all in climatology.” Neither does James Hansen – he’s an astronomer, nor do virtually all the modellers in fact probaly none if you consider the inaccuracy of all models.

    Re your comments on Monkcton. Before publication he submitted his paper for detailed consideration by an experienced physicist and then replied point by point to the typical nit picking and ad hominem attacks from the likes of Gavin none of whom were capable of responding to his response.

    Regards

    Paul

  42. John Philip(s):

    This 8 year period ends in a La Nina and an unusually quiet solar activity phase, both effects which over the short term are capable of masking the GHG forced warming.

    Thank you for finally admitting that the effect of CO2-induced global warming [if it exists at all], is so tiny that numerous other climate effects drown it out completely.

    How does that admission fit in with your alarmist runaway global warming/AGW/CO2 hypothesis? And why should we spend literally $trillions sequestering CO2 underground, if the presumed AGW effect is so insignificant that it is undetectable? I look forward to your explanation.

  43. There is an instructive folk tale in Greece about how people stick to their opinions through hell and high water and contradicting and even endangering data.

    “A new couple start arguing about how to clean a fish for cooking. The man says, ‘you clean it with a knife’ . The woman says ‘no, you clean it with scissors’. One heated argument follows another, and the man, a typical MCP puts the wife in a pail and starts lowering her in the well, trying to impose his opinion. He asks her from the top? ‘What do you use?’ she replies ‘scissors’. He starts dipping the pail in the water up to her mouth. The reply is still ‘scissors’. He lowers her completely in the water. She lifts her hand and makes a scissors gesture with her fingers.”

    That is where the story ends.

    More to the point “I have made up my mind, don’t bother me with the facts” even if the facts are the Thames freezing over.

    Unfortunately there is more at stake to global warming sticktoitivness. Already there are food riots because of the misguided, by global warming scares, ethanol policy, third world people are starving. If the policies that are proposed are imposed, millions will die in the third world if not billions.

    More to the point “I have made up my mind, don’t bother me with the facts” even if the facts are the Thames freezing over.

  44. John Philip (02:58:50) :

    This 8 year period ends in a La Nina and an unusually quiet solar activity phase, both effects which over the short term are capable of masking the GHG forced warming. The IPCC projections from the TAR, treated as a straight line, would project an increase of 0.132C over the period, the peak-to-trough variance from the solar cycle is estimated at 0.1C, and there is considerable noise in the signal, which has a standard deviation of about 0.1C.

    Two questions – why are you using the 3rd IPCC Assessment Report? Wouldn’t the 4th (2007) be six years better? Can I expect the 5th to rely on solar forcings to explain the cooling that may continue until the next PDO flip?

  45. @John Phillip:

    I have to request that you retract the claims you made using a poll in this comment:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/26/the-day-the-earth-cooled/#comment-43682

    You have not taken the time to provide full answers to the questions about the poll’s methodology. Some of which were asked of you here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/26/the-day-the-earth-cooled/#comment-43730

    Without this information, it is impossible to ascertain the veracity of the poll’s results and therefore is an invalid citation supporting your argument support your claim of a scientific consensus in favor of AGW.

    Have a good day.

  46. dennis ward:
    What I want to know is why people STILL believe that because global temperatures do not rise in a straight line that long term global warming has stopped? It has paused many times since the industrial revolution only for it to continue afterwards, as it will undoubtedly do again.
    Straw man argument there, dennis. No one says the long term GW has stopped.
    The question is, why do you believe the warming will “continue afterwards”?

    But I see no evidence of temperatures plummeting today despite the much trumpeted cyclical reduction of solar activity. Why?

    Another straw man, dennis? Come on. You people really are desperate, aren’t you?

  47. Bruce Cobb (06:08:57) :

    “…Another straw man, dennis? Come on. You people really are desperate, aren’t you? ”

    Cognitive Dissonance is a wholly unpleasant experience.

    It always contains an opportunity for growth and maturity, but there is NEVER any guarantee that either growth or maturity will happen, and ALWAYS the danger of the opposite – stagnation or even regression, i.e. a person can become more stunted and more immature after an episode of Cognitive Dissonance than he or she was before it.

    And please remember we are only witnessing the first stages of Cognitive Dissonance.

    We are going to have a very harsh and cold winter this year.

    That by itself is not much of a problem for the warmers. They have in the past already told us that cold weather is caused by warmer climate.

    What will be the difficult and painful problem for the warmers this winter is the widespread public mockery.

    “Global Warming,” even if it is re-branded as “Climate Change,” will be subjected to public (and political) ridicule this winter as never before.

    “We thought we had the public (and the politicians) on our side. How could they turn on us like this?”

    By next summer, “Global Warming” will have ceased to be a subject of discussion even for stand-up comics.

    “Success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.” – unknown

  48. Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate’s Cove — Barracuda Patrol!

  49. M White (06:27:24)

    The frightening thing is that they are talking of the “experiment”.

    The language itself is being destroyed. Unless it is a psychological experiment: how many people will be fooled by talking about model results as experimental ones.

  50. I have to add that here is where the koutsoyannis et all publication ( see CA threads) applies. The UK certainly is not a continent, as some say that the climate model predictions are for, but a small area of the planet.

    Actually if one makes the effort to go through the AR reports on all the other variables except temperature it is all there in spaghetti colors how badly the predictions fit the current data, for cloud cover for anything. It is just the optical illusion of treating the spaghetti width as if it is an error that confuses the eye not to see the bad fits. Follow the individual threads.

    I am amazed how on such bad to horrid science a public station is trying to pull the wool over the eyes and other senses of the UK public. A lot of politics must be riding on this to try to stampede the public.

  51. I met Dr. Akasofu once before I graduated from UAF. He asked me to stay on as a graduate student, but I had other plans. I still think he is a great scientist, and the descriptions above prove it.

    It has long since been time for this subject to be turned back over to good scientists, whatever their opinions are. For too long it has been in the hands of scientists who are more alarmist and politician than they are scientists.

    While I think some fellow physicists have messed this thing up, any good physicists should be well trained in subtracting known features from data so that they can explore the unknown. Any discipline of physics would demand that the warming data be shown to have the characteristics of the theory, or be told to go back to the drawing board and reexamine both the data and the theory.

    Yet somehow, it has been acceptable to claim that the known past really didn’t happen, and that there were no normal variations, so that they could claim all the warming was man’s fault. Then when the data started going the wrong way, all of a sudden they admitted that there are normal variations and that the variations are masking the horrible truth. Though they still claim that the past didn’t happen. And they have been allowed to turn logic on its head. Except for a teeny fraction of heat due to things like tides and radioactive decays, all of our heat is due to the sun. Yet somehow they hold that the sun can’t be at fault for any warming.

    And all the data is horribly flawed. Yet it seems more important to spend money on massive computer calculations of future woe, then it is to give the experts the resources to design and take better data to prove any of the fears. Instead, we rely on horrendously difficult feats of data manipulation and rush to make major harmfull changes now in order to supposedly save us from our fears of future harm.

    There are scientists who have the skills to invent new mathematics to explore strings and m-branes and parallel universes. Others have the mathematical skill to use infinities to cancel out each other, leaving behind incredibly accurate predictive theories. Yet nobody has shown that any part of the known warming is actually following the known increase in CO2 based upon an acceptable theory of how CO2 should be warming the planet.

    There should be CO2 based warming happening. It should be somewhere between what Dr. Akasofu is saying and what the others are trying to scare us with. If the past 150 years of data are trustable enough to use to change our whole economy, then that is more than enough time to be able to reliably subtract the vulcanos and MDOs and see if the remainder is due to CO2. If the remainder doesn’t have the right signature, is the theory wrong? Or can we tease the right signature out of some portion of the data, especially the more recent data with the rapid increase in CO2? Or maybe the data is not good enough to support the claims, and we need to go back to the drawing board and design a system good enough and wait long enough to get data to prove or disprove the claim.

    But taking time to do good science isn’t in the alarmist’s plans. So they intimidate and manipulate to make sure their scare wins the day. Their behaviour almost makes me ashamed to be a scientist.

    Thank you Anthony for working to get the known problems recognized and removed from the data. And thanks for the contributors who are trying to do good science as they look at this and other possible man-made and natural causes of the warming we have seen. And thanks for keeping us informed.

  52. It is clear that
    1. with air temperatures not rising and
    2. with ocean temperatures not rising
    combined with the fact that el Nino and la Nina events are mearly a mechanism to transfer heat between the oceans and the atmosphere, CO2 is not the problem.
    If CO2 were the cause of 20th century heating, the oceans would continue to heat up when la Nina events are occuring. If there is no increase in the total heat content then we are not heating due to CO2.

  53. John Philip: Yes, it goes positive with a 5 year moving average, and a 2007 end point. Also, as I said, a linear trend also goes positive if 2008 is not put it.

    Just like you didn’t put in.

    With 2008 data, the slope goes negative, using a 5 year MA. Its a negative linear trend since 1998, with 2008 data.

  54. And I use HADCRUT3 data, from their website. I originally downloaded the data in 2006. I added 2007 and the projected data.

    If there is a change, that means they adjusted the data since I downloaded it.

  55. It is entertaining to see John Philip and John Philips arguing over whether the trend is negative or slightly positive.

    Either way the IPCC predictions were wrong.

  56. Walter: It’s NOT dead. It’s just asleep. Stop beating it on the counter.

    Slightly more seriously, “CO2 molecules in the atmosphere tend to reflect back the infrared radiation”

    Say what?? Reflect? That’s a new one. Absorb, perhaps, but reflect?
    (maybe he’s talking about those new silver plated CO2 molecules)

    They must be smoking some good kool-aid.

  57. Anne: Reply: Nor does James Hansen (astronomy) and Al Gore (politician). Should we exclude them too? –

    Where did I request exclusion? Hansen has a distinguished academic publication record in climate science, and Gore’s political advocacy is informed by the position of the vast majority of climate scientists. Here we have a retired professor from another, related discipline stating his opinion, in what seems to be a regional news website. I have absolutley no problem with that. But I note that while the Professor cites a ‘study’ from the Hadley Centre, the Hadley itself, which contains one or two actual climate scientists, has a press release that flatly contradicts that opinion.

    Re: Monckton

    Before publication he submitted his paper for detailed consideration by an experienced physicist and then replied point by point to the typical nit picking and ad hominem attacks from the likes of Gavin none of whom were capable of responding to his response.

    The ‘reviewer’ was unsure of the difference between forcing and feedback, rendering his review meaningless. While Monckton attempted a response to Smith’s first fairly short criticism, he has yet to respond to Smith’s more recent list of 125 separate errors or flaws.

    http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

    Perhaps you would care to rebut a few? The outgoing chair of the APS Forum on Physics and Society which published the article explains:

    “Earlier this year, the editors ran a piece submitted by Gerald Marsh, a frequent contributor to FPS, in which he questioned the accuracy of climate change predictions and estimations of anthropogenic contributions to it. The article gave the editors the idea of devoting an issue to debate about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s statements regarding human-induced global warming.

    Being unfamiliar with the field, they asked Marsh to suggest authors on both sides of the argument, and sent out requests. Physicists David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz kindly contributed a tutorial on the physics of global warming. Marsh also suggested “Christopher Monckton of Brenchley”, who the editors assumed was a climate scientist. Monckton submitted what appeared to be a highly technical piece refuting the notion that global warming is occurring, much less induced by human activity.

    The editors ran both articles, and encouraged feedback. They also prefaced the issue with an unfortunate editorial stating that there is “considerable” debate within the scientific community about the IPCC statement that global warming is anthropogenic.

    Within hours of the issue appearing on the web, an angry physics community responded. The editors then learned that Viscount Monckton – who they had addressed as “Dr Monckton” in their correspondence, a misconception he did not correct – was actually a British journalist and global-warming sceptic. His article presented claims that he has been circulating for years and that climate scientists say they have debunked”

    I don’t believe Monckton’s ‘science’ holds water and Dr Stephan Harrison agrees with me: http://www.turnuptheheat.org/?page_id=27

    Smokey:

    Thank you for finally admitting that the effect of CO2-induced global warming [if it exists at all], is so tiny that numerous other climate effects drown it out completely.

    No. The pattern we see is one of shorter term (a few years or less) but powerful events superimposed upon a slow-acting but gradual and basically linear forced warming. Over these shorter periods, events e.g. cooling from volcanoes and warming from ocean current oscillations such as El Nino add ‘noise’ to the trend, allowing the less scrupulous to take short periods of low or little warming and claim GW has ‘stalled’. To see the trend you have to use statistical smoothing techniques, such as looking at the mean of several years or doing a linear fit of the data. Either of these reveals a decadal trend in line with the predictions and the theory.

    Les – Thanks for the response. There are various Hadley datasets – some variance adjusted others not. I was just curious which one you had as I was not aware of one that has figures to 6dp (spurious accuracy in my view). Do you have a link? I use this page http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datdow

    The differences don’t affect the analyses AFAIK. BTW if 8 year periods are significant, what do you get if you plot the trend a year earlier, that is the eight years to 2007? GW ‘paused’ or on ‘play’? ;-)

    Patrick H – The distribution of the IPCC model projections over such a short peiod as eight years easily encompasses flat and even negative trends … http://tinyurl.com/3zzwjf

    JP

  58. /******************
    dennis ward SAYS (03:38:52) :

    What I want to know is why people STILL believe that because global temperatures do not rise in a straight line that long term global warming has stopped?
    ******************/

    I am sure this has been discussed by now but some times when you read something you just want to jump to the end and comment on it.

    At the heart of the AGW’s lament is that CO2 is a horribly, planet scaring, all life threatening greenhouse gas which is unstoppable in its heat magnifying and trapping capabilities.

    The AGW’s lament includes the philosophy that by just adding 100/1,000,000 more CO2 to the atmosphere it will kill almost everything on this planet.

    IT SURE LOOKS LIKE THE UNSTOPPABLE, MAGNIFYING, KILLING POWER OF 100/1,000,000 HAS BEEN CRIMINALLY OVERSTATED.

    SERENITY NOW……….

    Love and kisses

  59. Mr Philip says “BTW, which data set are you using?” …. with not the least sense of irony.

    isn’t this just the point?

    I bet Mr Philip never asked the IPCC which data set THEY were using as long as the rsult suited his own prejudice.

  60. John Philips (09:54:09)
    “No. The pattern we see is one of shorter term (a few years or less) but powerful events superimposed upon a slow-acting but gradual and basically linear forced warming.”

    There is absolutely no proof that this gradual warming since last century, long before anthropogenic CO2 started its climb, is due to the CO2 rise. All measures of CO2 show that the bulk of the increase lags temperature . All fingerprints of great postive feedbacks are missing in the data, let alone of anthropogenic additional CO2.

    It is cargo cult science at its worst.

    “Patrick H – The distribution of the IPCC model projections over such a short peiod as eight years easily encompasses flat and even negative trends …”

    Except they did not tell us this when they published the AR4. It is called moving the goalposts. The figure I gave you in the other thread http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ipccchart.jpg shows that catastrophic predictions are out of the picture. The models have to move the goal posts to fit the present data. So, in a century we go up one degree. We adjust to twenty degrees between night and day.

    What is the hurry, except for Gore and his ilk to milk society for this CO2 nonsense? In fifty years fusion will be online with unlimited clean energy for all, and the CO2 scare even if true would become moot. Instead of wasting the world resources in lining the pockets of CO2 hot air businesses, a fraction of the money should be given to ITER which is preparing the first fusion commercial prototype for the world, on a shoestring budget, to accelerate and bring the completion dates earlier.

  61. There is absolutely no proof that this gradual warming since last century, long before anthropogenic CO2 started its climb, is due to the CO2 rise. All measures of CO2 show that the bulk of the increase lags temperature ..

    I guess you mean the century before last? Our best estimate is that GHGs started making a contribution to the rise from the start of the 20th century, along with natural forcings, and became dominant around the century mid point.

    All fingerprints of great postive feedbacks are missing in the data, let alone of anthropogenic additional CO2

    Simply not the case. Water Vapour is increasing as predicted …e.g.

    Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005…/2005GL023624.shtml

    and as examples of a greenhouse ‘fingerprints’ the height of the troposphere has increased

    Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/5632/479

    and the Stratosphere has cooled http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/aboutus/milestones/ozone.html

    Among other flaws, the graph uploaded to icecap shows only the central mean trend for each scenario, without the variation about that mean (error bars). Bad science and hardly conclusive. See here for a more informed discussion … http://tinyurl.com/4mjjvp

  62. “Water Vapour is increasing as predicted”

    No. Water vapor increases with temperature, but increased temperature is not evidence of AGW. Warming is not a “fingerprint” of AGW, unless you are a tautologist. And:

    “Climate models and satellite observations both indicate that the total amount of water in the atmosphere will increase at a rate of 7% per kelvin of surface warming. However, the climate models predict that global precipitation will increase at a much slower rate of 1 to 3% per kelvin. A recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of precipitation to global warming. Rather, the observations suggest that precipitation and total atmospheric water have increased at about the same rate over the past two decades. ”

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5835/233

    In a nutshell, climate models are wrong.

  63. Icecap fans …

    The icecap graph you posted

    is labelled as TS Fig 26 updated. That is, Figure 26 from the IPCC Technical summary, which is here …

    In the icecap graph, the scenarios start at 2000, but, strangely, the observed temperature at this time is at least 0.15C below the scenario projections. However, in the original IPCC graph the observed and projected are no more than 0,01C apart at this point. This discrepency seems to be because the IPCC graph uses a 10 year moving average to smooth out the interannual variability whereas the ‘icecap’ graph simply plots the annual values. That 0.15C represents about 7 years projected warming so it is not surprising the scenarios appear to be doing so badly. Not the most honest science. An accurate update of the graph using the same smoothing would look very different.

    Confirmation bias?

    Glenn, please reread my post. the water vapour post was in response to anna’s asertion that we are not seeing feedbacks. We are.

    In a nutshell, climate models are wrong.

    Oh please. The precipitation results demonstrate that the measurements do not match the model projections, and the paper considers the possibility that the timescales are too short to be conclusive or that the satellite measurements are incorrect. If it turns out that the satellite measurements are incorrect and the models correct, it would not be the first time this has happened (The Christy / Spencer TLT saga)

  64. Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com

  65. John Philips (14:57:58) :

    Icecap fans …

    The icecap graph you posted

    is labelled as TS Fig 26 updated. That is, Figure 26 from the IPCC Technical summary, which is here …

    In the icecap graph, the scenarios start at 2000, but, strangely, the observed temperature at this time is at least 0.15C below the scenario projections … This discrepency seems to be because the IPCC graph uses a 10 year moving average to smooth out the interannual variability whereas the ‘icecap’ graph simply plots the annual values. That 0.15C represents about 7 years projected warming so it is not surprising the scenarios appear to be doing so badly. Not the most honest science. An accurate update of the graph using the same smoothing would look very different.

    I think the black speckles on the IPCC graph must be the annual temps not smoothed.

    Ah, right. The caption for the figure is within http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf and says “Figure TS.26. Model projections of global mean warming compared to observed warming. Observed temperature anomalies, as in Figure TS.6, are shown as annual (black dots) and decadal average values (black line). Projected trends and their ranges from the IPCC First (FAR) and Second (SAR) Assessment Reports are shown as green and magenta solid lines and shaded areas, and the projected range from the TAR is shown by vertical blue bars. These projections were adjusted to start at the observed decadal average value in 1990. Multi-model mean projections from this report for the SRES B1, A1B and A2 scenarios, as in Figure TS.32, are shown for the period 2000 to 2025 as blue, green and red curves with uncertainty ranges indicated against the right-hand axis. The orange curve shows model projections of warming if greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations were held constant from the year 2000 – that is, the committed warming. {Figures 1.1 and 10.4}”

    It appears to me that the IPCC graph points are annual data points and not subject to the decadal averaging that the black curve got, so I don’t see how you can call D’Aleo’s data point vs data point as not the most honest. Perhaps both data sets could be subject to 10 year averaging, but the point Joe was trying to make was that the recent PDO-induced cooling is taking the temperatures away from the IPCC projections.

    As I’ve pointed out to you before in this thread, the PDO shifts seem to come with short term changes, so 10 year averaging would mask that out. It might also delay for years the recognition that models need to handle climate oscillations better than they now do.

  66. “Oh please. The precipitation results demonstrate that the measurements do not match the model projections, and the paper considers the possibility that the timescales are too short to be conclusive or that the satellite measurements are incorrect. If it turns out that the satellite measurements are incorrect and the models correct, it would not be the first time this has happened (The Christy / Spencer TLT saga)”

    Sheesh. “If it turns out” is your argument that the climate models are not wrong? You must be joking. Everything at anytime might be wrong; that doesn’t mean that everything gets a free pass, especially over and over again. Maybe the assumptions about CO2, positive feedbacks and such are wrong in the climate models, and satellite and ground observations are wrong. All that can be said at anytime is that climate models are either supported or falsified by current observations. And there are many that falsify climate models. This observation is just one of them, although the authors did not use that language.
    Do you use this argument when talking down a hypothesis that doesn’t include CO2 as a major player? What is your opinion of ground station temperature data?

  67. I am sorry to be repeating here stuff I put up in the other thread , but I have already given references for the non fit of humidity feedback of CO2;

    John Philip (16:55:17) : on the cooling thread

    “Smokey

    That graph turned out to be invalid … A few days ago I posted a story highlighting the drop in water vapor in the atmosphere which initially looked like the entire atmosphere due to a labeling issue by ESRL, but turned out to be only at the 300 millibar height and not up to 300mb as the ESRL graph was labeled.

    JP.”

    mislabeled, not invalid.

    Quoting from a later and more thorough examination:

    “” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/21/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature-part-2/

    “So, what do these time series tell us?
    To begin with, what atmospheric moistening is believed to have occurred is at altitudes basically well below the surface altitudes of the major ice shields, Greenland and the East & West Antarctic and much of Earth’s land surfaces.

    Secondly, the atmospheric region of most interest from a weather/climate perspective appears to be on a drying trend, contrary to that expected under the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis.

    Simply eyeballing the time series suggests the 1977 Pacific phase shift is a much better fit with changes in trends than is the steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    Bottom line is that the regions climate models are programmed to expect atmospheric moistening are not actually doing so, making either the models or the atmosphere wrong. ”

    Thus the fourth point: that the huge humidity feedback driven by anthropogenic CO2’s tiny contribution, predicted by the models, is invalidated. “”

    Also this :

    There is a very good mathematical reason why any linearized models as these GCM models are, will diverge from reality when applied to real data. If you know mathematics, follow this:

    The GCM models make grids (boxes) of the atmosphere and apply linear approximations to the solutions of SOME of the differential equations that have to apply at the boundaries. Let us ignore SOME.

    It is very well known that coupled differential equations lead to chaotic systems. This is because the beats of the different solutions that are pushing and pulling in mathematical reality can unpredictably build up enormously, or disappear ( the seventh wave, the 100th lightning,…). This means that linearity in any modeling can be reasonably applied for a limited number of time steps before the true nonlinear nature of the solutions explodes. These same models are used to predict the weather for next week, with different boundary conditions than when they are turned climate. It is evident for even non mathematical people that the time stepping of the models fails after ten days or so.

    When the meteorology models are turned into climate models, i.e. even more linearization of the true solutions by applying many more average values at boundaries, this stepping problem does not disappear; the approximations will inevitably fail after some steps because the true solutions are drastically not linear. They do not fail in a week because of the averaging, but they do fail in ten years.

    Now SOME, like the PDO. I have read the paper of Keenlyside et al, they are trying to include some of the SOME to save the sinking boat and keep up the AGW mantra. It cannot be done. The only solution is to go the chaos way, as Tsonis et al have done in a limited way ( PDO and the Atlantic Oscillation) in a fairly recent paper using neural nets for the modeling. Complexity is a subject that crosses over all scientific disciplines and is at the frontier of research at the moment. I have a hard time understanding the tools ( I am retired and follow interesting lectures in my region) but I think it is the only way to go for weather system modelings.

  68. I’ve always thougght it strange that two of Maggie Thatchers colleagues, Mockton and Lawson should be so outspoken about whether there is man made climate change or not.

    It does make me wonder if politics is coming into it, what with the Labour government being pro AGW.

    Regards

    Andy

  69. I don’t see how you can call D’Aleo’s data point vs data point as not the most honest. Perhaps both data sets could be subject to 10 year averaging, but the point Joe was trying to make was that the recent PDO-induced cooling is taking the temperatures away from the IPCC projections.

    Let me expand further (and btw the graph seems to originate from John Christy) … The IPCC scenarios are the mean of a series of model runs. Individual runs show a fairly wide variation about this mean: http://www.realclimate.org/images/runs.jpg

    which corresponds to the relatively wide variation in the observed global annual mean temperature.
    To compare like with like the IPCC graph plots the smoothed 10 year moving average. Christy plots just the mean of the scenarios, without showing the spread, and compares these with the actual annual observed values, effectively comparing apples and oranges.

    Secondly, as a scientist Anna will confirm that when you give a quantative value, you must also state the uncertainty in that value. On a graph this usually done by the use of error bars. Now the smoothed observed temperatures are actually well within the scenario uncertainty range, so what does Christy do? simple, he erases the IPCC error bars!.

    So labelling this as an ‘update’ of the IPCC graph is less than scrupulous. The IPCC figure is good science, Christy’s graph is closer to scientific fraud.

  70. @John Philip(s):

    Some of us are still waiting for you to answer the questions about that survey you posted or retract your claims.

    Please don’t let this matter go unresolved.

  71. Dee

    I have to request that you retract the claims you made using a poll in this comment

    And I am going to have to disappoint you. I merely reported the results of a poll, with a link to a more detailed summary from the Harris Organisation. They state that the details you seem so interested in are available on request, so may I suggest you contact Harris? Be sure to post their response here.

    You are entitled to your view that the poll was either reported or conducted in bad faith, but it is not a view I share; Harris seem a reputable firm.

    The poll results are in line with other evidence. For example, the American Geophysical Union, the professional body that most US climate scientists belong to, has this position statement …

    The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

    http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml

    Does this reflect the views of most of their 20,000 members or is there a conspiracy going on here?

    And in this smaller scale poll of senior climate scientists the most popular response by a large margin was:

    The scientific basis for human impacts on climate is well represented by the IPCC WG1 report. The lead scientists know what they are doing. We are warming the planet, with CO2 as the main culprit. At least some of the forecast consequences of this change are based on robust evidence.

    with a further 10% agreeing with:

    The IPCC WG1 seriously understates the human influence on climate. I agree with those scientists who say that major mitigation responses are needed immediately to prevent catastrophic serious warming and other impacts projected to result from human emissions of CO2. We are seriously damaging the Earth’s climate, and will continue to face devastating consequences for many years.

    http://climatesci.org/2008/02/22/is-there-agreement-amongst-climate-scientists-on-the-ipcc-ar4-wg1/

    JP.

    PS Dee – about one in five posts here makes an unsupported claim of some sort, e.g. global temperatures are falling, the IPCC scenarios have been falsified, some of the additional CO2 is natural etc etc – I look forward to your repeated and indignant demands for detailed, supporting evidence.

  72. I wonder how many more years of cooling/flat temps would be required until CAGW is generally accepted as having been discredited.

    Shall I tell you what would do it for me? I would regard AGW to be discredited :-

    If GHG concentrations continue to increase and there was a statistically significant drop or reversal in the rate of GW. Given that average temperatures are now about 0.5C above what they were in the 1970s, I guess a 15 year hiatus would do it for me. However I think it more likely that the next 2-3 years will actually bring a new record high.

    and If a study, or preferably studies, was published and accepted in the academic climate science literature that demonstrated either that global warming was not occurring or that there are fatal flaws in the Greenhouse gas explanation for modern global warming, or that the warming will not continue with continued emissions, causing serious consequences for the planet.

    I fear a retired Professor writing in The Fairbank Daily News doesn’t do it for me. The last credible review of the scientific literature on this topic found papers –

    Supporting the concensus or neutral : 928
    Contradictory to the concensus : 0

    and If the Joint National Academies of Science of the G8 + 5 (and professional bodies in relevant disciplines btw) were to retract their statements that AGW is a real and present danger:

    E.g : http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/climatechangestatement.pdf

    thenI would heave a huge sigh of relief. Heck, I’d even accept two out of three.

    Cognitive dissonance anyone?

  73. JP: Does this reflect the views of most of their 20,000 members or is there a conspiracy going on here?

    Please. Not the same, tired, AGW “conspiracy” strawman argument. Can’t you people come up with anything new?
    I’m sure you know, and are therefore simply being disingenuous, that the AGU position statement on AGW is simply put forward by their BOD, and was never voted on by the members.
    As far as the position statement itself, it’s simply boilerplate AGW propaganda. It’s amazing that anyone with half a brain still even believes that crap.

  74. John Philips (01:57:01) :

    “To compare like with like the IPCC graph plots the smoothed 10 year moving average. Christy plots just the mean of the scenarios, without showing the spread, and compares these with the actual annual observed values, effectively comparing apples and oranges.”

    Errors enter if you give the chi2 s for the difference between experimental and predicted. It is the mean that one compares.

    Moving averages are deadly, particularly ten year ones as the PDO has shown. Why not a hundred years and be done with it?

    Are you saying that the errors of the IPCC models are so large that they are meaningless in predicting anything, even a trend? ( in this case we agree) Over at the Blackboard Lucia has exhausted the statistical means by which a trend can be evaluated in the data, and the trend shows diminishing temperatures. Are you saying that if the errors are included in the IPCC spaghetti the trend is diminishing?

    “Secondly, as a scientist Anna will confirm that when you give a quantative value, you must also state the uncertainty in that value. On a graph this usually done by the use of error bars. Now the smoothed observed temperatures are actually well within the scenario uncertainty range, so what does Christy do? simple, he erases the IPCC error bars!. ”

    Scenarios are deadly and one of the things that made me pull my hair. Scenarios are not substitutes for error bars. I do not trust the IPCC error bars, that they got them the kosher way. It seems to me they probably varied the scenario within each model instead of varying all the parameters by 1 sigma ( probably because the error bars would become huge and make the models meaningless).

    Scenarios are video games in a virtual reality and have nothing to do with rigorous statistical proofs. Just the prejudices of the modelers:

    8.1.2.2 Metrics of Model Reliability from the AR:
    “The above studies show promise
    that quantitative metrics for the likelihood of model projections
    may be developed, but because the development of robust
    metrics is still at an early stage, the model evaluations presented
    in this chapter are based primarily on experience and physical
    reasoning, as has been the norm in the past.”

    errors? what errors? In the eye of the modeler’s virtual reality?

  75. @ John Phillips:

    The position statement you provide is interesting. It includes this sentence:

    “Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.”

    Is it just me, or does this seem like an instruction? The members of the AGU are not only to believe in CO2 as the primary cause of climate change, but to support and justify that belief to the public and political classes.

    With that command, I am not surprised that the majority of members will answer ‘Yes!’ to the question ‘Do you believe…?’. But is it normal for bodies such as the AGU to have to issue such an order to their members? I can’t remember Plate Tectonics, the Copenhagen Interpretation or Relativity being the subject of such a direction.

    Mind you, I can remember the Congregation of the Index delivering such a directive against geocentrism. Robert Bellarmine is your man here. Details may be found here (Items 5 and 6, just after the minutes and consultants report: http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#certificate

  76. John Philips (01:57:01) :

    I don’t see how you can call D’Aleo’s [okay, Christy's] data point vs data point as not the most honest. Perhaps both data sets could be subject to 10 year averaging, but the point Joe [and John] was trying to make was that the recent PDO-induced cooling is taking the temperatures away from the IPCC projections.

    Let me expand further (and btw the graph seems to originate from John Christy) … The IPCC scenarios are the mean of a series of model runs. Individual runs show a fairly wide variation about this mean: http://www.realclimate.org/images/runs.jpg

    which corresponds to the relatively wide variation in the observed global annual mean temperature.

    To compare like with like the IPCC graph plots the smoothed 10 year moving average. Christy plots just the mean of the scenarios, without showing the spread, and compares these with the actual annual observed values, effectively comparing apples and oranges.

    One problem with a graph that compares model output with observed data is that you are comparing apples with oranges. If you wish to call it comparing apples with kumquats, go right ahead, but don’t give me credit. I doubt we will ever agree that 10 year moving averages are like the mean of lotsa model runs. Unfortunately we don’t have anything better to compare.

    Secondly, as a scientist Anna will confirm that when you give a quantative value, you must also state the uncertainty in that value. On a graph this usually done by the use of error bars. Now the smoothed observed temperatures are actually well within the scenario uncertainty range, so what does Christy do? simple, he erases the IPCC error bars!.

    I had written a sentence or two about this, but then realized you hadn’t mentioned anything about error bars in the thread, at least not the thread I was responding to.

    Please refer to http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/ts26.jpg . Note that there are shaded areas and there are lines. The shaded areas are ancient history and come from the F, S, and T ARs. (Why couldn’t they number them AR1, AR2, and AR3? Don’t these guys have computers or something? or TAR->AR2001?). That data ended at 2005, but Christy’s main point is recent conditions and those old projections don’t reach that far. The remaining lines come are as you describe, but the only error bars are on the right side of the graph. They may also be for 2025 and may be larger than for 2008. My guess is that Christy’s software probably has a mechanism for error bars on each line but not on the right side like IPCC’s graphic. Error bars on each line would obliterate any understanding of the curves.

    It is too bad they’re missing, as the recent data (the point of Christy’s graph) is well below the IPCC error bars, though Commitment is the only one that has a chance of being compared. The observed data is well below the other three bars. However, I know what you mean, neither of us knows what the IPCC means. Note the realclimate graph suggests smaller error bars for 2008. I don’t know what the UAH measurement error is, I think it’s pretty small, certainly smaller then the IPCC data. Perhaps the IPCC can reduce the range of their parameters to make a similarly sized error bar, though that would make it harder for the Realclimate crowd to claim observations are within the error range.

    So labelling this as an ‘update’ of the IPCC graph is less than scrupulous. The IPCC figure is good science, Christy’s graph is closer to scientific fraud.

    That’s a reach! Empirical data is better than theoretical data which is better than modeled data. I my mind, that vastly outweighs the problems from both sides.

  77. As far as the position statement itself, it’s simply boilerplate AGW propaganda. It’s amazing that anyone with half a brain still even believes that crap.

    Presumably those with fully functioning brains believe therefore that the position statement is unrepresentative and the membership are biting their tongues and sitting on their hands?

    Tell me, does the same evaluation apply to similar endorsements from these groups of ‘half-brainers’ : The American Meteorological Society , The Royal Meteorological Society, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society,The International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, The European Academy of Sciences and Arts, The Network of African Science Academies, The US National Research Council , The European Science Foundation, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Federation of American Scientists, The World Meteorological Organization, The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, The International Union for Quaternary Research, The American Quaternary Association, The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, The International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, The International Union of Geological Sciences, The European Geosciences Union, The Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences, The Geological Society of America, The American Astronomical Society, The American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, Engineers Australia, The Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), The American Statistical Association, The Hadley Centre and the Tyndall Centre, The US National Center for Atmospheric Research, NASA Goddard Institute of Space Science, US Environmental Protection Agency, and The American Chemical Society (the world’s largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members) ….. ?

    Anna:

    Over at the Blackboard Lucia has exhausted the statistical means by which a trend can be evaluated in the data, and the trend shows diminishing temperatures. Are you saying that if the errors are included in the IPCC spaghetti the trend is diminishing?

    You hope to discredit the IPCC with an unreviewed weblog? Yes. Or more accurately over the short period considered by Lucia, a diminishing trend is entirely consistent with the range of temperatures projected by the IPCC. All Lucia has ‘falsified’ is the ‘central tendency’. So what?

    It is impossible to learn this from Christy’s dubious graph that you presented for us, however. I see it quite simply: to evaluate model projections vs observed temperatures one could plot:

    (a) The results of all the model runs showing the variance between runs.

    (b) The mean of the above, with error bars.

    (c) The actual annual temperatures, demonstrating the large annual variability.

    (d) The averaged temperature, a running mean or a linear fit, with error bars.

    Seems to me comparing (a) and (c) is meaningful, comparing (b) and (d) is meaningful but as either of these would validate the scenarios Christy chooses to compare (b) without error bars and (c). Doing this and labelling it an ‘update’ of the IPPC graph is simply not legitimate; I don’t see how you can defend it.

    Dodgy Geezer:

    Is it just me, or does this seem like an instruction

    No, it is just you.

  78. John Philip (04:05:05) :

    I fear a retired Professor writing in The Fairbank Daily News doesn’t do it for me.

    Being relatively close to retirement (and being “forcibly retired” by my penultimate empoyer), your statement rankles me.

    First, when I retire, I will not be leaving my brain behind. In fact, it will open up a lot of possibilities. It won’t turn me into a professional scientist (by definition), but I expect to increase my involvement with several sciences.

    Second, in Syun-Ichi Akasofu case (why don’t you use his name?), this frees him from his responsibility in raising money for himself and for his employers. Did you read Richard Lindzen’s paper? It would appear that Akasofu is in his “golden years” without having to deal with corruption that Lindzen documents. At least not until an unsigned deathbed conversion. :-) Until then “retired” will be used as a pejorative.

    Third, readers in the Massachusetts area: Lindzen will be the keynote speaker at the 2008 Southern New England Weather Conference on October 25, 2008. See http://www.sneweatherconf.org/index.shtml for more. Joe D’Aleo will be there too, and astronomer Ron Dantowitz will have his usual amazing stuff.

  79. John Philip

    “Is it just me, or does this seem like an instruction…No, it is just you.”

    In that case, why are there no similar comments defining other aspects of science which are ‘settled’?

  80. Rick,

    Please accept apologies. I did not mean to imply that retired=decrepit. Rather the sense I meant was shorthand for ‘no longer practicing’, and by implication perhaps not up to date with latest developments and issues. I fully accept your point that retirement can equally wll bring newfound economic and academic independence, but sadly for every such case there seems to be another retired expert who trades on previous eminence or even Emeritus in an unrelated field to muddy the waters on Climate Change. (Fred Seitz springs to mind and the description would apply to a lot of the entries on this short list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming )

    I wish you a stimulating retirement.

  81. John Philip (05:48:07) :

    Let me repeat the direct quote from the AR literature, from chapter 8 that is supposed to evaluate the models:

    ” 8.1.2.2 Metrics of Model Reliability from the AR:
    “The above studies show promise
    that quantitative metrics for the likelihood of model projections
    may be developed, but because the development of robust
    metrics is still at an early stage, the model evaluations presented
    in this chapter are based primarily on experience and physical
    reasoning, as has been the norm in the past.””

    To paraphrase, you can control some scientists for a long time, and many scientists for some time, but not all scientists all the time. That is why there is some scientific honesty digging through the AR and truth can be found; 600 scientist do not all tow the line and the line enforcers do not have the IQ to catch everything.

    You say:

    “It is impossible to learn this from Christy’s dubious graph that you presented for us, however. I see it quite simply: to evaluate model projections vs observed temperatures one could plot:

    (a) The results of all the model runs showing the variance between runs.

    (b) The mean of the above, with error bars.

    (c) The actual annual temperatures, demonstrating the large annual variability.

    (d) The averaged temperature, a running mean or a linear fit, with error bars.

    Seems to me comparing (a) and (c) is meaningful, comparing (b) and (d) is meaningful but as either of these would validate the scenarios Christy chooses to compare (b) without error bars and (c). Doing this and labelling it an ‘update’ of the IPPC graph is simply not legitimate; I don’t see how you can defend it. ”

    THE BARS IN THE ORIGINAL PLOT ARE NOT ERROR BARS.

    They are what the modelers believe their error bars are, and anybody treating them as error bars, i.e using them to get a chi2 per degree of freedom compared to data ( or whatever the statistical fashion is now) is off.

    There IS meaning, if presented with a scenario and if I have the data available, to look at the fit of the scenario to the data which is what Christy has done.

    The bars are there in the IPCC plot so that the hoi polloi can be mesmerized that: this is “SCIENCE”, look, there are error bars.

    Sorry for the capitals, there is no easy bold or whatnot on this board.

    p.s. likelihood has to do with error bars

  82. John Philip:
    “I would regard AGW to be discredited :-
    If GHG concentrations continue to increase and there was a statistically significant drop or reversal in the rate of GW… I guess a 15 year hiatus would do it for me…AND if a study.. was published and accepted in the academic climate science literature that demonstrated either that global warming was not occurring or that there are fatal flaws in the Greenhouse gas explanation…”

    How interesting to need those two requirements.

    Let us assume temperatures fail to give you your record high, and continue as they are going at the moment – in another 7 years you would have your hiatus. This is what I anticipate. However, I would also anticipate a continuation of the IPCC to peddle their hypothesis and a continued rejection of papers by people like Steve McIntyre. So your second requirement may be a longer time coming – if ever! Are you saying that you will refuse to believe the evidence of your own senses until the approved consensus allows you to do so?

    If that is the case, I would have thought that only the second of your requirements was important. If the AGU and all the other august bodies were to instruct their memberships to deny CO2-driven AGW, would not the state of global temperatures be a matter of minor significance, compared to (as I am sure Gallileo was reminded) the state of your immortal soul?

  83. A cooling anecdote from Whistler:

    “Mother Nature Skips Fall

    Whistler Blackcomb received over 6 cm/2.4 inches of snow in the alpine Sunday night making Whistlerites wonder if Mother Nature forgot a season. On the first day of fall, Whistler Blackcomb mountain tops were covered with at least six centimetres of snow. With 65 days until the winter ski season and 79 days until the opening of the PEAK 2 PEAK Gondola on December 12, the countdown is on. ”

    If all the snow had melted, that would have been a sure sign of AGW (doesn’t that stand for “Al Gore’s Warming”?)

  84. It is too bad they’re missing, as the recent data (the point of Christy’s graph) is well below the IPCC error bars, though Commitment is the only one that has a chance of being compared.

    I am not so sure, see below, but even if so – So what? Assuming a 95% uncertainty, the actual value would be expected to fall outside the error bar 1 year in 20. For the last time: compare the mean of the scenarios with the mean of the observations and the ‘problem’ disappears. Compare the predicted range from the model runs with the actual range of the temperature and the ‘problem’ disappears.

    And just what is this ‘recent data’? It seems that Christy is using the year-to-date numbers for 2008 (the paler blue and green). The earlier part of the year was cooled by La Nina, so it is very likely that the whole year average will be higher. His Hadley Centre value is a good 0.1C cooler than Hadley’s own prediction. Remove the 2008 provisional numbers and the ‘problem’ disappears.

    This simply is not credible work.

  85. Presumably those with fully functioning brains believe therefore that the position statement is unrepresentative and the membership are biting their tongues and sitting on their hands?

    In a word, yes. Most probably have careers to consider and have seen what happens when you don’t toe the consensus line. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories for the most part, but we’re talking facts here. People have lost their jobs and funding if they express skepticism about the “consensus”. Which is why we’re mostly hearing from tenured professors and retired scientists.

  86. John Philip (05:48:07) :

    As far as the position statement itself, it’s simply boilerplate AGW propaganda. It’s amazing that anyone with half a brain still even believes that crap.

    Presumably those with fully functioning brains believe therefore that the position statement is unrepresentative and the membership are biting their tongues and sitting on their hands?

    Late for work, quick comment. [Oops - it looks like I didn't send it.] The AMS and NAS position statements were brought up at a Public Listening Session held by New Hampshire’s Climate Change Task Force.

    Joe D’Aleo was there, and I knew he was going to have some sharp words about the AMS statement. He was on the board that came up with that, and the statement was passed over the objections of many board members. When the membership heard about it, many of them were equally upset. Several of them are TV mets who have to maintain their membership because their “Seal of Approval” is important to have.

    Umm, I don’t have his name handy at the moment, but one of Joe’s associates was there and he was on the NAS board at the time and reported very similar stuff. All completely consistent with Lindzen’s paper which I heard about a week or two later.

    So, make hay with their pronouncements while you can. One or two cold winters will destroy the reputations of both organizations. Along with crops, heating budgets, and various other collateral damage.

  87. John Philip (08:00:52) :

    For the last time: compare the mean of the scenarios with the mean of the observations and the ‘problem’ disappears.

    We have a mean of the same point in time of several model runs using human-specified dithers vs a mean over 10 years of observations. If it makes you happy, let the problem disappear.

    And just what is this ‘recent data’? It seems that Christy is using the year-to-date numbers for 2008 (the paler blue and green). The earlier part of the year was cooled by La Nina, so it is very likely that the whole year average will be higher. His Hadley Centre value is a good 0.1C cooler than Hadley’s own prediction. Remove the 2008 provisional numbers and the ‘problem’ disappears.

    I thought you understood the 2008 data wasn’t for the whole year. Models produce forecasts, observations don’t. Some people say the La Nina is making a comeback, that’s typical of the the cool PDO. So, if you don’t like the 2008 partial year data, and regression to the mean is a valid point, let’s just table the discussion until January when we’ll have a new year’s datum.

    This simply is not credible work.

    If you wanted to graph the effect of a partial year’s data, what you do? One thing you could do is take the mean over the 6 months before and after the sample, though the first and last six months need special processing or can be skipped.
    Would you consider http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1990/plot/uah/from:1990/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1990/mean:120 credible? I’ve plotted monthly UAH data since 1990 with raw, 12 month and 120 month means. The first two show a fall off, the latter does too, but it’s too early. The latter squashes out the 1998 “hottest year on record,” leaving virtually no trace of it. (You can see why Anna V noted “Moving averages are deadly” – it killed 1998!)

  88. Hi all,

    There are several posters here who favour the AGW position, could one of you please do me the favour of doing the following.

    1. Make a definitive testable prediction, that if it does not come to pass would categorically break the hypothesis that man made emissions of CO2 are causing a dangerous level of global warming. I.e like “If CO2 reaches 550 ppm and average global temperatures are cooler than the current values, then hypothesis “AGW” must be false”…

    2. If you are unable to make such a testable (and falsifiable) prediction, could you please explain how the hypothesis that man made emissions of CO2 are causing a dangerous level of global warming qualifies as science.

    3. Could you also explain why computer models of climate should be trusted to the extent that our societies (western civilisation – no one else seems to be listening to AGW or doing anything…) should radically alter our energy sources at great expense and hardship to most of the (especially the poor) members of our societies and arguably to the detriment of the developing world.

    Thanks.

    I have asked these questions several times in different forms and never get an answer.

    Cheers G

  89. Bobby Lane (22:25:59) :

    Thank you very much for the reference to the paper written by Richard S. Lindzen.

    It is one of the most disturbing things I have ever read. It confirms some of my worst fears about what is going on in ‘science’ today.

    You are correct; it is a must read.

  90. It is worth giving the following link here, of a simple model for the climate of the earth.

    http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Earth_temp.html

    “So, what value is a simple model like this? After all, GCMs have dozens, hundreds of tweakable parameters so what is the value of this simplistic thing? Actually, its very simplicity is part of its value. You will note when adjusting the available parameters you can happily freeze or cook the planet without need of a multitude of knobs to twist (just drop planetary albedo to 0.2 (20%) to turn the whole planet tropical, increase it to 0.4 (40%) to create an ice age).”

    In particular it is useful in the argument of whether the bars in the IPCC report are error bars or estimates.

    If you change the albedo from the one that gives 15C , 0.310,
    to o.300, a 3% change, the temperature calculates to 16.04C

    This means that if the error on the albedo is 3% ( a conservative estimate as far as I am concerned) the error on the temperature is 1.0C, i.e. all over the chart of temperatures, making any predictions/projections meaningless.

    And this is only one of the very many parameters in the models that give the IPCC spaghetti graphs.

  91. Graeme , Roger pielke has asked the very same question of the Real Climate heroes. They refuse to put any testable conditions on their climate models. In fact they claim there can be no testable cases that will invalidate them. It is even laughable that oc/decade falls within their models.

  92. There have been a few comments (not only in this thread) from those concerned about AGW that they would begin to wonder if trends stopped for 15 years. Over the decades that I have followed AGW, one consistent fingerprint for CO2/GHG-induced global warming was atmospheric temperatures: stratosphere cooling while troposphere warmed, and troposphere warming faster than surface temperature. Would any advocate for action on AGW cease their advocacy if the stratosphere stopped its cooling for 15 years, if the troposphere was cooler than it was 15 years earlier, AND if for 15 years measured surface temperatures had a higher trend than the tropospheric temperatures?

  93. One more not-a-climatologist-but-knows-better-than-them type scientists. Retired, so he’s never really got a handle on them newfangdangled scientific methods using climate modelling – you know, actually trying to follow where the energy goes, where all those complicated atmospheric processes take it and what it does along the way -much preferring the good old fashioned look at this graph look at that graph, and how can we make them appear to match method. People here like that. Thinks it’s something else than GHG’s. Even better. His science career centered on sun interactions with polar atmosphere. Hey, we have a winner here. Or do we?

    So does he think it’s mostly the sun? No. So he’s in disagreement with lots of the commenters here. Are the it’s-the-sun-stupid crowd calling him stupid and ripping his it’s-not-the-sun stance apart? No. As long as he doesn’t put it down to human GHG’s he can be held up as more right than those who do?
    And Warmers get accused of picking and choosing!

    Still, he’s slightly more credible than the it’s-been-cooling-since-1998 crowd, even if he actually appears to read the graphs the same way. Has he too failed to spot the major flaw in the it’s-been-cooling-since-1998 claim? That it relies on the hottest year ever (if you don’t count 2005 or think the hottest year in the US is the same as the hottest year in the world) to show anything like cooling? Assign 1998 a neutral value and hey, looks like it’s still warming. Make 1998 a really hot one like it was, and through the magic of pseudo-logic you get cooling “trend”. How does adding a hot spike into the middle of a warming trend magically turn it into a cooling trend? It sure isn’t because it’s really cooling. Hot plus hot equals cooling? Wake up guys – that just ain’t how it works. E&E might be happy with that but you ain’t gonna fool a real peer reviewed scientific journal with that little shell game.

    I want to claim back 1998 as evidence of global warming. Using it as “proof” of cooling may be very amusing but it leaves your credibility in shreds. Hot plus hot equal hotter, not cooler. When people tell you otherwise you don’t need credential or webcites to tell you they are wrong.

    Think that cooling is real, it’s clear and strong? Try the Year After 1998 Challenge. After the 1998-99 cooling “trend”, what happened? Has it been cooling since1999?
    A real trend doesn’t need a single hot year to prove it’s cooling, right? 1999 ought to an easy bar for clear cooling to limbo under – 6th hottest year of last century after all. Slipped to 13th since then. Go figure. Still one of the top 15 hot years on record. So dodge all the controversy, and those cherry picking accusations and ditch 1998. If you are a climate change skeptic you can’t tell me you like seeing that hot spike – good evidence of warming by the way – sticking out like a sore thumb. You don’t really want to rely on the hottest year to prove it’s cooling, do you? Be brave. Ditch 1998 and measure your cooling trend from 1999. If it’s real it will be clearly revealled.

    Check out the perfectly good graph of Global temps here. Complain to them at GISS if you really think they are wrong and you aren’t worried they’ll laugh.

    Check out the year Coolers don’t want to talk about.

    Reply – Both 1998 and 1999 are outliers and are bad dates from which to measure any trend. I like 2001 myself using the RSS data:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend

    We will always comeback to the how long makes a trend debate – 10, 20, 30 years?

    The really clue is the discontinuity from 2007 to 2008 and is worth keeping an eye on for further developments. – Dee Norris

  94. Thank you very much for the reference to the paper written by Richard S. Lindzen.
    It is one of the most disturbing things I have ever read. It confirms some of my worst fears about what is going on in ’science’ today.

    I agree. It is in many ways a remarkable document. In the spirit of scepticism that this forum so admires, I examined some of the evidence that Dr. Lindzen presents to support his thesis. Of course I ignored the hearsay and I skipped over the claims of published studies being distorted – If Dr Lindzen has hard evidence to support these he should comment in the journals that published the papers. There’s a lot of opinion here, but how much hard evidence?

    Climate Science is being infiltrated by unqualified environmentalists

    For example, the primary spokesman for the American Meteorological Society in Washington is Anthony Socci who is neither an elected official of the AMS nor a contributor to climate science. Rather, he is a former staffer for Al Gore .

    Pure ad hominem and therefore unconvincing. No evidence is presented that Socci has ever behaved improperly. Pure guilt by association

    John Firor long served as administrative director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. This position was purely administrative, and Firor did not claim any scientific credentials in the atmospheric sciences at the time I was on the staff of NCAR. However, I noticed that beginning in the 1980’s, Firor was frequently speaking on the dangers of global warming as an expert from NCAR. When Firor died last November, his obituary noted that he had also been Board Chairman at Environmental Defense

    In Lindzen’s universe it appears membership of an organisation concerned about the environment is incompatible with being a scientist …

    The UK Meteorological Office also has a board, and its chairman, Robert Napier, was previously the Chief Executive for World Wildlife Fund

    See? Being the ex-leader of a wildlife group apparently disqualifies you from running the Met Office. Just wierd.

    Bill Hare, a lawyer and Campaign Director for Greenpeace, frequently speaks as a ‘scientist’ representing the Potsdam Institute, Germany’s main global warming research center.

    Dr Bill Hare is actually described by Potsdam as a ‘visiting scientist’. He has published on Environmental Science in the journal Climatic Change

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5861615714m7381/

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/2185481704614445/

    The case of Michael Oppenheimer is noteworthy in this regard. With few contributions to climate science , and none to the physics of climate, Oppenheimer became the Barbara Streisand Scientist at Environmental Defense6. He was subsequently appointed to a professorship at Princeton University, and is now, regularly, referred to as a prominent climate scientist by Oprah (a popular television hostess), NPR (National Public Radio), etc. To be sure, Oppenheimer did coauthor an early absurdly alarmist volume (Oppenheimer and Robert Boyle, 1990: Dead Heat, The Race Against the Greenhouse Effect), and he has served as a lead author with the IPCC

    Jealousy can really burn you up. Last year Oppenheimer published On the sensitivity of radiative forcing from biomass burning aerosols and ozone to emission location in GRL, adding to his 100-odd other papers.

    The making of academic appointments to global warming alarmists is hardly a unique occurrence. Nor is the making of political appointments to lobbyists from the oil industry. Philip Cooney, a lawyer and lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute was appointed by the Bush Administration as chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality despite a complete lack of scientific qualifications. I could cite many more (to copy Lindzen’s style). This document is meant to be an objective analysis of the politicisation of climate science yes? Where is the outrage at the corruption of the discipline by bogus and oily science? Where is the balance?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    The situation with America’s National Academy of Science is somewhat more complicated. … The vetting procedure is generally rigorous, but for over 20 years, there was a Temporary Nominating Group for the Global Environment to provide a back door for the election of candidates who were environmental activists, bypassing the conventional vetting procedure

    There are currently TNGs for Physical and Mathematical Sciences; Biological Sciences; Engineering and Applied Sciences; Biomedical Sciences; Behavioral and Social Sciences; and Applied Biological, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences. That’s a lot of back doors. Candidates so nominated must still pass the usual ballot. Judge for yourself if ‘back door’ is a fair description of the process http://www.pnas.org/content/102/21/7405.full

    Oreskes’ 2004 review of the literature is dismissed thus As far as Oreskes’ claim goes, it is clearly absurd. A more carefully done study revealed a different picture (Schulte, 2007).

    Ho Ho. Oreskes is a historian of science and published in Science, Schulte is a consultant endocrinologist and published in Energy and Environment.

    Perhaps the most extraordinary example of this phenomenon (the posthumous alteration of skeptical positions ) involves a paper by Singer, Starr, and Revelle (1991). In this paper, it was concluded that we knew too little about climate to implement any drastic measures. Revelle, it may be recalled, was the professor that Gore credits with introducing him to the horrors of CO2 induced warming. There followed an intense effort led by a research associate at Harvard, Justin Lancaster, in coordination with Gore staffers, to have Revelle’s name posthumously removed from the published paper.

    At the very least Lindzen should acknowledge that this is controversial. Lancaster asserts that Revelle was not an author of the piece (not really a ‘paper’) and that Singer silenced him with a libel suit. Revelle’s secretary and students contradict Singer’s version of events and Revelle’s family assert that he remained concerned about GW right up until his death. Elsewhere Singer is demonstrably willing and able to fabricate evidence.

    http://home.att.net/~espi/Cosmos_myth.html

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-richard-lindzen-shows-up-at-your.html

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1024842.html

    Silencing the sceptics

    Occasionally, prominent individual scientists do publicly express skepticism. The means for silencing them are fairly straightforward.

    Will Happer, director of research at the Department of Energy (and a professor of physics at Princeton University) was simply fired from his government position after expressing doubts about environmental issues in general. His case is described in Happer (2003).

    Happer 2003 turns out to be a chapter in a book published by the Hoover Institute ($295,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998). The same book carries Singer’s version of the Revelle story. Happer was a political appointee and his departure coincided with a change of Government.

    So it goes. In total, I counted the following examples of what Lindzen would have us believe:

    Unqualified or inappropriate people in academic positions : 5
    Studies ‘distorted’ to meet the consensus : 6
    Sceptics ‘silenced’ : 3 (Happer plus two cowed by ‘angry letters’ apparently).

    with question marks over many of even this meagre number. The ‘paper’ was presented at this closed doors forum http://www.euresis.org/it/Dettaglio_Eventi.aspx?id=27 with 13 participants. Apparently one aim was ‘Friendship Among Peoples’.

    This article will receive a receptive, if unsceptical, audience on WUWT, however to convince the wider public, not to mention the scientific community Dr Lindzen needs to try a lot harder. The proceedings of the symposium will be published next year, I predict this ‘paper’ will have sunk without trace long before then.

    JP.

    REPLY: Oreskes had and continues to have an agenda. I watched a video of one of her lectures, was unimpressed with the research, and clearly she is biased. The criticisms of her work are warranted. But thanks for pointing out that Lindzen needs help in getting his paper further noticed. I’ll see to helping with that. -Anthony

  95. Old construction worker says:

    Hay Smokey
    When I first hear about our planet cooling, the modelers said “CO2 induced warming” would be back in 2009. Now they say 2015.

    You are quoting results from two papers here, one from a group at Hadley and one from another group. In both cases, they are attempting to extend the use of climate models in ways that they have not been used before (i.e., to predict short-term trends using specifically initialized initial conditions). This is an admirable thing to try to do, but it is also fraught with potential difficulties and the rest of the scientific community is yet confident that they have done this correctly. In fact, the Keenlyside paper claiming there will be no significant warming until about 2015 has been greated by quite a bit of skepticism by the scientists over at RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/the-global-cooling-bet-part-2/langswitch_lang/in

    Time will tell.

  96. John Philips says:

    PS Dee – about one in five posts here makes an unsupported claim of some sort, e.g. global temperatures are falling, the IPCC scenarios have been falsified, some of the additional CO2 is natural etc etc – I look forward to your repeated and indignant demands for detailed, supporting evidence.

    And, to be even more specific, it is strange that when Smokey has (multiple times) posted a link to a little pie chart that supposedly reflects the response to a question in a poll by the Gallup organization of climate scientists on climate change, noone but I seemed to question this chart even though

    (1) This poll result was cited only by linking to the pie chart that provided absolutely no context other than it was supposedly a result from a Gallup poll of climate scientists.

    (2) It turned out that the poll was in fact taken 17 years ago.

    (3) The result shown in that the pie chart still didn’t seem to correspond to any actual result from that poll…and in fact seemed to be in contradiction, or at least not very well aligned, with the results from that poll.

    By contrast, John has provided us with the full article from a reputable polling firm of a poll that they did earlier this year. This article contains considerable details about the poll. I am not saying that the poll is perfect or that it wouldn’t be nice to know a few more details about the methodology or the exact list of questions asked, but it is so far above what Smokey provided that it seems incredible to me that the same “skeptics” who populate this site and saw fit not to question that completely out-dated and, as near as I can tell, essentially fabricated result are now so unwilling to consider the results of this poll. The skepticism expressed by commenters here often seems to be very situational.

  97. Joel Shore (19:54:18) :

    And, to be even more specific, it is strange that when Smokey has (multiple times) posted a link to a little pie chart that supposedly reflects the response to a question in a poll by the Gallup organization of climate scientists on climate change, noone but I seemed to question this chart even though

    I think I’ve criticized it. I hadn’t realized it was 17 years old, but I’m not surprised. With people just posting the image it’s hard to know just how to criticize it.

    Perhaps we won’t see it again.

  98. Joel Shore (19:54:18) :

    ” it seems incredible to me that the same “skeptics” who populate this site and saw fit not to question that completely out-dated and, as near as I can tell, essentially fabricated result are now so unwilling to consider the results of this poll. The skepticism expressed by commenters here often seems to be very situational.”

    I am sceptical, as all true scientists should be, and I did observed that the way the questions were framed I also would be in the “humans influence climate” count.

    My basic skepticism is of the role of anthropogenic CO2, otherwise I agree with people who say that humans have changed the climate: urbanization, irrigation, forest burning, agriculture, pollution of the atmosphere and sea etc affect everything, from rainfall to temperatures. CO2 is third fiddle in this orchestra, in my opinion, but the question was not about CO2, at least as it was posted here.

  99. Dee, yes we could argue about how many years to make a climate trend. The trend over the previous 10 years, including that 1998 hot spike at the beginning (according to rss msu) is plus 0.169 degrees per decade. So even with 1998 included rss msu shows a warming trend. It’ll show even stronger in 2009. With a five year trend line, sure it’s going down. So what? That’s happened before. Didn’t last long. Hardly a dimple on a 30yr (warming) trend line (which rss msu doesn’t do yet).

    You have nothing but speculation to support expectations this is more than another dimple. It’s post-LIA thawing and Multidecadal oscillation. No, it’s a shortage of sunspots. It’s anything but GHG’s and no evidence required? Not very convincing.

    So it’s still a warming trend – since 1998, the hottest (unless you count 2005 or you think the US is the whole globe) year on record. And that isn’t even a contradiction.

  100. @Ken Fabos:

    I never said I have proof that this is more than a dimple nor is that why I am a skeptic of AGW. I am a skeptic that mankind is able to influence the global climate because no one has presented any convincing evidence that the 20th century warm period is anything but a natural cycle.

    For example, If you inspect the temperature record from Hadley, you would discover that during each PDO transition to cooling, there is a spike in temperature followed by a small oscillating signal before the temperature plunges. The PDO transition in mid-40s is a little hard to see, but the prior change in the 1880 is pretty clear.

    Why has only the northern hemisphere warmed? Why has only the surface warmed and not the upper troposphere?

    The list of questions goes on and on and had been repeatedly debated on this blog under a number of posts.

    Personally, I think a warming world is a good place, civilizations flourish, the biosphere expands. But I just don’t see humanity as the root cause to the modern warming. The science of AGW is too full of holes for me.

    The speculation as you put it, is how science happens in the real world. Scientists observe the world and hypothesize why it acts as it does. They then test their hypothesis in some manner. If the hypothesis holds, they test it more and other scientists try to falsify it. What you see as random speculation, I see as science in action.

    There are a lot of hypothesizes attempting to explain the last forty years of warming, some competing, some complementary. To falsify any of them, one does not have to have a replacement hypothesis, one merely has to show the hypothesis does not fit the observed behavior.

    BTW, since you seem to be fascinated by trends, the much ‘adjusted’ GISS also shows cooling since 2001.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2001/plot/gistemp/from:2001/trend

    as does Hadley –

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend

    Trends are nice, I pick one date, you pick another. You get your trend, I get mine. However trends are NOT forecasts and since the present GCMs are not doing such a hot job, the future is anything but plain to see.

    I am perfectly happy to wait to see what the next 6 or 7 years bring. I pray I am soundly mistaking, but my gut (and therefore unreliable) instinct is that we all are headed into a prolonged cooling period. Ultimately, the truth will out.

    Best of luck to you.

  101. Couple links for y’all …

    Syun-Ichi Akasofu is in the news again …

    “Two other contrarian scholars were cited (in Sarah Palin’s polar bears study) . One was Syun-Ichi Akasofu, formerly director of the International Arctic Research Centre, in Alaska, who argues that climate change could be a hangover from the little ice age. He is a founding director of the Heartland Institute, a thinktank that has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998″

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/01/sarahpalin.climatechange

    And a climate modeller discusses Dr Lindzen’s paper …

    As is often the case with people who are too sure of themselves, he turns out guilty of some of the things he accuses his opponents of. He politicizes and conspiratorializes rather than simply addressing the problem dispassionately. His personal characterization of other scientists is grossly excessive in at least one occasion. I am inclined to extrapolate that his understanding of specific events is similarly skewed. …

    Likely this paper will be a Palinesque effort, energizing the “base” who have preconceived notions along these lines, and having little effect elsewhere. It’s a shame. We do need to rethink how science is done. This sort of injured and injurious argumentation will do little to advance that prospect.

    http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/09/lindzen-diatribe.html

  102. Ken Fabos (03:33:19) :

    Dee, yes we could argue about how many years to make a climate trend. The trend over the previous 10 years, including that 1998 hot spike at the beginning (according to rss msu) is plus 0.169 degrees per decade. So even with 1998 included rss msu shows a warming trend. It’ll show even stronger in 2009. With a five year trend line, sure it’s going down. So what? That’s happened before. Didn’t last long. Hardly a dimple on a 30yr (warming) trend line (which rss msu doesn’t do yet).

    Can you be more explicit in how you got that 0.169 figure? Please refer to http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:2003/trend

    I’ve plotted:

    Monthly RSS data since 1998
    Ditto, smoothed with a 12 month average
    The 10 year trend line
    The 5 year trend line for the last five years.

    Both trend lines are going down.

    Please, please, please, back up claims like 0.169 with references, you must have that at your finger tips, it takes a huge amount of time for each of the readers here to verify it.

  103. John Philip (05:24:34) :

    Please, does it give you pleasure to hear of the billions given to AGW inclined institutes?
    What is
    “$676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998″ “, 67.000 a year, but peanuts? Not even a shoe shine for Gore.

  104. Syun-Ichi Akasofu is in the news again …

    “Two other contrarian scholars were cited (in Sarah Palin’s polar bears study) . One was Syun-Ichi Akasofu, formerly director of the International Arctic Research Centre, in Alaska, who argues that climate change could be a hangover from the little ice age. He is a founding director of the Heartland Institute, a thinktank that has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998″

    Thank goodness he’s not associated with a group like Greenpeace. Or Environmental Media Services, the group that funds Realclimate. Frankly, I’m rather tired of criticism like this. On one hand, people accuse the oil companies of not supporting basic research, then they complain when one sends some money to Heartland, which has many sponsors and many projects. Are you suggesting that Akasofu has received $67,650 over the last 10 years from Exxon-Mobil? If not, exactly what influence does Exxon-Mobil have over Akasofu?

    The way things are going, the only scientists you’ll have any respect for who have contrarian positions are those who are retired and have no income stream. Oops – retired to you means past their prime and should be put out to pasture.

  105. Graeme –

    1. Make a definitive testable prediction, that if it does not come to pass would categorically break the hypothesis that man made emissions of CO2 are causing a dangerous level of global warming. I.e like If CO2 reaches 550 ppm and average global temperatures are cooler than the current values, then hypothesis AGW must be false.

    Check out the post ‘You bet’ on Tamino’s site. It specifies how long the current flattish trend must continue for it to be statistically significant and hence falsify the existence of an external forcing.

    3. Could you also explain why computer models of climate should be trusted to the extent that our societies (western civilisation – no one else seems to be listening to AGW or doing anything) should radically alter our energy sources at great expense and hardship to most of the (especially the poor) members of our societies and arguably to the detriment of the developing world.

    It is a fallacy that the AGW concern requires computer climate models at all. Here are the main elements of the ‘theory’, just considering CO2 for a moment …

    1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, whose radiative forcing potential is understood with reasonable certainty.

    2. Atmospheric CO2 has significantly increased as a result of human activity and will continue to do so.

    3. The equilibrium global temperature increases approximately 3C for every doubling of the CO2 concentration.

    If these three simple points are true, then Houston – we have a problem. 1 and 2 are trivial to verify. There are multiple lines of evidence that indicate 3 is correct. Simulations from models is one but these are confirmed by empirical paleoclimate studies of past forcings and response that involve no modelling, e.g. we can estimate the climate forcing effect of a large volcanic eruption and measure the effect on the planetary temperature and so estimate climate sensitivity. See this study

    http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf

    Re : Syun-Ichi Akasofu

    Actually it was Directorship of the Heartland Institute that I found interesting, I wonder why the original piece did not mention it when listing Syun-Ichi Akasofu’s credentials? At the start of the thread I puzzled over Akasofu citing an apparently nonexistent study by the Hadley showing a flat trend and the Hadley themselves asserting that anyone making this case had their head in the sand. Seems to me being a Director of the Heartless Institute, an ExxonMobil project that earlier this year organised a climate sceptic’s conference, goes some way to explaining this apparent contradiction ….

    BTW The conference concluded with a ‘Manhattan Declaration’ on climate, which since March has attracted over 1,000 signatories from the global public. If you are stuck for something to do check out the list of ‘citizen endorsers’ and do a search for the word ‘coal’ ;-)

    http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54

    Re Naomi Oreskes. I see Naomi, who is a Professor at UCSD, was promoted to Provost of the Sixth College in July. Not bad for a source of unreliable research. Of course she is biased – as a member of the History of Science Association she is biased in favour of the science.

    http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/Chapter4.pdf

    JP

    PS Ric W, please do not misrepresent me. I explicitly wrote: I did not mean to imply that retired=decrepit

  106. “Seems to me being a Director of the Heartless Institute, an ExxonMobil project that earlier this year organised a climate sceptic’s conference, goes some way to explaining this apparent contradiction ….”

    Why not go all the way to explain this observation of yours. Going part way is only an example of spreading vicious rumor, innuendo, ad hom. Has ExxonMobil been caught and convicted of fraud or something?

    However it seems Syun-Ichi Akasofu goes all the way, for example in his letter to the IPCC earlier this year, attempting to *correct* information:

    http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=22790

  107. Apologies, I must have misread the TLT channel’s 0.169 degrees per decade as for the most recent decade rather than over the 79- 08 of RSS MSU data, so a ten year trend from 1998 is still down. From 1999 when this year is over it’s going to show warming and I don’t agree 1999 is a strong outlier. Or that 10 years is a too long period. It looks to me that 2008 (still not over) could be more of an outlier. ENSO and all that stuff- but perhaps the cooling claim looks better if you provide less rather than more information? So ignore ENSO. LIA, MDO, sure, but not ENSO? Picking and choosing to suit (create?) your preferred result? It will need a few more years of clearly dropping global temps to be more than a blip on the global warming trend.

    I have to say I’m dreading the next el Nino. Believe me, I won’t cheer when warming makes it existence clearly felt then. Where I live is strongly effected and not in a good way. Let’s see how much cooling after that rather than after a la Nina.

    BTW, using satellite data in isolation tends to be (to use an arctic but still inappropriate metaphor) like arguing over the shape of the tip whilst ignoring the iceberg. And your preferred site for looking at trends allows for no comparisons of trends over fixed periods of time – comparing a 10 yr trend with a 7yr trend can only be misleading.

  108. Glenn (11:29:21) :
    However it seems Syun-Ichi Akasofu goes all the way, for example in his letter to the IPCC earlier this year, attempting to *correct* information
    I just talked to Akasofu-san a few minutes ago and he spends his time *collecting* information, of course.

  109. John Philip (10:46:17) :

    Re : Syun-Ichi Akasofu

    Actually it was Directorship of the Heartland Institute that I found interesting, … Seems to me being a Director of the Heartless [sic] Institute, an ExxonMobil project that earlier this year organised a climate sceptic’s conference, goes some way to explaining this apparent contradiction ….

    I have no ties with Heartland, but there’s a decent chance, well, scratch that, I have no idea what a Directorship is there. Can you give them a call and ask?

    As for the Conference, your host was there, see, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/03/day1-of-the-international-climate-change-conference/ and maybe some other posts around that date. Note especially that Anthony reported:

    “I was surprised to learn that Al Gore had been offered an opportunity to address this conference, and his usual $200,000 speaking fee and expenses were met, but that he declined.”

    “I also know that invitations went out to NASA GISS principal scientists Dr. James Hansen, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt weeks ago as evidenced by their writeup of the issue on their blog, RealClimate.org a week or so ago.”

    “They have declined the formal invitation sent, even though it would be easy for them to attend, given that NASA GISS is located just a few blocks away at Columbia University.”

    There will be a repeat next year, see http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/newyork09.html I was sort of thinking of going, ouch, I just saw the fees. Ah well, another event that I would be more useful at is happening a month earlier and I don’t want to spend the time (or money!) on both.

    BTW The conference concluded with a ‘Manhattan Declaration’ on climate, which since March has attracted over 1,000 signatories from the global public. If you are stuck for something to do check out the list of ‘citizen endorsers’ and do a search for the word ‘coal’ ;-)

    I’m not real fond of such things for all the standard reasons and those raised on the recent polling questions. Anthony seemed to think it was worthwhile, and given the bit of a screwup with a group photo at the end of the conference, perhaps it’s had some use.

    PS Ric W, please do not misrepresent me. I explicitly wrote: I did not mean to imply that retired=decrepit

    Sorry, and you had apologized. You are good at hitting my hot buttons….

  110. [Oops - hit submit instead of edit (I have the "It's all text" plugin that
    links with Emacs.]

    Leif Svalgaard (15:01:29) :

    Glenn (11:29:21) :
    However it seems Syun-Ichi Akasofu goes all the way, for example in his letter to the IPCC earlier this year:

    http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=22790

    And what is wrong with that? It seems to me that Akasofu’s letter was very reasonable, if not dead-on.

    Yeah, he even says “I am concerned about the inevitable backlash against science and scientists, when the public learns the correct information about climate change.” That’s one of my concerns about the aftermath the fall of cards. By overstating the current and future climate, Hansen, Gore, and the IPCC have set the stage for the failure of their projections. When they get chased out of town some frigid day or after the wheat crop fails, People won’t have any tolerance for scientists who avoid the hype. That may have tragic consequences if we need their skill to help get on the right track.

  111. Ric Werme (17:47:13) :
    “It seems to me that Akasofu’s letter was very reasonable, if not dead-on.”
    Yeah, he even says “I am concerned about the inevitable backlash against science and scientists, when the public learns the correct information about climate change.”

    Akasofu-san is a good man. Pay attention to what he says. [replace 'r's with 'l's first :-) ]

  112. “I am concerned about the inevitable backlash against science and scientists, when the public learns the correct information about climate change.”

    “[replace 'r's with 'l's first :-) ]”

    Oh, that makes perfect sense, Leif.

  113. Glenn (20:03:40) :
    Oh, that makes perfect sense, Leif.
    I don’t think you get it. He told me that when he was quoted as saying “I have time to correct information” he meant “collect” and not “correct”. But as Japanese he has a problem pronouncing “l” and says “r” instead. As I told you already.

  114. Draft response to Syun-Ichi Akasofu from IPCC

    [snip - this blog is not your own personal forum to vet letters, use your own media or send the letter directly to him] – Anthony

  115. John Phillip:

    Point 6 Our latest report includes a range of reconstructions in addition to the Hockey Stick, note that all of these confrim that recent warming as highly anomalous and also that they.lie within the error bars of the Mann study, a point frequently overlooked by critics

    And those reconstructions wouldn’t be using the same poor data and statistical methods as Mann used, would they? I think they do. But since you didn’t provide any cites…

  116. John Phillip:

    1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, whose radiative forcing potential is understood with reasonable certainty.——wrong, that is if you try to include what the feedback effects would be.

    2. Atmospheric CO2 has significantly increased as a result of human activity and will continue to do so.——most likely, but who knows what Nature will do?

    3. The equilibrium global temperature increases approximately 3C for every doubling of the CO2 concentration.—-Steve McIntyre has asked for the provenance for this at Real Climate and NO ONE has done a decent job at showing this to be true. They go as far as to say this can’t be done.

  117. But since you didn’t provide any cites

    Moberg (2005) Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613 – 617
    Jones et al (1998). , The Holocene, coverage 1000-1991 AD
    Crowley and Lowery (2000). Science, 1000-1965
    Briffa et al (2001). , J. Geophys. Research., 1000-1965
    Esper et al (2002) Science, 831-1992
    Mann and Jones (2003), Geophysical Research Letters, DOI:10.1029/2003GL017814. 200-1980
    Jones and Mann (2004), Reviews of Geophysics, DOI:10.1029/2003RG000143 200-1995
    Hegerl et al 2006: Nature 558-1960

    And of course, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract

    Some of which are graphed here: http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg18925431.400/mg18925431.400-2_752.jpg

    ***

    Anthony – Apologies; the ‘IPCC response’ was intended as a mildy absurd and ironic jeu d’esprit. Clearly it failed. Point taken.

    ***

    Has ExxonMobil been caught and convicted of fraud or something?

    http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf

    (Bottom of page 2). Also –

    A study to be released in November by an American scientific group will expose ExxonMobil as the primary funder of no fewer than 29 climate change denial front groups in 2004 alone. Besides a shared goal, these groups often featured common staffs and board members. The study will estimate that ExxonMobil has spent more than $19 million since the late 1990s on a strategy of ‘information laundering’, or enabling a small number of professional skeptics working through scientific-sounding organizations to funnel their viewpoints through non-peer-reviewed websites such as Tech Central Station. The Internet has provided ExxonMobil the means to wreak its havoc on U.S. credibility, while avoiding the rigors of refereed journals. While deniers can easily post something calling into question the scientific consensus on climate change, not a single refereed article in more than a decade has sought to refute it.

    Indeed, while the group of outliers funded by ExxonMobil has had some success in the court of public opinion, it has failed miserably in confusing, much less convincing, the legitimate scientific community. Rather, what has emerged and continues to withstand the carefully crafted denial strategy is an insurmountable scientific consensus on both the problem and causation of climate change. Instead of the narrow and inward-looking universe of the deniers, the legitimate scientific community has developed its views on climate change through rigorous peer-reviewed research and writing across all climate-related disciplines and in virtually every country on the globe.

    Letter from Senators John D. Rockefeller IV and Olympia Snowe to Exxon CEO.

    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/rockefeller-snowe-exxon/

    See also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

    ‘Doubt is our Product’, as someone once said.

  118. Bob B (09:54:57) :
    3. The equilibrium global temperature increases approximately 3C for every doubling of the CO2 concentration.
    There is some evidence that CO2 at some time in the far past was ~20 times higher than now and that the temperature then was 10-15 degrees warmer. For the sake of simplicity lets say CO2 then was 16 times higher and the temps were 12 degrees warmer, then the 4 doublings [to get to 16 times] at 3 degrees each give you the 12 degrees. Would you buy that? and why not?

  119. “I don’t think you get it. He told me that when he was quoted as saying “I have time to correct information” he meant “collect” and not “correct”. But as Japanese he has a problem pronouncing “l” and says “r” instead. As I told you already.”

    Oh, I get it. You claim he said he was going to “collect information” during his retirement, and now we find him (right after his retirement) correcting information.

    You had claimed that “collect” is what he meant in the first thread, but at the time you didn’t know. You said you had written him to ask and was awaiting a response, and would let us know what his reply was.

    “I have asked him by email. Lei’s see what he says on Monday (or when he comes in).”

    Unless I have missed it, that never happened. So if I have not missed that, you have *not* told me that he told you what he meant, already.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/19/sounds-familiar-%e2%80%9ca-friend-of-mine-found-one-station-where-the-temperature-gauge-was-just-outside-the-air-conditioner%e2%80%9d/#comments

  120. Leif, I don’t buy that:

    There has not been demonstrated to be a linear relationship between CO2 and Temp.

    Actually Leif I am surprised this is coming from you with your dispassionate attitude towards solar cycles and Temp. There lacks the proper data to draw such conclusions

  121. Glenn (11:25:23) :
    Unless I have missed it, that never happened. So if I have not missed that, you have *not* told me that he told you what he meant, already.
    First of all, I know him, I know his pronunciation, I know he would not ‘correct’ information [you can correct data, but not information which is the meaning you attach to the data, and Akasofu is very precise], and I told you back then.

    Second: on 10/1/2008 I posted this:
    Leif Svalgaard (17:19:32) :
    Glenn (11:29:21) :
    “However it seems Syun-Ichi Akasofu goes all the way, for example in his letter to the IPCC earlier this year, attempting to *correct* information”
    I just talked to Akasofu-san a few minutes ago and he spends his time *collecting* information, of course.

    Which I think you responded to and therefore did not miss.
    Perhaps I should have said that he told me that he meant collect and not correct, but I thought that was clear.

  122. Bob B (11:26:44) :
    Leif, I don’t buy that:
    There has not been demonstrated to be a linear relationship between CO2 and Temp.

    Nobody is saying so. The claim is that there is a linear relationship between the logarithm of the concentration and the change of temperature.

    Actually Leif I am surprised this is coming from you with your dispassionate attitude towards solar cycles and Temp. There lacks the proper data to draw such conclusions

    First, what have solar cycles to do with CO2?
    Second, the 3 degrees that people come up with is not a conclusion drawn from data, but supposedly a prediction drawn from physics [although people seem to have a hard time to find who did the calculation first].
    Third, it fits the paleo data [12 d as a result of 4 doublings]

    Whether it is true or what negative feedbacks there are to counteract it or whatever, I have no clue to. In a sense, the paleo-data is the toughest nut, because an explanation is needed for that. What is your explanation? Bad data?

  123. Bob B (12:57:17) :
    Leif the plot I supplied shows temperature not a function of CO2 as far as I am concerned.
    Looks like a pretty good function to me [although a bit rough, there are better ones around]. Venus is another good example. You need to double up 18 times to get to Venus and the Sun is about twice as strong [so say 6 degrees], yielding a 100 degree increase to 400K, which is not quite there yet [need to get up to 700K] so maybe the greenhouse effect is even bigger. These are just very rough estimates, but may show that the numbers are not all that bad. In any event, they deserve explanation and CO2 doesn’t look bad for that. Whether that is also the case for the past century or so, I don’t know [I personally doubt it] as there are so many other things that can play a role [oceans, land-use, whatever]. Don’t forget that the Sun was dimmer back then, too, so perhaps that explains why you need less and less CO2 to maintain the same temperature.
    So, there are arguments that can be made for CO2 and even if one does not buy these, there is still a temperature variation that need explaining. I ask again what keeps the Earth 10 degrees warmer during most of the past 600 million years? When people ask me that question, I’m generally lost for words, lest I whisper a timid “CO2″. What is your answer?

  124. Leif, I am not sure we are looking at the same chart. What I glean from that chart is that the Earth’s temperatures quickly change from a lower temperature state to a higher temperature state. I don’t know whether that data is accurate or not but it appears like the amplitudes are “hard limited” and change to a “1′ or “0′ state. The Vostok Ice core data more or less does the same thing, with every 100,00 years or so the Earth goes from a warm state to a colder state. I cannot see where you see given the astable states, that there is a logarithmic dependence of temperature on CO2

  125. Bob B (15:48:48) :
    I am not sure we are looking at the same chart.
    What I see is that when CO2 is low, temps are low. Because of the crudeness of this particular chart, it is hard to see much more. The logarithmic dependence does not come from this chart. You might want to study this paper https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/droyer/web/KurschnerCommentary(2008).pdf for more on the connection between CO2 and temps. My example with Venus still stands. There is little doubt that Venus’ high temperature is due to CO2 greenhouse effect. There is also little doubt that the effect of CO2 increases MUCH more slowly than the linear concentration. The logarithm approximation may simply be an expression of that fact. And my question still stands: what makes the Earth much hotter in the 1-state than in the 0-state? Please do not evade that, but try to address it.

  126. Bob B (15:48:48) :
    There was a long and good discussion of all this at:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2985

    so no need to redo that here.
    My question still stands: what causes the 10 degree or more ‘warmings’ [or 'coolings' when from the other end] that certainly have been there?
    The Orbital changes only account for the smaller ‘glaciations’ within each ‘ice age period’.

  127. What can one make of the fact, if such can be determined adequately from cores, that a temperature rise is followed by a CO2 rise which inevitably, though not temporally predictably, is followed by a temperature drop? One might wonder that CO2 ameliorates, or stops, or even, might I ask, reverses the temperature rise. Probably seeing a connection with little enough correlation that causation can certainly be called into question. But still, it always cools some time after a CO2 rise.
    =========================================

  128. kim (18:38:01) :
    What can one make of the fact, if such can be determined adequately from cores, that a temperature rise is followed by a CO2 rise which inevitably, though not temporally predictably, is followed by a temperature drop?
    The only data where we have the time resolution to make that statement for, are the ice cores for the last million years. During this time we have all the time been in a ice age, and the orbital changes control the temperature AND the CO2, simply because the solubility of CO2 in sea water is controlled by the temperature, so CO2 clearly follows the temperature. The scare tactic of this figure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png is appalling. Note that the CO2 change is much less than a doubling, so the temperature change should only be ~1 degree [had the temp change been a consequence of the CO2] instead of the 10 degrees observed. The drops come about because the orbital changes eventually go the other way. This would be my interpretation.

  129. That’s my understanding. We can spitball over whether it’s eccentricity, obliquity, or inclination (and whether the dominant factor switches between them over the multimillions of years), but whatever it is exactly, it’s orbital.

  130. evanjones (19:25:05) :
    factor switches between them over the multimillions of years), but whatever it is exactly, it’s orbital.
    The orbital effects are always present, yet ice ages are relatively rare. The changing distribution of land and sea plays a big role here, as well as the large variations of CO2, e.g. due to volcanoes and to the biosphere [that sequester CO2 in shells and lime stone]. Very complicated picture with no one factor dominating the others, except if CO2 should ever gain the upper hand in a run-away process [a la Venus].

  131. evanjones (19:25:05) :
    that sequester CO2 in shells and lime stone
    I haven’t done this calculation myself yet [I should, so I would know for sure] but I have heard [at some talk somewhere] that if you take all the limestone and subduct it into the mantle [from where the CO2 is released by the volcanoes created by the melting of the subducted plate] the CO2 so released would raise the concentration 50 fold [~6 doublings] leading to a temperature increase of 20 degrees, so this is an important process too.

  132. Glenn, perhaps I should have said I wasn’t looking forward to the next strong el Nino although like all matters climate not much is simple or absolute – The Australian Bureau of Meteorology describe the 2002-03 and 2006-07 el Nino’s as weak to moderate although they correlate with severe drought conditions in Eastern Australia (as most do), althought the strong 1997-98 one didn’t. Previous strong ones do correlate with severe drought though. Recent la Nina hasn’t done much to alleviate drought conditions except in coastal regions and they aren’t the main agricultural regions.
    Less rain plus more evaporation – a double whammy for a water scarce part of the world – are the prediction for Eastern Australia and so far it seems to be borne out on the ground. There is no prospect of milder, more people friendly climate as an outcome of global warming here.

    If cooling does carry on for long enough to be more than a blip in the longer term warming trend, a strong el nino won’t be so likely to set new global temp records. The extremes as well as the averages do reflect underlying trends.

  133. Bob

    1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, whose radiative forcing potential is understood with reasonable certainty.– wrong, that is if you try to include what the feedback effects would be.

    I fear you are confusing cause and effect. The magnitude of the forcing effect of CO2 is independent of the magnitude of the resulting feedback. The RF of CO2 is calculated using line by line radiative transfer codes and has an uncertainty of around 10%.

    2. Atmospheric CO2 has significantly increased as a result of human activity and will continue to do so.– most likely, but who knows what Nature will do?

    If all the anthropogenic CO2 ever emitted was still in the atmosphere, the resultant concentration would be over 100ppm higher than it is. The difference is the amount that has been absorbed by natural sinks, mainly the oceans. There is evidence that the rate at which these sinks absorbs our CO2 is falling however.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6665147.stm

    Adding CO2 to the oceans increases their acidity, of course. Potentially very bad news for marine life, especially corals.

    3. The equilibrium global temperature increases approximately 3C for every doubling of the CO2 concentration.-Steve McIntyre has asked for the provenance for this at Real Climate and NO ONE has done a decent job at showing this to be true. They go as far as to say this can’t be done.

    A McIntyre Myth. Climate sensitivity to CO2 was first estimated by Svante Arrenhuis in his 1896 paper ‘ “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground”. He thought doubling CO2 would increase temperatures by 5-6C. In the modern era Jule Charney came up with a range of 1.5C – 4.5C in his 1979 report and most studies since have confirmed this range. There’s a good discussion here – http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/309/5731/100.pdf

    As for RealClimate, here’s a direct quote …”We have often made the case here that equilibrium climate sensitivity is most likely to be around 0.75 +/- 0.25 C/(W/m2) (corresponding to about a 3°C rise for a doubling of CO2.”

    cheers,

    JP.

  134. John Phillip, Steve McIntyre has called for an “Engineering” type study showing an increase of 2-3C for a doubling of CO2. Your references are just more handwaving.
    “The RF of CO2 is calculated using line by line radiative transfer codes and has an uncertainty of around 10%”.—I agree with this. But catastrophic AGW relies on positive feedbacks.
    Leif–
    The Orbital changes only account for the smaller ‘glaciations’ within each ‘ice age period’.
    There are temperature transitions in the ice core data where there is a 10,000 year lag–and T goes from a “1” to a “0”. In this case it is clear to me T is not a function of CO2 for that transistion. The 1st chart I linked to shows “1”-“0″ transistions as well irregardless of CO2. Recent statistical analysis:

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/04/21/co2-and-temperature-which-predicts-which/

    question CO2 and T correlations.
    As for the 10 degree change going from a “1” to a “0” and vice versa and what causes it? I don;t know. But what I do know just looking at the DATA you can see cases where CO2 is definitely NOT the driver

  135. Bob B (05:22:10) :
    There are temperature transitions in the ice core data where there is a 10,000 year lag–and T goes from a “1″ to a “0″. In this case it is clear to me T is not a function of CO2 for that transistion.
    Bob, you are barking up the wrong tree. There is broad agreement that the CO2 spikes in the ice core data are NOT causing the temperature changes [for one, they are much too small and could only cause 1 degree T change].

  136. Adding CO2 to the oceans increases their acidity, of course. Potentially very bad news for marine life, especially corals.

    Actually it reduces alkalinity, not the same thing as increasing acidity. But ALL marine life currently in existence evolved during MUCH higher CO2 concentrations both in the oceans and the atmosphere. And they’re still around…

  137. Bob – so McIntyre has not found an explanation of climate sensitivity that satisfies him. So what? Maybe he has just not looked hard enough. The literature is there, summarised in IPCC WG1 Chapters 9 & 10.

    You dismiss this body of peer-reviewed studies as ‘handwaving’ and prefer the opinion of a mining engineer writing on his unreviewed blog.

    I differ.

  138. John Philip accepts IPCC WG1, so what? You dismiss anything you don’t like regularly, so I’ll borrow from your recent admonishment of me here.

    Pot, meet kettle.

  139. John Phillip–that is laughable if that’s all you got. AGW alarmists go around quoting temperature rises based off flimsy models and analysis. Peer review in climate science is a farce—buddies all with the same groupthink reviewing each others works. Just witness Mann and the whole mess surrounding that–just disgraceful.

  140. Anthony,

    Firstly let me apologise for my hasty and slightly boorish remark.

    Secondly, an observation. The internet in general and blogs in particular seem to me a good illustration of Sturgeon’s Law.

    By which I mean that I could, in a few minutes, find sites and blogs that ‘prove’ that the HIV virus does not cause AIDS,

    that eating blueberries cures cancer, that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled explosions. They will have charts

    and they will have equations and figures, and some of them are written by PhDs…

    Time is finite and precious. I need a filter. Peer review is not perfect, however review by experts in the field and exposure

    to further scrutiny in the academic literature makes a study at least worthy of investing some time in its assessment. The

    IPCC reports are based exclusively on peer-reviewed literature, of course.

    In this particular instance, Bob B finds a couple of Steve McIntyre’s blog posts describing his failure to locate a

    satisfactory ‘engineering quality’ explanation of the concensus estimate of climate sensitivity, more compelling than the

    body of published studies on which the IPCC bases the conclusion that such sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2 to

    4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C

    Fine by me. But here is just a handful of the studies that Bob is dismissing in favour of McIntyre’s musings …

    Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific

    Assessment” National Academy of Sciences Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate (1979).

    John Farley (2008). The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global

    Warming . Journal of Geophysical Research.

    Kerr (2004). Three Degrees of Consensus. Science

    Andronova, N., and M. E. Schlesinger. 2001. Objective Estimation of the Probability Distribution

    for Climate Sensitivity. J. Geophys. Res. 106

    Annan, J.D., and J. C.Hargreaves, 2006.

    Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity . Geophysical Research Letters

    On the other hand, McIntyre has posted this which is discussed here and this which is discussed here

    Clearly, as these criticisms of McIntyre originate from the unreviewed blogosphere. they can have no credibility.

    Er …

    JP

  141. Anthony,

    Firstly let me apologise for my hasty and slightly boorish remark.

    Secondly, an observation. The internet in general and blogs in particular seem to me a good illustration of Sturgeon’s Law. By which I mean that I could, in a few minutes, find sites and blogs that ‘prove’ that the HIV virus does not cause AIDS, that eating blueberries cures cancer, that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled explosions. They will have charts and they will have equations and figures, and some of them are written by PhDs…

    Time is finite and precious. I need a filter. Peer review is not perfect, however review by experts in the field and exposure to further scrutiny in the academic literature makes a study at least worthy of investing some time in its assessment. The IPCC reports are based exclusively on peer-reviewed literature, of course.

    In this particular instance, Bob B finds a couple of Steve McIntyre’s blog posts describing his failure to locate a satisfactory ‘engineering quality’ explanation of the concensus estimate of climate sensitivity, more compelling than the body of published studies on which the IPCC bases the conclusion that such sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C

    Fine by me. But here is just a handful of the studies that Bob is dismissing in favour of McIntyre’s musings …

    Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment” National Academy of Sciences Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate (1979).

    John Farley (2008). The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming . Journal of Geophysical Research.

    Kerr (2004). Three Degrees of Consensus. Science

    Andronova, N., and M. E. Schlesinger. 2001. Objective Estimation of the Probability Distribution for Climate Sensitivity. J. Geophys. Res. 106

    Annan, J.D., and J. C.Hargreaves, 2006. Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity . Geophysical Research Letters

    On the other hand, McIntyre has posted this which is discussed here and this which is discussed here

    Clearly, as these criticisms of McIntyre originate from the unreviewed blogosphere. they can have no credibility.

    Er …

    JP

  142. John Phillip, as Anthony has suggested the climate community needs an ISO 9000 type oversight of it’s work. It has become a much too important issue at this time to be left to PEER review. Steve McIntyre is but one man and can only take up a few things at a time. But just looking at the “hockey Stick” he has found foul play and just basically bad science. The same could be said for his audit of GIStemp. Anthony has done a great job exposing just what crap the surface station data is. Climate science at this time is a complete mess and just a plain disgrace. If half of the “climate scientitsts” were in typical industries they would be fired for their sloppy work.

  143. As this thread seems to be going strong, let me answer “Leif’s” question stated several times:

    “And my question still stands: what makes the Earth much hotter in the 1-state than in the 0-state? Please do not evade that, but try to address it.”

    If you need a green house gas to explain higher temperatures, pick H2O. It is over fifteen times more efficient than CO2, conservatively, and 75% of the surface of the planet is composed of it.

    The sun and the galactic motion of the system through unknown magnetic fields has also been proposed.

    Let me again remind that “correlation is not causation”. and particularly “loose correlation”, (we are in barycenter territory in this case) and actually the paleoclimate CO2 and temperatures that I have seen show no correlation with CO2. In several places CO2 is high and there is real cold.

    Are we talking science here?
    Let me remind that estimates are not the value of the error in a quantity. To ‘estimate” sensitivity is to throw Tarot cards. And I do not care if Arhenius did it or the Pope. Not that I have anything against Tarot cards or the Pope ;).

  144. anna v (08:19:23) :
    If you need a green house gas to explain higher temperatures, pick H2O. It is over fifteen times more efficient than CO2, conservatively, and 75% of the surface of the planet is composed of it.
    It is hard to get that much extra H2O in the atmosphere. Tell me how?

  145. anna v (08:19:23) :
    In several places CO2 is high and there is real cold.
    The fallacy with that is the urge to ascribe everything to a sole source. The orbital changes have been going on all the time and yet we only have the glaciations when other things [such as the distribution of land and sea is favorable] are just right for that mechanism to work.

  146. anna v (08:19:23) :
    And I do not care if Arrhenius did it or the Pope.
    And I don’t think the Pope did it either on Venus where 18 doublings of CO2 produce a dT of 400K. No H2O on Venus.

  147. “And I don’t think the Pope did it either on Venus where 18 doublings of CO2 produce a dT of 400K.”
    “The fallacy with that is the urge to ascribe everything to a sole source.”
    “No H2O on Venus.”

    Troll.

  148. Leif Svalgaard (08:45:25) :

    ” anna v (08:19:23) :
    If you need a green house gas to explain higher temperatures, pick H2O. It is over fifteen times more efficient than CO2, conservatively, and 75% of the surface of the planet is composed of it.
    It is hard to get that much extra H2O in the atmosphere. Tell me how?”

    By boiling the Oceans? What would the ocean temperatures be, not only in the tropics, put all 75% of the planet?

    By lots of rain so that the other 25% evaporates like mad in the heat?

    Lots of scenaria and estimates, before we reach this minor fiddle of CO2, which after all according to the GCMs needs H2O to get the sensitivity they are claiming.

  149. “Have you adopted a new signature?”

    No it’s quite obvious, you seem to have. Of course, I don’t know about “new”.
    but a supposed authoritative scientist such as yourself would not claim no water on Venus, just to mention *one* blatant error. You make so many of them I don’t need to illuminate them all.

    “Please refrain from lowering the standards at this blog.”

    Who’s standards? You question motives quite often, Leif.

  150. anna v (10:49:44) :
    It is hard to get that much extra H2O in the atmosphere. Tell me how?”
    By boiling the Oceans? What would the ocean temperatures be, not only in the tropics, put all 75% of the planet?

    Except that the oceans on Venus disappeared billions of years ago.

  151. I should, perhaps, clarify that a bit: there is no water on Venus now and has not been for several billion years since the oceans boiled off and disappeared into space.

  152. “I should, perhaps, clarify that a bit”

    I don’t see why, it’s easy enough to google and find out. The Venusian atmosphere is reported to contain a trace percentage of water vapor, which is H2O.

  153. Glenn (12:08:22) :
    but a supposed authoritative scientist such as yourself would not claim no water on Venus, just to mention *one* blatant error. You make so many of them I don’t need to illuminate them all.

    Who’s standards? You question motives quite often, Leif.
    No [show me some], I question your errors not why you make them.

    From your favorite Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_(planet)#Atmosphere

    “Because of the lack of any moisture on Venus[...]”
    “In the absence of the greenhouse effect caused by the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the temperature at the surface of Venus would be quite similar to that on Earth.”

    A good explanation of what happened to Venus’ water is here:

    http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/astrocourses/AST101/readings/water_on_venus.html

    If you look hard enough you’ll find traces of water. Even on the Sun!

  154. Glenn (12:52:16) :
    I don’t see why, it’s easy enough to google and find out. The Venusian atmosphere is reported to contain a trace percentage of water vapor, which is H2O.
    Sure there are traces everywhere, even on the Sun, but the important question is if it makes any difference, and the amounts are so minute that they don’t. This should be evident to everybody. As I’ve said, hunting with Google without any understanding of what goes on and what is important is a rather fruitless exercise. This blog is a good place to learn more.

  155. Glenn (12:52:16) :
    To put things in perspective:
    the amount of Venusian water vapor is about one-half of one-billionth of the Venusian atmosphere, compared with a water vapor content of 1/400th of the atmosphere on Earth, so water vapor is important on Earth, but hardly on Venus.

  156. Glenn (10:00:49) : “No H2O on Venus.” Troll.
    Leif Svalgaard (10:15:15) :Troll.
    Have you adopted a new signature?

    I would love to know what purpose is served by allowing this kind of exchange?

    Mr. Glenn needs a time-out and Leif would have been the better by skipping the words of his question, posting only the question mark.

    The only thing that will be served is turning WUWT into a “free speech” for all “food fight.”

    REPLY – I know we have severe disagreements. That’s the point of all this — to provide a forum for disagreement on this highly controversial subject. We should be able to totally disagree and remain agreeable. It pains me to see any sniping. Please, please let’s be nice to each other. Let us all on either side of the debate (and various sub-debates) set an example of noblesse oblige and civility for all the world to see. ~ Evan

  157. The orbital effects are always present, yet ice ages are relatively rare.

    Yes. But what i meant was that during some periods ice ages seem to correspond with eccentricity (c. every 100k years, but more “recently” seem to show more correspondence with obliquity (c. every 50K years). And then of course there are combination effects.

    One is led to wonder what would cause a switch in correspondences.

    I want to do a graph of this, at least a rough one showing 0 to 100% phases of the three Milankovitch cycles (the 4th cycle, inclination, is trickier because of its “hit and miss” aspect, but also seems to be a roughly 100k-year cycle).

  158. garron (18:44:36) :
    Mr. Glenn needs a time-out and Leif would have been the better by skipping the words of his question, posting only the question mark.
    Yes, I know, but I’m only human and I have endured a fair amount of outright abuse from this gentleman, so now and then [rarely] I bite back, even when I shouldn’t [Psalm 37:11].

  159. I fear you are confusing cause and effect. The magnitude of the forcing effect of CO2 is independent of the magnitude of the resulting feedback.

    Well, John, my objection here is much the same as the others. The direct forcing alone doesn’t do it. (And yes, the degree of direct forcing is in some dispute.) The biggest objection is to the feedback effects.

    If positive feedback effects are not at work, then it would seem that AGW may be real but relatively trivial.

  160. The fallacy with that is the urge to ascribe everything to a sole source. The orbital changes have been going on all the time and yet we only have the glaciations when other things [such as the distribution of land and sea is favorable] are just right for that mechanism to work.

    To me this is the crux of it. It seems that the ice ages and interglacials of the past million years or two started when the current continental configuration became set. Which tells me that ocean currents and orbital cycles are the main drivers of climate on millennial scales.

  161. I’ll add on the subject of review: On ANY highly controversial matter peer review alone won’t do. Not in science. Not in history either, for that matter.

    Only independent review will do. Lots of it.

    And for that to occur ALL data, methods, algorithms, code, and operating manuals MUST be released. No more closed shops.

    I regard any agency that will not fall all over itself to make all such documents available to potential critics with the same suspicion I reserve for a poker dealer who won’t let you cut the cards. It simply won’t do.

  162. The problem with “explaining” how Venus got the way it is is that it wold be complete speculation. Did the heat come first or the CO2? No way to know.

  163. “Yes, I know, but I’m only human and I have endured a fair amount of outright abuse from this gentleman, so now and then [rarely] I bite back, even when I shouldn’t [Psalm 37:11].”

    I have endured quite a bit of abuse from you, Leif, and not always have I responded to it. But to capture your own phrase “to put this in perspective”, you claimed there is no water on Venus. Had I not called you on this clear falsehood, some may have accepted your word for it. And as you say, this blog is a good place to learn more. Venus’ atmosphere is said to contain .002% water vapor, from your own previous Wiki reference. How does that match your “the amount of Venusian water vapor is about one-half of one-billionth of the Venusian atmosphere”? I’m not real strong on math, but .002% is 20 parts per million, not 0.5 parts per billion. Don’t go off again on CO2 or unequivocal statements about what you think Venus had eons ago or the Sun.
    It makes for nice rhetoric, but is and was irrelevant to your original statement and the truth.

    Note - It would be wise if you and Leif took a break from this for a while as it seems it is becoming a battle of personalities, not data. – Anne

  164. Leif Svalgaard (12:13:07) :

    ” anna v (10:49:44) :
    “” It is hard to get that much extra H2O in the atmosphere. Tell me how?”
    By boiling the Oceans? What would the ocean temperatures be, not only in the tropics, put all 75% of the planet?””

    Except that the oceans on Venus disappeared billions of years ago.”

    I am sorry if I misunderstood the post I was quoting. I was talking of earth’s paleoclimate (75% H2O is a clue).

    anna v (08:19:23) : 4/10

    Now you are going to Venus and have said :

    ‘ Leif Svalgaard (14:31:17) : 2/8

    Bob B (12:57:17) :
    Leif the plot I supplied shows temperature not a function of CO2 as far as I am concerned.
    Looks like a pretty good function to me [although a bit rough, there are better ones around]. Venus is another good example. You need to double up 18 times to get to Venus and the Sun is about twice as strong [so say 6 degrees], yielding a 100 degree increase to 400K, which is not quite there yet [need to get up to 700K] so maybe the greenhouse effect is even bigger.’

    Why does it have to be greenhouse, i.e. the ten lines or less of CO2 that capture a tiny part of the infrared spectrum? Seems to me pure speculation, after accepting that CO2 drives temperatures.

    Clouds are much more efficient in trapping infrared, and from what I have heard there are clouds on Venus:

    Wikipedia: Venus is covered with an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds of sulfuric acid, preventing its surface from being seen from space in visible light;

    also there may be volcanism heating from below.

    Any guess is as good as you arithmetic: It is hot, there is CO2, must be CO2.

    The earth’s paleoclimate does not show strong correlations with CO2, and has been studied for many years. In addition, the 2 or 3 degrees per century of the IPCC come from feedback from H2O heating. CO2 by itself gives a meager 1.,1.5 degrees heating. ( ignoring the logarithmic argument).

  165. I am wading in here on the Great Venus Thermal Debate.

    There is still a LOT about the climatology of the good old Earth that we don’t know and we live here. Can you just imagine how much we don’t know about Venus? I just am astounded that we are trying to even begin to compare the climatology of Venus to Earths in anything but the most HYPOTHETICAL manner.

    If I am not mistaken, Venus is receiving about 4 times the TSI as the Earth. The transparency of the atmosphere is totally different than the Earth which makes sense because the chemical composition is totally different. The CO2 saturation curve is totally different because of the difference in TSI. The same is true for all the other components in the atmosphere.

    There is just no way to compare the two. It is not even Apples and Oranges but more like Oranges and Potatoes. Every planetary scientist I know laughs when anyone tries to compare causes for the temperatures on Venus to the causes of Earth’s warming, even the ones that support AGW.

  166. OK… this is how the greenhouse works on Venus.

    Venus’ atmosphere is nearly 100 times as massive as Earth’s, and its thick cloud layers block the surface from view. It exerts a pressure of approximately 92 bars at the surface. Its composition is nearly all CO2.

    Venus is the case of a runaway greenhouse effect. The temperature and pressure of the atmosphere decrease with height, so water vapor rises in the atmosphere and encounters conditions that cause it to condense back into liquid water and fall back to the surface – a region called the “cold trap.” On Earth, this is at a height of 9-15 km (5-9 miles) above the surface, but on Venus it lies at an altitude around 50 km (31 miles) due to the planet’s closer proximity to the sun.

    On Earth, the ozone layer is several kilometers above this, and the ozone prevents ultraviolet light from destroying water in our atmosphere. On Venus, there is no ozone layer, and the atmosphere doesn’t become opaque to ultraviolet light until a depth is reached below the cold trap. This allows ultraviolet light to destroy water between this height and the cold trap’s.

    So, as water rises in Venus’ atmosphere and reaches this region, UV light dissociates it into two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. The hydrogen is much lighter than the water molecule was, and so it easily escapes Venus’ atmosphere. The water will usually quickly recombine with a carbon or carbon monoxide molecule to form carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. This is probably one reason why there is so much carbon dioxide in Venus’ atmosphere today.

    Heavy water, however, which is composed of one oxygen, one hydrogen, and one deuterium (a proton and one neutron), cannot reach the requisite height as easily. If it does, it can still be dissociated just like normal water, but this happens at a much slower rate. Thus, a measurement of how much deuterium compared with how much hydrogen today shows that Venus has much more deuterium in its atmosphere for each hydrogen atom than Earth does. This is the strongest evidence that Venus has lost a massive amount of water in its history.

    This process is a runaway one in that once less water is available to wash CO2 from the atmosphere, the CO2 level rises. This results in a stronger greenhouse effect, so the temperature rises. The higher temperature moves the cold trap higher, and the cycle continues at an accelerated rate because there is a larger region where water can become dissociated.

    From: http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/venus.html

  167. Well, John, my objection here is much the same as the others. The direct forcing alone doesn’t do it. (And yes, the degree of direct forcing is in some dispute.) The biggest objection is to the feedback effects..

    Well, I have directed you towards numerous studies, both paleo- and modelled that indicate that the effects of the feedbacks after a doubling of CO2 is in the range stated. The earliest of these is nearly three decades old and so has stood up to that amount of scrutiny.

    The major feedback is the increase in water vapour, and an interesting confirmation that the models treat the water vapour feedback correctly came after the eruption of Pintubo. This caused a significant and measurable global cooling and enabled a valuable planet-wide experiment – was the resulting drying of the atmosphere consistent with that predicted by the models? Here’s the answer.

    McIntyre is engaging in little more than a rhetorical trick – ask a question then continually declare yourself dissatisfied with the answers. His complaint is the lack of a ‘proof’ of the feedback estimates in the literature, when the method by which climate sensitivity is calculated is actually laid out in detail in the IPCC reports and supporting papers. (WG1 Chapters 9 & 10. )

    (As an aside, Viscount Monckton claims to have discredited the IPCC climate sensitivity calculations in his APS <a href=”http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfmpaper” paper, whereas Steve McIntyre claims not to be able even to find these calculations. Can anyone explain? ).

    The second half of the trick is to take the normal conservative language used in science and emphasise and exaggerate the discussions of the uncertainties that exist, then complain about lack of ‘engineering quality’ or ‘proof’. This, of course, is a misunderstanding of basic scientific reality. Science deals in the balance of evidence, not proof; there are not two categories of science – ‘settled’ and ‘not settled’, there are degrees of certainty.

    No, what McIntyre (and others) have to do is either show (preferably in a professional manner ) where the large body of studies are wrong in their methods or conclusions or else produce his own estimate for climate sensitivity and present it for review. So far he has done neither.

    JP.

  168. More on Venus –

    To the question of which came first, the heat or the CO2, the answer is BOTH. Venus never had a biosphere to reduce the original CO2 atmosphere and has always received about 300% more solar energy.

    When you read that billions of years ago, Earth and Venus had similar atmospheres, that is correct, but life developed on the Earth and ultimately converted the CO2 to the very corrosive (and poisonous to life) O2. [In doing so, life nearly wiped itself out which resulted in the formation of the 'modern cell' and the ability to burn sugars with O2 for the energy needed to convert ATD back to ATP - but that is another story - see below.] Venus, burdened with the additional solar energy, never developed ‘life’ and therefore never purged the primal CO2 from the atmosphere. And so it goes.

    As a biology related aside, the process used by plants to make sugar is fairly complex as a result of the absorption of the chloroplasts, but despite the common meme that plants convert CO2 into O2, the truth is more complex and interesting. Basically the plant uses the CO2 to form a sugar by combining with H liberated from H20. Two O radicals combine to form 02. During this process, some of the energy captured from the Sun by the chloroplasts is used to convert ATD to ATP.

    As alluded to earlier, animals burn this sugar with O2, convert ATD to ATP and release CO2 and H20.

    Sugars are hydrocarbons as is oil. In any clean burning process using hydrocarbons, the only ‘waste’ products should be CO2 and H2O.

    I find myself continually humbled by the complexity and grandeur of the world.

  169. anna v (22:21:08) :
    “” It is hard to get that much extra H2O in the atmosphere. Tell me how?”
    By boiling the Oceans? What would the ocean temperatures be, not only in the tropics, put all 75% of the planet?””
    Except that the oceans on Venus disappeared billions of years ago.”
    I am sorry if I misunderstood the post I was quoting. I was talking of earth’s paleoclimate (75% H2O is a clue).

    So, the Great Venus Debate is based on a misunderstanding, it seems. But it did expose some of the skewness of the whole issue. The crowd that denies CO2 having any effect on the Earth going so far as to deny it has any effect on Venus either, even ascribing the heat instead to H20 in spite of Venus being ‘bone dry’ [H2O only existing as a trace component with highly variable minute concentrations].

    The description [Dee] of how the Water got lost is marred by the use of the present tense instead of the past tense:
    “So, as water rises in Venus’ atmosphere and reaches this region, UV light dissociates it into two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. The hydrogen is much lighter than the water molecule was, and so it easily escapes Venus’ atmosphere.”
    And of this gem:
    “The water will usually quickly recombine with a carbon or carbon monoxide molecule to form carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. “.
    Somehow suggesting that the water is recycled ['recombine']. But the water is gone, it is the oxygen that combines with carbon.

    When the Venusian oceans disappeared billions of years ago, the run-away greenhouse effect was obviously a combination of both CO2 and H2O with H2O even being the main culprit. Both that was a very long time ago and the heat trapped then is not what is around today. As Wikipedia correctly points out: “In the absence of the greenhouse effect caused by the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the temperature at the surface of Venus would be quite similar to that on Earth”.

  170. On Venus:

    It is my understanding that gas under pressure heats up. When the molecules of gas are forced together the get all excited and they show this exitement as heat. How much of Venus high temperature is down to adiabatic heat caused by the 92 bar pressure at ground level? One datum that points to this might be the fact that there is a layer of Venusian atmosphere where the pressure is earth-like and the temperature is earth-like.

    Much is sometimes made of the high ‘dark-side’ temperatures on Venus. The Venusian day is very long, but there are 300mph winds on Venus which are pretty good at distributing the heat. The winds are faster than the day-length and circulate in the opposite direction.

    The clouds of sulfuric acid mention above are such good reflectors of solar energy that it is reckoned that the amount of this energy that reaches ground level is about the same as on Earth. These clouds though are pretty good ‘blankets’ which trap the heat, including the adiabatic heat, in Venus atmosphere.

    All in all, I would have to agree with those commenters above who say that attempting to draw conclusions about Earth’s climate from Venus is misleading to say the least.

  171. “No, what McIntyre (and others) have to do is either show (preferably in a professional manner ) where the large body of studies are wrong in their methods or conclusions or else produce his own estimate for climate sensitivity and present it for review. ”

    Steve McIntyre is doing what he knows how to do. He is auditing. That is what he does. There are not many people watching what is happening in the cozy climate science community, but because of the efforts of McIntyre, our host here, and a few notable others, the truth is getting out.

  172. Kevin B (06:02:34) :
    It is my understanding that gas under pressure heats up. When the molecules of gas are forced together the get all excited and they show this exitement as heat. How much of Venus high temperature is down to adiabatic heat caused by the 92 bar pressure at ground level?
    It is the act of compression [not the pressure as such] that heats the gas. A standard 200 bar [twice the pressure of Venus' atmosphere] compressed air container is not hot to the touch. As the pressure built up slowly billions of years ago there was plenty of time to radiate away any heat. Whatever clouds there were [and are] cannot trap the heat indefinitely over billions of years.

    George Landis has a good paper on Venus here:

    http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2003/TM-2003-212310.pdf

    He writes:
    “In the early solar system, about four billion years before present, the sun was approximately twenty-five percent less luminous than it is today. Under these conditions, it is plausible to suggest that Venus was much more Earthlike than it is today. As the solar luminosity increased, Venus became trapped in a runaway “moist greenhouse effect.” [3] The rising temperature increased the evaporation of water vapor from the oceans; this increased water vapor in the atmosphere increased the trapping of infrared radiation, which increased the heating of the planet. Eventually this feedback loop resulted in the oceans boiling dry (and hence releasing very large amounts of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere), and shortly thereafter any surface carbonate rocks decomposed into the primary minerals plus carbon dioxide, releasing their carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. The thick carbon dioxide atmosphere and intense greenhouse effect results in the high atmospheric pressure (about 90 bar) and high temperature (approximately 450C) found on the surface of Venus now”
    and concludes that:
    “Venus is the best laboratory in the Solar system for study of the greenhouse effect. If we are to understand climate change on Earth, we can learn by comparing and contrasting the history and climate of the Earth with that of its nearby neighbors, Venus and Mars.”

  173. No, what McIntyre (and others) have to do is either show (preferably in a professional manner ) where the large body of studies are wrong in their methods or conclusions or else produce his own estimate for climate sensitivity and present it for review. So far he has done neither.

    He’s done exactly that with respect to the hockey stick and the way many studies have used the same denrochronology data. They’re basically making crap up.

  174. Leif

    I’m sure you’re right about adiabatic heat leaking away, but sometimes a big cloud of gas and dust gets together and gravitational forces pull the gas together and sometimes the pressure gets so great that the gas molecules fuse together and generate even more heat which causes more fusion and before you know it, you have a runaway fusion effect and a star is born.

    Now I realise that interstellar gas is pulled together by gravity and the pressure is constantly increasing, which might combat the fact that the adiabatic heat is dissipating, whereas on Venus… Well why is the pressure at Venus surface 92 times that on Earth? Surely, under that pressure and temperature, the atmosphere would blow away? And if the atmosphere can’t blow away, then surely the pressure will create heat?

    I understand that Venus is very volcanically active so the CO2 and Sulfer is being constantly replaced, but won’t that add to the pressure that the gas is under?

    I don’t doubt that there is a greenhouse effect on Venus, but I’m not quite ready to give up on the pressure theory yet.

  175. Kevin B (11:50:53) :
    A contracting proto-star is so big that it is hard to radiate the heat away. A dead elephant will feel warm to the touch a lot longer than a dead mouse. The heat content changes with the cube of the size, while the surface that radiates away the heat only changes with the square of the size, so the heat wins if the size is large.

    why is the pressure at Venus surface 92 times that on Earth?
    Because all the CO2 that were in the rocks is now in the atmosphere. If you put all the CO2 sequestered in the Earth’s rocks into the atmosphere, it too much be about as thick.

    Surely, under that pressure and temperature, the atmosphere would blow away? And if the atmosphere can’t blow away, then surely the pressure will create heat?
    The pressure at the surface is the weight of all the material [CO2] above it, so you have a crushing weight [1500 pounds per square inch] holding down the atmosphere, that’s why it doesn’t blow away. And constant pressure does not generate heat, if it did, then surely the atmosphere would blow away, but so would the planet itself and the Earth too as the pressure of 4000 miles of rock is truly gigantic.

    I understand that Venus is very volcanically active so the CO2 and Sulfer is being constantly replaced, but won’t that add to the pressure that the gas is under?
    Although there seems to be 1600 volcanoes on Venus there is great doubt as to any of them is active. In perhaps one case some ash has been observed. Some variations of the trace elements [sulphur dioxide] have been observed, but it is not known if that was due to volcanic activity or to processes in the atmosphere. The ‘hunt’ is on to find an active volcano, but so far no luck, so we cannot say that Venus is volcanically very active.

    At http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/venus/does-venus-have-volcanoes/
    you will find:
    But does Venus have any volcanoes right now? Unfortunately, we just don’t have enough data to go on. Venus is shrouded in thick clouds of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, so you can’t have an orbiter easily take photographs of the planet’s surface.
    There is no water on the surface of Venus, and scientists know that the planet has no plate tectonics, like we have here on Earth. There are no continents. And so Venus doesn’t have the same regions of volcanism as we have on Earth. So right now, scientists have no idea if there are volcanoes on Venus. There could be a few spotty regions across the planet, where there is some activity, but none have been seen erupting in the present.

  176. Leif Svalgaard (08:41:52) : “. . . .The thick carbon dioxide atmosphere and intense greenhouse effect results in the high atmospheric pressure (about 90 bar) and high temperature (approximately 450C) found on the surface of Venus now”
    and concludes that:
    “Venus is the best laboratory in the Solar system for study of the greenhouse effect. If we are to understand climate change on Earth, we can learn by comparing and contrasting the history and climate of the Earth with that of its nearby neighbors, Venus and Mars.”
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    Lief,

    The conclusion, as a scientific endeavor, is obvious. However, it does not scale to significance to the current AGW debate.

    This has turned into a delightfully informative discussion. But, can anyone here cite one Venusian fact or theory significant to dealing with environmental and subsistence issues facing our great grand children?

  177. garron (17:07:59) :
    But, can anyone here cite one Venusian fact or theory significant to dealing with environmental and subsistence issues facing our great grand children?

    Possibly not, but the same can be said, IMHO, about any and all of the other hotly debated issues, theories, SWAGs, and other surmissions. As long as politics, ‘greenness’, save-the-planet panic, emotional attachments, cap-and-tax ideas, and all the rest are dominating the discussion over the little science we know, we cannot make any societal decisions with good conscience, but will have to let each person for himself/herself act according to own judgment.

    Personally, I think [and will not tolerate any opposition to this as I may be allowed to think as I please - although I'm aware of people positing otherwise] that Venus shows that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas and that this is also true on the Earth, although the effect of, say, a doubling of CO2 is not known. Similarly, variations of the Sun [if any can be found] may also have an effect, but again, of unknown [small] magnitude. Since most of the heat is stored in the oceans, on simple physical grounds one would expect to look there for influence on the climate. Finally, ‘external’ factors [such as orbital changes, impacts, super volcanoes - should Yellowstone blow, for instance] will overwhelm whatever small effects ensue from the ‘usual suspects’.

    What I rail against is the tendency to ascribe all climate change to just one thing, AGW, the Sun, GCRs, etc. , and to cherry-pick data [of which there is plenty of every stripe] that happens to support one’s view. I realize that once you adopt a more nuanced view, so many % due to this, and so many % due to that, and so many % due to something else, then the politics falls by the wayside [to quote Dubbya Shrub "you are either with us or with the enemy" - or think of various religions that all have a monopoly on the truth] and that that is the main problem that stands in the way of a rational exploration of the issue, because the proponents of the various camps do not allow this more nuanced view: it is all or nothing.

    I have tried to mainly stay with what I know something about and thus not discuss ocean circulation, atmospheric modeling [although I did some of that long ago, but that was primitive compared to today], land-use issues, temperature adjustments, etc. Many of the things that are bread-and-butter solar physics also happen to be important [or thought so by various people] in climate research, such as radiative transfer in gases, atmospheric circulation and heat flows, spectra, cosmic ray physics, and much more, so I occasionally spill over into these areas when I think I can clarify a detail or two.

    On this journey I have both been encouraged by people that have expressed appreciation for my comments [which BTW takes considerable time and effort] and been dismayed by the few bad apples that always frequent fora like this, but on the whole my experience has been enjoyable [which is why I'm writing this right now] as I have always felt satisfaction from sharing knowledge and interacting with people that are serious about learning. Your questions have often been an inspiration to me and have often made me think about issues that I would not normally have done, and so have contributed to widening my own horizon.

  178. Personally, I think [and will not tolerate any opposition to this as I may be allowed to think as I please - although I'm aware of people positing otherwise] that Venus shows that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas and that this is also true on the Earth, although the effect of, say, a doubling of CO2 is not known. Similarly, variations of the Sun [if any can be found] may also have an effect, but again, of unknown [small] magnitude. Since most of the heat is stored in the oceans, on simple physical grounds one would expect to look there for influence on the climate. Finally, ‘external’ factors [such as orbital changes, impacts, super volcanoes - should Yellowstone blow, for instance] will overwhelm whatever small effects ensue from the ‘usual suspects’.

    Leif, I, for one, appreciate you taking the time to give us your perspectives on the issues of importance to you.

    However, I don’t think CO2 is important unless you start getting to extreme levels. I mean, how does Venus’ CO2 concentration compare to that of Earth? Millions of times higher? How many doublings would it take to get there, and how long, at the most liberal estimate, would it take to get even halfway there?

    I still don’t believe we can learn anything from Venus with our current knowledge. We’d need to study it, on the ground, at least as much as we’ve studied the Earth to have any kind of certainty about its past. Anything outside of our direct observations are just WAGs, not even SWAGs. IMHO.

  179. Jeff Alberts (20:38:49) :
    how does Venus’ CO2 concentration compare to that of Earth? Millions of times higher? How many doublings would it take to get there
    It will take 18 doublings [~1/4 million times more than Earth].

  180. Pingback: Support of Envirofascism starts to plummet

Comments are closed.