More Wisdom via Solomon: Global Warming Has Passed The Point Of No Return

Solomon serves up PONR - Where's the beef?

Guest Post by Steven Goddard

Steve McIntyre points out that NOAA’s Susan Solomon saw fit to exclude a statement of measurements from IPCC WG1. With such certainty then, it’s no wonder she’s certain that our current situation is “irreversible”. Well then, let’s not worry about it if one of NOAA’s lead scientists says the effects are well nigh irreversible. What she’s serving up is pure alarmism.

NOAA has issued a warning to the occupants of (some) planet :

Global warming has reached the point of no return, a study published in the Tuesday edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by a joint team of the U.S., French and Swiss researchers concludes. Even if the world reduces emissions of CO2 to the level before the industrial revolution, it will take at least 1,000 years to reverse the climate change effect that have already taken hold, AP on Sunday quoted the team as saying. Dr. Susan Solomon of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research laboratory led the study. “People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years; that’s not true,” she said, adding the effects are well nigh irreversible.

That got me wondering what she meant by “back to normal.”  Perhaps it means sea ice at normal levels?  No that can’t be it, because sea ice area has already recovered to “normal.”

ssmi1-ice-area

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png

Perhaps she means violent weather, like strong tornadoes?  Longing for a return to the 1970s, when there were lots more of them?

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg

In 1908, a hurricane formed on March 6,  the earliest on record.  Ah, for the good old days of  early spring hurricanes…..

File:1908 Atlantic hurricane season map.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1908_Atlantic_hurricane_season_map.png

In 1954, Hurricane Alice formed on December 30, the latest on record.  Nothing like a New Year’s hurricane to brighten up the holidays.

File:1954 Atlantic hurricane season map.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1954_Atlantic_hurricane_season_map.png

In 1961, Hurricane Carla made landfall in Texas.  It was the most intense hurricane to ever hit the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Carla

In 1900, a hurricane killed 8.000 people in Galveston, Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galveston_Hurricane

In 1780, a hurricane killed more than 27,500 people in the Carribean.

A map showing most of the Lesser Antillies in red. Puerto Rico and  Dominican Republic is also red.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780

In 1960, 60% of the farmland in China received no rain.  Somewhere between 20 and 43 million people died due to extreme weather and mismanagement by the socialist government.

In the 1930s, the US suffered extreme heat and drought, resulting in the dust bowl.  It was the warmest decade on record in the US  (at least before USHCN cleverly adjusted it downwards.)

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_bowl

About these ads

286 thoughts on “More Wisdom via Solomon: Global Warming Has Passed The Point Of No Return

  1. More insanity from the National Academy of Concerned Scientists as I believe they are now calling themselves.

  2. I get the feeling that ‘back to normal’ in this case means a lot like when a political person says “the middle class” in speechs. Its a mythical talking point and nothing more.

  3. Bill O’Reilly should get her on his show and ask that very question – “What exactly is it that she wants to return to? ”

    Please define “normal” Susan, (or resign, your choice..)

  4. Irreversible? Because no one knows where the norm is perhaps it is in the process of reversing. This idea is non versible!!!!

  5. Yep, past the point of no return. I guess we should just continue on with business as usual.

    Ms. Solomon needs to learn how to pitch a deal ….

  6. Good one. Was still chuckling at Willis’s Homer Simpson graphic and now this McClimatologist! Thanks for the laugh.

    And thanks for this perspective. The way these folks try to ignore the reality of the past and invent a conveniently skewed image of ‘normal’ is downright Orwellian.

    Then again, it is Post-Normal ‘Science’ as they call it.

  7. Well, then, I guess there’s no point in implementing carbon taxes or controls if the damage is irreversible. I guess we either get to adapting to the new ‘permanent’ conditions or go cower in the corner of our non-air conditioned house!

  8. So what. CO2 never caused warming in the past. CO2 lags warming by 800 years in the ice cores. A rise in CO2 before the warming might be novel, but the earth found a way to reduce CO2 before.

    Can’t we just patent oxygen and then license it’s use back to AL Gore & Co.

  9. I am pretty sure she is talking about the CO2 level returning to around 280 ppm.

    That is what “normal” means (I think).

    But I can tell you are talking tongue in cheek.

  10. Steven! Let’s clear this one up once & for all. Has sea ice really “returned to normal”? Just because it has recently touched the 1979 -2000 average, does that mean it’s back to normal? And oh yes I do know the arguement about “what is normal” & that no-one really knows the true extent pre-1979. But, if you’re prepared to use this as your bench mark, then we have to assume that sea ice is far from “back to normal” if all we are actually seeing is current extreme maximums just managing to edge into what was the normal of yesteryear.

    In this sense, you are as guilty as anyone of (Dr Solomon included) of misrepresenting the evidence & this alone makes me inclined to mistrust your line of reasoning.

  11. Actually: I think the leadership of AL is commendable and we should all Build a 6,000 Sq. Ft House, drive fleets of Escalades every where you go and get ourselves a couple of private aircraft each.

  12. I live and breath. I am a human living on this planet. Been here for 41 years now. Could someone please tell me what adverse effects, what cataclysmic events have changed the world I live in? I live in the same county in which I was born. My father was born in this county. My grandfather was born her. My great-grandfather, my great-great-grandfather were both born in this same county. My great-great-great-grandfather is buried in this same county where I was born. His stone is still there in Galatia Cemetery along with the stones of all my fathers leading down. What has changed? Some say it is warmer. I certainly think that it was very cold and snowy in the 70′s. The winters (in my opinion) got warmer and milder for a stretch sometime between the 80′s and 2000. But we’ve had back-to-back record breaking winters, with storms and cold. I’m relishing in this current warm Spring!

    Back to my original question. What adverse effects have changed the world I live in? The lake is still at the same levels as when I was a child. All rivers flow much like the did when my great-great-great grandfather lived here. Except, of course, they damned the White River back in the ’40′s. That was a cataclysmic change brought on by man! Indeed! The insurgent lakes swallowed towns! But concrete and steel brought that about – not CO2.

    What else? What else has changed my world? We had a tornado that hurt Gassville, AR really bad. That’s in my county. But I remember tornadoes all my life. I remember my dad talking about devastating tornadoes. There are old papers here that talk about tornadoes all the way back to the 1800′s, the days of my gaffers. What’s new?

    Weather isn’t climate. Okay. How about 150 years of weather? If my world is going to hell so quickly, I’d like to ask… why are all the people moving to my little hometown? Why can’t I see the cataclysm? Where is the whirlwind? I sit out on my deck and drink in the glory of my world. I see no devastation, no drought, no flood, no nothing. My world is peaceful and serene. The birds sing, the deer run, the snow comes and goes. The sun shines, the clouds roll. It rains. It shines. What’s changed? Can somebody please tell me?

  13. How long can people claim we are experiencing an apocalypse without anything happening out of the normal?

  14. johnythelowery (11:42:16) :

    Actually: I think the leadership of AL is commendable and we should all Build a 6,000 Sq. Ft House, drive fleets of Escalades every where you go and get ourselves a couple of private aircraft each.

    /signed

  15. Translation:

    “YOU’RE all gonna’ die!

    It’s worse than we thought but, hey! I’m not giving up that beachfront condo I got real cheap in the ’80′s.

    We need more money for research to stop this irreversible process.”

  16. Well, heck, since they pirated the term “climate change”, and since earth’s climate has been changing for, oh, 4.5 billion years or so, it’s pretty difficult to refute that argument.

    Oh, you say they’re talking about something else? Some sort of anthropomorphic thingy? Since climate has been changing since way, way, way before man arrived on this planet, how can man change climate change?

    Their piracy is hard to fight–how does one stop climate from changing?

  17. Well I agree with her; the arrow of time is irreversible, and there is no going back.

    But as to the CO2; we now enjoy the lowest CO2 levels that we have seen in the last 600 million years; and there’s no returning to those days either.

  18. Ben Kellett (11:41:01) :

    My statement is “sea ice area has returned to normal”

    And yes it has.

  19. Ben! Let’s clear this one up once and for all. Sea Ice Extent is a cyclestationary stochastic process currently in a long term (since the little ice age) downward trend. There is no such thing as ‘normal’.

  20. @Hunter,

    Apocalypse – “lifting of the veil” or “revelation” a disclosure of something hidden from the majority of mankind in an era dominated by falsehood and misconception.

    Works for me, perhaps not in the way intended by others however.

  21. Ben Kellett (11:41:01) :

    “Let’s clear this one up once & for all. Has sea ice really “returned to normal”?”

    Normal in geological terms is an Ice Age. Personally I’d rather have a 6 meter sea level rise then ‘normal’.

  22. It looks like “The Cause” has determined that it is absolutely necessary now to sacrifice one of its own to ‘Climatea’, the Great God of Global Climate. Poor Girl! What a horific way to meet your end. Well, at least we have another year of pleasent weather. Remember folks, in 2012 it’s all over. So have some fun while you can, OK?

    PS: The ALa’Gorey to the story is, it never hurts to throw a girl into a volcano –or off a mountain, etc– if you’re scared about the future (or want to make your supporters think you are).

  23. I remember when I was a kid there were tens of millions of people starving in China and India.

    Thanks to consumerism, greed, capitalism, electronics, and perhaps some CO2 – the lot of billions of people has improved. The “good old days” kind of stunk.

    Good thing Al Gore invented the Internet!

  24. Well then — there is no point in worrying anymore. We don’t need new taxes. No programs — or was it pogroms. Anyway it doesn’t matter — so I’m gonna take care of the important stuff this afternoon — maybe buy a chocolate bar or get a bag of chips — maybe choose the color of my new SUV. Whatever…

    This is good news if you think about it. We can shut down all the blogs, quit spending on science and maybe waste a little money developing health programs, clean water and agriculture programs — till we die in a cinder ball of flame.

    The freedom is wonderful!

    Nothing more required so — OK — everybody quit posting now!

  25. “”” Ben Kellett (11:41:01) :

    Steven! Let’s clear this one up once & for all. Has sea ice really “returned to normal”? Just because it has recently touched the 1979 -2000 average, does that mean it’s back to normal? And oh yes I do know the arguement about “what is normal” & that no-one really knows the true extent pre-1979. But, if you’re prepared to use this as your bench mark, then we have to assume that sea ice is far from “back to normal” if all we are actually seeing is current extreme maximums just managing to edge into what was the normal of yesteryear.

    In this sense, you are as guilty as anyone of (Dr Solomon included) of misrepresenting the evidence & this alone makes me inclined to mistrust your line of reasoning. “””

    Maybe I just haven’t been reading Steve’s stuff close enough.

    If it is ice area that is what determines the albedo component (not ice thickness) then it seems to me we are back to normal; I’m prepared to grant that multi-year ice thickness (talking strictly Arctic) is likely less.

    But if anyone thinks 2007 minimum was in any way normal; or indicative of the future; I can’t support that reasoning.

    We are still exiting from the last ice age; so a decline is not unexpected; but 2007 was quite unexpected.

    I don’t agree with everything that Steve Goddard has said on this subject; but I don’t really think he has been deliberately misleading; as you imply.

  26. Anthony, if you click on your link to Hurricane Carla above, Carla wasn’t the most intense hurricane to strike the US. It was the 2nd most intense to strike the Texas coast. If you click on the reference in footnote 1 in the Wikipedia article about Carla, and go to Table 4, you will see that Carla is tied for the 9th most intense hurricane to strike the US.

    Perhaps you were thinking of Camille (1969), the second most intense to strike the US, just behind a 1935 Florida Keys hurricane that in previous years might not have been listed, leaving Camille as #!? Carla was a 4 at landfall, pressure 931 millibars, Camille was a 5 at landfall, 909 millibars.

  27. I sometimes think that if an event like Cyclone Tracy happened today (it occured in 1974) it would automatically be heralded as some dark omen of dangerous climate change. Perhaps this is what is meant by ‘never going back’. Before, weather was just weather- doing it’s own thing, occasionally getting in our way and causing massive disasters. Now all weather is caused by humans and apparently it’s all bad weather now. We can’t make good weather. All weather used to be value free, even the weather that killed you. Now it’s all bad, even the weather which is 20 degrees Celsius and lovely and sunny, in summer. Don’t be fooled say the papers- It’s all evil human weather. We killed the good, neutral, value free weather. We can never go back.

  28. Steve! So, if sea ice very briefly hits normal once a year or less, you accept that this constitutes a “return to normal”? I think you lie to me & to yourself if you truly believe this to be the case.

  29. Most intense landfalling Atlantic hurricanes in the United States
    based on size and intensity for total points on the Hurricane Severity Index
    Rank	Hurricane	Year	Intensity	Size	Total
    1	Carla	1961	17	25	42
    2	Hugo	1989	16	24	40
    Betsy	1965	15	25	40
    4	Camille	1969	22	14	36
    Katrina	2005	13	23	36
    Opal	1995	11	25	36
    7	Miami	1926	15	19	34
    8	Audrey	1957	17	16	33
    Fran	1996	11	22	33
    Wilma	2005	12	21	33
    Source: Hurricane Severity Index
  30. Great post, Steve and Anthony.

    This is one of the funniest illustrations at WUWT – and that’s saying something.

    Love the “Flame-Broiled” globe on the menu board.

    Can I get a “Times Square Flood” mega-drink with my Death Spiral?

    REPLY:Sure, thanks – Anthony

  31. Ref – Antonio San (11:53:00) :
    “Only Obama the First can reverse Global Warming…”
    _______________________________
    The Noble Peace Prize Committee had an emergency meeting 3 minutes ago (after your tackie comment about one of their Greatest Recipients); they have submitted a declaration for International Approval by all Signatories of the UN Charter and are certain of passage of a resolution declaring Obama the First to henseforth and evermore be known as Obama The Great.

    There’s no stopping the Chicago Mob!

  32. Ben Kellett (12:02:54) :

    Please tell me what the summer 2010 Arctic minimum is. You seem to think you know the answer already.

  33. George E. Smith (11:50:06) :

    Well I agree with her; the arrow of time is irreversible, and there is no going back.

    But as to the CO2; we now enjoy the lowest CO2 levels that we have seen in the last 600 million years; and there’s no returning to those days either.
    ————————————————————-
    I’m not going to play Devil’s advocate, but i am going to play ‘AL’s Lawyer’
    We can discuss the difference at a different time :-) :
    So here goes:

    Alright you people at WUWT: If the CO2 lags temperature by 800 years, and so temperature apparently initiates the mechanism(s) of CO2 level reversing. CO2 is not lagging temperature now but preceding it, it’s rise in level is before warming, therefore, we can’t wait 800 years for temperatures to rise as by then all there will be left to breath will be CO2. (although, i have my own Oxygen stash in a secret underground gas silo)???? Your honor, I rest my case (full of cash for you under the table!)

  34. Don’t worry, let’s apply the PNS principle of uncertainty: As we don’t know how many scientists/believers/cheaters exist, as many as a train of waves we have to count, then let’s take them all within a limited by four high walls big square while putting a meaningful banner at the entrance. They, undoubtely-no uncertainties here-will stop agitating.

  35. I think we need to read this paper before much definitive can said. However, the press release is obviously making so rather strong statements. I suspect more in the lines of propaganda then journalism.

  36. THe arrow of time goes forward only, but no one knows why, and if we understood it better, perhaps we’ll find it goes backwards. Those quantum guys are strange dudes!

  37. johnythelowery (12:10:29)

    If you put a cart in front of a horse, does that make the horse move forwards?

  38. Sometimes what you don’t see happening is more important than what you do see. We have passed the tipping point, Copenhagen has failed and there is no way to stop the negative impacts of climate change. So where are the new sea walls, the new reservoirs, the flood control projects and laws to prevent any new coastal development? Why haven’t our elected leaders spent a dime of the stimulus money on projects to protect us from climate change? Don’t they care about the danger we are in?

    We should start asking our elected leaders these questions and see how they answer. Framed correctly they could be very uncomfortable to answer.

    The fact we see no effort to protect us from climate change may be the most compelling evidence- that this “movement” has nothing to do with climate.

  39. Hmmm

    Isn’t normal an Ice Age, there’s been more Ice Age than not Ice Age in the last 100K years.

  40. I’m old enough to observe that there are just two kinds of people on the face of the earth: Those that give, and those that take.

    I find that those going around trying to control through whatever means possible (fashion, politics, cults, groupthink, egotism, despotism, post-normal logic, marxism) belong to the takers.

    And those that go around spreading happiness, industry, thrift, self-reliance, education, understanding, religion, freedom, and prosperity belong to the givers.

    The problem with the takers is that their modus operandi is pretty obvious if one steps back and takes a good hard look at ‘em. Their cover is blown. They then resort to the most devious means possible to get others to continue with their taking. Generally they accuse their opponents of vile behavior to justify their own. (Has anybody here gotten their checks from Big Oil yet? Yeah? Well, me neither.) Takers turn out to be liars, hypocrits, and thieves. I don’t know how they can stand to live with themselves.

  41. ‘Normal’ in this context means a time when people did not have the temerity to question terrifying predictions designed to scare the masses into handing over their tax money.

    As Jon Stewart pointed out – what a shame for the climatologists that Gore invented the internet – those halcyon ‘normal’ days are now long gone.

  42. Ben
    1 You forgot the Antarctic Ice which has been increasing slowly. In the aggregate, ice is normal as it has been pretty much throughout.
    2 How long does the Arctic ice area have to be normal not to be dismissed as “once a year”? 12 months? It’s been there 6 weeks and counting, and for those like IPCC who like fitting linear trends to clearly non-linear data, the trend in the last 3-4 years is clearly upwards. If anyone had told a CAGW proponent in 2007 that ice levels would be where they are today, they would have been dismissed as insane or in the pay of big oil.
    3 The normal ice area is calculated over less than 30 years; before that global temperatures had been flat to down for 40 years, so it is reasonable to assume that there were times early in the 20th century when ice levels were far lower than those described as “normal”.

  43. Surely, this is excellent news! Even the impossible measure of restricting C02 emissions to pre-industrial levels would take a millenium to bring us back to “normal” climatic conditions. So, there is absolutely no point in trying to “cut carbon”, at great cost to the econmy, lowering living standards worlwide and threatening the lives of millions. The carbon cultists can continue with their shrieking hand-wringing cries of climate armageddon, while the sane, rational people can now get on with their lives. Just think, no more Cap n’ Trade and “carbon taxes”. Wind, solar, and other alternative energies will have to be cost-efficient, not propped up by taxpayers. Yay!
    No?

  44. You mean I’m too late? Crap, because I really was going to get right on that Global Warming thing this weekend after I cleaned out the garage and raked out the flower beds. Oh well, I guess I just fire up the smoker and do a brisket. That’ll cheer me up.

    PS Hi-larious pic. It replaces my fave Donald Sutherland’s Body Snatcher photo)

  45. Well, if it’s irreversible then there’s little point in wasting any more time or money on it, yes? “Irreversible” seems a good thing.

  46. Hawaiians have thrown thousands of people into volcanoes to keep them from erupting, but apparently it never helped very much. Pele was just unappreciative of their sacrifice.

  47. Steve Goddard (11:57:44) :

    “I remember when I was a kid there were tens of millions of people starving in China and India.”

    Exactly! The “2 billions starving” is not 2 billions anymore.

    If the socialists of the West stops giving aid to their socialist friends in Africa, for the sustainability of socialism (in Africa),
    and instead helps Africa to

    -introduce a proper justice system
    -introduce free markeds
    -introduce democracy

    Then the poor in Africa will disappear too. Automatically.
    No need to fight poverty anymore. Gone.Finished. Poof.

  48. Ben Kellett (11:41:01) :

    “Steven! Let’s clear this one up once & for all. Has sea ice really “returned to normal”? Just because it has recently touched the 1979 -2000 average, does that mean it’s back to normal?”

    Ben: “Normal” Arctic sea ice levels have ranged back and forth from NO ICE to land locked SOLID ICE for as long as Earth has had water.

  49. RockyRoad (12:17:24) :…and, as history shows, takers complain, after the wars they provoked, about how ill they were treated!

  50. If they were intelligent they would concentrate all their armageddonian forecasts on high VEI volcanic eruptions and higher than 8 richter earthquakes, as they use to happen during solar minima.

  51. It’s deja vu all over again…

    NOAA has issued a warning… “Even if the world reduces emissions of CO2 to the level before the industrial revolution, it will take at least 1,000 years to reverse the climate change effect that have already taken hold, AP on Sunday quoted the team as saying. Dr. Susan Solomon of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research laboratory led the study. “People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years; that’s not true,” she said, adding the effects are well nigh irreversible.”

    I literally burst out laughing at this.

    In 1970, I lived in Cleveland, which is on the banks of Lake Erie. In the run-up to the Clean Air & Water Act, there were numerous headlines in the local newspapers (the Internet of its day, BTW), claiming things such as

    If we don’t put one more drop of pollution into Lake Erie, it will take 10,000 years for it to clean itself up.

    This is something I read over and over and over again in the news of the day. Evidently the alarmism of the day worked. The Clean Air & Water Act passed, and we have cleaner air and water now because of it. It was – and IS – a good piece of legislation. The U.S.’ air quality at the time was god awful, and the rivers and streams had previously had no laws with teeth protecting them.

    But this comment is not about the law. This comment is about the claims of the environmentalists.

    After the law was passed, but it did NOT mandate 100% reduction in pollution entering Lake Erie. Incoming pollutants dropped by only 75%.

    In 1980, I saw a report that Lake Erie had cleaned itself up about 90%.

    The lake was 90% cleaner in ten years, after pollution had dropped by only 75%.

    This versus the environmentalist claims that even a 100% drop would take 10,000 years.

    That was the day I began not trusting the environmentalists, because I learned that they would claim ANYTHING, if it suited their purposes. If lying were prosecutable in the courts, and I were a prosecutor, they’d be at the top of my list.

    I have one more true story as well, but won’t go into it here.

    As to her final line, for her to claim that it is irreversible after 12 years of decline is simply Bizzaro World.

  52. For Steve Goddard (12:04:05):

    Steve, I see what you have posted there, but it seems to conflict with the information in the Wikepedia link Hurricane Carla. That link stated this:

    “Hurricane Carla was one of two Category 5 tropical cyclones during the 1961 Atlantic hurricane season. It struck the Texas coast as a Category 4 hurricane, becoming one of the most powerful storms to ever strike the United States. Hurricane Carla was the second most intense storm to ever strike the Texas coast.[1]”

    Then, when you to to that footnote 1, you get a PDF for a NOAA Technical Memoranum, of which Chris Landsea is a co-author. That PDF lists, in Table 4, the most intense storms to hit the US; here is the heading for Table 4:

    Table 4. The most intense mainland United States hurricanes ranked by pressure, 1851-2006 (includes only major hurricanes at their most intense landfall).

    In this Table, Carla is ranked tied for ninth.

    There seem to be two different ways to rank intensity, or two different sources, or both. The source you provided is a Hurricane Severity Index.

    Perhaps you are more expert than I am on this subject. Why do you think that there are these differences between the NOAA Technical Memorandum (from 2007) and the Hurricane Severity Index, with regard to Carla’s intensity rank?

    FYI, it doesn’t change your overall point to note that (as in the NOAA Technical Memorandum) that the 1935 hurricane that hit the Florida Keys was the most intense ever.

  53. tarpon (12:22:24) :
    Climate Scientists need mandatory courses in history, covering at least as far back as the Roman Empire if not further

    Why so far back? Following J.H.aka.”coal trains” advice it will be enough back to WWII.

  54. If it is irreversible, then there is no point in anti-growth cap and trade measures, and our focus should then be on consequence management and not prevention.
    Since it appears that we have a long lead time to prepare for sea rise and most of the other gazillion malevolent things that have been predicted, then my recommendation is to adopt pro-growth policies to ensure we have the capability to deal with the next 1000 years.

  55. …the effects are well nigh irreversible

    I’m sure Solomon meant to scare as all into action, but if she’s saying we can’t undo the damage that’s already been done, is she unintentionally implying it’s too late?

    Maybe we shouldn’t worry about carbon emissions, then?

  56. Does any one know her? Could we reach her and ask her to take the liberty to define “normal”
    To me it seems normal to find hurricanes hit land along the gulf coast. snow in the prarie and mountains and variation of temps over short distances.
    Is she a normal person?

  57. Me Lud my learned friend has not grasped the point. Its now some 800 years AFTER the Warm Medieval Period. I rest my case.

  58. Your approach is mine in discussions with the wartmistas:

    “Clearly you think it is too hot. How cold do you want it?

    A great argument to use in Canada. There’s no point in trying to have a rational debate with them, they are in a hysterical denial of their own decline.

    With the continual revving up of the hysteria, the “it’s too late” phase had to arrive. Good that it now has: if it’s too late, then let’s stop wasting energy trying.

  59. I’ve heard this “it’s irreversible sorry before two years ago, how can it be a new study?

    These people are cracked.

  60. I went through both Carla and Camille. Carla was a huge width storm with 155 mph winds and no rogue wave heights while Camille was small width storm with 205 mph winds and at least one rouge wave that took the wave staff of an offshore platform at 85 feet. So one has to use some sort of energy index to determine which was the most intense. There can be multiple answers but I vote with Steve Goddard on this issue.

  61. from Coalition of Really, Really Concerned People, where “the end justifies any means”(tm)

  62. John (12:36:38) :

    Look further down the Carla Wikipedia page. They show the hurricane intensity chart with Carla at #1.

  63. Uh…sea ice always comes back to normal in winter. That doesn’t mean anything. If you understand the system you will realize that ice forms in winter and melts in summer. And when scientists talk about the Arctic ice disappearing, they are talking about the summer ice cover, not the winter ice cover. Temperatures will be cold enough in winter for a LONG time to come for the ice to form in winter. What scientists are concerned about is the loss of the summer ice, which as far as I know, is still on the decline (ignoring small year-to-year variability).

    And, the study you are talking about was published 2 years ago. This is not new news. So why all this talk about it now?

  64. Let’s see — I can remember the good ol’ thirties when the dust bowl drove all those poor Okies out to La-La Land in their rickety Model T’s. I even remember the only place we kids could cool off was the local air-cooled cinema with its ten-cent matinee where they showed those new-fangled talkies on a scorching Saturday afternoon in July.

    But I’m not quite old enough to remember the Wolf, or the Sporer or the Maunder, or the Dalton minimums — (or is minimae?) — or even the miserable weather after that infamous meteor killed off all the dinosaurs.

    Is that the kind of good old-fashioned weather those brilliant infant-scientists say we can’t bring back? Well, thank goodness — they may be right!

  65. GOOD!

    Now there’s no reason to bother w/ destroying the economy or our present way of life.

    Since we’re all damned anyway, I vote for: Live for the here and now and enjoy it while it lasts.

  66. John (12:36:38) wrote:

    For Steve Goddard (12:04:05):

    Steve, I see what you have posted there, but it seems to conflict with the information in the Wikepedia link Hurricane Carla.

    ———-

    Wiki? Well, this might have something to do with it…

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/23/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-hockey-stick-wars.aspx

    And what jfd (12:46:51) wrote probably does too. That seems to mean that with different ways to measure hurricane intensity, the gang has still more options to create still more convenient comparisons.

    The bottom line seems pretty clear. The catastrophic increase in hurricane number and intensity just hasn’t worked out as hoped by the gang.

  67. Back to normal would be an ice age with glaciers reaching into the deep south. That has the been normal far longer than this interglacial period.

  68. Ms. Soloman is playing the BIG LIE card.

    Lie often enough, outrageous enough, and people will start to believe you.

    (The thinking goes: “How could they lie to us so much? They must be telling the truth.”)

    No, they are repeatedly lying with increasing magnitude — once on this course there is no turning back, they must keep lying (always hoping to swing the gullible) until they are stopped or rejected by the vast majority of the populace.

    Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister for the Nazi’s, explained and perfected this propaganda method.

    What’s the rush? (These “crisis” kants are to spur legislative action.)

    Well, the more time that passes (without strong warming, yet increasing CO2) puts the lie to the whole ediface — they have to gin up a “crisis” fever to get their controls in place — while they still can — sure in the knowledge that once in place, these controls can never be removed.

    That supposed “scientists” like Soloman are willing to engage in such outrageous lying should tell you there is a portion of “scientists” that are no scientists at all, but are merely functionaries of the ‘scientific-technological elite’, who want to get control and power.

    For you who think this concern is just Evans’ ranting:

    No, on the contrary this comes from somebody who had intimate knowledge of the threat and cared so much about the Nation that he devoted his Farewell Address to this and other threats:

    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” — Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States of America.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

    Isn’t this exactly what is happening right now with regards to the federal government and many bodies of the scientific establishment and the supposed threat of Man-made global warming?

    And, there are represenitives of this scientific-elite in many places in society, including a few who run around this website, repeatedly defending the ‘scientific-elite’ version of Science.

    The AGW hoax (if we win and destroy it) may be a blessing in disguise if it, in turn, leads to the exposure of this corrupt ‘scientific-elite’ who suck the tit of public tax dollars, and, in turn, want to gain power and control, either more securely over the current tax dollars they get or want even more tax dollars and control.

    At its core it’s an evil bunch that have no regard for the rest of humanity (yet as is quite typical claim their grasping for power is to save humanity).

  69. PS, check out the image on the menu board behind the guy serving. Looks very much like an image of the Earth on fire. Is that Anthony’s photoshop wizardry or just a strange coincidence?

    REPLY: It’s GIMP – Anthony

  70. Whew! Thank goodness for that!
    We don’t need the IPCC anymore, or Ms Solomon.
    All Gory is wasting his time with carbon scams. The game is up.
    We can stop holding our breath, it won’t make any difference.
    What a relief, back to normal with stupid alarmism.

  71. The truly outrageous part:
    Our tax dollars are PAYING for this kind of ”wisdom” (NOT) of Solomon.
    I want my money back !!!!

  72. @johnythelowery (11:42:16) :

    Actually: I think the leadership of AL is commendable and we should all Build a 6,000 Sq. Ft House, drive fleets of Escalades every where you go and get ourselves a couple of private aircraft each.

    - – - – - – -

    Don’t forget that part of Reverend Al’s formula is to pay carbon offsets to atone for his sins.

  73. “Ben Kellett (12:02:54) :

    Steve! So, if sea ice very briefly hits normal once a year or less, you accept that this constitutes a “return to normal”?”

    “Hitting normal” says exactly the same as “returning to normal”.

  74. Ben Kellett (11:41:01) :

    “Steven! Let’s clear this one up once & for all. Has sea ice really “returned to normal”? Just because it has recently touched the 1979 -2000 average, does that mean it’s back to normal?”

    Yet another example of folks who forget to read their own words. How can it be that 1979 – 2000 (21 years out of thousands of millenia) can be so firmly implanted in the mind as “normal” to the point of emotioanl eruption? 6 weeks ….21 years ….30 years….I’m afraid the evidence for “normal” has melted away many hundreds of times. GET OVER IT!

  75. Solomon, are you a rose or a thorn?

    I am the rose of Sharon,
    and the lily of the valleys.
    As the lily among thorns,
    so is my love among the daughters.
    As the apple tree among the trees of the wood..
    Solomon the King

  76. If the Artic nearly all melted a couple of years ago, of course there’s not much multi year ice.

    It will take a few years for new ice to get old, won’t it? or should it age itself “quickly”? Maybe Solomon thinks so.

    New ice and 2 year ice are on the uptick. They will be multi year ice one day soon, at least where I come from…

  77. The Archipelago of Stockholm is a fantastic place for skating. Long distance skating has been performed for a long time and the oldest skating club, Stockholm Long Distance Skating Club, was founded 1901. Recently a member of the club looked into the logbooks carrying information about first date of skating excursion for the season (in the automn) and the last date (in the spring) staring from 1906 upto 2007. This record doesn’t really show any trend at all. If any it is towards earlier first excursion and later last excursion (Are people tougher these days?) Perhaps this could be a good proxy for Michael Mann to use in his next paper instead of some poor trees in the US or Russia.

    Here are some comments from the books:

    1906/7: This winter was as bad as the previous for skating
    1909/10: The worst winter ever for skating
    1917/18: Seldom have the skating conditions been worse
    1924/25: In our 25 year history this is the mildest winter ever
    1935/36: Useless skating conditions. Are we getting into a warm period?
    1953/54: This is the mildest fourth quarter in 132 years.

  78. This is why I stopped worrying about global warming years ago.

    I read lots of Wikipedia entries, the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report was current then, and noted the warming is going to happen regardless, for centuries to come. So why all the talk about having to combat it, we’ll be adapting to the warming no matter what! Let’s get right to it!

    And many centuries from now when it does slow down and eventually stop, to our descendants that climate will be their normal. If they could reverse it and cool the planet off, would they even want to return to the cold times of their long-forgotten ancestors?

    New from Pachauri Productions, which brought you the best-selling Return to Almora:

    Dr. Strangelover or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Warmth

  79. John writes:

    “Perhaps you were thinking of Camille (1969), the second most intense to strike the US, just behind a 1935 Florida Keys hurricane that in previous years might not have been listed, leaving Camille as #!? Carla was a 4 at landfall, pressure 931 millibars, Camille was a 5 at landfall, 909 millibars.”

    I saw the aftermath of Camille. Ocean going ships were on the Mississippi beach and on A1A. The storm surge must have been forty feet. Yeah, I think you were thinking about Camille.

  80. Remember the Arctic death spiral? Arctic positive feedback?

    We waited, and waited and got sea ice extent and area back to ‘normal.’

    “…back to normal in 100 years…”

    What an idiot! I can post numerous examples of extreme climatic conditions prior to 1700, and before the industrial revolution.

    Susan SolomonPh.D. University of California, Berkeley, 1981
    Research Interests
    Atmospheric chemistry and its links to climate

    http://cires.colorado.edu/people/solomon/

    *************

    PHD!!!!! ASK FOR YOUR MONEY BACK NOW!!!

  81. OT, but maybe we are about to recieve the benefit of the good Lord O’s wisdom tomorrow?

    Bishop Hill has an interesting post:-

    “Slap it on all over”
    Apr 13, 2010

    “Rumour has it that Lord Oxburgh has completed the scientific review of the CRU, which will be published tomorrow. That was quick, wasn’t it? I don’t know about you but I haven’t even seen terms of reference yet. Whitewashing is a quick job isn’t it?”

    “Is anyone going to take any bets as to whether the scope of Lord O’s work is so restricted as to prevent him investigating the most serious allegations?”

    If true, seems to be too quick to have got down to the detail.

    We will see what tomorrow brings

  82. It’s dolts like Solomon and Serreze who make it difficult for me to be the inherent lukewarmist that I am.

    But you can’t let the extremes on either side drive the agenda wagon, even in righteous reaction to their antics. That way lies madness.

  83. @TimiBoy–so what if the second year ice doesn’t survive this summer? Do you understand the processes that cause the Arctic sea ice to melt? I have the feeling you don’t or you wouldn’t make such a comment. If you look at the last 30 years there is very little old ice left in the Arctic Ocean..the Arctic is transitioning towards a seasonal ice cover, just like what you pretty much have i the Antarctic. Of course you probably think that doesn’t matter, but that would be because you don’t understand the physics behind the system and why you should care. I think it’s sad when people who have no science background try to talk about the science. I think it’s also sad when people deliberately misrepresent the information (on both sides of the argument).

  84. “pgosselin (13:03:20) :

    The German edition of the Financial Times has revealed that the EU buried an internal study showing damning results on biodiesel. Unfortunately I couldn’t find an English version, and so wrote a summary blurb about it here:

    http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/eu-buried-devastating-biodiesel-report/

    They knew it was bad, and so they buried it!”

    FTD URL , german:

    http://www.ftd.de/politik/europa/:umweltrisiken-eu-ziele-fuer-biosprit-wackeln/50099403.html

    My remarks:

    Oettinger didn’t bury it but says the comission will make results public when they are ready (“wenn sie [the comission] fertig ist”, literally, ready with what it doesn’t say, probably with processing the study). Of course this could mean a de facto burying.

    The goal to reach 10% fuel by renewables in 2020 can be reached with a mixture of biofuel and electric cars, it’s not an obligation to do it all with biofuel.

  85. “”” johnythelowery (12:10:29) :

    George E. Smith (11:50:06) :

    Well I agree with her; the arrow of time is irreversible, and there is no going back.

    But as to the CO2; we now enjoy the lowest CO2 levels that we have seen in the last 600 million years; and there’s no returning to those days either.
    ————————————————————-
    I’m not going to play Devil’s advocate, but i am going to play ‘AL’s Lawyer’
    We can discuss the difference at a different time :-) :
    So here goes:

    Alright you people at WUWT: If the CO2 lags temperature by 800 years, and so temperature apparently initiates the mechanism(s) of CO2 level reversing. CO2 is not lagging temperature now but preceding it, it’s rise in level is before warming, therefore, we can’t wait 800 years for temperatures to rise as by then all there will be left to breath will be CO2. (although, i have my own Oxygen stash in a secret underground gas silo)???? Your honor, I rest my case (full of cash for you under the table!) “””

    Well Johnthelowery; I suggest you hightail it back to your client; the one who is goring you; and tell him this.

    Sometime today, it will be 2010; year wise that is.

    800 years ago, it would have been 1210.

    That pretty much puts us 800 years ahead of the Mediaeval warming period.

    So it’s about damn time for that extra CO2 to show up.

    Tell Big Al That; please.

  86. Steve Goddard & all those who have challenged my points to Steve.

    No I don’t know what the 2010 summer arctic sea ice minimum will be but I will estimate now that it will be below the 1979 -2000 average as it has been for the last several years.

    Of course everone assumes that I am passionately nailing my colours to the AGW banner, when in fact all I’m trying (without any success) to establish is a clear bench mark. This is just common sense as well as being one of the foundation stones of basic science.

    Yes, of course we can look at arctic sea ice in the context of geology & see no meaningful trend. And of course we can look at global sea ice as a whole & see no meaningful change. And yes we can also say that sea ice has been on a long term decline since the end of the last ice age etc, etc, etc.

    But, let’s just stop for a moment & look at the very clear evidence that we have relating to the arctic in particular – not to cherry pick but just to establish this as a our clear bench mark which will be used as one among many bench marks henceforth as a possible indicator of climate change . If we do this, then there is no denying that arctic sea ice extent has recently touched on normal for what constitutes a brief moment in the satellite record that we have available. Not until it has averaged out as normal for a full 12 month period can we truly begin to claim normality – surely. Clearly it is most likely that in order to achieve this, we will also have to see arctic see ice run at above normal levels to compensate for times when it runs below normal levels. Even if this is achieved for a 12 month period, the trend line would remain on a downward incline and of course we would need to see some years with sea ice exceeding normal levels to truly conclude normality had been reached.

    And for all those who claim that it’s part of a natural cycle – you may well be right. But equally, you may be wrong because as we all know,,,,,,,”the science is far from settled”!! Natural variability in climate remember is a double edged sword. Just as natural variability might be the main driver behind the recent changes we have seen in climate, well then of course natural variability could also be responsible for the slowing down of CO2 induced temperature rise in recent years. If this is the case, then when the ineveitable happens & the natural variation has the opposite effect, what then?

    And to all those who quite rightly point out that a super volcanoe or change in solar output or comets hitting the earth etc, etc all dwarf the AGW issue, well thanks fo pointing out the obvious but so what? We can’t do anything about any of that, so fine, let’s not lose any sleep over it! However, while there remains the possibility that we are causing a problem, surely it is sensible at least to listen & to proceed with caution?

  87. I think that we should use Susan Solomon’s [ NOAA’s] “the effects are well nigh irreversible.” against any carbon taxes etc. What is RC’s position on her statement? These fools keep DIGGING HOLES.

  88. TimiBoy (13:26:45) :

    If the Artic nearly all melted a couple of years ago, of course there’s not much multi year ice.
    Yup. And notice how we don’t find Arctic ice that’s centuries or even decades old, even over the many decades of assorted measurements and anecdotal reports. That indicates the ice gets “churned” and both old and new ice goes away over time.

    It will take a few years for new ice to get old, won’t it? or should it age itself “quickly”? Maybe Solomon thinks so.
    I’m still not exactly sure what makes “multi-year” ice so special, other than it survived the summer melt. Thick multi-year, thick new, does it matter much which it is?

    New ice and 2 year ice are on the uptick. They will be multi year ice one day soon, at least where I come from…
    Technically there is some right now, we’re just waiting for there to be lots more multi-year ice. Which sure looks like it’s on the way.

  89. @George…I am assuming you understand why the CO2 rose AFTER the temperatures in the ancient past. And I am assuming you also understand what is causing the CO2 to reach the levels it is currently at. I can’t imagine you would dispute that humans are putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere at present, that’s just basic knowledge.

    So I don’t get your argument. Since it takes several hundred years for the oceans to release their carbon under a warming world, and then once the CO2 is at high levels, the temperatures warm even more, and stay warm until the earth shifts and the solar input distribution changes, what are you trying to say? Today, WE are putting the CO2 into the atmosphere and the temperatures are responding. Once the ocean gets to releasing it’s carbon (which it will eventually as it keeps getting warmer), the planet will warm even more.

    I really don’t understand what you are trying to say. Makes no sense to me.

  90. LOL – and she’s wearing a NOAA badge

    There should be a jar on the counter with the label “Tipping Point” : )

  91. RickA (11:41:01) :
    “I am pretty sure she is talking about the CO2 level returning to around 280 ppm. That is what ‘normal’ means (I think).”

    Actually, she is talking about the climate itself, not the CO2 level. Here is another version of the story from NPR:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99888903

    Solomon added:

    “We’re used to thinking about pollution problems as things that we can fix. Smog, we just cut back and everything will be better later. Or haze, you know, it’ll go away pretty quickly.”

    “The sea level rise is a much slower thing, so it will take a long time to happen, but we will lock into it, based on the peak level of [carbon dioxide] we reach in this century,”

    “I guess if it’s irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it. Because committing to something that you can’t back out of seems to me like a step that you’d want to take even more carefully than something you thought you could reverse.”

    So when she says normal, she is definitely referring to changes in the climate brought on by the increase in CO2. And just for smiles, since I’ve been on hiatus, here’s a bit of fun I had last month before going into hiding:

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003020043#756308

    Anthony, feel free to use that next February (or sooner) if Punxutawney Al emerges from his alarmist hole again (hi-res available if needed). Complete with the GoreYear Carbon Credit blimp. Cheers!

  92. Ben Kellett (14:01:02) Hey, you are like my grandaughter: She likes horror stories instead of beautiful ones. BOOOOO!

  93. Well, heck… if it’s irreversible then what’s the fuss and worry? Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we all may… ummmm… cook in the Gore-Bull warming?

    Let’s just admit that “climate change” truly is irreversible, that is, it can’t be stopped. It’ll always be with us. And even if “change” could be stopped no one can agree on where the “right” stopping point even might be. I like the summer heat here in TX, my neighbor hates it.

    Hey Susan Soloman, did you hug your iceberg today? You twit.

  94. George E. Smith (13:56:18) :

    I’m definately taking a shower after representing AL. I tried to sound sincere!

    Anyway, I saw it calculated here some where @WUWT of what the PPM would be of CO2 if we combusted all the known reserves of coal, Gas and Oil. Does anyone recall that figure or what thread it was on?

  95. Perhaps we could get Susan Solomon to clarify:
    Is global warming irreversible because of C02 or despite it?
    As in object in motion continues until acted upon externally by another force. What, if anything, is she advocating here?

  96. Jimbo notes: “Susan SolomonPh.D. University of California, Berkeley, 1981″

    Ah, Berkeley 1981. Far out, man.

    Like, wow, this bong is just like the atmosphere.

  97. The reason why it is “too late” is the fact that THEY know that CO2 has little or no effect on climate….QED

    p.s. I knew that they would use the “facts” in this way as not only weather systems have “spin” and climate patterns their ups and downs…..:-(

  98. Ben Kellett (14:01:02) :

    One thing that has become clear the last few years is that the experts don’t understand the Arctic climate. No one predicted the negative AO this winter and the associated changes in ice conditions.

    If the AO remains negative, then we should expect to see increases in Arctic ice volume over the next few years.

  99. Yes if the AO in winter remains negative there may be an increase in Arctic ice volume for a few years….BUT…eventually natural variability will once again be in phase with the anthropogenic changes and WHAM! a lot of ice will disappear again. People constantly conflate weather with climate. The long term trends are likely not going to change if we don’t start taking better care of our ONLY planet!!

    What is the harm in promoting renewable energy (and new jobs)? Doesn’t it make more sense on all levels? Of course oil and gas are still going to be around for a while, but eventually we will run out. Thus, investing in renewable energy/research is the right direction regardless of whether you believe in warming caused by US or by other factors. I’m not saying we stop today with fossil fuels, but that we start investing in alternatives. that is the SMART thing to do.

  100. I would like to go back to the normal days of the dinos. Then I would bring one back, a meat eating one. A real dinos dino.

    Then I’d feed him the hobnobs who thinks the world is over populated. Haha see what I did there.

  101. 1DandyTroll (14:51:58) :

    “Then I’d feed him the hobnobs who thinks the world is over populated. ”

    Anyone who thinks the world isn’t overpopulated has probably never spent any time in, for example, Mumbai…

  102. jeff brown (14:51:26) :

    Yes, go ahead Jeff. Please do all that and report to me your progress.

    Just dont force me to pay tax to the government projects.

  103. jeff brown (14:51:26) :

    I was not aware that temperature was the cause of ice loss in the Arctic in 2007. It was the wind that did it.
    What has trace C02 concentrations to do with the wind direction?
    We would prefer conservation of energy choices be made willingly, not with a stick of shame and a bottle of fear.

  104. oh those good old days!!! I was a 9th grader in 1968-69. we had such a huge famine in india. people died of hunger and starvation. govt of india did not count all the deaths…. intentionally. so, if someone says “a couple million” people died in india during that time due to starvation, don’t believe it. it was probably an undercount of over 90%. but it was not just 1968-69. we had famine and hunger and death most of 50s and 60s.

    the 1990s was the deepest, longest drought in india. but thanks to all the modern techniques, machines and yes, all those carbon based fuels, nobody even noticed we should have been having a serious famine. and we did not. everytime someone says “we have to control CO2″, i remember all those famine and hunger and death.

    so, NO, NO, NO. i don’t know what it was like in other countries. But, surely, i don’t want to go back to those “good Old Days”, no matter how hard this nit-wit greenies want us all to go back to those days.

  105. May Ms Solomon some day follow in the footsteps of Phil Jones: click

    Tim Blair’s commentators are not very nice to Dr Jones…

  106. Pardon my ignorance, but is this pure satire or is there a real paper that’s been released? PNAS and NOAA doen’t seem to have it.

  107. SomeThoughts on All of This.

    I put a lot of time in thinking about how this CO2 global warming works.

    I read here from time to time, anecdotal stories from people who live in Alaska or the Pacific Northwest; or someplace else; and they offer that when it is cloudy it is nice and warm and toasty. Ergo clouds warm the surface. What could be easier than that ?

    Now Trenberth et al say that the whole earth is at 288 K (15 deg C, or 57 deg F), and therefore it is constantly emitting radiation at about 390 Watts per square metre; which is the Black body radiation total for +15 deg C.

    You could actually construct an ersatz “black body radiator” if you got a piece of aluminum tubing about a foot in diameter, and say three feet long. It’s used for making concrete pilings, and also amateur telescope tubes. You could put a bottom and a top on it, to make a sort of bucket out of it. Then you get out yourt belt sander, with a carborundum belt, and you grind a rough surface on the outside, and paint it flat Kodak black; that photographic black that you use for the inside walls of your dark room. That will make a fairly good black radiator.

    So now you can fill this up with tap water, which will likely be about 68 deg F, so you need to add a lot of ice to cool that down to 57 F. So now you have a BB radiator; sort of, which is at about 57 deg F or 288 K, and it is emitting 390 Watts/m^2 from that black surface.

    When you get out of the shower, you can stand in front of this energy source to keep warm; knock yourself out getting almost free heat out of tap water.

    Of course your body temperature is about 98.6 or 37 deg C or about 310 Kelvins.

    I haven’t actually tried this but I have stood around in parking lots that were at about 57 deg F, and I don’t remember being warm at any time I did that. I know that thing is emitting strongly at about 10.1 microns peak wavelength; but somehow, that does not fit my idea of “heat”.

    I have a quartz radiant heater; and that thing doesn’t look black to me, and yet it does heat me if I stand in front of it. . It actually looks sort of orange red to me.

    If you think about a Helium Neon red laser, that is 632.8 nm wavelength and is a decent red. It’s handy to rememebr that a He/Ne laser emits pretty close to two electron Volt photons. My quart radiant heater is a bit more orange than that; maybe around 600-610 dominant wavelength.

    I don’t have the foggiest idea what spectral wavelength my body thinks is “heat” but it most certainly is not 10.1 or even 15 microns of CO2 fame.

    Have you got that; LWIR emission from CO2 do not make me feel warm.

    But let’s assume that Trenberth is correct, and the typical earth surface is typically emitting 390 W/m^2 at 10.1 microns or so. Typically a BB radiator emits in a Lambertian or Cosine angular radiant Intensity pattern. Since the projected area of the source surface, also shrinks as cosine of the angle (off-axis), the Radiance, which is Radiant Intensity per unit area, is a constant. In light parlance we would say it is equally bright in all directions.

    We can talk about the etendue of such a source in a medium of refractive index (n) as e = (n.h.u)^2 where (n) is the refractive index, (h) is the source size (height) and (u) is the cone half angle of the radiant emission from the surface. Etendue with a squiggle over the e, is a fancy French word that roughly translates as “throughput”. (h) and (u) are here assumed to be small. In geometrical optical parlance we would describe this as a paraxial region, of small objetcs, and ray angles near the optical axis of some optical system.

    The quantity (n.h.u) is also known as the Lagrange invariant (and other names). It is a quantity that is conserved under ordinary optical transformations such as reflection and refraction.

    Outside the paraxial region for larger oject sizes, and larger ray cone angles (higher Numerical Aperture, or smaller f/number) this expression is replaced by (N.H.Sin(U)), and this too is conserved in Optical transformations. It is often referred to as the “Optical Invariant”.. The quantity (N.H.Sin(U))^2 is a measure of the total power emitted by the source within that solid angle.

    It is a fundamental property of the Optical Invariant, that no Optical system, can form an image that has a higher invariant value than the object being imaged.

    This result was reported by numerous early Optical workers; but one of the earliest derivations was by the German Thermodynamicist Clausius; who actually derived it from the Second Law of Thermodynamics; rather than from Geometrical Optics.

    I’m rather partial to Clausius’ form of the Second Law. Which roughly translates as :-

    “No reversible machine can have no other effect, than to transport heat, from a source at one temperature, to a sink at a higher temperature.”

    Clausius imagined an emitting Black body at a certain temperature; emitting radiation in accordance with the above etendue relation; and then assumed some optical system, could somehow increase the value of N.H.Sin(U), and so create an image that was “brighter” than the source. Well if this brightened image was incident on a second black body which absorbed all the radiation; then the BB radiation law, would require that the second black body would heat up to a temperature higher than the source; which the second law says is impossible; thus falsifying the assumption that an image could be made brighter than the object.

    Ok so now we have out little plot of ground emitting as a BB into our optical system; which is simply the atmosphere above the ground; maybe including even a high cloud or two. So we now know that it is not possible for the image formed on the cloud, of our ground plot, to have an Irradiance that is higher than the Radiance of the ground which is irradiating it.

    It then follows that there is no way, that the ground can raise the temperature of the cloud up to whatever the ground temperature is. Clausius form of the second law prohibits that.

    Now if you have been following this; you have probably caught that the energy is being transmitted from the ground to the cloud in the form of electromagnetic radiation; or LWIR thermal photons. It is not being transmitted in the form of “heat” which is mechanical vibrations. There could of course be conduction and convection going on in addition to all of this; but we are not concerned with that right now..

    Clausius says that even as radiation, we can’t overheat the cloud. He does not say the cloud can’t absorb the radiation if something else should also heat the cloud so its temperature is higher than the ground..

    So the transfer of energy is permitted; even from the earth surface to the surface of the sun; but by itself the earth will not heat the sun up to 6000 K.

    Now if the cloud is high, then it is very likely that it is cold up there anyway, and even with direct solar heating it can still be a lot colder than the ground.

    The cloud is most likely to be almost totally absorbing of our LWIR from the ground so it will warm a little from our source; but most likely will still be colder than 57 deg F.

    The cloud then, will also now radiate much like a black body, so it will emit thermal radiation corresponding perhaps to a BB at some temperature that is lower than 57 deg F, and also at less than 390 Watts per m^2.

    This cloud emission is likely to travel in all directions, some upwards towards space, and some downwards towards the ground; retracing our atmospheric Optical system. And the Optical Invariant tells us that the new image it forms on the ground must be no brighter than the cloud (in the LWIR), and consequently it is not likely to make our patch of gound any more comfortable than it was originally as a 288 K black body heater.

    So if you really want to believe that those high clouds, is what makes it warmer down at ground level; be my guest; and then build yourself a 57 deg F heater to keep you warm when you get out of the shower.

  108. jeff brown (14:51:26) :

    Windmills are making a mess out of the countryside in the UK.

    Colorado has great potential for passive solar, but everyone builds their houses N-S in order to get a view of the mountains. Usually the view gets blocked by another house or a tree within a few years, and then they are stuck with a house that is cold and dark in the winter and hot and sunny in the summer.

    Fusion power is where we should be headed.

  109. To Steve Goddard (12:56:25) :

    OK, I see what’s going on. The size of the wind field gets the same maximum weight (25) as actual intensity can (25), and in practice seems to get more weight (from the HSI PDF). This makes sense — it isn’t just the brute strength, but also how widely the strength is applied.

    This new HSI means that older hurricanes are mostly left out, because (as the text in the PDF says), reliable wind radii data are only available since 1988. Thus estimates for earlier hurricanes are derived from SLOSH data (! where do they get these names?) and must be considered rough estimates (section 5 of PDF, 1st paragraph). And true enough, 21 of the 27 hurricanes in Table 3 are more recent than 1988.

    So I understand what you have quoted, but it probably understates the intensity of earlier storms for which we know little about the size of the wind field. Again, your basic point is still good, whether it is Carla (1961) or the Key West hurricane of 1935 which is the most intense.

  110. “Even if the world reduces emissions of CO2 to the level before the industrial revolution,…”

    Will we be allowed to chip hand axes?

  111. The AGW folks want to claim that the increase of global temperature is linear with CO2 concentration. Satellite temperature data shows that to be false.

    Many skeptics seem determined to prove that there actually hasn’t been any warming at all.

    The satellite data shows an amazing correlation between the rate of increase of CO2 and the temperature anomaly. This is a middle ground that irritates the AGW folks because there would be no pending catastrophe, but receives little support from the skeptic community because it admits that temperatures have been rising.

    Such is life…

  112. nandheeswaran jothi (15:09:08) :

    Thanks for the information. I lived through the past too, and certainly don’t remember the climate being any better.

    In Colorado, we seem to have reverted back to cold weather like in the 1980s, and it is truly disappointing. I had hoped global warming would be more reliable.

  113. enneagram (14:17:51) :

    Do you actually read my posts or do just assume that I represent something that you don’t agree with?

    If AGW proves to be a load of hogwash then I’ll join in a collective sigh of relief! But just because I challenge the notion that it is a load of hogwash doesn’t mean that I don’t also challenge AGW. I am a skeptic when it comes to all sorts of science & I try to view all of it with equal impartiality.

    I have challenged Steve Goddard here purely on his assertion that sea ice extent has retuurned to normal and our difference I guess ultimately rests on how to define what constitutes “normal”! What is important here is that we come up with a definition and that we stick with it henceforth. Otherwise we will be continually bogged down with moving goal posts & a “get out clause” which relates to lack of pre- satellite data or longer term trends etc, etc.

    I am in fact completely astonished by the lack of “best practice” as regards climate science as has been highlighted on this site. But if you live by the sword, you die by the sword – so if you are accusing people of manipulating data etc, you may stand to be accused of the same thing if you make statements like “sea ice area has returned to normal”. It has NOT in arctic for any meaningful period of time.

    OK Steve, I agree nobody predicted the -ve AO this year & maybe there will be a reversal of ice loss in the arctic if this continues in future years. But I remember very similar statements being made in 2001, which proved to be a one off. If you’re right – great! But if you’re wrong, how much longer do we have to wait before we agree that climate is changing due at least in part to AGW?

  114. jeff brown (14:08:40) :

    Please note that CO2 levels vs Temperature are not linear.
    It is an exponential relationship.
    Initially CO2 increases [as a GHG] causes an increase in Temp.
    But, because of the exponential relationship, the CO2 can keep doubling, and doubling with very little increase in temp.
    The whole system is self-regulating, and always has been.
    There will not be a runaway condition.

  115. Great Piece, so much truth but these Alarmists keep up the heat from their made fire of alarmisim. They just do not get it. Hyperbole to the Max, and they expect the public to buy their garbage. They are Blind…….The earth is one degree warmer then it was before the industrial revelution………OMG it will never be the same……..LMAO at these fools on a hill……John….

  116. “Global warming has reached the point of no return,”

    thank goodness, it’s about time.
    Now can we all go on about our business and stop this crap?

    I do not want to return to ‘normal’.
    That would just mean that the weather is going to change again,
    and all this crap will start up again.

  117. Saying something is “irreversible” can backfire on people like Solomon:

    If it’s “irreversible”, people are less inclined to want to take any action, since they can’t do anything about it.

  118. It will be interesting to see the 2009 summary of Denali National Park Alaska weather (due soon?) and how fast we are accelerating from “normal” there and how the Park is going this year. Might make up for the “abnormal” conditions of 2008 or is Denali still in denial?

    http://www.nps.gov/dena/naturescience/upload/2009-RMUpdatesfinal.pdf

    (Page 39)

    Weather Notes for 2008:
    • The mean annual temperature was 3° F below normal – the coldest year since 1999.
    • The mean monthly temperatures were colder than normal for each month except March.
    • It was the fourth snowiest April on record with 21.4 inches of total snowfall.
    • July was wet; there were 2 inches more rain than normal.

    Temperature:
    • Maximum temperature 79° F on July 5.
    • Minimum temperature – 37°F on February 10.
    • Mean annual air temperature 24.6°F (colder than the historical average of 27.2°F).

    Don’t think the Park is in too much of a hurry either to change its “normal” opening dates.

  119. “”” Alberta Slim (15:42:55) :

    jeff brown (14:08:40) :

    Please note that CO2 levels vs Temperature are not linear.
    It is an exponential relationship.
    Initially CO2 increases [as a GHG] causes an increase in Temp.
    But, because of the exponential relationship, the CO2 can keep doubling, and doubling with very little increase in temp.
    The whole system is self-regulating, and always has been.
    There will not be a runaway condition. “””

    So what actual instrumented measurement data that supports your assertion of an “exponential relationship” or a “logarithmic relationship, dpending on which way you plot it.

    How many doublings and redoublings of cO2 do you have in your instruemental record; and how much better is your fit to an exponetial or logarithmic graph, than it is to a simple linear graph ?

    Just asking.

  120. Susan,
    To gain the wisdom of the ages, repeat the following mantra. Start slowly and gradually increase your speech rate until you realize the wisdom you have gained. Ohwa tagoo siam. Ohwa tagoo siam.

  121. I have a feeling the poor kid was just trying to say that the winter of 2009/2010 was finally over and there’s no chance of any more snow in Dallas, TX.

    Thanks Kid, we needed that $4.86 Million study. We would have never known.

  122. This is actually wonderful news. We no longer need to worry about stopping the warming, since it is unstoppable. Now, we can begin to focus on what needs to be done to prepare for the coming changes.
    No need for Cap and Tax. No need to reduce the burning of coal, or to burn our forests for biofuel as Duke Energy is planning to do in North Carolina. No need for windmills that despoil the view and kill birds. No need for subsidies to build solar panel farms to produce outrageously expensive power.
    The irony is that climate change is indeed unstoppable, because we didn’t cause it in the first place, or at least not much of it.

  123. Ben Kellett, I can help you with your problem. The choice of 1979-2000 as a basis of comparison or standard of “normal” for ANY climatic phenomenon is completely arbitrary. Statistically, 1979 to the present would represent a more reliable sample. The real question is, are current conditions outside the known natural variability of the system? Pre-1979 pictures of US submarines at an ice-free North Pole would tend to say no.

    Inisting that a 20-year period, starting at the beginning of the satellite record, somehow is the gold standard for “normal” is like the old joke about the drunk looking for his car keys under the street light. When a friend points out that he lost them some distance away, he says “the light’s better over here”.

  124. jeff brown (14:51:26) :

    Jeff, I don’t think you’ll get any objections from WUWT readers on your points.

    Your points, however, do not justify the alarmism or cap and trade, which seems to be the end goal of the alarmists.

    A trillion (or more) dollars per year not going to cap and trade would go a long way to addressing your points.

  125. It is the heart of the matter that these AGW promoters may actually believe we are living in the midst of a climate apocalypse.
    But if it is irreversible, how can playing with CO2 by way of treaties and laws- which has utterly failed every time it is tried, reverse the apocalypse?

  126. Susan gave a lecture at Oregon State that was video-taped. Now the local PBS affiliate shows the lecture at least once a week — late at night. It’s scary, and I don’t mean the subject matter.

    In the video Susan rails on and on about how the planet is “burning up”. Her principal anecdote in support of her theory is about an Eskimo village that had to be moved away from the shore because waves from the ice-free Arctic Ocean were causing beach erosion.

    Oh the humanity!

    She fails to note, however, that Eskimos used to move their villages quite often, before they were ensconsed in government issue trailer homes. And that the trailers were mis-sited. And that the Eskimos are probably happy to get new ones somewhere else. And that the beach erosion, if there really is any, is not caused by global warming. And that if the best ancedotal evidence of global warming she can come up with is translocated Eskimos, she’s pathetic.

  127. hunter (17:19:33) said:

    It is the heart of the matter that these AGW promoters may actually believe we are living in the midst of a climate apocalypse.
    But if it is irreversible, how can playing with CO2 by way of treaties and laws- which has utterly failed every time it is tried, reverse the apocalypse?

    It’s all about feeling good. Didn’t you know?

  128. DirkH (13:56:10) wrote:
    “Oettinger didn’t bury it but says the comission will make results public when they are ready (“wenn sie [the commission] fertig ist””

    The main meaning in German of “wenn” is not “when”, but “if”. Should we re-examine the quotation?

    IanM

  129. @jeff brown. Oh, I see. I am not a Scientist, I don’t understand, so I should shut up.

    It’s that attitude that will have Scientists being the first up against the wall when the Revolution comes. I really don’t like being patronised.

    Obviously I should not be taking the time to educate myself and try to be informed. I should just sit back and let the Pigs control my life (Obvious 1984 reference, if you can’t pick it up).

  130. hunter (17:19:33) :

    The end is nigh and always has been for some ever since we crawled out of the bushes millions of years ago.

    No need to scrutinize the logic of the illogical.

  131. re: jeff brown (13:01:38):
    Eskimo oral history refers to years when the ice does not return in winter. “Always returns” is not accurate.

  132. So what exactly is the point of spending trillions of dollars and changing everyone’s life style? At least doing nothing is cheap, and under the precautionary principle, if nothing unusual is happening it would be worth-while spending a few dollars to make sure nothing unusual is happening.

  133. Mike D. (17:21:57),

    Susan also neglects to mention that the Eskimo village in question was granted $150 million by the UN to relocate.

    The Eskimos didn’t get all the loot though – they probably didn’t get much, after the UN bureaucrats intercepted their cut. But the village [consisting of a relatively small population] moved to a ready-built new village. WUWT had a recent story on it, but I’m too busy to look it up right now.

  134. I was concerned over the last paragraph in that article:

    If CO2 is allowed to peak at 600 parts per million from current 385, icebergs in the polar areas will quickly melt, causing sea levels to rise by 0.4 to 1 m.

    Up to 1m sea level rise from…..melting icebergs o_O ?

  135. Just for kicks, take a gander at the temperature/CO2 record over the last 600 million years. We’re near record lows. Both have been plunging for the last 50 million years in an in a cold low carbon era. I would think what qualifies as “normal” is what has predominated since the modern phyla emerged in the Cambrian 500mya.

    The truth is “normal” has a rather wide range, we’re near the bottom of cold/low CO2 side of it, and at least thousands if not millions of years away from a warm high carbon extremes. We should be worried about colding not warming. We’re one supervolcano away from a global snowball. What sincere people desire (those without political, social, or financial) interests is some kind of semi-safe statsis near about what they’re accustomed to with no weather surprises. Good luck with that. Weather and climate both vary naturally. Keeping the status quo indefinitely is abnormal.

  136. sorry
    I should have said that the
    The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, [not exponential]

  137. Just how do you properly sacrifice a maiden (or whatever) to the carbon god(s)?

    Heart hacked out with a polar bear claw, then keel hauled under an iceberg?

    Chained to an idling Hummer on the melting spring arctic ice?

  138. @Ben Kellett:

    Of course you’re right that it’s premature to say or imply that the Arctic ice is now tracking the “mean” line just because it’s briefly touched it. That happened earlier in this century too, but the minimum ice extent in the summer, which is more important, fell below the mean line. It could easily happen again. If it tracks the mean-line this year in the summer, THEN we can safely (touch wood) say, “cool it, we’re back to normal.”

  139. The question is more about whether something is ‘abnormal’ rather than ‘normal’. Low levels of arctic sea ice may not be ‘normal’ but it has happened several times over the past hundred years so is not ‘abnormal’. As such it can not be used to prove AGW. If all ice disappeared and it stayed clear then that would be abnormal and would require an explanation. Even then it does not prove AGW, it would be just one possibility.

  140. There are HURRICANES, ie. Carla, and hurricanes, ie. Susan. One is a killer and the other is a gentle zephyr. Carla would blow my birdfeeder and me away. Susan is a mild breeze on the deck, but it does smell funny.

  141. Dr. Susan Solomon of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research laboratory is correct. Her world of AGW has past the point of no return. And it is not going to return. Now she and her peers can get real jobs.

  142. The warmists are useful tools of the folks who are anxious to start trading carbon credits – at taxpayer expense of course. You won’t be hearing much alarmism after they get cap and trade passed.

    People are being played like fiddles, including many of the AGW faithful. Individuals like Susan Solomon are simply pawns in a much bigger game.

    In a year or two, after the politicos pass “cap and tax,” they’ll be pointing to their obvious success as things continue to cool down. Catastrophe miraculously averted! The electorate will be lulled back to sleep as more of their wealth is siphoned. What a scam.

  143. I think it obvious – the insightful Ms. Solomon wishes a return to the native state before life polluted the universe – no living “emissions” to disturb the “natural” state of the cosmos. Where do we find these folks?

    But, with apologies to those who do not believe, I recall that “God contemplates his universe, magnificent as it is, but who, absent man, contemplates God in return?”

    Are you so sure that God would prefer a dead rock, in its “natural” state? Would He? Let us ask Ms. Solomon, who would, not doubt, think the question absurd.

  144. One might get the impression from reading the article the Solomon study is new. It’s not. Here is a link to the study.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf+html

    REPLY: Nobody implied that it was new, but with Steve McIntyre’s pointing out Solomon’s recent aversion to having a statement in WG1 about measurement, It reminded Goddard of her overblown claims about CO2 residence time, so we decided to have a little fun.

    Of course you wouldn’t understand that, being all puffed up with CO2 and all that. Bring on on the wailing, and no I don’t care what you’ll have to complain about next. – A

  145. Pearland Aggie (11:39:31) wrote:
    “Well, then, I guess there’s no point in implementing carbon taxes or controls if the damage is irreversible. I guess we either get to adapting to the new ‘permanent’ conditions or go cower in the corner of our non-air conditioned house!”

    Aggie, that’s a very logical interpretation. However reasonable people are not the target audience of the article. Joe Greenshirt is more apt to reason as follows:

    Wow, I sure hope that Susan Soloman is premature about our having reached the point of no return. If we act immediately, and all stop driving cars, stop heating our houses, stop using electricity, substitute rat-burgers for grain-fed meat in our diets, limit ourselves to one child per family, and read up on Pol Pot for inspiration on how implement the above, then the planet may barely squeak through. Thanks for the heads-up, Susan!

  146. Lewis Gordon Pugh
    “Each time I return to the Arctic, I am shocked by how much ice has melted and how rapidly it’s happening.”

    http://polardefenseproject.org/blog/?page_id=16

    Pugh claims on his website that this was the furthest North anyone has ever traveled by Kayak, (81 degrees N) however critics point out that in 1895, explorers using Kayaks reached 86 degrees North, and their expedition records show that one of them swam to retrieve a Kayak, thus exceeding Pugh’s trip and preceding him by 113 years. Pugh has not chosen to respond to these accusations.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Gordon_Pugh

  147. Wren (21:24:43) :
    One might get the impression from reading the article the Solomon study is new. It’s not. Here is a link to the study.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf+html

    REPLY: Nobody implied that it was new, but with Steve McIntyre’s pointing out Solomon’s recent aversion to having a statement in WG1 about measurement, It reminded Goddard of her overblown claims about CO2 residence time, so we decided to have a little fun.

    Of course you wouldn’t understand that, being all puffed up with CO2 and all that. Bring on on the wailing, and no I don’t care what you’ll have to complain about next. – A
    =====
    I probably should have know when the article just said “Tuseday” it didn’t mean today or last week, but some Tusday in 2008.

    REPLY:
    Or you can look at the tag “satire” and laugh along with everyone else or check the date on the linked story and not worry about it. Jeez go to bed and quit your nit picking it’s 3AM in Maryland. -A

  148. [snip - sorry wren, your posting privileges have been revoked for the night, we're just getting tired of you. Go to bed, its 3AM in Maryland]

  149. “Fusion power is where we should be headed.”

    Ha, ha, ha. Another example of socialist science – that is, the kind of science the taxpayer is forced to fund because capitalist science doesn’t see much chance of it ever making money. I wonder why that is? Could it be that 50 years of fusion research hasn’t made one jot of progress?

    Since the climate change is now considered irreversible even by its proponents it seems that wasting more time and money on socialist science projects like nuclear fusion and other daft schemes to reduce CO2 would be better spent on building up those flood defences. But we have a hundred years to prepare so I would suggest a “wait and see” strategy for deciding where best to put the barriers up.

  150. irreversible – should try a stick shift (gear stick to us brits) I never have trouble finding reverse.

    And a thought just occured to me, in 200 years when they make a family tree of climate scientists (with the invention of the interweb all comments, statements and lies are now recorded electronically (unlesse requested to be deleted before an FOI request) so historians will be able to accurately prove who said what and when) who would be at the top, i’m guessing Susan Solomon and Al gore as mum and dad, with Jones and Mann as the kids?

  151. I wonder just how those people whose sole aim is to protect the enviroment are going to feel when they find out that they have been used and abused by mega rich banksters/carpet bagger capitlaists/carbon trading snake oil salesmen all along.
    All the demos and sit ins,all the lectures and seminars and all to provide a smokescreen cover for the biggest ever fraud perpetrated against humanity. The earth will carry on doing what the earth always has,the political elite and the carpet baggers will be rich beyond their wildest dreams and in fact the draconian laws being crafted now will mean that the carpet baggers will be free to rape the earth without restriction.
    Look closely and you find that the rich wil get richer, the crooked and the political elite will get richer and more powerful and the poor will be left to rot.

  152. Another CACC ( Catastrophic anthropogenic Climate Change ) prevision. Cacc.. Cacc… Cacc… Sorry I couldn’t resist…

    G.P.

  153. Remember that PNAS papers are submitted by members, so no formal peer criticism takes place.

    Course, you’ll look a right chump if you put forward a paper that is demonstrably idiotic, so I am sure the member concerned thought long and hard before doing so.

    Key to this sort of paper is defining ‘beyond the point of no return’. It will all be based on assumptions in a model. Has to be.

    Because none of us can see the future to measure it yet, can we??

    Those models, I just adore them.

    Don’t you??

  154. Now we are manufacturing demons and ghosts. If Susie uses the eskimo stories to season her sermons, so be it. If I were an Alaskan native, I also would ask for a new modular home if claiming the last one was too close to the waves would get me a new one. I notice in NOLA many folks living below sea level recieved FEMA trailors for several years as free housing.

  155. Ben Kellett (15:32:27) : You said “I am in fact completely astonished by the lack of “best practice” as regards climate science as has been highlighted on this site. But if you live by the sword, you die by the sword – so if you are accusing people of manipulating data etc, you may stand to be accused of the same thing if you make statements like “sea ice area has returned to normal”. It has NOT in arctic for any meaningful period of time.”

    You have just said “It has NOT in arctic for any meaningful period of time.”, COMPARED TO WHAT, you are doing exactly what you accuse Steve and others on this site of doing?
    The Main loss of sea ice took place in 2007 and had nothing to do with “warming”, but all to do with sea currents and Wind Direction and Force.
    But if it is to do with warming, how much sea ice do you think there was when Greenland was Ice Free when the Vikings Colonised it?

    Please Note Anthony’s answers to wren, this is a “Satire” thread, i.e. a JOKE on ms Solomon.

  156. @stevengoddard: plugging my vacuum cleaner into a H-bomb explosion looks a bit anti-social if you ask me.

    The Sun has gravity on its side to squash those atoms together – bit difficult to reproduce on earth. H-bombs use a fission reaction to set off an A-bomb to squash the atoms together – also a bit difficult to reproduce in a controlled manner.

  157. Ryan (08:46:17) :

    Scientists perform controlled fusion reactions on a regular basis.

    You probably don’t have a nuclear reactor in your vacuum cleaner either.

  158. In 1895, Nansen took a boat to 83N and a kayak to 86N. Lewis Pugh got stuck at 81N, after completing 1% of his journey.

  159. @”stevengoddard”: “Scientists perform controlled fusion reactions on a regular basis.”

    They certainly do, if you pump enough energy in you can squash two single atoms together. But I rather thought the idea was to get some energy OUT???

    Please Steven, I know all about JET and ITER and you are being as disengenuous as Team-AGW.

  160. rbateman (15:05:57)

    When did I say that temperature was responsible for ice loss in 2007?? Why make things up like that? Temperature, winds, thin ice, ocean temperatures were ALL responsible for the anomalously low sea ice in 2007. Natural variability = atmospheric circulation, which can bring warm temperatures into a region one year and not the next, which can create strong storms and winds one year and not the next. Again, it seems you conflate weather with climate. Long term trends are what is of interest, not the year-to-year variability. Once the average person understands that, the discussion on climate change will actually be productive.

  161. Alberta Slim (15:42:55) :

    when did I say that CO2 and temperature changes were linear? Please don’t make things up.
    Of course it is not linear, and thankfully not so. But do you realize that global temperature change is not EQUAL everywhere on the planet? If you look at a 2100 temperature rise of 3oC for the planet, that means about 7oC in the Arctic. Of course none of the climate models currently being used for future assessments of climate incorporate the feedback from the permafrost thawing in such warming scenarios. Do you know that there is more Carbon in the permafrost today than in the atmosphere? And when that is released in the form of methane it is more powerful of a greenhouse case than CO2.

    Basically, we don’t really know what will happen in the future because climate models still are unable to model key processes in things like cloud formation, aerosols, precipitation. But we do know that if we continue business as usual, atmospheric greenhouse gases will continue to increase and we know that they cause warming. Let’s hope there are some self-regulating mechanisms in the climate system that will allow us to survive..

  162. Not A Carbon Cow (17:12:19)

    I agree with you. I do not believe cap and trade is a solution that will work, nor is it the right approach. Looking to renewables for energy is the right approach in the long-term, and doing things to curb CO2 emissions today, such as more energy efficiency, carbon sequestration, etc. are good short term solutions.

  163. Mike D. (17:21:57)

    Actually Mike, the coastal erosion in the Arctic is caused by (1) permafrost thawing and (2) less sea ice that exposes the coasts to larger ocean waves. So, ask yourself what is causing the permafrost to thaw and the sea ice to retreat in summer? Also ask yourself if you would mind having to move your entire town because your home fell into the ocean. I think it’s one thing to have these changes so external to ourselves, but it’s another thing to have it happening in our own community.

    That’s the thing with climate change, if it’s not bothering our lifestyles, why should we care? The scientists would probably make more headway if they could actually tells us what will happen to us if things like the Arctic sea ice cover disappeared in summer. Unfortunately, the models aren’t all that great yet at modeling impacts and we have no other way of knowing.

  164. Phillep Harding (17:39:57)

    really? where did you hear that? I would like to read it. Can you point me to the reference for it?

  165. From Berner (Science, vol 249)

    A new model has been constructed for calculating the
    level of atmospheric CO2 during the past 570 million
    years. A series of successive steady states for CO2 is used
    in order to calculate CO2 level from a feedback function
    for the weathering of silicate minerals. Processes considered
    are: sedimentary burial of organic matter and carbonates;
    continental weathering of silicates, carbonates,
    and organic matter; and volcanic and metamorphic degassing
    of CO2. Sediment burial rates are calculated with the
    use of an isotope mass-balance model and carbon isotopic
    data on ancient seawater. Weathering rates are calculated
    from estimates of past changes in continental land area,
    mean elevation, and river runoff combined with estimates
    of the effects ofthe evolution ofvascular land plants. Past
    degassing rates are estimated from changes in the rate of
    generation of sea floor and the shift of carbonate deposition
    from platforms to the deep sea. The model results
    indicate that CO2 levels were high during the Mesozoic
    and early Paleozoic and low during the Permo-Carboniferous
    and late Cenozoic. These results correspond to
    independently deduced Phanerozoic paleoclimates and
    support the notion that the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse
    mechanism is a major control on climate over very long
    time scales.

  166. Playing around with Central Greenland temperatures (here), I saw something quite revealing, IMHO.

    I have tried to get images to display here, but whatever I am doing doesn’t seem to work. (If anyone could tell me how to do that it would be appreciated; the toolbar icon doesn’t seem to give anything that actually displays.)

    The most current temp in the data is 95 years ago and it was -31.59C. At 3300 BP, the temp maxed out at -28.86C, nearly 3C above 1915. There were several times in the Holocene when that -28.86C was approached. At 980 years ago, in the middle of the MWP, with the Vikings farming in Greenland, the indicated temperature was -30.63C, almost 2C warmer than now, but nearly a full 1C below the max. Since the end of the ice age the MWP seems to be about AVERAGE, very much so.


    Since the MWP central Greenland has been in its only protracted cold spell since the end of the Younger-Dryas. We are only now beginning to come out of that cold spell.

    The real story is in the big picture. The ice core data goes back to 49.98k years ago. The obvious thing about it all is that the several warm periods did not “melt all the ice in Greenland,” since the ice from 50,000 years ago is still there – even after weathering the warm periods. They certainly could not have gotten ice core samples if all the ice had melted.

    This is probably a brain-dead observation, but it seemed so obvious I couldn’t not speak up about it:

    If the MWP and its warmer predecessors did not “melt all the ice in Greenland,” any belief that we are in danger of having passed the tipping point – or that we are remotely in danger of doing so – is just pathetic.

    It is CERTAIN that central Greenland can warm up at least by another 3C without melting down to bedrock, since we have the proof of it. If the MWP or the warmer periods – more than 10 of them since the Younger-Dryas – did not melt the ice in Greenland, we are certainly safe, AND sea level cannot rise if the ice doesn’t melt in Greenland. If the ice had all melted, we wouldn’t be able to measure it now, would we?

    Literally, the ice in central Greenland won’t melt until the temperature there gets above 0C, so not only do we have the 3C between 1915′s temperature and 3300BP, but we THEN have the other 28C to go before the ice in central Greenland even BEGINS to melt.

    And Antarctica is going the OTHER way, with the greatest ice extent ever recorded. So, where is all this melt water to come from? If not Greenland and not Antarctica, where?

    Like I said, this seems a brain-dead observation, but if this is so brain dead, then what does that say for those who claim scores or hundreds of meters of sea level rise?

  167. Rhys Jaggar (08:14:06) :

    “Remember that PNAS papers are submitted by members, so no formal peer criticism takes place”.

    that is simply not true, PNAS papers are subject to peer review.

  168. jeff brown (10:17:17) :

    A new model has been constructed for calculating the level of atmospheric CO2 during the past 570 million years…

    Oh, look, a new model!

  169. Ryan
    How long did it take between the “discovery” of electricity, and the implementation of generators, wiring and lightbulbs ?
    Was it necessary to ban or tax candles ?
    It is my understanding that before the invention of the automobile
    horse waste was a big problem.
    Did they have Horse-waste credits back then to mitigate the pollution ?
    You can’t force this stuff without some backfires ( like frozen windmills and snow covered solar panels)
    Allow ingenuity to take its proper course.

  170. “”” George E. Smith (10:06:10) : Your comment is awaiting moderation

    “”” Alberta Slim (17:51:18) :

    George E. Smith (16:27:36) :
    This my reference

    http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ “””

    For what ? “””

    I see it now Slim.

    I wasn’t quibbling about the fact that you said “exponential” rather than “logarithmic”. Everybody understnads that its just a matter of which vartiable is where.

    My whole point is that we have no recent (say last 200 years or less) experimentally measured data, that has small enough error bands to be definitive as to the mathematical relationship. A simple T = m.CO2 + c fits just as well as T = m.log(CO2) + C or even T = m, exp(CO2) + c

    You can even fit it to T = m.Sin(CO2) + c with just as good a fit, as the data errors will permit.

    So experimental data doesn’t uniquely define the correct mathematical relationshitp (if any such exists) and there simply isn’t any Physical theoretical model that would call for any particular mathematical model.

    The logarithmic argument is a direct consequence of the mythology that the mean global surface Temperature (not anomaly) increases by a fixed amount called “THE CLIMATE SENSITIVITY” for each doubling of the atmospheric CO2 abundance.

    The available surface thermal radiation emittance must vary by about an order of magnitude from the very coldest Antarctic winter midnights (places like Vostok) to the very hottest tropical desert surfaces; and the peak wavelength of that radiation varies by about 1.82:1 over the earth for the same reason; so a fixed amount of CO2 in the local atmosphere can’t possibly have a fixed “forcing” effect in terms of Watts/m^2, so “climate sensitivity” varies wildly over planet earth; so it must be sampled to determine even somethign like a global average value; and there is no such sampling network that complies with the laws of sampled data systems.

    And in any case something like a simple forcing even if constant ove the earth surface; still ignores the quite non-linear effects caused by cloud variations; which completely negate any possible direct CO2 to Temperature causal relationship.

    So notwithstanding your citation of junkscience.com there is neither physical theory nor experimental observation to support any mathematical relationship between atmospheric CO2 abundance and mean global surface Temperature. Even if it should be so, that those two are causally related in some way; there is no basis for determining what that relationship is; since the system is quite chaotic.

  171. stevengoddard (10:27:22) :

    ok, if you smooth temperature and CO2 over the past 50 years, it does look linear (btw…that figure you pointed me to was of temperature anomalies, not actual temperature and I don’t know the baseline for the computation of the anomalies). But if you look at the last 150 years, it’s not linear. And this gets to the point of how results depend on the time-period analyzed. Over the long-term it is not linear, but recently it looks to be. But then again, if you plot Arctic sea ice extent over the satellite data record with CO2, it also looks linear, but I don’t think any scientist would say that GHGs are solely responsible for Arctic ice melt.

  172. jeff brown (10:41:41):

    “…I don’t think any scientist would say that GHGs are solely responsible for Arctic ice melt.”

    That implies that GHGs [actually, the hypothesis is specifically CO2] is causing Arctic ice melt.

    If you’re right, that means carbon dioxide is excluded from the Antarctic: click

  173. Smokey (10:48:43) :

    yes the hypothesis is that warming induced by GHGs is causing Arctic sea ice to melt. But the system has BOTH natural variability and GHG-induced warming acting on it. So..they are BOTH responsible for changes we are seeing today. I don’t think the scientists have yet been able to say xx% is due to natural variability and xx% is due to GHGs. At least I haven’t seen a study like that published anywhere.

    GHG-induced warming is also affecting the Antarctic ice cover. Pronounced warming has occurred in the western Antarctic where the sea ice IS retreating. GHGs and ozone depletion have also resulted in stronger westerlies around Antarctica that cause the wind to push the ice away from the coast in the Ross Sea (where the ice is actually increasing). Both the increases and decreases in Antarctic sea ice are attributed to GHGs and ozone depletion.
    But just so you understand, the ocean’s thermal intertia and ability to mix delay any temperature signal from the ongoing absorption of heat. The circumpolar currents around Antarctica actually act as a buffering preventing warm water from the tropics from transporting heat to the south pole, a buffer that does not exist in the north.

  174. In this link it doesn’t look linear. GISS are modeled temperatures though, right? And
    they don’t get the warming it the 1930s/1940s right, or do they?

  175. jeff brown (10:55:06):

    “…the system has BOTH natural variability and GHG-induced warming acting on it. So..they are BOTH responsible for changes we are seeing today.”

    Thus, the effect of CO2 is negligible, and can be disregarded for all practical purposes. QED.

    And the Western Antarctic peninsula is atop a hot spot, as has been discussed here often. It is only a small part of Antarctica. The rest is cooling: click

  176. Smokey…the more recent results on Antarctica actually show warming everywhere in Antarctica. See the Nature paper by Steig et al. But again, it all depends on your time-period of trend analysis. anyone can make any trend by carefully choosing their start and end points. Of course for the observational record, there isn’t much choice in those start and end points, so you have to go with what you have.

  177. jeff brown (10:59:42) :

    The relationship between CO2 and temperature does look very linear in your graph, because the temperature and CO2 curves track each other closely.

  178. Smokey (11:03:06) :

    also, just because natural variability is also a factor, that doesn’t mean GHGs are negligible. solar variation explains less than 10% of the warming since 1850. so where is the other 90% coming from?

  179. On January 17, 1961, in his farewell address to this nation, President Eisenhower warned us about a military-industrial complex gaining control of policy making. Most remember that one. But it appears no one seems to remember his other warning:

    <<<>>>

    Indeed, domination of this nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project and, in paticular, grant allocations, and the power of money is now evident, and public policy has been taken captive by a scientific-technological elite.

  180. Oops, the other warning

    “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

    Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
    In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

  181. @ stevengoddard (Is that really “Steven Goddard”?) on fusion:

    Fusion works good on a brute-force basis. Pressure, heat, light elements in a plasma state, voila. Meanwhile we have attempts at “controllable” fusion like ICF at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) where they are attempting to shatter a boulder with a thousand little chisel blows, when one well-placed stick of dynamite will do the job.

    The products of a fusion bomb to note are heat and pressure. We’ve detonated them underground before. So why don’t we just build a large underground chamber that can contain those products, set off a small one, and generate power from those products? At this posting they’re discussing using old mines to store energy as compressed air. Well then, get the siting right and the pressure storage will take care of itself.

    Fusion power now that uses existing technology, versus “sometime in the future when we get the details worked out.” What’s not to like?

  182. stevengoddard (11:14:42)

    except I suppose for the warming in the 30s/40s which doesn’t appear to respond linearly to CO2. Also the CO2 curve is non-linear throughout the time-period shown and the temperature shows some cooling and warming whereas the CO2 shows a non-linear increase.

  183. Feet2theFire (10:17:42) :

    you write: And Antarctica is going the OTHER way, with the greatest ice extent ever recorded. So, where is all this melt water to come from? If not Greenland and not Antarctica, where?

    Um…why are you mixing up sea ice and Antarctic ice? It is the sea ice in winter that has shown about a 1% increase per decade in Antarctica, not the Antarctic ice sheet. Sea ice is frozen ocean water.

    I have not seen a single projection for 100s of meter sea level rise. The current estimate is 1m by the end of this century. That is well below 100 meters. Plus, all of Antarctica and Greenland together do not even contain 100 meters of ice.

    Lets be realistic. If all of Greenland were to melt, humans would likely no longer exist on this planet…that would be too warm of a world to live on. Right now land glaciers are contributing most to the projected sea level rises anyway, though the major ice sheets might start kicking in more if the warming reaches values projected by the end of this century.

    Why can’t we discuss the factors that are relevant?

  184. BTW- The girl in the photo is one of the CRU’s models. Their models can be manipulated into being: hot, hotter or outright fraud even AL would feel guilty about! Now that’s hot!

  185. If we do see temps go up as much as 1.5 degrees in a century, what happens? I would like a debate with susie. I know she would be afraid to debate from then onward. We will see an end to 1 on 1 debates because the skeptics now have to only raise a few questions and the debates end rapidly.
    Example, Algore liked to evoke Poley bear extinctiuon. The question of polar bear extimates for the last 30 years kills his claim. why is the number going up inspite of hunting permits in Canadia?

  186. jeff brown (11:13:22) :

    “Smokey…the more recent results on Antarctica actually show warming everywhere in Antarctica.”

    Implied message: EVERYBODY PANIC!!

    click1
    click2
    click3

    You keep avoiding the null hypothesis: what we are observing is well within the parameters of natural climate variability: click1, click2

    You keep parroting evidence-free opinions and always-inaccurate models. But unless you can falsify the null hypothesis, you’ve got nothing. I’m not sure you even understand the concept.

  187. Ibrahim (12:26:31) :

    I don’t think anyone has written about the factors related to the 30s/40s warming period, though it was focused in the Arctic and more importantly on the Russian side of the Arctic. It certainly wasn’t global, but adds to the global averaged temperature plot. So whatever caused it in the Arctic hasn’t been well discussed yet, but it should be.

    btw..thanks for the link to the figure!

  188. Smokey (12:56:47) :

    I don’t think I’m avoiding anything and I do believe I have a good understanding of the concept. I never said anyone needed to panic, I don’t bring the emotions into the debate. I believe in facts, and improved scientific understanding of the processes so that we all can better understand our climate system and future predictions.

    What I think you fail to understand is that climate does not change without a forcing acting on it. We understand the past forcings that led to glacier and interglacial periods (e.g. orbital variations). So when you point to the natural variability plots from say Vostok, that doesn’t mean anything to me. Of course the planet has been warmer in the past than it is today, but there are different forcing mechanisms responsible for the changes then than are observed today. What we need to get at is: what are the forcing mechanisms responsible for the changes we are seeing today? If the sun explains less than 10% of the warming, then what are the other forcing mechanisms? That is what climate science is trying to understand. And by all means…let the science show it is something else besides GHGs. It hasn’t yet, and until a scientist shows there is another mechanism at work, it’s hard to deny that GHGs may be in part responsible.

  189. Henry chance (12:44:08) :

    I happen to know that climate skeptic scientists were recently asked to debate climate scientists in LA on April 21st and that no skeptic scientists were willing to come to the debate. Glenn Beck also declined to debate Jim Cameron on the same day. So tell me, why are the skeptics afraid to do a real debate with climate scientists?

    Another attempt is being tried with Imhoff. We’ll see if he’s game.

  190. Smokey (12:56:47) :

    and btw..I’m actually referring to real scientific papers in my debate with you, based on evidence in data collected, what is the basis of your conclusions?

  191. jeff brown (10:09:38): Ask yourself if you would mind having to move your entire town because your home fell into the ocean.

    Ask yourself if you would mind if the entire economy fell into the ocean due to global warming alarmism and you and all your neighbors were forced to live under a bridge.

    jeff brown (12:27:48): Lets be realistic. If all of Greenland were to melt, humans would likely no longer exist on this planet

    And yet during the Eemian interglacial 115,000 years ago all of Greenland did melt, and humanity was not extinguished. Nor were any other species driven to extinction that we know of, including polar bears. Where in the world did you get the cockamamie idea that Greenland melting is bad? I think it’s you who needs a reality check, buddy.

    Warmer Is Better. Fight The Ice.

  192. “jeff brown (13:08:15) :
    [....]
    warming period, though it was focused in the Arctic and more importantly on the Russian side of the Arctic. It certainly wasn’t global,[...]”

    …like the MWP, right? Or any other warm period before this one, right? Because this is the first warm period that is global, right? Sigh… yeah sure, it was focussed on the “Russian side of the Arctic”.

    How much longer do we have to hear entirely made-up fluff like that…

  193. “jeff brown (12:27:48) :
    [...]
    Lets be realistic. If all of Greenland were to melt, humans would likely no longer exist on this planet…that would be too warm of a world to live on.[...]”

    When you have the time, you should really try to understand the implications of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Hint: The radiation is proportional to T^4.

  194. Jeff brown

    These are global temperature anomalies according to the IPCC.
    And yes no scientist explained it to me yet.

    And indeed it was warm in the period 1910 – 1945 as you can read here:

    http://www.archive.org/stream/arcticice00zubo#page/444/mode/2up

    then you will also that the melting of the articic ice in 2007 isn’t unusual

    furthermore I’d like to point to the next figure of the Law Dome ice core which show a clear MWP (and which was left out of the IPCC AR 4)

  195. stevengoddard (12:24:55) :

    Good idea, but Obama wants a world free of nuclear weapons, like we had during the happy years of WWI and WWII.
    (…)

    Good thing then that I’m talking about Quantum relativity-Based Renewable Energy Generators (QB-REG’s), which are perfectly acceptable.

    And what was that bit about nukes anyway, heard it briefly on the nightly news. Get rid of all weapons-grade nuclear materials within 4 years? How can we ever get rid of ALL of it when it’s a natural byproduct of our reactors that’s being generated all the time?

    Wait a minute. I have an answer for that. And I don’t like it.

  196. “”” jeff brown (12:27:48) :

    Feet2theFire (10:17:42) :

    …….

    Lets be realistic. If all of Greenland were to melt, humans would likely no longer exist on this planet…that would be too warm of a world to live on. “””

    Well if all of Greenland were to melt; that would certainly be too warm for anything living to remain alive; I’m not sure what sort of rocks make up Greenland; but I am sure almost any molten rock is hot enough to kill all life on the planet.

    But I don’t see CO2 doing that here on earth.

    But if we were to limit it to just all of the Greenland ice melting; well I am sure that would be just a ho hum from most of the living things on the planet. Well those people in Bangladesh who run out on to the mudflats when a Tsunami sucks the sea out; while the elephants head for higher ground; you can probably count them out but you’d be surprised what people will do when the water starts lapping at their feet;

    I won’t be standing around to watch; so I am sure I would be surprised what they do, also.

    Count on some entrepeneur who will make a lot of money simply putting up signs to tell people which direction is up hill to higher ground.

  197. “”” Mike D. (13:21:02) :

    jeff brown (10:09:38): Ask yourself if you would mind having to move your entire town because your home fell into the ocean. “””

    Well the entire town of Valdez Alaska, WAS moved; and it din’t even fall into the ocean. It mostly fell down in an earthquake, and they didn’t bother to try and fix it so they just went down the road short distance, and built a new town. So far that doesn’t seem like it will fall in the ocean.

  198. “”” jeff brown (13:17:23) :

    Henry chance (12:44:08) :

    I happen to know that climate skeptic scientists were recently asked to debate climate scientists in LA on April 21st and that no skeptic scientists were willing to come to the debate. Glenn Beck also declined to debate Jim Cameron on the same day. So tell me, why are the skeptics afraid to do a real debate with climate scientists?

    Another attempt is being tried with Imhoff. We’ll see if he’s game. “””

    Well are you talking about Senator James Imhoffe of Oklahoma; or are you talking about a Climate Scientist named Imhoff ?

    Senator Imhoffe is NOT a Climate Scientist; but I am sure there are plenty of skeptic “Climate” Scientists who would be able to debate the science issues with “your” un-named Climate Scientists.

    There’s a gathering of Climate scientists set up in Chicago Next month, and I am sure anyone you want to name would be welcome there to debate on either side of the science issues. So send your chaps there; they will be welcomed with open arms.

    They have had similar conferences before, and all the big climate scientists like Al Gore, and James Hansen; and Michael Mann have always been welcome to present papers at those conferences; but somehow they are the ones who never show up.

    So whoever this Climate Scientist Imhoff is; I hope you are able to get him to debate your anonymous climate scientists; but I wouldn’t expect to get a science debate if you get Senator Imhoffe of Oklahoma instead; but I am sure you will get cogent reasons, why the Federal Government should just stay out of the way.

  199. “”” jeff brown (13:14:08) :

    Smokey (12:56:47) :

    I don’t think I’m avoiding anything and I do believe I have a good understanding of the concept. I never said anyone needed to panic, I don’t bring the emotions into the debate. I believe in facts, and improved scientific understanding of the processes so that we all can better understand our climate system and future predictions.

    What I think you fail to understand is that climate does not change without a forcing acting on it. We understand the past forcings that led to glacier and interglacial periods (e.g. orbital variations). “””

    Well there’s your answer; earth’s orbit is different from what it was in 1850 or whenever it was that CO2 was 280 ppm and everything was garden of eden idyllic.

    Now it hasn’t changed by much compared to what it was during the Cambrian period; but then climate hasn’t changed much either; hardly enough to even detect that it has changed at all.

    I’m curious as to where in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, I might look for a rigorous definition of “Forcing” or “Forcings” and what are the proper SI units of Forcings; and where about on earth do they maintain International Standards of Forcings; or are they some fundamental Physical Constant that doesn’t need hardware standards. Are ther both SI units, and “British system” units of forcings. Isn’t it rather funny that the “British system” of units is maintained and used only in The United States of America. So what are our units of forcings as maintained by NIST.

    Why is it that “Climatologists” use their own special jargon; is it something like Cusps and Risings etc as used by “Ancient Astrologers” ? A lot of unanswered questions that you could inform us on.

  200. ” jeff brown (13:14:08) :
    [...]
    What I think you fail to understand is that climate does not change without a forcing acting on it. We understand the past forcings that led to glacier and interglacial periods (e.g. orbital variations).”

    What *you* fail to understand is that a vast system with multiple positive and negative feedbacks with different gains and different time lags (i’m talking about the earth) will oscillate for quite a while before reaching equilibrium – and as the most important “forcing”, namely the sun’s insolation – varies by 90 W/m^2 within a year (acc. to Dr. Svalgaard) we have a constantly varying input to the system. So don’t expect it to reach equilibrium any time soon – whether or not we do something or not.

    Climate has always changed. Your idea also fails to explain the MWP away.

  201. Mike D. (13:21:02) :
    and
    DirkH (13:26:47) :

    A study published in July 2007 by Eske et al. found evidence that Dye 3 was glaciated during the Eemian, which implies that Greenland could have contributed at most 2 m (6.6 ft) to sea level rise. So where do you get all of Greenland melted in the Eemian?

  202. DirkH (13:21:33) :

    It isn’t made up fluff, it’s actually true. Why does it bother you to know that the warming seen today is different than that seen in the MWP or the 1930/1940s? Why not ask yourself why it was different rather than say it doesn’t matter.

  203. George E. Smith (14:43:51) :

    It is Shishmaref that I was referring to. Their entire village needs to be moved because it IS falling into the ocean.

  204. George E. Smith (14:53:43) :

    I’m not responsible for the debate, I simply heard about it. I think what would be good for everyone on both sides is a real debate between the experts on both sides w/o name calling, putt-downs, etc. A real debate on the facts and let each side question each other’s conclusions from those facts. In fact I haven’t seen anything here yet that shows facts that oppose the GHG theory. I am very interested in those, so please if anyone has any, or links to any, please post them! thanQ

  205. George E. Smith (15:09:44) :

    Sorry George, I find it hard to follow your logic here. Why did you get into units? I’m an engineer in my education and we only use the metric system. But more importantly what does that have to do with the issue?

    The earth’s orbit has not changed substantially from 1850 to today to cause the observed warming. Where did you read that? These orbital variations take 10,000 to 100,000 to 1,00,000 years to occur, so they are not responsible for the last 150 years.

    I’m sure you understand the concept of forcing. But here’s a definition for you:

    The Earth’s climate changes when the amount of energy stored by the climate system is varied. The most significant changes occur when the global energy balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth is upset. There are a number of natural mechanisms that can upset this balance, for example fluctuations in the Earth’s orbit, variations in ocean circulation and changes in the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere.”

    We do see today that there are changes in the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere and would you argue that we haven’t put a bunch of gases into the atmosphere during the industrial revolution? These gases do alter the
    Iglobal energy balance, and this mechanism “forces” the climate to change.

  206. DirkH (15:28:26) :

    Dirk, 90 W m-2?? Really? That is HUGE! And WAY bigger than the forcing from GHGs. I think you have typo. The total solar input is only 1366 W m-2. Man, 90 W m-2, we would be so screwed if that was the seasonal variation in our sun’s output!

    Actually Lief Svalgaard said recently:

    I would like that too :-)
    Jack, the issue here is that it is almost dogma that the sun is the cause of the climate swings the last few thousand years [LIA, MWP, etc]. This is so because we don’t know what else could do it [certainly not man-made CO2, if we except that last 100 years]. The problem is that the latest solar data seem to indicate [and this is still controversial] that the sun varies less than what we thought just a few years ago, so if we will maintain that the sun is still the culprit, then we have to crank up significantly the sensitivity of the climate to solar forcing. Most people [like Steve M] think that that is ‘impossible’. I don’t know if it is and actually came originally to this blog to find out, but it seems that few want to discuss this. I think we cannot maintain that we know what is going on if we just gloss over this problem…

    (http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/30/svalgaard-3/)

  207. DirkH (15:28:26) :

    Dirk, I believe one reason why the MWP period is yet to be explained may have to do with the sparse observational records. It’s not clear how widespread the warming may have been (it may have just been Europe). I’m sure paleoclimatology must be a very difficult and tedious job, but hopefully they will eventually reconstruct temperatures globally so this question can be adequately addressed. It certainly is an important one to understand.

  208. DirkH (13:26:47) :

    Dirk, I get the Stefan Boltzman Law..in fact I have had several college classes on the subject, thanks. What was your point anyway?

  209. “”” Jeff Brown (16:01:07) :

    George E. Smith (14:43:51) :

    It is Shishmaref that I was referring to. Their entire village needs to be moved because it IS falling into the ocean. “””

    Well the details either way are only important to those who are at the scene.

    We have an apartment building that is trying like heck to fall into the ocean south of San Francisco; it is poised righ on the edge of a collapsing cliff, so what you drop out a window falls into the ocean. They have already spent enough money trying to stop it from doing that; to buy outright a luxury home anywhere in California for each and every family who lives in that apartment building. So why haven’t they just pushed it over the edge yet; and moved those people elsewhere. Calamities occur all over the place all the time, and that sin’t going to change; and it is only significant to the people it happens to. Most sentient beings gladly move out of the way of obviously impending doom. King Canute was of a different mind.

  210. “”” Jeff Brown (16:03:40) :

    George E. Smith (14:53:43) :

    I’m not responsible for the debate, I simply heard about it. I think what would be good for everyone on both sides is a real debate between the experts on both sides w/o name calling, putt-downs, etc. A real debate on the facts and let each side question each other’s conclusions from those facts. In fact I haven’t seen anything here yet that shows facts that oppose the GHG theory. I am very interested in those, so please if anyone has any, or links to any, please post them! thanQ

    14

    04

    2010
    Jeff Brown (16:10:39) :

    George E. Smith (15:09:44) :

    Sorry George, I find it hard to follow your logic here. Why did you get into units? I’m an engineer in my education and we only use the metric system. But more importantly what does that have to do with the issue?

    The earth’s orbit has not changed substantially from 1850 to today to cause the observed warming. Where did you read that? These orbital variations take 10,000 to 100,000 to 1,00,000 years to occur, so they are not responsible for the last 150 years.

    I’m sure you understand the concept of forcing. But here’s a definition for you:

    The Earth’s climate changes when the amount of energy stored by the climate system is varied. The most significant changes occur when the global energy balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth is upset. There are a number of natural mechanisms that can upset this balance, for example fluctuations in the Earth’s orbit, variations in ocean circulation and changes in the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere.”

    We do see today that there are changes in the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere and would you argue that we haven’t put a bunch of gases into the atmosphere during the industrial revolution? These gases do alter the
    Iglobal energy balance, and this mechanism “forces” the climate to change. “””

    Well as I have posted somewhere around here; there actually will be an opportunity for such a dialog next month in Chicago; it’s no secret; anyone can sign up and go and join in the debate; they did it last year and the year before at least (in other cities; maybe New York) and I do know that all of the prominent AGW promoters were invited to participate.

    As to “shows facts that oppose the GHG theory. ” ; well that might be because almost nobody; and certainly nobody I know, actually opposes the GHG theory. I certainly believe it; even though “real greenhouses” don’t work that way; we all know what those letters mean, and how GHGs work.

    But some of us don’t see the point in limiting the discussion of GHGs and how they work to just CO2; or even to CO2 plus methane; or plus Ozone; or plus nitrogen oxides. Why not include ALL GHGs; well the ones we know of that are prominent and permanent in the Earth’s atmosphere.

    Like H2O for example; specially H2O, because humans put more of that into the atmospehre than we do CO2; so it probably is an important one to include. H2O is a bit more complicated than CO2 of course; for one thing theres megatonnes more of it; on average about 1% of the total molecules in the atmosphere; which is 25 times how much CO2 there is.

    And scientists don’t disagree on how much energy H2O captures either from the sun or from the earth; and it is very much more than CO2 captures.
    In some locations H2O captures perhaps as much as 20% of the energy coming in there from the sun; and CO2 certainly doesn’t do anything like that. And when it comes to capturing energy emitted fromt he earth; well H2O does far more of that than CO2 does too; and people don’t argue too much about those figures; they are all just green house gases anyway; so we know how that happens. Another complication of H2O vis-a-vis CO2 is that only H2O exists in the atmosphere permanently in all three phases of normal matter (absent plasma). Those three phases of atmospheric H2O behave quite differently; since two of them create optically blocking clouds.

    Perhaps you as an engineer have observed it to warm up when a cloud passes between you and the sun; and then cool down again after the cloud moves out of the way. If you have; you may be the only person on the planet who ever has. I actually heard from a scientist who said that happened to him ; or maybe it was somebody he knew and trusted. But actually it turned out it never happened. It was in the high arctic; so the sun was down on the horizon. the cloud in question did not actually move in between him and the sun and warm him up; it actually moved in over his head; and was nowhere near the sun or in the optical path to the sun. He never did mention the large mass of warm air that moved in over him along with the cloud; that was what wrmed him up, and not a cloud moving between him and the sun. So if you have experienced such warming; then you are the first.

    Well you see, that CO2 and ozone, and methane don’t form clouds on earth, and don’t visually block the sun; and the H2O clouds that do, make the earth surface colder; always; because they stop a lot of solar energy from reaching the ground.

    Now this of course has nothing whatsoever to do with GHG theory; which most of us do believe in; but unfortunately, a lot of people who do beleive in GHG theroy like we do; don’t believe in anything else like clouds blocking the sun.

    Why don’t you; as an engineer, contemplate what would happen here on earth; if somehow you suddenly removed every single last molecule of H2O from earth’s atmosphere. Just drop them down from where they are either as more ice and snow, if that is below, or more ocean water, or just soak the ground. Now think about what will happen next.

    And then just for contrast, instead of getting rid of all the atmospheric H2O molecules; why not imagine suddenly putting H2O clouds everywhere from Pole to pole, and from the ground up to 50,000 feet; well lets make it up to 20 Km since you say you use the metric system. To make these more realistic, you can in the first case assume that the entire surface of the earth suddenly has a Temperature of zero deg C; unless it is already below that; in which case leave it where it is; and in the second case, you can have every place on or above the surface suddenly have a temperature of +50 deg c, unless it is already higher than that; then leave it alone.

    So there you have it Jeff; two easily described thoroughly tipped climate situations. So what do you think; as an engineer will happen next in each of those two situations. since these are just hypothetical descriptions of what in both cases might be a quite uninhabitable planet; we will just not worry about what if anything might happen to life forms; lets just think about what happens to the climate; and see where that leads us.

    Should be quite easy for an engineer to figure out; I didn’t have any problem as a scientist, in figuring out what happens.

    And as to those units; I was merely musing as to why it is that climatologists; or climate scientists; which ever they prefer; seem to invent their own units like forcings and anomalies and climate sensitivities, and other trappings; when the normal language of physics and chemistry even biology should be adequate as they are in most other sciences. That’s the only reason why I mentioned units.

    When one is trying to obfuscate; inventing gobbledegook terms is a standard of the play book.

  211. “”” Jeff Brown (16:10:39) :

    George E. Smith (15:09:44) “””

    As to the earth orbit changing since 1850; where did YOU read that it hasn’t. We know it has; some people such as Leif could probably tell you exactly how much; and yes I’m sure it isn’t much; but then earth’s temperature hasn’t changed much either; but there we don’t really have a good idea how much; since we have no possible method of measuring the surface temperature of the earth; no matter how we choose to define that temperature; such as the surface boundary between atmosphere and non-atmosphere; of 60 cm altitude abobe that surface in the atmospehre or however you want to define it; we have no method of knowing what it was in 1850 or at zero hours GMT July-4th 2000, or even today; so how could we possibly know how much it has changed out of a possible known temperature range of 150 deg C from coldest to hottest (at different places; with perhaps that whole range simultaneously present ( most of it anyway).

    Your defintition of Forcing was very illuminating; certainly the most elaborate definition of any physical quantity I have ever encountered.

    Of course earth is; and has never been, in equilibrium or even any state remotely approaching equilibrium; neither a static nor a dynamic equilibrium or even a steady state. Such conditions never have occurred on earth; so the “energy balance” you described; never exists; even for a moment; which renders the concept of “Forcings” somewhat academic.

  212. Ibrahim (14:02:45):

    “explain please”

    I’ve been out for a few hours, and I’m just catching up on these comments. Yours first:

    To begin, skeptics have nothing to “explain.” The null hypothesis of natural climate variability has never been falsified.

    But to help Jeff learn something from the “Best Science” site, here is why I’m skeptical of the data that GISS [and NOAA] massages, and then feeds to the public:

    click1 [blink gifs take a while to load]
    click2
    click3
    click4
    click5

    Notice on these blink gifs that GISS alters the raw data. Note especially “click5.” You can plainly see the “raw” historical data changes from one month to another.

    If anyone can’t figure out what’s going on, it’s this: GISS is altering the raw data to show higher temperatures, or a steeper and more alarming warming trend, or both.

    In other words, James Hansen, head of GISS, is deliberately misrepresenting the U.S. temperature record.

  213. George, with all due respect, how are anomalies a new language? It is simply a deviation from the mean. And why is forcings a new unit? It is something that causes a system to change, it has no units. It’s like when a body of motion stays in that trajectory until a force causes it to change. And how is climate sensitivity a unit? It’s not a unit, except if you want to measure a climate sensitivity in terms of W m-2 or deg C. So units are not the same thing as these “climate” terms. Climate science is actually based in physics, the laws of thermodynamic, the laws of radiative transfer, the laws of electromagnetic theory, the laws of conversation of mass. These are the physics laws that govern climate science. I suppose if you wanted to you could also add the laws of human responses, since that will complicate the climate as well.

    I’m glad you don’t dispute that GHGs are warming the planet. So we agree on one point. And I don’t think scientists disagree with the importance of water vapor. In fact a recent Science paper by Solomon showed how the last decade decrease in stratospheric water vapor actually helped to cool the planet. Of course I’m sure you understand that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, which could enhance the warming through its absorption of infrared radiation. It could also affect the formation of clouds, which can be a cooling or a warming influence depending on their height in the atmosphere, their composition (water or ice) and over what surfaces they exist (bright, high albedo or dark, low albedo). Now you’re actually getting at where the debate currently lies, the real uncertainties in climate science. For a nice discussion on this, why don’t you read: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/463284a.html.

  214. jeff brown (17:52:23) :

    …why is forcings a new unit? It is something that causes a system to change, it has no units…

    You should really listen to George E. Smith, who knows what he’s talking about. George makes a valid point about units of forcings. A forcing should be quantified.

    The problem now is that anyone can assign a vague amount of forcing to the climate. The IPCC routinely assigns a higher forcing to CO2 than the planet itself exhibits. If the IPCC was correct, we would see significantly higher temperatures than what we observe.

    I’m not trying to start an argument over this, I’m simply pointing out that climate “science” is not very scientific, like meteorology, geology, chemistry, etc. It is more akin to economics or sociology at this point. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a degree in “climate studies” offered.

    Nine out of the last 12 posts above are yours. If you want to get up to speed, I would suggest reading the WUWT archives instead of arguing incessantly, because everything you mention in this thread has been hashed over and answered before.

    In your studying, you should keep in mind what Climatologist Roy Spencer says: “No one has falsified the theory that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”

    Dr Spencer is stating the null hypothesis: climate variability fully explains the current climate. If you can credibly falsify that, your name will be in the history books.

    But while trying, keep in mind Occam’s Razor: Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
    ~ William of Ockham [1285-1349]

    Unnecessarily adding an entity like CO2 to the explanation of natural climate variability enriches certain people and organizations at the expense of the rest of us. But it doesn’t make any difference to the climate, which is very benign currently, and well within its normal historical parameters. If CO2 has any effect, it is too small to measure, and thus inconsequential.

  215. Smokey (18:36:41)

    have you seen the figure here that shows the contribution of components in the radiative forcing (which does have a units of W m-2).

    http://www.greenfacts.org/en/climate-change-ar4/figtableboxes/figure-2.htm

    It shows the radiative impacts of CO2 (and the uncertainty) and the other GHGs as well as aerosols and black carbon.

    And when you add them all together you get the range of forcing which is less than that of CO2 alone, especially if you consider the range of uncertainties in that final estimate.

    I still haven’t seen you show any evidence that natural variability is responsible for the warming seen today. And the null hypothesis has been rejected in countless studies. I have read many of these scientific studies, I don’t base my education of the issues on the blogs, but actual readings of the scientific papers. Climate science is a physical science based on laws of physics. Any study that states linkages based on statistical correlations misses the point, because correlation does not prove cause and effect. Physics does, and those are the science papers worth reading and they have shown GHGs to be warming the planet. And in fact you have folks here like Steve Goddard who say in this blog that temperature responds linearly to CO2. So if you believe that, then you can imagine how much more this planet will warm under future increases in GHGs. But that neglects all the feedback processes such as Arctic amplification, terrestrial carbon feedbacks, ocean and atmospheric circulation feedbacks, cloud feedbacks, etc.

    The real truth is that we don’t know what is going to happen (except that GHGs are going to continue to increase). Scientists can use models to try to model various components and their feedbacks, but they are still imperfect. I suggest you read the Nature article on the REAL HOLES IN CLIMATE SCIENCE.

  216. jeff brown (20:23:05),

    Well, I tried to guide you in the general direction of knowledge, rather than back to the RealClimate echo chamber run by Hansen acolytes — who would not even allow comments like yours to be posted, if the tables were turned. But here at the Best Science site, we try to help educate. You say:

    “I still haven’t seen you show any evidence that natural variability is responsible for the warming seen today.”

    The evidence is in the historical climate record: click.

    It is up to you to falsify the null hypothesis. So far, you and every other alarmist has failed. There has been no unusual climate change, despite your arm-waving. The climate is well within its long-term parameters: click

    So who should we believe? You? Or planet Earth?

    But since you claim to have read countless papers on the subject, and therefore no doubt qualify as an expert, please provide testable, reproducible, empirical evidence showing that the apparently normal and natural fluctuations in the climate are instead the result of human emissions of a minor trace gas, and not from numerous other factors such as the AMO, the PDO, orbital changes, solar influence, changes in cloud cover, etc.

    Remember, it is your duty, as a skeptic of the null hypothesis, to falsify it – just as the skeptics [and the planet itself] of the CO2=CAGW hypothesis have repeatedly falsified that particular hypothesis: as CO2 has increased, the planet has failed to get unusually hot as predicted: click

    Be sure and include all the raw temperature data and the methodologies that were used in your response.

    Otherwise, it is just chin music.

  217. Smokey (21:05:14) :

    the last decade saw stratospheric water vapor decrease which led to a cooling (see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/327/5970/1219).

    and like I said before, the climate forcing that caused the planet to be warmer in the past was due to orbital variations. that is NOT the factor today. Please…read some of the studies.

    Since you asked. here are some papers for you to read:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/453296a.html

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123310513/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo338.html

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/a706m430k8h35g26/

    http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=91

    As for temperature data, lets see, air temperatures (from stations and satellites), land surface temperatures, ocean surface temperatures, ocean deep water temperatures all show increases since their measurement period began. But if you don’t want to believe all these independent sources, then you can go to the fact that glaciers are retreating worldwide, permafrost temperatures are thawing, ice sheets are showing more melt, sea ice in the Arctic is retreating, the tree line is moving further north. Hmmm…these all suggest warming as well. Are you now disputing that the earth has been warming these last 150 years?

  218. jeff brown (11:13:22) :

    Smokey…the more recent results on Antarctica actually show warming everywhere in Antarctica. See the Nature paper by Steig et al.

    Do you imagine we’re unaware of it? Here are WUWT threads critiquing Steig’s article, in date order. Asterisked threads are the most important ones:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming-an-evolution-of-viewpoint/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/22/antarctic-warming-part-2-a-letter-from-a-meteorologist-on-the-ground-in-antarctica/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/04/snow-job-in-antarctica-digging-out-the-data-source/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/15/redoing-steig-et-al-with-simple-data-regrouping-gives-half-the-warming-result-in-antarctica/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/28/steigs-antarctic-heartburn/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/12/a-challenge-to-steig-et-al-on-antarctic-warming/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/18/what-happens-when-you-divide-antarctica-into-two-distinct-climate-zones/

    * http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/20/steig-et-al-antarctica-warming-paper-process-is-finally-replicated-and-dealt-a-blow-to-robustness/
    (“A central prerequisite point to this is that Steig flatly refused to provide all of the code needed to fully replicate his work in MatLab and RegEM, and has so far refused requests for it.”
    Say, I wonder if the recent statements by scientific societies re the Jones case that such data withholding can’t be justified can be used to shake the code loose from Steig?)

    ** http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/29/steig-et-al-falsified/

    * http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/07/steigs-antarctic-peninsula-pac-mann/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/06/the-climate-science-credit-crunch/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/04/dmi-arctic-temperature-data-animation-doesnt-support-claims-of-recent-arctic-warming/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/20/antarctica-warming-ice-melting-not/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/13/frigid-folly-uhi-siting-issues-and-adjustments-in-antarctic-ghcn-data/

  219. Jeff Brown:

    What I think you fail to understand is that climate does not change without a forcing acting on it. … So when you point to the natural variability plots from say Vostok, that doesn’t mean anything to me. … What we need to get at is: what are the forcing mechanisms responsible for the changes we are seeing today?

    But that assumes the earth isn’t a “chaotic” system with a built-in unpredictable thermostat that can regulate its temperature independent of forcings. Here’s a quote, one of several I’ve seen on this site, that makes this point:

    Crispin in Waterloo (07:18:56) :

    From Richard Holle
    “”It is important to remember that climate model outputs are always projections and never predictions; we can use them to anticipate general trends, but never to foretell the exact temperature or precipitation at a particular place and time.””

    “They have done what I do by generating detail in the fine scale by using fine detailed input.”

    Bucky Fuller’s magnum opus, Synergetics, starts out with this definition:
    “Synergy means behaviour of whole systems unpredicted by the behaviour of their parts taken separately.” (Synergetics 101.01)

    It seems to me a great deal of the ‘climate projection’ work is based on a belief that whole systems do /not/ behave differently from their constituent parts. How many times have we heard that “CO2 trapped in a an irradiated bottle heats up”? As if a tiny closed system is somehow representive of a complex open system. I have always been mystified at excessive simplicity like this. Such an experiment basically makes a claim implicit in finite element analysis: if we understand everything from First Principles, we can predict complex system behaviour. Fuller’s point is that entirely new behaviours emerge. This is hardly news.

    Much of the climate debate seems to be between people of two approximately definable world views: they largely accept or reject synergistic behaviours. This prediction of the spring thaw in 80 years falls into the latter category.

    Lip service acceptance of synergy often precedes a claim for a First Principles argument without a twitch of the eyebrow!

  220. @Jeff Brown:

    Graph of ice-core data:-

    Look at the last 10,000 years Jeff. That graph is going up and down by as much as 4Celsius. And remember that these ice-cores are in segments 500years wide, so the climate change they measure is smoothed out over a 500 year period. This means that the real climate variation is much greater than this smoothing would suggest.

    So who caused that Jeff? Your blessed orbital variations? I think not.

  221. @Steven goddard:

    “It is just a technology problem. Sooner or later it will get solved.”

    Fine. So think of it this way. JET is the most successful fusion project to date. So far it has produce 70% less energy than it needs to run its plasma. Its follow-on ITER will be a lot bigger and more expensive. It is estimated it will produce 50% more energy than it uses to run its plasma – however, it still won’t produce net energy because the Q factor doesn’t include all the energy needed to run the torus. So it will actually use 10% more energy than it produces, even when running at full power. But this is where we will be at in 2020. So after 70 years of fusion research we will have a torus capable of 10 times less efficeint than would be sufficient for commerically viable fusion (although a close friend of mine that worked on JET claims that the scientists working on ITER know full well it will never lead to viable fusion technology and it is yet another scheme to get their hands on public research money).

    So you are right steven, sooner or later it might get solved (and if you believe that you will believe that mankind will one day visit distant galaxies too – as if all science problems could be solved with time). But I wouldn’t want to bet my future on it in my lifetime, or my kids lifetime.

  222. jeff brown (21:53:17),

    You constantly misrepresent my statements and similar statements of many others here.

    No one is saying, nor am I aware that anyone has said, that there is no global warming. The planet has been naturally warming, in fits and starts, since the LIA, and the last great Ice Age before that.

    The warming is normal, natural, and well within the historical parameters of the climate on all time scales. Further, the natural warming has nothing measurable to do with CO2, which rises following warming, and thus can not be the cause of global warming. The alarmist claim that CO2 is the climate’s primary driver has been repeatedly falsified. Any tiny effect from CO2 is so negligible that it can be completely disregarded.

    The climate naturally fluctuates. That is the null hypothesis. In order to falsify that hypothesis, you must provide empirical evidence showing that the climate is not within its historical parameters.

    You have failed to do so; the climate is acting according to natural variability, not as a result of human CO2 emissions — which are anyway only one molecule out of every 34+ emitted naturally.

    If the only way to score points is to misrepresent what has been repeatedly told to you here, it is no wonder that you’re getting no traction with your alarmist arguments.

  223. Ryan (03:32:25) :

    FYI Ryan, here are the Milankovitch orbital variations which operate on time-scale shown in Vosktok ice core record.

    Milankovitch Theory describes the collective effects of changes in the Earth’s movements upon its climate, named after Serbian civil engineer and mathematician Milutin Milanković. Milanković mathematically theorised that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth’s orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth.

    The Earth’s axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time, the elliptical orbit rotates, more slowly, leading to a 23,000-year cycle between the seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth’s rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit moves from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees and back again on a 41,000-year cycle; currently, this angle is 23.44 degrees and is decreasing.

  224. Smokey (06:19:04) :

    Smokey are you now saying that humans have not increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

    Let’s talk about that.

    Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm. I assume you agree on this point?

    Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks” in order for the CO2 levels to have gone up.

    The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.

    Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much – and are now soaking up slightly more.

    Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s. Disturbances to the land – through deforestation and agriculture, for instance – also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.

    About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.

    Fossil fuels also contain less carbon-13 than carbon-12, compared with the atmosphere, because the fuels derive from plants, which preferentially take up the more common carbon-12. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters is steadily falling, showing that more carbon-12 is entering the atmosphere.

    Finally, claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true. In the very distant past, there have been volcanic eruptions so massive that they covered vast areas in lava more than a kilometre thick and appear to have released enough CO2 to warm the planet after the initial cooling caused by the dust. But even with such gigantic eruptions, most of subsequent warming may have been due to methane released when lava heated coal deposits, rather than from CO2 from the volcanoes. Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year – about a hundredth of human emissions.

    Of course, like you said the human CO2 emissions are small relative to the natural ones, the issue comes to where that extra CO2 is being absorbed (which it doesn’t appear to be as CO2 continues to rise and measurements are not showing more natural emissions). I do not see where I have said one alarmist comment in my post. I simply want to debate the facts, and get down to the basis for disagreement.

    As for the null hypothesis, how about you try to prove the null hypothesis that humans are not in part responsible for the warming observed today. Can you do that?

    And that gets to a more fundamental question I’ve always had, do you not think going from 1 billion to nearly 7 billion people on this planet in 150 years has not had some sort of environmental impact? Look at how much the surface of the planet has changed. What if you went from 1 to 7 billion elephants, do you think you would see an environmental impact? To think humans are not affecting this planet is very naiive.

  225. Smokey, I don’t believe I have read a single science paper that states CO2 is primarily responsible for the changes being observed today.

    Can you provide evidence of the natural variability that is causing the warming you believe IS happening today? I know how much the sun contributes (10%) (many studies have been written on this). What are the other sources of natural variability responsible for the last 150 years? I am genuinely interested, so please point me in the right direction.

  226. jeff brown (06:56:22),

    My current hypothesis is that you live in your mom’s basement, since you seem to post here around the clock, 24/7. Falsify that, if you can.

    You asked to be pointed in the right direction. I think you just want to argue, but if not, start here: click

    Once again, you have the scientific method exactly backwards. It is the alarming hypothesis that human emitted CO2 will lead to climate catastrophe that must withstand falsification. For the umpteenth time: skeptics have nothing to prove. Yet you constantly demand it from scientific skeptics of the CAGW hypothesis. Instead, why don’t you use your energy demanding that Phil Jones, Michael Mann and the motley CRU produce the data and methods they used to concoct their CAGW hypothesis?

    The null hypothesis, which states that the climate is acting normally and naturally within defined parameters, as it always has, is the default scientific skeptics’ position. It is the long held theory of natural climate variability. Falsify it, if you can. Keep in mind that Michael Mann’s Hokey Stick has been repeatedly debunked, and that there is voluminous evidence of the MWP and the LIA, despite Mann claiming that they didn’t happen: click

    The new CO2=CAGW hypothesis has now been reduced to a conjecture, due to the fact that the raw data upon which it is purportedly based has been “lost,” or has been so “adjusted” and re-adjusted that the original data is unrecoverable, or in the flagrant case of Wei-Chyung Wang, the data he used is in the head of someone residing deep in mainland China, who he says remembers the specific data from dozens of weather stations taken nineteen years ago.

    The promoters of the AGW scheme willfully refuse to share their raw data and their computer codes, algorithms and methods with skeptics, therefore CAGW cannot be tested, replicated or falsified. That is why it is now a baseless conjecture. Yet those same climate connivers share their data with their pals who are in on the scam, making their ad hoc excuses for not opening their methods to scrutiny nothing but lies.

    When the preposterous claim is made that the minuscule amount of CO2 emitted by humans will lead to runaway global warming, it does no good to parrot what those who stand to gain by their claims say. What matters is whether the scientific method was used to advance those claims. The answer is obvious: the scientific method is either ignored, or it is turned on its head and the questioning skeptics are made the ones who must prove something.

    That being the case, what is claimed is not science, but pseudo-science; science fiction. It cannot be proved without testing and validation, which requires transparency. Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies:

    That which is true is provable.
    That which is not provable is false.
    All unprovable assertions are self contradictory.

    Without the raw data and methods, CO2=CAGW is unprovable either way. So you can arm-wave about “huge” gigatons of CO2 [when we know that 'huge' amounts to only a tiny fraction of 0.00039 of the atmosphere], and you can get as wild-eyed like any Malthusian about the population, and you can insist that scientific skeptics prove a negative by demanding they must explain all sources of natural variability, and argue about with like sophism about what constitutes the alarmist argument. But it is meaningless regarding science, because it does not follow the scientific method.

    The promoters of CO2=CAGW refuse to disclose their raw data, methods and code because they know their hypothesis would be promptly falsified, and that the enormous funding they have already received has been wasted due to their negligent record keeping. So they take the only path open to them, and like Al Gore running from questions, they run from having to provide the methods required to replicate their claimed results.

    You can get away with turning the scientific method on its head at alarmist blogs like realclimate, climate progress, tamino and the rest of the AGW propaganda blogs, which, BTW, would not allow me to point out the problems that I’ve pointed out here. Because censorship of posts questioning AGW is policy at alarmist blogs. I know from personal experience. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

    Here on the internet’s “Best Science” site, you don’t get censored. But when you deviate from the scientific method, you’re going to be called on it.

    Provide all the information required to test your pet conjecture as a starting point, if you can. Include the raw data and code; the algorithms and methodologies of the secretive scientists who refuse to follow the scientific method. Then we can scrutinize how it was arrived at, and determine whether it is valid.

    In the mean time, the great thing about your mom’s basement is you don’t have to pay rent. Does she still do your laundry?

  227. Smokey, why resort to personal attacks? Is that because you fear you are losing the debate and you don’t know what else to do?

    I am simply asking you to prove your point, and you have failed to do that. Lindzen’s scientific results have been disproven in many papers, perhaps you should read the latest by Trenberth.

    I thought from your previous statements that you believe the Earth is warming, yet you continue to want to bring up the temperature records. Why? You easily believe the ice core records yet you don’t want to believe modern thermometers? And have you closely looked at the ice core record in relation to orbital variations and CO2 and have you noticed the Earth has already done the warming it “normally” does between ice ages, and that it is now warming on top of that?

    Honestly, since you cannot help but resort to personal attacks as your line of defense, there is no point to continue to debate you until you are willing to have a rational debate w/o getting emotional.

  228. jeff brown (10:19:08),

    Well, if it stops your incessant posting and misrepresenting the situation, then do you think your mom might be willing to do an extra load of laundry for me?

  229. “”” jeff brown (06:50:38) :

    Smokey (06:19:04) :

    Smokey are you now saying that humans have not increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

    Let’s talk about that.
    ……
    How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.

    Fossil fuels also contain less carbon-13 than carbon-12, compared with the atmosphere, because the fuels derive from plants, which preferentially take up the more common carbon-12. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters is steadily falling, showing that more carbon-12 is entering the atmosphere. “””

    Lots of interesting conclusions there Jeff. Also a lot of interesting numbers; thanks for posting those; a lot of these numbers are a nuisance to dig out.

    But back to those conclusions. The Carbon 14 signature for example. So what was so special about 1850 that makes it a year to start this down trend in 14C. It was in the middle of a short respite in the cold period that was launched by the Dalton Minimum in solar activity. There were three out of four sunspot peaks that were in the 130 range, but the rest of them from about 1803 to 1930 were decidedly low, and then commenced the climb up to the highest ever sunspot peak of the 1957/8 IGY, which was timed to conincide with that solar peak. (nobody knew it was going to turn out the historical all time high, and higher than normal numbers would persist right up to the cycle 22 peak. And that as you know was a period of “global warming”.

    But if the low sunspot peaks of that period from 1800 to 1930 which was a cold period; were indicative of lower Cosmic Ray flux on earth; as would be postulated by the Svensmark mechanism, of cloud modulation; then that would also explain a falling 14C production rate in earth atmosphere.

    So even without the atom bomb pollution 14C is not necessarily a good proxy for fossil fuel burning.

    As to the 13C/12C ratio; I would expect to see the same atmospheric CO2 release from burning wood as from burning fossil fuels specially coal. Is there actually any isotopic proof, that petroleum is actually a fossil fuel; rather than simply a liquid rock.

    But let’s accept your statement that burning fossil fuels; principally coal, results in emission to the atmosphere of CO2 depleted in 13C. Even I can accept that.

    Now consider what would happen, if somebody discovered a “Noble” Coal deposit; Noble in the sense, that for some unexplained reason, this coal deposit, was found to contain a significant amount of entrapped Argon gas, in nano pockets in the coal; fancy that !
    So now we start to mine and burn this Noble coal, and it’s too expensive to try crushing it, enough to recover the Argon; so we simply burn the coal for energy, and let the Argon escape to the atmosphere.

    So now we would expect that the fraction of Argon in the atmosphere, would suddenly start to increase, over normal levels; not because we are suddenly burning more coal; we might actually be burning less; but we are now burning a coal that is rich in Argon.

    The increase in atmospheric Argon would not be a signature of burning more coal; simply that we are now burning a type of coal that is different composition.

    Well the same thing is true of the 13C/12C ratio. The increase in 12C; or the relative decrease in 13C, is certainly an indicator that we are burning a source of carbon that is 13C depleted; like wood for example of evn fossil fuels. It isn’t necessarily evidence that the increase in total atmospheric 12C is evidence that the source is fossil fuels; just as an increase in Argonm, would not be evidence of burning more coal; just of burning “Noble” coal.

    And I would point out once again, that we are just 800 years delayed from the mediaeval warm period, when earth’s temperatures were hotter than they are now. (see the story now posted above); so it certainly is time for increased CO2 to be showing up from the natural variability.

    But in any case; all of this is somewhat academic; because there isn’t any evidence that it is the atmospheric CO2 that was responsible for the recent period of warmer temperatures that ended 15 years ago. Water has far more influence on earth temperatures than CO2 ever has had or could.

  230. “”” jeff brown (06:56:22) :

    Smokey, I don’t believe I have read a single science paper that states CO2 is primarily responsible for the changes being observed today.

    Can you provide evidence of the natural variability that is causing the warming you believe IS happening today? I know how much the sun contributes (10%) (many studies have been written on this). What are the other sources of natural variability responsible for the last 150 years? I am genuinely interested, so please point me in the right direction. “””

    That is a very detailed piece of scientific information Jeff; specially compared to your usual posts that lack any detail:- “”” I know how much the sun contributes (10%) “””

    Let’s disect that mine of information point by point. Satellite studies over about three full 11 year sunspot cycles show that TSI which averages about 1366 W/m^2 varies cyclically by about 0.1% p-p. Purely on Black Body radiation theory, that would mean a 0.025% change in earth’s temperature; and 0.025% of 288 K is about 0.072 deg C. So if that is 10% of the warming which had occurred; but has now stopped; that would mean a warming of 0.72 deg C. Well so your 10% is not a bad result; but so far that is only the TSI effect of the sun; and you have already used up your 10%. But you said you know the sun contributes only 10% of the warming (yes I know those weren’t your exact words); so I infer from that, that you don’t think the sun affects earth climate in any other way, than simply TSI and black body theory.

    Wow, I find all sorts of literature about other earth climate- solar links; I would have thought you must have seen some of them.

    Well of course there’s Svensmark; widely publicised today; with a not insignificant sympathetic following.

    I could recommend to you the book; “The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection.” authored by Dr Willie Wei-Hock Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for AstroPhysics (the sun IS a star), and his (presumably) ghost writer Steven H. Yaskell, Published by World Scientific in Singapore. Dr Soon goes into great detail about other sun/earth interraction besides mere TSI, which is why I was amazed that your list of solar effects doesn’t extend beyong TSI; unless you want to raise that 10% estimate of the total solar effect to allow room for other solar contributions to warming.

  231. Fred H. Haynie (11:11:58),

    I’ve read your excellent presentation several times, and posted it too. Highly recommended.

    I would prefer to see jeff brown give his response here, where we can all see it.

  232. jeff brown (06:50:38) :
    “As for the null hypothesis, how about you try to prove the null hypothesis that humans are not in part responsible for the warming observed today. Can you do that?”

    I doubt whether any scientist who knows what he is doing nowadays attempts to “prove” a hypothesis.

    “And that gets to a more fundamental question I’ve always had, do you not think going from 1 billion to nearly 7 billion people on this planet in 150 years has not had some sort of environmental impact? Look at how much the surface of the planet has changed. What if you went from 1 to 7 billion elephants, do you think you would see an environmental impact? To think humans are not affecting this planet is very naiive.”

    I understand your concern and commitment. Actually I suspect many contributors to this site care very much about environmental issues, overpopulation, the use of irreplaceable resources and the future of the planet. However, they make a distinction between these important points and the question of climate changes and their causes.

  233. Fred H. Haynie (11:11:58) :

    Fred, statistics such CO2 and sea ice extent correlating does not say sea ice extent causes CO2 variability, nor does it say that CO2 variability causes sea ice extent variability. And scientists wouldn’t get very far if they base their conclusions on the climate system using such elementary evaluations. Earlier someone quoted the Ogi et al. paper on winds affecting the ice cover. They state a 30% correlation between winds and summer ice extent. Well, another correlation between 925 mbar air temperatures and summer sea ice extent explain the other 70%. So should that mean 70% is due to air and 30% is due to wind? Of course not. Statistics never have and never will show causality!! They may highlight linkages to be investigated with physical models, but that is it.

    If knew how to attach a PDF here, I would share with you my results that address the climate system and where the key uncertainties actually lie in the field.

    But since I don’t know if this site makes that option available, I will say that if you read the scientific journals on the subject, you will find that attribution of changes observed today require the inclusion of anthropogenic causes. Natural forcings alone have been insufficient to explain the observed changes. I will repeat: Only when you include anthropogenic effects can you adequately account for the observed record of temperature changes.

    What is more interesting to me, is the question of how much the Earth will warm in the future given the fact that humans are going to continue to put more GHGs into the atmosphere (which will warm the atmosphere further, and allow the atmosphere to hold more water vapor which has been shown in a 2008 study by Climatic Dynamics to be the main cause (water vapor that is) for the increases observed in land surface temperatures).

    To know how much the Earth will warm in the future then requires detailed assessments of all the uncertainties in predictions. There have been a number of studies looking into the radiative effect of different forcings, including GHGs, aerosols, water vapor, solar irradiance, surface albedo changes from land use, volcanic eruptions, etc. There remains a lot of uncertainties in many of these, and some simply are not known. So the real issue is not whether or not the planet is warming, or whether or not GHGs cause warming (if you trap a bunch of GHGs in an atmosphere, they will cause warming…that is elementary physics and radiative transfer), but how all the feedbacks will manifest and what sort of self-regulating responses may kick in (such as more clouds in locations where clouds may cause a cooling, more snow fall, etc.).

    Consider the energy balance equation for the global mean surface temperature dT:

    cpdT(t)/dt = F(t) – ldT(t) – phi(Kv)

    where cpdT(t)/dt = the change in global mean heat content
    F(t) = future forcings
    lT(t) = Net feedbaks, l=1/S
    phi(Kv) = flux of heat into deep ocean

    This is a good framework for organizing where the uncertatiny exists.
    However in practice for state-of-the art models, each uncertainty is an aggregate quantity and cannot be identified with any one specific model component of process.

    Play around with this for a while and see what you get.

  234. George E. Smith (10:54:15) :

    George, I know all about orbital variations and their affects on the incoming solar distribution on Earth and how this affects our temperatures. What I am saying is that trends in solar variability over the modern observational record (not paleoclimate records) indicate that the sun’s variability explains less than 10% of the observed warming. And there are some scientists arguing that solar variability such as seen during the 11-year cycle really have no effect. There are two camps right now in solar physics as to the temperature effects of the solar variability (not the Earth’s orbital variations–they are two separate things since the sun’s variability more or less stays the same even as the Earths orbit changes).

    BTW…here’s a study you may be interested in reading (Compo et al., 2008 in Climate Dynamics). In fact I think you’ll like it.
    I include the abstract below:

    Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.

  235. One of the strongest indicators of man-made global warming is a warming lower atmosphere (troposphere) and a cooling upper atmosphere (stratosphere). Greenhouse gas emissions are very effective at trapping the outgoing IR radiation. As these greenhouse gases increase, more heat will be trapped in the troposphere which means there will be less incoming heat into the stratosphere above. Furthermore, the greenhouse gases in the stratosphere will still be very effective at emitting their heat into the regions above. The net effect is that the stratosphere will be emitting more heat upward than it receives from below resulting in a cooler stratosphere.

    For more information see: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/greenhouse_gases.html#stratospheric_cooling

  236. Fred H. Haynie (11:11:58),

    Fred, I didn’t see your email, but I would like to email so please post it if possible, thanks

  237. jeff brown (16:38:57),

    First, let me thank you for your singular efforts in ratcheting up the hit counts for WUWT. I don’t know how you have the time to sleep. You haven’t convinced anyone, but keep it up! Anthony wants us to stay #1.

    And before I move on to the deconstruction, I noticed on another site that a statistician has debunked Scott Mandia, showing there is no statistical evidence that CO2 causes global warming. But I digress.

    [Note: you can link to a pdf file, no problem. So that's out of the way. Do it like Fred Haynie did.]

    Next, you state:

    …you will find that attribution of changes observed today require the inclusion of anthropogenic causes. Natural forcings alone have been insufficient to explain the observed changes. I will repeat: Only when you include anthropogenic effects can you adequately account for the observed record of temperature changes.

    This is where your argument fails.

    You are engaging in an argumentum ad ignorantiam: the fallacy of assuming that something is true, simply because it hasn’t been proven false.

    Just because you are unable to explain global warming, that does not ipso facto mean that the cause must be anthropogenic, as you state.

    As a matter of fact, natural climate variability has been within certain defined parameters during the past ten thousand years [or any time scale, for that matter], and today’s climate is well within those parameters. Human emissions are not needed to explain the climate, and by stating that our emissions are the only possible explanation – simply because you can’t think of another one – renders your argument pretty much a desperate attempt to rescue your ad hoc cause.

    You don’t know the sum total of climate forcings, or their respective impacts, or even which is the most important. The most knowledgeable climate scientists readily admit they don’t have all those answers, so you’re already going down the wrong fork in the road by insisting that you know the central cause. However, one thing is becoming very clear: CO2 is, at most, a minor player.

    It is clear that your presumption is that temperatures can only be headed higher. Maybe, and maybe not. But you state categorically that the planet will continue warming, and that the cause is absolutely human emissions.

    Since your mind is already made up, you’re trying to convince the unconverted here to your religion of CAGW. This is seen in the gradual slide from the original, evil “carbon” as the cause of runaway global warming – what Fred Haynie was responding to – to other GHGs. One way or another, you are determined to place the blame for the planet’s natural climate fluctuations on human activity.

    So it is up to you to show us convincingly, by testable, reproducible, empirical measurements and methods, transparent to all scientists, that you are right. Remember that neither models nor opinions are empirical measurements. So far, you have been thoroughly unconvincing, except to yourself.

    You also conflated a rising population with the question of CO2 causing global warming, so why not move the goal posts once again? You are convinced that the cause must be human. First it was global cooling, then global warming, then anthropogenic global warming, then catastrophic AGW caused by CO2 emissions, and now the cause has once more moved just out of reach. What you can’t seem to understand is that CAGW is a financial play, not a climate crisis. The climate is very benign now, despite a one-third increase in CO2.

    When you understand what Prof Richard Feynman meant by cargo cult science, and that even proponents of a hypothesis must bend over backwards to falsify their own hypothesis, you will see that what you’re arguing isn’t science at all. It is only a belief system.

  238. Jeff Brown,

    I agree with you about the miss use of statistics and I mentioned that in my introduction. If you Google “Fred H. Haynie” you can find some of my publications, one of which is on the use of statistics in research. That paper has been published three times as a chapter in a handbook. Statistics is a tool that can be used to estimate the probability that some physical process is occuring and it should not be used to average out such effects. I know a good bit about physical and chemical processes and have published that knowledge in a variety of peer reviewed journals. I have done a lot of reviews for journals and was on the editorial board for one.

    You can find my e-mail address near the bottom of the home page of my website. http://www. kidswincom.net. I will gladly review your work and I welcome reviews of my work by anyone who wishes to spend some time to find the truth about AGW.

  239. jeff brown (16:44:58) :

    Heat is not trapped. On average, the amount of LW radiation leaving the atmosphere is equal to the amount of SW absorbed. That is the first law of thermodynamics.

  240. Smokey (18:30:23) :

    you continue to go back to your same point that something isn’t true simply because it hasn’t been proven false. Actually that’s the how mathematical theory and physics have worked for eons. I always found that interesting in my engineering education, something was true until someone later came along and proved it false.

    There are a number of attribution papers out there and I’ve pointed you to a few yet you seem reluctant to read those. Why not read those and dissect what is wrong with their studies? perhaps even do the analysis yourself so you can prove to yourself and others why those studies have reached the wrong conclusions? Why not go back and redo some of Lindzen’s work, others have and found they could not replicate his work. Spend the same amount of energy dissecting both sides of the issue so that you can build a solid foundation.

    Climate scientists have built a house of evidence supporting their conclusions that the warming observed today cannot be explained without including the observed record of atmospheric GHGs. Yet you continue to throw rocks at it. Why not build your own house of evidence that GHGs could in no way at all be responsible for any of the warming?

    I am confused as to what you actually believe since the message seems conflated in your posts. But I do get that many on this site believe the Earth has warmed over the last 150 years and that atmospheric GHGs have also increased over this time-period, and some, such as Steve Goddard who you respect also state that temperature varies linearly with GHGs. What is uncertain is how the system will respond in the future, what sort of feedbacks will help to regulate so the Earth doesn’t warm to the point where you can call it dangerous, etc. And on that subject I am in agreement, we don’t know. But that doesn’t mean I don’t believe we shouldn’t try to better understand the system so that we can know.

    Finally, I think everyone needs to be careful with statistics on both sides of the debate. I’ll give an example. Lot of a people are interested in predicting what will happen to the Arctic sea ice cover since it has important implications for oil and gas exploration and other marine activities in the Arctic. The amount of first-year ice in spring correlates very strongly (above 0.8) with the amount of ice left over in September. So on that basis, one could have assumed that 2008 would have seen less ice than 2007 since there was so much more first-year ice in spring in 2008. Yet when you detrend the data, you don’t have this strong correlation. It seems that summer circulation remains important in the evolution of the summer ice cover, which limits predictability. It’s like taking the plot of CO2 and sea ice extent and saying they are related to each other w/o first removing the seasonal cycle or the trend. It’s the actual physics of the system that matters. Furthermore, predictions based on historical conditions may also not work as the ice thins because the physics of the system actually change.

    Another example, SVD analysis between sea ice concentration and snow cover over land show strong correlations between the two fields. Does that mean more autumn snow over Siberia is expected when there is more open water in September? Theoretically you would think it’s possible, more open water means more latent and sensible heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere and more atmospheric precipitable water. And in fact if you download the NCEP Reanalysis fields, that is exactly what you find. Well, if you apply a cyclone tracking algorithm to the SLP and air temperature fields you find that the location of the cyclone associated precipitation is actually strongest in the Barents and Kara Seas, not over the regions where the sea ice shows the strongest trends, and is a result of lowering SLP fostering more frequent and more intense cyclones.

    It’s very easy to show correlation between two variables, it’s another thing to prove the physical mechanisms behind that correlation. And that is what science is trying to do.

  241. “”” jeff brown (16:38:57) :

    George E. Smith (10:54:15) :

    George, I know all about orbital variations and their affects on the incoming solar distribution on Earth and how this affects our temperatures. What I am saying is that trends in solar variability over the modern observational record (not paleoclimate records) indicate that the sun’s variability explains less than 10% of the observed warming. “””

    Jeff, you seem to be entirely missing the point I was evidently missing being able to make; and you missed it again abover.

    “”” indicate that the sun’s variability explains less than 10% of the observed warming. “””….””””” the sun’s variability “””””

    See those wrods; “the sun’s variability”

    The sun is “variable” in MANY different ways; and I don’t mean earth’s orbit variability.

    TSI is one source of “the sun’s variability”, the solar magnetic field is another source of “the sun’s variability”. The “shock wave” attending the sun’st ravels, is another.

    BUT just one of those sources of “the sun’s variability” namely TSI, is by itslef capable of explaining 10% of the about 0.72 deg C recent warming.

    so all of those other sun-earth connections BESIDES orbital changes may be contributing to the remaining 90% of the natural variability. Svensmark’s hypothesisi of a cosmic ray/cloud modulation effect is one such possible phenomenon.

    You kept saying the sun’s variability accounted for 10% instead of the sun’s TSI variability can account for 10%; all by itself. That was my entire point.

  242. “”” jeff brown (17:52:23) :

    George, with all due respect, how are anomalies a new language? It is simply a deviation from the mean. And why is forcings a new unit? It is something that causes a system to change, it has no units. It’s like when a body of motion stays in that trajectory until a force causes it to change. And how is climate sensitivity a unit? “””

    Well as to your last question Jeff; you asked the question; the same one I have been asking for ages.

    Numerous publications from IPCC reports, to Mann, Algore and so on, have stated that “Climate Sensitivity” is DEFINED as the change in the earth mean surface Temperature that results from a 2:1 change in the atmospheric abundance of CO2.
    I’m told the concept was invented or first defined by Dr Steven Schneider at Stanford; but I have yet been able to locate his original defining paper.

    Now if that is not a “Unit”, then I don’t know what a unit is. The IPCC asserts that its value (the size of that Unit) is about 3.0 deg C per doubling of CO2; well avidently +/- 50%, so it ranges from 1.5 deg C per doubling to 4.5 deg C per doubling; thereby establishing the mandatory 3:1 fudge factor that pervades all climate science.

    So let’s consider the Physics behind “Climate Sensitivity”. 1/ The earth surface radiates LWIR approximately like a black body; with a radiant emittance that varies with surface Temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship; E = sigma. T^4 Watts/m^2. Well, it seems that we have uncovereed a “forcing”. Well except that this one varies by about 11:1 over the full range of earth surface temperatures.
    2/ The CO2 molecules in the lower atmosphere absorb some of the LWIR photons emitted in 1/ above; those in the so-called CO2 15 micron absorption band (mostly).
    3/ Collisions with the ordinary atmospheric gas molecules, N2, O2, and Ar convey that energy as “heat” to the ordinary atmosphere, and hence raise the atmospheric temperature.
    4/ The ordinary atmospehre now slightly warmed continually emits LWIR radiation, essentially isotropically, at a rate, and with a thermal spectrum dependent on the Temperature of the atmosphere.
    5/ Some of that thermal emission from the atmosphere gets re-absorbed by other CO2 layers; while some of it returns to the surface, while some of it escapes to space. The emission/re-absorption process happensseveral or many times, before either escape to space or collision with the surface.

    The LWIR that returns from the atmosphere to the surface, adds to the surface energy and so reduces the cooling, or warms the surface whichever way you want to consider it.

    That is the CO2 process, basically. I am sure you can add conductive energy transfer to the mix.

    Now the energy absorbed by the CO2 to warm the atmosphere depends on how much energy is available (the surface emittance, and how much CO2 there is to absorb it; but that LWIR available, we now know is a function of the surface temperature; so it is NOT a constant energy wsource all over the earth. So now you have a problem of sampling over the entire earth to arrive at a global mean value. There’s no current way or system in place for doing that. The earth temperatures change wildly over about 150 deg C total range, so the range of surface LWIR emittance is more than an order of magnitude, and if the CO2 absorbed some constant fraction of that energy, the change in atmospheric temperature would vary substantially; and all of that would depend on where you measure, the surface temperature, the atmospheric temperature, and who knows what else.

    This is not painting for me a picture of a robust cause and effect phenomenon.

    And we haven’t even begun to consider in what ways the atmospheric system, might react to the changes that this process causes.

    Yet we claim that the warming and the CO2 are causally linked; and I haven’t even mentioned water vapor; which is about 25 times in abundance, more than CO2, and exhibits a much broader spectral absorption curve; not to mention the formation of clouds, which give the H2O additional atmospheric properties that neither CO2 nor any other GHG can match.

    Well the proof is in the pudding. The Temperature/CO2 data, don’t show any plausible cause and effect relationshsip, based on either recent measured values, nor ancient proxy estimates.

    As to “anomalies” In my dictionary, an anomaly is something that is out of place, and not doing what it is supposed to be doing. Nothing in earth’s climate is ever doing something it is not supposed to be doing. Gaia has a thermometer on every single atom or molecule on earth; so she knows exactly what each is doing and is supposed to be doing at any time.

    We try to match her laboratory results with a mere handful of thermometers.

    No wonder, we never get the right answer; whereas Gaia always does.

Comments are closed.