Guest post by Michael Lewis, Ph.D.
The current issue of the elitist “science” journal, Science, contains an article in its “Perspectives” section (not in the “Research” section): Earth’s hot past could be prologue to future climate | UCAR. Here’s a video from that page:
Author Jeffrey Kiehl, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), speculates on relationships between CO2 levels and average global surface temperature 30 million to 100 million years ago, and currently observed CO2 levels. To no one ‘s surprise, Kiehl assumes, without evidence, that atmospheric CO2 drives global average surface temperatures, and includes this bias in climate models, projecting an increase of atmospheric CO2 to 1,000 ppm by the end of the 21st Century, with temperatures soaring tens of degrees above the 20th Century average (whatever that means).
Since Science requires membership or hefty fees to access their publications, the average interested person cannot access the original article to verify the conclusions described in the “Perspectives” article.
However, it is clear from the tone of the article on the NCAR web site that this is ideologically driven publication, not scientific research. “If we don’t start seriously working toward a reduction of carbon emissions, we are putting our planet on a trajectory that the human species has never experienced,” says Kiehl. Thus government funded research is used to advance a political agenda.
The research cited in the article was funded by the National Science Foundation, which has a large Climate Change and Paleoclimate program. Researchers shopping for grant opportunities can go to the NSF web site and browse through the many funding programs, find one that fits and submit an application, or, as usually happens, many of them.
There’s nothing wrong with funding your favorite research with government grants. However, when that funding is used as a basis for political propaganda, such as advocating for political responses to climate change, a significant line has been crossed by the researcher, his or her employers and the funding agency itself. The researcher becomes a pawn in the interplay of government agencies, private research firms and economic interests, the science suffers from distorted interpretation and the public ends up with little or no understanding of the reality of the world around them.
Science must be conducted in the confines of the ivory tower, then released, naked and uninterpreted, into the clear light of day.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The only real comfort from all this, is that the more brazen the claims, the more outlandish the statements, the less the Public appears to belive them.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but ………………
defund all federal science programs and let evolution take its course. the current system is irrevocably corrupted.
Thi8s is as good a place as any to post my thoughts on the puzzling difference between long-term paleontological graphs of CO2 and temperature (which show no relationship) and the antarctic ice graphs, which have been posted on WUWT and which show a gorgeous correlation indeed. That correlation is a partial basis of opinions such as the one in this article.
Many here have commented on the antarctic graphs that the temperatures change around 6-800 years before the CO2 does. The explanation given is that temp changes cause/reduce CO2 outgassing from the oceans.
We have also seen here the annual graph of CO2 from Mauna Loa. This is steadily rising. Most believe that atmospheric CO2 is likewise steadily rising from fossil fuel emissions. The Mauna Loa graph has a very regular annual cycle of about the same magnitude every year. The explanation here is that land plants affect CO2 levels more than ocean flora do, there is much more land in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern, and CO2 drops in the summer while northern plants are growing and rises in the fall and winter when they die.
The antarctic graph has a sawtooth shape that is strikingly similar to that of the annual cycle. It seems likely that we are looking at similar celestial causes, whether mediated by oceans or not. The antarctic period is similarly regular, where the paleontological graphs are not.
The period of the antarctic graphs are said to be about 15 000 years. The cycle through the precession of the equinoxes is 26 000 years, but a half cycle would be about 13 000 years, which is a tolerable fit until the matter can be investigated in detail.
We can’t cool all of the people all of the time either.
But because of cyclical nature of things like summer and winter, we can at least cool all of the people some of the time!
On a contrary note, CNN has a story today about “This bizarre weather”, and didn’t mention the words Climate Change, AGW, or nothin! Color me flabbergasted! http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/13/forecaster-two-phenomena-responsible-for-worlds-bizarre-weather/?hpt=Sbin
“Science must be conducted in the confines of the ivory tower, then released, naked and uninterpreted, into the clear light of day.”
You left out the climate change “science” exemption. 🙂
We can’t even see “naked” (real) data.
“It warns that, if carbon dioxide emissions continue at their current rate through the end of this century, atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas will reach levels that last existed about 30 million to 100 million years ago, when global temperatures averaged about 29 degrees Fahrenheit (16 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels.”
Unbelievable. Surely even the average Warmist can’t take this man seriously? I’ve never heard such a bunch of unsubstantiated crap in all my life. He actually seems to think that we’ve all forgotten that the various proxy records (which he humourously refers to as “observations”) show CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature, not vice versa, proving that CO2 is NOT a temperature DRIVER.
And if that’s not enough he disregards the myriad other factors and influences on Earth’s climate, and decides in his wisdom that temperature is absolutely directly connected solely with CO2 levels, so if CO2 levels equal “Y” then temperature must equal “Z” – genius.
Jeez, if this is the best they’ve got…
Can anyone tell me if there is a peer reviewed paper that purports to show humans are causing global warming? What about one that shows carbon dioxide causes global warming? Just asking.
It might seem silly but I’ve never found either one. And you’d think either one would be cited over and over and picked apart over and over. Many peer reviewed papers cite the IPCC as the source of their assumption of both humans and/or carbon dioxide causing global warming but I’ve never found a peer reviewed basis.
Well, myself and many others predicted this. More shill, more extreme wailing of a dying industry/theology/scam, preying upon fears of common people.
I agree with the principle that you can learn a lot from the Earth’s past.
However, even a cursory look back at the past suggests that there is no substantial correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Looking back at the past one sees that there are periods when there were high levels of CO2 and yet the earth was cold, there were periods of low CO2 levels and yet the earth was hot, there are periods when CO2 levels are rising and yet the earth is cooling, and there are periods when CO2 levels are falling and yet temperatures are increasing.
In fact one only has to look at the Holocene optimum, the Roman Warm period and the Medieval warm period and look at CO2 levels at those times to see that the assumed relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature is wrong.
Indeed, one does not even need to go that far back. One only has to look at temperatures from 1850 onwards to see that there is no substantial correlation between temperature and CO2 levels: 1850 to 1880 increase in temps, no significant increase in CO2, 1880 to 1910 decrease in temperature but no decrease in CO2, 1910 to 1940 increase in temperature but no significant increase in CO2, 1940 to 1970 drop in temperature yet increase in CO2, 1970 to 1995 increase in temps and increase in CO2, 1996 to 2010 fairly level temperatures possibly increasing slightly yet significant increase in CO2. Thus there is only one period (1970 to 1996) where there is both an increase in temperatures and an increase in CO2, and hence all but no correlation between temperatures and CO2 during the past 150/160 years. Further, the period 1960 to 1970 and the recent period post 1995 runs contrary to the assumption that increasing CO2 levels leads to an increase in temperatures.
In conclusion, neither on a geological time scale or on a modern time scale is there any substantial correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Whilst correlation does not prove causation, the lack of correlation invariably disproves causation. It would be an understatement to point out that the lack of correlation is not at all promising to the validity of the AGW theory.
The final sentence of the penultimate paragraph of my earlier post should have read:
Further, the period 1940 to 1970 and the recent period post 1995 runs contrary to the assumption that increasing CO2 levels leads to an increase in temperatures.
Interstingly, yesterday a radio four reporter, here in the UK, pushed a Met Office official to connect the floods in Brazil, Australia etc with Climate Change, he wouldn’t. My flabber was truly gasted!
Interstingly! I meant interestingly of course…
Kiehl’s point is that we are driving CO2 to levels not seen since the time of the dinosaurs and that if global temperature was 16C warmer back then than present then that implies high climate sensitivity and therefore a strong contribution from the CO2 level of that time.
If you don’t believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or have some absurd idea that temperature drives CO2 not the otherway round then never-mind, go find something else to do. Kiehl’s talk is obviously aimed at those like me who accept the significance of the CO2 rise and it’s interesting to hear that the longterm climate sensitivity might be much greater than the short term sensitivity.
onion says:
“If you… have some absurd idea that temperature drives CO2 not the otherway round then never-mind, go find something else to do.”
And down is up, white is black, war is peace, and global warming causes global cooling.
Anyone who has ever opened a warm beer knows that temperature controls CO2 outgassing. Ice core data shows that CO2 follows temperature. Kiehl is just displaying his ignorance, and onion is frightening himself.
Onion never studied the concept of causality. Hint: cause cannot occur after effect in the real world.
Mark
It would be interesting to plot the timeline for these climate “scare” stories/press releases, and observe how well it correlates with the UCAR/NCAR budget cycle.
I think you will see much more of this kind of junk over the next few months as these government research groups try to influence Congress to keep them well funded with (dwindling) Climate Ca$h.
By the way, did you know that UCAR/NCAR (along with our climate buddies at NASA) received stimulus money in 2009-2010??? The NCAR research highlighted here is one of many great “climate products” your stimulus/tax dollars helped to purchase last year…
Lady Life Grows says:
January 14, 2011 at 1:39 pm
“……The period of the antarctic graphs are said to be about 15 000 years. The cycle through the precession of the equinoxes is 26 000 years, but a half cycle would be about 13 000 years, which is a tolerable fit until the matter can be investigated in detail.”
Don’t forget that over geological time frames the actual axis of our planet has shifted as well as our orbital shape and proximity to the sun as well as the precession. This is not to mention all of the multitude of other variables such as varying TSI, impacts, volcanism, plate tectonics and their effects upon ocean currents, lunar orbit, etc., etc. Even the gases trapped in ice cores change over long periods of time making those measurements suspect.
Explaining climate over geological time frames is a fools errand. God is laughing at our hubris.
“”””” onion says:
January 14, 2011 at 1:57 pm
“It warns that, if carbon dioxide emissions continue at their current rate through the end of this century, atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas will reach levels that last existed about 30 million to 100 million years ago, when global temperatures averaged about 29 degrees Fahrenheit (16 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels.” “””””
Well doesn’t the data back to the PreCambrian 600 million BC, say that earth has never been hotter than +22 deg C, and never colder than +12 deg C. so it has never gone outside of a 10 deg C spread in that time frame; which makes the above statement nonsense on both counts; pre-Industrial, and ancient.
I’m prepared to believe that CO2 like other GHGs can warm the atmosphere through LWIR absorption from the surface. CO2 and H2O can also cool the earth SURFACE, by intercepting incoming solar energy, to stop it reaching the surface, and then sending about half that energy out into space as LWIR emission (isotropic) from the warmed atmosphere.
I have yet to be convinced that much of the heat added to the atmosphere from GHG LWIR absorption, subsequently warms the surface (very much); or that cloud variation doesn’t pretty much wipe out any such effect.
But that’s just my opinion; I’ll await the data from those who have proof (measured observational proof; not computer simulated, or proxy proof).
“Earth’s hot past could be prologue future climate”
My fist up the science editor’s fart hole could be a wonderful experience even for me, but somehow for some odd and very weird reason I highly doubt it.
onion says:
January 14, 2011 at 2:21 pm
…”Kiehl’s talk is obviously aimed at those like me who accept the significance of the CO2 rise and it’s interesting to hear that the longterm climate sensitivity might be much greater than the short term sensitivity.”
=============
Darn it, you convinced me.
It is worse than we ever thought.
When you convince China and India, get back to me.
Sarc/
Since Science requires membership or hefty fees to access their publications, the average interested person cannot access the original article to verify the conclusions described in the “Perspectives” article.
Well there are these things called libraries or then again $3/week isn’t really a ‘hefty fee’.
It’s hard to tell anymore….
…are these people stupid?….lying on purpose?..hiding all the facts?
=========================================================
“It warns that, if carbon dioxide emissions continue at their current rate through the end of this century, atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas will reach levels that last existed about 30 million to 100 million years ago, when global temperatures averaged about 29 degrees Fahrenheit (16 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels.”
========================================================
That would also be the levels of the early Carboniferous, about 350 million years ago. When almost everything evolved, because conditions were the best for life.
Of course they don’t ask the obvious questions after that….
….why did the planet suffer a mass extinction
….why did the planet go into an ice age
….why did CO2 levels crash
Knowing that plants and animals evolved when CO2 levels were in the thousands…
..knowing that those CO2 levels were multitudes higher than we are, and still crashed
…knowing that in spite of those thousands ppm CO2, the planet still went into an ice age
…Knowing how low our temps really are right now
….Knowing how low our CO2 levels really are right now
…. Knowing that we are just about 100ppm above where plants stop growing
@onion said January 14, 2011 at 2:21 pm:
Onion, CO2 historically followed warming as part of the feedback phase of the carbon cycle, which in turn causes more warming … that was the primary CO2 footprint before man ramped up his intervention in the natural cycles. Now we’re digging up millions of years of sequestered carbon based deposits and combusting their byproducts into the atmosphere. The CO2 man is releasing is now a climate forcing element … which will cause warming and the release a of more CO2 as a feedback … which will cause more warming …
… there are hardcore “skeptics” that still claim man doesn’t have the ability to materially impact Earth’s climate … on religious grounds or otherwise …