Burt Rutan writes in via email about an exchange he had with the proprietor of the website Scholars and Rogues, Brian Angliss. Burt writes:
I recently read a treatise showing that CAGW theory is a fraud. I thought it was a good summary and agreed to have my name used as a supporter of the facts when it was published by the Wall Street Journal. You can find it here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
Then, shortly after publication, an alarmist engineer wrote and “open letter to Burt”.
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/27/open-letter-to-burt-rutan/
I usually ignore these diatribes, but found a few moments to respond:
Scroll down to comment #4 for my answer.
I’ve reproduced Burt’s answer here for all to see:
Brian,
In my background of 46 years in aerospace flight testing and design I have seen many examples of data presentation fraud. That is what prompted my interest in seeing how the scientists have processed the climate data, presented it and promoted their theories to policy makers and the media.
What I found shocked me and prompted me to do further research. I researched data presentation fraud in climate science from 1999 to 2010.
I do not have time here to define the details; if interested in my research, a PPT or PDF can be downloaded at:
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
In general, if you as an engineer with normal ethics, study the subject you will conclude that the theory that man’s addition of CO2 to the atmosphere (a trace amount to an already trace gas content) cannot cause the observed warming unless you assume a large positive feedback from water vapor. You will also find that the real feedback is negative, not positive!
Specifically, the theory of CAGW is not supported by any of the climate data and none of the predictions of IPCC since their first report in 1991 have been supported by measured data. The scare is merely a computer modeled theory that has been flawed from the beginning, and in spite of its failure to predict, many of the climate scientists cling to it. They applauded the correlation of surface temperatures with CO2 content from 1960 to 1998 as proof, but fail to admit that the planet has cooled after 1998 in spite of the CO2 content increasing.
The failure of the IPCC machine is especially evident in the use of “models” to justify claims, so it might be worthwhile to just look at modeling and science.
Modeling is more correctly a branch of Engineering and there are some basic rules that have been flouted by CAGW _ CO2 modelers.
Firstly there has to be a problem analysis which identifies relevant factors and the physical, chemical and thermodynamic behaviors of those factors within the system.
Any claim that this has been done in the CO2 warming problem is PREPOSTEROUS.
There are perhaps a thousand PhD topics there waiting to be taken up by researchers.
We could start with work on understanding heat transfer between the main interfaces; eg Core to surface / surface to ocean depths/ ocean depths to ocean surface / ocean surface to atmosphere and so on, not having yet reached the depth of space at just slightly above absolute zero.
To claim that the entire system of atmospheric temperature moderation has been described by the fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 content while excluding the other obvious factors such as atmospheric water vapour content, solar flux and orbital mechanics is just nonsense.
The whole point of modelling when done correctly is that it links accurately measured input of the main factors and accurately measure target output. Where you have major input factors that are not considered and poor and uncertain measurement of all factors then all you have is a joke or more seriously Public Fraud based on science.
You do not have science.
CO2 is not a pollutant. When the Dinosaurs roamed, the CO2 content was 6 to 9 times current and the planet was green from pole to pole; almost no deserts. If we doubled the atmospheric content of CO2, young pine trees would grow at twice the rate and nearly every crop yield would go up 30 to 40%. We, the animals and all land plant life would be healthier if CO2 content were to increase.
Do the study yourself. Look at how and why the data are manipulated, cherry-picked and promoted. I will bet if you did, you too would be shocked.
The mark of a good theory is its ability to be falsified by new data. The mark of a good scientist is the ability to accept that.
Burt
The Difference between an Environmentalist and a Denier.
You can easily tell if someone is a true environmentalist, i.e. an advocate for a healthy planet – he is one who is happy to hear the news that the arctic ice content has stabilized. He is one who celebrates when the recent climate data show the alarmist’s predictions of catastrophic warming might be wrong. The denier, if he is an eco/political activist, always denies new data that show the planet may be healthy after all. The Media usually defines deniers as those who deny the scientist’s computer model predictions. However, denying the measured climate data meets a better definition in the world of science.
My issue with CAGW has always been the dire predictions based almost solely on computer model projections. In all of my research on the subject I’ve never seen someone lay out the issues with climate modeling better than Burt Rutan did in his reply. That was AWESOME.
My respect and admiration for Burt Rutan just went up another notch or two and it was extremely high to begin with. Hats off to Burt Rutan!
Pwned. 🙂
I love the fact that Michael Tobis is the follow up post to Burt Rutan….if you all do not remember:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/22/friday-funny-f-word-fusillade-by-michael-tobis/
Did you see the first comment at that post?
So that pretty much sums up my problem with AGW alarmism. They’re clearly anti-human. In short, they want us all to die (but not them, of course).
On the “scholarsandrogues” site, if you scroll down, you’ll see one of the bloggers takes naturpathic like “Michael’s Naturopathic, Cholesterol Metabolism Factors” that have no basis in science.
Samuel Clemens writing as Mark Twain; “The War Prayer”
The open letter to Burt has this: In the case of human-caused climate disruption
It used to be global warming. But according to RSS and HadCrut3, there has been no warming for about 15 years. The only conclusion I can therefore come to is that somehow the additional 0.01% CO2 must be the culprit to cause climate disruption without the warming. I am well aware of the reasoning behind ocean level rise due to warming such as ice melting and hotter water expanding. But it is a total mystery to me why CO2 alone should have any huge effect on climate disruption. In the absence of warming, how did CO2 alone cause frosts in Florida in a previous winter; how does CO2 alone cause ocean levels to rise; how does CO2 alone cause hurricanes to be more severe? Etc.
I expected to read more about data presentation fraud in this thread. I am interested in that especially because that was the first thing that came to my mind when I read IPCC AR4WG1 report several years ago.
Manipulative data presentation is a norm in climate science. Graphs show expanded Y-axis which make small variations look more meaningful. Zero point something in temperatures is nothing. Think about signal to noise ratio and our skill to measure temperature. To show even smaller changes they use W/m2 in Y axis.
Timescale, X axis, is cherrypicked to advance the “Cause” and then there is the trick. They combine a smoothed history at a peak with another time series at a low to get an illusion of increase.
Did Rutan jump ships ? I thought he used to be a true believer ?
Good on ya Burt. The problem analysis is so clearly lacking that I am astounded that scientists are taking alarmist positions. But then look at the scientists who brief the politicians. Geologists and geophysicists. Guys with PhDs in dirt science. Or biologists; guys who cut up squishy things and, to the benefit of all, cure diseases. Climate science? Look up the local university’s curriculum and see if you find climate modeling. And remember, PhD guys know more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing. Where’s the thermal free body diagram? Part of it is tossed out. 6 billion people breathing out generates the same order of magnitude CO2 production as the industrial output of the US; so it’s ignored. And then there are the ‘solutions.’ For goodness sake, don’t take a thermodynamic approach. That would require a full systems analysis of the production of all the heat generated by inefficiencies in the solutions. Zero emission electric cars? Add in the line losses and power production thermodynamic costs. Get serious and do some serious engineering. Thank you Burt Rutan.
I don’t know that I have the energy for such arguments anymore. I always just want to ask, “what predictions have you made that have proven true? Show your work.”
I do not find “if you won’t take drastic measures to prevent something that is not clearly happening, you are a rotten old egg” sufficient motivation.
I have to see the work, not just affirmations. So many subject areas (medicine as well as climatology) have suffered from not only a coarsening of debate but a lowering of standards (of significance for one thing) so awful as to render abstracts and summaries entirely untrustworthy.
And (ahem) if someone is hiding the work, I will reject the conclusion out of hand. I can only assume it’s because the work doesn’t support the conclusion.
To the point… very good synopsis!
In all fairness, Burt, as a now several year follower of WUWT, a strong supporter of scientific transparency and a highly skeptical thinker, I can’t really justify letting the NPK comment slip through without being addressed.
Studies showing that growth rates are limited by the least available factor are extremely robust, common, and applicable. While it’s very reasonable to assume that crop yields in first world countries, who can afford nearly endless supplies of high quality fertilizers, poorer countries and undeveloped areas will run out of natural sources of phosphorous long before they are going to utilize all the added CO2 that they can now pull down from the atmosphere. I’m pretty sure we are going to hit a wall on total available biomass, based on regional shortages of nutrients, at which point CO2 increases will not significantly affect growth rates outside of areas where the limiting factor is water availability and then only because the higher CO2 means less stomata opening and slower transpiration (see the greening of the Sahel).
In general, I’ve been thinking about the role of nutrient availability on aspects like the size of fauna and flora, growth limiting factors, and global biomass, and one of the things that consistantly keeps popping up in my mind is that if we assume that oil/gas/coal are the remains of plants and animals that lived millions of years ago, then isn’t all of the fossil fuels effectively trapped potential biomass? Given that it contains high percentages of NPK (making it a major source of fertilizers) when we collect the oil from being trapped deep underground, aren’t we allowing the planet to return to a high natural biomass level? I’d like to see someone find a way to try and accurately describe how much biomass must have existed concurrently during the Carboniferous period, for example. It may be that as a species, we’re unintentionally increasing the total planetary capability to support life, even as the enviro-nuts are arguing the exact opposite. Not arguing that it will be “life as we know it”, it may be that we’re going to dramatically increase the biomass of a species most adept at rapidly adapting to the changes and taking advantage of that spare capacity (like the dramatic increase in the number of jellyfish we’re seeing… less predators + more food = population explosion) but over time it may balance out to an overall more robust planetary ecosystem.
Hmmm …
I would hardly call the open letter from Brian a `diatribe’!!
Sure, he disagrees and his reasoning is a bit familiar, not to say thin. But, so what?
Are we developing a slightly thin skin, here? Or some sort of addiction to a `take-down’ of all CAGWers and their sympathisers?
I say we stick to debating them with facts, logic, well presented analysis and the occasional, engaging opinion piece.
As to the overall required political effect, it will take some time to form up and will largely come about through convincing more and more credible scientists to speak out against the excesses of the Warmanistas …
It promises to be an interesting exchange if the usual warmist comments deletion policies don’t apply. I’ve just asked Angliss and Tobis to tell the world if they subscribe to CAGW rather than simple AGW and what kind of observation would change their mind. In the case of Tobis I suspect the answers be Yes and None.
Burt Rutan is a true engineer, and true engineers will pick a bad hypothesis apart when the data does not support it. In engineering, there is no ignoring of the data, because when you do that, people can die. We need more engineers in climate science.
Fine, common sense critique Mr. Rutan
QED Burt.
That’s the difference between some one who fly’s kites and someone who designs and engineers flying machines that transport living humans safely.
A strong voice of reason,
We need many more of these people for the public to realize the truth.
Will the real denialists please stand up!
I use to argue with Creationists back in the day and they have a lot in common with Warmists.
You see, Warmists don’t actually believe in Climate Change, they believe in Climate Stasis. That’s what the hockey stick fraud was all about. A failed effort to prove that climate didn’t change at all in the last 2,000 years, no MWP, no LIAs.
The idea seems to be that we lived in a climate Garden of Eden and only when we bit into the forbidden fruit of Knowledge during the Scottish Enlightenment were we cast out to live in sin as a capitalist industrial civilisation based upon techo-cultural evolution. Naturally, the Warmists have their prophets (Gore, Mann, Hansen, Karl Marx, Mao, et al) and, of course, a fire-and-brimstone apocalypse sermon.
Modern climate was created by Man in his own image, the Warmist gospel reads. The Warmists acolytes don’t believe in natural climate evolution because they are Climate Creationists in deep denial of rational evidence to the contrary.
It’s time to enforce separation of Church and State.
Burt, the fundamental sticking point is political/functional, not a failure of scientific or modelling process per se.
The politicians benefit hugely, as Mencken opined, from having the public alarmed and willing to give up money and control to them; climastrologers benefit greatly from having politicians pay them to keep the alarm bells tolling. It’s a partnership made in Hell.
Thank you for visiting our planet, Mr. Rutan.
It gives us some small hope, despite all the nonsense we are drowning in.
Burt’s right.
Eventually, the most ardent supporter of the cAGW ‘theory’ will have to accept that the amount of evidence falsifying the notion – that 0.04% of the atmosphere has the ability to exert a significant effect on global temperature – is inexorably increasing.
Its all about evidence.
It never ceases to amaze me that the warmists argument always carry the same frugal claims as well as direct attacks on the individual. They claim the high road when in reality, they always exceed in demonstrating their ignorance and bias. Here is one of the best examples of a warmists being bbq’d, quartered and basted on their own petard..
Brilliant..
Thank you for this Burt.
Bottom line: the intersection between climate science and economics needs an engineering level of precision. At the moment we have a batch of unverified assertions, a bit of data running the other way and a lot of sheer arrogance from the modelers and their enablers.
I would not fly into space if these boys were designing the vehicle; I am saving my pennies to fly in yours.
Thank you Burt. The quality of your writing matches the excellence of your light air craft designs.
You can easily tell that Brian Angliss is not a true ‘planet caring’ environmentalist as he seems rather delighted by his own very strange theory that increased CO2 will not lead to more food, and greater plenty, for all the inhabitants of this wonderful planet.
Thank you Mr Rutan. You clear headed logic has got you far in life and deservedly so.
“he is one who is happy to hear the news that the arctic ice content has stabilized.”
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/arctic_sea_ice_volume_freefall.png
Excellent article, the fact that CO2 levels were once 6-9 times higher than they are today proves that a positive feedback mechanism does not happen as the warmists predict. AGW is the biggest scam to have been perpetrated on mankind. It has spoiled our landscape with hideous, useless windmills and diverted valuable resources to liars and cheats who call themselves scientists. The economies of the First World are in a very precarious state and the cost of combatting this fictitious threat are likely to impoverish those nations stupid enough to believe these liars and cheats. The fact that any scientist who publicly questions AGW is in danger of losing his/her job, shows that the “science” is nothing of the kind, it is bigotry.
The difference between Burt Rutan and the average climate modeller is that Burt has a lifetime record of calculating, modelling, and then actually producing a multitude of end products which work exactly as calculated and designed.
hide, you believe that? You believe that the Arctic yearly minimum sea ice volume decreased 38% since 2007? 67% since 2002?
> http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
I think it is great that BR is attempting to provide a coherent theory – not something many do. But, his own slides are not self-consistent. On p 20, he can’t bring himself to believe the ice core CO2 record, preferring the Beck-type stuff. But by p 29, the ice core CO2 record has become exact and accurate (you can’t see the effect he wants to see from that chart, of course, if anyone looking is puzzled by what the funny arrows are for).
To pick up some other obvious errors: the pic on p 12 (human CO2 is 3.4% of natural) is emissions, not (emissions-takeup), and so is irrelevant. People, you need to give up on the idea that the CO2 rise isn’t caused by fossil fuels, and move on to the real questions. If you get stuck on that stuff you become irrelevant and funny.
p 30: CO2 increases affect the radiative balance logarithmically, this is well known. Since CO2 is increasing nearly exponentially, the radiative effect is nearly linear.
The rest is wrong too, but in more complex ways.
I’m looking through an experimental aircraft book that I bought in 1982 and first learned about Burt Rutan. I took flight lessons a few years later and was close to going solo before finances, and practicing stalls did me in (I’m not fond of roller coasters ). I even have a poster of the “Quickie” on my wall “A bold new Burt Rutan concept…” So yeah I’m a fan of Burt Rutan.
“People, you need to give up on the idea that the CO2 rise isn’t caused by fossil fuels, and move on to the real questions. If you get stuck on that stuff you become irrelevant and funny.”
William, how much of the rise is caused by “fossil” fuels? 100%? 99%? How do you explain correlations between temperature and atmospheric CO2 annual change?
The climate science we speak of here, soon, will have no ear.
Markus Fitzhenry.
Oh the irony of Brian Angliss’ closing suggestion to “discuss why I think your opinions are based upon incorrect and incomplete data.”
Brian should check what is being measured, how it’s being measured and how the data are processed to support the alarmist case. It’s the reverse of measure with micrometer; mark with chalk; cut with axe.
Engineers solve problems. Real problems. Not imaginary or fictitious ones. The first step that an Engineer must take in problem solving is to confirm that the problem exists. If the problem is intangible, it cannot be fixed by engineering measures.
Still wonder why the CAGW “problem” is being “fixed” by imposing taxes?
hide the incline says (January 29, 2012 at 1:31 am) re arctic ice volume.
Wow, incredible graph! No, truly *incredible*.
Source: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
Surprise. It’s another model, at the U. of Washington: “Sea Ice Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS, Zhang and Rothrock, 2003) developed at APL/PSC.”
From the commentary on validation:
“It is difficult to validate total Arctic sea ice volume directly. There are no true measurements of total ice volume that can be compared to model-derived estimates.”
Incredible graph! Incredible credulity!
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 2:04 am
Mr. Connolley, have you taken time off from your sensorship-quest over at wikipedia? Job done there, is it? Starting to be afraid of the impact from WUWT now, are you?
Lucky for us you cannot hide what people write here then.
Regarding what we should focus on;
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/
@ hide the incline:
Why did the global warming alarmists in 1990 say that you shouldn’t look to the arctic to tell you anything about climate change?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010#
William Connolley: Since CO2 is increasing nearly exponentially….
I’m puzzled by this. I assume you are referring only to the human contribution to ambient CO2.
Mr William Connolley:
Ya know…there is a reason why I can’t use Wikipedia or Real Climate for my homework references, – Can you guess why?
I fully agree with Bert Rutan’s philosophy that the data are of critical importance. However, as I’m sure he and others have found, the data are often provided in an undigested form. To remedy this I and a colleague set up a site few years ago with a wide range of climate data reformatted as CSV files. It is at:
http://www.climatedata.info.
We’d welcome any comments on the accuracy of what is there and on its content.
William, your claim of exponential rise in CO2 combining with logarithmic effect of CO2 to produce a linear rise in temoerature requires proof. Can you provide? A strongly logarithmic effect combined with a weak exponential growth.?
I agree with your comment about CO2 rise. The evidence that the rise is related to fossil fuels is strong and unless evidence to the contrary becomes available most scientist will accept this. That is how the scientific method works. Ferdinand Engelbeem has an excellent discussion of this on his site.
Can you explain why the planet is not warming as the GCM models predict?
Absolute and utter demolition! Thanks, Burt!
(But, please, can you try to explain it to your buddy Richard Branson? His “Carbon War Room” antics and public appearances with Rajendra K. Pachauri go on everyone’s nerves.)
Burt is a hero of mine. Engineers cannot triumph by assuming spherical cows.
> I assume you are referring only to the human contribution to ambient CO2.
Nope, I’m referring to the overall CO2 level in the atmosphere.
> how much of the rise is caused by “fossil” fuels?
From memory, human emissions of CO2 are about twice the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. The other 50% is absorbed by land+ocean.
There are some helpful graphs at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/some-people-claim-that-theres-a-human-to-blame/
Mr Connolley, your words.
If you have a planet with a radiatively non-active atmosphere, and make the usual assumption that you can consider it a point and forget about rotation and geometry.
If the atmosphere is radiatively inactive (as O2 and N2 nearly are), then whatever its pressure, the atmosphere acquires energy-as-heat by conduction from the surface. In equilibrium (and this is important; it is why all the tyre-pumping-up stuff is irrelevant) it must be in balance with the surface (inevitably, since it is in equilibrium) hence there can be no conductive flux at the surface, hence th surface temperature cannot be affected at all by a radiatively inactive atmosphere (again, assuming a point-planet type of idea).
——————————————————————————————————-
Is not your efforts merely tyre-pumping-stuff, when you left that place without answering.
What energy is need to stop a atmosphere from shearing off in your theoretical planet with a radiatively non-active atmosphere argument. Bolts?
Markus Fitzhenry.
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 2:04 am
“The rest is wrong too, but in more complex ways.”
Hello, Winston.
1.) You did not refute Burt’s critique of the insufficient accounting of the inputs and outputs; his critique of the models stays valid.
2.) “The rest is wrong too, but in more complex ways.” – How about this : We will give you warmists all the time you need to work out exactly how Burt is wrong, and in the meantime we as a civilization will do exactly NOTHING about CO2. (Oh, BTW, you will need quite some time for that; so please, do it in a self-funded way; it’s a bit much to ask for public funding for solving a non-problem…)
“Since CO2 is increasing nearly exponentially….” oh really ??
Anyway, isn’t it good that plants have so much more CO2 to grow with.
Luvly BENEFICIAL CO2 !!!!!
Burt (lifelong great guy) is right of course but, if they were honest, the people running the climate scare would tell you it’s nothing to do with the climate. Who’s driving policy? The European Union (EU). Why? Take a look at the BP statistical review of world energy (use search as URL is long).
When Americans talk about oil and gas they often talk about the industry – even Mann and Hansen do all the time. The EU on the other hand doesn’t have one, and is the biggest importer of energy in the world. Large countries like Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland have little or no oil & gas. Only the UK has significant amounts and that’s in decline. In 20 years there will be nothing left. The current annual EU import bill for oil alone is over $400 billion. Add to that the huge quantities of Russian gas. They have to find other countries (suckers?) willing to take about $600 billion of exports just so they can pay for oil & gas imports. They are terrified. The resentment against the US is easy to understand – less for you is more for me. The EU is willing to pay a premium (via carbon credits) to any country that ships oil and gas to it rather than anywhere else.
Science never drove policy. The climate scientists are just spouting what they are paid to say and the useful idiots of the world – environmentalists and others – sing along it tune.
William Connolley: ‘CO2 increases affect the radiative balance logarithmically, this is well known.’
As an engineer I have like Burt done an assessment of climate science and followed up on the physics. What you say is based on the assumption of 100% direct thermalisation of IR quanta by symmetrical molecules bit by bit due to collisions.There is no such mechanism because the energy is quantised. Thermalisation must be at second phases. The logarithmic function has no mathematical basis.
Tyndall’s experiment was done at constant volume so because CO2 has higher CTE than air, much of the temperature rise was due to increased pressure. Do the experiment at constant pressure and the remaining heating is probably at the walls of the container.
The three other mistakes are:
(1) To shield the upward IR thus removing the Prevost exchange offset to claim ‘DLR’ is from a heat source is seriously dumb as any process engineer knows, There is no ‘back radiation, no strong positive feedback – it’s an artefact of the modelling.
(2) Hansen’s 33 K present GHG warming includes lapse rate warming so is also dumb; reduce it to ~9 K.
(3) In 2010, it was revealed from experimental data that the climate models use double real optical depth also 40% of low level clouds with bimodal droplet size distribution have different optical physics.The net AIE is slightly positive, much greater in the past and polar atmospheres. It explains present Arctic melting and much present warming. A side effect is that because the data processing from albedo to optical depth is also broken, you can’t trust derived satellite data.
So, the IPCC models are useless. .This programme has been appallingly run. It’s time the farrago was ended. CO2-AGW may well be slightly negative due to self absorption near the Earth’s surface. The proof that it is low is that the N. Atlantic is cooling as the Arctic heads to the freeze part of its 50-70 year cycle. As for the 3% compound increase of CO2, have you read Murray Salby’s work and have you calculated the effect of warming SSTs, now reversing?
Excellent post and well argued. This should be read by every politician and presidential adviser, like Holdren, and in the UK that fool Huhne.
hide the incline says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:31 am
““he is one who is happy to hear the news that the arctic ice content has stabilized.”
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/arctic_sea_ice_volume_freefall.png
”
You do realize that this is not data, but a model?
On a somewhat tangential topic, I’ve wondered for some time about the feasibility of raising the CO2 concentration within greenhouses to promote higher productivity of high-value crops. Could anyone here offer some insight on the costs of obtaining clean CO2, and what kind of effect it might have on, say, watermelons or strawberries if they were grown with double or quadruple the current atmosphere’s level of CO2?
Brain Angliss (Scholars and Rogues) writes “You may not be aware of this, but greenhouse crops are very productive because farmers take great care to ensure that the crops have optimal nutrition. The farmers ensure that the crops in the greenhouses have enough water, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients in addition to higher carbon dioxide. Without increasing all of these nutrients merely increasing carbon dioxide in the greenhouse’s air will not produce fast growing, nutritious crops. This is why the greenhouse claim made in the Journal commentary was incomplete and misleading – higher atmospheric carbon dioxide only leads to greater productivity when all other nutrients are also more available.
This is one example of incomplete and misleading information from the commentary you signed.”
Once again the Alarmist position is (to quote Gavin at Realclimate) “simply wrong”.
The largest study, to date, of this has shown precisely the opposite:
Ainsworth, E.A. and Long, S.P. 2005. What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytologist 165: 351-372.
This meta-analysis of 279 published experiments in which plants of all types were grown under paired stressed and unstressed conditions found that CO2 induced growth enhancement was some 200% under stressed conditions compared with 80% enhancement under unstressed (optimal) conditions.
Where are these morons getting their information? Oh yes Nobel Prize winners, like Al Gore!
Do Burt Rutan and Sir Richard Branson ever get “off topic” from making their space plane and discuss global warming? Burt seems quite passionate about his position, Sir Richard seems to have taken a more politically expedient one that earns goodwill from all the “important” people.
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 2:04 am
——–
I think it is great that BR is attempting to provide a coherent theory – not something many do. But, his own slides are not self-consistent. On p 20, he can’t bring himself to believe the ice core CO2 record, preferring the Beck-type stuff. But by p 29, the ice core CO2 record has become exact and accurate (you can’t see the effect he wants to see from that chart, of course, if anyone looking is puzzled by what the funny arrows are for).
———-
Billy; you need to READ. Don’t just sound out the words. READING involves thinking about the concepts being presented.
p20 refers to actual measurements of CO2 levels. Direct measurements. Those are always preferable to proxies because proxies suffer from confounding factors. Where direct measurements are available, one uses those direct measurements. The ice core record, which is a proxy, needs to be calibrated against direct measurements. Not the other way around.
There is nothing about Burt not being able to bring himself to “believe” the ice core record. That’s in your imagination. The ice core record not used because there are direct measurements available.
p29 addresses the period substantially before direct measurements were taken. It is not scientifically valid to splice data from different sources into the one line. The ice core record is used to present the case of long-term “continuous” records over a period of 10,000 years up to 10,000 years before present.
Your statement that Burt takes the ice core record as exact and accurate must also be derived from your fantasies. Burt makes no statement about the exactness/accuracy. He just plots the lines and says where they come from.
If you have a record of direct measurements of CO2 available for that period somewhere in your archives; perhaps within your massive deletia from Wonkypedia, then cough up. You’re holding back science.
As for the “funny arrows” on p29 that seem so “puzzlling”, READ the whole slide.
The absolute accuracy isn’t important in that case because it’s the temporal distance between points of inflection that are significant. If those points can’t be accounted for by confounding factors in e.g. measurement methodology, then they are useful data even if they can’t be extrapolated to global scale; as could e.g. the tree rings of a lone, bristle-cone pine.
Mr. Rutan’s assertion that “Arctic ice content has stabilized” seemed cuckoo to me! Even here on WUWT, no-one claims that!
The US Navy (which from direct observation knows more about Arctic ice content than any other institution) is completely convinced of the opposite, and has addressed the American Meteorological Society (AMS) to this effect: Climate Change & National Security — Navy Implications.
When we check today’s sea ice level at the excellent web site Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis, we find that as of this very hour, Arctic ice is at record low levels.
This sure doesn’t seem “stabilized” to most folks!
Moreover, when we compare the 1981 nonskeptical predictions of James Hansen and colleagues (“Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, James Hansen et al., Science, 1981) with the 1989 skeptical critique of Richard Lindzen (“Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 1989), we find that the nonskeptics have proved to be far more foresighted than the skeptics.
It is striking that nonskeptics like Hansen et al. are proud of their early-80s on-record scientific predictions, and reference them often, whereas skeptical community seldom references its own 1980s skeptical analyses … skeptical analyses that nowadays mostly look narrow-minded and short-sighted, or even just plain wrong, especially in light of the hockey-sticks that open-source studies like the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) now have affirmed.
Skepticism that doesn’t reference its own primary literature … WUWT, indeed?
So with regard to Mr. Rutan’s analysis, although he is undoubted a wonderful aerospace engineer, when it comes to climate-change the PowerPoint presentation that Rutan posted is objectively “a few rivets short of a cowling.”
Fortunately, the science is self-correcting. As the “hockey-stick blades” that are so strikingly absent in the 1980s skeptical literature, continue to gain in length and strength in modern climate records, worldwide appreciation is growing of the outstanding strength of Hansen-style climate science, and the relative weakness of Rutan/Lindzen-style skeptical science.
I heard Burt speak at a corporate event several years ago – most memorable business trip ever! Go Burt!
“From memory, human emissions of CO2 are about twice the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. The other 50% is absorbed by land+ocean.”
It’s not about twice the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 – it varies with the temperature. In cold years, the rise is only ~20% of the annual human emissions and in warm years it’s up to ~80%. Temperature is obviously driving the annual change.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.pdf
But, you didn’t understand my question. One part of the obseved rise in atmospheric CO2 is from warming climatic factors (ocean’s outgasing…) and not from the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. How much of the rise is due to the warming climatic factors?
Reblogged this on contrary2belief and commented:
Burt Rutan presents reality to confront belief
Not only has Burt eloquently explained the fallacy of the AGW arguments, he has in a larger sense shown the differences between engineers, and scientists who deal with modeling. Engineers must understand and deal in reality, for there can be serious consequences for ignoring realities of flaws or problems in theories, designs, and ideas, something Burt realizes for he was often the guy putting his own butt on the line flying his designs. The computer modelers, well let’s just say, many spend too much time on their computers and the internet.
As a fellow engineer, a hearty BRAVO
William M. Connolley said: “From memory, human emissions of CO2 are about twice the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. The other 50% is absorbed by land+ocean.” It’s true that the human emissions of CO2 are about twice the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. It’s not quite true that the other roughly 50% are absorbed. The absorption is based on the excess amount of CO2 over the new short-term equilibrium. Nature (soil, biosphere, ocean) absorbs extra CO2 regardless of the source, and the extra CO2 is that which has accumulated since the industrial revolution.
It’s important to keep that in mind since as we switch to carbon-free energy by continuing scientific and technological progress, we will see a rapid drop in CO2 towards the equilibrium (if we stopped producing CO2, we would drop half way back to preindustrial levels in less than 40 years). Progress depends both on scientific and technological advancement and on economic growth. The false concern over CAGW is a very real threat to economic growth and policies are constantly being advanced that take or keep large percentages of mankind below the tipping point which allows leisure and thus more energy efficiency. Below that point there is rapid population growth, environmental degradation, very inefficient use of energy, and great suffering.
I met a normal sort of bloke in the pub last week. He told me how he just cannot trust the ‘facts’ given by Wikipedia these days. The name William Connolley cropped up in the conversation.
The truth will always win through no matter how the likes of you try to prevent it.
I’m proud to be a fellow Cal Poly SLO alumnus along with Bert. Their motto (at least back then): “Learn by Doing”.
Thanks Burt
Guess we can put Fox News in the Alarmist camp. Allison Camarata “renowned investigative reporter” just nailed two of the signators in the article with the NOAA :”Weather is Climate” record highs map on Fox and Friends Sunday. Willis or Burt needed to be there!
Weak response, and only a 5 minute segment!
DirkH says:
January 29, 2012 at 3:07 am
Absolute and utter demolition! Thanks, Burt!
(But, please, can you try to explain it to your buddy Richard Branson? His “Carbon War Room” antics and public appearances with Rajendra K. Pachauri go on everyone’s nerves.)
==========================
ah but that pair are in it for? MONEY! its amazing bransons planes are now ok to go over the Arctic while no one elses are?
seems to me his so called green friends in high places may have a LOT to do with that?
and oddly enough? not ONE outcry over nasty planes over pristine areas or scaring the bears has eventuated?
so he saves fuel and flying time and profits greatly but thats ok cos hes seen to be green, while increasing pollution by increased flights..nice work hey.
Burt Rutan said:
“They applauded the correlation of surface temperatures with CO2 content from 1960 to 1998 as proof, but fail to admit that the planet has cooled after 1998 in spite of the CO2 content increasing.”
——–
Respectfully, this is not an accurate statement. 9 out of the 10 warmest years on instrument record have occurred since 1998, with 2010 being warmer than 1998. For one claiming to pride himself on what the data tells him, it seems odd that you would misconstrue this so horribly. But then again, maybe not that odd, as you seem to have made up your mind about the status of things.
Anthony, you realize, of course, that Connolley’s presence here is not to engage for fruitful discussion, but to drive traffic to his link. The downside of having the most visited climate website is being abused by the freeloaders. I think its time for you to consider shutting off the handle links…
> your claim of exponential rise in CO2 combining with logarithmic effect of CO2 to produce a linear rise in temoerature requires proof. Can you provide?
It requires maths. log(a.exp(b.t)) = log(a) + b.t
I didn’t say that the temperature rise was linear, though, I said “the radiative effect is nearly linear”. Temperature is expected to rise in line with forcing, though the relationship is not simple, when looked at in detail. In particular, interannual and interdecadal fluctuations are expected.
> Can you explain why the planet is not warming as the GCM models predict?
No, because the planet is warning as the models predict.
Edbhoy asks:
“Can you explain why the planet is not warming as the GCM models predict?”
—–
If this is an honest question then you can easily find the answer. First, the models are horrible at predicting natural variability, as that is not their function. Second, numerous attribution studies show clearly the effect of the solar, ENSO, and aerosols over the past decade, and even though these have served to flatten the rise in temperatures, they have not “cooled the planet” as Mr. Rutan wants to have us believe. When the next El Nino aligns with or near Solar Max 24, expect another instrument record breaking year of high temps as would be expected when natural variations align with the underlying warming.
William Connelly says “blah blah blah”.
Then why aren’t global temps increasing?
Did somebody say “fraud”?
Is it a coincidence that when somebody did, William M. Connolley joins the discussion?
Just wonderin’.
From “Dictionary.com”:
fraud [frawd]
noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
I’d say Burt Rutan has used the word correctly.
Connolley says:
“… the planet is warning as the models predict.”
Wrong:
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
Well done sir !!!!!
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 5:25 am
Respectfully, this is not an accurate statement. 9 out of the 10 warmest years on instrument record have occurred since 1998, with 2010 being warmer than 1998.
Thank you for once again demonstrating that which Burt Rutan and many others have described.
Your statement is only accurate if you accept GISS temps as shown here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12
However, the other 3 data sets do not agree that 2010 was warmer than 1998. Most likely this is because they have not been manipulated to make it appear so. (Can’t wait for you to even attempt to prove that the GISS data hasn’t been manipulated/adjusted.) Show us the statistically significant warming in the other 3 sets since 1998. You can not. This clearly makes Burt Rutan’s point while putting you squarely in the group he is describing.
The travesty isn’t that the warming has “flat-lined” somewhat, the travesty is that the CAGW proponents won’t admit that they are wrong.
William M. Connolley says: January 29, 2012 at 3:13 am
I assume you are referring only to the human contribution to ambient CO2.
Nope, I’m referring to the overall CO2 level in the atmosphere.
> how much of the rise is caused by “fossil” fuels?
From memory, human emissions of CO2 are about twice the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. The other 50% is absorbed by land+ocean.
______________________________________________________
Are you the same person who corrupted wiki climate science articles for years? I shall ignore that possible history for the sake of this technical discussion:
You say:
“From memory, human emissions of CO2 are about twice the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. The other 50% is absorbed by land+ocean.”
That is about right. It is part of the “material balance argument” that has been argued repeatedly between Ferdinand Engelbeen (for) and Richard Courtney (against).
I agree with Richard – I think the material balance argument is deeply flawed. Here, in part, is why:
Total atmospheric CO2 is rising (from memory) at about 2 ppm per year, and natural seasonal flux causes annual variation in atmospheric CO2 in the far North of about 16 ppm, or about eight times the annual increase, attenuating to almost zero at the South Pole. It is clear that natural seasonal CO2 flux is many times greater than the human component.
Examine the 15fps AIRS data animation of global CO2 at
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
It is difficult to see the impact of humanity in this impressive display of nature’s power.
In the animation, does anyone see the impact of industrialization? USA? Europe? India? China? Anything related to humanity?
Does one conclude from the animation that the Canadians and Russians have heavy industry emitting megatonnes of deadly CO2 in the far northern Arctic? Are the Inuit using power tools to carve their soapstone?
In fact, it is a natural system that chases equilibrium, and is driven by photosynthesis and other seasonal factors, dominated by the large landmass in the Northern Hemisphere, and consisting of huge seasonal fluxes of CO2 into and out of the landmasses and oceans. .
We also infer, from ice core data, that atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by ~~600-800 years. Is it possible that the small increases we see in CO2 today are after-effects of the Medieval Warm Period?
We also know from the modern data record that average dCO2/dt varies contemporaneously with average global temperature, and CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months*, so CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
So your theory assumes that the future is causing the past. Here, I detect a serious flaw in your logic.
The warmist counter-argument, that the 9-month lag is a “feedback mechanism”, is unsupported by any evidence that I am aware of.
It seems that when you global warming alarmists get into trouble, you like to throw in the f-work – FEEDBACK – to waive off dissent.
“Runaway warming will be driven by positive FEEDBACKS!”
Religious nonsense – there is ample evidence that climate feedbacks are negative – if these feedbacks were positive, life on Earth would be very different, if it existed at all.
“The 9 month delay is CO2 after temperature is caused by FEEDBACKS!”
More religious nonsense.
Then there is the predictive record of the IPCC and the warming alarmists – not one of the scary scenarios predicted by the global warming alarmists has materialized. Earth has not warmed this century.
At some point, you global warming alarmists will have to fold your tents and go home.
There is no global warming crisis.
* http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
I’ve planted trees since a kid. I think CO2 “enhancement” is already clearly present. I planted a mail-order, bare-root Tuliptree in partial shade (at most 6 hrs sun/day) in 2004. It’s now 40′ tall! A mail-order hybrid-pine (pitch x loblolly) planted in the poorest of soil (mostly crushed limestone) in 2006 is now 25′ tall. No fertilizer.
Everything about increased CO2 is good, not bad.
AlanG says:
January 29, 2012 at 3:29 am
“When Americans talk about oil and gas they often talk about the industry – even Mann and Hansen do all the time. The EU on the other hand doesn’t have one, and is the biggest importer of energy in the world. Large countries like Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland have little or no oil & gas.”
So THAT’S the reason the Germans had to do coal liquefaction during WWII! Because they didn’t have any oil and gas! WOW! And why was it that Japan invaded the Dutch East Indies? They didn’t have any oil either? I’ll be danged…
William Connelly,
After January temperatures come out, the models will fall out of the 95 % confidence factor:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/la-nina-drives-hadcrut-nhsh-13-month-mean-outside-1sigma-model-spread/
So no the models are not predicting reality. And if you go back to modeling where there is time ie: >30yrs you can see models have failed miserably:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/13/is-jim-hansens-global-temperature-skillful/
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 5:37 am
“Edbhoy asks:
“Can you explain why the planet is not warming as the GCM models predict?”
—–
If this is an honest question then you can easily find the answer. First, the models are horrible at predicting natural variability, as that is not their function.”
R. Gates, you have just said the same thing as Burt Rutan.
Ask yourself : WHAT IS natural variability if not a failure of the models to take every part of the climate system into account that influences temperatures – most prominently, the oceans and the oceans-surface interface.
The atmosphere is the continuation of the oceans with other means. The tail doesn’t wag the dog.
Now, please, draw the conclusion – the models are bunk, let’s fire all the modelers; let’s save that money; it’ll save billions, they’re doing harm, not good. They’re damaging science, not building it up. Let’s throw away everything they’ve done for the past 30 years. Let’s throw away wikipedia, well, at least all the climate drivel.
It’s all a house of cards. Do not tolerate these morons and the continuing damage they do.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 5:37 am
…
First, the models are horrible at predicting natural variability, as that is not their function.
I’m not sure you, and most climate modelers, appear to understand the significance of that statement. We don’t understand planetary climate thermodynamics. We suspect many things. We’re not even sure the planet is warming- the degree variation presently bandied about is mostly the noise of an unknown number of perturbers. We think the instrument record is starting to tell us something, but we are 100s of years, if not thousands, on any confirmation beyond natural variability. Arriving at a conclusion through models thatseems to agree with an outcome expected does not, in and of itself, indicate that the path to the result is correct. Unless the model can predict natural variability, its not modeling the system, period. Until your models can deal with natural variability, the end result can only be contrived, or coincidental – nothing more. Correlation does not absolutely validate causation. The vast majority of AGW proponents conflate UHI with global warming. That there are local atmospheric effects to UHI is without question, but then, for the moment, that’s weather, not climate…
It is truly sad that William M. Connolley is in charge of any sort of science editing at Wikipedia. He says “It requires maths. log(a.exp(b.t)) = log(a) + b.t” Does he realize that is a crude approximation, not proof that was asked for? He says “the planet is warning as the models predict.” Does he realize that models don’t predict?
Very nice of Mr Connolley to stop by and contribute. Perhaps some day he will start reading.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 5:25 am
Hey Gates, I think everyone here has heard your message. Dozens of times. Maybe hundreds. I’m tempted to write a program to read all the comments to WUWT and count variants of your 9 out of 10 mantra.
Plateau!
William Connelly:
> Can you explain why the planet is not warming as the GCM models predict?
No, because the planet is warning as the models predict.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
The models do NOT predict another 10-20 years of cooling, at least not the ones that are being used to justify action to governments. Maybe there are hidden models that are much better that no one will show us. The warming community basically just says, “But eventually all of that cooling will dissappear with even faster warming and get back to what we predicted.” That’s not a model, that’s not even a forecast, that’s speculation at best.
Thank You Burt for spending the time and effort to discuss this fraud and why it is a fraud.
Terry and Hyon
William Connelly, thank you for your tireless effort to invalidate what could have been a useful tool, rather than the insipid, irrelevant and to be perpetually ignored piece of crap you turned Wikipedia into.
Don’t you love aeronautical and aerospace engineers. If they were off by .5 degress, we would have missed the moon.
William;
There is no question that the measured (almost exponential) CO2 increase is coming from some source other than human activity. Please note that the world has been in a deep recession for several years now. This ultimately translates into less productivity, less movement of goods, fewer services, less travel and, hence, LESS fossil fuel consumption on a world wide basis. Open your eyes. How could such an increase in CO2 be coming from anything humans are doing?
Missing from the entire AGW argument are at least a couple of null hypotheses that desperately need studying, i.e. that the observed CO2 increase is due to some factor or factors other than human activity, and that temperature increases (and decreases) are due to some factor or factors other than human activity.
Go back to the ice cores. Why does temperature increase first by hundreds of years to then be FOLLOWED by CO2 if CO2 is the cause? Why has it done this cyclically for millenia?
William Connolley wrote:
“No, because the planet is warning as the models predict.”
10 words of hilarity. Thanks for making my day Billy.
I think we should ignore the guy who made Wikipedia useless – not even the education field will allow its use anymore even though Wikipedia had the potential to be the greatest resource the planet has ever seen.
Why would we respond to a guy who did that and allow discussion on Burt Rutan’s response to be highjacked.
TomB says:
January 28, 2012 at 10:47 pm
“So that pretty much sums up my problem with AGW alarmism. They’re clearly anti-human.”
That’s OK – I’m anti-CAGW-climate-“science”-funding! And after November 2012, we’ll be rapidly ramping down the government-funding for useless and in most cases redundant “climate products”.
“No, because the planet is warning as the models predict.
Time you hoist you flag on the mast, William M Connolly. Are you a believer?
Mr William Connelly:
“No, because the planet is warning as the models predict.”
Nonsense!
If this were true, Mr Hansen , Mr Gore, Mr Mann, et al would have empirical [ repeatable ] observational evidence to support the hypothesis.
There would be no need to “adjust” the data.
A moral scientist welcomes facts that do not show that their model or thesis is not predicting the future. These allow them to modify the model or thesis to more accurately represent reality. The immoral “scientist” manipulates the facts so that they are what their model would predict. AGW falls in the latter class. As such, the folks like Hansen, Mann, et al. are not scientists but simple frauds. They should be defunded and sued for the return of the funds given to them to date given that they have done this acts with malice aforethought.
RGates – that was quite a weak argument. What data set are you referring to? Maybe Burt looked at one or all of the other global temp data sets. I think that HADCRUT, UAH and RSS all had 2010 lower than 1998…. And i think even the data set that you might (?) be referring to had the difference between 2010 and 1998 so small that it was within the margin of error and hence technically should be treated as a tie with 1998…..
The reason why carbon dioxide has no effect is contained in Prof Claes Johnson’s “Computational Blackbody Radiation” linked from my website.*
All it would take to disprove Prof. Johnson’s hypothesis is a simple experiment. You just have to show that backradiation can warm something like a metal plate that is already warmer than the cold atmosphere. It appears that backradiation cannot melt frost which is in shade all day long, but who knows, maybe it can warm the oceans (LOL.)
But seriously, I am seeking ten companies to sponsor a reward of $50,000 for the first person or organisation who can do so.
For details watch for my book in about May or June this year and advertisements in the press and other media.
If any company wishes to offer $5,000 please contact me. The 10 companies doing so will get plenty of free publicity I believe.
I don’t believe the reward will ever have to be paid out.
Doug Cotton
* http://climate-change-theory.com
As a genuine skeptic (treat all opinions with caution, search for proof, check the data, etc.), it is a pleasure to see Wm Connelly here. I also greatly appreciate the presence of Stokes, Gates, etc. here. (I think I left out someone here.) They are to be commended and treated with courtesy as they are attempting to maintain an open dialogue.
(Note that Connelly did not have a link so how can he be accused of trying t drive traffic to his site). I am, of course, aware of his manipulations at Wikipedia.
Even A Physicist (after his irrational foray into energy economics) has demonstrated his knowledge and integrity when he sticks to stuff he knows.
I stress that I am continuing to evaluate the evidence and, as an engineer, I very much appreciate BR’s input and WC’s comments thereon.
Thank you, Anthony for providing such a great forum.
One problem I never see addressed by the alarmists is how the concentrations of CO2 and H2O are handled. I’ve only seen them handled as averages but that does not seem right. The H2O concentration high in the atmosphere is very small. Most of it exists in the first 3km or so. What that means is the CO2 in the lower levels of the atmosphere has almost no energy to work with. H2O does all the hard work.
However, at higher levels of the atmosphere CO2 becomes the dominant radiating gas. Interestingly, it is at this level that radiating gases may just start producing more cooling than warming. The radiation sent downward just gets absorbed by and generally redirected back towards space. The radiation upwards has a higher and higher probability of getting a free path out of the atmosphere as the density decreases.
I’m beginning to think this is why the overall GHE has reached its maximum level. The H2O already has maxed out the GHE at the lower levels of the atmosphere and adding more CO2 there does almost nothing. And, whatever small increase does occur is balanced by the cooling effect of CO2 at higher altitudes.
Thanks Burt,
Today I posted a link to “Burt Rutan on Climate Change” in my Web pages.
I’m glad to see engineers are not drinking the Kool-Aid!
No, the planet has not warmed during this century. period. And manipulating wikipedia does not make it true.
By the way, the mere fact that there are more than 2 models, 23 are described on last IPCC report if memory serves, and each one has a different value for the “climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling” proves that at least 22 models have to be wrong, since there can only be 1 real value, the other ones have to be wrong.
Does anyone really think Burt Rutan knows what he is talking about? The PDF presentation on his website is appalling. Almost every slide contains a facepalm.
On slide 10 he claims “The temperature trend is so slight that, were the global average temperaturechange which has taken place during the 20th and 21st centuries were to occur in an ordinary room, most of the people in the room would be unaware of it.”
Comparing a change in global average with the temperature in a room? Seriously.
On slide 12 he erroneously claims just 3.4% of CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by human activity.
On slide 17 through 22 he argues the ice core data cannot be trusted, but then on slide 27 he relies on the ice core data being remarkably accurate.
Slide 23 is a ridiculous strawman.
> why aren’t global temps increasing?
They are.
> Time you hoist you flag on the mast
I did that a while back [snip]
> how the concentrations of CO2 and H2O are handled. I’ve only seen them handled as averages but that does not seem right. The H2O concentration high in the atmosphere is very small…
Indeed. If you want to examine this in detail, then you need a climate model, which splits the atmosphere into typically 20 vertical levels (finer closer to the ground) and 300 km horizontal boxes. Within those boxes, H2O varies; CO2 doesn’t, of course, as it is well mixed to a close enough approximation.
If you don’t care for the detail then you can just consider a single atmospheric column and make water depend on temperature as you’d expect.
> Why does temperature increase first by hundreds of years to then be FOLLOWED by CO2 if CO2 is the cause?
Because the situation is rather more complex than you think it is. I’ve had people point me at 400,000 year ice core records and tell me “look: you can see the lag!”. But of course you can’t; a few hundred years is invisible on that scale. scienceblogs for the details, but be prepared to read closely.
[Note: self-serving advertising snipped. Readers can find your blog without much trouble. -mod]
Just a word of caution folks about William M. Connolley.
Experience has told me that arguing with him is an exercise in futility, as this zebra isn’t capable of changing his stripes, or even considering that a different camo might be better suited for him. What he does is to provoke responses, then quote mines those responses to use in an upcoming diatribe to claim to the few dozen or so people who read his blog how stupid we are here at WUWT. Followed by accolades from his peanut gallery. Think Tamino light. He did this last time when Willis tried to explain the significant errors of Equation 8 in the recent Nikolov and Zeller calim on gravity induced atmospheric heating.
Best to simply ignore him here, IMHO.
“Jay Curtis says:
January 29, 2012 at 6:42 am
William;
There is no question that the measured (almost exponential) CO2 increase is coming from some source other than human activity.”
Haha seriously? Is this guy serious?
I tried to read his post as a joke but I don’t see any humor in it. WTF!
R. Gates says:
Others have already shown your arguments are deeply entrenched in religious fervor. There’s only one real argument that alarmists can argue. That is, natural cooling effects have overridden the warming. Claiming recent years are among the warmest years actually goes against your case. Emissions have increased which means, all else being equal, the temperatures should be ever increasing as well.
That gets us down to a little critical thinking. If natural cooling could have impacted recent temperatures then natural warming could have impacted the 1980-1998 years. Unless you claim uber-knowledge of what drives climate you’re pretty much left with a coin flip.
Or, one might consider the GHE works as advertised but has reached its maximum effect.
Bob B says:
January 29, 2012 at 6:16 am
“After January temperatures come out, the models will fall out of the 95 % confidence factor:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/la-nina-drives-hadcrut-nhsh-13-month-mean-outside-1sigma-model-spread/
”
Wonderful comment by Lucia over there:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/la-nina-drives-hadcrut-nhsh-13-month-mean-outside-1sigma-model-spread/#comment-86459
“Perhaps some mannian end point filtering could save it.
I think if we fit a line, and then assume the upcoming 6 months is a reflection of the past six months, we can show a rise at the end.”
William M. Connolley, have you already written the wikipedia entry about this great climate science technique?
INteresting article in the Mail Online.
Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
Didn’t think I would ever see this.
Ben
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 8:06 am
[> how the concentrations of CO2 and H2O are handled. I’ve only seen them handled as averages but that does not seem right. The H2O concentration high in the atmosphere is very small…]
Indeed. If you want to examine this in detail, then you need a climate model, which splits the atmosphere into typically 20 vertical levels (finer closer to the ground) and 300 km horizontal boxes. Within those boxes, H2O varies; CO2 doesn’t, of course, as it is well mixed to a close enough approximation.
Sorry, but having worked in computer science for my entire career, I am far more of an expert on what they can do than your typical climate honcho. When you layer your models you lose the entire 3-dimensional movement in the atmosphere. That alone makes them pretty much useless. Not only that, but I’ve also heard the models are hydrostatic which is not the case in our atmosphere. I can only guess at the hundreds (or thousands) of other swags necessary to attempt any real time simulation of the massively complex and chaotic system know as the atmosphere.
I actually has a good laugh when someone mentioned above that only one out of 23 models could be correct. The real answer of course is zero.
Approximations after approximations eventually lose the real dynamics. This is exactly what Burt is trying to tell you. The lack of understanding of computer limitations I see demonstrated by your statement is appalling (but not surprising).
Mr. William M. Connolley is a person who projects the 1/2 of climate science that agrees with his thoughts, and wants the 1/2 that disagrees with his thoughts to be silenced.
Enough said.
nomnom,
You are truly clueless. Burt Rutan is accurate when he says human CO2 emissions are only around 3% of the total. The numbers come straight from the UN/IPCC. The rest of your silly criticisms are equally ridiculous.
As for the deceptive William Connolley, the CO2 lag behind temperature can be clearly seen on a chart of the past 400,000 years. On all time scales, from months to hundreds of millennia, CO2 always follows temperature. Therefore, CO2 is an effect of changing temperature, not a cause. The fact that CO2 lags temperature has been documented in the peer reviewed literature.
Connolley can get away with his lies on Wikipedia. But not here on the internet’s Best Science site.
@Cal65 says:
January 28, 2012 at 10:59 pm:
Hold on there with your condemnation. While Mann and a couple other prominent “warmints”™ hold degrees in geology, many of the most strenuous objectors, in academia and industry, and here on this board, are geologists. At some point a geologist gets a course or several concerning the development and 4.5 billion year history of the Earth. That usually is enough to cause one to look askance at claims of AGW catastrophe, and to dig into the question.
Jay Curtis – the world has not been in a recession, certain comparatively lightly-populated parts of it like the US and Europe have, while other more densely-populated areas like China have (until very recently, at least) still been managing substantial economic growth – and building lots of coal-fired power plants to support it.
On the other hand, that doesn’t make Connolley’s “all is proceeding as I have foreseen” claim regarding temperature and models any more accurate.
I found the first comment interesting at S&R: get rid of mankind.
The rest of the comments were surprisingly timid, with little or no data. Not the usual repetition of ‘consensus’, models, ‘masked warmth’, glaciers, Arctic ice extent, or references to NOAA, MET, etc. Clearly the Warmists’ foundation is going wobbly.
jlc says:
January 29, 2012 at 7:41 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I fully endorse the sentiment expressed.
I am an ardent sceptic and therefore welcome the views of all.
Whilst I frequently find myself unconvinced by the views expressed by Mr Gates, I consider Mr Gates to be one of the more knowledgeable commentators, and, accordingly, I always look out for his comments, and always make a point of reading them. I particularly like the fact that Mr Gates often supports his comments with links to referenced articles. Time permitting, I will always read these. Of course, those articles are frequently of variable relevance, variable quality, based upon biased sample sets, conclusions not fully supported by the data or otherwise over-hyped, fail to set out uncertainties and/or error margins etc, but nonetheless they form piece of what is a very complex jigsaw puzzle, one which is made the more difficult since we do not know how many pieces the puzzle contains nor what the picture is.
This site would be much poorer if Mr Gates and his like did not contribute. They have much to bring to the debate and I for one thank Mr Gates for the time and effort he displays in coming to this site and posting his views. It helps learning about possible underlying issues, causes and effects and I (and I suspect that this is a view shared by many) would look at this site far less frequently if it was one sided only.
Mr Connelly is a welcome addition. I do hope that we will see more of him in the future with his comments on articles being posted on this site. I beg to differ with those who argue that he is blinkered and that it is a futile waste of time arguing with him. Whilst that may be so (and I make no comment on whether that is or is not the case), it appears to me that that stance misses the real issue. In my opinion, the real issue is not to persuade him to change his views but rather to test one’s own views and to add to one’s own knowledge and understanding of issues relating to the understanding of climate and the status of climate science.
PS. I do not know whether this is solely my perception which perhaps is misconceived, but these past 6 months or so, I have gained the impression that Mr Gates is becoming slightly more sceptical in his views. I gain the impression that some of his comments are now more cautious in their certainty, and that whilst it is still clear on what side he thinks the dice will fall, he is beginning to express views to the effect that only time will tell as to whether the dice are loaded mainly by CO2 or whether they are significantly (and I would say mainly) loaded by natural variations (including ocean cycles and even solar). Time will indeed tell.
It will be interesting to look at this debate in 10 to 15 years time and to review people’s comments when we have the benefit of a further 10 to 15 years of data. It is quite likely that some may look very foolish.
James of the West says:
January 29, 2012 at 7:34 am
RGates – that was quite a weak argument. What data set are you referring to? Maybe Burt looked at one or all of the other global temp data sets. I think that HADCRUT, UAH and RSS all had 2010 lower than 1998…. And i think even the data set that you might (?) be referring to had the difference between 2010 and 1998 so small that it was within the margin of error and hence technically should be treated as a tie with 1998…..
————
Either way, we’ve not seen global cooling this past decade as Mr. Rutan contends. Fortunately, we have a verifiable prediction of future underlying warming that should show itself easily when the natural variability aligns once more with greenhouse gas forcing. This prediction comes directly from attribution studies. If we get a decent intensity El Niño around the peak of Solar Cycle 24, 1998 and 2010 temperatures should both be broken ( if, of course we don’t get a Pinatubo level eruption around the same time). But all of this kind of prediction is outside the bounds of what climate models are all about. This natural variability is just noise riding atop a much longer- term forcing from the perspective of the GCMs, which is as it should be.
It’s obvious to the CAGW lunatics that they are losing the PR war:
Just today,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
People like Mr Connolley are getting desperate as well, and are acting out of desperation on blogs like WUWT
I don’t think any greenhouse is purchasing “bottled” CO2 for greenhouse atmosphere addition. That would be expensive. They are merely burning propane or kerosene to produce the CO2 for plant growth enhancement. The set-up is similar to the propane mosquito traps which burn propane to create CO2 as bait for the little devils. CO2 is one of the easiest (and useful) substances for humans to create. It is why we create so much of it. Hope that clears up the question for you. GK
“Human Caused Climate Disruption”
I prefer CAGHGGWICD: Catastrophic Anthropogenic-GreenHouse-Gas Global Warming Induced Climate Disruption.
Urederra says:
January 29, 2012 at 7:49 am
“…By the way, the mere fact that there are more than 2 models, 23 are described on last IPCC report if memory serves, and each one has a different value for the “climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling” proves that at least 22 models have to be wrong, since there can only be 1 real value, the other ones have to be wrong….”
////////////////////////////////////////////
THis fact reminds me of the Dire Straights song Industrial Disease and the line “…Two men say they are Jesus, one of them must be wrong…”,
I have made this point many times. It is an incontrovertible fact that at least 22 models MUST be wrong. Does that give any faith that one might be right? In my opinion the fact that so many are known to be wrong suggests that the chance of one of those models being right is very weak, Indeed, as of today, not one single model mirrors observation and this further confirms the weak confidence level one could place on their projections and that any of them could be correct.
PS. I have not checked whether 23 is the correct number or whether it is slightly less.
Pronounced cagwick. Yes, I work for the goverment.
Here’s a bit of a mind experiment to show how climate models can be “wrong” in the sense of not being 100% accurate, but still useful, and it even tells you why. Place a drop of water at the top of a window and write a computer model that tells me the exact path that drop of water will follow. Now the models will know the force of gravity, and the molecular attraction between water and glass, and even impurities in the glass, but no model can tell you exactly the path that water drop will follow, but every one of them, or at least the consensus of them will tell you that the drop of water (if it was big enough and the glass pane not too tall) will end up at the bottom of the pane). Think how much vastly more complex the climate is, yet you would expect models to predict chaotic natural variability? That is not their function and it is impossible anyway. But of course, when we get a year that eclipses 2010 ( or 1998) in temperature, it will be “recovery from the Little Ice Age” for many skeptics, as a way most likely, of reducing their cognitive dissonance.
Some interesting quotes today in an article titled…
Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
* * *
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’
* * *
‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.
‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said.
* * *
‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry.
* * *
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1krtHnFX9
Anthony Watts says:
January 29, 2012 at 8:24 am
“Just a word of caution folks about William M. Connolley…”
Don’t worry Anthony. Like most people here (and in the general public), I have 1000 times more respect for Burt Rutan than William Connolley. Burt’s contributions to the science, engineering, and practice of aviation dwarf whatever minor contributions Mr. Connolley has made to anything…
One lesson that anyone can learn here on WUWT is the utter futility of science-and-skepticism that cherry-picks the noisiest data, the weakest science, and the weakest skeptical analyses.
Conversely, a positive lesson that WUWT teaches is the immense benefits of science-and-skepticism that matches the best science with the strongest skepticism.
Of all the signers of the WSJ-16 letter, it is Richard Lindzen who has authored one of the earliest, best-regarded, and most-cited skeptical analyses: “Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming” (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 1989).
Similarly, James Hansen was lead author of the earliest, best-regarded, and most-cited nonskeptical articles: “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” (Science, 1981).
These two articles are outstandingly representative (IMHO) of strong science and strong skepticism; they both have been cited hundreds of times; and therefore they both are highly recommended to skeptic and nonskeptic alike (a Google search finds both articles available on-line).
It is striking how little has changed (for skeptic and nonskeptic alike) since these two articles appeared in the 1980s; Hansen and Lindzen equally deserve great credit for the outstanding foresight and proven durability of their ideas. And for this reason, it is hugely dismaying that Burt Rutan’s PowerPoint presentations never refer to this seminal early work, by either Hansen or Lindzen, and indeed show no knowledge or appreciation of this work at all.
Which side is getting the better of the debate so far, Hansen-style scientific ideas or Lindzen-style skepticism of those ideas? Hmmmm … skeptics and nonskeptics alike can spin and dance and cherry-pick (and both sides most certainly do!) but neither side can change what they published back in the 1980s. As various climate “hockey sticks” gain in strength and length — per the open source Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) analysis, for example — the 1981 (nonskeptic) climate-change predictions by James Hansen and colleagues are looking stronger-and-stronger, relative to the 1989 (skeptical) climate-change criticisms of Richard Lindzen and his WSJ-16 colleagues like Burt Rutan.
Elevator Summary: The track record of Hansen-style climate predictions is (so far) more impressive than the track record of Rutan / WSJ-16 / Lindzen-style skepticism, yet both are valuable, and each augments the value of the other. Thus skeptics and nonskeptics alike would benefit, if greater acknowledgment and respect were given, for the outstanding early works of climate-change science and skepticism.
I already put in several comments on the WSJ article Burt Rutan signed that may possibly have gotten lost because there are already 1946 of them. My point was exactly what Rutan says – their predictions are based on defective modeling and they refuse to be corrected on that. Worst of all is their use of the greenhouse effect to predict warming which Ferenck Miskolczi’s work has proved to be non-existent. I myself proved in a peer-reviewed paper that greenhouse effect in the Arctic is impossible and even offered my paper to Anthony Watts. But Anthony rudely rejected it because I said bad things about Keenlysides’ work. You would think that science would count for a skeptic website but no – Anthony had to use a pretext only his namesake, the Oxford don, would use to refuse posting a paper. Peer review, he said, was wrong not to strike out my comments about Keenlyside, and besides that I was ending my sentences with exclamation points! You can get it now at: http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/arno-arrak.pdf
Bill Illis says:
January 29, 2012 at 6:53 am
“I think we should ignore the guy who made Wikipedia useless – not even the education field will allow its use anymore even though Wikipedia had the potential to be the greatest resource the planet has ever seen.
Why would we respond to a guy who did that and allow discussion on Burt Rutan’s response to be highjacked.”
_____________________________
Can we get an Amen?
On related note, seriously, Mr. Angliss, “human- caused climate disruption“?
Really?
If you only knew how ridiculous and sophomoric that statement makes you appear, without even considering the rest of your weak argument.
CO2 rise is likely mostly anthropogenic, but it’s not a sure thing. If what would be caused by outgassing is lower than human emissions, the level of non-human CO2 would not increase since the equilibrium state would be reached without outgassing. Of course, I’m not sure that outgassing could plausibly explain that amount of CO2.
What would be interesting is if non-fossil fuel based CO2 is also rising.
Mr. Connely says: CO2 increases affect the radiative balance logarithmically, this is well known. Since CO2 is increasing nearly exponentially, the radiative effect is nearly linear.
Sir, you are wrong R.Gates has said numbers of times CO2 effects can not be expressed logarithmically.
Other than that you’re just wrong about the exponential increase of CO2. Less than two ppm per year is not exponential.
Not only do I agree completely with Burt Rutan but I feel I must express my admiration of him for designing the most magnificently beautiful twin engine airplane the world has ever seen. It’s a pity they turned out to cost as much as a small jet, but that wasn’t Burt’s fault. Ladies and gentlemen, gaze upon this flying machine with awe:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://rps3.com/Images/Pages/Starship/Starship%2520page/star1385%252012×9%2520lg.jpg&imgrefurl=http://rps3.com/Pages/Starship.htm&h=801&w=1068&sz=274&tbnid=t4Qlu5TBYU1msM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=128&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbeechcraft%2Bstarship%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=beechcraft+starship&docid=IB7iWy7xjdRgYM&sa=X&ei=Y4IlT5y3DeaKsQLRkq2MAg&ved=0CD8Q9QEwAw&dur=2532
Am reading The delinquent Teenager. WOW is all I can say. I knew of the shady side of the IPCC but no anywhere near the actual BS pulled by the IPCC. Every journalist in the world should read this book and it is definitely Pulitzer material.
Smokey: CO2 always follows temperature. Therefore, CO2 is an effect of changing temperature, not a cause.
And eggs always hatch into chickens. Therefore chickens can’t lay eggs. Great logic!
Richard wrote: “I have made this point many times. It is an incontrovertible fact that at least 22 models MUST be wrong. Does that give any faith that one might be right? ”
The loons don’t think like that. They have a whole department dedicated to analyzing all the models statistically. They then take an average based on the analysis and call it a scientific result.
It really is true. I saw a lecture by a chief loon priest explain it all. Thankfully I have forgotten his name.
Fantastic to see that Burt Rutan has such street credibility that the CAGW “thought police thugs” have appeared en mass in an orchestrated smear campaign.
At first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
CAGW is definitely as dead a doornail. Although they still fight it is clear that skepticism has won.
Now the sooner we can cut off taxpayer funding to all these CAGW clowns (“scientists”, unelected agencies, NGO’s), the sooner we can get back to real problems: restoring Western economies, lowering the cost of energy, improving the environment and helping the poor.
Amen to the death of CAGW.
Simple question people never seem to ask, or least I have never seen asked. How did CO2 level reach 5x-9x the current levels historically before cave men existed? How is it possible that the minor jump this time is human induced but the proven historical higher levels were always natural before?
“Smokey says:
January 29, 2012 at 8:33 am
nomnom,
You are truly clueless. Burt Rutan is accurate when he says human CO2 emissions are only around 3% of the total. The numbers come straight from the UN/IPCC. The rest of your silly criticisms are equally ridiculous.”
No Rutan says 3% of the atmospheric CO2 is human caused. See the difference? He’s claiming just 3% of the 390ppm is caused by man. Just 11.7ppm. So he’s claiming most of the CO2 rise documented by Mauna Loa and other sites is not caused by man. Which is completely incorrect.
“As for the deceptive William Connolley, the CO2 lag behind temperature can be clearly seen on a chart of the past 400,000 years.”
But Rutan calls that chart into doubt. He cites the Beck CO2 study that disagrees with ice core data. Therefore he shouldn’t accept ice core data is accurate enough to a lag between CO2 and temperature.
“On all time scales, from months to hundreds of millennia, CO2 always follows temperature. Therefore, CO2 is an effect of changing temperature, not a cause.”
Wrong. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is therefore a cause of warming.
“Connolley can get away with his lies on Wikipedia. But not here on the internet’s Best Science site.”
You are the one lying.
“mkelly says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:34 am
Other than that you’re just wrong about the exponential increase of CO2. Less than two ppm per year is not exponential.”
It’s accelerating. Just look at the data. Why do you think they call it the Keeling **Curve**?
Seriously why are so many commenters slapping down facts and celebrating ignorance?
Gates says:
“…when we get a year that eclipses 2010 ( or 1998) in temperature, it will be “recovery from the Little Ice Age” for many skeptics, as a way most likely, of reducing their cognitive dissonance.”
Gates misunderstands scientific skepticism. Skeptics are generally immune to CD because skeptics have nothing to prove, therefore cognitive dissonance cannot apply. The alarmist crowd is badly afflicted with cognitive dissonance [Orwell’s “doublethink”]. They have the irrational ability to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time, just like Gates is doing. Temperatures have been flat to declining for almost fifteen years, but Gates believes that isn’t real. He truly believes that there is a lot of hidden heat in the pipeline, which will jump out any time now. Doublethink. Cognitive dissonance. Usually incurable.
HarrisonN, thanx for making clear that you’re a lunatic with that ridiculous analogy. Rises in CO2 always follow rises in temperature, on all time scales. I provided verifiable evidence showing that is true. You provided a baseless opinion.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:11 am
WOW!
mkelly says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:34 am
Mr. Connely says: CO2 increases affect the radiative balance logarithmically, this is well known. Since CO2 is increasing nearly exponentially, the radiative effect is nearly linear.
Sir, you are wrong R.Gates has said numbers of times CO2 effects can not be expressed logarithmically.
________
That is not what I said at all, but you knack for misquoting can probably be expressed exponentially.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:11 am
But of course, when we get a year that eclipses 2010 ( or 1998) in temperature, it will be “recovery from the Little Ice Age” for many skeptics, as a way most likely, of reducing their cognitive dissonance.
But of course, if we get 10 years with no increase in temperatures, it will be “aerosols”, or “hidden heat”, or “natural cooling”, or (pick your favorite excuse since you seem to have used them all) as a way most likely, of reducing their cognitive dissonance.
Yes, all models are wrong. It’s good you recognize that. However, we just had William C. telling me to go look at models to “understand” how climate works. I hope you see the problem. Models are being used as THE evidence behind the alarmism. Your typical non-scientist trusts computers. The result is many people actually believe the models are evidence. Just look at all the peer reviewed nonsense we see based on models. These are PhDs that don’t understand that models are no more than a biased guess.
Here’s a tough problem for you. Go out ask 23 registered democrats who they believe would make the best president in the 2012 elections. Do you think you will get an unbiased answer? How many models are built by skeptics? Need I say more?
If William M. Connolley is allowed to post in this thread, then I am out of it.
For the same reason I wouldn’t have a dinner with the KGB officer who tortured me.
Here’s an excellent essay written by Trenberth related to models and uncertainty:
http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1002/full/climate.2010.06.html
And here’s a very appropriate quote from the end of the essay:
“The timescale dictated by the IPCC process brings with it the risk of prematurely exposing problems with climate models as we learn how to develop them. In other disciplines, this might not matter so much, but what to do about climate change is a high-profile, politically charged issue involving winners and losers, and such results can be misused. In fact — to offer one more prediction — I expect that they will be.”
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:11 am
Here’s a bit of a mind experiment to show how climate models can be “wrong” in the sense of not being 100% accurate, but still useful, and it even tells you why. Place a drop of water at the top of a window and write a computer model that tells me the exact path that drop of water will follow. Now the models will know the force of gravity, and the molecular attraction between water and glass, and even impurities in the glass, but no model can tell you exactly the path that water drop will follow, but every one of them, or at least the consensus of them will tell you that the drop of water (if it was big enough and the glass pane not too tall) will end up at the bottom of the pane).
And this example precisely illustrates my previous comments about “Gates’ models”. Of course the model will find the drop at the bottom of the pane. The model has a preconceived conclusion even if the run itself fails its hypothesis: that of the route.
Climate models, as promoted by warmists are structured the same, The conclusion is assumed: there will be warming. Even the methodology is assumed: the warming will be due to CO2 (uinlike the relative certainty of gravity). Being unable to predict either the assumed methodology OR any other mechanism falsifies the assumed conclusion. No amount of dressing up or down will fix that. Lipstick on a pig.
aaron says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:33 am
CO2 rise is likely mostly anthropogenic, but it’s not a sure thing. If what would be caused by outgassing is lower than human emissions, the level of non-human CO2 would not increase since the equilibrium state would be reached without outgassing. Of course, I’m not sure that outgassing could plausibly explain that amount of CO2.
What would be interesting is if non-fossil fuel based CO2 is also rising.
I suspect it is. With all the destruction of trees in 3rd world counties we could certainly have a situation where the natural CO2 cycle has been changed. I see very little data on this. And, man also has been responsible for some pretty impressive forest fires.
We could in fact be witnessing man-made climate change. However, the actual causes could be
poorly understood.
Macro Contrarian (@JackHBarnes) says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:50 am
Simple question people never seem to ask, or least I have never seen asked. How did CO2 level reach 5x-9x the current levels historically before cave men existed? How is it possible that the minor jump this time is human induced but the proven historical higher levels were always natural before?
Dinosaur farts, don’t you know? Sheesh.
/LOL
Please explain why you believe we haven’t recovered from the depth of then LIA. Doesn’t recovery from historic cold constitute warming in your circles?! Perhaps you should get some of your science from another source other than Connelly’s wiki distortions. In fact, our respect for you would be greatly enhanced, if you would just take a moment, to condemn Connelly’s redaction policies. Or is it possible you are not interested in what is really going on, and science is a subtractive field… not an additive field of inquiry.
William Connelly – Your policies and practices are despicable. One day you will reap the whirlwind of your anti-knowledge actions. There will be quite the audience applauding your tar and feathering fall. Others will hardly notice your passing. GK
I was a true believer in CAGW until I saw Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. My background in Aerospace R&D gave me enough knowledge to start throwing up red flags as I watched the movie. That movie caused me to actually study both sides of the argument with an open mind rather than swallow the MSM bias. Something few warmists do. When all was said and done; I was officially a true skeptic.
I’ve come to the conclusion that there are only 2 types of people that believe in any form of AGW; those that are stupid sheep with a hate for humans and fossil fuels, and those with an agenda that includes power and control of the masses. While these people sink tons of money into halting the discharge of an odorless colorless gas that is an essential building block of life; true pollutants are not being controlled. These people are far from being true “Environmentalists” as I’ve been since grade school. There is a happy medium that can be struck between man and nature. Making Co2 the enemy is not one of them. Co2 is green.
Macro Contrarian (@JackHBarnes) says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:50 am
Simple question people never seem to ask, or least I have never seen asked. How did CO2 level reach 5x-9x the current levels historically before cave men existed? How is it possible that the minor jump this time is human induced but the proven historical higher levels were always natural before?
______
You’d probably have to go back to the mid-Pliocence or Early Pliocene (more than 3 million years ago) to find CO2 levels as high as they are today. Humans were of course very primative in that time frame and were not affecting CO2 levels. This minor (if 40% is minor!) jump in CO2 levels beyond what the Holocene average was of around 270-280 ppm, is quite easily accomplished through the billions of tons of fossil fuels burned every year and the great changes in land use that humans have undertaken. The issue (among reasonable scientists) is not whether humans have caused the increase in CO2, but rather, what the sensitivity of the climate will be to this rapid increase.
Food for thought to those thinking that humans have not caused the current increase in CO2: During no previous interglacial period did CO2 ever get above 300 ppm, even when some of those interglacials exceeded the Holocene maximum temperatures. If, as some claim, warming always proceeds increases in CO2, then how could it be cooler during this interglacial, yet we see higher CO2 levels? It doen’t add up, and that’s because CO2 levels are now higher because humans have brought the extra carbon out of the ground in the form of burning of fossil fuels.
Aaron;
>>CO2 rise is likely mostly anthropogenic….
It this statement is true, then how do you account for the countless times in past millennia that CO2 has risen substantially above what it is today without humans even being present on the Earth? If those instances were due to some factor or factors other than fossil fuel emissions, then how does your research (or your computer model) control for the possible influence of those other extraneous variables?
The fact that CO2 is now rising while temperatures are falling pretty well sums up the failure of the GCMs I think. Nicola Scafetta also does a nice job of dealing with the failure of the models. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/06/dr-nicola-scafetta-there-is-little-hope.html
R.. Gates says (interminable):
—–
I think climate is the most complex thing scientists have ever tried to study, barring the brain. And it can all be reduced to one linear equation (2*CO2 = ~3C)?
Meanwhile all other factors can be ignored – “First, the models are horrible at predicting natural variability, as that is not their function.” Hey, but never mind, everything else is just noise…
Although the ‘noise’ can drown the ‘signal’, not just for years, but perhaps for decades?
This is not going to end well…
aaron,
“CO2 rise is likely mostly anthropogenic, but it’s not a sure thing. If what would be caused by outgassing is lower than human emissions, the level of non-human CO2 would not increase since the equilibrium state would be reached without outgassing.”
The net CO2 flux into the atmosphere is positive, no doubt about it. The net annual CO2 flux equals the annual atmospheric CO2 change. It’s the sum of anthropogenic emissions and net natural flux (into atmosphere). So, you’re right that the equilibrium state is reached without net outgasing because there’s more than enough anthropogenic input (the overflow goes into oceans) to reach the equilibrium. However, the CO2 rise can still be caused 100% by the warming climatic factors, in spite of no net ocean outgasing. We simply emit more than what would be caused by outgasing, so in total oceans don’t have to outgas to reach the equilibrium – they will even absorb any extra CO2 it’s not needed for the equilibrium.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:11 am
All this reveals is that you do not have a clue what a rigorously formulated physical hypothesis looks like.
cui bono says:
January 29, 2012 at 10:30 am
Meanwhile all other factors can be ignored – “First, the models are horrible at predicting natural variability, as that is not their function.” Hey, but never mind, everything else is just noise…
Although the ‘noise’ can drown the ‘signal’, not just for years, but perhaps for decades?
______
The relationship between noise and signal is a complex one, and made all the more difficult when you are at or near crossover points when what was previously noise is becoming the dominant signal and visa-versa. The ultimate signal is Milankovitch, and now it appears that we have a interesting period of time when signal and noise is a bit confounded (at least to the casual observer) but not to closer study. Somewhere between 10 and 20 years appears to now be the maximum period in which natural variability can mask the forcing from CO2.
nomnom,
Connolley lies. You apparently have him confused with me. And you are no different than Connolley. Your comments are simply baseless opinion. Here is a chart of atmospheric CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa. Connolley is either ignorant or lying when he claims that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is accelerating. I don’t think Connolley is ignorant. But he is certainly a propagandist, and propagandists lie. Why are you carrying his water for him? It should also be noted that more CO2 is beneficial, not harmful. CO2 has been up to twenty times higher in the geologic past, when life thrived. The biosphere is currently starved of CO2, so the recent rise is beneficial.
Next, Beck’s data does not go back 400,000 years, it goes back to the 19th century. I am not arguing with Burt Rutan, I am pointing out your obfuscation. Furthermore, I cited a peer reviewed paper and charts verifying the fact that CO2 follows temperature, thus contradicting Connolley’s deceptive propaganda. Anyone capable of reading charts can see the fact that CO2 is a functtion of temperature; an effect, not a cause. It is obvious even when the x-axis covers hundreds of millennia.
Next, CO2 may cause some minor and beneficial warming. But there is no empirical, testable evidence showing the percentage, if any, of human-caused temperature change. CO2=AGW is simply an unproven conjecture. It may turn out to be eventually proven, or it may be falsified. But as of now it is a conjecture. I happen to think that CO2 causes some minor warming. I also think that warming is entirely beneficial, and that the increase in CO2 is completely harmless. The planet is in agreement that CO2 is harmless and beneficial, and that Authority trumps your belief system.
Finally, you accused me of lying by citing my statement: “Connolley can get away with his lies on Wikipedia. But not here on the internet’s Best Science site.” Show where anything in that statement is untrue. Connolley is a global warming propagandist who mendaciously alters thousands of comments on Wikipedia to conform to his alarmist agenda, therefore he is ipso facto dishonest; he does not allow legitimate contrary views. And WUWT has won the Weblog Awards for Best Science site, twice running. Therefore, my statement stands in its entirety, and you are bearing false witness.
R. Gates so how come we did not cook when C02 was much higher as most doom sayers predict for our future unless we send them money?
R. Gates says: January 29, 2012 at 9:11 am
Here’s a bit of a mind experiment to show how climate models can be “wrong” in the sense of not being 100% accurate, but still useful, and it even tells you why.
Which most of us understand. But here’s the counter problem: You don’t know you have a functional model until it has been tested against reality.
We’ve only got one ‘drop of water’, and it hit the side of the glass instead of the bottom – which was the prediction.
The pre-Copernicans had models as well – and they had more predictive skill that we’ve seen out of
the current crop of climate models. The entire raft of climate models are mostly ‘validated’ by hindcasting. That is, exactly like the pre-Copernicans, they fiddle with parameters whose actual value isn’t quite completely quantified until their model matches history. (Although Hansen/GISS is doing the reverse, which should be putting people in jail.)
That isn’t validation though. Actual validation comes from -actual- forecasting. The best validated models we have so far aren’t -completely- wrong. That isn’t a strong endorsement.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 10:40 am
“The relationship between noise and signal is a complex one, and made all the more difficult when you are at or near crossover points when what was previously noise is becoming the dominant signal and visa-versa.”
Can you explicate the terminology of “noise and signal” in a way that is useful to physical scientists? Or do we all have to buy into some ersatz statistical magic before we can use the terminology correctly?
I think it is great that so-called “warmists” are here. It allows for direct question/answers. definitely a plus is any debate about complex issues.
So in keeping I ask Mr (Dr., so dont know which) Connelly and R. Gates the following question.
It is well recognized that the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 6-9 times higher in the distant past. Therefore please explain how a small by comparison rise over the past few decades can cause run-away global warming when levels 6-9 times higher did not?
“The Watermelons and Strawberries are past their prime and their perfume is turning to stench, soon they will be compost” pg
‘a physicist’ says:
“…James Hansen was lead author of the earliest, best-regarded, and most-cited nonskeptical articles…”
Yes, Hansen is a non-skeptic. Thank you for acknowledging that pertinent fact.
The only honest scientists are skeptics. That is also a pertinent fact. If you’re not a scientific skeptic, you are a true believer. Hansen’s wild-eyed statements and actions show conclusively that he is a true believer, not an honest scientist. Hansen is the polar opposite of the rational Prof Richard Lindzen.
And your endlessly repeated claim that Hansen’s predictions were accurate do not make those claims correct. They are not. Hansen’s predictions have turned out to be wrong. All of them. The claim that they were accurate is a classic example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: shoot holes in a barn door, then draw a bullseye around them. That’s what GISS does. They regularly “adjust” the past temperature record to show that Hansen got it right. He didn’t.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 10:26 am
______
You’d probably have to go back to the mid-Pliocence or Early Pliocene (more than 3 million years ago) to find CO2 levels as high as they are today. Humans were of course very primative in that time frame and were not affecting CO2 levels.
***
The time period above that you are using has only happened in the last 1/1000th of Earths history. Has not CO2 been significantly higher at times over a much more longer period of history? Is it intellectually honest to quote an extremely condensed period of time in Earth’s history to evaluate the natural fluctuation in CO2 levels?
Every time we burn a bit of fossil fuel, we are simply putting the carbon back where it came from originally.
It is time to stop sequestering carbon, SET IT FREE!
jlc says:
January 29, 2012 at 7:41 am
richard verney says:
January 29, 2012 at 8:42 am
Your underlying method is sound and I value your decency but I’ve been had too many times to disregard obvious signs. We must test facts and ideas wherever they come from—especially if they disagree with ours—but we don’t have to give comfort to dishonest brokers.
JLC, you may have missed that William M. Connolley did provide a link to his handle. It leads to “Tweaking the Wackos”. That includes you, I think.
Good things come from experience and much experience comes from bad things. Listen to what Anthony says about Connolley. It comes from experience.
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 8:06 am
Oh heavens, let him post it. Anyone who likes Go can’t be a complete jerk even though his name links to something shows him to be nearly a complete jerk. Heck, Anthony lists Skeptical Science (with a warning).
OTOH, I figure I’ve read enough Connolley-tainted stuff at Wilipedia that I don’t think I need the pure form. I might do the Go problem, though.
“Smokey says:
January 29, 2012 at 10:43 am
nomnom,
Connolley lies. You apparently have him confused with me. And you are no different than Connolley. Your comments are simply baseless opinion. Here is a chart of atmospheric CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20Last12months-previous12monthsGrowthRateSince1958.gif
Connolley is either ignorant or lying when he claims that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is accelerating.”
Your graph shows that CO2 rise is accelerating. Your graph is of the annual growth rate of CO2 and it shows that is increasing. That’s an acceleration.
I think I see what happened here. Most people who go looking for a graph of Mauna Loa CO2 will come up with a graph like this:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/programs/coop/scripps/img/img_scripps_co2_record.gif
But you managed to find a graph depicting the annual growth rate of Mauna Loa CO2. That takes some effort because they are far rarer. So here’s my hypothesis:
You went through a bunch of Keeling Curve graphs but ignored them because you were looking for a line not a curve (confirmation bias). You eventually stumbled on one that looked like a straight line, it’s just you didn’t realize it was actually depicting acceleration.
Am I right?
Leave it to a bona-fide rocket scientist to put the warmists back in their place.
Good On him. I had the pleasure of shaking his hand once.
“Macro Contrarian (@JackHBarnes) says:
January 29, 2012 at 10:58 am
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 10:26 am
______
You’d probably have to go back to the mid-Pliocence or Early Pliocene (more than 3 million years ago) to find CO2 levels as high as they are today. Humans were of course very primative in that time frame and were not affecting CO2 levels.
***
The time period above that you are using has only happened in the last 1/1000th of Earths history. Has not CO2 been significantly higher at times over a much more longer period of history? Is it intellectually honest to quote an extremely condensed period of time in Earth’s history to evaluate the natural fluctuation in CO2 levels?”
There are 30,000 centuries in 3 million years. What are the chances that the only century in those set of 30,000 to see CO2 jump to 390ppm happened to be the only century in which humans emitted more than enough CO2 to explain the rise?
R. Gates says:
Isn’t it true that before Keeling et al
The 19th century averages of CO2 were approximately 350 ppm?
Rutan definitely handed the alarmists their heads. Like all good engineers, he makes sure the data is pure of bias and aligns with reality. In his field, you cannot afford to be even minutely wrong.
I also should note that applauding the correlation between CO2 and temp over the very period they required correlation (1960’s to late 1990’s) is a bit of a joke. Correlation with your primary calibration period is sort of a no brainer.
In case people are interested, I have posted on another rocky theory of ‘Climate Science’. I am finding it less and less likely that El Nino is an artifact of climate. I think climate perturbations from El Nino are secondary effects of geological, volcanic activity.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/18003
Who wrote this?
“A more philosophically nuanced recognition that there are different categories of truth (historical, scientific, mathematical, theological, etc.), just as there are different genres of literature (history, story, metaphor, poetry, etc.), would not diminish the force of his detailed arguments.”
In other words, don’t ask for credit as a kick in the fork often offends.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
> > Time you hoist you flag on the mast
> I did that a while back [snip]
No dangerous links eh? Don’t want to scare the horses. ‘Nuff ssaid.
> When you layer your models you lose the entire 3-dimensional movement in the atmosphere. That alone makes them pretty much useless. Not only that, but I’ve also heard the models are hydrostatic
No the GCMs permit 3-d movement, of course. Most (but not all) are indeed hydrostatic. HadCM3 was HadGEM isn’t,if I recall correctly. It marginally improves the dynamics but nothing to worry about for the level of detail we have here.
> human CO2 emissions are only around 3% of the total
Of course. We already know that. But what matters are the fluxes, i.e. emissions minus drawdown. Natural emissions are large, but then so is the drawdown; this has to be true, because pre-industrially, they balanced. Human emissions are large compared to the net natural flux, which is why CO2 is increasing.
> the CO2 lag behind temperature can be clearly seen on a chart of the past 400,000 years
Of course it can’t be seen on that chart! The claimed lag is ~500 years. That chart covers 400 kyr in 400 pixels, so each pixel is 1000 years. Hence, you can’t see anything less than 1000 years.
> How did CO2 level reach 5x-9x the current levels historically
I don’t think they have “historically”, in the sense of within-the-historic record. You have to go back about 100 Myr, and even then the variation is uncertain. See pics and text in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Past_variation
> William Connelly – Your policies and practices are despicable
You (and your like) are long on words but short on evidence. And spelling.
> Here is a chart of atmospheric CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa. Connolley is either ignorant or lying when he claims that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is accelerating
That isn’t a chart of CO2; it is a chart of the rate of change from year to year. And as you see, it goes u, from ~1 ppm/yr at the start to ~2 ppm/yr at the end. Which is to say, the rate of increase is increasing, which is to say the actual CO2 value is accelerating.
> come we did not cook when C02 was much higher
Because that was more than 50 Myr ago. We weren’t around.
> Therefore please explain how a small by comparison rise over the past few decades can cause run-away global warming
It won’t cause run-away warming; that forms no part of the std IPCC picture which I subscribe to. I had a link to “what I think about GW” that would have made this clear, but your mod didn’t like it so it was snipped. CO2 changes in the deep geological past > 50 Myr ago aren’t all that well established; try looking at the wiki CO2 pic I linked to, which shows that estimates vary wildly. If you want times when everyone agrees CO2 was high, you have to go back more than 300 Myr, when the continents were in different places.
Smokey says:
January 29, 2012 at 10:54 am
What gets lost in the discussion is that there is a long term warming trend. It did NOT start in 1973 as some would have you believe.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1900/to:2012/plot/gistemp/from:1900/to:2012/trend:1.0
The trend is actually longer in duration, but I don’t want to confuse some with climate rather than weather.
Smokey, although I enjoy the vigor of your posts, it is easy to check that the above assertion is dead-wrong.
As anyone can verify for themselves, in their 1981 article “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” (Science, 1981), James Hansen and his colleagues painted two specific bulls-eyes:
(1) “Opening of the fabled Northwest Passage” (see Hansen’s abstract), and
(2) Hockey-stick warming of the the earth’s temperature (Figures 6 and 7).
Thirty-two years later, the opening of the Northwest Passage for commercial shipping the last three years in-a-row, and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) “hockey-stick” (to cite one “hockey-stick” among many), have verified the strong 1981 predictions of Hansen and his colleagues.
To the best of my knowledge (and I would be pleased to be corrected!), skeptics like Rutan / Lindzen / the WSJ-16 cannot cite any similarly long-term predictive successes.
Elevator Summary: James Hansen and his colleagues have predictively “hit more bulls-eyes” than skeptics like Rutan / Lindzen / the WSJ-16.
R Gates said:
“Fortunately, we have a verifiable prediction of future underlying warming that should show itself easily when the natural variability aligns once more with greenhouse gas forcing.”
For give my unlearned skepticism …..Are you saying that “the broken clock will be accurate when the time comes”?
Seems that way.
Gates says:
“You’d probably have to go back to the mid-Pliocence or Early Pliocene (more than 3 million years ago) to find CO2 levels as high as they are today. Humans were of course very primative in that time frame and were not affecting CO2 levels. ”
I guess you meant “primitive” but do you really believe there were humans on Earth 3 million years ago? I have to assume you were making a joke, the alternative is embarrassing. The surprising thing is that you did not check this factoid with your WikiWanka bible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
It is like trying to communicate to a drowning person that there is a life preserver right behind them and they are refusing to listen. Panic has rendered them deaf, dumb, and blind.
Alarmists are their own worst enemy.
A physicist says:
January 29, 2012 at 11:54 am
“Elevator Summary: James Hansen and his colleagues have predictively “hit more bulls-eyes” than skeptics like Rutan / Lindzen / the WSJ-16.”
Your standard applies to marksmanship but not science. In science, one incorrect prediction that proves to be substantiated brings down whole theories.
If hitting bulls-eyes, as you put it, is to count in science then it has to be an unbroken string of bulls-eyes. After such a string, you might have a reasonably well confirmed physical hypothesis. At this point, you have entered the scientific arena. People practicing without such well confirmed hypotheses are practicing something other than science. But the first miss calls your hypothesis into question.
Hansen and crew have not managed to produce a well-confirmed physical hypothesis beyond what Arrhenius produced in the 19th century.
You really should read up on physical theory and scientific method.
David Ball says:
January 29, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Ha ha ha ha ……Thumbs up!
Anyone who thinks proxies are better than Observational Evidence…Models are evidence / validation for unproven hypothesis – post-normal science equals Normal Science
doesn’t deserve a life preserver
A challenge to William M. Connolley:
No “consensus” climate science working at this time will address the claim that there are no well confirmed physical hypotheses that can explain even one physical connection between increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and the behavior of clouds and related phenomena. They will not address the claim because they know that no such physical hypotheses exist. And that is the scandal of climate science today. Even Arrhenius knew that without the “forcings” and “feedbacks” there is no way to know what effects increasing concentrations of CO2 might have on Earth’s temperature. Thus, “consensus” climate scientists are mistaken to claim that there is scientific evidence that supports the CAGW or AGW thesis.
When I say that “consensus” climate scientists either do not understand the requirements of empirical science or seek to avoid those requirements, it is their failure to address the nonexistence of these necessary physical hypotheses that is uppermost in my mind. This is the scandal of climate science and every critic should be doing all that he can to hold “consensus” scientists’ feet to the fire. They are beaten on the science. All that is necessary is that we press the case.
What “consensus” climate scientists are willing to discuss are unvalidated and unvalidatable computer models and the laughable proxy studies. Those two topics are nothing but grand Red Herrings.
Finally, if you need proof that “consensus” climate scientists have no well confirmed physical hypotheses that can explain and predict the effects of CO2 on clouds, just ask them for the hypotheses. None have produced them and none can produce them. The necessary physical hypotheses do not exist.
Produce the well confirmed physical hypotheses, Mr. Connolley. Explicate them in your own words. Do not assign homework. This is a debate.
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 11:52 am:
In reading some of your comments I find them interesting but not very factual. I am sure you mean well, and post to the best of your ability.
1. You seem to be concerned about the continueing trend of warming that started approx 200 years ago. Why are you concerned and what can be done to stop this continueing trend? Why would we want to stop this trend?
2. The Holocene Optimum is called that for some reason. Could it be that the warmth, the thriving Sahara allowed mankind to emerge, learn, adapt?
3. The temps of the Holocene Optimum were prob higher than the current temps for a much longer period of time. This publication confirms this as the Arctic was virtually ice free during the summer.
http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/
During this period of warmth CH4 outgassing did not seem to affect climate to any great extent.
Do you expect different results from less stimuli this go around?
4. Are the scientists wrong who have ascertained that there is an approx 800 +- 200 years lag in co2 and temp correlation?
5. When looking at paleo records,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Co2-temperature-plot.png
one can see that temperature falls even as co2 continues to rise. I am sure there are other unknown climatic forcings also involved in this, however; the above chart does show that co2 continues to be a lagging effect, and not a leading effect on climate.
6. Current warming trend of the past 200 years. Current AGW folks keep wanting to tell us that the early 20th century warming was caused by increased sun activity. Sorry, that dog’s tail doesn’t wag.
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
I have been straightforward in my response to you and your percieved information. Being you are a smart feller, I would appreciate documented information to refute what I have posted to you.
Thank you in advance for your detailed response.
It seems the warmists missed my question so I will ask it again.
I think it is great that so-called “warmists” are here. It allows for direct question/answers. definitely a plus is any debate about complex issues.
So in keeping I ask Mr (Dr., so dont know which) Connolley and R. Gates the following question.
It is well recognized that the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 6-9 times higher in the distant past. Therefore please explain how a small by comparison rise over the past few decades can cause run-away global warming when levels 6-9 times higher did not?
nomnom says:
January 29, 2012 at 11:32 am
There are 30,000 centuries in 3 million years. What are the chances that the only century in those set of 30,000 to see CO2 jump to 390ppm happened to be the only century in which humans emitted more than enough CO2 to explain the rise?
_____________
You are obviously begging the question…
Correlation is not causation.
How did CO2 rise to 5x + current levels historically, before humanity existed? How did it naturally fall each time before? Why would you believe this time is uniquely different then every single event in 4 Billion+ years of activity before this century?
Both yourself and R. Gates keep returning with answers to the latest 3 million years, a blink of an eye in the history of the planet. However, neither of you will comment on the elephant in the conversation. The planet has had significantly higher CO2 levels before, and in the big picture, it will again.
nomnom says,
“So here’s my hypothesis:
“You went through a bunch of Keeling Curve graphs but ignored them because you were looking for a line not a curve (confirmation bias). You eventually stumbled on one that looked like a straight line, it’s just you didn’t realize it was actually depicting acceleration.
“Am I right?”
No.
The Climate4You graph was the very first one I went to. I have it in my CO2 folder along with many others. As you can see, when a normal y-axis is used, the chart is not nearly so scary.
CO2 is rising in large part due to a rising sea surface temperature [SST]. Human emissions add around 3% annually, greening the planet.
As we see, there is only spurious correlation between rising temperature and rising CO2. It may, in fact, be mostly coincidental. Over the past decade, CO2 and global temperatures have diverged, falsifying every last GCM.
The rise in CO2 is entirely beneficial – a central fact that the alarmist cult avoids. The biosphere is starved of CO2. More is better, and there is no identifiable downside. Even if all available fossil fuels were burned, CO2 levels would not double. And if they did, so what? CO2 would still be a tiny trace gas. The upside would be a greener planet.
William M. Connolley:
To avoid any potential confusion, be sure to read the link:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Co2-temperature-plot.png
from right to left
Thank you.
A physicist says:”One lesson that anyone can learn here on WUWT is the utter futility of science-and-skepticism that cherry-picks the noisiest data, the weakest science, and the weakest skeptical analyses.”
Yamal, Upside Down TIjlander, strip-bark tree cores, short-centered PCA, “CENSORED” ftp directories, Landsea, DeFritas, Daly, IPCC ‘transparency’, etc. etc. – sound familiar?
Cherry-picking data, fraudulent statistics, libel, slander, and fascistic campaigns to get fired from their jobs those who understand the requirements of the Scientific Method are POLICY for your side of the CAGW fence, physicist (and your censorious pal Connelly). Wrapping your anti-science, anti-human Lysenkoist principles and policies in the mantle of Science makes it clear that you haven’t any interest in honest discourse of any kind.
That you are losing your war on science and human freedom must really eat at you these days, no?
R. Gates says:
“Somewhere between 10 and 20 years appears to now be the maximum period in which natural variability can mask the forcing from CO2.”
————
Santer said 17 years (a peculiarly precise figure). So given the flatline since 1998, not much longer to go before the alleged signal is presumed to be awol?
William M. Connolley:
I am sure that you understand the implication of how long it would have to be warm to melt the Arctic for 1,000’s of years so that the north shore of Greenland would be ice free.
And I am sure that you understand how the mass loss of Greenlands glaciers are a current concern. Of course, this is really nothing new is it?
“51] The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature
record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the
warmest decades. Two distinct cold periods, following the
1809 (‘‘unidentified’’ volcanic eruption and the eruption of
Tambora in 1815 make the 1810s the coldest decade on
record.”
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf
With all the recent talk about Greenland’s glacial melt, one would think it was not a repeat offense wouldn’t one? Or….is it?
I can only suggest you read the paper I posted above.
Thank you for allowing us to share knowledge with you.
Perry says:
January 29, 2012 at 11:47 am
“Who wrote this?”
_____________________
Jesuit musings on truth, attribution, heresy and consequence…
please, Sir. No tricks.
cui bono says:
January 29, 2012 at 10:30 am
I think climate is the most complex thing scientists have ever tried to study, barring the brain.
This is a very good analogy. If we go back to the 60s and 70s you will see all kinds of computer experts predicting AI would be equivalent to the human brain capabilities before the turn of the century. Didn’t work out too well.
The reason for the failure was too much confidence in what they thought they knew and little understanding of the potential for unknowns. My own opinion is that climate scientists have fallen into the same trap. And, of course, they want to as well. Who would want to kill the goose that has laid so many golden eggs.
Ever wonder why we need 23 climate models? Who paid for them? What would R. Gates being doing today if money hadn’t been allocated for these kind of activities?
RobW says:
January 29, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Rob, you ain’t gonna get an answer. I’ve asked for experimental data of the effect of 5,000 ppm of CO2 added to air in a closed container and the predicted rise in temperature to no avail. And I’ll add that I didn’t expect any response when I made the post. We should continue to press them for data that can be experimentally verified.
Wonder what happened to Mr. Connolley?
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 11:52 am
No the GCMs permit 3-d movement, of course.
The actual level of 3-dimensional processing has to be necessarily small or you’d run out of processing time quickly. Simply a matter of scale. Trying to imply the models do any kind of realistic 3-d simulating is seriously lacking in credibility. One can only wonder why you would try and claim otherwise.
I ve just came in here, read Burt Rutan’s dissertation which is one of the best I ever rread. I havnt read any of the comments, so apologies if I’m repeating:
What really shocked me was that Burt’s critic is an engineer. I am a mechanical engineer about to retire. When many years ago, I started reading about man-made global warming I was already skeptical, having known full well that the few (aprox 300ppmv at that time) molecules of atmospheric CO2 could in no way make the atmosphere hotter, unless there was some sort of positive feedback of a some orders of magnitude while time has proven that this feedback does not exist and could be even negative.. My bottom line: I never expected an engineer to be taken in by a thermodynamic scam.
Tallbloke has got a good post on why the atmosphere was much warmer when dinosaurs ruled theearth. and why CO cools the planet. Very basic physics and thermodynaics.
“R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:11 am
Here’s a bit of a mind experiment to show how climate models can be “wrong” in the sense of not being 100% accurate, but still useful, and it even tells you why. … Think how much vastly more complex the climate is, yet you would expect models to predict chaotic natural variability? That is not their function and it is impossible anyway. …”
While climate models appear to be deterministic (produce the same results if run twice with the same inputs) and can’t predict true chaos, it is possible to mimic chaos with deterministic equations. The creator of Mathematica has written a book on this subject and the Mandelbrot set is an example. Like all simulations, accuracy is dependent on the precision of the computer. One can even introduce chaos into models by adding slight randomness to the inputs.
The problem I have with climate models is: they are not entirely based on physics but include many tabular experimental inputs (lookup tables, etc.) that are adjusted to get the results right. Where we don’t understand the physics we simply substitute best guesses. In addition, there are many things that can cause such models to go chaotic and give useless results such as too big a step size or too large of a measurement cell. I saw a reference in the comments above for about 20 atmosphere layers. How do we know this is enough?
I fully understand Burt Rutan’s concern about using models. We use very similar models to determine the best wing and airplane shape before we build and fly one. But we aren’t stupid enough to put passengers on the first one we build and take off. That is reserved for a crazy person called a flight test pilot and possibly an engineer to go along and watch the computer collecting the data.
I have no faith that the climate models, even though they all suggest warming, are providing any kind of useful prediction. It’s a bit hard to do a test as we would need to build another earth and play around with it. Perhaps some of us think we are god, but not me. Only time will tell if the models are correct and so far it appears that the data collection has been “homogenized’ somewhat to come to a preconceived conclusion which doesn’t help my understanding.
Theo, you are absolutely correct. Having scored two impressive “bullseyes” with 1981 predictions of a global warming “hockey stick” and open Northwest Passage sea-lanes, Hansen and his colleagues are now “doubling-down” their scientific reputations, with a prediction of accelerating sea-level rise.
Will rising sea-levels become a third bulls-eye prediction for Hansen and his colleagues? Only time will tell, but for the present, the oceanographers of the US Navy (who obviously know a lot about sea-and-ice levels) seem to think that Hansen and his colleagues very plausibly are correct.
As a fan of both solid science and solid skepticism, it seems to me that (1) Hansen and his colleagues deserve credit for publishing forthright predictions, and (2) in the long run, the cause of skepticism would be advanced if Rutan / Lindzen / the WSJ-16 would venture to publish similarly concrete predictions. Because those brands of skepticism that make no predictions are weak.
Richard M says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:17 pm
“The actual level of 3-dimensional processing has to be necessarily small or you’d run out of processing time quickly. Simply a matter of scale. Trying to imply the models do any kind of realistic 3-d simulating is seriously lacking in credibility. One can only wonder why you would try and claim otherwise.
I don’t know what Mr. Connolley does, but it is very clear he has not studied climate and the underlying science. His claim @January 20, 2012 @ 11:52 shows this very clearly.
It is nice that he stopped by this site so that he could learn some of the very basic items.
“When dinosaurs roamed we had 3 to 5 times current co2 and planet was nearly all green, pole-to-poleNear”
====
irrelevant – the continents were in different positions. Why is this always brought up?
====
“(We now know that the Ozone changes were notcaused by human CFCs)”
====
what!? -where’s the proof?
=====
“The temperature trend is so slight that, were the global average temperaturechange which has taken place during the 20th and 21st centuries were to occur in an ordinary room, most of the people in the room would be unaware of it.”
==========
A ludicrous statement
It is not just the change it is the effect of all the extra energy in the system
====
“Carbon Dioxide content is very small, invisible on a bar chart”
===========
O3 is an even smaller constituent of the atmosphere yet it stops getting on for 100% of high energy UV. Just because it is small does not make it insignificant. Why does no one understand this?
=======
“Water vapour chart”
======
Ridiculous – less heat = less water vapour = less water vapour. IE positive feed back (should be obvious to an engineer) You need another “temperature increaser” to make water vapour increase the temperature. Not Water vapour is a GHG but at temps fond in the atmosphere it is liquid and only present as gas through vapour presseure. Note GHG
====
“Looking back 600 million years”
This is of course followed by the statement:
“But -accurate CO2direct measurements are only available for the last 50 years.”
surely something wrong!
——-
same old guesswork chart created to show worm/cold periods combined with a MODEL guessing CO2 concentrations of 600M years.
========
He select CO2 charts that show what he wants and ignores other more accepted charts.
=
“The danger is too-low atmospheric CO2”
===================
What relevance is low CO2 when we are talking High CO2?
=======
“27Atmospheric warming with human carbon emissions shows „good‟ correlation only after 1970.”
========
An engineer not understanding noisy signals is seriously worrying!
=======
“This chart shows a 10,000-year period during the last ice age recovery. The temperature changes, thenCO2 responds 500 to 800 years later.”
========
So what 800 years ago caused the current increase. Co2 from the mwp should have been increasing from 1700 onwards not 1970. Also he believes in CO2 plots of concentrations with as many humps as a herd of camels. What caused these?
============
“A Close look at Modern CO2Measurements
Accurate enough for prediction?”
=============
An obvious curve and an engineer predicts using a straight line! why?
———————
As an engineer, you design aircraft using all the modern CAD/Simulation tools available. This shpuld provide you with an aircraft capable of carrying passengers the moment you build the first one.
BUT
you use a test pilot and no passengers WHY
ALSO
Your test pilot wears a parachute. WHY?
Perhaps there is the mearest possibility that something has been ovelooked :
“Pilots on the first of two aircraft delivered so far to ANA were forced on Sunday to deploy the landing gear using a manual backup system,”
“Airbus blamed a combination of manufacturing and design flaws for wing cracks on its A380 superjumbo but said it had found a simple ”
Perhaps with something as slow to react as the earth we may be seeing the beginnings of a problem.Perhaps it would be wise to take preventative measures? As an engineer – I would!
Richard M says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:17 pm
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 11:52 am
No the GCMs permit 3-d movement, of course.
The actual level of 3-dimensional processing has to be necessarily small or you’d run out of processing time quickly. Simply a matter of scale. Trying to imply the models do any kind of realistic 3-d simulating is seriously lacking in credibility. One can only wonder why you would try and claim otherwise.
_____
The current global climate models of course take 3D movement into account. It would be impossible to have any sort of a sophisticated climate model without it. Hence why they need supercomputers to run.
Richard M. asked:
“What would R. Gates being doing today if money hadn’t been allocated for these kind of activities?”
____
I as derive no part of my income from the existence of climate models, nor their use, nor their development, nor their study, nor any field remotely related to them, I would be doing exactly what I am doing.
> A challenge … No “consensus” climate science… there are no well confirmed physical hypotheses that can explain even one physical connection between increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and the behavior of clouds and related phenomena
I’m not entirely sure what your challenge is. The basic theory is that increasing greenhouse gases such as CO2 affect the radiative properties of the atmosphere, leading to a radiative forcing that tends to warm. This doesn’t directly affect clouds, though, only indirectly. But you are correct that the direct effect from CO2 is smaller than that total effect including feedbacks, from water vapour and ice-albedo and suchlike.
> continueing trend of warming that started approx 200 years ago. Why are you concerned and what can be done to stop this continueing trend? Why would we want to stop this trend?
That is the “recovery from the LIA” idea. I don’t believe that. The trend is caused, principally, by increasing CO2 consentrations; it can be stopped by slowing and halting the CO2 increase. As to Why: you can read IPCC for that: but my own version would be: sea level rise, and unexpected ecological effects.
> The Holocene Optimum is called that for some reason
But it is just a name. And we’re already warmer than it was then, see pix at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum . I know you claim “The temps of the Holocene Optimum were prob higher than the current temps for a much longer period of time” but evidence for that isn’t clear. Raised Arctic beaches are only one line of evidence (and are, obviously, not global).
> During this period of warmth CH4 outgassing
But we know that CH4 levels were far lower than now, then. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg for then, and it is, what, 1,900 ppbv now?
> ascertained that there is an approx 800 +- 200 years lag in co2 and temp correlation?
I already posted the link that discussed that (summary: it is more complex than you think), but your mod here didn’t want you to read it (try searching for “Wolff” on my blog). I’ll try again: “http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/yet_more_tco2_lags.php” – lets hope that one isn’t too scary.
> When looking at paleo records,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Co2-temperature-plot.png
one can see that temperature falls even as co2 continues to rise
If you’re referring to the way the red and blue lines are out of sync at ~320 kyr, that is just because whoever drew that didn’t align the EPICA and Vostok timescales.
RobW> the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 6-9 times higher in the distant past. Therefore please explain how a small by comparison rise over the past few decades can cause run-away global warming when levels 6-9 times higher did not?
Done that already: see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/28/burt-rutan-on-schooling-the-rogue/#comment-878805. Might be mod-delay.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1kt07umCC
——————–
Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’
—————-
Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.
‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.
He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.
‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
Macro Contrarian (@JackHBarnes) says:
January 29, 2012 at 12:41 pm
“Both yourself and R. Gates keep returning with answers to the latest 3 million years, a blink of an eye in the history of the planet. However, neither of you will comment on the elephant in the conversation. The planet has had significantly higher CO2 levels before, and in the big picture, it will again.”
____
Suggest you do a bit of reading on the carbon cycle, rock weathering, the rise of animals (on a planet that was once only full of plants), the movement of continents, etc.
Some would like us to believe that given the current output of the sun (higher than in the distant past) and the hot steamy jungles that existed when CO2 was much higher, and the fact that mammals were quite a marginal group at best with very narrow ecological niches (humans perhaps much like tree shrews), and that there was no grains like wheat in existence, that somehow we (meaning humans) would be better off to return to such times. Well, mammals pretty much filled a niche made available by the end of such steamy jungles, as dinosaurs were all but wiped out, as CO2 levels fell in general. We’ve done well with CO2 staying in a range from about 180-280 ppm during the past few million years. Going outside this range is simply taking a chance that the niche we’ve grown accustomed to is not going to change in some unpleasant ways.
Indeed, “life” might do better with CO2 levels higher, but that remains to be seen, especially given the rapidity of the recent rise. But as to whether humans would do better with CO2 levels at 500, or 700, 0r 1,000 ppm, (specifically do better by having our food supply stay intact) is a huge question mark. The Holocene has been good to us and to move outside of this range becomes a gamble no matter which way the climate moves.
I am not sure about anyone else’s cities, but my city cannot seem to model traffic flow effectively.
Burt Rutan – Good Job on Schooling the Rogues.
I wonder if resident troll R.Gates would explain why Warmist sites don’t allow dissenting comments from skeptics, yet all skeptical sites allow CAGW warmist to spout freely. Could it be there is room for every body at Skeptical sites? and no tolerance for comment’s or discussion at warmist sites if one is a none believer in the AGW / CO2 modeling theory. A good example of that is William M. Connolley’s nefarious data and article/Wiki smudging activity’s and others that have created mistrust to such a degree that climate science is a rats nest.
What is frightening about the fraudsters that promote the CAGW / CO2 doom and gloom model theory would they have us go back in time to 280ppm of CO2 would they prefer a cold world say 0.8°C cooler?
If we have dangerous warming and the global temperature has increased by 0.8°C since the Little Ice Age, does this mean that the ideal temperature for life on Earth is that of the Little Ice Age? During the Little Ice Age, people and all life forms died from starvation and cold, the economies of the world suffered, it was not a good time to be on Earth. Besides the cold, there were crop failures, famine, warfare and disease. Yes that’s really something to look forward to again!!
One calculation of Rutan’s is mathematically meaningless — the change of {the percentage change of the May to January temperature difference relative to the previous December}. The numbers, and result, are unit-dependent! The pct change numbers are different in Celsius and Fahrenheit, and for cold Decembers (closer to 0 C) the percentage change diverges in Celsius (but not, of course, Fahrenheit)!
This is such a trivial error that I have to wonder about his other conclusions….
Niels says:
January 29, 2012 at 12:06 pm
“Do you really believe there were humans on Earth 3 million years ago?”
____
Some form of early human ancestor certainly was around then yes. They certainly were not Homo Sapiens, but they would continue to evolve. Probably some form of Australopithecus seems most likely.
“You do realize that this is not data, but a model?”
Have you ever known a CAGW believer who could tell the difference?
Wow, you just know the war is nearly over when the generals are having to do the hand to hand fighting.
‘a physicist’ actually believes Hansen scored bullseyes. Heh. And he believes in hockey stick charts [not understanding that the hockey stick shape is a complete artefact of a zero baseline chart, something that has been repeatedly explained to him]. Hansen fudges the numbers to make himself look good. But it’s pure charlatanism.
Also, the number of recording stations has been drastcally reduced, mostly in rural areas. That reduction also causes a rising temperature artefact. You can see the result here.
Since CO2 follows temperature, all the handwaving over “carbon” is being debunked, proving Hansen wrong. So Hansen meddles with the temperature record. Even the Mauna Loa CO2 record is “adjusted“.
Hansen is still at it, drawing bullseyes around his misses. There is no honesty in the guy. Don’t trust anything Hansen says. He is a self-serving climate charlatan, and anyone beliving what he says is his credulous tool. There is nothing unusual happening. Climate alarmists are simply being religious, instead of being scientific.
Dave says (January 29, 2012 at 1:57 pm)
“I wonder if resident troll R.Gates would explain why Warmist sites don’t allow dissenting comments from skeptics, yet all skeptical sites allow CAGW warmist to spout freely.”
Simple. Warming sites are so popular they have to filter down the vast number of visitors wanting to comment. Meanwhile, blogs such as WUWT have so few visitors that contributions from anybody, anybody at all, are most welcome.
Slight sarc. 🙂
Connolley: “Because the situation is rather more complex than you think it is.”
That’s comedy gold there, folks.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 5:25 am
Hey Gates, I came back, hope you don’t mind.
I was wondering what your data source was, I figured you wouldn’t want to use UAH, and I certainly don’t want to use GISS.
Apparently the UEA has released data through the end of 2011, so here’s some data for us. This all comes from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem3gl.txt as linked to by http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ Look for CRUTEM3 item GL for global.
Here are the 20 warmest years. ‘*’ marks the last 10 years, ** marks the last 5:
So, only 8 of the last 10 years now are in the top 10. That’s news. What isn’t news is that 2010 was 0.107° cooler than 1998. What’s the data you’re using?
Of course, we need to respect El Niño and La Niño, but note that two recent years, 2008 and 2011, are not in the top 10. Only 2 of the last 5 are in the top 5 and 2 don’t make the top 10.
Plateau.
>> nomnom says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:52 am
But Rutan calls that chart into doubt. He cites the Beck CO2 study that disagrees with ice core data. Therefore he shouldn’t accept ice core data is accurate enough to a lag between CO2 and temperature. <<
You and Angliss both fail to understand the difference in usage (or maybe you do understand and are flat out spinning nonsense in an attempt to confuse the easily mislead). The CO2 measurements from ice core data could very well understate the past CO2 levels, if (say) CO2 slowly migrates out of the ice. But that has no effect on the dates of turnover of increasing/decreasing CO2 levels. Even if there is a monotonic increase in error in CO2 measurement vs. time, it is small compared to the rate of change of atmospheric CO2, so the peaks and valleys in CO2 level would still show up at the correct times.
Logically, the most likely error in CO2 measurements is a gradual migration of CO2 from ice with higher CO2 levels to ice with lower CO2 levels. That would level out the measurements somewhat, but not change the dates used to measure the lag between CO2 and temperature.
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Raised Arctic beaches are only one line of evidence (and are, obviously, not global).
Yes, only one line of evidence. The amount of warmth required to keep the “Arctic” beaches ice free for 1,000’s of years is very substantial. I don’t recall any studies that show there were curtains around the Arctic during this time period.
Also, the resolution of proxy data from the Holocene Optimum indicates that presently we could be much cooler than that time as well as near the same temperature. As we go back in time, the error bars grow larger. The physical proxy records argue for a time of more warmth than present as the Sahara was green, the Arctic was ice free, just to name two areas. It is very concieveable that during the Holocene warm period there were temp spikes, such as what we are in now, that were VERY much warmer than present. I am sure you agree with this assesment as it is factual.
That is the “recovery from the LIA” idea. I don’t believe that. The trend is caused, principally, by increasing CO2 consentrations; it can be stopped by slowing and halting the CO2 increase. As to Why: you can read IPCC for that: but my own version would be: sea level rise, and unexpected ecological effects.
Why are the supposed rise in co2 that started at the end of the LIA not evident in any proxy record? And when you state this, this defies logic. The LIA was a cooler period, which would result in more asorption by the oceans of co2. Your statement makes no scientific sense at all.
Concerning sea level rise, you mean we are going to get back to the levels of the Roman Warm Period? The Sargosa Sea records indicate warmth during that period, the salt mining in Italy certainly indicate a higher sea level than present. The rate of sea level rise at present is certainnly not out of the norms of the Holocene in the whole. Being we are presently in a period called the “Interglacial” do you honestly think anything man can do will stop the onward march of glacial melt as a whole? The only way I can see to stop glacial decline is to enter another Ice Age, and I hope that does not happen any time soon.
I shall await your kind response to my other facts as your post only addressed a few.
Thank you in advance.
“On all time scales, from months to hundreds of millennia, CO2 always follows temperature. Therefore, CO2 is an effect of changing temperature, not a cause. ”
Careful there. We can’t say increasing temperatures cause higher CO2 levels (“correlation is not causation”). What we can say is that increasing CO2 CANNOT be the cause of increasing temperatures, because the cause cannot follow the effect.
Ted said:
“During the Little Ice Age, people and all life forms died from starvation and cold, the economies of the world suffered, it was not a good time to be on Earth.”
____
This is just a wee-bit-o exaggeration as to the severity and extent of the Little Ice Age. Yes, some weather patterns and effects were global, but certainly Europe suffered more than the rest of the world, primarily because of changes to the THC and warmth from the Gulf Stream. But even Europe had warm periods during the LIA, as it was not a monolithic period of cold. To suggest it was “not a good time to be on Earth” is certainly a hyperbole in the extreme. Even periods like the Younger Dryas period (1,000 times worse that the Little Ice Age) was still not severe enough to say it was “not a good time to be on Earth”. It was not a good time to be in the far northern hemisphere, but life did quite fine further south. In short, there seems to be a bit of exaggeration in some people’s minds about how bad the Little Ice Age was, probably because it is mislabeled an “ice age” at all, and probably because our history is dominated by European history, of which, the cooler period of the mislabel Little Ice Age was a part.
R.Gates: “Here’s a bit of a mind experiment to show how climate models can be “wrong” in the sense of not being 100% accurate, but still useful, and it even tells you why. Place a drop of water at the top of a window and write a computer model that tells me the exact path that drop of water will follow.”
I would not expect the world to force itself into poverty and starvation based on that model, while you DO expect us to do just that based on a model you admit is even less reliable!
nomnom: “It’s accelerating. Just look at the data. Why do you think they call it the Keeling **Curve**?”
Mathematically, a line is a curve.
Harrison N says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:41 am
I believe that the egg had to come before the chicken, and therefore Smokey is, in fact, correct.
Sandy
R.Gates: ““The relationship between noise and signal is a complex one, and made all the more difficult when you are at or near crossover points when what was previously noise is becoming the dominant signal and visa-versa.”
You have never studied anything where “noise” and “signal” are rigorously defined, have you?
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:30 pm
The current global climate models of course take 3D movement into account. It would be impossible to have any sort of a sophisticated climate model without it. Hence why they need supercomputers to run.
Taking “3-d movement into account” and doing any true simulation of meaningful 3-d interactions is different by many orders of magnitude. Why are you and Connolley trying to imply otherwise?
Since you have nothing to do with models, why would you even claim to have an knowledge on this topic? The cell size of models is huge in real terms. They simply can’t get into real atmospheric interactions. They can only average out the data they are trying to simulate and move that into the next time interval. While this does allow some 3-d processing, it is far from anything realistic.
Hey Gates, I came back, hope you don’t mind.
Here’s woodfortree’s HadCrut data showing trend lines over the last 20, 15, 10, and 5 years.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2007/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/trend
In general, I’m not fond of trend lines like these since they’re so sensitive to the start and end points. They’re marginally better than Roy Spencer’s polynomial fit which he presents for amusement purposes only. The recent La Niñ certainly drag the slope down a ways, it’ll be interesting to see what happens in the next few years.
At 1:46 Mr. Connely cites Wiki as a source for his Holcene comment. This has to be one of the funiest things ever done. Mr. Connely you missed the part of the graph that shows our interglacial is lower in temperature than several of the past interglacials. Oh ya no people to cause it.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 2:22 pm
The LIA not only affected Europe, but was stong enough for glaciers to advance rapidly in Glacier National Park. This was a recovery from the Roman Warm Period on earth.
> Why are the supposed rise in co2 that started at the end of the LIA not evident in any proxy record?
I’ve no idea what you mean by that. The, err, “official” so to speak CO2 record looks like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png CO2 variations in the ~10 kyr period before 1800 are minor.
> sea level rise, you mean we are going to get back to the levels of the Roman Warm Period? .. the salt mining in Italy certainly indicate a higher sea level than present.
Again, not sure what you mean. Sea level is higher now than during the Roman Period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png, perhaps.Or read http://people.rses.anu.edu.au/lambeck_k/pdf/242.pdf
> I shall await your kind response to my other facts as your post only addressed a few…
Alas I don’t know which I missed. Maybe it was
> Current AGW folks keep wanting to tell us that the early 20th century warming was caused by increased sun activity
Do we? You’ll need a cite for that. I counter with:
“Modelling studies are also in moderately good agreement with observations during the first half of the 20th century when both anthropogenic and natural forcings are considered, although assessments of which forcings are important differ, with some studies finding that solar forcing is more important (Meehl et al., 2004) while other studies find that volcanic forcing (Broccoli et al., 2003) or internal variability (Delworth and Knutson, 2000) could be more important.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-2.html
Thanks Burt Rutan for another brick in the wall enclosing the AGW Camp. AGW is the biggest political scam to have been perpetrated in history. It is not Science it is just self-serving biogotry. It has diverted valuable funds to Rogues, spoiled our landscape with hideous, useless windmills. Increasingly the economies of the whole World are on a knife edge and AGW impose crippling taxes to fund their insane junket. The cost of this junket will impoverish those nations stupid enough to believe these liars and cheats.
>> A physicist says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:27 pm
As a fan of both solid science and solid skepticism, it seems to me that (1) Hansen and his colleagues deserve credit for publishing forthright predictions <<
Given that Hansen predicts basically no change in sea level rise until 2040 (from the graph in your link), at which time he'll probably be long gone from God's green Earth, I think you're giving him too much credit. Any fool can predict something so far in the future that he faces no consequences from failure.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Niels says:
January 29, 2012 at 12:06 pm
“Do you really believe there were humans on Earth 3 million years ago?”
____
Some form of early human ancestor certainly was around then yes. They certainly were not Homo Sapiens, but they would continue to evolve. Probably some form of Australopithecus seems most likely.
Pathetic answer Mr. Gates, and you know it.
“A physicist says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Theo, you are absolutely correct. Having scored two impressive “bullseyes” with 1981 predictions of a global warming “hockey stick” and open Northwest Passage sea-lanes, Hansen and his colleagues are now “doubling-down” their scientific reputations, with a prediction of accelerating sea-level rise.”
I had a quick look at what Hansen is proposing and I’m not buying it. He is saying that ice loss will be exponential in the future. Funny how the ice after the last ice age didn’t seem to go away exponentially. Take for example the Columbia Ice Age Floods. They lasted from about 12000 to 15000 years ago (around 40 floods spaced around 50 years apart). This means that the North American glacier stayed in place and even returned after the flood water washed it away many times. And this was at a time when the earth was rapidly warming unlike the minor warming going on now. Ice is very hard to melt exponentially when there is a lot of it. While cataclysms can occur (the floods prove this), I think Hansen needs to come up with a good reason for any sudden conversion of ice to water. You only need to read the first comment in the linked article to figure out what this is all about.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 8:45 am
Either way, we’ve not seen global cooling this past decade as Mr. Rutan contends.
Please see the following slopes, each of which is for more than 10 years. Note that I am not getting into significance levels, but merely pointing out the slope is negative.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.58/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/plot/rss/from:1997.83/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/plot/gistemp/from:2001.67/trend
#Time series (hadcrut3) from 1850 to 2012
#Selected data from 1997.58
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00126185 per year
#Time series (rss) from 1979 to 2012
#Selected data from 1997.83
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00381703 per year
#Time series (gistemp) from 1880 to 2012
#Selected data from 2001.67
#Least squares trend line; slope = -3.86942e-06 per year
In fairness, I would like to point out that UAH is not yet negative for any time above 10 years, but that could easily change once the January or February stats are out.
Phew Anthony, I think we just witnessed the crossing of the climatic Rubicon or something similar; The Wall Street Journal article, Burts calm and measured response to a critic, the UEA/CRU Met Office capitulation? Global cooling trend for past 15 years!! and all coinciding with a noticeable rise in trenchant warmists or should that be former W? clamouring to get onto your site and clarify? justify their predictions/projections modeling before the inevitable media and public wake -up exposes them all. Or am I being too hard on them.
Erinome,
This is such a trivial error that I have to wonder about his other conclusions….
You are not even fit to tie this man’s shoes. The work he has done with making stuff work speaks for itself. The problem many University types and “Climate Scientists” have is most think they can go off and do a simulation, publish a paper and they are done. Do you realize how many simulations —good and bad–and real-world trial and error there is in actually making stuff like high altitude flights work?
Why do climate scientists shy away from devising testable, scenarios fir their models? I was on Brigs blog and Gavin refused to even talk about testing climate models. We have to wait 100yrs–so they say. The oldest 1988 forecast by Hansen is not even close to actual temperatures now. If he worked for like a drug company he would be fired such such a lame result
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 11:52 am
“I had a link to “what I think about GW” that would have made this clear, but your mod didn’t like it so it was snipped.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Is not Connolley’s somewhat snarky complaint the height of irony?
R. Gates said:
“Burt Rutan said:
‘They applauded the correlation of surface temperatures with CO2 content from 1960 to 1998 as proof, but fail to admit that the planet has cooled after 1998 in spite of the CO2 content increasing.’
——–
Respectfully, this is not an accurate statement. 9 out of the 10 warmest years on instrument record have occurred since 1998, with 2010 being warmer than 1998. For one claiming to pride himself on what the data tells him, it seems odd that you would misconstrue this so horribly. But then again, maybe not that odd, as you seem to have made up your mind about the status of things.”
______
Respectfully, this is not an accurate statement. The current anomaly is well below 1998. The negative changes in anomaly are getting more frequent. The amount of anomaly change is pretty even, but slightly more negative in recent years. And, as looking at changes in17-2 year moving averages, it is clear that the current average anomaly is negative for 10 out of 16 as of 2011, the frequency and magnitude of 2011 negative trends generally increases as the number of years in average, and such is the case for other recent years (I have the values in exel, but don’t know how to display it here).
Rank Year Anomaly Delta 98 Delta Cumulative Relative Delta 98
Anomaly Change Change Anomaly Rank
1 1998 0.55 0 12
13 1999 0.103 -0.447 -0.447 -0.447 -0.812727273 1
7 2001 0.245 -0.305 0.142 -0.305 1.378640777 6
5 2002 0.316 -0.234 0.071 -0.234 0.289795918 8
4 2003 0.324 -0.226 0.008 -0.226 0.025316456 9
10 2004 0.208 -0.342 -0.116 -0.342 -0.358024691 3
3 2005 0.334 -0.216 0.126 -0.216 0.605769231 10
8 2006 0.232 -0.318 -0.102 -0.318 -0.305389222 5
6 2007 0.261 -0.289 0.029 -0.289 0.125 7
9 2009 0.226 -0.324 -0.035 -0.324 -0.134099617 4
2 2010 0.476 -0.074 0.25 -0.074 1.10619469 11
12 2011 0.147 -0.403 -0.329 -0.403 -0.691176471 2
Question was -How come we did not cook when C02 was much higher
Connolley answer -Because that was more than 50 Myr ago. We weren’t around.
Yep an answer that I expected. Me hitting head, why did I not think of that.
Was not C02 well above the tipping point then? What happened to runaway warming? R. Gates care to jump in.
Niels says:
January 29, 2012 at 2:55 pm
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Niels says:
January 29, 2012 at 12:06 pm
“Do you really believe there were humans on Earth 3 million years ago?”
____
Some form of early human ancestor certainly was around then yes. They certainly were not Homo Sapiens, but they would continue to evolve. Probably some form of Australopithecus seems most likely.
Pathetic answer Mr. Gates, and you know it.
_____
? Obviously scientific research into the subject of human ancestry you find “pathetic”.
If you ask a broad question, you’ll get a broad answer. Ask a specific question, and you’ll get a specific answer.
Apologies for my poor editing.
Respectfully, this is not an accurate statement. The current anomaly is well below 1998. The negative changes in anomaly are getting more frequent. The amount of anomaly change is pretty even, but slightly more negative in recent years. And, looking at changes in 17-2 year moving averages, it is clear that the current average anomaly is negative for 10 out of 16 as of 2011, the frequency and magnitude of 2011 negative trends generally increases as the number of years in the average decreases, and such is the case for other recent years (I have the values in exel, but don’t know how to display it here).
@Rgates – I think you will find that the point is that real world measured atmospheric temperature and model predicted temperatures are deviating in a way the models do not cater for. If natural climate change can prevent CO2 warming for the most recent decade then this beggars the question as to the role of natural forced in the observed climate record from the 1980s and 1990s. What is the real role of CO2? Is it really the primary driver of atmospheric warming or a bit player?
Bob B says:
Erinome,
& This is such a trivial error that I have to wonder about his other conclusions….
You are not even fit to tie this man’s shoes.
At least I know not to present results that depend on the choice of units. Rutan, obviously, does not.
It’s exactly the kind of error an engineer makes in a science where he is badly out of his depth.
if there ever was a man who knew how make use of the atmosphere, Burt is THE man. Mr. Rutan has no peers.
connolley belongs on the pelosi couch.
nc says:
January 29, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Question was -How come we did not cook when C02 was much higher
Connolley answer -Because that was more than 50 Myr ago. We weren’t around.
Yep an answer that I expected. Me hitting head, why did I not think of that.
Was not C02 well above the tipping point then? What happened to runaway warming? R. Gates care to jump in.
_____
First, I’m am not a believer in “catastrophic” global warming, with the term catastrophic specifically meaning “the end of all life on earth”, or “run-away warming leading to the end of all life on earth.” Could CO2 levels rise to the point that human existence become a matter of doubt? Possibly. Our civilization has thrived during a period that CO2 has been around 280 ppm, and the grain plants that fueled our civilization have done well under Holocene levels of CO2 as well. It is a gamble to see what happens if CO2 levels go much outside this range, higher or lower. What will it do to the oceans and to our grain plants, would be my biggest concern.
But in general, it is very hard to compare two periods so remote in time as 50 million years ago and today and make any conclusions. Why would we want to look at time when human ancestors were tree shrews? The sun was much weaker in these past periods and the continents were differently arranged. The closest analogue we have in terms of levels of CO2 being like today and the continents being roughly like today is the mid to early Pliocene…around 3 mya or so. Lot’s of very smart people doing research every day into this period.
R. Gates says: January 29, 2012 at 3:13 pm
? Obviously scientific research into the subject of human ancestry you find “pathetic”.
Gates, stick to subjects you know. Australopithicus was not a human ancestor and it is likely that the creatures who were our ancestors at that time lacked tool-making capability, the ability to make and use fire, and even language itself.
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:46 pm
“I’m not entirely sure what your challenge is. The basic theory is that increasing greenhouse gases such as CO2 affect the radiative properties of the atmosphere, leading to a radiative forcing that tends to warm. This doesn’t directly affect clouds, though, only indirectly. But you are correct that the direct effect from CO2 is smaller than that total effect including feedbacks, from water vapour and ice-albedo and suchlike.”
Yes, and those who favor some version of an AGW theory must produce some reasonably well confirmed physical hypotheses which describe some connection between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and some feedback or admit that there is no physical science which shows that rising CO2 concentrations cause warming.
You do not know what reasonably well confirmed physical hypotheses are? I admire your frankness and humility. But your level of understanding reveals that you should not be commenting on these matters at all.
A physicist says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:27 pm
For your own good, please put down the pipe (or whatever) and go to bed.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 3:13 pm
If you ask a broad question, you’ll get a broad answer. Ask a specific question, and you’ll get a specific answer.
Take a closed container of air at room temperature and inject into it sufficient CO2 to raise the CO2 concentration to 5,000 PPM. After two weeks time what will be the temperature inside the container? After one month? One year?
James of the West says:
January 29, 2012 at 3:15 pm
@Rgates – I think you will find that the point is that real world measured atmospheric temperature and model predicted temperatures are deviating in a way the models do not cater for. If natural climate change can prevent CO2 warming for the most recent decade then this beggars the question as to the role of natural forced in the observed climate record from the 1980s and 1990s. What is the real role of CO2? Is it really the primary driver of atmospheric warming or a bit player?
_____
Again, you miss the point. Natural variability is only masking CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) forcing…it is not preventing it. Models do not handle natural variability well…nor can they ever. If they do (and this is Dr. Trenberth’s point), then they’ll simply have larger error bars. But models are not meant to capture natural variability, as no one can say how solar cycles or ENSO or volcanic activity will align 10, 20, or 50 years from now to create those smaller wiggles on a graph of temperatures that is in general trending upward.
To suggest that CO2 is a primary driver of climate, you really need to state exactly what you mean by that. A primary driver over what time frame, and compared to what other forcing? A primary driver at what concentration change over what time frame? These questions get to the heart of climate sensitivity and really, the heart of climate study.
I am very excited to be a student of climate at this point in history, as we are getting a front row seat to watch how a 40% increase in CO2 and similar increases in methane and N2O stack up against a quiet sun. This is long term forcing versus short-term natural variability. Very exciting times!
In addition, it’s very easy to see that Rutan’s example that I mentioned above completely fails to say anything at all about a warming or cooling world.
Suppose the average global temperature of each month in year Y is one degree higher than the previous year. That’s a *strongly* warming world of 1 degree/yr.
The quantity Rutan is plotting for each year, call it R(Y), is {May(Y)-Jan(Y)}/Dec(Y-1).
A small bit of algebra shows that R(Y) = f(Y)*R(Y-1), where f is a factor that is *always* less than one:
f(Y)=Dec(Y-2)/{1+Dec(Y-2)}
So R(Y) is always less than R(Y-1) in this scenario. Thus the slope of the graph of R(Y) vs Y will always be negative — i.e. it will trend linearly downward as Y increases.
Thus it fails completely to diagnose a linearly warming world. A similar argument shows that it also fails to diagnose a linearly cooling world.
That is, his analysis is completely meaningless. Even worse, it seems to intentionally obscure the point.
“When we check today’s sea ice level at the excellent web site Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis, we find that as of this very hour, Arctic ice is at record low levels. ”
Dare I say, completely MEANINGLESS in terms of the atmospheric energy balance?
The oceans have 500 times the thermal mass of the atmosphere.
WOW! Melting all the ice of the arctic. AMAZING specificity that the energy flow and dis-balance has!)
(Why hasn’t the overall atmospheric temperature shot up 50 degrees C., why would all that extra 1 watt per meter from Hansen, et. al. just go into the oceans, and just go into the arctic.
This is an argument of absolute ignorance of physics and science, in an of itself.
We have NO idea of the real cycles of the ice cap in the arctic. We have a 30 year set of “precise” observations, and that’s it. Again, the energy “imbalance” is just marvelous. All melting the ice on in the arctic. What about the flat ocean energy profile from the ARGO buoy’s? Nah, I don’t need to get into it. Pig-in-mud wrestling.
Robert E. Phelan says:
January 29, 2012 at 3:24 pm
R. Gates says: January 29, 2012 at 3:13 pm
? Obviously scientific research into the subject of human ancestry you find “pathetic”.
Gates, stick to subjects you know. Australopithicus was not a human ancestor and it is likely that the creatures who were our ancestors at that time lacked tool-making capability, the ability to make and use fire, and even language itself.
______
Sounds like you presume to know more about these things than I do, and I admit, its been many years since I looked into it in any detail. My last recollection was that Australopithecus was in the homo sapiens family tree and existed approximately 4.5 to 1.5 million years ago (covering the mid-Pliocene period in question). Certainly Homo habilis did not quite extend back 3 mya to the mid-Pliocene.
But I’ll defer to your apparent superior knowledge of the subject. Either way, it not important exactly the name of the human ancestor that lived during the mid-Pliocene, but more importantly it was a primitive creature that did not produce large amounts of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. About the only CO2 it produced was from its own breath.
Hansen’s argument is simple, J Gibbons.
What’s new about the present era … the novel element that is propelling humanity and our planet in an never-before-experienced climate realm … is the geologically unprecedented pace and magnitude of the 21st century’s CO2 increase.
The often-heard opinion that “Nothing bad will happen” is a message that every skeptic should regard sceptically (how else, eh?), especially when the “Don’t worry” message comes from folks like the WSJ-16, whose track record of scientific prediction is so unimpressive, compared to Hansen’s.
Just a note to Robert E. Phelan:
Well you did get my curiosity up about whether or not the Australopithecus was in the human ancestor linage or not. At least from the article, it seems they likely were:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_garhi
And, it appears they did use some primitive stone tools. So I’d be curious as to your sources that state otherwise.
Excuse me Mr. Connolley you answered exactly squat at 146pm.
As for R. Gates and physicist and the other warmists here. It is well documented that the global atmosphere was 6-9 times higher in CO2 than it is today. If your theory of positive feed back is correct then please explain how on earth did the earth not burn up from the much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the distant past.
Without the positive feedback in every single climate model used by the IPCC, there is nothing to the fear generating BS of AGW theory. We await your response.
Smokey
do not, I repeat, do not go to Climate4You. I have it on good authority, Skepticalscience, that they are not trustworthy, go to RC.
Ignore the interesting comparison graphs, data references & primary links, that will confuse you. Go RC and learn the truth.
.
[Reply: Please add “/sarc” or something similar when being sarcastic. Some folks will take you seriously. ~dbs, mod.]
Connolley says:
Ah. So when CO2 was very low during the Holocene, temperatures were routinely higher than they are now.
Obviously, CO2 did not cause those global warming episodes, therefore the current warming trend [continuing unchanged from the LIA] is probably not due to CO2, either.
Connolley lacks any perspective. The global temperature has risen from 288K to 288.8K over a century and a half – an extremely tiny change. Global temperatures naturally vary by a much larger amount, and usually in an undesirable direction. And just like today, CO2 didn’t seem to matter.
I’m glad Connolley is coming here, because what he believes turns out to be wrong. Maybe he’ll learn something factual for a change. Then maybe the scales will fall from his eyes, and he will then understand that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial. More is better, because it greens the planet. And there is no downside.
Just so we are clear. Are you saying the earth did not experience runaway global warming when the atmosphere had ~10 times higher CO2 in the distant past but today one tenth of that historic CO2 level is a significant risk factor for runaway global warming? Is that your position?
R. Gates,
Your comments always bring two medical terms to mind,
OCD and Herpes.
The first one is incessantly irritating to both the owner and the observer,
and the second is the gift that keeps on giving,
always lurking and ready to attack the nerve endings.
I understand that generic Indian Prozac and Zovirax are quite cheap these days.
Maybe just a little dab of each might control your “posting habit” ?
Personally, after reading your stuff, I need an aspirin.
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 2:51 pm
> Why are the supposed rise in co2 that started at the end of the LIA not evident in any proxy record?
I’ve no idea what you mean by that. The, err, “official” so to speak CO2 record looks like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png CO2 variations in the ~10 kyr period before 1800 are minor.
I think your reference would be better if it went to the data:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.smooth75.gif
It is very easy to see that co2 did not start rising till after temperature had started rising as the rebound from the LIA. So, once again, co2 was NOT the driver of said rise.
Something else had to start the warming out of the LIA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
The LIA is very evident in this proxy reconstruction.
In fact, what else is evident, when looking at the individual graphs is the early Holocene may have had those “spikes” that I mentioned earlier.
From the above what can we conclude?
1. Co2 was not the driver that stopped the LIA from continuing.
2. Co2 was virtually flat until the mid to late 1800’s, yet the temperature kept climbing.
3. Co2 was not responsable for the early 20th century warming. Solar was not responsable for the early 20th century warm spurt…..what was?
According to AGW theory, the rate of warming should accelerate because of the increased co2.
The following shows the rate of warming early 20th century verses the rate of warming late 20th century, early 21st century to be identical. Yet, the concentration of co2 has risen. This shows that co2 does not affect the rate of warming.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945/trend:1.0/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/to:2012/trend:1.0
What has caused virtually identical rates of warming? It is not the sun, it is not co2. What is it?
I see green activist William M. Connolley, “The Butcher of Wikipedia”, is commenting in WattsUpWithThat.
[REPLY: Yes he is, but can we ask commenters to be a little more polite and address his arguments? -REP]
Harrison N: “And eggs always hatch into chickens. Therefore chickens can’t lay eggs. Great logic!”
So your refutation is that a chicken exists prior the egg it hatched from. Great fallcy! Perhaps you are a climate scientist?
nomnom: “It’s accelerating. Just look at the data. Why do you think they call it the Keeling **Curve**?”
If we’re playing the colloquial literalism game then it’s called a Keeling curve because it describes the path that Keeling takes when he’s had a few too many to drink. This is not at all the same as a Brownian walk and let’s us know that Keeling holds his liquor better than Brown.
R. Gates: ““The timescale dictated by the IPCC process brings with it the risk of prematurely exposing problems with climate models as we learn how to develop them.” — Trenberth
That is very appropriate. The only takeaway from this is that Trenberth thinks that a problem shouldn’t be exposed when it is found. Which begs us to ask when it is we’re ‘allowed’ — deontologically — to point out that a hypothesis is falsified. More illuminating is a quote from the middle:
“Although important progress has been made in this area, the techniques are not yet fully established5. In part because it takes at least a decade to verify a ten-year forecast, evaluating and optimizing the models6 will be a time-consuming process.”
According to Trenberth climate science cannot, and does not, do predictions because the models are known to be vacuously in error due the youth of the discipline and the lack of time available to test them. Therefore, according to Trenberth, climate “science” is not yet an empirical discipline. Which makes it strictly a philosophical issue; or, if you are a true believer, a religious one.
aaron says:
January 29, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Use <pre>. See my Guide to WUWT, http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/index.html , about 2/3s of the way down.
RobW, it’s not complicated: (1) the sun was dimmer way back then, and (2) the low-lying East Coast states like South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, Texas were deep underwater.
That’s why rational skeptics say: “You know, it makes no skeptical or scientific sense at all, to assume we can dump all that CO2 into our atmosphere, and yet be sure our planet will keep its icecaps.”
I know what you are saying -REP, but I didn’t think I was being rude. Sorry about that.
I was making people aware of who he is. Most people have never heard of him. I think it’s fair that people know that he is a green activist, involved in green politics, including running for an office under the green ticket. He also has spent years altering pages at Wikipedia and has been disciplined by those who run Wikipedia for egregious violation of rules. William M. Connolley really is called “The Butcher of Wikipedia”
R. Gates says: January 29, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Thankyou. As usual, wikipedia over-simplifies things, as did I. The question of Australopithicus’ place in the hominid family tree has always been a subject of debate. As recently as 2008 the consensus was that A. Afarensis and A. Africanus were apes rather than human and that their line diverged from the homo line even before chimps did. I did a little (just a little!) checking after your comment and note that most of the claims for homo ancestory tracing back to the australopithicenes is mostly of 2010-11 vintage and there are new and surprising claims that homo-habilis may have been an australopithecus descendant but not a homosapiens ancestor. At the risk of sounding snarky, the science is far from settled.
My own area of interest is cultural anthropology rather than physical, and I sometimes fall behind. For the moment, I am still tending toward the older formulations but should probably update my notes to reflect the newer thinking and emphasize the ambiguity before offering the course again. Apologies for being so abrupt and didactic.
For those who don’t know who Burt Rutan is here is a nice series of videos at YouTube with him speaking. He is a brilliant engineer.
A physicist: “Elevator Summary: James Hansen and his colleagues have predictively “hit more bulls-eyes” than skeptics like Rutan / Lindzen / the WSJ-16.”
And my life long prediction is, and always will be, that climate changes. My prediction has never failed and so your elevator summary must properly deify me in your blooming personality cult.
A physicist: “(2) in the long run, the cause of skepticism would be advanced if Rutan / Lindzen / the WSJ-16 would venture to publish similarly concrete predictions. Because those brands of skepticism that make no predictions are weak.”
The “cause,” eh? Yes, I suppose the “cause” would be helped if the “cause” but more Miss Cleo clones on staff. But that’s all vapid cultural in-group/out-group nonsense. That said, I do agree with you, scientific skepticism is far weaker than cultilt prognostications; and it always will be. Those that are willing to accept “I don’t know” as a valid answer are far less numerous than those that fondle at the font of received ideas.
R. Gates: “If you ask a broad question, you’ll get a broad answer. Ask a specific question, and you’ll get a specific answer.”
“They certainly were not Homo Sapiens” — R. Gates
Terrible sophistries are the one’s in which you refute your own answer within the post. Savvy sophists are better at avoiding such quotation foibles. I have optimism in your ability to evolve into better rhetoric.
R. Gates: “Natural variability is only masking CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) forcing…it is not preventing it. Models do not handle natural variability well…nor can they ever.”
If the model cannot handle natural variability then it cannot predict what would occur with ‘unnatural’ variability in combination with the ‘natural’ variant. And that’s all presupposing that CO2 from man is somehow plays by special physics rules that CO2 produced from other animals and sources does not. Absent custom physics there is nothing but natural variability.
How many years has it been since the last major improvement in the climate models?
At least 10.
How many other fields of science are that static?
None.
Conclusion — Climate models are not science.
Dr Burns (January 28, 2012 at 10:58 pm) says,
“Did Rutan jump ships ? I thought he used to be a true believer ?”
Well, it happens, thank God Almighty. Consider another “true believer” who says,
“I started out actually just being a climate alarmist.”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/06/anthony-watts-interviewed
Physicist:”RobW, it’s not complicated: (1) the sun was dimmer way back then, and (2) the low-lying East Coast states like South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, Texas were deep underwater.”
As for point one I can hardly wait for proof of that?
Point two has what to do with global atmospheric temperatures?
R. Gates
In regard to this “CO2 forcing” you refer to, when you can find any empirical evidence that any radiation from a cold atmosphere can warm (or slow the cooling of) a much warmer surface then I suggest you recommend to the authors of the study that they watch for the $50,000 reward soon to be offered to anyone producing such evidence.
Show everyone on this forum that such proof is available, or depart with your nonsense about CO2 forcing which would require that for which you have no proof.
In the meantime, please explain why spectroscopy shows warm gases do not absorb from cooler sources of spontaneous blackbody radiation, and why all that “backradiation” shining on a bit of frost in the shade all day long can’t melt it, whereas the Sun can do so in less than an hour.
RobW says:
It is well documented that the global atmosphere was 6-9 times higher in CO2 than it is today. If your theory of positive feed back is correct then please explain how on earth did the earth not burn up from the much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the distant past.
Rob, do you realize the Earth was a _completely different planet_ in the distant past? The continents and oceans weren’t even in the same place — 200 Mya the Pangaea supercontinent existed. In addition the Sun was weaker (look-up “Faint Young Sun Paradox”).
These are big complications for trying to draw simple conclusions based purely on one factor like CO2 abundance. To understand science you need to look at the details….
Babsy says:
Take a closed container of air at room temperature and inject into it sufficient CO2 to raise the CO2 concentration to 5,000 PPM. After two weeks time what will be the temperature inside the container? After one month? One year?
Babsy, there can be no radiative transfer — the basis of the GH effect — in a closed container. Even if there was, the effect would be far too small to see it in a small volume.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
For those who don’t know who Burt Rutan is here is a nice series of videos at YouTube with him speaking. He is a brilliant engineer.
Perhaps, but he is a lousy climate scientist and a lousy statistician. As the example I gave up above proves, one of the calculations he uses as evidence of a lack of warming completely fails to detect a simple warming world. One must wonder if the graph wasn’t purposely designed to be obfuscatory.
Erinome
Yes the earth was very different and it had CO2 levels approximately ten times that we see today. So unless the laws of physics have changed since way back then I can not accept a negative feed back system then and a positive feedback system now. Are you suggesting a huge difference in land surface area/ocean surface area?
Now current differences may have contributed a little to local temperatures (the south pole land mass is a good example) but the globe as a whole is in the same solar system at the relatively same position in space relative to the sun and the sun is radiating at relatively the same intensity.
Oh and we are talking about a few tens of million years ago. The sun was young 3-4 billion years ago. So are you saying the sun is more important than CO2 levels?
“Public Fraud based on science”
Nice.
Burt, let’s just call AGW and climate change by the new acronym: “PFBS” or Public Fraud Based Science. Could also be related to PR-BS…but I digress.
The fact that it is all BS makes a ‘four-lettered’ acronym all the more appropriate.
Makes me wonder what these people think they are really doing anyway….since it has been downright crippling to one of the largest food producing economies on the planet through the deliberate misuse of the ESA, CEQA and the EPA. Control of Water, Air and Fuels…
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/01/28/bored-ca-billionaire-groups-merge/?
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/01/28/will-enviros-bend-on-ceqa-reform/
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/11/28/media-warming-to-ab-32-disaster/
Some of the same great minds funded or indirectly supported the 1010.org exploding kids campaign too….’no pressure’ and all that BS. They have been behind, or indirectly supported, what many have described as Environmental Racketeering and Extortion, with the support of their hand picked and appointed minions in key NGOs, Non-profits, and government agencies, to slowly drive Family farms and other ‘environmentally offensive’ businesses, out of business through bureaucratic, environmental, legal, and financial strangulation..
There are people out there who will do or say anything to steal, intimidate/terrorize or get control over others, and use PFBS, federal grants, and the environment as an excuse to do so….and again, you will find many of the same ‘fine minds’ conspiring together to support/obstruct the same causes.
Frankly, I’m surprised that many of them are not already in jail…but then politics and PR has precluded many a criminal from ending up behind bars over the years.
I just wish there were more people with significant resources and insight out there to oppose them head on, and help return this State and Country to some semblance of normal.
Bob B says:
Why do climate scientists shy away from devising testable, scenarios fir their models?
They do not:
“Climate Models and their Evaluation,” IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch8 (2007)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8.html
‘a physicist’ says:
“That’s why rational skeptics say: ‘You know, it makes no skeptical or scientific sense at all, to assume we can dump all that CO2 into our atmosphere, and yet be sure our planet will keep its icecaps.’ ”
You know nothing of skepticism. Skeptics are never certain about anything. And that CO2 used to be in the atmosphere, all of it, so being a worry-wart is pointless. There is no evidence that CO2 ever caused global warming. It was always the result of warming, never the cause.
As usual ‘a physicist’ mixes up his facts. The sun was, in fact, about 25% – 30% dimmer in the past. But that was ≈3 billion years ago. Just over a half billion years ago – a completely different time frame – the sun was about as bright as it is now, and CO2 was about sixteen times higher.
The truth is that we don’t know nearly all the factors that cause global temperatures to change. But we do know that assigning CO2 as the primary cause has no empirical, testable evidence supporting it. But ‘a physicist’ is willing to bet the farm on the Precautionary Principle, with no supporting evidence, and only based on: “it makes no skeptical or scientific sense at all, to assume we can dump all that CO2 into our atmosphere, and yet be sure our planet will keep its icecaps.”
“All that CO2” has been in the atmosphere already. And it never caused runaway global warming, or any global warming as far as we can tell. It was the result of global warming. And the net result of the current ≈40% increase in CO2 has been the greening of the planet, nothing more. Scaring yourself with “What ifs” is pointless and anti-science. Provide testable facts showing global harm from the increase in that tiny trace gas, and I will sit up straight and pay attention. So far, there are no such facts.
Erm, shouldn’t that read:
[REPLY: It wasn’t THAT offensive, but we’d prefer commenters engage Dr. Connolley rather than call him names and risk making him cry. -REP]
Bernard J.,
In America, truth is an absolute defense.☺
Ironically enough, the FLAW in the GHE HYPOTHESIS is actually more of an accounting error than a science error. When the energy returns to the surface from the “GHG” you cannot ADD it to the energy arriving from the Sun to produce an alleged “energy budget”. The energy returning from the “GHG” has already travelled once through the system leaving cooling (at the previous location it departed from) in its wake. So we have sequential warming/cooling/warming/cooling…. events occurring from ONE bundle of energy that came from the Sun. So one bundle of energy from the Sun simply warms the surface multiple sequential times, since these warming events are followed by equivalent cooling events and are separated by finite time delays YOU CANNOT ADD THEM TOGETHER and get a correct result. Doing so is the equivalent of creating energy, which you must admit violates the First Law.
One of the clues to this accounting error is the use of the terms; “Net Energy Gain” and “Extra Energy” as used in the climate science community.
In the engineering community we use the predicted observation of “extra energy” as a RED FLAG to tell us our analysis is wrong.
Engineers that routinely calculate “Net Energy Gains” either get fired or promoted into management.
Regarding why the Earth is at the average temperature it is, I have yet to hear any one explanation that makes complete sense. But knowledge always expands and we will likely know why sometime. Although from a practical sense it seems to make very little difference.
But it most definitely is not the result of the GHE.
The GHE appears to cause some energy to travel through the system (bouncing as it where) between the gases and the surface all the while dissipating energy to Space via radiation. The end result is a slight delay to the energy as it travels from the Sun to the Earth through the Atmosphere to the Universe.
The “missing heat” is currently travelling as a spherical IR wavefront that is “X+d” light years away from the surface. In this equation X represents the elapsed time since the sunlight arrived (i.e. 100 years for sunlight from 1912) and d represents the slight delay from the GHE and likely averages about 5 milliseconds. “d” is actually a statistical distribution which will of course have a different specific value for each photon travelling through the system. Some will bounce many times and take longer to exit, while others may not bounce at all and thus exit directly to space.
Cheers, Kevin.
Erinome says:
January 29, 2012 at 5:07 pm
“Babsy, there can be no radiative transfer — the basis of the GH effect — in a closed container. Even if there was, the effect would be far too small to see it in a small volume.”
Even if there was? Then you don’t know for sure, do you?
Smokey, those two beliefs don’t seem all that skeptical to me … heck, they don’t even seem self-consistent.
Maybe “climate-change skepticsm” should be renamed “climate-change super-optimism”?
That would make more logical sense.
Edim, It depends on how much could be being outgassed and why. If we had a good idea how much CO2 variance is due to plants, we could figure how much variation is due to seasonal temperature change each year.
Perhaps plotting annual variance of CO2 level against temperature anomaly (or maybe daily global CO2 and daily global temperature–not anomaly) might show something.
Erinome
The earth is not warming It has been in a cooling trend for 10,000 years. It has been warmer on earth in the past than it is now. It was much warmer 1000 years ago than now. Manmade global warming advocates continue to come up with the same arguments that have been shown to be wrong over and over. Yet they continue to act like they are true.
There still is not scientific proof that ‘manmade’ global warming is really happening.
Bernard J. says:
January 29, 2012 at 5:25 pm
“Erm, shouldn’t that read:
I see [snip] William M. Connolley [snip] is commenting in WattsUpWithThat.”
.
No, it shouldn’t because neither one is name calling. William M. Connolley is a green activist. Why would you want to hide that from people? And he has been called The Butcher of Wikipedia for his continual altering of Wikipedia pages and violation of Wikipedia rules. Why should that also be hidden from the public? Why would you not want people to know that?
I can see how moderators here would consider The Butcher of Wikipedia name calling. I can see their point.
Still, the public should know who he is just as they should know who Burt Rutan is.
Do you find fault with Al Gore because he is a lifetime politician who got poor grades in math and science in college? Would that disqualify him from being “manmade” global warming advocate?
Test, mod please delete if this it does not line up right.
Year over year change in smoothed anomaly.
A physicist says:
January 29, 2012 at 4:39 pm
RobW says: As for R. Gates and physicist and the other warmists here. It is well documented that the global atmosphere was 6-9 times higher in CO2 than it is today. If your theory of positive feed back is correct then please explain how on earth did the earth not burn up from the much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the distant past.
RobW, it’s not complicated: (1) the sun was dimmer way back then, and (2) the low-lying East Coast states like South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, Texas were deep underwater.
Ah, so (1) it is the sun that is the primary driver and (2) heavy moisture over the southern states kept them from burning up.
Yep, that makes sense to me.
Note, the significant negative changes before are in the years following El Chicon and Pinatubo. What were the major eruptions that happened in the past decade?/sarcasm
Babsy says:
Even if there was? Then you don’t know for sure, do you?
Yes, we do know for sure. My point, which I thought was obvious, was that even if the box were transparent to radiation and ~ 1 m^3 it is far too small of a volume to see the effects of the GH effect — you need a large atmosphere ~ 10s-100s km.
Say Bernard J.
I believe a censor fiend like Connolley better be prepared to get some “stick” returned to him.
If Mr. Connolley had his way, this site would be wiped from existence.
Erinome,
So forget a cubic meter box. Make it a hundred cubic meters. And instead of 5,000 ppm CO2, make it all CO2. That gives you twenty thousand times more accuracy.
After two weeks time what will be the temperature inside the container? After one month? One year? It’s pure CO2, remember. Better stand back, in case the container bursts into flames.
Erinome—OK at what point , what test, will you consider the current GCM’s falsified?
Most likely after Januart the 2001-2012 will fall outside the 95% confidence interval.
Smokey says:
There is no evidence that CO2 ever caused global warming. It was always the result of warming, never the cause.
Then explain the PETM.
Robert Phelan said:
“For the moment, I am still tending toward the older formulations but should probably update my notes to reflect the newer thinking and emphasize the ambiguity before offering the course again. Apologies for being so abrupt and didactic”
____
No apologies necessary. I think perhaps we’ve both learned something from the exchange which is (or should be) the whole point.
“Then explain the PETM.”
That’s your argument?? OK: CO2 has risen ten times as fast now as during the PETM, and no runaway global warming is happening. Therefore, CO2 wasn’t the cause of the PETM.
Your turn: explain why the climate null hypothesis has never been falsified. And explain what the temperature in the box will be in a year.
So Bob, then you acknowledge that modelers do not shy away from testing their models?
Bob B says:
Erinome—OK at what point , what test, will you consider the current GCM’s falsified?
Which one? There are almost 2 dozen.
And which economic scenario should be assumed, and over what time period, starting when?
What should be done about factors that all modelers admit are imperfectly modeled, such as clouds and aerosol effects?
How should the chaos inherent in any nonlinear system (and nonlinear model) be accounted for?
Finally, how much error is tolerable, and over what time period (and why)?
Do you recall the Hansen paper that Willis referenced several weeks ago? It says this:
“…Climate sensitivity, the eventual global temperature change per unit forcing, is known with good accuracy from Earth’s paleoclimate history. However, two fundamental uncertainties limit our ability to predict global temperature change on decadal time scales.
“First, although climate forcing by human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) is known accurately, climate forcing caused by changing human-made aerosols is practically unmeasured. Aerosols are fine particles suspended in the air, such as dust, sulfates, and black soot…. Aerosol climate forcing is complex, because aerosols both reflect solar radiation to space (a cooling effect) and absorb solar radiation (a warming effect). In addition, atmospheric aerosols can alter cloud cover and cloud properties. Therefore, precise composition-specific measurements of aerosols and their effects on clouds are needed to assess the aerosol role in climate change.
“Second, the rate at which Earth’s surface temperature approaches a new equilibrium in response to a climate forcing depends on how efficiently heat perturbations are mixed into the deeper ocean. Ocean mixing is complex and not necessarily simulated well by climate models. Empirical data on ocean heat uptake are improving rapidly, but still suffer limitations.”
— James Hansen et al, “Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications,” 2011,
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf (pg 1-2).
Erinome says:
January 29, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Yes, we do know for sure. My point, which I thought was obvious, was that even if the box were transparent to radiation and ~ 1 m^3 it is far too small of a volume to see the effects of the GH effect — you need a large atmosphere ~ 10s-100s km.
Really? It’s the CO2 that causes the air to warm, right? You’re familiar with a bomb calorimeter, right? If so, why not take an air sample at -20F, shoot some CO2 into it and see how long it takes for it to warm up? That is what we’re being told by the climate scientists, yes? Increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming of said atmosphere?
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
The earth is not warming It has been in a cooling trend for 10,000 years….
So we’re now cooler than the LIA?
Than 1950? Than 1979?
It was much warmer 1000 years ago than now.
How much?
Babsy says:
You’re familiar with a bomb calorimeter, right? If so, why not take an air sample at -20F, shoot some CO2 into it and see how long it takes for it to warm up?
If you are asking this you clearly don’t understand the basis of the greenhouse effect, which depends on the interaction of radiation and GHGs. There is no such solar radiation in the calorimeter. And even if there were, the volume of gas is too small to see an appreciable effect.
Erinome wiggles and wiggles like a slippery eel, and never gives a straight answer.
Smokey says:
So forget a cubic meter box. Make it a hundred cubic meters. And instead of 5,000 ppm CO2, make it all CO2. That gives you twenty thousand times more accuracy.
After two weeks time what will be the temperature inside the container? After one month? One year?
What is the container made of?
What is its source of heat?
Where is it located? What objects are nearby?
What is the partial pressure of CO2?
And, the volume is still very small.
Erinome says: January 29, 2012 at 7:19 pm
It’s kind of odd how much erinome sounds like Anthony Watts criticizing the Bill Nye / Al Gore experiment on the Climate Reality marathon awhile back… and Nye insisted on his own blog that he had successfully performed the experiment a number of times.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/
Just Sayin’.
Smokey says:
January 29, 2012 at 7:24 pm
TWICE tonight he’s said “Even if there were” (or was) some effect. If there’s an effect, the experiment should be able to be scaled up as to either verify or falsify the effect, don’t you think?
Smokey says:
Erinome wiggles and wiggles like a slippery eel, and never gives a straight answer.
I am, of course, trying to point out that Bob is asking simplistic questions.
Sorry, but science depends on analyzing and understanding the details. People like Bob and you have your neat, tidy answers — climate models are always wrong; CO2 is always caused by warming — that fail to address, or even acknowledge, the complexities of reality. Then, when challenged on them, you resort to responses like this (7:24 pm.) instead of addressing the questions. I see it time and again from you, and from Bob.
Skepticism is certainly necessary — if only you practiced it.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 3:24 pm
All I need is a simple answer to a simple question
Here is a thought, US submariners spend upto 6 months in a rich C02 atmosphere, are there any health or physical effects?
R. Gates also says-Could CO2 levels rise to the point that human existence become a matter of doubt?
What level would that be, as levels in buildings can vary from 300 to 2000 pmm and higher. So people are already exposed to high level of C02 for long periods of time. Submariners can be exposed to higher levels on cruises lasting for months at a time. Greenhouse workers, high exposure at home and on the job, therefore long term exposure.
Erinome says:
“What is the container made of?
What is its source of heat?
Where is it located? What objects are nearby?
What is the partial pressure of CO2?
And, the volume is still very small.”
Like a slippery eel, Erinome never gives a straight answer.
So I’ll answer for him: the container’s temperature will be at ambient. No matter what the volume is, etc. CO2 has no magical properties, despite Erinome’s faith-based belief system.
@ RGates – it seems you are getting close to understanding the point. If as you say natural variability is currently masking all further CO2 warming for over a decade then it is quite possible that it was in fact previously contributing to the warming seen in the preceding 2 decades because its contribution is not fully understood, at least not well enough to be modelled. To claim that it isnt possible for natural variability to have caused the observed warming would imply that its contribution to climate change is well understood which we know it isn’t.
I agree we are students of climate. if cycle 25 is a complete geomagnetic fizzer as some are predicting and assuming that volcanic activity is not hugely different in that cycle we will get to see the real role of CO2 because TSI has not varied significantly and CO2 is still increasing.
‘A physicist’ claims that ‘ “hockey-stick blades” …. continue to gain in length and strength in modern climate records, …’ and somehow strengthen ‘… Hansen-style climate science …’ To me, that Hansen-style climate science is simply fraudulent. Hansen stood up in front of the Senate in 1988 and said that warming had started. But here is a problem: satellites cannot see the warming he was talking about. According to satellite data real warming did not start until 1998, ten years after he spoke. As to those hockey sticks, they can occur in nature for reasons that have nothing to do with Mann. And they can be real while Mann’s was not, by his own admission. He did not like the way tree ring data of more recent years behaved, so he simply chucked them out and substituted thermometer readings he did like. You cannot throw out the part of your data set you don’t like just because it makes the rest of the data look good. And you cannot substitute an entirely different data set as he did to produce a desired outcome. That is scientific fraud. The journals that published it should officially withdraw his papers and he should have lost his academic status. Unfortunately none of this happened because all investigations were nothing but a whitewash. I recently saw a collection of articles containing independently produced hockey sticks that were advertized as proving that Mann’s stick was real. One of them turned out to be an article by Kaufman et al. with well-known co-authors like Ammann, Bradley, Briffa, Overpeck and others. They had produced a two thousand year old temperature curve of the Arctic that sure did look like a hockey stick. It was based on the temperature record preserved in sub-Arctic lake sediments. The blade of their hockey stick started to rise at the turn of the twentieth century and they thought this correlated well with major anthropogenic changes in global atmospheric composition. Unfortunately they had not thought the science through. The important clue was that the warming started very suddenly after two thousand years of slow cooling. I checked what carbon dioxide was doing at the time and it was doing nothing. If this was greenhouse warming there had to be a sudden increase in carbon dioxide in synch with the start of the warming, and this did not happen. Since it wasn’t greenhouse warming the only logical cause that was left was a change in currents that bring warm water to the Arctic. I so informed Kaufman but he ignored it. Confirmation that warm water reaching the Arctic in the year 2010 was warmer than anything reaching it during the previous two thousand years followed. In the end I wrote it up as an article and published it. You can get it here: http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/arno-arrak.pdf
And yes, the curve that started it all is a beautiful hockey stick, no thanks to Mann.
‘Climate science’ nail, meet Maus, the hammer.
Warmists, wake me when you have a testable hypothesis.
/Mr Lynn
My comment will hardly rank much above trolling and ad hominem, since I’ve only skimmed the well over 300 comments here and dont have the temporal resources to enter the debate, so if I am snipped – whatever
To Smokey – keep up the good work with all these Chicken Little n’er do wells.
And to R Gates – keep it up as well – Anthony draws great characters here (Rutan, Eschenbach, Smokey, et al) but the character foil is quite helpful….
This has been fun.
It appears that the alarmists, reacting like Counter-Reformation Jesuits, have come out in force to defend the faltering faith.
William M. Connolley, being the most distinguished amongst them sets forth the creed, ‘…the “recovery from the LIA” idea. I don’t believe that. The trend is caused, principally, by increasing CO2 consentrations; it can be stopped by slowing and halting the CO2 increase…’ and goes on to refer us to holy script, “…As to Why: you can read IPCC for that…”.
‘A physicist’ the evangelist, continues to preach the words of the prophet that yea verily, the Northwest Passage shall be opened and Earth’s temperature will warm ‘hockeystickwise’.
You have to admire that dogged never-say-die disciple R. Gates. Even his howler @ 10:26 am about primitive humans did not faze him and he pressed on regardless gradually easing himself out of trouble — a talent greatly appreciated by Maus (4:26 pm).
His parable of the water drop on the pane of glass impressed me most as it perfectly demonstrated the circular reasoning loop in which climate models “models [which] are not meant to capture natural variability” are trapped.
nc says:
January 29, 2012 at 8:00 pm
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 3:24 pm
All I need is a simple answer to a simple question
Here is a thought, US submariners spend upto 6 months in a rich C02 atmosphere, are there any health or physical effects?
R. Gates also says-Could CO2 levels rise to the point that human existence become a matter of doubt?
What level would that be, as levels in buildings can vary from 300 to 2000 pmm and higher. So people are already exposed to high level of C02 for long periods of time. Submariners can be exposed to higher levels on cruises lasting for months at a time. Greenhouse workers, high exposure at home and on the job, therefore long term exposure.
_________
It would not be direct exposure to high levels of CO2 that would cause me to have concern for human existence. Mind you, I am not a believer in catastropic run-away global warming from CO2 either, but rather what it might do to food supplies. First, high levels of CO2 could have some effect on the ocean food chain, as certainly acidfication of the oceans could present a problem. More importantly, high levels of CO2 could alter the biosphere in other unpredictable ways. Some are wanting to try to say that “more is always better” when it comes to CO2, and life on Earth, but in regards to human civilization in particular, and the ways we feed the 7 Billion of us on Earth, we need a biosphere that is able to support us. We are not tree shrews like our ancestors of 50 million years ago and need a bit of a different diet than one might find living the life of a tree shrew in a high CO2 world of tropoical forests. The Holocene has been good to us (and the grain plants that have supported our civilzation) overall, and to leave it, for a warmer or colder world, is probably not something we should intentionally do if we can avoid it..
The debate has moved on from “how much warming does Co2 cause?” to “whether or not Co2 causes warming”. The purveyors of “the cause” have not realized this.
One theory has been substantiated here; what wild animals do when cornered.
For what it’s worth, my comment was ironic, although it caught at least two irony-free posters – one of whom was, ironically, AAIM…
It’s never any fun when one has to explain a joke.
In other news, it appears that Rutan made some rather egregious blunders in his ‘analysis’…
Oopsie.
Bernard J, have you even looked at what Tamino posted? That is a joke that needs to be explained.
Look, erinome, if you want to be incoherent, at least make it rhyme.
==================================
Bernard J
You opinion of Burt Rutan is based on cherry picked data and false claims.
David Ball says:
January 29, 2012 at 10:16 pm
The debate has moved on from “how much warming does Co2 cause?” to “whether or not Co2 causes warming”.
——-
If the debate has moved on, it has moved on only for the willfully ignorant. Only the most ignorant would doubt as to whether CO2 causes warming…even the good Lord Monckton gets this basic science. Sensitivity is, and has been for some time, the issue among the the willfully informed…
Erinome
It would be a good exercise for you to look up that data for yourself.
My impression was that the actual temperatures were well within the spread of model runs – although a little cooler than the multi model mean – some of the models seem well out – perhaps there is an argument for ditching some of them from those considered by the IPCC
e.g. Here from Lucia’s
http://rankexploits.com/imageDiversion.php?uri=/musings/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/MichaelHauberRequest.png
http://rankexploits.com/imageDiversion.php?uri=/musings/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/MichaelHauberRequest.png
AAiM:
Absolutely.
And if Rutan didn’t cherry-pick, and if he didn’t make false claims, my opinion of him would be different.
Babsy says:
Err, yes, foreign policy is a three letter word spelt OIL. I think my point was in the last sentence
“Science never drove policy. The climate scientists are just spouting what they are paid to say and the useful idiots of the world – environmentalists and others – sing along it tune”.
David Ball:
Tamino has explained Rutan’s joke of an analysis. If you’d looked at the post you’d possibly understand why Rutan was not even wrong.
And there are some insightful comments that follow (see, for example, those of Erinome and EFS_Junior), so if the explanation has escaped you perhaps you should post there and ask for even more clarification.
Pasting this from C02 Science; Based on the wealth of information we have acquired on the cycling of climate on a millennial time scale, going back from the Current Warm Period to the Little Ice Age to the Medieval Warm Period to the Dark Ages Cold Period to the Roman Warm Period and etc. (when there was consistently much less CO2 in the air than there is today), we conclude that our current level of warmth — which is in no way unprecedented — owes next to nothing to earth’s currently higher atmospheric CO2 concentration. And also knowing of the tremendous growth-enhancing and water-conserving effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, which have been demonstrated to occur in literally thousands of laboratory and field experiments (see results archived in our Plant Growth Databases), we feel that we must allow anthropogenic CO2 emissions to continue to rise unimpeded, until they are naturally abated by the natural, unforced and non-subsidized development of economically viable non-fossil-fuel energy sources.
Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso
R. Gates says; “certainly acidfication of the oceans could present a problem” Mr. Gates here is some reading, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/28/the-fishes-and-the-coral-live-happily-in-the-co2-bubble-plume/
RobW> you answered exactly squat at 146pm
My comment is here;it is easy to see that you’re wrong.
> It is well documented that the global atmosphere was 6-9 times higher in CO2 than it is today
No, it isn’t. You haven’t even said *when* you think this “well documented” period occurred. I’ve pointed you to evidence that shows, to the contrary, that CO2 levels before the ice age period (ie, before 800 kyr) aren’t terribly well known. There were, very likely, times in the past of high CO2 levels, but the last clear such time was ~300 Myr ago.
> So when CO2 was very low during the Holocene, temperatures were routinely higher than they are now
No, global temperatures were not routinely higher. You’re looking at Greenland. And durig the Holocene CO2 wasn’t very low, at least not by glacial-interglacial standards, only by present-day standards.
RobW> today one tenth of that historic CO2 level is a significant risk factor for runaway global warming? Is that your position?
No.
> Co2 was not the driver that stopped the LIA from continuing
Not conclusive, but likely.
> Co2 was not responsable for the early 20th century warming. Solar was not responsable for the early 20th century warm spurt
You don’t have evidence to conclude either. But I’ve already quoted IPCC on this.
> According to AGW theory, the rate of warming should accelerate because of the increased co2
Not according to the theory I know. CO2 increases nearly exponentially, the forcing is roughly logarithmic in CO2, so the overall forcing (and hence, roughly, the expected temperature rise) is linear in time.
R Gates: ‘If the debate has moved on, it has moved on only for the willfully ignorant. Only the most ignorant would doubt as to whether CO2 causes warming’
CO2 climate sensitivity has been vastly over-estimated. The proof is here: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/figure-101.png
You can’t explain this from a one way warming process. CO2-AGW << present natural cooling. It has to be the increase of cloud albedo, Once you accept that, much recent warming was the reduction of cloud albedo. Net CO2-AGW may even be slightly negative.
So, let’s have some openness. The assumptions have been wrong. This goes back to Tyndall and Arrhenius. Anyone can prove for themselves by looking at rain clouds that the Sagan aerosol optical physics which claims high albedo is always from smaller droplets is plain wrong. There is no substantial cooling by polluted clouds. The CAGW scare was created to order.
Oops – can’t deep link at Lucia’s – if you look at http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/surface-temperatures-cooler-than-multi-model-mean/ and scroll down to Update May 26 you’ll see the graph I am talking about
Erinome, you didn’t answer my question. It was a simple question and it deserves a simple answer. You fall into the same trap as the like of Gavin Schmidt. The modelers are too close to their beloved models. When asked a simple question as to what it would take to falsify their model they can’t answer because they don’t want to. They don’t want to believe and they don’t want to let go of their current carreer, publishing papers and especially, “the cause”. I think not correctly simulating the “hot spot” or lack of one, is one of the biggest nails in their coffin. I would also say if the temps are flat lined like they are now until like 2015, I think they have lost ALL credibility and can be considered falsified.
Erinome, I consider Hansens’ 1988 modeling forecasts A,B&C to be quite falsified. I would say when the observed GMST are outside the 95% confidence interval for 3-5yrs (Not using GISS TEMP because it is pure steaming crap) and it continues to not correctly model the “hot spot’, then it can be considered falsified—there I put up my metric. Can any warmists modeler put up their own metric???? crickets?
Erinome, I have seen no other field where video game type modeling is going on without a solid metric, no stric testable metric has to be met. Like Ball stated when the testable timeframes are not spelled out are are past our lifetime they become unusable and fall into the realm of philosophy!
Erinome says:
January 29, 2012 at 7:46 pm
“Sorry, but science depends on analyzing and understanding the details. People like Bob and you have your neat, tidy answers — climate models are always wrong; CO2 is always caused by warming — that fail to address, or even acknowledge, the complexities of reality. Then, when challenged on them, you resort to responses like this (7:24 pm.) instead of addressing the questions. I see it time and again from you, and from Bob.”
Cold sea water holds more CO2 than does warm sea water. When cold sea water warms up, the CO2 comes out of solution. Don’t believe me? Do the chemistry and report to us your findings. You know, the details.
mkelly says:
January 16, 2012 at 9:02 am
R. Gates says:
January 16, 2012 at 8:23 am
You (Mr. Gates) also said: “…But what you especially can’t do, is put either transient or equilibrium sensitiity on a log chart.”
======================
mkelly says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:34 am
Mr. Connely says: CO2 increases affect the radiative balance logarithmically, this is well known. Since CO2 is increasing nearly exponentially, the radiative effect is nearly linear.
Sir, you are wrong R.Gates has said numbers of times CO2 effects can not be expressed logarithmically.
===============================
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:59 am
mkelly says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:34 am
Sir, you are wrong R.Gates has said numbers of times CO2 effects can not be expressed logarithmically.
________
That is not what I said at all, but you knack for misquoting can probably be expressed exponentially.
=================
Mr. Gates above is from the Moncton sensitivity thread and this thread. You said ““…But what you especially can’t do, is put either transient or equilibrium sensitiity on a log chart.” Mr. Connelly said “affect the radiative balance logarithmically”.
I was defending you but now you say I was incorrect in quoting your our words.
By the way who is correct you or Mr. Connelly?
I would ask you with draw your snide comment as you can see you are quoted correctly.
This has been an interesting thread… mostly because of the AGW defenders.
The fact is, AGW is a non-issue, something that we (humanity) really need not concern ourselves with. And yet there are people who truly believe that the miniscule temperature variations documented over the last few decades (or, maybe documented, or maybe not) are something to be worried about. Not just worried, but highly stressed and aggravated.
Rutan has looked at the data and claims that are currently getting attention and found them sorely lacking in credibility. Same with me, and same with an increasing percentage of the population. Hopefully the people who have been led along by these “projections” (ie. political types) will also see that there is little or no credibility to the hype and move on to actually important things. That seems to be the case here in Canada.
I, for one, am getting tired of the same discredited, ridiculous, inane arguments being spread around by the same dishonest and/or deluded individuals. Where I live, it’s been cooler than usual for quite a few years now. And although we’re being told the “average” temperature is rising, it’s really a hard sell when practically every part of the world I hear from is saying the same thing: cooling. The ridiculous “ocean acidification” crap isn’t helping the cause.
It has been pathetic watching previously credible and highly respected Science and generally Knowledge based publications shred their credibility with AGW hype and alarmism… yeah, I’m talking about you, National Geographic, Scientific American, Science, Nature… The tiniest natural change happens and there it is: “look at how evil humanity is”. Bah.
William M. Connolley
How is it you have time to be here? Are you banned from Wikipedia again?
David Ball says:
>>The debate has moved on from “how much warming does Co2 cause?” to “whether or not Co2 causes warming”. The purveyors of “the cause” have not realized this.
Great observation! I’ve been questioning whether Co2 makes any significant contribution to warming in the atmosphere since the beginning of this whole charade.
For AGW proponents it must be a tough transition from Al Gore’s pronouncement that the “debate is over” to a realization that not only is the debate NOT over, but that the most basic premises of AGW are now being debated. It will just get worse for them.
Good morning ladies and gentlemen.
Interesting that Bernard J was incapable of explaining it.
Co2 is not the driver. Those who cling to this woeful conjecture are incapable of accepting that. Their income depends on it.
I am glad that not all skeptics agree on Co2. Everyone needs to be kept honest. But the debate has moved on as I stated.
Regarding posting on alarmist sites. I have tried and tried and am continually deleted (censorship is a slippery slope, is it not?). The excuse is that we are time wasters. Funny that.
The only thing “unprecedented” is the hijacking of a field of science based on such little evidence.
> that the most basic premises of AGW are now being debated…
Well, I know this is hopeless, but I’ll try. Yes, you are debating the most basic premises. You think this is really kewl. But what you are doing is something like, erm, when Newton is describing his theory of gravity, butting in and saying “hey! I’ve got a great new idea for re-arranging the epicycles!”.
You’re still debating stuff like, is the rise in CO2 caused by people. The answer is Yes. When BR says no, human CO2 is only 3.4%, none of you say “hold on, that is obvious nonsense”. Because you don’t know it. And even when people in this thread point out that it is obvious nonsense, and explain why, you still aren’t capable of putting in the basic skeptical thought and thinking about the issue. The Beck graph you love so much is obviously wrong, if you do a bit of clear thinking about it, but none of you do.
You’re lost, and wandering in the wilderness. You are representative of some share of popular opinion, and matter for that reason, but not for any scientific reason. Don’t delude yourselves.
Mr. Connolley:
We aren’t lost, you joined us in the wilderness.
The basic finding of the IPCC is that early 20th Century warming was solar. I gave you the link to read that shows it isn’t.
At least you admit we are in a rebound warming from the LIA, of which CO2 is not the driver off, so there is hope that you are learning
.Wecome to the wilderness of being skeptical of non-validated claims.
connolley – in circles where being outstandingly disgraceful is considered virtuous, you still fail for lack of talent.
The earth’s precession to an increased inclination can easily account for a changing climate with colder winters and hotter summers. The net change in annual temperature average from the precession should be zero. The wobble seems to be quite erratic. Google precession animation.
Stop picking on CO2, we need more.
I remain a skeptic for many reasons, and I think Rutan did a good job of summarizing portions of how I feel.
My primary reason for skepticism is simple – where’s the link between ‘warming’ and CO2? I know you can show correlation, but correlation and causation are two very different things. As someone who builds financial models, I’m well aware of how models can be used to mislead and deceive. I’m also aware of how people frequently mistake correlation and causation – even experts fall victim to this when, lacking all else, they opt for what they perceive to be the obvious and (usually) easiest answer. But even if a neighbor perceives the lack of acorns to be directly related to the fact that squirrels are missing from my backyard, it’s hard for them to realize I’ve been shooting and trapping them, unless they happen to see me doing it. In the meantime, they are happy to continue discussing the lack of acorns.
My second reason is related to cycles. We know climates change, and in not so regular fashion. Sure, we can map out rises and falls in temperature, but this is not particularly precise. Over hundreds of thousands of years, being off a little bit early on becomes much more meaningful later. So I’m not going to feel like any slight deviations from the ‘norm’ today are carrying significant meaning. I’m sure over the course of years, each cycle had deviations which may not have been tracked precisely, let alone accurately. 100 years in a 10,000 year cycle is probably going to get washed out in the long run (I’ve seen similar things happen in financial modeling for stock market performance, over shorter time frames).
Finally, I need to know why exactly I have to fear changes of any kind. If life as we know it is always about change, then why is this particular change so awful or fearsome? I’ve been taught (often by teachers who are not skeptics, which I find intriguing) that change is something to be embraced. As a result, I am willing to accept change as a natural course of events – even if that change is potentially something caused by me (and you). A great example is something I have gone through several times – unemployment. At this point, I’ve learned, you can do everything in your power to keep your job, but in the end it’s sometimes something you simply can’t control. Rather than spending my time fearing unemployment and all the upheaval it brings, I have learned to focus on just doing my job. Interestingly, just doing my job has cost me my job on at least one (possibly two) occasions. The upshot of this is to say that regardless of what we do, it’s possible (actually probable) that climate change is going to take place with or without me. In the end, I have very little say in the direction this all takes. So why be scared? From what I can tell, I’ve actually BENEFITTED from unemployment – it’s allowed me to get my head on straight about what’s important in life. So I’ve stopped fearing it.
I think the same could be true of climate change. I have no idea if warming will lead to famine and disease as the AGW crowd seem to believe. They know very little about what a warm world would look like. Certainly they don’t know more than me in this regard, because neither of us has lived in that world. All they can say is “it will be a different world.” Indeed it will. But the world I live in is very different from that of my father, and my grandfather. In many and most ways, my world is better. I have to believe this AGW modeled world will be better, too. I don’t believe it will come to that, but if it does, I don’t fear it. Not a bit.
Perhaps the most basic premise of AGW theory is that the presence of additional CO2 results in additional heat being trapped in the atmosphere; which then allows additional water vapor to reside in the atmosphere, which then results in additional heat being trapped in the atmosphere.
It would seem logical that any process or mechanism which can raise the temperature of the atmosphere might also allow additional water vapor to reside in the atmosphere, which would then result in additional heat being trapped in the atmosphere.
Among all the possible processes and mechanisms which might initially raise the temperature of the atmosphere above some critical equilibrium value, why is CO2 uniquely capable of enabling an enhanced water vapor feedback cycle, as opposed to some other kind of mechanism which might also raise the temperature of the atmosphere above that same equilibrium value?
> why is CO2 uniquely capable of enabling an enhanced water vapor feedback cycle
It isn’t. What makes you think it is? It differs from many other forcings (like sulphate aerosols) in being long-lived, but I suspect that isn’t what you meant. Increased solar radiation would have the same/similar WV feedbacks, of course. The difference is that we know CO2 is going up; we know solar isn’t.
Bob B says:
Erinome, you didn’t answer my question. It was a simple question and it deserves a simple answer.
The question was so simple it can’t be answered until you begin to define its parameters. I’m waiting for you to do so — at least begin by choosing an economic scenario.
Have you ever heard the expression, “All models are wrong, but some are useful.”
RMM says:
My primary reason for skepticism is simple – where’s the link between ‘warming’ and CO2?
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Babsy says:
Cold sea water holds more CO2 than does warm sea water. When cold sea water warms up, the CO2 comes out of solution. Don’t believe me? Do the chemistry and report to us your findings. You know, the details.
Why is the cold sea water warming up?
Smokey says:
Like a slippery eel, Erinome never gives a straight answer.
Would you for just once answer a question about your claims? Just once??
You said that CO2 always follows warming. Why has 1 C of recent warming caused an atmospheric CO2 increase of 100 ppm, when 10 C of warming after the ice ages caused a 100 ppm aCO2 increase (that always peaked at about 275 ppm)?
mkelly says:
January 30, 2012 at 7:09 am
You (Mr. Gates) also said: “…But what you especially can’t do, is put either transient or equilibrium sensitiity on a log chart.”
______
Indeed you can’t, as we don’t know what all the feedbacks are. The fast feedbacks will relate to the transient sensitivity and the slower (or earth system) feedbacks will determine the final equilibrium sensitivity, but the kicker is, that even if you knew some scaling factor that could be simply plugged into the logarithmic radiational response of CO2 at different concentrations to accomodate the feedbacks, the response is nonlinear, meaning that the scaling factor will change with different concentrations of CO2, and the system will jump to different scaling factors in unpredictable ways. Moreover, it is likely that the scaling factor will also change with the rate of change of CO2. Meaning, that the transient and equalibrium response are likely to be different if you take CO2 concentration from 280 to 390 ppm over 10,000 years versus 200 years. Rates of change matter greatly in natural systems! But the final result of all of these considerations is that you can’t put the transient or equilibrium sensitivity on a logarithimic chart and have it represent anything in the real world.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
Erinome
It would be a good exercise for you to look up that data for yourself.
You can’t answer the question, can you?
You said it was “much warmer” 1000 years ago than now. I simply asked for your data. Where is it?
I’m out on the desert on a clear star filled night.
The rocks around me are radiating heat from the summer sun.
The heat waves travel out from the rocks at the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second.
According to some of the “experts”, on the way out, one heat wave hits a CO2 molecule, and is “forced” back to earth, also at the speed of light. The this “forcing” supposedly heats earth again but is also reflected back out again, also at the speed of light, eventually making it straight out into space.
Allowing 50 miles for the thickness of the atmosphere, and 100 miles for a round trip, that heat wave can make 1,860 trips per second, or 111,600 trips per minute, or 6,696,000 trips per hour, or 80, 352, 000 chances to escape the atmosphere during the entire summer equinox night (12 hours).
For a clear summer night, I would guess that one or two bounces (if they happen at all) would be more than adequate to allow most of the heat waves escape. In any event, 80,352,000 round trips during the night for one heat wave to attempt to escape the planet would be a “rare, if not impossible event”.
I think “Forcing” by CO2 is BS.
Bob B says:
Erinome, I consider Hansens’ 1988 modeling forecasts A,B&C to be quite falsified.
I assume the Hansen “predictions” you refer to are JGR v93 nD8 (Aug 20, 1988) pp 9341-9364, Figure 3a & 3b.
There, Hansen et al considered Scenario B the “most plausible,” and it projected a 1986 to 2011 average surface temperature increase of 0.8 C for the 5-yr running mean.
The actual 1986-2011 change of the 5-yr running mean was (from GISS data) from an anomaly of 0.15 C to 0.55 C, for a change of 0.40 C. Half of scenario B’s projection, and (by coincidence) exactly to their projection for scenario C.
Now, how realistic was scenario B? It assumed one El Chicon-sized volcano in 1995 (scenario A had none; C had one). Their CO2 level started at 315 ppm in 1958, and (from page 9345) doubled in 2030 in scenario A, and in 2060 in scenario B.
So I calculate (check me on this) that their assumed growth rates were 0.95%/yr for scenario A and 0.68%/yr for scenario B.
That means (check me again) their assumed levels for 2011’s CO2 abundance were 525 ppm for A, and 452 ppm for B.
Those CO2 levels are clearly not what happened. The CO2 average abundance in 2011 was (from Mauna Loa monthly data) about 391.6 ppm.
So their CO2 was much too high. So it’s no surprise their projection, even for scenario B, was too high.
Furthermore methane emissions mysteriously leveled off in the first decade of this century (but now may be increasing again). So that forcing was also too high in their models.
So you see where this is going – none of their scenarios came to pass. Thus reality was not a fair test of their model. That’s how it almost always is with models, which is exactly why model results are called “projections” and not “predictions.”
Add in the fact that their projections were done 24 years ago – a huge span of time in this era of vast changes in computer technology – and you have to wonder. Models cited in the first IPCC report had a grid size of about 500 km; by the AR4 they were down to 110 km. (See Figure 1.4 in the IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch1 p113, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf ). Models also now include much more relevant physics, chemistry, and biology (see Figure 1.2 p99 in the same chapter).
Given all this, then, what significance do you find in the Hansen et al 1988 projections?
Erinome, your link is broken.
Regardless, I know what it links to. It is not proof of anything. It is a theory which proposes the link between the two. It has not been proven, nor does it prove there is a link between CO2 and warming.
Theories are comforting, but unless they are proven to be irrefutable, and this is not, it is much ado about nothing.
William M. Connolley says:
It isn’t. What makes you think it is? It differs from many other forcings (like sulphate aerosols) in being long-lived, but I suspect that isn’t what you meant. Increased solar radiation would have the same/similar WV feedbacks, of course. The difference is that we know CO2 is going up; we know solar isn’t.
=========================================
Would it then be accurate to say that regardless of the source of the initial forcing — CO2, the sun, or whatever is actually the trigger of the cycle — it is the water vapor facet of the feedback response mechanism which does the heavy lifting, in a manner of speaking. Is that correct?
Like a slippery eel, Erinome once again answers a straightforward question with… another question!
*Sheesh!* Well, OK, even though Erinome dodges other folks’ questions, here’s the answer to his question: Erinome cannot prove that the 1°C warming since the mid-1800’s “caused” an atmospheric CO2 increase of 100 ppm. It is just as plausible – if not more so – that most of the rise in CO2 is the result of the MWP. There has been an ongoing discussion regarding this question for the past couple of years here. As we know, atmospheric CO2 rises ≈800 ±200 years following warm episodes. The Vostok and Greenland ice core records clearly show that cause and effect, going back at least 400,000 years.
And Connolley says:
“…we know CO2 is going up…”
Yes, we know that. And we know that global temperature is not going up any more or less than the long term trend since the 1600’s, thus falsifying the repeatedly debunked CO2=CAGW conjecture; CO2 only began rising after 1800. No wonder Connolley censors the truth out of Wikipedia; it’s the only way he can promote his alarmist “carbon” narrative.
Connolley is lost, wandering in the wilderness, because he’s so far behind the 8-ball. He is not up to speed on the debate, which explains his confusion. The question isn’t whether, if, or how much CO2 may be attributable to human emissions. THE question is: where is any global harm from the increase in that tiny trace gas? Because there is no testable, verifiable evidence of any global harm from rising CO2. Thus, CO2 is “harmless”. QED
And the rise in CO2 is verifiably greening the planet. Agricultural productivity is increasing in lockstep with rising CO2, thus more CO2 is a great benefit to the biosphere. In a world in which one-third of the population subsists on $2 a day or less, cutting back on CO2 emissions would mean certain death by starvation for a large swath of the population. That does seem to be the unspoken agenda of Connolley’s elitist ilk. And of course Connolley would be exempt from the cull, which would affect mostly the world’s darker complected folks.
SB> regardless of the source of the initial forcing… it is the water vapor facet of the feedback response mechanism which does the heavy lifting
You could put it like that if you liked, but I’m not sure it is helpful. It is like saying that your car goes forward not because you put your foot down on the accelerator, but because of the engine. It can be regarded as true, but it won’t help you work out whether a car is going to move or not; for that, you need to ask the driver (don’t push this analogy too far; if it doesn’t help you understand what I’m trying to say, discard it). WV is a feedback, not a forcing (in case that was the question you were asking).
Burt wrote: …”man’s addition of CO2 to the atmosphere… cannot cause the observed warming unless you assume a large positive feedback from water vapor…”
It is pretty simple to put an upper-bound on the magnitude of the feedback from water vapor. You simply use MODTRAN to calculate the warming effect of CO2 absent any feedbacks (i.e., with constant H2O partial pressure), and also with the water vapor feedback (i.e., with constant relative humidity), and compare the two. The answer is that, in the absence of other feedbacks, water vapor would amplify the warming effect from CO2 by about 65%.
I’ve run the numbers through MODTRAN for various CO2 levels, and entered the results into an Excel spreadsheet, here:
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/MODTRAN_etc.html
These calculations do not take into account other feedbacks, which, in net effect, are almost certainly negative: especially increased evaporation causing increased water-cycle cooling, and probably increased cloudiness. So that 65% amplification figure is really an upper-bound. The net amplification including water vapor might be positive, or it might be negative, but we can say with good confidence that it is not greater than 65%.
Here’s an excerpt from the spreadsheet (let’s see if I can get it to format reasonably well):
MODTRAN tropical atmosphere, clear sky Temp offset from 299.7K @ Iout=287.655 CO2 (ppm) description const H2O pressure const rel hum 0 no CO2 -7.47 -12.40 19.6 half of current warming -3.74 -6.12 285 est. pre-industrial -0.40 -0.66 300 est. 1900 -0.34 -0.56 305 est. 1930 -0.32 -0.53 310 est. 1950 -0.30 -0.49 315 1958, first Mauna Loa meas. -0.28 -0.46 392 current (Mauna Loa) 0 0 570 est. doubling vs. pre-indust. 0.48 0.79Note the 2nd line in the table, for just 19.6 ppm CO2. MODTRAN calculates that that’s all the CO2 that would be needed to generate fully half of the warming which our current 392 ppm gives us. The diminishing effect of additional CO2 is because there’s already more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere to make it almost completely opaque in CO2’s main absorption bands.
Mr. Connolley;
It has been my experience that (in general) there are two kinds of successful students. Type A students have excellent memories. Type B students have excellent minds.
Students of Type A accept everything they are told without question. They ask the first day of class what they need to do to get an A. “What is going to be on the test?” they say. They will only be happy if you give them a list of the facts that they need to commit to memory. Once the final exam is complete, they forget everything they have learned, if they ever learned anything in the first place. If they get an A in the course, they consider themselves successful. An “A” grade is their badge of social approval, more important to them than some small bit of knowledge they might keep.
Students of Type B are different. Such students don’t care as much about their grade. They want to learn and to know something. They want to be able to question the accepted dogma and evaluate everything they are being told. “Tell me more about why these facts are so,” they say. “Explain the proofs that have led to this conclusion,” they say. As you might guess, students of Type B are much more fun to teach than those of Type A. They don’t always do as well on their exams as the Type A students (unless the exam requires critical thought). They do, however, tend to learn more in the long run, and to go further in school, because their needs are served, not by getting an A, but by the quest for truth.
What you have on this blog, in general, are people who were students of Type B. They are successful people who have never blindly accepted what they have been told. Many are ruthlessly objective and rational. I come here because these people and their ideas are interesting. I’m beginning to wonder if you come here for the same reason, Mr. Connolley.
Could it be that the people here are simply more interesting than the people that attend your own blog?
Respectfully,
Mr. “Wandering in the Wilderness.”
Erinome says:
January 30, 2012 at 11:46 am
I didn’t say it was warming. I said when it does warm the CO2 comes out of solution. That means the warming precedes the increase in CO2. Not the other way around. My guess as to what causes the warming is that big yellow ball in the sky.
Erinome, it’s still a simple question you still have not answered and now you are trying to hide the pea under the thimble by confusing things. For simplicity please just use the IPCC AR4 assumptions and initial conditons. As far as Hansens simulation goes I told you not to use the steaming pile of crap which is GISS temp. Please use UAH as has been done for you already:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/13/is-jim-hansens-global-temperature-skillful/
RMM says:
Erinome, your link is broken.
Regardless, I know what it links to. It is not proof of anything. It is a theory which proposes the link between the two.
The link is not broken, and the paper is not a theory, but measurements based on observed data. Did you even read the paper? (And, are you capable of understanding it?)
Smokey says:
It is just as plausible – if not more so – that most of the rise in CO2 is the result of the MWP.
What is the delta(T) of the MWP?
What is the current delta(CO2)?
What is the delta(T) of an ice age?
What is the delta(CO2) of an ice age?
Explain.
Bob B says:
For simplicity please just use the IPCC AR4 assumptions and initial conditons.
For which economic scenario, Bob? There are about 3 dozen of them in the IPCC 4AR.
By the way, Bob, the 1986-to-2011 change of the 5-yr running average of UAH LT temperatures is… 0.42 C.
Compare to GISS.
It looks like the last ditch diggings in of the climate clueless are being morphed into statements that they hope can’t be simply pointed at and mocked openly like so MANY of their sad, S.A.D. failures:
The entire warmer group’s inability to recognize that even as they furiously cyphered doomsday using Dr. Mann’s ‘math’, it wasn’t even mathematics at all.
None can explain why THEY DON’T KNOW MIKE MANN’S STATISTICS MAKE HOCKEY STICKS.
That ALONE is INSTANT nullification from further remark by one believing in the voodoo of the
magical ‘TREEMOMETERS’ which could tell the temperature hundreds of years ago.
They CAN’T EXPLAIN WHY: they DIDN’T UNDERSTAND INSTRUMENTATION FUNDAMENTALS and GRASP that the
‘light, water, root health, canopy health, relative humidity, winds, temperature, CO2@canopy/OXYGEN@roots, S.I.X.T.E.E.N. D.I.F.F.E.R.E.N.T. MINERALS, in R.A.T.I.O. no less: none of these posting here for mannmade warming can explain why they NEVER detected these FUNDAMENTAL FAILURES of MannMade warming.
They can’t explain why Phil Jones was REPEATEDLY REFERRING to the world as having NOT WARMED: and why his 2005 email referring PRECISELY to the online published RAW DATA as his own value for true global temp:
they simply mumble the zombie-mutterings of ‘yew ain’t uh climatologist!’ not realizing, that: to be referred to as a CLIMATOLOGIST nowadays:
is a remark of SCORN.
Bob, you might have a look at this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/uah/from:1979
Also the 3rd plot here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes
Can you imagine having on your ‘scientific’ team, Steven Schneider who actually published a paper saying that since all the world’s thermometers are broken he wrote a program on his laptop that MAKES ALL THERMAL SENSING OBSOLETE, by DERIVING TEMPERATURE
from WIND SPEED?
Can you IMAGINE telling someone in your engineering firm you did that, and not being told to either cut out the joke or clean out your desk?
Can you IMAGINE having to have the e.n.t.i.r.e. world find out the man you thought was a big time electronic data interpreter, saw for T.W.E.L.V.E. YEARS, an EVER ACCELERATING APOCALYPSE of HEAT,
as the actual temps lazily floated along refusing to change, as Kevin Trenberth did?
Can you imagine being wrong about graphs that would put a forensic accountant to sleep for TWELVE YEARS, then having to FIND PEOPLE on the INTERNET who will take up for it as ‘sintz’ to them?
There are always going to be people claiming Jesse James wasn’t a criminal but a Robin Hood.
There always will be those who have profited from the current funding scam who don’t get indicted; but there will always also be history grinding the identities of the liars and scammers of an age to dirt.
==================================================
That raises a useful point. In an automobile, we have a system which is composed of other subsystems, major and minor, each of which is affected by one or more facets of well-understood first-order physics, plus the various mathematics which describe those first-order physics.
However, in describing the operation of an automobile, there is more to the operation of the automobile than just its inherently wide array of first-order physics. There are a variety of complicated interactions among the automobile’s subsystems, all of which are likewise affected in one way or another by some flavor of first-order physics.
If we decided to build a truly accurate and robust simulation model of an automobile, we would have to go well beyond the first-order physics and we would have to model the interactions of the automobile’s various subsystems using a dynamic simulation process which follows the various low-level interactions as they occur, and which acts within the rules and proscriptions set by the applicable first-order physics.
Sitting out there in my driveway is very good working model for how an automobile operates, although it isn’t truly a simulation type of model. But if I did choose to create a software-based simulation model of my four-door sedan, there would be no problem in studying a real-world example for comparison purposes, because one of those examples is sitting right out there in front of my house.
Moreover, there exists a vast wealth of independent knowledge and practical experience concerning the first order physics which my automobile employs in all of its subsystems, and also concerning the various interactions which occur among those subsystems.
I push the gas pedal down and I expect the car to move forward, assuming I know the engine is running and the transmission is in Drive. If the software simulation model for my car doesn’t do that when I push on the simulated gas pedal, I suspect something is wrong with the model. When I push the simulated pedal to the metal, if the simulated car accelerates faster than my real car, I also suspect something is wrong with the model.
Which brings me to the point of this post: If we were to compare the state of today’s climate science with the state of today’s mechanical engineering science, using the automobile as the standard of comparison for assessing the depth, the quality, and the reliability of the existing knowledge base concerning both the first-order physics and their dynamic interactions with (and among) the various operative subsystems — how would we rate today’s climate science in terms of having a sufficiently robust and reliable knowledge base available for our simulation purposes, a knowledge base which would allow us to justify a belief that the climate simulation models are themselves reliable and trustworthy enough to be useful in supporting public policy decisions?
A physicist says:
“Smokey says: Skeptics are never certain about anything … the net result of the current ≈40% increase in CO2 has been the greening of the planet, nothing more.
“Smokey, those two beliefs don’t seem all that skeptical to me…”
‘a physicist’ calls the unequivocal, verified greening of the planet due specifically to the rise in CO2 a “belief”. I know this will never convince ‘a physicist’ to alter his religious eco-faith, or turn William Connolley into an honest man, but for those interested in seeing how the planet is greening due to increased CO2:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
[More evidence available for the asking.]
Increased CO2, an airborne fertilizer, has resulted in a 40%+ increase in global vegetation. Prof Freeman Dyson writes that corn in a field will stop growing within five minutes in completely still air, due to absorbing all of the available CO2.
Clearly, the increase in CO2 is beneficial. The demonizing of “carbon” is a mendacious canard being done for ulterior, self-serving motives by propagandists with an anti-human, totalitarian agenda, and who are leading scientifically illiterate lemmings. The fact is that CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better. There is no downside to the increase in harmless, beneficial CO2. It’s all good, as an expanding biosphere and increasing agricultural productivity is proving.
Erinome,
GISS temp is the only data set showing 2010 warmer then 1998, Hansen et al have constantly modified the past and still does:
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/giss-make-the-past-colder-in-reykjavik/
http://www.real-science.com/corruption-temperature-record
I am skeptical of someone who is SO certain that they are correct. Especially since I am aware of the uncertainties in their claims. A lot of tap dancing to disguise the fact they know no more than anyone else.
Erinome
I’ve provided data time and again to global warming believers. They don’t respect data. I suspect you will not either. You will, I suspect, instead, come up with some way to spin away data— a way which I will probably have already seen before, ad nauseum— and then go on and on about some global warming creed that says the Medieval Warm Period was not really warmer than now. You don’t want to believe the data from all five Continents of the world that shows it was warmer on earth 1000 years ago than now then don’t—I really don’t care.
Erinome forgot to mention that scenario C is based on ZERO EMISSIONS. 8^D
Scott Brim makes some useful points regarding computer models.
But doesn’t mention that car makers build (sometimes) hundreds of prototypes so that they can test their new models in the real world and uncover all those things that the simulations can’t.
Engineers give themselves a lot of “wiggle room” in their designs. As much room as they can get without compromising the function of the device. That wiggle room allows not only for non-ideal materials and non-ideal loads but also for non-ideal methods of analysis. Sometimes that room needed to modify part of the machine to cope with unexpected thorwn at the device by the real world.
kbray in california
earth’s precession animation……..
Something like this?
Ironically enough, the FLAW in the GHE HYPOTHESIS is actually more of an accounting error than a science error. When the energy returns to the surface from the “GHG” you cannot ADD it to the original energy arriving from the Sun and produce a CORRECT alleged “energy budget”. The energy returning from the “GHG” has already travelled once through the system leaving cooling (at the previous location it departed from) in its wake. So we have sequential warming / cooling / warming / cooling events occurring from ONE bundle of energy that came from the Sun. So, one bundle of energy from the Sun simply warms the surface multiple sequential times, since these warming events are followed by equivalent cooling events and are separated by finite time delays YOU CANNOT ADD THEM TOGETHER and get a correct result. Doing so is the equivalent of creating energy, which you must admit violates the First Law.
One of the clues to this accounting error is the use of the terms; “Net Energy Gain” and “Extra Energy” as used in the climate science community.
In the engineering community we use the prediction of “extra energy” as a RED FLAG to tell us our analysis is wrong.
Engineers that routinely calculate “Net Energy Gains” either get fired or promoted into management.
Regarding why the Earth is at the average temperature it is, I have yet to hear any one explanation that makes total sense. But knowledge always expands and we will likely know why sometime. Although from a practical sense it seems to make very little difference.
But it most definitely is not the result of the GHE.
The GHE appears to cause some energy to travel through the system (bouncing as it where) between the gases and the surface all the while dissipating energy to Space via radiation. The end result is a slight delay to the energy as it travels from the Sun to the Earth through the Atmosphere to the Universe.
The “missing heat” is currently travelling as a spherical IR wavefront that is “X+d” light years away from the surface. In this equation X represents the elapsed time since the sunlight arrived (i.e. 100 years for sunlight from 1912) and d represents the slight delay from the GHE and averages about 5 milliseconds. “d” is actually a statistical distribution which will of course have a different specific value for each photon travelling through the system. Some will bounce many times and take longer to exit, while others may not bounce at all and exit directly to space. For reference, there are about 86 million milliseconds in each day. So, the argument that the GHE delays the flow of heat enough so that some is leftover at the end of each day and a higher equilibrium temperature results is specious.
Lest you think engineers are not qualified to calculate proper energy budgets you should consider the case of satellites orbiting the Earth. These technological marvels get all of their operating energy from the Sun. Yes, chemical energy (i.e. rocket fuel) gets them up there and some onboard chemical energy (i.e. fuel) is used to maneuver them into the correct orbit. But all of the energy to operate them day to day comes from the Sun and is converted by solar panels. Engineers take great pains to ensure there will always be enough energy onboard to ensure the proper operation of these expensive assets. As an engineer who has worked with these energy budgets I am respectfully pointing out that the climate science community has TOTALLY BOLLIXED their “Energy Budget” calculations. It starts with using the wrong units (i.e. mW/m^2 are units of POWER, not units of ENERGY). And it all goes downhill from there.
So continue to defend the calculation of “net energy gains” and you will reap the wrath of folks with common sense who have figured out your mistake. As a US taxpayer I AM FURIOUS that the climate science community has WASTED TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS and we have NOTHING to show for it. Oh, BTW, I vote every time I am legally allowed to do so.
Cheers, Kevin.
David Ball says:
Oh, I was capable, but I had hoped (forlornly, as it turned out) that you would be capable of reading and understanding Tamino’s thread by yourself, and without someone else holding your hand.
As you have demonstrated that this is in fact beyond your capacity, I will summarise:
1) Rutan was incompetent in constructing (or in sensibly reproducing) and in interpreting the “January-to-May temperature change” graph.
2) Rutan seems to think (incorrectly) that a decreasing trend in January-to-May temperature change indicates a slowing or a cessation of global warming.
3) Rutan is apparently oblivious to the fact that a decreasing trend in January-to-May temperature change can occur whilst there are simultaneous and consistent increases in both January and May temperatures over time.
4) Rutan is apparently oblivious to the fact that a decreasing trend in January-to-May temperature change is predicted by the physics of ‘greenhouse’ gas-induced global warming.
It’s very interesting that all of these points completely escaped Burt Rutan, David Ball, and many other commenters here.
Bob B says:
January 30, 2012 at 4:23 pm
Erinome,
GISS temp is the only data set showing 2010 warmer then 1998…..
Speaking of GISTemp let’s take a look at some odd characteristics of GISTemp in recent years
Part 1
Part 2
KevinK says:
Ironically enough, the FLAW in the GHE HYPOTHESIS is actually more of an accounting error than a science error. When the energy returns to the surface from the “GHG” you cannot ADD it to the original energy arriving from the Sun and produce a CORRECT alleged “energy budget”. The energy returning from the “GHG” has already travelled once through the system leaving cooling (at the previous location it departed from) in its wake.
Consider this hypothetical scenario: Assume there is no GH effect, but there is a half-silvered mirror, facing downward, 1 meter above the surface of the Earth. All incoming radiation passes through it, but only half the outgoing radiation passes through it — the other half is reflected.
Question 1: Will the air beneath the mirror be warmer than it would be without the mirror?
Question 2: What does your theory predict?
Bernard J.
You are quite a character Bernard J.
You call one of the most brilliant minds on earth, Burt Rutan, “incompetent”. And you point us to Tamino, someone who’s positions have been proven to be faulty. You choose Tamino over Burt Rutan. What does this say about you Bernard J.?
Who is holding my hand Bernard J? If you knew anything about me, you would know I was taught to do MY OWN RESEARCH. So cram that idea.
Apparently the GHG theory covers EVERY possible weather eventuality. Take your myopic anthropomorphic blinders off and stop trying to redirect the discussion. Very transparent (and tired) debating technique.
kbray in california says:
The earth’s precession to an increased inclination can easily account for a changing climate with colder winters and hotter summers.
There are different precessions going on. One is that of the Earth’s elliptical axis, which is only 0.5 arcsec/century (1% that of Mercury). Another is the precession of its axis of rotation, which is 26,000 yrs with a small cycle (“nutation”) within it of 18.6 yrs. These combine, and there is another still, but all are of the order 1e4 to 1e5 yrs.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
You call one of the most brilliant minds on earth, Burt Rutan, “incompetent”.
Rutan’s graph indicates he *is* incompetent when it comes to climate science. It is easy to show that a steadily warming climate produces a decreasing trend for the parameter he choose to plot — just as Bernard J wrote and as I proved mathematically above.
Did you understand that proof?
Do you see a flaw in it?
If not, then do you accept its results?
David Ball says:
Erinome forgot to mention that scenario C is based on ZERO EMISSIONS. 8^D
Wrong. Look again.
Bob B says:
GISS temp is the only data set showing 2010 warmer then 1998.
So? The datasets all make different assumptions about how they handle the underlying data. Hadley choose to exclude polar regions; GISS choose to extrapolate across it as best they can. There is no correct choice — each analysis stands on its own.
Hansen et al have constantly modified the past and still does.
Aren’t scientists SUPPOSED to modify their results when the input data changes, or when analysis reveals there are more appropriate methods to be applied? Yes, they are.
Erinome Read ’em and weap. http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/17/hansen-scenarios-a-and-b/
KevinK says:
The GHE appears to cause some energy to travel through the system (bouncing as it where) between the gases and the surface all the while dissipating energy to Space via radiation. The end result is a slight delay to the energy as it travels from the Sun to the Earth through the Atmosphere to the Universe.
This is incorrect. Here is a simple example to illustrate what is going on (I’ll assume you know a little mathematics):
Let L be the energy from the Sun that strikes the Earth’s surface.
Let g be the fraction of that energy that is reflected from the ground.
Let r be the fraction of the ground’s radiation that is reflected by the atmosphere back towards the ground.
So the net energy E that is incident on the ground is
E = L + rg * L + (rg)^2 * L + (rg)^3 * L + …
Since both r and g are less than 1, this series can be summed to give
E = L/(1-rg)
Clearly E > L , that is, the net energy incident on the ground is greater than the incident energy. In a simplified fashion, this is what’s going on with the real Earth, except there both L and g are a function of the radiation’s frequency, and r is a function of altitude and r depends on GHGs and clouds and aerosols and all that. But you can still do the calculation, and at current values of all these parameters E > L (probably — clouds are a problem).
In any case, E > L is not impossible, as you seem to be claiming.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
I’ve provided data time and again to global warming believers. They don’t respect data. I suspect you will not either.
You’re wrong. In any case, provide your data.
Bernd Felsche wrote;
“Engineers give themselves a lot of “wiggle room” in their designs. As much room as they can get without compromising the function of the device.”
Correct, although we use the terms “margin” and “factor of safety” instead of “wiggle room”, but the basic concept is the same.
For example, if you design a bridge you first calculate the expected loads; static – the first step for a bridge is to hold itself up, dynamic – you have to predict the worst case loads (how many cars are on it at one time), and then environmental – how strong is the wind at the bridge’s location, future corrosion. etc. etc. After knowing the loads you design it with a factor of safety. Since bridges are fairly expensive assets nobody wants one that that just barely does its job. I am not a bridge designer but I suspect that FOS (factors of safety) of 2x – 5x are routine. THEN you add in some margin, this is where we consider that our calculations may be wrong by as much as +/- 25%. To correct for this we add some more strength to the design so the chances of failure are greatly reduced. But, even after these historically learned steps in bridge design we still have some that fail. It turns out that the one that fell down in Minneapolis a few years ago had a design error (reinforcing plates at the joints where too thin) which violated the FOS rules, and the extra ”wiggle room” known as “margin” was not large enough to accommodate this error.
My apologies in advance to Civil and Structural Engineers if I have (very likely) omitted or simplified some details, I am attempting to summarize a whole field of engineering in one paragraph.
For a commercial airplane a FOS of 1.50 (150%) is routine, that means that the plane is just as strong as it needs to be, plus 50%. Other systems have FOS even lower like 1.1 (110%) or even as low as 1.05 (105%), but you really have to be “on top of your game” to make successful products with that small of a “wiggle room”, but it does indeed occur.
Cheers, Kevin.
Erinome
You do agree that Tamino is a vociferous manmade global warming advocate, i.e., a true believer? You do also admit he has been caught red handed manipulating data for his rabid global warming ends?
Here, really, is one reason how warming is found in some data sets that is not found in others:
DROPPING TEMPERATURE STATIONS IN COLDER REGIONS OF THE EARTH FROM THE DATA SET MAKES THE DATA SUDDENLY SHOW WARMING:
Not zero. but very close. This is not what has happened to emissions, is it? Co2 is NOT driving temperature.
Smokey says:
Clearly, the increase in CO2 is beneficial.
It’s not clear at all. While it’s certainly true that the world is greening — but instead of your silly pictures see a real scientific study, such as “Climate-Driven Increases in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 1982 to 1999,” R.R. Neman et al, Science (6 June 2003) Vol. 300 no. 5625 pp. 1560-1563.
However, the devil is again in the details. A small minority of plants (the so-called “C4” plants) do not grow more with higher CO2. More importantly, the higher temperatures that accompany higher CO2 levels can lengthen growing seasons in some regions, but can harm plants in the tropics that are already at the limits of their heat tolerance. Higher temperatures also exacerbate ground-level ozone, which harms plants. Plants grown in higher CO2 may have higher yields, but the plant may also be less nutritious (their seeds contain less nitrogen). And there are more factors to consider, such as water and insects.
It’s a complicated picture that is not yet at all clear.
“In any case, E > L is not impossible, as you seem to be claiming.”
Not ever been shown that the atmosphere actually works that way, has it?
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
Here, really, is one reason how warming is found in some data sets that is not found in others:
DROPPING TEMPERATURE STATIONS IN COLDER REGIONS OF THE EARTH FROM THE DATA SET MAKES THE DATA SUDDENLY SHOW WARMING:
No it’s not, because global averages like GISS’s are not the average of all worldwide stations, but of the average across a virtual grid whose grid points are all equally weighted from the stations within them.
That is, just because the US has (say) 2000 stations and Africa has (say) 200 does not mean the US has 10 times the weight (per unit area). Roughly, the 2000 stations are averaged, and the 200 are averaged, and then those averages are averaged.
In other words, climate scientists thought of this problem long ago, and have corrected for it.
I have never seen an explanation for Hansens historic temperature downward adjustments. I’ve seen the formulae, but never any rationale for doing so. Same for recent temperature adjustments up.
Bob B writes.
“GISS temp is the only data set showing 2010 warmer then 1998”
Not so.
NCDC also shows 2010 warmer than 1998.
GISTEMP shows 2005 and 2010 warmer than 1998.
The next version of HadCRU, finally bringing in the arctic, may show 2010 warmer too.
Then there’s BEST. It’s a land-only record and so less affected by that 1998 El Nino spike, and it goes only through 2009. It does however show 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2007 all higher than 1998, and 2009 only 1/1000th of a degree lower.
Scott Brim says:
how would we rate today’s climate science in terms of having a sufficiently robust and reliable knowledge base available for our simulation purposes, a knowledge base which would allow us to justify a belief that the climate simulation models are themselves reliable and trustworthy enough to be useful in supporting public policy decisions?
Who says climate models are the only factor that should support policy decisions? No scientist I know says that. They recognize that models have uncertainties and always will. Waiting until models are perfect means waiting forever. The decisions will necessarily have to be made with imperfect scientific knowledge, and incorporate values.
PS: Also, the climate is a lot more complicated than a car.
Erinome wrote;
“Consider this hypothetical scenario: Assume there is no GH effect, but there is a half-silvered mirror, facing downward, 1 meter above the surface of the Earth. All incoming radiation passes through it, but only half the outgoing radiation passes through it — the other half is reflected.”
Ah yes, the old GHE works like a mirror argument….
Well, let’s just jump right to the answer shall we;
“All incoming radiation passes through it, but only half the outgoing radiation passes through it — the other half is reflected.”
Well, this is a nice hypothetical construct you have created, BUT it does not exist in reality. If you create a “half silvered”mirror (i.e. it reflects 50% of the energy arriving at its surface) in the atmosphere it ALSO reflects half of the arriving energy away from the surface BEFORE it causes any warming………
The GHE effect exists, but IT DOES NOT CREATE A HIGHER EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE……
The “energy budget” has been calculated INCORRECTLY…..
The GHGs in the atmosphere do not act as a MLI (Multi Layer Insulation which only works (at maximum efficiency)) in a vacuum…….
The GHGs in the atmosphere do not act as a DIODE………..
Cheers, Kevin.
David Ball says:
I have never seen an explanation for Hansens historic temperature downward adjustments.
How hard have you looked?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/
“It’s a complicated picture that is not yet at all clear.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. So , no need to ruin economies, spend billions on mitigation, tax people up the whazoo, ……
KevinK says:
Ah yes, the old GHE works like a mirror argument….
No, I didn’t say that. I’m doing a thought experiment.
BUT it does not exist in reality. If you create a “half silvered”mirror (i.e. it reflects 50% of the energy arriving at its surface) in the atmosphere it ALSO reflects half of the arriving energy away from the surface BEFORE it causes any warming………
No, that’s not my assumption. (Half mirrors do exist, by the way — laser scientists use them all the time.)
The connection of my example to the real world is that the spectrum of wavelengths of the incoming radiation is different from the spectrum of the outgoing radiation — the latter is more infrared. Since the scattering cross section of GHG molecules depends on the wavelength, being stronger at larger wavelength, my mirror model has some relevance. If you want we can jack things up and consider everything as a function of frequency, but this suffices to demonstrate the principle.
So, then, answer my question: what happens beneath the mirror?
David Ball says:
“It’s a complicated picture that is not yet at all clear.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. So , no need to ruin economies, spend billions on mitigation, tax people up the whazoo, ……
Why are you assuming that “not clear” means “no problem?”
Erinome says:
“…instead of your silly pictures…”
You couldn’t sound more ignorant if you made a carreer of it. Those “silly pictures” are all legitimate citations, and all from different sources. Is a long term study by the University of Illinois of the beneficial effects of CO2 just a “silly picture”? Are verifiable, real world demonstrations of the increasingly rapid plant growth due to increasing CO2 just “silly pictures”? Is the posted proof that both C3 and C4 plants benefit from increased CO2 just “silly pictures”? And as I said, I have more such evidence. Just ask, and I’ll post it.
It is obvious that you have lost the debate when your only response is to denigrate irrefutable empirical evidence as “silly pictures”. The rest of your response is similar misinformation. Every comment you made in that post can be decisively refuted, so obviously you’re just winging it. Further, many of your unequivocal statements are flat wrong, such as: “A small minority of plants (the so-called “C4″ plants) do not grow more with higher CO2.” A “small minority”? And check out one of the “silly pictures” I posted [“click4”, IIRC]. That study clearly states under “Key Findings” that both C3 and C4 plants grow faster with more CO2. Arguing with everyone else on this thread makes you look like Monty Python’s Black Knight, when he was armless and legless: “‘Tis but a flesh wound.”
You need to get up to speed on the subject, instead of posting as a noob. Flat-wrong statements do nothing to help your negligible credibility. Read the WUWT archives for a few months, then you might be qualified to issue a knowledgeable comment. Because right now you’re embarassing yourself by displaying your ignorance. No doubt you still mistakenly believe that CO2 causes verifiable global harm, and all the rest of the climate alarmist nonsense.
Time to wise up. At least you’re on the right track by being here, where you can learn accurate facts instead of being spoon-fed bogus crap from dope blogs like Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science and RealClimatePropaganda. WUWT didn’t win the title of “Best Science” site by posting misinformation. Mann’s pathetic RealClimate embarassed itself with only a tenth of the vote that WUWT got, and SkS couldn’t even make it to the finals. So stick around here. After a few months you might not sound like such a misinformed chump.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
January 30, 2012 at 6:08 pm
kbray in california earth’s precession animation……..
Something like this?
Very good Amino !! Thank you.
As one can see from the video, the natural variation in solar exposure to the earth over time is astounding. Let congress try to legislate against those upcoming climate changes…
Pardon the terminology, but blaming CO2 for our climate variability is sinful… but as we know, Warmista is a religion, and something must be brought to the altar to be sacrificed.
CO2 is a red herring.
As a side note, it is amazing that a Swiss watch has a more precise movement than our Solar System. Wamistas need to cut the climate some slack… it’s always going to be variable.
Cap and Trade is a useless and pointless endeavor.
Watch the video everybody, well done !!
David Ball, I suggest you read Hansen’s actual paper instead of relying on secondary sources. In particular, read the penultimate sentence in the first full paragraph on page 9345.
Then get back to us.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/ has been discussed many times on this site. Take some time and do a search on Gisstemp on WUWT? The issues should give you pause, but I’m not holding my breath.
Erinome wrote;
“(I’ll assume you know a little mathematics)”
WOW, you will ASSUME that I know a little mathematics, thank you so much for that………..
It might surprise you to learn that most of the commercial imaging satellites that are currently orbiting the Earth have had their radiometric calibrations performed (in part) with software that I created. That’s right, every pixel you download from DigitalGlobe (et. al.) went through “mathematics” that I knew a little bit about.
Cheers, Kevin.
Erinome
You’re so predictable. How boring you are.
Gneiss
Where do NCDC and GISS get their data? Just wondering if you know.
Amino writes,
“Where do NCDC and GISS get their data? Just wondering if you know.”
Why yes, I do know. For other reasons I work with weather station records fairly often.
Where do you get your data?
E !! I’m shocked !! I thought we were doing good ’til you got all condescending there. I was gonna ask you what your vision of the future of mankind was, but all that is gone. Now I don’t care.
Hansen preaches like his Scenario A is right on track. That is a problem as no data set comes even close. Not even his Scenario B is close. Rhetoric like death trains, arrests at protest rallies and coal plants. All political, and in contradiction with his position at NASA as a “scientist” . That makes his “science” tainted and in doubt. My god, warming the room to present to congress? Those are “sales” tactics. His actions bely the underpinnings of rigid unbiased science. How can someone make apologies for this?
Now let’s examine the data collection and what is done with that. Satellite data (from ’79 on ) has been spliced to land based weather station data. This historic data is adjusted cooler for various reasons. Then the recent data is adjusted upwards for various reason. Always down for the past, and always up for the modern record. Smoothing is done to fill in the “holes” in the data. What this means is that where there is no data they just stretch one station to the next to fill in the missing areas. Particularly problematic in the polar regions with few collection station. It is almost as if they are trying to match the data to the increase of a particular gas.
My thanks go out to Anemone for helping me to confirm exactly what was going on. I wouldn’t want to assume.
Erinome says:
January 30, 2012 at 7:01 pm
“You’re wrong. In any case, provide your data.”
Erinome, are you smarter than a 6’th grader?
I see some who should know better are still peddling the ‘consensus’ climate science nonsense of ‘back radiation’. This is why ‘climate science’ is a pseudo-science akin to homoeopathy.
1. It’s fundamentally wrong to assume 100% direct thermalisation of the IR absorbed by GHG molecules. There is no mechanism for this because you can’t abstract bit by bit vibrational energy by collision, adding to average kinetic energy of the symmetrical N2 and O2 molecules.
Vibrational energy is quantised so you can only transfer it to another asymmetrical molecule or re-emit it as an IR photon. The local IR excited density of states is determined by the Equipartition of Energy, modified by dilution of the GHG. The absorption and conversion to heat will be at second phase such as cloud droplets which have gettered CO2, and bare aerosols. So, we don’t have the presumed heating in the clear atmosphere.
2. Although half the IR emitted by the atmosphere will go downwards there is no mechanism by which that energy can be converted to heat when it is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. This is a fundamental part of heat transfer theory missed by Arrhenius which has apparently been misapplied by every ‘climate scientist’ since. It’s apparently taught to students but it’s unique to climate science. Every process engineer who sees what they do says something like ‘How could these jerks be so dumb? It’s the most basic mistake you can make in radiant heat transfer.
You prove it by a thought experiment. Suddenly reduce air temperature and its total radiant energy according to S-B falls. That means less IR energy [in the GHG emission energy bands] is absorbed by the IR density of states of the molecules at the Earth’s surface. More unfilled states means that according to the Principle of Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium, the rate of transfer of kinetic energy in the molecules in the solid to its IR density of states increases. This extra energy is then emitted as IR or re-converted to kinetic energy at the rate for the local temperature of the solid. Thus the net effect of reducing ‘back radiation’ is to increase heat transfer from the hotter body to the colder.
Dumb followers of the ‘consensus’, have you got it yet? ‘Back radiation’ you measure by shielding the detector from upward IR is ‘Prevost Exchange Energy’, a real energy flow but it’s the way the IR density of states in the air communicates in real time with that of the Earth’s surface.
All it does is to modulate internal heat transfer at the Earth’s surface. It cannot be transferred to kinetic energy in the solid. Thus the Trenberth-Kiehl energy diagram of 1997 is nonsensical physics. Any professional scientist who decides to study anything associated with radiant energy transfer should realise this. It appears a few climate scientists are realising the subject has been fundamentally misled but it’s taking too long for the discipline to react.
The text books and the education courses must be altered to stop teaching students any more of this pseudo-science. The likes of Connolley who are pursuing this nonsense from an assumption of authority should stop. His DPhil is in numerical analysis. Thus he was not taught this basic physics. He and others who should know better are voluntarily or involuntarily part of a major scientific misrepresentation which may be deliberate fraud. It must stop.
Well explained Mydog…the other major error they make is applying Stefan-Boltzmann Law to the Earth’s surface which is not insulated and thus acts nothing like a true blackbody.
This is how I see it …
Natural variability needs to be considered over about 2,000 years as the main contribution comes from a cycle of about 1,000 years currently still rising by about 0.045 to 0.52 degree C per decade. The rate of rising is falling and a maximum should occur within 150 to 250 years.
Superimposed is a 59.6 year cycle with maxima 1998-99 and next in 2058.
That’s all there is to it.
Why? Because the Earth’s surface is not insulated and thus loses thermal energy by diffusion, conduction, convection, evaporation and chemical processes – which means there’s not much left for radiation – which means the IPCC calculations based on that -18 deg.C figure are totally wrong because they are based on incorrect application of Stefan-Boltzmann Law..
And, furthermore, they also used incorrect physics when they assumed that radiation from a cooler atmosphere is capable of warming, or slowing the cooling of a surface which is significantly warmer already.
Two major errors in the use of physics have led to all this.
I see some who should know better are still peddling the ‘consensus’ climate science nonsense of ‘back radiation’. This is why ‘climate science’ is a pseudo-science akin to homoeopathy.
1. It’s fundamentally wrong to assume 100% direct thermalisation of the IR absorbed by GHG molecules. There is no mechanism for this because you can’t abstract bit by bit vibrational energy by collision, adding to average kinetic energy of the symmetrical N2 and O2 molecules.
It’s because vibrational energy is quantised so you can only transfer it to another asymmetrical molecule or re-emit it as an IR photon. The local IR excited density of states is determined by the Law of Equipartition of Energy, modified by dilution of the GHG. The absorption and conversion to heat will be at second phase such as cloud droplets which have gettered CO2, and bare aerosols. So, we don’t have the presumed heating in the clear atmosphere.
2. Although half the IR emitted by the atmosphere will go downwards there is no mechanism by which that energy can be converted to heat when absorbed by the Earth’s surface. This is a fundamental part of heat transfer theory missed by Arrhenius which has been misapplied by every ‘climate scientist’ since. It is apparently taught to students but it’s unique to climate science. Every process engineer who sees what they do says something like ‘How could these jerks be so dumb? It’s the most basic mistake you can make.’.
You prove it by a thought experiment. Suddenly reduce air temperature and its total radiant energy according to S-B falls. That means less IR energy in the GHG emission energy bands is absorbed by the IR density of states of the molecules at the Earth’s surface. More unfilled states means that according to the Principle of Local Thermodynamic equilibrium, the rate of transfer of kinetic energy in the molecules in the solid to its IR density of states increases. This extra energy is then emitted as IR or re-converted to kinetic energy at the rate for the local temperature of the solid. Thus the net effect of reducing ‘back radiation’ is to increase heat transfer from the hotter body to the colder.
Dumb followers of the ‘consensus’, have you got it yet? ‘Back radiation’ you measure by shielding the detector from upward IR is ‘Prevost Exchange Energy’ , a real energy flow but it’s the way the IR density of states in the air communicates in real time with that of the Earth’s surface.
All it does is to modulate internal heat transfer. It is not and cannot be transferred to vibrational energy of the solid. Thus the Trenberth-Kiehl energy diagram of 1997 is nonsensical physics. Any professional scientist who decides to study anything associated with radiant energy transfer should realise this. It appears that a few climate scientists are realising the subject has been fundamentally misled but it’s taking too long for the discipline to react.
The text books and the courses must be altered to stop teaching students any more of this pseudo-science. Those like Connolley apparently pursuing this nonsense from an assumption of authority should stop. His DPhil is in numerical analysis. Thus he was not taught this basic physics. He and others are voluntarily or involuntarily part of a major scientific misrepresentation.
re posts by R. Gates says: January 29, 2012 at 1:48 pm and January 29, 2012 at 3:24 pm
I’d suggest you do a bit more research yourself. Grasses (e.g., grains) apparently existed as far back as 60 to 70 million years ago http://tinyurl.com/7hh4zmn and some dinosaurs were grazers. Lately it appears grasses has already diversified (e.g., been in existance for a long time already) as far back as 125 million years ago.
I’ve seen nothing to indicate that mammals filled a nitch created by the end of ‘steamy jungles,’ nor that the end of dinosaurs was in any way tied to the end of ‘steamy jungles.’ Most jungle animals are small – you’re not going to get animals the size of Tyrannosaurs and Titanosaurs tip toeing thru the jungle trees. http://tinyurl.com/6vgeqc3
As to the supposedly low and steady CO2 level as-if-fact myth, I’ve posted on several different threads regarding the significantly higher CO2 levels according to plant stomata proxies, and various issues with CO2 ice core proxies, as have others. For example:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/23/nasa-research-leads-to-first-complete-map-of-antarctic-ice-flow/#comment-727801
by Richard Courtney: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/07/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-my-initial-comments-on-the-new-dessler-2011-study/#comment-740989
and: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/07/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-my-initial-comments-on-the-new-dessler-2011-study/#comment-741631
On this thread, where the article itself includes a graph comparing ice core CO2 levels to stomata CO2 levels: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/30/new-peer-reviewed-paper-says-there-appear-to-have-been-periods-of-ice-free-summers-in-the-central-arctic-ocean/
by David Middleton: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/15/paleo-tagging-past-climate-sensitivity/#comment-321768
and so on.
A copy of one of my previous posts relevant to R. Gates’ and others claims of historically low CO2 levels:
Rational Debate says:
August 15, 2011 at 7:58 pm
@Robert Murphy, Siloch, and anyone else carrying on about “ice core evidence” or “ice cores don’t lie” and so on, while trying to claim that CO2 has never been higher or never risen as fast, etc…
We don’t have any ice core evidence. We have ice core data and ice core proxy estimations. Until you have reasonably reliable and robust instrumental data for CO2 levels, all taken fairly close to the actual ice core site, and going back far enough such that the instrumental data can be directly compared to the ice core results at a significant number of corresponding depths, there is no way to accurately calibrate the proxy. Obviously we’ve nowhere near the required instrumental data history to accomplish that.
So we have a fair amount of what is probably good science investigating ice cores and the associated quite complex chemistry and physical processes, etc., and a lot of continuing work along those lines. However, there is quite simply no way to be able to tell how accurate or inaccurate estimates of CO2 levels in the ice were compared to actual levels in the atmosphere at various historical time periods. We can say with far more confidence that typically temperatures rose first and CO2 lagged by roughly 800 years plus/minus varying amounts, because here the comparision is between values from roughly the same depth ice, incorporated during roughly the same time periods, which are then compared to each other (e.g., not nearly the need for calibration that comparison to present day values requires).
So the simple fact is that ice core data cannot provide any scientific proof or evidence that CO2 levels never got higher than xyz during previous historical warm periods such as the MWP, Holocene Optimum, etc., let alone going back to previous interglacials. Sure, the ice core proxy estimates are worth noting and keeping in mind – and even using as indicators in your arguments provided you portray them accurately – but they simply don’t prove your point, not even close.
Anthony posted an excellent detailed article by David Middleton 12/26/2010, investigating the various atmospheric CO2 proxies and related issues: CO2: Ice Cores vs. Plant Stomata
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/
Gneiss
NCDC and GISS use the same source for data. That is why both of them are different than the rest of the world. You make it sound like they are independent of each other, that somehow GISS is being independently confirmed by a second source. You global warmers pull all kinds of trick like this.
No year since 1998 has been warmer than 1998. Even ClimateGate scientists at Hadley will tell you that.
> We don’t have any ice core evidence. We have ice core data and ice core proxy estimations.
I disagree; the ice core atmospheric composition data is good, accurate, and repeatable across multiple measurements in a single core and across multiple ice cores. It is physically based and well understood.
However: given what you believe, I trust you are strongly “skeptical” (as I believe you chaps like to say) about Ratan’s use of the ice core CO2 data, as I pointed out much earlier? Presumably you dismiss the idea that T leads CO2 in the ice cores as unproven?
Temperature always leads CO2. That’s why CO2 cannot be a cause of rising temperature. Run along now.
Erinome, if you include Ocean heat content then :
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/brief-comment-on-the-nature-geoscience-paper-observed-changes-in-top-of-the-atmosphere-radiation-and-upper-ocean-heating-consistent-within-uncertainty-by-loeb-et-al-2012/
“That the IPCC models are close to being refuted with respect to the magnitude of global warming even with the large Loeb et al values is an unspoken result of their findings. They missed a major implication from their results.”
KevinK says:
It might surprise you to learn that most of the commercial imaging satellites that are currently orbiting the Earth have had their radiometric calibrations performed (in part) with software that I created. That’s right, every pixel you download from DigitalGlobe (et. al.) went through “mathematics” that I knew a little bit about.
Great — then you should be able to follow my argument.
So, again: is it warmer beneath the mirror?
And, if so, what does this say about your argument that the energy of all incoming radiation must necessarily leave as energy of outgoing radiation?
David Ball, did you read the sentence in Hansen’s paper that I suggested?
If so, did you see that scenario C is NOT zero emissions? It’s zero annual growth rate: sources = sinks. That’s very, very different.
For the last four years, I’ve been asking both the pro-AGW climate scientists and the climate science skeptics the following question …. What specific kinds of empirical research, experimentation, and data analysis should we be performing within the operational climate system itself to assess the validity of the climate models?
Specifically, I am interested in the assessing the validity of the theorized CO2-Water Vapor atmospheric warming amplification process. What should we be doing in the realm of empirical research, experimentation, and data analysis in order to validate that the climate models are in fact capable of reliably predicting that 2 x C02 will produce 2.5C to 4.0C of global atmospheric warming?
The only answer I’ve gotten so far comes from Dr. Demetris Koutsoyannis, who has said that it is not yet possible to determine with any accuracy what the relative contributions of CO2 and water vapor actually are in driving GHG-enabled atmospheric warming mechanisms.
The implication here is that if we can’t make an accurate assessment concerning the relative contributions of CO2 and water vapor, then we can’t trust the climate models to be accurately mirroring what actually happens in the climate system with the addition of more CO2.
You will note here that I’ve said nothing about clouds and their theorized effects on the dynamic operation of the earth’s climate system.
In the realm of clouds and their theorized effects, I ask the same question — what should we be doing in the realm of empirical research, experimentation, and data analysis in order to validate how the models currently deal with clouds?
Scott Brim Well, you could start with a simple experiment to try to prove the absurd IPCC assumption that there is backradiation which is capable of warming the surface. I haven’t seen it melting a bit of frost, but maybe you’ll make some breakthrough that proves basic physics wrong.
Then you need another experiment to prove that the Earth’s surface is well insulated and never loses thermal energy by any means other than radiation (as with a blackbody) so that you can confirm the other absurd IPCC assumption that it is a blackbody that would have been -18 degrees C in the absence of carbon dioxide and its colleagues.
Bob B says:
Erinome, if you include Ocean heat content then:
Bob, the 1988 Hansen models do not project ocean heat content as far as I know. Can you point me to those results?
And Bob, you still are refusing to answer WHICH economic scenario you want to compare the model results for. There are, literally, hundreds of model projections out there, and until you specify which scenario we can’t even begin to discuss them.
The Pielke Sr post you referred to (appeal to authority?) is interesting, but it says right in it that it’s Hansen’s *2005* forcing number he’s discussing, not the 1988 projections. And he notes that Hansen’s number for net energy imbalance is within the error bars of the Loeb results. So what’s the problem?
But Pielke Sr then goes on to GUESS what number Hansen would give now — how is that fair to Hansen? He has begged the question….
Smokey, science is not a democracy….
Are you ever going to explain for us why today’s change in CO2-per-degree is 10 times that of an ice age?
> What specific kinds of empirical research, experimentation, and data analysis should we be performing within the operational climate system itself to assess the validity of the climate models?
And in all that time you’ve never thought to look into the IPCC reports? For AR4, you want chapter 8, specifically section 8.3 or perhaps section 8.6.3.1 Water Vapour and Lapse Rate
Hmmm … a cloud-cover-at-night-means-a-warmer-night denier?
(In fact, that can also be said of ‘humid’ night as contrasted with a much less humid (or dry) night atmosphere too, i.e., substitute ‘humid’ for ‘cloud-cover’ in the above.)
Is that the way I can read that – or do I have it wrong?
You are aware of the field of IR Spectroscopy and how that works … right?
.
Erinome, it’s been explained to you repeatedly. It’s also been repeatedly explained to you that CO2 is harmless, and that it’s beneficial, and why. And it’s been explained to you that the answers to all your other noob questions can be found in the WUWT archives. It is not the job of other commenters to spoon feed you knowledge to counteract the misinformation you pick up at alarmist propaganda blogs. If someone helpfully answers your questions, they’re doing you a favor.
Your problem is that you rarely answer questions yourself. Instead, you constantly ask questions, presuming that you’re cleverly forcing other commenters into a corner. You’re not, you’re just being a threadbombing pest. The answers to all of your questions are in the archives. Use a keyword and start reading. And if you start answering as many questions as you ask, people might start to take you seriously.
Erinome, I like these global growth projection to 2050:
http://antonioguilherme.web.br.com/artigos/Brics.pdf
Use this and tell me now you global temperature foercast and metrics to test against. I would exptect to see project globla temperatures and your 95$ confidence intervals in 5 yr steps to 2050
re post by: William M. Connolley says: January 31, 2012 at 4:44 am
I state a simple fact that ice core CO2 data is not a proxie calibrated to actual atmospheric CO2 levels at the area where the samples are taken even, let alone global atmo CO2 levels. Then as if you are debating that issue, you reply instead with a non sequitur:
None of which addresses the issue of whether the proxy data can be calibrated.
Then you continued with a logical fallacy both in assuming you have the least understanding of what I believe (it’s apparently from your reply that you don’t), and that your statement ‘dismiss T leads CO2’ somehow follows:
The issue is calibration of ice core atmospheric CO2 proxy, not the relationship in time of CO2 to temperatures.
If you’re going to take issue with my statements, how about doing so rather than pretending to when in fact shifting to other aspects entirely.
Correction: That rate of rising should be 0.045 to 0.052 deg.C / decade. It is seen in the green line on the plot at the foot of my Home page http://climate-change-theory.com
Such a rate implies that the trend would increase by about half a degree by 2100.
I wish I had been able to post first on this thread with “Getting some popcorn…”
An excellent thread.
To those who are still warmists – can you please explain how a complex dynamic system such as the Earth’s climate can remain sufficiently stable and bounded over the last 600 million years to support large complex life forms – and yet be driven by strong positive feedback to a trace gas that has varied widely over the same time frame.
The two points are strictly incompatiable – you can’t have both +ve feedback and dynamic stability, one of those points must be wrong
The real evidence of dynamic stability of the climate over the last 600 million years in the face of major shocks such as large meteorite strikes, and supervolcanos is clear evidence of the existence of strong negative feedbacks within the climate system maintaining a dynamic, bounded, stable climate.
I look forward to your responses.
> The issue is calibration of ice core atmospheric CO2 proxy
No, is isn’t, because ice core CO2 isn’t a proxy, it is a direct measurement. A thermometer is a proxy (length of mercury column a proxy for temperature, via a well calibrated expansion-with-temperature, of which the physics is well understood). Ice core CO2 comes from bubbles of actual air in the ice; this isn’t a proxy.
But if you don’t believe me.. *are* you “skeptical” of Ratan’s use of the ice core CO2 data? You have *read* his screed, haven’t you? It’s what this thread is about, after all.
> the Earth’s climate can remain sufficiently stable and bounded over the last 600 million years to support large complex life forms – and yet be driven by strong positive feedback to a trace gas that has varied widely over the same time frame.
Earth’s climate will remain capable of sustaining large complex life forms even at 2*CO2, so there is no contradiction. I think you’re misunderstanding “positive feedback”. It doesn’t mean “runaway”.
> strong negative feedbacks within the climate system
Of course: the strongest of which is R=eT^4.
Can somebody define “CAGW” for me?
Thanks in advance.
[Reply: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming; AKA: runaway global warming, climate catastrophe, climate disruption, and similar fairy tales intended to alarm the populace.]
re post by: William M. Connolley says: January 31, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Don’t be absurd. Ice core CO2 is the best measurement we are able to determine of the remaining CO2 within bubbles in the ice that has gone thru the firning process, has liquid water present, may have or have had microbial activity, has other chemical reactions which have occurred, diffusion issues, pressure issues, etc., etc.
From that, we estimate what it is thought the atmospheric CO2 levels were above the ice core at the time that ice was firned. That value, taken from a very few high latitude spots, is then extrapolated to supposedly represent global atmospheric CO2 levels.
Nowhere in there is an actual measurement of what the real atmospheric CO2 levels were above each of those spots during the decades of firning, let alone global CO2 levels.
You couldn’t get something that is more clearly a proxy than ice core CO2 levels.
While we are on acronyms, wheat does REP stand for that mods on this site?
[Reply: I’ll let Bob answer that if he wants to. ~db stealey, mod.]
Sorry,..that mods ‘use’ on this site?,
My God, I’m having a bad day,…’what’ not ‘wheat’!
I think Mr Tobias wants an acual definition, not simply an expansion of the abbreviation.
Mr Tobias, CAGW is the idea that human activity has raised a trace atmospheric gas, which provides a minor part of the atmospheric warming influence on the Earth, from almost catastrophically low concentrations, about the lowest in the Earth’s history, a tiny way towards former levels and that the atmosphere is so sensitive to this that the raise will destroy civilisation as we know it.
This presupposes that the rise in concentrations seen is abnormal (the theory assumes stable pre-industrial levels from evidence which would not have the resolution to show current rises). It presupposes that temperature is usually stable, so the climate changes in the late 20th century were abnormal (against all the available historical and palaeontological evidence that climate varies wildly and sometimes rapidly). This presupposes positive feedback in temperature, despite the fact that positive feedback is characteristic of unstable systems (see previous supposition). It presupposes that late 20th century warming was global, despite massive flaws and fraud in recording of said temperatures, and paucity of historical data, and despite the fact that some areas were cooling. It presupposes that the climate of the 1970s was optimum, and nothing warmer will do. It presupposes that this warming will just go away for 15 years, yet still in some sense be there, because although human activity is the only possible explanation for warming, some other mechanism opposing human influences must be hiding the recent rise with a counterbalancing drop. Which is still there underneath, even though temeratures have not actually risen. Or something.
Most cleverly of all it all relies on some models, and on the supposition that those models tell us the right thing despite the fact that they were proved to be wrong 15 years ago when it was first shown that the upper troposphere was not warming in low latitudes, where they all showed warming would first occur.
The more you all talk about carbon dioxide, the more I think you don’t all yet understand that it can have zero (0.00000…) warming effect. Backradiation (if it existed) could not warm the surface and any warming of the atmosphere just leads to more energy being radiated away, eventually getting to space because the surface won’t accept it.
David Ball says (January 30, 2012 at 7:24 pm):
I have never seen an explanation for Hansens historic temperature downward adjustments. I’ve seen the formulae, but never any rationale for doing so. Same for recent temperature adjustments up.
David, there’s a 2001 Hansen paper that describes about 0.29 C of adjustments for U.S. 48-State warming, or almost half of the approx. 0.7 C of 1930s-to-1990s warming which they’ve added via adjustments made to the old data since 1999.
Based on the old version of the 48-State U.S. data, a 2001 article on nasa.gov reported that “it is clear that 1998 did not match the record warmth of 1934.” But now NASA’s data shows 1934 as only 3rd-warmest year, and cooler than 1998.
Compare the graph “(a)” in this 1999 article:
http://webcitation.org/63wGUTWt6
to the the current version:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.gif
(compare the 1930s to the 1990s in each graph — see the 0.7 C difference?)
I don’t have your email address, David; drop me an email, and I’ll cc you on the emails, as part of my ongoing efforts to find an explanation for the rest.
http://www.burtonsys.com/email/
ExWarmist says: January 31, 2012 at 2:19 pm
To those who are still warmists – can you please explain how a complex dynamic system such as the Earth’s climate can remain sufficiently stable and bounded over the last 600 million years to support large complex life forms
======
from wiki
“Estimates of the number of major mass extinctions in the last 540 million years range from as few as five to more than twenty. These differences stem from the threshold chosen for describing an extinction event as “major”, and the data chosen to measure past diversity.”
Not that stable you must agree!!
======
ExWarmist says: – and yet be driven by strong positive feedback to a trace gas that has varied widely over the same time frame.
======
Co2 is not positive feedback – more co2= hotter but does not necessarily make more co2
H2O is positive feedback – more h2o vapour=hotter=more h20 vapour= htter= etc.
CO2 is a forcing; more co2=hotter
solar (TSI) is a forcing; higher tsi=hotter
Thanks William,
You say in the 2nd paragraph below.
William M. Connolley says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:44 pm
> the Earth’s climate can remain sufficiently stable and bounded over the last 600 million years to support large complex life forms – and yet be driven by strong positive feedback to a trace gas that has varied widely over the same time frame.
Earth’s climate will remain capable of sustaining large complex life forms even at 2*CO2, so there is no contradiction. I think you’re misunderstanding “positive feedback”. It doesn’t mean “runaway”.
[1] To create a climate catastrophy from CO2 emissions, the climate must be moderately to strongly sensitive to increases in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, A low sensitivity to CO2 will not do – is that correct?
[2] To be moderately or strongly sensitive to CO2, the climate must respond to increases in CO2 concentration with +ve feedbacks that amplify the warming effects of the initial increase of CO2 – is that correct?
[3] Do you accept that any long lived complex dynamic system must be governed by -ve feedbacks for it to be stable. Any complex, dynamic system governed by +ve feedback is inherently unstable, short lived and must invariably “tip” over into a state that it cannot escape due to the amplification of a +ve feedback. – is that correct?
If you agree with the above, then one of the following must be false.
[1] The climate is a long lived, complex, dynamic system.
[2] The climate is made stable by a governing set of -ve feedbacks.
[3] The climate responds to increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere with +ve feedbacks.
If you want to hold onto [3], your alternatives are the following.
[1] The climate is short lived. (are you a creationist? and even 6000 years is a long time in a +ve feedback system)
[2] The climate is not complex, and is not dynamic. (a bit hard to swallow).
[3] Systems can be long lived, complex, dynamic and governed by +ve feedbacks. ( a big ask).
Doug Cotton says (January 31, 2012 at 6:08 pm):
“…carbon dioxide… can have zero (0.00000…) warming effect. Backradiation (if it existed) could not warm the surface… because the surface won’t accept it.”
Doug, that’s incorrect. The only way the surface “wouldn’t accept” backradiation would be if the surface had an albedo of 1.0 (100% reflective) at the relative wavelengths. It doesn’t.
The warming effect from additional atmospheric CO2 is well-understood, calculable, and small — but not zero.
-Dave
“If you can’t quantify it, you don’t understand it.” (author unknown)
jjthom says:
January 31, 2012 at 7:05 pm
ExWarmist says: January 31, 2012 at 2:19 pm
To those who are still warmists – can you please explain how a complex dynamic system such as the Earth’s climate can remain sufficiently stable and bounded over the last 600 million years to support large complex life forms
======
from wiki
“Estimates of the number of major mass extinctions in the last 540 million years range from as few as five to more than twenty. These differences stem from the threshold chosen for describing an extinction event as “major”, and the data chosen to measure past diversity.”
Not that stable you must agree!!
It’s dynamic stability – not static!
I said that the climate was “sufficiently stable and bounded” to support large complex life – which you agree that life continued even in the face of major extinction events. To do so, the climate has to keep moving towards the mean. imagine a marble in an upright bowl. You move the bowl around and the marble rolls from side to side, it is in motion (dynamic), and keeps rolling through the centre. This is analogous to the climate, sometimes cold, or hot, sometimes wet or dry, but so far not too hot,cold,wet or dry for life – i.e. it is a bounded system.
The fact that the climate keeps returning to a mean suitable for life in the face of major disruptive events is the evidence of -ve feedback. A system governed by +ve feedback with have been terminated by the pertubations that caused the extinction events.
To extend the bowl and marble analogy for +ve feedback – turn the bowl upside down, and put the marble on top – what happens when you move (perturb) the bowl, the marble ends up on the floor – it is an inherently unstable system.
======
ExWarmist says: – and yet be driven by strong positive feedback to a trace gas that has varied widely over the same time frame.
======
Co2 is not positive feedback – more co2= hotter but does not necessarily make more co2
H2O is positive feedback – more h2o vapour=hotter=more h20 vapour= htter= etc.
CO2 is a forcing; more co2=hotter
solar (TSI) is a forcing; higher tsi=hotter
Strange – I thought that “and yet be driven by strong positive feedback to a trace gas” was clear and unambiguous.
I thought that it was obvious that I was describing a system (CAGW) in which there are feedbacks (more H2O vapour) to a trace gas (CO2), and that I was not referring to CO2 as a feedback. It is difficult to make it any clearer.
@jjthom says:
January 31, 2012 at 7:05 pm
(Missed the )
It’s dynamic stability – not static!
I said that the climate was “sufficiently stable and bounded” to support large complex life – which you agree that life continued even in the face of major extinction events. To do so, the climate has to keep moving towards the mean. imagine a marble in an upright bowl. You move the bowl around and the marble rolls from side to side, it is in motion (dynamic), and keeps rolling through the centre. This is analogous to the climate, sometimes cold, or hot, sometimes wet or dry, but so far not too hot,cold,wet or dry for life – i.e. it is a bounded system.
The fact that the climate keeps returning to a mean suitable for life in the face of major disruptive events is the evidence of -ve feedback. A system governed by +ve feedback would have been terminated by the pertubations that caused the extinction events.
To extend the bowl and marble analogy for +ve feedback – turn the bowl upside down, and put the marble on top – what happens when you move (perturb) the bowl, the marble ends up on the floor – +ve feedback is an inherently unstable system.
Beautiful video of a Burt Rutan creation:
There is an old saying in Texas…………………………as President George W Bush Jnr. would say: –
ExWarmist> climate catastrophy
Those are your words, not mine, or the IPCC’s. I’d call it a strawman.
> from CO2 emissions, the climate must be moderately to strongly sensitive to increases in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, A low sensitivity to CO2 will not do – is that correct?
I don’t know what you mean by high, low or moderate. To the degree of accuracy this thread can cope with, climate sensitivity is 3 oC, if that helps. That takes into account the std positive feedbacks, of course.Of your points:
[1] is true. [3] is badly worded: it should say that positive feedbacks have a role in the response to CO2, and that the response is larger that it would be without those feedbacks. [2] is badly worded too: as I’ve said before, only R=eT^4 is a strong negative feedback.
You’re suffering from the usual problem of definitions. When people talk about “positive feedback” it is easy to assume they mean gain>1 and runaway. They don’t, of course. Any climate feedbacks are always embedded within the larger system which always has R=eT^4 as a stabilising feedback.
Wm Connolley says (February 1, 2012 at 12:41 am): “ExWarmist> ‘climate catastrophy’ — Those are your words, not mine, or the IPCC’s. I’d call it a strawman.”
Your argument is not with ExWarmist, it is with your brethren at NASA, Grist, etc.. E.g., Hansen’s statement that CO2 from tar sands and coal mean it’s “game over” for the planet.
Wm Connolley says: “To the degree of accuracy this thread can cope with, climate sensitivity is 3 oC, if that helps.”
If you’re talking about sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 as compared to 285 ppm, then 3 C is way too high. CO2, by itself, is good for about 1.1 C, and water vapor adds about 65% to that, yielding about 1.8 C, of which ~45% is history, leaving a very unalarming ~1 C of warming in prospect for 570 ppm CO2.
Wm Connolley says: “only R=eT^4 is a strong negative feedback.”
That’s incorrect. Only water vapor is a strong positive feedback, with albedo also probably adding a small positive feedback. The other feedbacks are mostly negative, and reduce climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions:
* Increased water-cycle cooling from increased evaporation from increased surface temperature,
* increased plant growth stimulated by increased CO2, which absorbs more CO2,
* diminishing (logarithmic) efficacy of CO2 as a GHG due to saturation of absorption bands,
* (probably) increased cloudiness from increased H2O evaporation,
* (possibly) increased convective cooling and increased evaporation & water-cycle cooling from increased windiness & storminess
The biggest question mark is cloudiness. It is poorly understood, but very important. If CO2-driven warming causes even a very small increase in daytime cloudiness, it would likely constitute a large negative feedback.
> Hansen’s statement that CO2 from tar sands and coal mean it’s “game over” for the planet.
That seems overly emotive language; I’ve disagreed with Hansen before. But Hansen doesn’t say “game over for the planet” though – either you or the journo have made that up. What Hansen said is at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110603_SilenceIsDeadly.pdf and it isn’t really clear what he means by “game over”. You’ll note he still doesn’t say “catastrophe”, though.
> The other feedbacks are mostly negative, and reduce climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions:
* Increased water-cycle cooling from increased evaporation from increased surface temperature,
– not significant, I think. And anyway, already accounted for in the estimates of CS.
* increased plant growth stimulated by increased CO2, which absorbs more CO2,
– not actually a feedback on temperature in strict terms; it is a negative feedback on CO2 levels. Since we know CO2 is increasing exponentially from human emissions, it is clearly a very small feedback and ineffective. In fact we know it is smaller than deforestation.
* diminishing (logarithmic) efficacy of CO2 as a GHG due to saturation of absorption bands,
– this isn’t a negative feedback. Its correct, of course; we’ve done that above.
* (probably) increased cloudiness from increased H2O evaporation,
– you’ve made that up. But again, cloud feedbacks are in the models. They are a major source of uncertainty. But you can’t just declare them negative by fiat.
* (possibly) increased convective cooling and increased evaporation & water-cycle cooling from increased windiness & storminess
– no/negligible.
[moderator: I botched the formatting on the previous one; please delete that one and use this one. Sorry! -Dave]
Wm Connolley says (February 1, 2012 at 5:01 am): “You’ll note he still doesn’t say “catastrophe”, though.
No, he used words like “deadly,” “monster” and “disastrous,” and asserted that the climate would not be stable unless CO2 is restricted to a “safe” level. Doesn’t that sound like a “catastrophe” to you?
In truth, the serious argument over CO2 emissions isn’t about whether they have a tiny effect on climate — who cares? The argument is about whether they have a catastrophic effect. As Dr. Lindzen famously wrote, “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll back of the industrial age.”
If CO2 emissions actually had catastrophic consequences, then crushing the economic aspirations of billions of people to avoid those consequences might actually make sense. Otherwise, it does not.
One of the things that annoys me the most about the climate alarmists is how they try to fudge their position depending on the context. When the argument is over policy, they hype the catastrophe, and cite the “consensus.” But to prove the “consensus,” they forget the catastrophe altogether, and just ask whether the climate got warmer in the 20th century, and/or whether anthropogenic GHGs contribute to warming.
Wm Connolley says: “* Increased water-cycle cooling from increased evaporation from increased surface temperature, [is]– not significant, I think. And anyway, already accounted for in the estimates of CS.”
Quantify, please! And accounted for where?
Wm Connolley says: “* increased plant growth stimulated by increased CO2, which absorbs more CO2, [is]– not actually a feedback on temperature in strict terms; it is a negative feedback on CO2 levels. Since we know CO2 is increasing exponentially from human emissions, it is clearly a very small feedback and ineffective. In fact we know it is smaller than deforestation.
The topic is sensitivity to CO2, not sensitivity to temperature. What I said was that it is a negative feedback that “reduce[s] climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions.” Which is right.
Elevated CO2 has the direct consequence of increased plant growth, which reduces CO2 levels — a negative feedback. Feedbacks on CO2 which operate through an intermediate mechanism, such as temperature, are simply that much more uncertain, as a consequence of the additional link in the chain of inference.
Also, CO2 levels are not increasing exponentially. Have you looked at the Keeling Curve? Over the first 25 years, there was a very noticeable acceleration in rate of CO2 increase. But over the last 15 years the acceleration in rate of CO2 increase has nearly ceased — even though CO2 emissions have continued to soar. That is evidence that negative feedback mechanisms are at work.
Also, this feedback is not small. Numerous studies have documented dramatically increased plant growth in the presence of elevated CO2 levels. A recent U of M study documented a 26% increase in tree growth at 570 ppm CO2, even with tree phenotypes adapted to current (lower) CO2 levels.
As for deforestation, that’s not a feedback. However, because deforestation is driven by agricultural requirements, increased agricultural productivity due to elevated CO2 levels is likely to result in reduced pressure on forests.
Wm Connolley says: “* diminishing (logarithmic) efficacy of CO2 as a GHG due to saturation of absorption bands – this isn’t a negative feedback. Its correct, of course; we’ve done that above.”
It is a negative feedback in the same sense that R=eT^4 is a negative feedback. Both serve to stabilize temperatures and reduce the temperature increase due to CO2 forcing.
Wm Connolley says: “* (probably) increased cloudiness from increased H2O evaporation,
– you’ve made that up. But again, cloud feedbacks are in the models. They are a major source of uncertainty. But you can’t just declare them negative by fiat.”
What, this from the guy who just declared, by fiat, that “only R=eT^4 is a strong negative feedback,” i.e., that clouds are not a strong negative feedback mechanism?
I said “probably.” Which is right. You didn’t even include that qualification in your fiat.
Wm Connolley says: “* (possibly) increased convective cooling and increased evaporation & water-cycle cooling from increased windiness & storminess – no/negligible.”
You’re right — if global warming does not cause increased storminess/windiness. But if you’re sure it doesn’t, then please tell Al Gore, so that he can fix the cover of his book.
> whether they have a tiny effect on climate — who cares? The argument is about whether they have a catastrophic effect
You’re still in false-dichotomy land. There is a wide expanse of problems that lie in the space between tiny and catastrophic.
> sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 as compared to 285 ppm, then 3 C is way too high…
One web page doesn’t trump peer-reviewed papers, especially when those papers alredy take Pinatubo into account. Try reading them.
> water-cycle cooling… accounted for where?
In the observationally based estimates, it is part of the climate system, and therefore included. In the GCM-based one, the GCMs include the same physics.
> The topic is sensitivity to CO2
Yes, to CO2 levels, not to emissions. Look at the defn of CS; it is always phrased in terms of CO2 levels, not emissions.
> You’re right — if global warming does not
You need to talk about what you believe, not what Gore believes. You’re not allowed to call into being negative feedbacks based on effects you don’t believe – that isn’t honest.
Wain effort discussing about wrong causes of climate change.The root and right causes of these phenomena originate from other sources , only modifyed by magnetic fields.
Relevant units of forces have diapason (12.363-3137)x1.3279668 10^20.
These are the causes of planet’s warming with strongly a lot of cycles and subcycles (as cycles of sunspots and reconnecting Sun’s magnetic fields etc.)
I’m late to the party here but Burt Rutan has scored a complete smackdown on Brian Angliss.
==============
@ Nikola Milovic February 2, 2012 at 3:56 am
I think I would agree with you, but would like to investigate in much greater depth your ideas. The true forces / forcing has not been openly discussed as far as I know. Please provide some links and I’ll figure out the rest myself.
CO2 is a strawman idea but at least it can be taxed. 25 years of fraud has created a religious cult .
Mr. eyesonu,
I read your comment on my position on global warming, where you stated that you want to participate in the further elaboration of my ideas that opposes the current understanding of the causes of global warming. My idea is the basis for understanding real-logical and natural factors that are the foundation of all phenomena in our solar sistemu.They are caused by the basic laws that govern all relationships between celestial bodies. HUMAN FACTORS ARE HERE AS irrelevant in the case of CO2.
I want to have your address so we can share knowledge. I have a bit to prove my assertion, I do not want to be at these discussions, because they change the current general views on the causes of phenomena on the Sun and about the same. It is a mistake of science and people who do it to ignore the most important factors such as different forces are the main causes of all phenomena. What is it that everything in the chain of events occurs after exposure to these forces, it is necessary to use mindfulness and not empirical data and the measured data to be misused. I hope you will read this and get back to me because you are the only ones in all the discussions that you understand my position in all this.
For Mr. eyesonu,
What I said is not just an idea but there is a mathematical proof for the causes of phenomena on the Sun such as :
sunspots cycles and the recconection of magnetic poles of the Sun with a very large number of cycles and sub-cycles.About realization of my ideas will discuss particularly after changes mail address.
This is very extensive and important work that will change many of the current inadequate procedures that did not lead to real results.
If I’m right You’re the first who recognized the validity of my ideas. Thanks in advance!
For now there are my:
e-mail : nmilovic483@gmail.com
and a site that is currently in Serbian :
deciphermentsunsphenomena.simdif.com
“I’m late to the party here but Burt Rutan has scored a complete smackdown on Brian Angliss. ”
By completely failing to address the substance of Mr. Angliss’ critiques? Yes, that was brilliant of him.
Steven Sullivan says:
February 5, 2012 at 1:43 am
“By completely failing to address the substance of Mr. Angliss’ critiques? Yes, that was brilliant of him.”
What substance?