Catastrophically cartooned

Josh writes:

There is a lovely cartoon over at Roger Pielke Jr’s which, delightful though it is, helps perpetuate the myth that Global Warming is somehow an issue for climate skeptics. It isn’t. The issue is Catastrophic Anthropogenic, and specifically that singularly caused by CO2, Global Warming and the alarmist hype surrounding the lack of science and the punitive energy policies that have been pursued in response to a non problem.

So I decided to do my own version of the cartoon – with apologies to the other cartoonist.

Cartoons by Josh

About these ads

93 thoughts on “Catastrophically cartooned

  1. nail on the head.

    I know people who cover the full range from “no problem” to “the last few human breeding pairs will be living in the arctic by 2100″.

    I don’t think my opinions have changed over the years much, its just the more extreme views have become more extreme and I’ve become more a ‘skeptic’ in comparison.

  2. Is it just me or is it a bit reminiscent of the beginning of stars wars.
    “A long time ago in a committee room far,
    far away ….

    Climate wars

    Return of the clng-on.
    A new hope.
    It is a period of floods, drought, heat and snow, (pretty much as usual)
    Rebel sceptics, striking from beneath their noses, have won.

  3. As if a faster computer is going to somehow improve the model and not give a bad result more quickly, hah!

  4. Like all good artists, Josh doesn’t have to do a lot to say a lot. A lesson both in economy and subtlety for that other artist …

    Pointman

  5. I can’t see how the cartoon at Roger’s relates to what he wrote. He’s critical of the NYT article which is described as an inappropriate hit piece. I don’t see that cartoon, the original, at the NYT article so that’s not why he’s shown it. Roger ain’t bashing skeptics in his blog post, but the cartoon does.

  6. Actually, all you needed to do was use your title on the other cartoon. That’s exactly what the alarmists do. For example, the smearing of Wegman over his supposed plagiarism in his report (and the attempt to use that to denigrate the findings).

  7. A theory is not evidence. Assumptions based on that theory are not evidence. Models based on those assimptions are not evidence. Output from the models is not evidence (nor is it data).

    To date, after more than 20 years, the environmental movement has yet to offer anything that qualifies as evidence in support of their hypothesis.

  8. Josh hits the no-evidence nail with a solid hammer!

    The anti-skeptic cartoon that Roger Pielke, Jr. posted was not in the NYT’s web article:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

    Maybe in the print edition? Otherwise, like DavidA, I am puzzled why it’s there.

    I agree with Dr. Pielke that the Times article was just a hit-piece on Prof. Lindzen. As I wrote to the friend who sent it to me, “Clearly part of the current, and if I may say feverish, Warmist campaign to rejuvenate CAGW alarmism and discredit Lindzen. Remember who controls the major journals. Clouds have long been a favorite topic of discussion on WUWT, where exciting developments have been noted (e.g. Svensmark and GCRs, Eschenbach’s ‘thunderstorm’ hypothesis, etc.).”

    And, of course, it’s a blatant propaganda piece masquerading as ‘news’. Par for the NYT’s course, I guess.

    Any chance we could see a response from Prof. Lindzen here?

    /Mr Lynn

  9. What’s worse is there is actually evidence against. The feedback mechanism is increased absolute humidity in response to increased heat. This can be checked for by looking at the outgoing radiation bands that water absorbes. If humidity were increasing as predicted the satellite measurements would show a decreasing flux in those wavelengths. Actual measurements show an increase.

  10. The English footballer, Len Shackleton, in his autobiography, had a chapter entitled “What Football Club Chairmen know about football”. The chapter was one page long. The page was blank.

  11. But according to Kerry Emanuel, the evidence will fit on the back of an envelope. I guess he must have thrown the envelope out.

  12. Of course, Climate “Scientists” would tell you there is plenty of “evidence”. The “data” just poors from the models.

  13. The offending original cartoon seems to be unsigned, unattributed and of unknown provenence.

    A perfect match for pro-AGW adjusted data evidence. :-)

  14. …helps perpetuate the myth that Global Warming is somehow an issue for climate skeptics.

    Quite right — although the myth *of* AGW is an issue…

  15. Jeremy:
    But the Irish Book of Sex and the English Book of Cooking all provided many more blank pages!

  16. I like to talk about two main debunking points. 1) There’s nothing unusual about current temperatures (hockey stick debunked; of note: the Medieval Warming Period etc, the Little Ice Age, and rates of temp change that have not changed despite increasing levels of CO2 [also: the 20th “runaway warming” as per the h stick is bunk]), and 2) there is no empirical evidence, none at all, that CO2 causes climate scale warming. See algor repeat the key ipcc deception on CO2 in this must see 3 minute video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg

  17. Josh writes: “the myth that Global Warming is somehow an issue for climate skeptics”. You’re kidding right? So-called skeptics are ALWAYS arguing that there has been no recent warming (despite their inability to understand how trends work in noisy data sets). I also don’t understand this bit about ‘catastrophic’. No scientist has ever used the term ‘CAGW’…this is entirely made up by ‘skeptics’.

    So we are just going to get back into a discussion of sensitivity and whether 3-6 degrees C of warming by 2100 would be good or bad….and you’ve lost that argument.

    Sensitivity is high (ie around 3+) and 2100 warming will be potentially disastrous.

    By the way, I’m not talking to ‘skeptics’ here, I’m posting just in case there are sensible people lurking here.

  18. Monty: “So we are just going to get back into a discussion of sensitivity and whether 3-6 degrees C of warming by 2100 would be good or bad….and you’ve lost that argument. Sensitivity is high (ie around 3+) and 2100 warming will be potentially disastrous.”

    Monty is Exhibit A for Josh’s point. Lots of assertions based on models; no evidence. BTW, I note you use “disastrous.” Right, so only skeptics talk about “catastrophic” but you talk about “disastrous.” Thanks for the laugh!

  19. One minor suggestion for an amendment Josh. The ‘suggestion box’ should be a trash can overflowing with press releases. Otherwise, excellent.

  20. With Y2K, there was lots of ignorance about the problem, so it was good that there were warnings, up to the point where the alarmists took over. With GW, it’s the same pattern all over again. It’s legitimate to raise the question; it is not legitimate to declare the end of the world and shut down debate. One one hand you have your dog who barks when the doorbell rings, on the other hand you have the pit-bull who gloms onto something and won’t let go no matter what. 2012 is yet another end-of-the-world date. A new Ipsos Reid poll says 12% of Americans agree to “The Mayan calendar marks the end of the world in 2012″. No matter that the Mayan calendar says no such thing. Why would people believe the Mayans anyway? confirmation bias?

  21. It seems more and more blogs are going the way where you have to have a google or twitter or some such account to comment. I will resist that movement as long as I can. The comment I would have left at Pielke’s blog is this:

    Reading that “clouds are the last bastion of sceptics” puts in mind a conversation in which a Flat Earther insists that “gravity is the last bastion of those arguing for a spherical Earth.” It’s kind of fundamental, not just some minor detail.

  22. Spot on, Josh. Sceptics should not let the alarmists – in true strawman fashion – define our argument for us.

  23. Monty says: “Sensitivity is high (ie around 3+)”

    Monty would love to get into a discussion of all the “independent” lines of evidence pointing to high sensitivity. Alas there is only one: models. But it won’t stop him from trying.

  24. Monty says:
    May 2, 2012 at 10:01 am

    “Sensitivity is high (ie around 3+) and 2100 warming will be potentially disastrous.”

    Of course, disastrous is so different from catastrophic. How could anyone conflate the two?

    Maybe those “sensible people” you hope are lurking here!

  25. Josh,

    All the world’s a stage cartoon by Josh,
    And all the men and women merely players cartoon characters;
    They have their exits and their entrances,
    And one man Josh in his time plays many parts draws many cartoons,

    Apologies to Shakespeare.

    John

  26. eric1skeptic says:
    “Monty would love to get into a discussion of all the “independent” lines of evidence pointing to high sensitivity. Alas there is only one: models”.

    Eric: you clearly don’t know what you are talking about. Sensitivity is an OUTPUT from models, not an input. Got it?

    The reason why scientists don’t use ‘catastrophic’ is because you can’t define it. What is catastrophic for one person might not be for another. It is therefore unscientific. Which is why ‘skeptics’ use it I guess.

  27. I understand Josh’s cartoon, but the first warmist cartoon should be understood in the present warmist context. They have moved the goal posts. They are no longer arguing for feedbacks, or “catastrophic” warming. They are tacitly arguing that any increase in CO2 increases warming, regardless of it being minutely small or big. They recognize their side is flawed, and they are salvaging their sense of superiority. Even Heyhoe, a real good weathervane of warmist groupthink, is saying just one degree c. of warming is dangerous.

    The tactic should be to smoke out the media warmists on how much warming they think doubling of CO2 will cause, since that’s the last thing they want to talk about it. They are not arguing for IPCC science, they are arguing for their own arrogance. They will never, ever concede they believed in higher warming because that would put a stake through the heart that their side’s science can be flawed. Even they know the “positive feedbacks” IPCC UN science is a joke.

  28. Monty says:
    May 2, 2012 at 10:01 am

    ….. I also don’t understand this bit about ‘catastrophic’. No scientist has ever used the term ‘CAGW’…this is entirely made up by ‘skeptics’……
    ______________________________
    Bull Patties!

    This is straight from the The Guardian, Sunday 27 September 2009.

    Met Office warns of catastrophic global warming in our lifetimes

    • Study says 4C rise in temperature could happen by 2060
    • Increase could threaten water supply of half world population

    Unchecked global warming could bring a severe temperature rise of 4C within many people’s lifetimes, according to a new report for the British government that significantly raises the stakes over climate change.

    The study, prepared for the Department of Energy and Climate Change by scientists at the Met Office, challenges the assumption that severe warming will be a threat only for future generations, and warns that a catastrophic 4C rise in temperature could happen by 2060 without strong action on emissions….

    Roger Harrabin is the BBC’s ‘environment analyst’ ( WUWT discussion of following e-mail and more on the BBC and Harradin

    ….We had an interesting debate on this at the Tyndall Advisory Board last week, and the consensus was very much in line with your views, except for the journalist present (Roger Horobin), who wanted something more pro-active. I am more sympathetic to his view than most of you, I think, but the question is what more would be useful, effective, and not too burdensome ? So far I don’t think I have identified anything, but I do think that the sort of web-page mentioned above would be a start, and so I am copying this to Asher Minns, for him to consider and discuss with John & Mike at Tyndall Central….. http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2336.txt

    And an e-mail straight from an insider.

    Email 2336

    date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:50:38 +0100 (BST)
    from: “B.J.Matthews”
    subject: The Drowning Village: (about global climate change negotiations)
    to: titus.alexander@mcr1.poptel.org.uk

    Dear Climate colleagues,
    I thought you might like this story from Titus Alexander (please accept my apology if you get this message more than once)
    Ben
    Global warming is the most serious threat ever faced by humanity. It is potentially more dangerous than World War 2 or the cold war. To avoid dangerous climate change, we need to devote at least as much effort to using less fossil fuels as went into defence over the past 50 years.

    This story is a lose analogy of the climate change crisis and global negotiations that have continued for ten years without cutting any greenhouse gases. None of the characters represent real people, but the following may provide an insight into the complex issues involved.

    The IPCC (“Ipsee”) is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of over 2,000 scientists who have provided evidence of global warming and have warned that greenhouse gases must be cut by up to 60% to prevent dangerous climate change.

    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2336.txt

    Andrew C. Revkin journalist for the New York Times e-mail to Phil Jones

    …As you all are aware, a very vocal and plugged-in crew has been making much of the recent downturn in temps. Because the ‘Average Joe’ out there is only hearing radio soundbites about the sun turning off, or cable-news coverage or some stray TV image of snow in baghdad (and particularly with a big ‘skeptics conference’ coming next week), I think it’s important to do a story putting a cold stretch in context against the evidence for the long-term warming trajectory from greenhouse forcing. Would need input from you by end of Thursday ideally….

    Other Climategate e-mails discussing how to influence public opinion. Other wise known as how to spread propaganda.
    Mike Hulme on using climate propaganda to mobilize opinion

    UEA’s David Viner forwards an email to cru.all; the email contains sentences like: “What do you think would be the most effective way to radicalise the UN agenda and protect the climate from our current economic and political systems?”

  29. Monty says
    By the way, I’m not talking to ‘skeptics’ here, I’m posting just in case there are sensible people lurking here.

    Two problems there for you M;; 1 you are talking to sceptics unless of course you misposted and thought you were at Joe’s place and

    there are sensible people here which means you will be challenged and you will not be up to meeting that challenge.

  30. moamoke says:
    May 2, 2012 at 10:29 am

    Monty,
    If there will be no CAGW then I want my money back.
    _______________________________________
    Since “Monty” is one of the “Climate Scientists” (physicist) feeding off tax payer dollars maybe you should go after HIS salary/pension.

    You might say good ole Monty has a vested interest in keeping Joe Sixpack alarmed since his pay check depends on it. Note how he is posting at 10am BTW.

  31. Monty says:
    May 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm
    eric1skeptic says:
    “Monty would love to get into a discussion of all the “independent” lines of evidence pointing to high sensitivity. Alas there is only one: models”.

    Eric: you clearly don’t know what you are talking about. Sensitivity is an OUTPUT from models, not an input. Got it?

    Right. Garbage in—you know what comes out.

    /Mr Lynn

  32. Monty says:

    May 2, 2012 at 10:01 am

    Sensivity is not high, demonstrated by the planet to be low. Global temperatures have failed to rise mainly because global cloud levels have increased. You are basing it has an high sensitivity based on model projection, which is not evidence.

    Show one example of high sensitivity observed that can only be explained by CO2.

  33. Josh, you can have your own opinion about AGW, but you can’t lie about all the evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming not even existing. The IPCC reports would be a good start for the evidence for AGW. You may disagree with the evidence, but you cannot say that no evidence has been provided.

  34. I had a good laugh to the cartoon, thanks.
    What I think about it though is, it’s funny for people frequenting WUWT but not for people uncritically taking their daily dose of alarmism in news. It might be better to have at least the most common non-evidence such as heat waves, cold waves, tornadoes, droughts, floods etc written and already crossed out on the blackboard – that might get them at least thinking.

  35. Monty is not a scientist, he just plays one on WUWT.

    . . .

    Adam says:

    “The IPCC reports would be a good start for the evidence for AGW.”

    Adam doesn’t get Josh’s point: there is no evidence for AGW. None. There are models, and there is conjecture. AGW may exist. But there is zero empirical, testable, measurable evidence for it.

  36. Adam says:

    May 2, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    Where in the post is Josh lying about AGW? No evidence that AGW is dangerous is not the same as any evidence that AGW exists at all. Stop making things up that are not even there. He is correct that there is no evidence supporting a dangerous responce from rising global temperatures. The IPCC reports show nothing that is dangerous on humans with supported evidence and is full of conjecture.

  37. Adam says:
    May 2, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    Straw man arguement alert! Carefully read the the blackboard in Josh’s cartoon. It says “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”, not “AGW”.

  38. Not sure if I support all this guy ideas. Doesn’t believe in anthropogenic Global warming, but he doesn’t support the free market. Well, warmist or not, in both case it gives the same outcome, communist.

  39. Adam says:
    May 2, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    Josh, you can have your own opinion about AGW, but you can’t lie about all the evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming not even existing. The IPCC reports would be a good start for the evidence for AGW. You may disagree with the evidence, but you cannot say that no evidence has been provided.
    ______________________________________
    SIGH….

    I suggest you read The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert (There is a kindle version)

    Or you can start with UN’s Climate Bible Gets 21 ‘F’s on Report Card
    more here: http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/

    The IPCC reports are propaganda tools and nothing more. Especially since Madrid 1995: Was this the Tipping Point in the Corruption of Climate Science?

    What has been passed off as evidence by the IPCC is the output of WWF, Greenpeace and computer models, not experimental evidence such as Svenmark has link or Nasa’s Dr. Joan Feynman, which supports Svenmark’s theory. link. Is Svenmark correct? It is too early to tell but at least he is doing real EXPERIMENTS!

  40. Adam says:
    May 2, 2012 at 3:12 pm
    Josh, you can have your own opinion about AGW, but you can’t lie about all the evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming not even existing. The IPCC reports would be a good start for the evidence for AGW. You may disagree with the evidence, but you cannot say that no evidence has been provided.
    ======================
    Go on then Adam, humor us flat-earthers. Imagine walking up to Josh’s chalkboard and picking up the chalk …..

    …….. what are you going to write ??

  41. I love the way that ‘skeptics’ are vainly trying to hang on to a semblance of an argument. Since I’ve been working in this field the arguments have evolved along a line running from:
    “There is no GE”, to
    “It’s not warming”, to
    “it’s not C02″ to
    “warming will be low” to
    “warming will be high, but beneficial”.

    Of course some “skeptics” are still at the first stage, and some have regressed back to various stages along their journey, but all the arguments have been lost. A bit sad really.

  42. Since ‘Monty’ is not a climate scientist, or any other kind of scientist for that matter, his opinion is no more than that. An opinion.

    Monty’s opinions are baseless, because they are predicated on false assumptions. Scientific skeptics know the planet has been warming naturally since the LIA, and that CO2 has little if anything to do with it. But Monty the pseudo-scientist can keep posting his nonsense here at the internet’s Best Science site, because WUWT does not censor uninformed opinions no matter how ridiculous they are.

  43. Hi Smokey. Well, you don’t know what I do so it’s difficult for you to know I’m not a climate scientist.

    Smokey says: “WUWT does not censor uninformed opinions no matter how preposterous they are” and then proves it!

    Smokey says: “scientific skeptics know the planet has been warming naturally since the LIA”. How does the climate warm ‘naturally’ Smokey? Are you saying that 395ppm C02 isn’t having an effect? If so, then you are one of the ‘skeptics’ who doesn’t think there is a GE and is therefore still at the first stage of ‘skeptical’ evolution.

    Catch up man!

  44. Monty the pseudo-scientist says:

    “Are you saying that 395ppm C02 isn’t having an effect?”

    That is exactly what I am saying, and I can prove it.

    The planet has been warming along the same long term trend line since the LIA. Warming has not accelerated, as it would if CO2 was the cause. The long term trend is the same whether CO2 is 280 ppmv, or 390 ppmv. Thus, CO2 has no measurable effect. A real scientist would know that.

  45. Hi Smokey. Maybe you’d like to publish your ‘proof’. Of course, I know I’m wasting energy writing this as it’s quite clear that none of you ‘skeptics’ ever publish anything that could possibly be peer-reviewed.

    So, if you want to be a scientist, then do some science!

  46. Monty asks:
    How does the climate warm naturally?
    ………………

    Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he not only is no scientist, but is completely clueless about climate. Perhaps he could try cracking a book. It might help.

  47. Hi Bruce
    You obviously don’t understand. What I am asking is how the climate warms when: TSI shows no trend, cloudiness shows no real trend, GCRs show no real trend……and yet C02 shows a consistent year on year increase? Given that all the other forcings show largely no trend, and C02 is a GHG and it’s increasing, and the stratosphere has cooled, and the isotopic composition of the atm…

    Wait. Your’re not ‘skeptical’ are you? So it actually doesn’t matter what I or any other scientist tells you. You’ve heard it all before a thousand times and no evidence will ever convince you.

    Slightly worrying for you that even Richard Lindzen accepts the GE, C02 is a GHG etc. He just argues for low sensitivity. That’s the problem with you ‘skeptics’….you can’t even agree among yourselves which argument to sustain!

  48. Adam says:
    May 2, 2012 at 3:12 pm
    The IPCC reports would be a good start for the evidence for AGW.
    ===========================================================
    The IPCC reports contain some references to some studies and they also provide their conclusions. This is not science. The IPCC reports are as scientific as any newspaper article containing references and conclusions.

    I suggest you prove first that the calculations of “global warming” are scientifically correct, especially the part concerning assigning temperatures to areas. This would be a good start.

  49. Monty says:
    May 3, 2012 at 7:57 am

    Hi Bruce
    You obviously don’t understand. What I am asking is how the climate warms when: TSI shows no trend, cloudiness shows no real trend, GCRs show no real trend……and yet C02 shows a consistent year on year increase?

    Yes, we are skeptics. The question you wrote is unanswered, and the answer may well deserve recognition and rewards, the Nobel among them.

    Now, let me ask it again: What is the observed, measured, real-world relationship between CO2 (in specific, NOT generic “greenhouse gasses” or the generic “greenhouse effect”) as it is used to demand 1.3 trillion in added taxes and controls from the US economy alone?

    While CO2 was steady, we have seen temperatures rise by 1-1/2 to 2 degrees, remain steady for one to three decades, and fallen by 1-1/2 to 2 degrees.

    While CO2 has risen by over 30% we have measured temperatures rising by 1/2 of one degree, remain steady for 10 – 15 years, and fallen by 1/2 of one degree. (At least, they were measured falling BEFORE your hallowed CAGW so-called scientists fiddled with their temperature records……)

    The ONLY way your ever-so “scientific”, government-paid models designed by government-paid “scientists” and reviewed and promoted by other government-paid “scientists” can get the results the government-paid agencies and their government-paid policy makers want is to deliberately adjust both the assumed CO2 feedback within their government-paid computers and also their assumed government-inspired aerosol levels (NOT measured worldwide aerosol levels at all!) to match the government-adjusted temperature records that the government-paid agencies are paying for to gain the control over the economies and tax revenues that the government wants.

    So, who is paying your salary? .

  50. >>
    Monty says:
    May 3, 2012 at 7:57 am

    You obviously don’t understand. What I am asking is how the climate warms when: TSI shows no trend, cloudiness shows no real trend, GCRs show no real trend……and yet C02 shows a consistent year on year increase? Given that all the other forcings show largely no trend, and C02 is a GHG and it’s increasing, and the stratosphere has cooled, and the isotopic composition of the atm…
    <<

    Even simple climate models require that the atmosphere warm faster than the surface, if GHGs are the cause. Our atmosphere isn’t warming faster than the surface, so any surface warming isn’t due to GHGs.

    That missing hot spot that GCMs show is a mandatory requirement for GHG warming. Without it, the alarmist’s case for GHGs falls apart.

    Jim

  51. Monty says:
    May 3, 2012 at 6:39 am

    “I love the way that ‘skeptics’ are vainly trying to hang on to a semblance of an argument. Since I’ve been working in this field the arguments have evolved along a line running from:
    “There is no GE”, to
    “It’s not warming”, to
    “it’s not C02″ to
    “warming will be low” to
    “warming will be high, but beneficial”.”

    Funny – If you invert all of those propositions you have the evolution of the CAGW argument exactly! Skeptics are merely those whose BS detectors sounded loudly after Hanson’s 1988 Congressional testimony and have been ringing loudly ever since. Failure of temperatures to increase after about 2001 falsifies the notion that increasing CO2 is the sole cause of increasing temperatures, so many more became skeptics and the credibility of the warmists was destroyed. It will not avail them now to put forward new models, adjust the temperature record, or make alarmist media products that are now impossible to believe. All that is left is politics, which may serve for a short while longer.

  52. Monty says:
    May 3, 2012 at 7:57 am
    Slightly worrying for you that even Richard Lindzen accepts the GE, C02 is a GHG etc. He just argues for low sensitivity. That’s the problem with you ‘skeptics’….you can’t even agree among yourselves which argument to sustain!
    ====================================================
    He does? But John Smith, Peter Johns, John Peters and Mary Whoever do not. You see, we have 4 against 1 and you lost. Just kidding, but you certainly get the idea.

    It is not about how people call themselves, it is about science. Richard Lindzen needs to present evidences for his claims exactly like any radical or moderate warmist.

  53. Hi RACookPE1978.

    You said: “government-paid models designed by government-paid “scientists” and reviewed and promoted by other government-paid “scientists” can get the results the government-paid agencies and their government-paid policy makers”,

    See this isn’t about science for you at all, is it? It’s about politics. The problem is…understanding climate change is a science. What we do about it, is politics. I’m talking about the former. You are fixated about the latter.

    Hi Jim. You said: “That missing hot spot that GCMs show is a mandatory requirement for GHG warming”. No it isn’t.

    Hi Pochas. You said: “Failure of temperatures to increase after about 2001 falsifies the notion that increasing CO2 is the sole cause of increasing temperatures”. The temperature hasn’t failed to increase, given that 2005 and 2010 were both warmer than 2001 (in any event, 12 years is too short to assert a statistical trend). What scientist said that C02 is the ‘sole cause’ of increasing temperatures?

  54. Monty~ I for one would very much appreciate a link(s) to your peer-reviewed research, or at the very least, to your bio page on the website for your place of employment. I would like to learn more.
    Thanks in advance.

  55. Hi Otter
    Well, obviously if I sent you a link to my peer-reviewed publications then there wouldn’t be any point in posting under an assumed name!

    [REPLY: Did you give any thought to how this sounds before hitting “post comment”? Moderators have been known to forward e-mail contacts on request. -REP]

  56. Monty says:
    May 3, 2012 at 8:50 am

    Hi RACookPE1978.

    You said: “government-paid models designed by government-paid “scientists” and reviewed and promoted by other government-paid “scientists” can get the results the government-paid agencies and their government-paid policy makers”,

    See this isn’t about science for you at all, is it? It’s about politics. The problem is…understanding climate change is a science. What we do about it, is politics. I’m talking about the former. You are fixated about the latter.

    If – big “if” there, by the way – if YOU could take the politics (and the money, and the economic control, and the taxes, and the emotionalism, and the CAGW (deliberately-inspired) Fear, and the power, and the economic and health devastation deliberately CAUSED BY the afore-mentioned CAGW Fear) ) out of the discussion, you might have a case to begin discussing CAGW “scientifically” ….

    But You, the CAGW community that is using your biases and predjucies to control the so-called “scientific” debate, cannot separate the politics from the debate because you have no independent, measured, real-world basis for your so-called “scientific” discussion. As shown above, there is No Relationship you can establish at any time in history (satellite, analog measured, paleo-historic, or geologic) that confirms your biases and prejudices that varying CO2 levels affect earth’s temperatures.

    And that is the question. You have absolutely no “scientific” basis for your claims of a relationship. Thus, you must – to force your prejudices and biases on the world, step up the political and theist (religious-levels) of dogma and “belief” and so-called “logic.” (CO2 is a so-called greenhouse gas, the earth’s temperature is controlled by greenhouse gasses, therefore rising CO2 forces a rise in temeperature. THAT is your only argument.

    But it is NOT a “scientific” or an engineered, controlled, real-world argument.

    For example, I claim (correctly) that water expands as it heats up.
    So, therefore, you claim, based on my statement, that “Putting heat into water makes the water expand.” And YOU are wrong.
    So, therefore, you claim, based on my statement, that “Putting heat into water makes its temperature go up.” And YOU are wrong.

    I claim,correctly, that “Ice has a greater albedo than open water.”
    Therefore, you claim, based on my statement, that “Reducing the minimum Arctic ice extents forces world’s temperatures to go up.”

    And you are wrong. Because the measured data shows Arctic temperatures at 80 north are going down, and because – at the time of minimum ice extent, the sun’s energy is reflected off of the open water, not absorbed. Now, IF the Arctic ice were at the equator, and IF the time of the minimum ice extents were at mid-summer, and IF the open water did not reflect energy at low angles of incidence just as much as ice does, and IF the sun’s energy were not trying to pass through the equivalent of 11 thicknesses of atmospheres just to reach the Arctic ice at minimum extents, then – and only then – would your original claim be correct.

    But your statement about a supposed positive ice albedo feedback, your ever-so-logical conclusion based on a limited number of self-selected real-world facts by your self-selected (prejudiced) world view is dead wrong. And you, the CAGW-community of politically and emotionally dominated alarmists are being paid (emotionally, politically, religiously, and physically and financially and socially by internal and external feedbacks from that same CAGW community) to create and maintain such an alarm.

    Yes, please do so. Bring “science” into the debate. Keep “science” in the debate – but only science. But first, take the tax money that is paying out of it.

  57. >>
    Monty says:
    May 3, 2012 at 8:50 am

    Hi Jim. You said: “That missing hot spot that GCMs show is a mandatory requirement for GHG warming”. No it isn’t.
    <<

    Thus spoke Monty (Hand waving). You also don’t understand feedback models.

    Jim

  58. May 3, 2012 at 7:57 am

    Hi Bruce
    You obviously don’t understand. What I am asking is how the climate warms when: TSI shows no trend, cloudiness shows no real trend, GCRs show no real trend……and yet C02 shows a consistent year on year increase? Given that all the other forcings show largely no trend, and C02 is a GHG and it’s increasing, and the stratosphere has cooled, and the isotopic composition of the atm…
    ______________________________________

    All the other forcings show no trend?? Where the heck have you been hiding for the past decade?

    Clouds and Albedo
    From Dr Spencer: Clouds Dominate CO2 as a Climate Driver Since 2000 and The 2007-2008 Global Cooling Event: Evidence for Clouds as the Cause

    Project Earthshine shows increase in albedo
    \NASA: Clouds dominate the “shininess” of our planet

    GALACTIC COSMIC RAYS – CLOUDS EFFECT AND BIFURCATION MODEL OF THE
    EARTH GLOBAL CLIMATE. PART 1. THEORY Published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Vol. 72 (2010) p. 398-408

    NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records (ancient Nile and auroral records) (
    and the peer reviewed paperpeer reviewed paper

    NASA Sept. 23, 2008: Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low

    NASA Dec. 16, 2008: Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field Discovered

    NASA February 5, 2010: The ‘Variable Sun’ Mission (‘Solar Constant’ is an Oxymoron)

    NASA July 15, 2010:A Puzzling Collapse of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere

    That is just a smattering of info on the Sun and Clouds and does not included what is happening in the oceans or the jet stream.

    Monty you keep making the mistake of thinking we are the equivalent of Münzenberg’s unthinking ‘Innocents’ Club

  59. Hi Gail
    So you find papers that show that solar variability has an effect on climate. Well, of course it does (it may account for part of the ‘LIA’ cooling). But it doesn’t explain recent warming. Of course, you just want to find ANY driver other than C02 to be the one that the climate is responding to. Climate scientists are well aware that lots of things cause climate change….and an enormous increase in a known GHG (C02) is obviously one of them. We also know it’s not solar that is driving recent warming as the stratosphere is cooling, which is a fingerprint for GHG and the opposite that would be expected if the warming was driven by solar variation.

    But of course, you are only ‘skeptical’ when it concerns AGW aren’t you.

  60. Monty says:
    May 3, 2012 at 10:04 am
    . . . Climate scientists are well aware that lots of things cause climate change….and an enormous increase in a known GHG (C02) is obviously one of them. . .

    “Obviously”? Based on what evidence? Century-old lab experiments? It isn’t obvious at all to many; rather it looks like a speculative hypothesis that both paleo-climatic and recent data have falsified.

    /Mr Lynn

  61. Greg House says:
    May 3, 2012 at 8:42 am

    pochas says:
    May 3, 2012 at 8:26 am
    Skeptics are merely those whose BS detectors sounded loudly after Hanson’s 1988 Congressional testimony and have been ringing loudly ever since.
    =====================================================

    But not loudly enough to check this, apparently: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf
    ____________________________________________________
    Why ever would anyone look at a anything with Hansen’s name on it? He is a proven radical and a proven liar and a proven propagandist. Hansen’s A/C stunt during the congressional hearing in 1988 was enough to show he is an activist and not a scientist . His changing US temperature graphs just add icing to the cake.

    Graph and Graph

  62. Monty says:
    May 3, 2012 at 8:50 am

    ….See this isn’t about science for you at all, is it? It’s about politics. The problem is…understanding climate change is a science. What we do about it, is politics. I’m talking about the former. You are fixated about the latter…..
    _________________________
    No, it is the IPCC that changed climate science into a political football. In 1988, the governments of the world instituted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to look at the scientific evidence that man made emissions caused climate change. From that point on the blinkers were placed on science so the ONLY control knob for climate that was studied was CO2 and man-made aerosols.

    DEVELOPMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND IPCC EXPERT MEETING

    Havana, Cuba 23-25 February 2000

    …The IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR), issued in 1990 served as a fundamental basis for negotiations leading to the UNFCCC in 1992. The 1990 IPCC Report included assessments of emissions scenarios, the scientific evidence for climate change, the impacts of climate change, and response strategies to climate change….. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/des-2nd-ipcc-expert-meeting.pdf

    Notice that the IPCC statement STARTS with assessments of emissions scenarios and that has been the emphasis from day one. POLITICS (and money) not science.

  63. If ‘Monty’ is a scientist, his employer is being swindled, because Monty has shown that he does not understand the issues. I think Monty may be a tax-sucker on the public gravy train. How about it, Monty? Is part or all of your income from public funds?

    Also, I showed conclusively, using verifiable links, that the long term temperature trend remains unchanged, whether CO2 is 208 ppmv, or 392 ppmv. CO2 makes no measurable difference. None at all. How do you explain that?

    And there is no tropospheric hot spot, the so-called “fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming”, as was universally predicted by the alarmist crowd. How do you explain that failed prediction?

  64. Monty says:
    May 3, 2012 at 10:04 am

    “Climate scientists are well aware that lots of things cause climate change….and an enormous increase in a known GHG (C02) is obviously one of them.”

    Which is known would cause a negligible increase in temperatures unaided by positive water vapor feedback, the necessary level of which has been demonstrated to be inconsistent with the data.

    “We also know it’s not solar that is driving recent warming as the stratosphere is cooling, which is a fingerprint for GHG and the opposite that would be expected if the warming was driven by solar variation.”

    Only with inappropriate statistical analysis, i.e., drawing a trendline for the entire series when there is no reason to expect linear behavior. In fact, the data show essentially piecewise constant intervals broken up by volcanic activity (El Chichon and Pinatubo). It’s hardly budged since 1995, in a period when atmospheric CO2 concentration has continued rising steadily.

  65. Moderator: my post has been lost. Any idea why?

    [REPLY: It was stuck in the spam filter. That happens, but I fished it out before this query arrived. I trust you will note the fairly quick response you get here at WUWT compared to some other sites we could mention. -REP]

  66. Monty,

    “What I am asking is how the climate warms when: TSI shows no trend, cloudiness shows no real trend, GCRs show no real trend……and yet C02 shows a consistent year on year increase?”

    Since when has a near 5 percent change in global cloud levels been no real trend?

  67. Don’t look now, but “Monty” has snuck a hockey stick onto the blackboard.

  68. I really do not want to argue about this, as we’ve beat it to death on other threads, and I know this thread is not necessarily the appropriate place to bring it up. However, I did want to toss out something I just noticed fooling around at the Wood for Trees site.

    It appears the CO2 rate of change is very closely correlated to global temperature.

    This rather strongly suggests that temperature is driving CO2 concentration, and not the converse, and that the expandable permanent sinks are rather handily sequestering our emissions with barely a shrug. I’m not going to argue with anyone about it -in the past, that has proven futile. If anyone disagrees, he or she disagrees.

    But, it will be very interesting to see what happens to the CO2 curve as we enter the incipient global cooling phase.

  69. Of course, you just want to find ANY driver other than C02 to be the one that the climate is responding to. Climate scientists are well aware that lots of things cause climate change….and an enormous increase in a known GHG (C02) is obviously one of them.
    =======================================================
    No, it is physically impossible, that CO2 can cause any significant warming by trapping IR radiation. It was clearly demonstrated by professor R.W.Wood in 1909: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html .

    Besides, there is no physical proof, that “greenhouse gasses” cause NET warming. This is important, because they block some IR radiation coming from the Sun.

    Now, if a statistical calculation results in something physically impossible, then the calculation is wrong.

    Even those who have no idea about the Wood’s experiment, can look into the calculations like this one: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html . Their method of assigning temperature to areas has no basis in science, hence the result is a pure fiction.

  70. Greg House says:
    May 3, 2012 at 2:14 pm

    To be fair, Wood’s experiment is not entirely representative. With a stationary enclosure, the lines of absorption are extremely narrow, hence the lid cannot carve a substantial notch out of the outgoing spectrum. (Note, however, that the common reference to the windows of hot cars in sunlight acting similarly to the heat trapping action of so-called GHGs is similarly fallacious.)

    But, in the atmosphere, you have spectral line broadening due to doppler and pressure effects. These allow absorption of a non-trivial band of outgoing frequencies.

    The reason the global warming hypothesis has failed is not because the effect does not exist. It is because the heat trapping mechanism is opposed by other feedback mechanisms (e.g., clouds) which substantially reduce the overall effect.

  71. Bart says:
    May 3, 2012 at 2:42 pm
    To be fair, Wood’s experiment is not entirely representative.
    =================================================
    Yeah, I knew that would come… (sad).

    The Wood’s experiment was not meant to be representative in sense of representing atmospheric processes etc. It is a kind of “overkill” experiment. It demonstrated, that a much stronger effect of glass then the one of the “greenhouse gasses” is extremely WEAK. That is all we need.

    After that experiment the “greenhouse gasses” hypothesis of Arrhenius died and remained buried for like 70 years, until James, Phil, Al and other culprits dug it out.

  72. Monty says:
    May 3, 2012 at 10:04 am

    Hi Gail
    So you find papers that show that solar variability has an effect on climate…..
    ____________________________________
    So when I show you are wrong you change the argument. YOUR statement was

    Monty says:
    May 3, 2012 at 7:57 am

    You obviously don’t understand. What I am asking is how the climate warms when: TSI shows no trend, cloudiness shows no real trend, GCRs show no real trend……and yet C02 shows a consistent year on year increase? Given that all the other forcings show largely no trend, and C02 is a GHG and it’s increasing, and the stratosphere has cooled, and the isotopic composition of the atm…

    You also left out the greenhouse gas water, otherwise known as the elephant in the room. But then the CAGW activists ALWAYS leave out water because it varies up to 4% not up to 400 PPM like CO2. Water has much wider IR absorption band in the atmosphere ( alternate graph and there is also the solar absorption band of water as ocean (70%) of the surface of the earth. (More detailed graph of wavelengths at various depths)

    The changes in earth’s Sources of Energy (NASA) that would effect the huge energy sink call the ocean.

    OH and here is another paper in Physics World (2003) Solar activity reaches new high “Geophysicists in Finland and Germany have calculated that the Sun is more magnetically active now than it has been for over a 1000 years….”

    And of course there is the Milancovitch cycle. In defense of Milankovitch, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L24703, doi:10.1029/2006GL027817, 2006
    …..

    When I read this statement of yours “But of course, you are only ‘skeptical’ when it concerns AGW aren’t you.” out loud to my husband he nearly bust a gut laughing.

    I had my first run in on the subject of integrity barely a month out of school at my first job in 1972. The plant manager told me to change the results on a certificate of analysis, I told him NO! and put my resume out the next day. I have had a running battle with management and other scientists about changing data to match politics at various companies ever since. I have been passed over for premotion a nuimber of times, been subject to a “one man layoff,” been fired twice and finally black balled. CAGW is just more of the same ~ crap masquerading as science to promote money making politics.

  73. Greg House says:
    May 3, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    ” It demonstrated, that a much stronger effect of glass then the one of the “greenhouse gasses” is extremely WEAK.”

    It doesn’t matter how strong it is. If it absorbs every single photon in the bandwidth, and the bandwidth is extremely narrow, then the overall energy intercepted will be negligible. If you put a 100 foot thick concrete wall which is only one foot wide in the path of a stream, it will not change the flow much. Turn it 90 degrees, though, and you’ve got a dam.

  74. Bart says:
    May 3, 2012 at 5:36 pm
    It doesn’t matter how strong it is. If it absorbs every single photon in the bandwidth, and the bandwidth is extremely narrow, then the overall energy intercepted will be negligible. If you put a 100 foot thick concrete wall…
    ====================================================
    Common, Bart, glass traps much much more IR than the “greenhouse gasses”.

    Have you missed these words of Wood’s: “From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 o, it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely.”

    The Wood’s article is an easy reading, just make a little effort.

Comments are closed.