Some progress on the skeptic -vs- denier ugliness

Readers may recall this WUWT story:  Nature’s ugly decision: ‘Deniers’ enters the scientific literature.

Meanwhile, the discussion continues at John Nielsen-Gammon’s Climate Abyss website on Skeptics are Not Deniers, with part 3 now posted. Part 4 will likely be at this link today

At Jo Nova’s she has a response from Dr. Paul Bain. She writes

Dr Paul Bain has replied to my second email to him which I do most appreciate. (For reference, see the letter he is replying to here: “My reply to Dr Paul Bain — on rational deniers and gullible believers” ). He deserves kudos for replying (it’s easier to ignore inconvenient emails), and also for taking some action to improve the article he published.  I will reply properly as soon as I can. For the moment, and for fairness’s sake, it’s here for all to see.

No, I don’t think there is any scientific reason (or definition in the English language) that validates the term “denier”, but Nature is going to publish an addendum this time, and that will be noticed by other researchers in the field. That is progress. Though there is a long way to go. — Jo

Bain writes:

As we all know, after publication it quickly became clear that the “denier” label was causing offence, and I contacted the journal’s editors to canvass options for addressing this. As the article was already published, it was agreed that the most practical option would be to include an addendum to the paper where we publicly expressed our regret about any offence we caused. This will be appended to both the online and printed versions of the paper. As you said, you yourself did not mention a link with Holocaust denial (and I myself did not hold such a link), but this was by far the most common association made by people who took the time to write to me personally to express their offence. By doing this, I don’t expect this to resolve (or even reduce) any issues (I fear that the damage is done), but I thought this was an appropriate thing to do nonetheless.

Full story here at Jo Nova’s

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

169 Responses to Some progress on the skeptic -vs- denier ugliness

  1. John Blake says:

    AGW catastrophism is manifestly an extreme-left political agenda, not even pseudo-science. To the extent once-objective, rational sources such as Nature lend themselves to Warmists’ propaganda diatribes, we respond in kind: Kentti Linkola.

  2. “Denier” is an emotive term intentionally used to demean opposition, at that time all lumped as “skeptics”. A bothersome tactic, but ignorable. Then ClimateGate 1.0 and an interview by ethic expert Dr Gerry North, TAMU in the Washington Post, stating [losely] ‘he had not read the emails but there was no evidence of wrong doing’. That prompted my reply at Canada Free Press “Recusant Picadores Circle the IPCC”, Nov 29, 2009.

    Then the Lindzen-North debates were announced for Jan 2010. Gerry agreeed to debate with two conditions….no visual material….no reference to ClimateGate. The noon Petroleum Club and evening Rice Uni debates were insufferable hand waving and in questioning CG 1.0 did require a reply, to which Gerry said….’those emails were stolen and it is unethical for me to read them’. An example of great ethics in action. Days later in a Washington Post interview Gerry said there was no evidence of wrong doing in emails HE ADMITTED HE NEVER READ.

    This prompted the first ever use of the term “Warmist” in the article “No Loophole for Your Soul”. In April 2010 a faux debate between Curry-Mann in Discover [choke] magazine prompted the first ever use of “Luke Warmer” in the article “Non Science Nonsense”. Luke in the ‘tepid’ defination and a playfull Star Wars character adolescent thnking reference.

    The Chron.com post has been expanded from the N-G v RGB two sided debate between Warmist v Luke to the legitimate three sided debate in all three parts of the comment section. Let us hope that all science based viewpoints are included in resolving this conflict.

  3. docrichard says:

    As a psychiatrist, I can confirm that telling someone who is in denial that they are in that state will almost always give offense. Depending on the intelligence and education of the patient, they will also defend their position with detailed and time consuming arguments.

    In the end, even if it is agreed by all parties that the term “denier” is not politically correct, the terminology is peripheral. You call us warmists, alarmists, eco-worriers, ecofascists &c, and we use the term deniers.

    The debate about terminology is peripheral. The central argument is about climatology, and in particular, whether the hypothesis that climate sensitivity for doubling of CO2 is capable of being supported by the data.

  4. Gary Pearse says:

    The projected warming has been coming down, sceptic science has had some impact and maybe labels and ad hominems are going to come down. Future use of these ugly substitutes for scientific argument will soon properly segregate the science from the doctrinaire. We will likely see some earnest respectful debate developing. Good start Dr. Bain you appear to be segregating yourself from the doctrinaire.

  5. Alan says:

    I’m getting a 403 Forbidden page when I try to go to Jo’s page. Has that happened to anyone else?

  6. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Every time the “other side” has an apparent change of heart, agrees to turn down the rhetoric a minuscule notch, admits there may have been a small possible mistake, whatever it is, I really wish WUWT would hold off on reporting it for a few days.

    Because it sure seems like virtually every time that a big noise is made here about it, the wagons circle, the pressure is brought to bear, and the “other side” either recants or denies it ever happened. I am certain that right now those dark forces are gathering against Nature, pointing out for how long the “denier” label has been acceptably used, without complaint, that this is just new loud noise from the deniers as they lash out as the entire case against “climate change” falls completely apart under the overwhelming evidence, etc… Thus the use of “denier” is not only justifiable, but just and proper, and Nature should no more succumb to these anti-science climate change deniers’ demands than they would to those of Creationists.

    WUWT holding off on reporting such would be for testing purposes. It would be interesting to know if the inevitable retractions happen after the big noise is made on WUWT, or if their side has their own little “Ministry of Climate Science Truth” that automatically searches for and squashes such heresy before it is publicly noted here.

  7. D. J. Hawkins says:

    Alan says:
    July 12, 2012 at 7:55 am
    I’m getting a 403 Forbidden page when I try to go to Jo’s page. Has that happened to anyone else?

    Yes, both the in-article link and the side bar link give the same message.

  8. RoyFOMR says:

    Yup, a 403 for me as well. A repetition of the the problem her site suffered from recently, perhaps?

  9. mkelly says:

    Faux Science Slayer says:
    July 12, 2012 at 7:37 am

    Denier would have been one of the nicer names I was called over at Little Green Footballs.

  10. Nerd says:

    Alan says:
    July 12, 2012 at 7:55 am
    I’m getting a 403 Forbidden page when I try to go to Jo’s page. Has that happened to anyone else?

    ============

    Same here. Maybe Jo Nova’s server went down?

  11. View from the Solent says:

    Alan @7.55 am
    403? Me too. Same with the main URL joannenova.com.au. Probably a technical glitch at the server, it’s early morning there.

  12. Bill Tuttle says:

    Alan says:
    July 12, 2012 at 7:55 am
    I’m getting a 403 Forbidden page when I try to go to Jo’s page. Has that happened to anyone else?

    Yup. Certain terms in a headline will trigger Net Nanny — depends on your server and/or browser.

  13. Scott Finegan says:

    Twice this week
    403 Forbidden today

  14. Stefan says:

    The most alarming phrase to me was “the debate is over”. It is what made me think there’s likely something wrong in that field. “Deniers” is a derivative of that attempt to claim virtual certainty, ie. that the field’s representatives were overstating their case.

  15. P.F. says:

    To Docrichard @7:45 am:
    The most common term applicable to your side of the issue is: wrong. As the early writings of Maurice Strong, the philosophy of Ottmar Edenhofer, and even the East Anglia emails come to light and are studied, it is becoming increasingly clear that the entire global warming thing was an orchestrated crisis in the radical leftist tradition of RIchard Cloward and others. They created a problem and proposed to solve it in the service of a collectivist/social justice agenda.

    When empirical evidence is addressed in proper long-term time frames (not the 1978 – 2007 cherry-picked time frame that begins at the end of cool period understandably creating a steep upward slop), it is clear the modern condition is unremarkable.

    Like Edenhofer said, “One must say clearly that we redistribute defacto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” It never was about the environment.

  16. turnedoutnice says:

    docrichard 7.45 am. I have independently established 5 serious mistakes in IPCC climate science and am collaborating with others who have come to a similar conclusion from different directions. In short the climate models exaggerate heating by 40%, 400% in the IR and cover up this mistake by incorrect aerosol optical physics. The result is that no climate model can predict climate. CO2=AGW barely exists and the positive feedback is entirely artificial.

    I accept there has been climate change, now reversing as the Earth cools as shown by the jet streams moving nearer the equator as the thermosphere has shrunk because the sun is pushing out less UV. We also have more cloud area.

    So, what am I denying? it’s the basic physics’ errors that climate science is teaching to students. This is the worst part of the situation, thousands of students imagining that the Earth must radiate energy at the same rate as an isolated black body in a vacuum and this is replenished by ‘back radiation’ which does not exist but they imagine they measure it by not realising pyrpmeters do not measure real energy fluxes!

    Some of these mistakes come from meteorology which teaches the false ‘downwelling LW’ story What’s needed is for the subject to be restructured under professional physicists.

  17. nutso fasst says:

    Has that happened to anyone else?

    Yes.

  18. David Ross says:

    Alan wrote: “I’m getting a 403 Forbidden page”

    Me too.

    Dr. Bain should be commended for admitting his error but it would be better if he acknowledged that the term “denier” is factually wrong not just impolite because it was “causing offence”.

  19. matt says:

    Even the main link to Jo Nova’s site on the right margin is returning the 403 error. It appears that the entire site has been taken off line.

  20. docrichard says:

    PF and turnedoutnice: Let me a question:
    1 Do you accept that the anthropogenic CO2 released so far commits the Earth to a temperature rise of ~0.8*C?

    If your answer is no, then you are in denial of basic physics.

    [Reply: Please use a word other than 'denial'. Thanks. ~dbs, mod.]

  21. D. J. Hawkins says:

    docrichard says:
    July 12, 2012 at 7:45 am
    As a psychiatrist, I can confirm that telling someone who is in denial that they are in that state will almost always give offense. Depending on the intelligence and education of the patient, they will also defend their position with detailed and time consuming arguments.

    In the end, even if it is agreed by all parties that the term “denier” is not politically correct, the terminology is peripheral. You call us warmists, alarmists, eco-worriers, ecofascists &c, and we use the term deniers.

    The debate about terminology is peripheral. The central argument is about climatology, and in particular, whether the hypothesis that climate sensitivity for doubling of CO2 is capable of being supported by the data.

    The terminology is NOT peripheral. The term has been applied by CAGW supporters with the explicit intention of linking skeptics to Holocaust deniers. The purpose is to politically neutralize skeptics so that their arguments won’t even be heard, let alone considered. The belief is that once the general public makes this perfidious connection they won’t listen past that point. With the skeptic view marginalized/demonized, only the CAGW meme is available. Nice try, doc.

  22. Smokey says:

    The pejorative and highly offensive term “denier” was specifically created by far-Left columnist Ellen Goodman, who deliberately connected the term to scientific skeptics. Goodman still equates those who question catastrophic AGW – which she believes in – to Holocaust deniers. Despicable.

    On the other hand, the hypocritical screeching over Heartland’s comparison of climate alarmists to Ted Kazynski’s written eco-manifesto was 100% accurate. Goodman’s comparison was a scurrilous, underhanded attack, nothing more or less. But there is a night-and-day difference between those who espouse Kazynski’s crazed beliefs, and scientific skeptics, who only want transparency so we can get to the truth.

  23. Jonas N says:

    What struck me in Bain’s response was this:

    “As we all know, after publication it quickly became clear that the “denier” label was causing offence”

    Especially since I too share the view of ‘warmist’ (?) docrighards, of Bain’s profession, who says:

    “As a psychiatrist, I can confirm that telling someone who is in denial that they are in that state will almost always give offense. Depending on the intelligence and education of the patient, they will also defend their position with detailed and time consuming arguments” (*)

    It defies plausibility that he was not aware, could not have imagined the provoking pointed implications read into it, and the reactions it would cause. After all, it is was the central topic of his paper, and the effort clearly was aimed at providing support for the ‘orthodox’ side.

    Further, in psychiatry the term ‘denier’ (also there perceived as offensive) refers to a defense mechanism, a state of mind where internal unpleasent realities are kept out of concious awareness, and instead often placed or seen elswehere.

    How this ‘denialism’ relates to debating the nature and physics of the atmosphere and how it functions and what makes it fluctuate and vary, or any heated political/policy-debate is also hard to see. Of course, in any political fight, name-calling and smearing is standard procedure, but maybe Bain thinks this is legit from one side. Or even believs that the labels are arguments (at least by one side?).

    Anyhow, it is quite difficult to reconcile the tone, what was written and implied in the paper etc, with the concerned afterthought and even remorse which is displayed now. Or if genuine, it implies that he had no understanding at all of the topic of hus study … that such studies are just churned out, because you can … (get them funded, and also published) .. or both.

    (*) The terms: “warmists, alarmists, eco-worriers, ecofascists” all have well understood, even defined meanings. And they are (most often) selectively used for those narrower groups for which they apply. (Which does not exclude them from being used as contentious insults occasionally). But, nota bene, you would not find them (submitted to or) printed in scolarly journal articles. Even although they have much more descriptive substance than nonsense-terms such as ‘climate denier’ or ‘denialist’

  24. RoyFOMR says:

    @docrichard
    My answer to your question would be no and that would be the answer from the IPCC as well!
    Attributing ALL the 0.8C estimated rise since the end of the LIA to anthropogenic causes would be a very brave thing to do.
    I salute your courage.

  25. OhMyGosh says:

    Just saw someone at CNN using extensively the D word. The host was Anandpur, who, as expected, did not object or critisize anything. She appeared to be completely uninformed about anything what is disputed.

    As a side, it is pretty annoying, how low class media such as CNN and the BBC increasingly drag their journalists into the focus at the expense of the news. One trick to do this is to magnify heads to fill the whole screen, what is quite annoying if the person is talking nonsense, another are these annoying trailers that already consume more time than the whole program

  26. Jonas N says:

    What struck me in Bain’s response was this:

    “As we all know, after publication it quickly became clear that the “denier” label was causing offence”

    Especially since I too share the view of ‘warmist’ (?) docrighards, of Bain’s profession, who says:

    “As a psychiatrist, I can confirm that telling someone who is in denial that they are in that state will almost always give offense. Depending on the intelligence and education of the patient, they will also defend their position with detailed and time consuming arguments” (*)

    I defies plausibility that he was not aware, could not have imagined the provoking pointed implications read into it, and the reactions it would cause. After all, it is was the central topic of his paper, and the effort clearly was aimed at providing support for the ‘orthodox’ side.

    Further, in psychiatry the term ‘denier’ (also there perceived as offensive) refers to a defense mechanism, a state of mind where internal unpleasent realities are kept out of concious awareness, and instead often placed or seen elswehere.

    How this ‘denialism’ relates to debating the nature and physics of the atmosphere and how it functions and what makes it fluctuate and vary, or any heated political/policy-debate is also hard to see. Of course, in any political fight, name-calling and smearing is standard procedure, but maybe Bain thinks this is legit from one side. Or even believs that the labels are arguments (at least by one side?).

    Anyhow, it is quite difficult to reconcile the tone, what was written and implied in the paper etc, with the concerned afterthought and even remorse which is displayed now. Or if genuine, it implies that he had no understanding at all of the topic of hus study … that such studies are just churned out, because you can … (get them funden, and also published) .. or both.

    (*) The terms: “warmists, alarmists, eco-worriers, ecofascists” all have well understood, even defined meanings. And they are (most often) selectively used for those narrower groups for which they apply. (Which does not exclude them from being used as contentious insults occasionally). But, nota bene, you would not find them (submitted to or) printed in scolarly journal articles. Even although they have much more descriptive substance than nonsens-terms such as ‘climate denier’ or ‘denialist’

  27. Gary Pate says:

    Getting 403 Forbidden error trying to access Jo Nova’s site as of 9:17AM Pacific Time 7/12/12

  28. Nova gets a knock up from the 403 Climate Police !

    As to the ‘potential three sided debate’. These is the Big Warm…Little Warm….and the always proper to consider, Null Hypothesis…or the Zero Warm. Those of the Null persuasion have been marganilized by both of the ‘legitimate’ sides as unqualified hobbists. The Nulls have gathered, presented legitimate arguements, articles and experiments. Here is the CV of just a partial list of those who see NO Carbon back radiation warming….

    http://principia-scientific.org/index.php/about/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic.html

    Let us hope that our dear Jo is not being hit with the $1.1MM fine for her thought crimes.

  29. Bryan A says:

    when I try to click on the hyperlinks to Jo Nova all I get is
    “Forbidden
    You don’t have permission to access /wp/index.php on this server.

    Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.”.
    Are the links accurate or has something happened?

  30. TerryS says:

    Re: docrichards

    Do you accept that the anthropogenic CO2 released so far commits the Earth to a temperature rise of ~0.8*C?

    If your answer is no, then you are in denial of basic physics.

    The basic physics might dictate a warming of ~0.8C for a doubling of CO2 but the climate system has feedbacks. Some of these feedbacks are positive and others are negative. If the negative feedbacks outweigh the positive than this would dampen the rise to less than 0.8C and if they are positive then it would amplify it to more than 0.8C.
    Therefore if your answer is an unqualified yes (or no) then you would be incorrect.

  31. JimB says:

    I would accept “deniers” if they consistently and in the same writings used “believers” or, better, “co-religionists”.

  32. Ian W says:

    As we all know, after publication it quickly became clear that the “denier” label was causing offence, and I contacted the journal’s editors to canvass options for addressing this.

    This faux-surprise that calling someone a ‘denier’ could be deemed offensive is a little wearing. The links to the holocaust were continual once the term was first used – I believe by James Hansen.

    In 2009 in a guest article in the Guardian James Hansen wrote:

    “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. “
    By line reads:
    • James Hansen is director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. He was the first scientist to warn the US Congress of the dangers of climate change

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal

    So this was written not in ‘his personal capacity’ but as a NASA Director.

    It is pretty explicit language and again links direct to the Holocaust. So I find the professed naivete of Dr Bain and others difficult to believe.

  33. David Ross says:

    Docrichard wrote:

    “The debate about terminology is peripheral. The central argument is about climatology, and in particular, whether the hypothesis that climate sensitivity for doubling of CO2 is capable of being supported by the data.”

    Congratulations on the appropriate use of the word “hypothesis” (language not often used by supporters of CAGW) but you otherwise miss the point.

    No “debate” can take place when one side insists that the matter is “settled” and that the other camp is “in denial”. I am not a psychiatrist but, for me, to “deny” implies:
    1) that there is an unquestionable “truth” to be denied
    2) the “deniers” are fooling themselves
    OR
    3) the “deniers” actually know the truth and deliberately lie.

    The latter case is implied by the repeated accusations by many warmists that anyone who speaks out against CAGW hysteria is somehow in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.

    It is language like this that has polarized this issue. As you acknowledge when you write:

    “You call us warmists, alarmists, eco-worriers, ecofascists &c, and we use the term deniers.”

    I do not call you an “ecofascist”. I don’t know you. But the label is appropriate for some people in ‘your’ camp (Google “10:10 video”). I think there are far more people who could accurately be described as “ecofascists” than those who are actually “oil-company shills”.

    The “denier” label is only one part of a recurring theme in alarmist rhetoric i.e. that the “deniers” are in some way mentally deficient. One need only visit your own blog http://greenerblog.blogspot.co.uk/ (which you link to in your comments) and scroll down 5 posts to find yet another example of this.

    In “Theoden and Lovelock Related?” you imply that James Lovelock’s recent about face on global warming (or perhaps I should refer to it as the moment he stopped denying the truth) is the result of dementia. If you really are a qualified psychiatrist (as well as “a longstanding Green Party activist”) then shame on you.

  34. David L. Hagen says:

    JoNova is in AUSTRALIA where it is 2:53 AM. She likely will not be up to check on her web site for another 3-6 hours.

  35. Onion says:

    “1 Do you accept that the anthropogenic CO2 released so far commits the Earth to a temperature rise of ~0.8*C?”

    No
    There is ‘natural climate variability’. And the warming effect of CO2 is logarithmic.
    The predictive power of the GCMs has been proven hopelessly wrong. Hansen in Science (1983) predicted CO2 overpowering all other climate factors by 2000 at the latest, resulting in year on year warming from then on. His model has been comprehensively falsified.

    I am a GP. I know that in the UK, there is a move by some psychologists to characterise those sceptical of the theory of CAGW (aka deniers to you) as suffering from a mental illness. Seminars have been run on this theme. Are you in agreement with those psychologists?

  36. Martin McPhillips says:

    “Denier” was used to invoke a moral equivalence to Holocaust denial. Period. Paragraph.

    A disgusting and desperate tactic.

    I started looking at the global warming issue a dozen or so years ago. The skeptics, then and now, were dealing with the evidence and finding it wanting. They have always made more sense.

    Global warming was and still is being sold as something unprecedented and dramatic. It is neither. We’re in the Holocene, an inter-glacial period. I have yet to be shown anything unusual happening in that context.

  37. JC says:

    @docrichard

    My answer would be no and I am definitely not in denial of basic physics with that answer.

    You sound like you are trying to repeat some propaganda that you heard on another blog and just got it wrong. (I’m going to assume that you are asking the wrong question by mistake and not out of total ignorance). The “greenhouse” effect of CO2 may be rooted in basic physics but that may or may not have an effect on the temperature of the earth. That’s what we call climate and it is the result of an extremely complex interaction of many affects most of which we don’t understand and one of the least of which is probably CO2. IMHO. (And before you get started, yes I know the earth is warmer than it would be without CO2 but that’s not the argument, is it.)

    Jeff Clarke

  38. David L. Hagen says:

    Dr. Paul Bain
    Re: “expressed our regret about any offence we caused.”

    You appear to be trying to excuse yourself with “any offense”.
    A proper apology is to state your “regret for ALL the offences we caused”

    You impugned those who disagree by inferred denial of the holocaust.
    You denigrated scientists seeking to follow the scientific method.
    You made rhetorical attacks on “climate realists” who accept
    that global warming is occurring – since the Little Ice Age
    that there are anthropogenic causes to global warming –
    from every ploughed field, every road, and every village, town, and city.
    The issues under question include
    the MAGNITUDE of the climate feedback on top of CO2;
    the PORTION of CO2 due to anthropogenic causes;
    the uncertainty in the measurements; and most importantly,
    the PHYSICS of clouds.

    An objective evaluation of the evidence shows that NONE of these are resolved.
    Rather, the mean of the IPCC model trends of 0.2 C/decade is now at 2 sigma boundary of possible temperature trends with red noise for the last 32 years. i.e., outside about 95% of the data (> 97% from one side.) I.e., rejected in common usage.

  39. Luther Wu says:

    docrichard
    _____________

    On your website, you attempt to link an increase in earthquake activity to man made global warming.
    While you may not realize that you have incorporated several logical fallacies into your arguments here at WUWT, for many of us, you’ve marked yourself as one of the unschooled.
    Regardless, your website really tells us all we need to know.

  40. turnedoutnice says:

    docrichard: ‘Do you accept that the anthropogenic CO2 released so far commits the Earth to a temperature rise of ~0.8*C?’

    What basic physics? Have a look at this: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/mdgnn-limits-on-the-co2-greenhouse-effect/

    60+ year old metallurgical data used to design furnace show emissivity therefore absorptivity of CO2 in dry air at room temperature levels off at ~200 ppmV in a long optical path. This radiative phenomenon is called self absorption and means there can apparently be no CO2-AGW.

    Do the ‘PET bottle’ experiment with 1/12th the wall thickness [a Mylar balloon is PET], and you apparently don’t get detectable warming. Thus thermalisation of absorbed IR is probably indirect, at cloud droplets by pseudo-scattering you derive from simple statistical thermodynamics. – the IPCC’s physics is totally wrong as any IR specialist will confirm: Happer warned of this in 1993. Also there can be no more than ~9 K present GHE because 24 K is from lapse rate independent of the type of gas. Oh, and there is virtually no GHE on Venus, it’s mostly lapse rate!

    As for the heat transfer at boundaries, horribly wrong and I was a process engineer so an expert. These people have made amateur assumptions such as IR emission from the Earth’s surface is the same as that from an isolated black body in a vacuum, simply not true as any professional engineer or physicist will confirm and you can see for yourself in a handbook like McAdams Heat transfer – convection and radiation are coupled.

    The problem is that Meteorologists are taught ‘downwelling LW’ exists when it does not.and misinterpret single pyrgeometer readings as proving it when it’s simply a measure of temperature. These mistakes mean the models contain a perpetual motion machine exaggerating heat input by 40%, the IR by 400% then offset mostly by incorrect cloud physics [see: http://www.gewex.org/images/feb2010.pdf p. 5].

    Of course you may think I’m a mad, deluded denier but do you think I and others on a similar track would have gone to this depth simply because we’re crazy? IPCC science needs rebuilding from its basics with professional physicists and that’s 40 years’ high level R&D experience talking including 20 years in CO2-related areas. Deniers Rule OK!

  41. JimS says:

    docrichard (7:45 am):

    You’re missing the point. Call those skeptical of catastrophic AGW theory “deniers” all you want in blogs or in conversation. But if it’s in Nature, it’s analogous to the case in which they publish an article calling supporters of catastrophic AGW theory, “warmists, alarmists, eco-worriers, ecofascists,” to use your terms. If such terms were used, I would be equally disappointed in Nature. Such commentary does not belong in that (once-?) esteemed journal, or any truly unbiased journal.

  42. jonathan frodsham says:

    I just sent Jo an email:

    Hi Jo,
    I keep getting this message when I try to access your web site:
    “Forbidden You don’t have permission to access /wp/index.php on this server.”
    Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.?

    Others at WUWT are having the same problem. Has Gillard and her criminal mates shut you down? Bet they would love to do that.

    Regards a Jo fan

  43. Louise says:

    An interesting blog by a holocaust survivor who has also published on the subject of climate change:

    http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2012/04/

  44. atheok says:

    Bain’s statement,

    “…that the “denier” label was causing offence…”

    strikes me as incredibly condescending. If he was at all serious the statement should be similar to

    …That the ‘denier’ label is offensive…

    Not a nebulous past tense, but an affirmative present tense!

    I choked through Bain’s reply on Jo Nova’s site the other day. I decided to not reply as I was still too incensed by his vague ramblings, nor could I clearly follow some of his wordings from one sentence to later/before in his reply.

    As of 2:20PM EST, I can not access Jo’s site. I tried with Safari and IE9 and both report a 403 error still.

    Could Australia be censoring Jo Nova? (not an accusation, just a question)

  45. Bob Kutz says:

    One more reply to torture DocRichards;

    Anyone with half a brain would deny 0.8C increase per doubling of CO2 based on basic physics. It may be 0.8C, but there’s no way you can get their just on basic physics.

    Do you doubt gravity works? Ever drop a piece of paper on a windy day? Does it take exactly (square root of the height divided by the square root of 1/2 acceleration of gravity) seconds to hit the ground? Are you going to deny basic physics based on that?

    The world is a massive chaotic system. Your number for doubling assumes a closed system. Simple physics would actually tell us it is more likely that the size of our atmosphere would expand, rather than the temperature increase, given only an increase in CO2 concentration. We don’t know for a fact what all the feed backs are and what their net effect on this huge chaotic system is. Never mind that other huge variable, some 93 million miles away which we do not fully understand.

    In conclusion, if you are asserting that our entire climate system is controlled by one basic physical element, then I will tell you that you have little place in this debate.

    If you try to denigrate skeptics based on this ridiculous litmus test, I will tell you that you have no real place in any intelligent discussion whatsoever.

    And finally; I will tell you that you need to look around; this is exactly the type of absurd argument the AGW alarmists use, day in and day out, in lieu of any rational debate.

    They simply try to denigrate anyone who questions either their ‘science’ or their motive.

    That is the hallmark of charlatans and swindlers in every age.

  46. John Greenfraud says:

    Also getting a 403 response.

  47. P Wilson says:

    It seems to me that AGW alarmists are readers of Nietzsche and not of science. Nietzsche who said: “All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth. “

  48. Robin says:

    On the issue was there a plan that AGW is a part of. When I read ed reforms from the 1970s where the author is connected to UNESCO they are clearly looking for a global catastrophe to justify telling people what they must do. Most likely concern is freezing but they ponder either possibility. They want something as international leverage. Education at that point was starting to go affective to create greater sympathy for nuclear disarmament.

    The Swedes by the mid-1980s are talking about 3 transformative initiatives Gorbachev is pushing. The perestroika restructuring and the glasnost openness that get covered in the West. The 3rd they say was to create a successor economics to capitalism and socialism and premise it around the environment.

    That 3rd scenario is the push in the Club of Rome’s early 90s book The First Global Revolution.

    I have been writing about how Riane Eisler’s caring economics pushed through the Dag Hammarskold Foundation fits the scenario imagined. It also suggests she knows nothing about economies. But it is all about creating new values to take care of Mother Earth. My concern is that it pushes a partnership education to create the desired mindset and fits the communitarian ethos that is so much a part of the actual ed reform implementation all over the world. Not just US. Canada, Australia, UK, Netherlands, New Zealand, and South Africa are all in my documents.

    Unfortunately as we well know, misguided can still mean horribly influential. Look at what it did for Gore.

  49. rogerknights says:

    Here are seven terms warmists can use as substitutes for “/b>denier,” from most accusatory to least:

    Ostrich is as strong as Denier, lacking only an association with Holocaust denial and psychiatric diagnosis. It implies willful and irresponsible ignorance. It’s long been in common use in political and social debate.
    Pooh-Pooher (or Minimizer). Almost as strong as Ostrich, but doesn’t suggest as strongly that the case is closed. However, there is a connotation of some degree of unthinking, reflexive complacency and failure to be appropriately alarmed..
    Scoffer. There is some connotation here of a mere reflexive cynicism, but not so much of willful and irresponsible blindness.
    Contrarian. Nearly neutral, but still has some connotation of a merely reflexive “agin”-ism.
    Dissenter. Neutral.
    Dissident. Positive connotation.
    Deviationist. Even more positive connotation (suggests an anti-totalitarian).

  50. docrichard says:

    First, a quick reply to David Ross. The Theoden/Lovelock is not a suggestion that Lovelock is dementing, it is using a device used by a UK publication, Private Eye. Here is an example: http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=lookalikes&issue=1315#215

  51. Rational DB8 says:

    re post: docrichard says: July 12, 2012 at 7:45 am

    As a psychiatrist, I can confirm that telling someone who is in denial that they are in that state will almost always give offense. Depending on the intelligence and education of the patient, they will also defend their position with detailed and time consuming arguments….

    If you were an even halfway competent psychiatrist, you would also have ‘confirmed’ that people who are falsely accused often respond in the exact same manner. They’ll take offnse and: “Depending on the intelligence and education of the patient, they will also defend their position with detailed and time consuming arguments.”

    Furthermore, you also would have ‘confirmed’ that people often engage in ‘projection,’ accusing others of what is, in fact, their own failing and utterly regardless of the actions or beliefs of the people they so accuse. Especially when they have some cherished belief that cannot stand up to the actual facts involved – then they attempt to defend their own faulty position by accusing others of being in denial,of lying, or lacking values or morals, and so on.

    It’s quite telling that you failed to note these other common options, all of which may just as easily apply to the whole AGW “denier” situation.

    You also present a rather gross logical fallacy when arguing that terminology is moot. Terminology is how we communicate. Proper use of terminology – accurate, well defined, open – makes all the difference in the world between understanding and misunderstanding.

    Not to mention your logical fallacy in trying to appeal to authority – ‘see, I’m a psychiatrist, therefore I KNOW better than you just how demented all you deniers really are, and you have to accept that as the gospel truth, so there!’

    Pathetic. Sir, Put the mouse down slowly and step away from the keyboard!

  52. Nerd says:

    Regarding JoNova’s website, i went to twitter to see if she had anything to write. Looks like there’s a problem. https://twitter.com/JoanneNova

  53. David Ross says:

    docrichard’s comment seems to have provoked the ire of quite a few on this thread, myself included.

    To better understand the psychology of this “psychiatrist” here is a quote from his blog:

    “OK, straight to the point. A species that devastates its planet with climate change, nuclear or biological warfare does not deserve to survive.”

    http://greenerblog.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/image-of-stephen-hawkins-in-zero.html

    Why is this kind of mentality so common among the warmists?

  54. docrichard says:

    [snip. Re-post without using the d-word. ~dbs, mod.]

  55. docrichard says:

    Just to clarify, denial is a psychological defence mechanism, and can occur in people who are otherwise quite rational. It is not a manifestation of psychosis or any other “craziness”, nor is it a sign of lack of intelligence. It is just a powerful mechanism that we use sometime to blank out unacceptable realities.

    I deplore any use of the term to produce guilt by association with Holocaust deniers, but I would hope that nobody would say that psychiatrists may not use the term denial because of its association with David Irving and his ilk.

    Maybe it is politically incorrect to use the term denial in this debate, because of the distress it causes.
    I must confess to being a bit of a rebel when it comes to PC matters. I have in the past tried to use the term skeptic instead of denier, but many scientists complain that debases the use of that term. I shall try to avoid it in future, since it creates emotion that detracts from rational debate.

  56. Kibbles says:

    Hi All,

    This seems like a fitting place for a question that has been bothering me recently. My apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but my searches in my free time haven’t turned anything up.

    I’ve been wondering about how GCMs and solar studies (especially those that claim the sun is not responsible for recent climate trends) deal with feedbacks arising from varied solar activity.

    As a very simplistic thought “experiment”, if solar activity increases, we would expect a direct warming effect on the earth’s surface, which could lead to snow and ice melt and a change in albedo. Additionally, much of that increased in-bound radiation would fall on lakes and oceans, causing an increase in surface temperatures of those waterbodies. This in turn could lead to increased evaporation and a release of CO2 from those sources, introducing our old friend the greenhouse effect into the mix of feedbacks. The increased water vapour in the atmosphere could also impact cloud formation as a further complicating variable. Thus, we have a combination of positive and negative feedbacks, and likely more that are unknown. (Please note, I consider myself a layman in the climate sciences, so I’m aware that the above example is probably flawed. But that’s not really the point of my post, so please lets not get bogged down in a discussion of the accuracy of that example.)

    As noted, what I’m looking for is information about how these feedbacks are dealt with by the GCMs and solar studies. It seems to me that before “warmists” can write off the sun as a factor, or attribute X% of warming over the last century to human activity, it is absolutely necessary for these to be acknowledged and considered with recognition of the associated uncertainties.

    Any information on if/how this has been done would be appreciated.

    Thanks,

    Kibbles

  57. John A Fish says:

    It’s pathetic, why are apparently sensible people investing time & space protesting about this ridiculous name-calling? While the sceptics are patting themselves on the back because their protests will result in the publication of an addendum the ‘warmists’ have still got their hands in our pockets helping themselves to our hard earned money. Forget the distractions and side-shows & concentrate on exposing these evil, corrupt, self-serving, lying thugs for what they are.

  58. bw says:

    Do you accept that the anthropogenic CO2 released so far commits the Earth to a temperature rise of ~0.8*C?
    ———————-
    Non-scientific question. The Null hypothesis would be that anthropogenic CO2 will cause ZERO temperature rise. Your burden to acquire data testing that hypothesis. A much better Null hypothesis is

    Atmospheric CO2 change from 300ppm to 600ppm will cause NO change in temperature.

    Another null hypothesis. Atmospheric CO2 change from 300 to 400 ppm will result in ZERO change in temperature for the Antarctic continent.

    Data will soon show NO reason to reject this statement. The alternate hypothesis is rejected.

    ——————————————
    turnedoutnice points out that engineers have long known the thermal and optical properties of mixtures of CO2 and water vapor. Any old engineering handbook, such as Mark’s, has such information. It obviously works. The judgement and common sense of one goood engineer is worth 100 theoretical scientists. You won’t find one good engineer that supports the AGW hysteria.

    ——————————————-
    docrichard needs some basic scientific methodology training. Find a copy of “An Introduction to Scientific Research” by Wilson. Then take a statistics class.

  59. Gary Turner says:

    Re Jo Nova: She has been having a number of issues with her site recently. I recall, perhaps falsely, that they started when she changed her web hosting provider.

    She recently (about seven hours ago) tweeted about the current issue:

    Joanne Nova ‏@JoanneNova

    Site down again :-(. These drop outs are a bit tedious. I don’t know why, and I will tweet if I find out… Apologies. Jo

    As to the 403 error code, it indicates the the person trying to access the page has not been authenticated to have the authority to do so. Usually it’s a password protection issue, but could be a misconfiguration of some type on the server. See the Apache web server documentation.

    cheers,

    gary

  60. Frank Kotler says:

    Y’all will recall that Al Gore tried to equate us with “r-words”! Seems not to have gotten any traction, but he tried it! Things could be worse.

  61. Howard B says:

    docrichard says:
    July 12, 2012 at 2:10 pm
    I have in the past tried to use the term skeptic instead of denier, but many scientists complain that debases the use of that term.
    ———-
    I’m a scientist with a post-grad degree in geology. A colleague of mine questions me all the time on some of my geological interpretations, and he’s particularly skeptical of one of my interpretations. If I call him a skeptic about that I’m not sure how it would ”debase the use of the term”.

    Maybe it’s only Climate Scientists (TM) that would feel that being a skeptic would a negative thing.

    Lucky for me that I’m an Earth Scientist (TM), so my fellow geols can all look at all of the data, agree or disagree, and then go have a beer after work instead of having a hissy fit.

    Just sayin’

  62. Allan MacRae says:

    Dear Doc Richard,

    I have studied climate science for almost thirty years.

    From your uninformed comments, my guess is that you have studied the science for less than 30 days, and probably less than 30 minutes.

    Furthermore, unlike your failed heroes of the IPCC, I actually have a strong predictive record in this field.

    My conclusion is that there is, and has been for at least a decade, ample evidence that disproves the hypothesis of catastrophic manmade global warming.

    Global warming hysteria is, at best, a system of failed beliefs – a misguided religion.

    In my lighter moments, I categorize the acolytes of the Church of Global Warming as scoundrels and imbeciles.

    The scoundrels are the High Priests of the CAGW religion – those who have profited and continue to profit from false global warming hysteria.

    The imbeciles are those who choose to naively embrace any foolish cause that fits their political template.

    I do wonder now if the scoundrels have even darker motives. Almost nobody is THAT greedy or THAT stupid.

    My new hypothesis, which like all hypos remains to be disproved, is:

    The radical enviros who lead the CAGW movement are a dangerous anti-human cult. These enviros recklessly advocate the eradication of masses of humanity. They believe the only solution to environmental problems is to reduce the population of humankind. They hide behind many smokescreens, such as global warming alarmism, and probably know their entire argument is false. They are aided by many “useful idiots” who have neither the intellect, diligence nor the skills to develop an informed opinion on this subject.

    Evidence to support this hypo is available at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/28/newsbytes-world-cooling-to-global-warming/#comment-1020878

    and

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/28/newsbytes-world-cooling-to-global-warming/#comment-1022591

    See also http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3
    The Rise of Eco-Extremism, by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace.

  63. Howling Winds says:

    Our local “headshrinker, “Docrichard”,” has apparently painted himself into a very tiny politically correct corner. I believe he’s actually arguing that it’s okay to offend some groups, but not others. The use of “deniers” is kosher, but I’d be willing to bet that under no circumstances would the “N word” and terms applied to gay people past muster with him. Welcome to the world of what a Standford Professor (I think) once called the “present accepted prejudice”.

  64. Howling Winds says:

    I just peer-reviewed my own post; “headshrinker” should have been in quotes, and Standford should have read Stanford. Sorry about that :)….

  65. dp says:

    Jo Nova’s site is working fine but the server does not have permission to read the file(s) in her document root. In particular, the index.php file as cited. The problem is not spread throughout her site as this URL still works: http://joannenova.com.au/images/ as does http://joannenova.com.au/wp/favicon.ico which rules out directory permissions. WordPress uses a convoluted redirection scheme that is still a potential candidate for trouble, but it really looks like an update or modification gone bad.

  66. Marian says:

    “P.F. says:
    July 12, 2012 at 8:35 am

    When empirical evidence is addressed in proper long-term time frames (not the 1978 – 2007 cherry-picked time frame that begins at the end of cool period understandably creating a steep upward slope), it is clear the modern condition is unremarkable.’

    What’s even more concerned with is the difference represented in historic temp data graphs as portrayed in the the 1970s to the current ones. During the Ice Age scare. Why do some of these data sets now have the data inverted compared to the 1970s?

  67. sunsettommy says:

    LOL,

    docrichard,as an alleged psychiatrist you claim to be ,you are oblivious on your PROJECTIONS you post here.

    It is so funny that you are doing it without realizing it.

  68. Ally E. says:

    I believe the problem with those who advocate the removal of the human species is one of scale. Modern speed of travel has “shrunk” the size of our planet to a point where such people feel we have huge impact in just about everything we do, whereas we really don’t. Maybe someone should study that.

  69. Howling Winds says:
    July 12, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    Our local “headshrinker, “Docrichard”,” has apparently painted himself into a very tiny politically correct corner. I believe he’s actually arguing that it’s okay to offend some groups, but not others. The use of “deniers” is kosher, but I’d be willing to bet that under no circumstances would the “N word” and terms applied to gay people past muster with him. Welcome to the world of what a Stanford Professor (I think) once called the “present accepted prejudice”.

    Mencken called it, “the blah of the times.”

  70. docrichards

    With your great omnipotent power why not just decare all “deniers” to be “Heretics” and burn us at the stake in the traditional Bruno-Pope manner ? You obviously hold yourself and your “profession” in far greater esteem than the balance of society. “Psychiatrary” is SO abused by the court system that they are referred to as ‘court whores’, so much so that the following law was passed by BOTH houses of the New Mexico legislature, only to be vetoed by the governor from pressure by the “legal” profession [aka the second oldest profession]

    PROCLAIMED THAT: WHEN A PSYCHOLOGIST OR PSYCHIATRIST TESTIFIES DURING A DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCY HEARING, THE PSYCHOLOGIST OR PSYCHIATRIST SHALL WEAR A CONE-SHAPED HAT THAT IS NOT LESS THAN TWO FEET TALL. THE SURFACE OF THE HAT SHALL BE IMPRINTED WITH STARS AND LIGHTNING BOLTS. HE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO DON A WHITE BEARD NOT LESS THAN EIGHTEEN INCHES IN LENGTH AND SHALL PUNCTUATE CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF HIS TESTIMONY BY STABBING THE AIR WITH A WAND AND THE BAILIFF SHALL DIM THE COURTROOM LIGHTS AND ADMINISTER TWO STRIKES OF A CHINESE GONG.

    Bill introduced by Senator Duncan Scott, New Mexico Senate, 1995

  71. dp says:

    Roger Knights says:

    I believe he’s actually arguing that it’s okay to offend some groups, but not others.

    Doctors are idiots and probably pathologically immoral so this is what I’d expect. I’d sooner do business with a lawyer.

    /sarc

  72. TomRude says:

    looks like Jo Nova’s website is unavailable… Is it me or anyone? thanks

  73. DocWatson says:

    Couldn’t resist joining in on the fun of the ‘DocRichards’ pile-on. There is no small affinity between modern day psychiatry and CAGW theory. Both depend on selling narratives proposing enormously complex, non linear systems should be reduced to the simple, specific linear mechanisms of cause and effect that we convince people we are going to use as levers. It is this little chemical imbalance my dear, in your brain, don’t you know?

    This renders the modern psychiatrist more constitutionally incapable than ever, of understanding human experience and behavior – oftentimes including their own. This is no small feat. Few psychiatrists I know or have known are well. I wonder sometimes if it is not the weight of repression required to maintain the illusion that my work is meaningful in the face of what seems to be an inability to cure anybody of anything – now even as I am watching much lower status practitioners of the non-medical disciplines, whose work is increasingly scientifically based, getting better and better outcomes. This is actually the Mental Health industries dirty little secret. Many if not most non-physician practitioners understand it all too well.

    The presently “emergent” epidemic of treatment resistant depression (and mental illness generally) is an unfortunate consequence of the kind of psychologically defended thinking you all see the good Doc demonstrating here.

    One of America’s most respected physicians and past editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine elaborates here:

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/?pagination=false

  74. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    Chicken Little Climatologists

    Let them use “denier”. We can think up better names for them — names that accurately reflect the content of their public pronouncements.

    Their political window has closed. Their sociatal agenda can no longer be implemented. Politicians are running from them faster then they are running from Obama. The smart ones know this.

    Originally “Global Warming” was a gold mine. That is no longer the case. There is still quite a bit in the pipeline but the end of the money train is obvious. Soon they will no longer be able to direct the grant money. For the younger set global warming will be recognized as a sure tenure killer.

    What you are going to see now is the older “academics” trying to protect their “assets”. Therefore you are now going to see them doing outreach to the people they have called “deniers”. They will seem to become more reasonable. Actually start to talk to you. They know the pendulum is swinging. They will want to make friends — friends who will be in a position soon to protect them.

    Rats deserting a sinking ship? Yup! But they need to be encouraged not repulsed. Give them cover. Make it easy for them. Alright some of them deserve to burn in the lowest depths of hell but you got to see the big picture. After World War II America used a lot of former Nazis to help run Germany. They were the opportunist type. Joining the Nazis seemed to them a smart career move. Then they recognized that joining the allies was also a smart career move.

    So make it easy for these people — for soon, to demonstate their “creds”, they are going to start knifing their previous “allies” in the back. They have stories to tell. Probably lots of stored E-mails also.

    I don’t think Mann or Jones can imagine what is going to happen to them. Or who is going to do it.

    Eugene WR Gallun

    PS — Notice how i worked down from “denier” to a Nazi metaphor. Sort of turning the tables. Sometimes i just see it and have to do it. Sorry — i can’t help myself.

  75. Truthseeker says:

    Jo Nova is back. She has an excellent reply to Dr Bain which can be found here;

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/my-reply-to-paul-bain-the-name-caller-is-hurt-by-the-names-they-throw/

  76. Lady Life Grows says:

    I can understand why our opponents want to use strongly emotional labels such as “Denier.”
    I am just as emotional myself about the environazis (see?) who do not merely exaggerate warming, thus killing tens of thousands of people by panic stricken destruction of the food supply (corn ethanol) causing the Arab Spring riots.
    The most crucial aspect of the whole question is the effect on living organisms–and that has been overwhelmingly positive.
    There is considerable reason to doubt the temperature claims (UHI, falsification of records, cherry-picking of weather stations, etc.). But we do know that CO2 has increased at least 20% over the last several decades–and that the leaf surface area has correspondingly increased. So has human life expectancy, all over the world.
    You would not print what I call the environazis in my own mind, but I did tell my Congressman to vote against anything “green” because it is harmful to the biosphere more often than it is beneficial.
    I fantasize turning those people into hamburgers and feeding them to hyenas and Tasmanian Devils. I care that much about the living world–so do they.
    Teaching them the fundamentals of redox chemistry and the source of life is CO2 and other basic science, plus logical reasoning–that is the challenge.

  77. dp says:

    TomRude says:
    July 12, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    looks like Jo Nova’s website is unavailable… Is it me or anyone? thanks

    She’s back and kicking some serious ass.

  78. wobble says:

    docrichard says:
    July 12, 2012 at 7:45 am

    As a psychiatrist, I can confirm that telling someone who is in denial that they are in that state will almost always give offense.

    This is an incredibly sophomoric statement to make in response to this post. You’re trying to claim that skeptics are offended by the term denial due to the fact that they are actually in denial. Skeptics, especially skeptics on this website, aren’t in denial. We’re critical of the definitive claims being made after careful, scientific consideration.

    I could definitively state that you’re a clinical idiot. If, after objective consideration regarding certain intelligence metrics, you deny that you’re a clinical idiot, then I could merely claim that you’re in a state of denial. Then, if you take offense to my claim of denial, I can offer that as further evidence that you’re in denial. After all, “telling someone who is in denial that they are in that state will almost always give offense.”

    What’s funny is that your comment was so stereotypical psych fail.

  79. David Ross says:

    docrichard wrote:
    “First, a quick reply to David Ross. The Theoden/Lovelock is not a suggestion that Lovelock is dementing, it is using a device used by a UK publication, Private Eye. Here is an example: http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=lookalikes&issue=1315#215

    Doc, I’m British, a long time reader of Private Eye and I’m not convinced by your explanation. Your caption reads:

    “Am I alone in noticing the remarkable and growing similarity between James Lovelock, the nuclear-obsessed inventor of Gaia, and King Theoden of Rohan during the time when he was under the influence of Saruman? Could their condition in any way be related?”

    The choice of King Theoden (a zombie-like character)… the timing (just after Lovelock’s epiphany) … “obsessed” … “influence” …”condition” … yet you claim you are not questioning Lovelock’s mental health? I think you are in denial doc.

  80. wobble says:

    docrichard says:
    July 12, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    Just to clarify, denial is a psychological defence mechanism, and can occur in people who are otherwise quite rational.

    Just to clarity, it is quite rational to deny something that is wrong, and it is quite rational to deny the definitiveness of something that is questionable. Your above claim implies (and I’m sure you meant to imply) that all denials are irrational – which is incredibly stupid.

    Frankly, your entire thinking is frightening. You remind me of the Thought Police in 1984 faulting Winston for denying the party’s claim that 2+2=5. It didn’t matter if Winston was right or not, and apparently, it doesn’t matter to you if skeptics are right about their skepticism – you still insist on labeling their offense to being called a denier as an “irrational” defense mechanism.

    I challenge you to admit that the offense might instead be a perfectly rational reaction.

  81. Lady Life Grows says:

    I can understand why our opponents want to use strongly emotional labels such as “Denier.”
    I am just as emotional myself about the environazis (see?) who do not merely exaggerate warming, They have killed tens of thousands of people by panic stricken destruction of the food supply (corn ethanol) causing the Arab Spring riots.

    The most crucial aspect of the whole question is the effect on living organisms–and that has been overwhelmingly positive.

    There is considerable reason to doubt the temperature claims (UHI, falsification of records, cherry-picking of weather stations, etc.). But we do know that CO2 has increased at least 20% over the last several decades–and that the leaf surface area has correspondingly increased. So has human life expectancy, all over the world.

    You would not print what I call the environazis in my own mind, but I did tell my Congressman to vote against anything “green” because it is harmful to the biosphere more often than it is beneficial.

    I fantasize grinding those people into hamburger and feeding them to hyenas and Tasmanian Devils. I care that much about the living world–so do they.

    Teaching them the fundamentals of redox chemistry and the source of life is CO2 and other basic science, plus logical reasoning–that is the challenge.

  82. hro001 says:

    Frank Kotler says: July 12, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    Y’all will recall that Al Gore tried to equate us with “r-words”! Seems not to have gotten any traction, but he tried it! Things could be worse.

    Speaking of whom … Gore laid the groundwork (albeit perhaps inadvertently) for the Holocaust denier smear in an Op Ed in the NYT 23 years ago, when he gave himself licence to inappropriately and appallingly invoke memory of – and word-images from – the Holocaust [h/t Richard Drake via Climate Audit]:

    An Ecological Kristallnacht. Listen.

    By Albert Gore; Albert Gore Jr., a Democrat, is Senator from Tennessee
    Published: March 19, 1989

    Humankind has suddenly entered into a brand new relationship with our planet.

    Unless we quickly and profoundly change the course of our civilization, we face an immediate and grave danger of destroying the worldwide ecological system that sustains life as we know it.

    It is time to confront this danger.

    In 1939, as clouds of war gathered over Europe, many refused to recognize what was about to happen. No one could imagine a Holocaust, even after shattered glass had filled the streets on Kristallnacht. World leaders waffled and waited, hoping that Hitler was not what he seemed, that world war could be avoided. Later, when aerial photographs revealed death camps, many pretended not to see. Even now, many fail to acknowledge that our victory was not only over Nazism but also over dark forces deep within us.

    In 1989, clouds of a different sort signal an environmental holocaust without precedent. Once again, world leaders waffle, hoping the danger will dissipate. Yet today the evidence is as clear as the sounds of glass shattering in Berlin.

    So, Louise July 12, 2012 at 11:18 am

    The blog you found you found so “interesting” – is one which the author, Micha Tomkiewicz, decided to start on Apr. 22 “the 42nd anniversary of Earth Day” which marks him as an activist who has shamelessly chosen (as I wrote in response to his First Post) to appeal to his own authority as a survivor of the Holocaust in order to:

    persuade [his] audience of the validity of the “denier” label when it is so egregiously mis-applied in an attempt to denigrate and marginalize those who have the temerity to hold skeptical views. Views which [his first post] strongly suggests [he has] failed to personally examine.

    He has a PhD, and has written a (very pricey) book on “climate change”; but his areas of expertise have no relationship to any of the relevant issues. Not surprisingly, nor do any of his peer-reviewed publications. Nonetheless – just like Al Gore 23 years ago – Tomkiewicz firmly believes in “impending climate change disaster.”

    Tomkiewicz is so “knowledgeable” about climate change that, not unlike Gore, he resorts to ludicrously over the top hype:

    Predictions by the Intergovernmental Plan on Climate Change (IPCC) and most scientists, strongly suggest that we may be creating our next genocide ourselves; [emphasis added -hro]

    He doesn’t even know that the IPCC gave up making “predictions” in favour of “projections” quite some time ago. And he seems to think that the IPCC is a “Plan” which – presumably – if we don’t follow may well result in genocide.

    As a Holocaust survivor, Tomkiewicz – more than most – should be cognizant of the inherent perils of the derogatory labelling he’s given himself licence to apply to those who don’t share his opinions.

    And as a scientist, he should be ashamed of himself for recycling such unmitigated emotionally laden green-tinted drivel.

  83. Rob Dekker says:

    I’m a bit confused. Are all “skeptics” created equal, and none are “deniers” of AGW ?

    There are skeptic people who acknowledge basic physics of AGW, but doubt that it will make much of a difference in our lives, let alone being ‘catastrophic’, as is promoted by the ‘alarmists’.
    Then, there are skeptic people who want to see compelling observational evidence of anthropogenic climate change, before they accept that projections based on elementary physics in a complex system such as planet Earth’s climate system, are correct.
    Then there are skeptic people who look at scientific findings that supports their beliefs, and discard other findings as coming from ‘alarmists’ with a political agenda.
    And then there are skeptic people who discard any scientific evidence presented by anyone, and only believe the evidence that they themselves collected, which is pre-selected to confirm their pre-conceived belief that humans cannot make any discernible difference on this planet’s climate systems.

    Now, is the term ‘skeptic’ appropriate for all of these people ?
    Dr. Brown thinks not, and that there should be a distinction between ‘skeptics’ and ‘deniers’, after which he immediately got engaged in an argument with people who disagree with his acceptance of the physics of AGW.
    What are we to think ?
    Should there be any differentiation ?
    And if we can’t use the word ‘denier’ for the latter category, then what should use ? ‘ultra-skeptic’ ? ‘mega-skeptic’ ? ‘super-climate-realist’ ?

    Do you think that all skeptics are created equal ?

  84. turnedoutnice says:

    Further to my reply to docrichard the psychiatrist above, I offer a bit of new physics I deduced yesterday. What people must remember is that the engineering data derived by the great Chemical Engineer Hoyt C. Hottell in the late 1940s at MIT are also The Key Science of the IR physics of GHG mixtures in air. These data were replicated in the 1970s by Leckner.

    First a bit of background: they used a heated chamber holding the gas mixture and measured the IR emitted using a detector. Because the IR spreads from the apparatus window, the detector and the rest of the field of view of the emitter is also an IR radiator and the measured fluence is the result of equilibrium of the interior of the apparatus with part of its surroundings. This isn’t news to competent engineers but will be to climate science which clearly has very limited understanding of physics.

    The observation is that above ~200 ppmV, CO2 in dry air,at ambient temperature, the emissivity asymptotes because of the well-known IR phenomenon of self-absorption. Climate science knows of this but has kept quiet about it. However, you can’t buck experimental data.

    The new bit is the deduction that part or all that self-absorption is turned off when you emit IR to the gas mixture.This is an absolute certainty because self absorption is due to the shielding from the detector of IR from behind the dense unexcited molecules near the detector. If you excite these molecules from the detector direction, there must be less absorption of thermally-generated IR from the other direction.

    But something else happens. The increased fluence of IR towards the Earth;’s surface as self absorption reduces fills the sites at the surface which emit the IR thus reducing surface emissivity in those bands. This is how IR is regulated by Prevost Exchange, a bit of understanding totally missed by Aarhenius and the IPCC hence the ludicrous heat transfer physics in the models.

    This is how self–absorption phenomenon regulates this bit of GHG warming, making it highly non-linear. I’m doing the maths but what I expect at the end is that Hottell’s experiments already show the result in that the whole IR detector – emitter path has the maths built in because the detector was also an emitter.

    The conclusion is that above ~200 ppmV CO2 in dry air at constant temperature there can be no increased GHG absorption warming no matter what CO2 concentration. So, in answer to diocruichard’s question, yes I do deny there will be extra warming from increased [CO2]. This is because the physics is clear, the process is self regulating at a low level because of the simplicity of the band structure. As you decrease temperature and reduce 14 micron absorption, this concentration will fall, minimising at ~270K.

    Deniers Rule OK because we have physics on our side!

  85. Jon says:

    The denier term is an ad hom to distract from scientific critic.
    Don’t spend to much time on this off topic?

  86. Jonas N says:

    Rob Dekker

    I would say that anyone even thinking the term ‘denier’ about someone not subscribing to the ‘climate orthodoxy’ thereby implicates that there is a political agenda at work in his … ehrm … for lack of a better word … ‘reasoning’.

    That is particularly obvious for people posing as scientists because derogatory labelling has no place in science, especially when trying to making or conveying an argument. It’s natural place is in quarrelling and political infighting.

    You talk about ‘the physics of AGW’, even the ‘basic physics’ and it is difficult to determine what those could mean beyond very banal observations about the IR-radiative properties of the CO2 molecule. And you could argue that the A is somewhat related to it, but hardly the G or the W. At most, I think you can argue that ‘the basic physics of AGW’ pertain to the sign of the expected response to a perturbation. There are no ‘basic physics’ making any quantitative statements about this effect. And basic physics not even specifying the magnitude just aren’t!

    Moreover, I think you are reading more noble purpose and differentation into Bains labelling, as well as more understanding of ‘the basic physics’ than there obviously is.

    But no, the skeptics are definitely not all equal. Why should that even need to be pointed out?

  87. CTL says:

    Rob Dekker says: July 13, 2012 at 12:20 am

    “And then there are skeptic people who discard any scientific evidence presented by anyone, and only believe the evidence that they themselves collected, which is pre-selected to confirm their pre-conceived belief that humans cannot make any discernible difference on this planet’s climate systems.”

    I’m not familiar with anyone who would fall into this category of skeptic. I doubt anyone matching this description exists outside your imagination. But my guess is that if anyone like this does actually exist, they are about as numerous as the group of people who think CAGW is occurring and who also molest small children.

    So by your own logic, Rob Dekker, a proper and acceptable term to use when referring to you or any other CAGW proponent during discussions would be “child molester” (or perhaps just the shorter, generic “molester”).

    So the question naturally follows, Rob Dekker: are you a child molester, or a denier?

  88. docrichard says:

    The piece above that was snipped by the moderator for containing the d-word made the following argument:

    Skeptical scientists like Lindzen, Spencer and Michaels all agree that the CO2 that we have added to the atmosphere commits Earth to a warming of ~0.8*C. They agree because it is standard textbook physics.

    The debate is over the effects on climate sensitivity – the amplification of this 0.8*C by positive feedbacks.

    The skeptic hypothesis is that negative cloud feedbacks will reduce the 0.8*C increase to ~0.5*C.

    The consensus climatology position is that positive feedbacks will raise the 0.8*C to ~3+*C through increased water vapour, increased cloud, albedo changes, vegetation changes, methane releases from permafrost and clathrates, and secondary CO2 releases from soil and forest fires.

    There are a number of separate lines of evidence, from study of past temperature changes, that arrive independently at the ~3*C figure.

    Attempts to find evidence consistent with the 0.5*C figure have been few in number, and have been found to be flawed.

    The weight of evidence therefore points towards the consensus position.

  89. turnedoutnice says:

    A bit of explanation: in the above post, 200 ppmV CO2 means in a long physical optical path.

    Hottell used Atm.ft units to scale his data. Leckner used Bar.cm. What this means is that it’s all to do with the projected areal density of the molecules. Once you get 2-D space filling, you get self-absorption and you can turn it off by shining IR from the other side.

    There can be no CO2-AGW. The same principle applies to other GHGs but the spectrum complexity sets the critical concentration. The same principles apply to atomic absorption spectroscopy.

  90. Jonas N says:

    docrichards

    I see that you too make claims about what ‘standard textbook physics’ should say about the earth’s climate and how it functions, fluctuates and changes in response to various (or in this case, certain) pertubations of the atmospheric composition.

    This claim is in it self nonsens. What you (probably? unknowingly) refer to is the a radiative transfer calculation of an idealized 1D-system, under all-else-equal assumptions (lab-conditions)

    Your talk about the large positive feedbacks is however the CAGW proffered hypothesis, but ‘line of evidence’ or ‘independent’ is wrong. There are some highly tentative, speculative models and simulations that try to argue this based on scanty and selected data, and simplified assumptions about cause and effect among those. Some call this ‘sonsensus position’. Which in it self signifies how weak and non-accepted it is. Your talk about ‘weight of evidence’ is again nonsens.

    All real evidence points in one way: We are not even close to adequately, quantitatively understand the simplest things about how the climate system functions and what governs its changes.

    To spare you rehashing all those and similar talkning points, which you seem to have picked up and memorized, and which readers here have seen/heard countless times, I suggest we instead turn to your alleged field of expertise:

    Why do you think people so many like yourself, with an at best only very shallow understanding of the topic, and almoste none about the issues under debate, feel so strongly about one side of an issue they clearly don’t understand at all, and on top of that the side that claims to be expert on the future, and has a very poor track record on predicting things hitherto?

    You are certainly not the only one attempting exactly the same approach, trying to substitue lack of understanding and knowledge with labelling and using foul language? The study under discussion is a similar example. And even published in a ‘scientific journal’, n.b. passing as so called ‘climate science’.

    Why do you think so many come into the issues with only a rehearsed list of activist talking points the probably picked up at various alarmist web-sites? And think they are equipped with strong arguments?

    Its the approach of a relgios follower, preaching to ‘the heretics’ that they are in denial of devine truth …

  91. turnedoutnice says:

    docrichard: in science, the pecking order goes: experimental data, theory, consensus.

    Experiment shows IR self-absorption is complete at ~200 ppmV CO2 in 1 Atm. dry air at ambient temperature in a long physical optical path, a fact replicated by independent experiment and proved in metallurgical engineering. Climate science apparently knows of this but has invented spurious excuses to dismiss it because it interferes with the IPCC fairy tale.

    The physics is the same as other optical absorption/emission phenomena, not new science: just new to climate science. The neat bit is tying it into the Prevost exchange which controls the interaction between radiating bodies. That science is totally missing from climate science which uses Victorian concepts pre-dating Planck, who by the way did not complete the work.

    So, don’t tell me about Lindzen, Spencer and Michaels: I make up my own mind. Llindzen apparently believes in direct thermalisation and back radiation: he’s wrong. Spencer apparently believed the same but we have convinced him ‘back radiation’ is wrong. Michaels is the furthest from physics but appears to have a keen eye for hogwash and supremacy of experimental fact.

    To summarise; my current thinking is that when a GHG is above the self-absorption concentration, IR emitted from the Earth’s surface in the specific IR bands causes increased Prevost exchange from the atmosphere in those bands to the Earth’s surface,setting a limit to that IR emission by switching off the emitter sites. This applies to all GHGs.

    There can be no CO2-AGW because 200 ppmV is below the concentration at the start of the industrial era. The IPCC has got virtually every bit of physics wrong..Its worst mistake is complete failure to understand radiation physics and how this sets a limit on the energy emitted in the IR bands thus GHG warming is self limiting. If I’m wrong I expect someone to tell me!

    As for past and modern warming, you really must unlearn your indoctrination. Once you’ve fixed Sagan’s incorrect aerosol optical physics it’s easy to show it’s clouds, not the GHE is responsible, Hence the Arctic is starting to cool just like it did in the 1940s, a 70 year cycle.

    Consensus is a concept absent from science, the last home of rugged individualist DENIERS!.

  92. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @turnedoutnice

    What a pleasure to finally meet. I work in a field dominated by enthusiastic, partially informed pseudoscience and it too needs to be overturned and set upon a new base of proper science and engineering. All it takes to gain traction is to have two or three practical experiments to go with the training classes. One is to reproduce the failure of Al Gore’s ‘proof’ and another is to perform the hot furnace experiment you describe. Another is to consider why double-pane windows have Argon in them, not CO2.

  93. Allan MacRae says:

    Hypo: “The radical enviros who lead the CAGW movement are a dangerous anti-human cult.”

    More supporting evidence for my above hypo, written by… … DocRichard!

    http://greenerblog.blogspot.ca/2010/08/image-of-stephen-hawkins-in-zero.html

    A species that devastates its planet with climate change, nuclear or biological warfare does not deserve to survive. Evolution, remember? Survival of the fittest? Are we fit to survive if we destroy ourselves and our life support systems in order to maintain the profitability of oil companies, and assorted Dr Strangelove think-alikes? No, we are not. We must either alter our security paradigms, something that is quite possible, or we should accept the verdict of evolution and bow out. – Dr. Richard Lawson (aka “DocRichard”)

    _______________________

    Note to file: What a miserable, pessimistic, and narcissistic worldview – full of self-loathing and self-aggrandizement. Put DocRichard on Ignore List.

    Note to Doc Richard: Don’t be a Dick!

  94. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @turnedoutnice

    Based on the same approach, surely you can also make the same calculation for H2O vapour, yes? It has a more complex absorption spectrum but the principles still apply. I note your comment that it was done in ‘dry air’. That did not surprise me because the H2O would have interfered with the CO2 to the point of making its influence undetectable, or swamped by noise.

  95. turnedoutnice says:

    Hi Crispin: thermal conductivity of Ar = 0.018 W/mK, CO2 = 0.017 W/mK. I suspect Ar is used because air is 0.026 W/mK and CO2 is reactive. Your comment about H2O is spot on. I’m trying to get the data.

    It’s an intriguing issue, if I am right, that the last bit of thinking about AGW is that it is self-limiting because of known physics which was waiting to be transferred from another area!

    All that IPCC money wasted because the bozos in charge like Trenberth, a climate personality cult, were too poorly trained and didn’t do the right project management which is to think deeply about all possible causes and eliminate them one by one….

    But who sets out to solve a problem in academic science when that shuts of the money?

  96. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @docrichard

    >Skeptical scientists like Lindzen, Spencer and Michaels all agree that the CO2 that we have added to the atmosphere commits Earth to a warming of ~0.8*C. They agree because it is standard textbook physics.

    Being in a textbook is not a guarantee of correctness. Different textbooks (for example those on heat transfer and insulation referred to by turnedoutnice and my favourites, the works of Prof Bejan (i.e. Convertive Heat Transfer ISBN 0-471-27150-0) have ‘different’ standard physics. One problem has been that ‘climate scientists’ have not consulted experts in the subject they claim ‘is settled’. I agree with turnedoutnice that most well informed engineers do not accept the IPCC version of climate reality, and I have never met a geologist who was not disturbed by the IPCC’s outlandish claims for the present temperature being ‘unprecedented’ and ‘dangerous’.

    >The debate is over the effects on climate sensitivity – the amplification of this 0.8*C by positive feedbacks.

    There is indeed debate and it is about the difference between real world experiments and modelled outputs. Even the 0.8 degrees is subject to the result of further investigation. It may turn out to be over-estimated. L, S and M do not constitute the sum of all human knowledge.

    >The skeptic hypothesis is that negative cloud feedbacks will reduce the 0.8*C increase to ~0.5*C.

    I am not sure why you call that a ‘skepical view.’ It is a view calculated from known physics and tested against the real world. It is not ‘calibrated’ against the real world, it is ‘real’ observations and explanatory mathematics.

    >The consensus climatology position is that positive feedbacks will raise the 0.8*C to ~3+*C through increased water vapour, increased cloud, albedo changes, vegetation changes, methane releases from permafrost and clathrates, and secondary CO2 releases from soil and forest fires.

    This is a modelled view and is based on come of the physics involved and not all. When compared with hte real worl the models are invalidated. The models are calibrated to past events with a number of what are called ‘fudge factors’. Personally I have no problem with fudge factors if the result is a model that predicts what happens in the real world. The failure of the models is the problem. With regard to the list of CO2 sources, you have (of course) failed to mention that the uptake of CO2 by trees on melted permafrost territory, absorption of CO2 by the soil, the increase in growth of all known plants, the mass increase in ocean plants will pull huge amounts of CO2 from the air. Further, the absoption of CO2 by newly melted ice is enormous. One ‘threat’ is that Greenland will lose all its ice, as it did before several times. If so, it will pull down the CO2 something like 200 ppm. Perhaps you can comment in this aspect of ice loss. The physics are very well known. Ice contains zero CO2 and fresh water immediately absorbs it – within seconds.

    >There are a number of separate lines of evidence, from study of past temperature changes, that arrive independently at the ~3*C figure.

    Please provide sources for this statement. I have not yet seen a single model output that predicts the current temperature stasis for about 15 years. I am also given to understand by others that the models cannot predict most of the 20th century if they are tuned to the previous one, nor the second half of the 20th century if they are tuned to the first half. The models are interesting but they have not demonstrated the skill needed to believe their 50 or 100 year forecasts.

    >Attempts to find evidence consistent with the 0.5*C figure have been few in number, and have been found to be flawed.

    Do you speak of flaws as large as the flaw in the +3 degree models, i.e. failure by IPCC approved models to make any valid predictions at all? If so, then they stand on equally soggy ground.

    >The weight of evidence therefore points towards the consensus position.

    There is a) no weight of evidence, there is only the output of models th eoutput of which does not conform to reality and b) no consensus position. The models, inaccurate and unskilled as they are, do not agree within a factor of 6. In my line or work a disagreement of 600% across a range of methods is not considered ‘skillful’ nor ‘a consensus’. Surveying a thousand armchair quarterbacks does not improve a football team’s performance.

  97. David Ross says:

    Allan MacRae wrote:

    “Put DocRichard on Ignore List.”

    Docrichard’s “[humanity] does not deserve to survive” statement caught my eye as well. I agree some of his writing does appear to be “radical” and “anti-human.” But I think it is wrong to ignore him or not to attempt to engage him in debate. Unfortunately, similar views are held by many environmental “activists”. He is not exceptional in that regard but he is exceptional in posting on WUWT. Very few warmist even make the attempt to debate. As much as I disagree with him, I do not think we should shun him.

  98. docrichard says:

    Crispin, you seem to believe that climate science consists only of modelling. It does not. Evidence for climate sensitivity can be calculated from changes in the earth’s energy budget from investigations into paleoclimatology, Ocean heat uptake, solar cycles, changes over the last century, and volcanoes.

    The fact is that models point to the same value as these investigations.

    Models are tested by hindcasting – that is, by setting them running with data from a historic starting point and seeing how close they come to the observed record. More here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

    You say “‘skepical view.’ It is a view calculated from known physics and tested against the real world. ” This seems to contradict what you say in your second paragraph.

  99. Smokey says:

    docrichard says:

    “The skeptic hypothesis is that negative cloud feedbacks will reduce the 0.8*C increase to ~0.5*C.”

    Wrong. That may be the view of some individuals. But there is no “skeptic hypothesis”. Skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is entirely on the alarmist crowd’s conjecture: that CO2=CAGW. But there is zero scientific evidence supporting that nonsense. Next, docrichard says:

    “The consensus climatology position is that positive feedbacks will raise the 0.8*C to ~3+*C through increased water vapour, increased cloud, albedo changes, vegetation changes, methane releases from permafrost and clathrates, and secondary CO2 releases from soil and forest fires. There are a number of separate lines of evidence, from study of past temperature changes, that arrive independently at the ~3*C figure.”

    Wrong again. ‘docrichard’ has no understanding of the scientific term “evidence”, which specifically refers to empirical, testable data, not pal rviewed papers, or computer models, which are not evidence. Thus, docrichard’s ignorant comment:

    “Attempts to find evidence consistent with the 0.5*C figure have been few in number, and have been found to be flawed.”

    Wrong a third time. The real world is falsifying the conjecture that CO2 is causing a rapid rise in global temperatures. For the past 15 years, global temperatures have been flat to declining. Thus, any effect from rising CO2 is minuscule. It is, in fact, too small to measure.

    The fact is that there is zero evidence supporting the UN/IPCC’s preposterous 2xCO2=3ºC. None. It is a baseless, wild-eyed conjecture with no supporting evidence in the real world. As harmless, beneficial CO2 rises, global temperatures are not following, as they certainly would have to if sensitivity was anywhere near that high.

    Finally, docrichard falls back on the typical – and provably wrong – appeal to authority:

    “The weight of evidence therefore points towards the consensus position.”

    I have shown docmartin that there exists no such “evidence”. The alarmist “consensus” is a canard. Now I will educate docmartin: any putative ‘consensus’ is entirely on the side of scientific skeptics. More than 31,400 professionals with degrees in the hard sciences [no psychiatrists allowed], including more than 9,000 PhD’s have co-signed the following statement:

    The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

    That is the true consensus. The alarmist crowd subsequently tried to get a like number of co-signers on several of their competing petitions. They failed badly. All of their attempts put together totaled but a small fraction of the number of OISM’s co-signers [and most of the same names were on all the different alarmist petitions].

    There is no “consensus” that CO2 is harmful. In fact, CO2 is harmless and beneficial to the biosphere, as the OISM Petition makes clear. Skeptical scientists [the only honest kind of scientists] reject the CO2 scare, which is motivated by grant money, not science.

  100. docrichard says:

    The page here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm has an interesting set of three graphs, imaging the model results when models are run with natural variation only, anthropogenic forcing only, and both combined. The best fit occurs when the two are combined.

  101. turnedoutnice says:

    Ah docrichards, i now understand it. You are being fooled by Skepticalscience which is a Marxist disinformation route allied to RealClimate. Do not trust anything it says. One of the authors has been proven to have altered past comments to develop the fake science it promotes.

    Remember this: the difference between 333 W/m^2 ‘back radiation’ supposed to come down from the atmosphere then to be included with the real 63 W/m^2 UP from the Earth’s surface, and the 238.5 W/m^2 supposed to come DOWN from TOA is 94.5 W/m^2.

    This is completely imaginary, the result of the Big Mistakes made by Trenberth and colleagues. I say they are mistakes but it looks like a giant fraud to me because without the 333 and the 238.5, the rest of the energy flows balance and look genuine. Net result, a Perpetual Motion Machine of the 2nd Kind, 40% of the input energy [238.5] and 400% in the IR to the lower atmosphere completely changing the heat transfer to radiative, the core of the scam, the imaginary Sky Dragon breathing fire on the World, Houghton’s wrath of God.

    Give up this SkS addiction, it’s doing you serious harm! Can’t you think for yourself? You’re old enough……

  102. wobble says:

    docrichard says:
    July 13, 2012 at 2:50 am

    Skeptical scientists like Lindzen, Spencer and Michaels all agree that the CO2 that we have added to the atmosphere commits Earth to a warming of ~0.8*C. They agree because it is standard textbook physics.

    docrichard, don’t confuse someone accepting something as a possibility as an agreement. I think it’s more accurate to say that they accept that the added CO2 may have warmed the Earth as much as 0.8*C. It’s downright laughable to claim that “standard textbook physics” dictates this. It’s accurate to say that “standard textbook physics” doesn’t preclude such a possibility.

    Did you not understand the analogy about a piece of paper falling? Certainly, the paper COULD fall to the ground at speeds dictated by “standard textbook physics”. Scientists that are skeptical of a larger argument might decide to accept the possibility that the time it takes the paper to fall could be t=(2d/g)^0.5. They might accept this as a possibility so that they could instead focus on claims related to the broader argument which have even less possibility of being true. Now, this acceptance doesn’t mean that “standard textbook physics” dictates that the paper will take t=(2d/g)^0.5 to fall. Quite the opposite. Standard textbook physics dictates that many other factors will affect the time it takes the paper to fall. So, someone that rejects the claim that the paper will fall in t=(2d/g)^0.5 isn’t denying standard textbook physics. So, it’s irrational for you to claim that someone asserting such a rejection is in a state of denial.

    Now, it’s been explained to you that the same can be said about the 0.8*C issue. “[S]tandard textbook physics” dictates that so many factors (many of which haven’t been studied enough to properly model) influence this issue that it’s impossible to simply conclude that 0.8*C is the right answer. The smarter scientists know this.

    Seriously, much effort has been put into carefully explaining this to you. If you don’t properly understand this issue by now, it’s because you lack sufficient understanding of science – which is ironic because you probably think that the opposite is true.

  103. docrichard says:

    Here is Lindzen: “However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1°C (based on simple
    59 calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in
    60 accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well-mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any
    61 concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s
    62 absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007).” http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Lindzen_Choi_APJAS_final.pdf

    I will try to find Spencer’s quote. Michaels’ statement is on a video somewhere, but I will look. WE aim to please :)

  104. docrichard says:

    Found one of Michaels’ statements: “It’s hardly news that human beings have had a hand in the planetary warming that began more than 30 years ago. For nearly a century, scientists have known that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide would eventually result in warming that was most pronounced in winter, especially on winter’s coldest days, and a cooling of the stratosphere. All of these have been observed…”

    http://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels

  105. wobble says:

    docrichards, both quotes are in-line with the detailed explanation that I provided you. Are you opposed to learning?

  106. wobble says:

    docrichard says:
    July 13, 2012 at 8:11 am

    imaging the model results when models are run with natural variation only, anthropogenic forcing only, and both combined. The best fit occurs when the two are combined.

    What do you think you’re showing? All three models are merely attempts to simulate what they are claiming to simulate. That doesn’t mean that they are actually simulating what you claim they are simulating. And it’s not surprising that a model has been developed to correlate well – the model was probably tweaked so that it would correlate well. That doesn’t mean that the confluence of factors that actually affect climate were properly modeled.

    Do you seriously not understand this?

  107. wobble says:

    docrichard says:
    July 13, 2012 at 2:50 am

    The consensus climatology position is that positive feedbacks will raise the 0.8*C to ~3+*C through increased water vapour, increased cloud, albedo changes, vegetation changes, methane releases from permafrost and clathrates, and secondary CO2 releases from soil and forest fires.

    First, you need to torture logic in order to claim that forest fires are positive feedback.

    Second, how are each of these positive feedbacks quantified in the existing models? Is there even half the amount of observational data available to accurately quantify each? How sensitive are the models to these assumed quantifications?

    Third, have any of the models assumed any negative feedback mechanisms at all? Is so, how much? If not, why not – do the modelers deny that negative feedback mechanisms exist?

    Finally, think about the implication of your claims for a minute. If positive feedbacks add a C to AGW, then what does that tell you about the stability of the earth’s climate system? Do you really think that the earth’s climate system is this unstable?

  108. turnedoutnice says:

    Hi Doc! Pat Michaels doesn’t understand sufficient physics to realise the IPCC’s claims about direct IR thermalisation are wrong! The metallurgical engineering data I presented are the only true arbiter. So, we have to explain the interaction of the thermal-emission, self-absorption phenomenon, purely statistical, and Prevost Exchange interaction with the IR source, the Earth’s surface, and it all comes together.

    But I develop an entirely new physics’ concept for and you spoil it by appealing to the authority of a BIOLOGIST! I spent 6 years training and a decade working as an industrial metallurgist: everyone with my knowledge in all the steelworks and aluminium plants around the World agree the IPCC heat transfer is embarrassingly bad.

    It’s because Houghton was at the least naïve and so are the present modellers for not understanding the IPCC’s claim that Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation can be applied at TOA is bunkum. It only applies at equilibrium and the changeover from convection to radiation to space in one direction is as far from equilibrium as possible.

    [One way radiation is because direct thermalisation is impossible from quantum exclusion so most IR energy bounces around by pseudo-scattering until thermalised heterogeneously or goes to space, and as there are few heterogeneous sites at TOA, they spill over to space!]

    I’ve already told you real GHG warming is ~9 K not 33 K haven’t I? Reduce the IR energy in the lower atmosphere by a factor of 5 by getting rid of imaginary ‘back radiation’ and you get a very different picture. Lindzen and Spencer are getting there. When they correct their IR mistakes, they’ll catch up!

  109. Caleb says:

    I’m late arriving to this discussion, but must comment that I’m glad to see the psychiatrist “docrichard” put the psychological concept of “denial” out there to be thought about.

    After all, Psychiatry is right up there with Climate Science, in the ranks of pseudoscience.

    He might have mentioned “resistance” along with “denial.” It’s another tool, when a doctor wants to hide the fact his diagnosis has been incorrect, and the patient is getting worse and not better.

    In what other branch of medicine can a patient complain he feels worse, and the doctor blames the patient and not the treatment?

    Once the lawyers figure out how to sue psychiatrists the way they sue doctors who actually cure people, the scam is over, for the amount of malpractice is enormous.

    In any case, the fact psychiatrists use the word “denial” just makes the word all the dirtier. It should not be used in polite debate.

  110. docrichard says:

    Good questions, wobble.

    Forest fires are positive feedback in that they produce more CO2, and maybe a short term negative feedback if they are intense enough to lift their soot the required levels.

    How are each of these positive feedbacks quantified in the existing models?
    As far as I know, models only quantify short term feedbacks – H2O vapour, clouds and albedo The other feedbacks are too long term and too uncertain to quantify. I may be wrong here.

    Is there even half the amount of observational data available to accurately quantify each?
    See above.

    How sensitive are the models to these assumed quantifications?
    If you mean what climate sensitivity to they come out with, it is pretty close to the sensitivity derived from paleoclimate &c.

    Third, have any of the models assumed any negative feedback mechanisms at all? Is so, how much? If not, why not – do the modelers deny that negative feedback mechanisms exist?
    I’m not sure on this point. They can be run with any parameter you wish. So clouds can be set to negative feedback instead of the accepted weak positive.

    Incidentally, whatever the effect of clouds, positive or negative, the effect will become less in a warming world: http://greenerblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/cloud-cover-decreases-in-warming-planet.html

    Finally, think about the implication of your claims for a minute. If positive feedbacks add a C to AGW, then what does that tell you about the stability of the earth’s climate system? Do you really think that the earth’s climate system is this unstable?
    Good point. Given that the earth has not overheated in the past, there must be negative feedbacks that terminate the positives in the end. Or maybe we must rely on forcings – orbital changes that cool things off. I don’t know.

    Thanks for these questions.

    If I may just respond to Smokey: No, skeptics do have a hypothesis. It is that climate sensitivity is low. That is why Lindzen and Spencer have been trying to find evidence to back up the claim.

    I am aware that the moderators may feel that I have overstayed my welcome. It has been interesting, I’ve learned a lot. I apologise for the offence caused by use of the d-word, and will try not to use it in discussions.

    [Reply: As long as you post your scientific opinions and follow the site Policy, you will not get snipped. WUWT encourages all scientific points of view. ~dbs, mod.]

  111. Smokey says:

    dorcrichard,

    Although I tend toward Prof Lindzen’s view, I should point out that you are cherry-picking him, and leaving others out.

    Other esteemed climatologists think the sensitivity number is substantially lower. Roy Spencer says 0.46ºC for a doubling of [harmless, beneficial] CO2. The three Drs Idso, whose specialty is specifically CO2, think the sensitivity number is ≈0.37. And Prof Ferenc Miskolczi states that the sensitivity number is 0.00ºC for 2xCO2.

    They all have more climate knowledge than you do, doubled and squared. Who should we listen to? You?

  112. docrichard says:

    Smokey, I think you may be confusing sensitivity with the amount of warming due to a doubling of CO2, a figure derived from physics – its forcing.

    Sensitivity is the reaction of the whole climate to this given CO2 forcing (or any other temperature change).

  113. Smokey says:

    docrichard says: “Smokey: No, skeptics do have a hypothesis. It is that climate sensitivity is low.”

    Wrong. The climate sensitivity question is not empirically testable. If it was testable, the sensitivity question would be definitively answered, and we would have the number. But it is not testable, therefore it is a conjecture.

    I have only one testable hypothesis, which I have posted here dozens of times:

    At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere

    No one has falsified that hypothesis per the scientific method. It is still standing. CO2 is harmless. It is beneficial. Deal with it, it is reality.

  114. wobble says:

    docrichard says:
    July 13, 2012 at 11:43 am

    Forest fires are positive feedback in that they produce more CO2

    Do you understand the definition of feedback?

    Just because something releases CO2 doesn’t mean that it’s feedback. In order for something to be defined as feedback it must first be established that it was caused by the mechanism being considered. A commonly used example of feedback that you should be familiar with is amplified sound from a speaker being inputted back into the microphone being amplified. The process of the sound coming from the speaker going into the microphone is defined as feedback. Sounds being inputted to the microphone from sources other than the speaker are not considered feedback even if it causes a higher decibel output from the speakers.

    Your forest fires example is like ambient noise being inputted into the amplification system. In order to establish a forest fire as an example of either positive or negative warming feedback you would first need to establish that the fire was caused by warming.

  115. wobble says:

    docrichard says:
    July 13, 2012 at 11:43 am

    How are each of these positive feedbacks quantified in the existing models?
    As far as I know, models only quantify short term feedbacks – H2O vapour, clouds and albedo

    You didn’t answer the question for these. How are they quantified? Do you know what is meant by quantified?

    Is there even half the amount of observational data available to accurately quantify each?
    See above.

    The question isn’t addressed above.

    How sensitive are the models to these assumed quantifications?
    If you mean what climate sensitivity to they come out with, it is pretty close to the sensitivity derived from paleoclimate &c.

    No, you’re confusing climate sensitivity with a models sensitivity to assumptions.

    If you’ve never heard of the term “sensitivity analysis” then I recommend you use Google to familiarize yourself with it before you spend any more time defending climate models.

    In short, since there’s no way for modelers to definitively know exact inputs for feedback mechanisms, they need to make some assumptions. I’m asking how sensitive the models’ outputs are to these assumptions. In other words, do small adjustments to these assumptions change the model outputs a lot or just a little. Do you know?

  116. docrichard says:

    Wobble: a warm world means that forests are drier, so they tend to catch fire more easily, and fires are more extensive. That is what is happening, big time, in the USA right now.

  117. wobble says:

    docrichard says:
    July 13, 2012 at 11:43 am

    Incidentally, whatever the effect of clouds, positive or negative, the effect will become less in a warming world:

    It’s interesting that you definitively make a claim by extrapolating a single graph.

    Good point. Given that the earth has not overheated in the past, there must be negative feedbacks that terminate the positives in the end. Or maybe we must rely on forcings – orbital changes that cool things off. I don’t know.

    I respect your honesty here, but my question is a bit more piercing than you’re acknowledging. If the earth’s climate system was as unstable towards warming as it’s currently being modeled, then it would always have a propensity to catastrophically warm – not just once or not just on a few occasions – but often or almost always. In other words, if the aggregate feedback mechanism is a positive as claimed, then natural variability would be CONSTANLY causing catastrophic levels of warming. This simply doesn’t make sense from the perspective of systems analysis.

  118. wobble says:

    docrichard says:
    July 13, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    Wobble: a warm world means that forests are drier, so they tend to catch fire more easily, and fires are more extensive.

    You don’t know this. This has merely been speculated. It most certainly hasn’t been established. It’s quite possible that warming conditions would cause more precipitation to more areas of the world thus reducing the number of forest fires.

    That is what is happening, big time, in the USA right now.

    No, it’s not.

    Seriously, it hasn’t been established that forest fires are a positive feedback mechanism – even given the low threshold of establishment used by climate modelers.

  119. docrichard says:

    wobble, I do not have the expertise to answer your questions.

  120. TonyG says:

    docrichard says:
    wobble, I do not have the expertise to answer your questions.

    Do you still maintain that he is in denial?

  121. David Ross says:

    I wrote this as a comment to a post on docrichard’s blog

    http://greenerblog.blogspot.co.uk/

    but there was a 4,096 character limit, so I made some changes and thought I’d share it with WUWT readers instead.

    Hi Doc, I am glad to see a “warmist” willing to engage in debate and that you realize that “climate sensitivity” is the crucial issue, not whether man is having any effect on the climate.

    Like you I am not a climate scientist or even particularly scientifically qualified to assess climate science. So what gives me the audacity to reject the pronouncements of an august body like the IPCC?

    Contrary to what you might think my first suspicions were not aroused by reading anything by a “climate skeptic” -fossil fuel funded or otherwise. My doubts began with the words and deeds of (what I now call) the warmists. Specifically, when they claim that the current global climate is “unprecedented”, and they have hockey stick handles to prove it.

    They say that melting in the Arctic is unprecedented, the threat to polar bears is unprecedented and that we are approaching a tipping point when positive feedbacks such as “methane releases from permafrost and clathrates” will result in runaway warming that will be unprecedented.

    The current temperatures are not unprecedented or even exceptional, not just in the timeframe of earth’s entire history but in the very recent past i.e. the last 10 or 12,000 years since the last “ice age”, also known as the current interglacial, the Holocene or, in a geological timespan, now.

    Not only was the previous interglacial, the Eemian, which ended about 114,000 years ago, warmer than this one (hippopotamus bathed in the Thames), there have been several episodes of warmth greater than today during the Holocene the last of them being the Medieval Warm Period.

    That most warmists ignore these inconvenient episodes is cause to doubt their competence or integrity. That many of them actually deny their existence is cause to distrust anything they say.

    But I’m not a scientist and my assertions carry no authority. I could give many examples and cite many authoritative sources to substantiate, but I will give just one.

    Most climate reconstructions are based on proxies, such as tree rings or lake sediments. But they are, to some degree, open to different interpretations and there are many points of dispute. Tree growth, for example, is dependent on rainfall and many other factors beside temperature. So lay people, like you and me, have to choose which experts we believe. Some of the most important evidence comes from ice cores taken from the polar regions. As with layers of sediment or rings on a tree, ice can be dated. Again any interpretation beyond that is beyond the capability of most people.

    But there is one feature of two little-mentioned ice cores, whose interpretation is, I think, unambiguous and easy for anyone to grasp.

    The ice cores from Greenland are taken from nine sites. You can see a map of them at the website of the Centre for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.

    http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/research/

    You can click on the map for detailed information about each site. If you do this for the two most northerly sites, named Hans Tausen and Flade Isblink, you will discover that the intrepid scientists found something remarkable at a depth of 345m for Tausen and 600m for Isblink. They hit bedrock.

    As the Copenhagen scientists make clear, this means that the ice cap at these two sites only started building up 3500 years ago at Tausen and 4000 years ago at Isblink. Or to put it another way, a large part of northern Greenland, which is now covered with 300-600m of ice, was ice free for 500 years or more in the (geologically) recent past.

    The warmists cannot dismiss the evidence of these two Greenland ice cores as a local phenomenon as they base much of their claims for global climate on the evidence from the other seven.

    So, how hot was it 3500 to 4000 years ago? Answer 1: Hot enough to melt 300-600m of ice over much of northern Greenland. Answer 2: Hotter than today. There was no runaway greenhouse effect from “methane releases from permafrost and clathrates”. Current temperatures and ice loss is not unprecedented. The extent of the warmists’ deceit and denial is, however, unprecedented

    What’s up with that Doc?

  122. wobble says:

    docrichard says:
    July 13, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    Wobble: a warm world means that forests are drier, so they tend to catch fire more easily, and fires are more extensive. That is what is happening, big time, in the USA right now.

    Btw, even if what you say here is true, then only the INCREASE in forest fires could be considered positive feedback.

  123. wobble says:

    docrichard says:
    July 13, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    wobble, I do not have the expertise to answer your questions.

    I appreciate your honesty and honest debate.

  124. David Ross says:

    Docrichard wrote: “a warm world means that forests are drier, so they tend to catch fire more easily, and fires are more extensive. That is what is happening, big time, in the USA right now.”

    Except the “big time” for forest fires in that part of the world (and probably elsewhere) was 700 to 1200 years ago.

    ———————-
    ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2010)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100318093300.htm

    “A 3,000-year record from 52 of the world’s oldest trees shows that California’s western Sierra Nevada was droughty and often fiery from 800 to 1300, according to new research.

    Scientists reconstructed the 3,000-year history of fire by dating fire scars on ancient giant sequoia trees, Sequoiadendron giganteum, in the Giant Forest of Sequoia National Park. Individual giant sequoias can live more than 3,000 years.
    [...]
    The scientists found the years from 800 to 1300, known as the Medieval Warm Period, had the most frequent fires in the 3,000 years studied. Other research has found that the period from 800 to 1300 was warm and dry.”
    ———————–

    “Known as the Medieval Warm Period” to CAGW skeptics and to CAGW proponents as the beginning of Mann’s hockey stick handle.

    P.S. Despite the tone, I (and probably other WUWT regulars) appreciate you making the effort, Doc.

  125. Caleb says:

    The topic of this thread is drifting towards “the science.” Actually I think this post was about something different than science.

    One branch of the law is called “Civil Procedure.” In essence, is is all about how to fight, but to be civil about it.

    Our two party system encourages debate. Debate is healthy. Having two views explains why we have two eyes. However the concept of a “consensus” is like the concept of a cyclops.

    To call the opposition to your view a word such as “denier” is an attempt to skip the debate. It is an attempt to so belittle the opposing view that it isn’t even considered. It is “brushed off,” and no actual debate occurs.

    To avoid debate is the action of a dictator. I like to believe we a capable of better behavior, in all areas, whether they be the halls of justice or the halls of learning.

    If you read Churchhill’s old debates you will notice that even when the tempers grew hot, he called people (who he might have liked to strangle) things such as “the loyal opposition.”

    We need to be loyal to civil procedure and the concept of the two party system. If we are loyal to that, we can have a jolly ding-dong fight, and rather than hurt everyone gets wiser.

  126. Smokey says:

    docrichard said:

    “Wobble: a warm world means that forests are drier, so they tend to catch fire more easily, and fires are more extensive. That is what is happening, big time, in the USA right now.”

    Preposterous. A warmer planet means more evaporation, which means more precipitation and humidity. And we are only talking about a tiny ≈0.8ºC rise over a century and a half. At times over the past 15,000 years, temperatures have risen 10º+ in little more than a decade.

    The current natural warming is extremely mild. For all practical purposes, it is flat. And it is not accelerating. Blaming forest fires on a minuscule 0.8º rise is nothing but an alarmist scare tactic. It is pseudo-science.

    What is happening right now is the result of bad enviro-policies over the past fifty years, in which the Forest Service was precluded from clearing out brush and fallen pine needles, which were up to four feet deep in many places. That dry tinder was fuel just waiting for the right conditions. Global warming had nothing to do with it.

  127. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @docrichard

    >”Crispin, you seem to believe that climate science consists only of modelling. It does not.”

    After reading hundreds of papers on the subject I am convinced that ‘climate science’ is not really a science at all, it is a great deal of conjecture with very little substance and a great deal of money behind it. The ‘product’ of climate science is the Copenhagen agreement, a version of which was being flogged in Durban. It palpably has nothing to do with ‘saving the planet from CO2′ but a great deal to do with trying to fund development in poor regions or countries. Good for them (the developers). The poor and the needed rquire our assistance. But the inefficiency of trying to do it through the mechanism of carbon taxes and an unelected elite in charge sucks, big time.

    >”Evidence for climate sensitivity can be calculated from changes in the earth’s energy budget from investigations into paleoclimatology, Ocean heat uptake, solar cycles, changes over the last century, and volcanoes. ”

    You have made a grave logical error: Evidence is not calculated. Evidence is the raw data. When one is shown a hockey-stick temperatrue chart and asks for the evidence, none is provided. Have you not noticed this? There have been several books written about it.

    Investigations into paeleoclimatology all show that there is nothing remarkable about the present climate. Surely you are aware of that? It would not take long to find out if you did not know already.

    Incidentally you will get nowhere trying to blame forest fires in Colorado (I was just there) on ‘global warming’. First the concept is silly and second it is not presently warming. The continental USA has been cooling for 30 years – did you not know that? Go to the National Weather Service website and look for yourself. Trying to blame ‘old warming in the 1990’s would be just as silly so take that argument to a different channel, not WUWT. We have reveiwed the topic many times in detail, all of which are thoughtfully archived at WUWT for your presual and edification.

    >”The fact is that models point to the same value as these investigations.”

    The models can point where they like. In fact the models can be made to point anywhere the modellers want them to which is exactly what I think is going on. The reality on the ground is that the core ‘greenhouse effect’ does not exist – a heated layer between 8 and 16 km above the ground, caused by CO2 intercepting IR from below and re-radiating it back to the surface. They call it ‘back-radiation or ‘down-welling’ IR. I am quite sure you are familiar with the concept as it appeared in a famous movie and has been blogged about on RC, SkS etc for years.

    It does not exist. It only exists in the models you hold in such high regard. In the past few years a lot of people have been sending up instrument-laden balloons looking for it. There will be a section on this in the soon-to-come AR5. Look for it as it is important to your argument.

    >”Models are tested by hindcasting – that is, by setting them running with data from a historic starting point and seeing how close they come to the observed record.”

    I see you are familiar with the principles. Note that the models do not forecast the present 16 year hiatus in temperature rise though CO2 has risen faster than expected. In fact the temperature snuck up a tiny bit but only at the model-forcasted rate that was to be expected if all CO2 from people were stopped completely in 1999. CO2 has ramped up even faster than the modeled scenario but the temperature has behaved as if all CO2 emissions have been halted. Perhaps you were not aware of that. I find that unlikely because if the temperature was continuing to rise you would have used that as part of your argument that CO2 is still ramping up temperatures. It is pretty obviously not doing so.

    >”More here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

    SkS is a well known site that has outrageous editorial policies and contains such unscientific ‘information’ that is it no longer taken serious by anyone around here. It even has a special section on the right of this page listing it as ‘unreliable’ because of the editing of incoming comments that were ‘too much’ (meaning too powerful as arguments) for which the list owner had no coherent response and the post facto editing of old comments to ‘weaken their argument’. You can read all about it in the archives here if you did not realise you were being manipulated by SkS.

    >”You say “‘skepical view.’

    I am personally quite skeptical that the IPCC’s models can predict the climate 10 or 20 years into the future. The idea that they can predict forest fires and weather is laughable. They cannot predict the 1990’s given 1880-1979. Surely you are aware of that?

    I note that you had no response at all to the idea that melting glaciers and ice fields will absorb CO2. Surely you are aware that multiple claims have been made for glacial ice field melting as surely as the claim that the temperature will consistently rise with an increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? You have heard of glacial melt, right?

    Do you know much ice is in Greenland? The Arctic Islands? You mentioned the melting of the permafrost but did not note the amount of CO2 that will be absorbed by the melted ice in that permafrost. Do you know much many million cubic kilometers of permafrost there is in Alaska, Canada, Mongolia and Russia?

    Have you ever seen a climate modeller talk about how the CO2 will be drawn out of the atmosphere at a catastrophic rate if that ice were to melt? Ice has no CO2 in it, water does – it absorbs it very quickly once it melts.

    Have you considered that there are frozen forests flat on the ground in the permafrost regions? How did they get there? I doubt that dog sleds were used to haul them from Arctic Red and spread them from Inuvik to Baker Lake for paeloeclimatologists to find. I think they grew there when it was a lot warmer than now. Do you agree or do you perhaps subscribe to the, “God put those tree trunks there when He created the world to confuse the scientists” school of history?

    You see Doc, you are engaging a pretty well-read group here at WUWT. That is why we come here. We don’t have to churn through all that guff being sold at RC and SkS and the outrageous Desmogblog (that guy should be on the Comedy Channel with a fake nose, big plastic glasses and hairy eyebrows).

    Further, no one here buying the appeals to authority. The worst sort of appeal to authority is an appeal to one’s own authority. Some people show up here and say, “Well I am an expert in such-and-such, trust me.” We don’t trust anyone anymore because of the lying weasels who have dominated the climate science scene. We demand to see the evidence, the method of calculation, the computer code that attempted to make the calculation and of course a reproducible result which we will then interpret as we understand the universe. In my universe facts trump models every time because I model stuff then check it against the real world.

    There is no detectable greenhouse effect from CO2 trapping IR in the tropical troposphere. Did you know that? The whole kit and caboodle of AGW is based on the theory and then the models based on that theory saying there is such a ‘hot zone’. You say the measurements of the real world match the models thus validating them. Fine. Show me the hot zone in the radiosonde data. I hope you have read the definitive paper by Monckton on the subject. If you do, at least you will know what you are looking for and the sort of evidence that would be classified as sufficient proof if you should find it. You will get a Nobel Prize if you do, I am sure.

    And don’t forget to read AR5 and its inevitable discussion of it, eh? If the IPCC can’t show it is there, there is nothing left to discuss. Don’t accept hedging and beating around the bush. The flagship heating is there or it is not.

    As Smokey has pointed out, remarkable claims require at least some proof. CAGW is a remarkable claim. There is not yet any proof of the claimed physical effect. Does that bother you? The fact that you have not already pointed me to a paper where the measurements show that warming at the hot spot is real is an indication of the poverty of the claims that ‘the physics are correct’.

    The physics are wrong, incomplete or fudged – I am not sure which and it does not matter. I have nothing to prove because I have made no catastrophic claims. You have.

  128. turnedoutnice says:

    I notice docrichard still imagines theoretical warming due to IR absorption by CO2 is ~0.8 K/doubled [CO2]. It’s not and cannot be so. That assumes all IR flux in the absorption bands is converted to extra kinetic energy of mostly O2 and N2. This cannot happen because of quantum exclusion. The only pathway is for the excited GHG molecule to collide with an unexcited GHG molecule and in the collision transfer the quantum to extra kinetic energy for both molecules with no quantum vibrational state. Because there are so few GHG molecules, this is a low probability event.

    In reality, because molecules have no memory [Gibbs’ ‘Principle of Indistinguishability’], the most likely event is for an already thermally excited GHG molecule to emit the same energy photon in a random direction thus making zero net energy gain in that local volume of gas, no local temperature increase.

    The new photon is absorbed far away and another photon generated in a new direction, pseudo-scattering. The GHGs are an energy transport medium. Thermalisation is mostly at heterogeneous interfaces or the energy goes to space. The proof is the IR spectrum is very different under clouds, low GHG peaks compared to grey background. It’s because IR energy pseudo-scattered to and absorbed in the droplets is re-emitted as a grey body much in the ‘atmospheric window’. This is one way Nature ensures GHG warming is limited.

    The other way is as described above: because the GHG is in the self-absorption mode, when you illuminate the lower atmosphere with more IR in those bands, you increase the emissivity in the reverse direction. This increased band-specific, Prevost Exchange Energy fills the same specific emitter sites at the earth’s surface, reducing its emissivity in those bands. In turn increasing the energy emitted outside those bands, much in the ‘atmospheric window’, similar to the clouds.

    Please Dear Readers, particularly docrichard who appears to be particularly naïve, forget what the climate people tell you about IR radiation physics. It’s much more subtle and GHG warming is rigorously controlled by the physics to be much less than the climate people claim, and is probably kept at a constant level, Miskolczi’s observation.

    The mechanism is extraordinarily subtle and I suggest you read up the physics before commenting in areas you don’t understand, particularly you docrichards. You are clueless, a dumb receptor for climate propaganda aimed at 9 year old level.

  129. Rob Dekker says:

    Jonas N said :

    You talk about ‘the physics of AGW’, even the ‘basic physics’ and it is difficult to determine what those could mean beyond very banal observations about the IR-radiative properties of the CO2 molecule.

    That is correct. Basic radiative transfer theory of a GHG well-mixed in an atmosphere in a gravitation field predicts reduction of radiation to space in the absorption bands of that GHG.

    There are no ‘basic physics’ making any quantitative statements about this effect.

    Sure there are. Using just radiative transfer theory, if you know surface temperature, and gas composition in our atmosphere in a gravity field (yielding a lapse rate), the expected space-bound IR spectrum can easily be calculated. Here is the example for the US standard atmosphere and surface temperature :

    Note the big dig in ‘space-bound’ radiation for CO2 absorption bands, which causes a significant reduction in radiation to space. I think ‘turnedoutnice’ called it “the emissivity asymptotes”. Conveniently, the same emission graph is also shown for doubling of CO2 concentration.

    Now before we get into the significance of that dip, and the 2x CO2 graph, and what it means for this planet’s surface temperature, I’d like to see if anyone disputes this graph or the underlying basic physics of radiative transfer theory, the (gravitational) origin of the lapse rate in our atmosphere, or the fundamental IR obsorption spectra of gases in our atmosphere.

    If not, then we all agree that basic physics can quantify at least the first order effect of CO2 in our atmosphere, the effect it has on the surface temperature, and can quantify the first order effect of a doubling of CO2 in our atmosphere, and thus of AGW.

  130. Rob Dekker says:

    And when we are talking about feedbacks in the climate system, does anyone dare to estimate the increase in heat absorption due to the 6 million km^2 snow cover anomaly June 2012 ?

    Hint, the area affected receives upward of 250 W/m^2 in June.

  131. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @Ron Dekker

    “If not, then we all agree that basic physics can quantify at least the first order effect of CO2 in our atmosphere, the effect it has on the surface temperature, and can quantify the first order effect of a doubling of CO2 in our atmosphere, and thus of AGW.”

    Your super-simple model does not come close to estimating the first order effect of CO2. Good grief. Were it so, the temperature would be going up as does the CO2 level. Looking back, the temperature would stabilise if the CO2 level did. I am sure you are aware fo the very poor correlation coefficient between CO2 and temperature – what is it….about 0.53?

    On a short term scale there is a really good correlation between cloud cover and temperature, the physics of which are just as sound: cloud shades the ground and reflects sunlight. Willis wrote and we discussed a good article on cloudiness over the Pacific demonstrating this.

    Regarding the snow cover: dare anyone dare estimate the amount of CO2 absorbed by the melting snow and ice as it equilibriates with the atmosphere? Were you aware that the freezing of water expells CO2 into the air? You are good at math: calculate the amount of CO2 that moves in and out of ice/water during a NH winter. Interesting, neh?

  132. Allan MacRae says:

    David Ross says: July 13, 2012 at 7:43 am

    By all means David – please carry on the debate with DocRichard and I shall bow out.

    My point is we have been ASSUMING that the radical enviros share our human values and THAT assumption is FALSE.

    The radical enviros are anti-human and consistently oppose moves to increase supplies of economic energy that will improve the wellbeing of humankind. This explains their apparently nonsensical opposition to oil and gas pipelines, hydraulic fracturing, the Canadian oilsands, etc. and their apparently irrational support for inefficient, ineffective and environmentally destructive wind and solar power schemes.

    The radical enviros stance is NOT primarily about the environment – that is a smokescreen – their objective is to increase energy costs, cause energy starvation and reduce human population. Their seemingly nonsensical positions are all consistent with this theme and are also consistent with their following statements.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/28/newsbytes-world-cooling-to-global-warming/#comment-1020878

    (h/t to Wayne for the following quotations)

    ”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
    David Foreman,
    co-founder of Earth First!

    ”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
    Ted Turner,
    Founder of CNN and major UN donor

    ”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
    Jeremy Rifkin,
    Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

    ”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
    Paul Ehrlich,
    Professor of Population Studies,
    Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”

    ”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
    Sir James Lovelock,
    BBC Interview

    ”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
    Stephen Schneider,
    Stanford Professor of Climatology,
    Lead author of many IPCC reports

    ”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
    Sir John Houghton,
    First chairman of the IPCC

    ”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
    Paul Watson,
    Co-founder of Greenpeace

    ”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
    David Brower,
    First Executive Director of the Sierra Club

    ”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
    Timothy Wirth,
    President of the UN Foundation

    ”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
    Christine Stewart,
    former Canadian Minister of the Environment

    ”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
    Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin

    ”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
    Maurice Strong,
    Founder of the UN Environmental Program

    ”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
    Paul Ehrlich,
    Professor of Population Studies,
    Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”

    ”If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
    Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh,
    husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
    Patron of the Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation

    ”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
    Michael Oppenheimer
    Environmental Defense Fund

    ”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
    Professor Maurice King

    ”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
    Maurice Strong,
    Rio Earth Summit

    ”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
    Amory Lovins,
    Rocky Mountain Institute

    ”I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. it played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
    John Davis,
    Editor of Earth First! Journal
    **********************************

  133. wobble says:

    Rob Dekker says:
    July 14, 2012 at 12:34 am

    If not, then we all agree that basic physics can quantify at least the first order effect of CO2 in our atmosphere, the effect it has on the surface temperature, and can quantify the first order effect of a doubling of CO2 in our atmosphere, and thus of AGW.

    Yes, and we can also agree that the “first order effect” suggests that a dropped piece of paper will take t=(2d/g)^0.5 seconds to reach the ground.

    We can also agree that the “first order effect” suggests this even on a windy day.

    Now, we can also agree that the “first order effect” might not be the primary effect which governs the outcome. Right?

  134. wobble says:

    Rob Dekker says:
    July 14, 2012 at 2:10 am

    And when we are talking about feedbacks in the climate system, does anyone dare to estimate the increase in heat absorption due to the 6 million km^2 snow cover anomaly June 2012 ?

    Wow, seems like a huge positive feedback. Are you comfortable with your ability to model all the feedbacks that exist in the climate system?

  135. rogerknights says:

    Crispin in Waterloo says:
    July 14, 2012 at 7:29 am

    On a short term scale there is a really good correlation between cloud cover and temperature, the physics of which are just as sound: cloud shades the ground and reflects sunlight. Willis wrote and we discussed a good article on cloudiness over the Pacific demonstrating this.

    Here are Willis’s WUWT threads on thermostatic effects. The first and last are the most important.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/14/the-tao-that-can-be-spoken/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/25/taotriton-take-two/

    Willis: “This [below] is the third in a series of occasional posts regarding my somewhat peripatetic analysis of the data from the TAO moored buoys in the Western Pacific.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/15/cloud-radiation-forcing-in-the-tao-dataset/

    Willis: “I hold these results out as strong support for my hypothesis that the temperature of the tropics is regulated by the combined action of clouds and thunderstorms. The difference in the temperature response of the warm and cool days shows the homeostatic mechanism in action, with warm mornings having cooler afternoons, and vice versa. All of this shows the clouds and thunderstorms at work.”

  136. Allan MacRae says:

    I am less concerned about the “labels” people use to describe their fellow humans.

    I am much more interested in how people formulate their opinions on subjects such as the HYPOTHESIS of catastrophic humanmade global warming (“CAGW”).

    I am further interested in whether they re-examine their opinions as new data becomes available.

    I evaluate the quality of their opinions based on the accuracy of their PREDICTIVE RECORD when compared with actual measurements – one of the few true tests of scientific hypotheses.

    Most global warming acolytes have developed their opinions by relying upon others – supposed “experts” and the popular press – appeals to authority. This is understandable because most people have neither the time nor the skills to independently verify the climate science.

    Few global warming acolytes have demonstrated the ability to change their views based on new data – notable exceptions are James Lovelock and Fritz Vaherenholt, who have observed that the absence of global warming for the past ~decade casts doubt on the CAGW hypothesis. These gentlemen have been savaged for reversing their positions – they did not just leave the Church of Global Warming, they were vilified and excommunicated in absentia.

    Finally , I examine the predictive record and conclude that the CAGW alarmists have failed utterly – ALL their dire predictions of climate catastrophe have proven FALSE.

    Finally there is strong evidence of dishonesty within the CAGW elite. The warming alarmists have attempted to change their narrative several times – first it was “global warming” – then it was “climate change” – now it is “sustainability”. Then there are the ClimateGate emails, further evidence of deceit and corruption by the High Priests of the Church of Global Warming.

    These FACTS should be sufficient to develop an informed opinion on the CAGW debate.

    The warming alarmists are losing the debate because there is no significant global warming for a decade or more, despite increased atmospheric CO2. After squandering a trillion dollars on a falsehood, the manmade global warming crisis has been cancelled.

  137. turnedoutnice says:

    Alan MacRae: you must understand that the IPCC modelling is based on the religious beliefs of John Houghton and then we have 100s of people indoctrinated in the false science.

    Look at his book and he makes two key mistakes. The first is to assume the emissivity of the atmosphere is 1. The second is to fail to understand that a two-stream approximation breaks down at boundaries.

    The net result is that the models have a built in imaginary heat excess of 40% 100.[333-238.5]/238.5 and an increase in the IR of 400%. You get this from a simple energy balance.

    The models offset this imaginary warming by using for example double real low level cloud optical depth and other corrections to hind cast. This is why they can’t predict climate.

    The trouble is Houghton was IPCC co-founder and got Maggie Thatcher to build the Hadley centre;

  138. Allan MacRae says:

    turnedoutnice says: July 14, 2012 at 12:04 pm
    “The models offset this imaginary warming by using (for example) double real low level cloud optical depth and other corrections to hind cast.”

    Thank you Nice:

    Are you referring in part to the following subject, raised in discussion with D. V. Hoyt in 2006?

    My conclusion at that time was:

    Global warming modelers have typically exaggerated Climate Sensitivity (to atmospheric CO2) by about one order of magnitude (~10x) in their climate models, and in so doing have produced model results that predict catastrophic manmade global warming. In order to force their models to hindcast past temperatures, particularly the global cooling period from ~1940 to ~1975, these same modelers FABRICATED aerosol data to simulate this cooling – In effect, to fudge the desired results.

    Please see the communications below with Douglas Hoyt regarding aerosols:

    http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/19/whitfield-subcommittee-witnesses-to-be-questioned/

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=755

    Douglas Hoyt:
    July 22nd, 2006 at 5:37 am

    Measurements of aerosols did not begin in the 1970s. There were measurements before then, but not so well organized. However, there were a number of pyrheliometric measurements made and it is possible to extract aerosol information from them by the method described in:
    Hoyt, D. V., 1979. The apparent atmospheric transmission using the pyrheliometric ratioing techniques. Appl. Optics, 18, 2530-2531.
    The pyrheliometric ratioing technique is very insensitive to any changes in calibration of the instruments and very sensitive to aerosol changes.

    Here are three papers using the technique:
    Hoyt, D. V. and C. Frohlich, 1983. Atmospheric transmission at Davos, Switzerland, 1909-1979. Climatic Change, 5, 61-72.
    Hoyt, D. V., C. P. Turner, and R. D. Evans, 1980. Trends in atmospheric transmission at three locations in the United States from 1940 to 1977. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1430-1439.
    Hoyt, D. V., 1979. Pyrheliometric and circumsolar sky radiation measurements by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory from 1923 to 1954. Tellus, 31, 217-229.

    In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly. There are other studies from Belgium, Ireland, and Hawaii that reach the same conclusions. It is significant that Davos shows no trend whereas the IPCC models show it in the area where the greatest changes in aerosols were occurring.

    There are earlier aerosol studies by Hand and Marvin in Monthly Weather Review going back to the 1880s and these studies also show no trends.

    So when MacRae (#321) says: “I suspect that both the climate computer models and the input assumptions are not only inadequate, but in some cases key data is completely fabricated – for example, the alleged aerosol data that forces models to show cooling from ~1940 to ~1975. Isn’t it true that there was little or no quality aerosol data collected during 1940-1975, and the modelers simply invented data to force their models to history-match; then they claimed that their models actually reproduced past climate change quite well; and then they claimed they could therefore understand climate systems well enough to confidently predict future catastrophic warming?”, he close to the truth.
    ____________________________________________________________________

    Douglas Hoyt:
    July 22nd, 2006 at 10:37 am
    Re #328
    “Are you the same D. V. Hoyt who wrote the referenced papers?” Answer: Yes.
    _____________________________________________________________________

  139. turnedoutnice says:

    Allan MacRae: the aerosol issue is fascinating. The bare aerosols were calibrated by Mt Pinatubo. However, the AIE is bunkum, It;’s easy to prove. just look at rain clouds getting dark underneath and understand that according to Sagan’s aerosol optical physics, that’s supposed to be a small droplet phenomenon. I have corrected Sagan’s physics, All the net AIE is wrong, So are most derived satellite data. The work needs restarting under proper leadership.

  140. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @rogerknights

    Thanks for the references. It is interesting from how many angles CAGW fails on first order analysis. The wonder of it all is how long this ‘crisis’ has been stretched out.

  141. Rob Dekker says:

    Wobble said :

    Rob Dekker says:
    July 14, 2012 at 2:10 am

    And when we are talking about feedbacks in the climate system, does anyone dare to estimate the increase in heat absorption due to the 6 million km^2 snow cover anomaly June 2012 ?

    Wow, seems like a huge positive feedback. Are you comfortable with your ability to model all the feedbacks that exist in the climate system?

    Indeed, a pretty decent positive feedback. Did you calculate how much (in W/m^2) this snow anomaly albedo effect in June contributes to heating the Northern Hemisphere ? As compared to GHG focing ?

    Of course, nobody claimed to be able to “model all the feedbacks that exist in the climate system” as you request.
    GCMs implicitly model most of the known significant feedbacks (positive and negative), but still show poor performance when predicting observational parameters like Arctic sea ice :

    Notice how the IPCC models grossly underestimate sea ice loss by modeling the ‘known’ feedbacks in the climate system.
    In fact, AR4 models predicted 6.8 million km^2 summer Arctic sea ice minimum this September, while WUWT readers will be much closer with the 4.55 million km^2 forecast.
    With such a gross underestimation of Arctic sea ice loss, it is clear that IPCC GCMs did not account for many of the positive feedbacks that mother Nature has put into the Northern Hemisphere’s climate system.

  142. Allan MacRae says:

    Good morning turnedoutnice and Crispin,

    I agree that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 is insignificant – based on actual climate and CO2 data. See my post below from 2009.

    I also recall the strong correlation between cloud cover and temperature.

    In 2008 I became 90% convinced that humanmade CO2 emissions are NOT the primary driver of increased atmospheric CO2, rather global temperature is.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf

    Murry Salby has since produced a video discussing the same observation.

    There could also be other contributors to increased atmospheric CO2 that are more significant than fossil fuel combustion, such as deforestation.

    I further agree that climate science needs a thorough review, starting with the basics.

    Regards, Allan

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/10/polar-sea-ice-changes-are-having-a-net-cooling-effect-on-the-climate/

    Excerpt from 2009:

    All this is of considerable academic interest to me, but my core conclusion remains unchanged: Climate change is natural and cyclical, and CO2 is an insignificant driver of global warming.

    I think it is safe to conclude that the sensitivity of Earth’s temperature to CO2 is insignificant.

    Further, we cannot even say for certain that humankind is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2 – it is possible that this too is largely natural.

    The AIRS CO2 animation is worth watching, at

    [video src="http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4" /]

  143. wobble says:

    Rob Dekker says:
    July 15, 2012 at 1:13 am

    Indeed, a pretty decent positive feedback. Did you calculate how much (in W/m^2) this snow anomaly albedo effect in June contributes to heating the Northern Hemisphere ? As compared to GHG focing ?

    No, I didn’t calculate it. Please provide the actual numbers for me in comparison to GHG forcing.

    But certainly this level of heating has pushed us past the tipping point since it will obviously cause even more heating from additional snow anomaly albedo effect.

    Notice how the IPCC models grossly underestimate sea ice loss by modeling the ‘known’ feedbacks in the climate system.

    Then obviously warming will be much worse, much more catastrophic, and occur much more quickly than IPCC models have estimated. Observed warming will obviously exceed IPCC model expectations in short order. Right?

    Of course, nobody claimed to be able to “model all the feedbacks that exist in the climate system” as you request.

    Oh. So, “nobody” would claim that this “grossly” underestimated positive feedback that were discussing (which dwarfs GHG forcing) is dwarfed by other climate feedback mechanisms?

    What claims DO the IPCC modelers make about the overall accuracy of their feedback assumptions?

    I’m learning so much!

  144. Dodgy Geezer says:

    I’ve been watching this argument develop ever since 2003, when John Daly went up against the Australian Met staff. That’s 9 years…

    During all that time, I have never actually seen a ‘denier’, as defined by Dr Brown. As far as I can see, in the beginning everybody believed in the ‘climate scare’, except for a few activists like Daly and Steve McKintyre, who were capable of researching the raw data and examining it. The vast bulk of humanity, including all those who didn’t bother to think about it, all suported the ‘hockey-stick’ temperature interpretation. After all, the only other interpretation on offer was that the hockey stick was wrong because of some very arcane maths, which was never published in any mass circulation periodical. You really had to work to understand the issues involved.

    Around 2006/7 Steve McKintyre came into world prominence because of the incessant attacks on him by the team. At this time the pro-AGW team were full of assertions that there were an ‘army of deniers funded by Big Oil’ out there somewhere – but I could never find any of them. There were just a few brave researchers with a growing following of people who read their arguments – none of whom fit the ‘mindless denier’ label…

    By now the ramshackle AGW scientific structure has collapsed, as Steve and the few others have completely dug the foundations away. And mainstream publications are beginning to accept that the science is ‘iffy’. Even so, when I look at comments in the papers the people arguing against ‘catastrophic human-induced climate change’ are all well-informed – it’s the defenders of AGW who spout claptrap about the precautionary principle and refuse to say what would constitute a disproof of their position. As far as I can see, they are the only deniers that exist…

  145. Allan MacRae says:

    Dodgy Geezer says: July 15, 2012 at 11:40 am (excerpt)

    “As far as I can see, in the beginning everybody believed in the ‘climate scare’, except for a few activists like Daly and Steve McIntyre, who were capable of researching the raw data and examining it. The vast bulk of humanity, including all those who didn’t bother to think about it, all supported the ‘hockey-stick’ temperature interpretation. After all, the only other interpretation on offer was that the hockey stick was wrong because of some very arcane maths, which was never published in any mass circulation periodical. You really had to work to understand the issues involved.”

    John Daly, bless his soul, was one of the true pioneers. Other pioneers who had the ability and courage to speak out included Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Tim Patterson and Sallie Baliunas. Sadly, Pat and Sallie have left their universities and Richard is about to retire.

    Steve McIntyre is indeed an expert mathematician who meticulously dissected the Mann “hockey stick” and exposed its fatal flaws.

    I do not have Steve’s considerable math skills (I only have 2 engineering degrees) but it was also obvious to me from the outset that the Mann hockey stick was false. Mann1998 contradicted our knowledge of both the Medieval Warm Period AND the Little Ice Age. Furthermore, eight years after its publication the Divergence Problem (“Hide the Decline”) was revealed in testimony and it demonstrated the total failure of the Mann paper.

    My message is there is a “micro” level of analysis that only a few experts like Steve McIntyre can perform, and then there is a “macro” analysis that can be performed by those with some lesser scientific skills.

    I first heard the CAGW story in 1985, and I knew it was nonsense even then, based on my background in the earth sciences. The rest has been a rather enjoyable exercise in sorting out the details…

    Climate science is rather challenging and lots of fun. Climate political science… not so much.

  146. Rob Dekker says:

    wobble said :

    Rob Dekker says:
    July 15, 2012 at 1:13 am

    Indeed, a pretty decent positive feedback. Did you calculate how much (in W/m^2) this snow anomaly albedo effect in June contributes to heating the Northern Hemisphere ? As compared to GHG focing ?

    No, I didn’t calculate it. Please provide the actual numbers for me in comparison to GHG forcing.

    I gave you the numbers in my July 14, 2:10 am post. Since you insist, let me work out some more details for the first part for you :
    The June 2012 6 million km^2 snow anomaly is in an area all around the Arctic, which receives 250-280 W/m^2 insolation on the ground in June.
    Assuming that albedo of snow is 0.8 and albedo of snow-free surface is 0.1, this means that an extra 1050 – 1180 TW (TeraWatt) is absorbed during June 2012 than during an average June a few decades ago.
    If that heat would be spread out over the entire Northern Hemisphere this would imply 4.1 – 4.6 W/m^2 extra radiative forcing.
    About GHG forcing, you can find estimates in many places [do some searching yourself].

    Then obviously warming will be much worse, much more catastrophic, and occur much more quickly than IPCC models have estimated. Observed warming will obviously exceed IPCC model expectations in short order. Right?

    Nothing is ‘obvious’ apart from the fact that something like 1000 TW over a month is a LOT of heat, and that heat will go somewhere. Luckily (or maybe not so) not all warming results in surface warming. Some of that 1050-1180 TW will end up warming oceans, which absorb the heat so quickly that it will not show up on surface temperature anomaly plots. Another part will go to melting Arctic sea ice, which will show up in heavy top-melting of Arctic sea ice, reduced volume (thinner ice) and reduced area and extent. Kind of what we are observing right now…

    What claims DO the IPCC modelers make about the overall accuracy of their feedback assumptions?

    The IPCC modelers estimate a 1.5-4.5 C global average increase for doubling of CO2. That is a very wide spread, which is mostly caused by not knowing feedback mechanisms accurately. Now, IPCC models pretty clearly show Arctic amplification, but have clearly underestimated feedback mechanisms in and around the Arctic. Else the models would have predicted snow cover reduction and Arctic sea ice reduction consistent with observations, instead of the current gross underestimates.

    So, yes, next time when you hear that some climate effect presents itself “sooner than scientists expected” then you know that again scientists underestimated another feedback mechanism, and again you know that mother Nature can’t be fooled, no matter if you are a AGW believer, a ‘skeptic’ or a ‘denier’.

  147. docrichard says:

    I would like to answer a question and some points.

    Tony G asks if wobble is in denial, in my opinion. I have no opinion on that, and if I did, I would not express it here, as the one thing I have learned here is that the d-word is not PC.

    David Ross argues that current temperatures are not unprecedented. I accept that. The Eemian waqrm period was 114k years ago. To put that in context, anatomically modern humanity began 200k y/ago, and became behaviourally modern 50k years ago, Civilisation began about 12k y/ago.

    OK, part of northern Greenland was ice free 4k y/ago. However, the Vostok core goes back 420k yrs. We cannot extrapolate from one region of Greenland to the whole world. We have to spread the net of data as wide as possible.

    David then helpfully refers to evidence of forest fires in the MWP, supporting my point that increased forest fires are to be expected in warm times, and that this will unfortunately provide another positive feedback. In providing this argument, David contradicts Smokey and Crispin. Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_fires#Effect_of_weather says “Heat waves, droughts, cyclical climate changes such as El Niño, and regional weather patterns such as high-pressure ridges can increase the risk and alter the behavior of wildfires dramatically.”

    I have to confess that I am not sure what turnedoutnice is arguing. Which is a big pity, since he is addressing the key point of my argument, which is that the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate is generally agreed, since it is derived from basic physics (as Rob Dekker has set out).

    Is there anyone on this list who can summarise what turnedoutnice is saying? Is it agreed by all, or the majority on this list? Because if it can be sustained, it represents a revolution not just in climate science, but in physics.

    If it is not, we must all accept as fact that (1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, (2) that it is increasing, (3) that this increase commits the earth to a modest increase in temperature, and therefore (4) we must debate climate sensitivity and decide on the importance of this increase on the climate as a whole.

  148. TonyG says:

    docrichard says:
    Tony G asks if wobble is in denial, in my opinion. I have no opinion on that, and if I did, I would not express it here, as the one thing I have learned here is that the d-word is not PC.

    I ask because from the discussion, and from your own admission, wobble is obviously more informed about the subject than you are. Is it possible that you may be the one in denial, and are refusing to look at facts that counter your predetermined conclusion?

    As to your ‘facts’, you lose it at #3, because you assume that there is only ONE feedback mechanism (CO2). Climate is much more complex than that.

  149. wobble says:

    Rob Dekker says:
    July 16, 2012 at 2:49 am

    What claims DO the IPCC modelers make about the overall accuracy of their feedback assumptions?

    The IPCC modelers estimate a 1.5-4.5 C global average increase for doubling of CO2. That is a very wide spread, which is mostly caused by not knowing feedback mechanisms accurately. Now, IPCC models pretty clearly show Arctic amplification, but have clearly underestimated feedback mechanisms in and around the Arctic. Else the models would have predicted snow cover reduction and Arctic sea ice reduction consistent with observations, instead of the current gross underestimates.

    You didn’t even try to answer my question.

    What claims DO the IPCC modelers make about the overall accuracy of their feedback assumptions?

    So, yes, next time when you hear that some climate effect presents itself “sooner than scientists expected” then you know that again scientists underestimated another feedback mechanism, and again you know that mother Nature can’t be fooled, no matter if you are a AGW believer, a ‘skeptic’ or a ‘denier’.

    It’s strange that you seem content to play trial-and-error on feedback mechanism assumptions one at a time. Frankly, it’s incredibly strange. Obviously, we don’t know enough about the mechanisms to accurately model the earth’s climate system – especially since the results are incredibly sensitive to the accuracy of the assumptions.

  150. wobble says:

    docrichard says:
    July 16, 2012 at 4:10 am

    Tony G asks if wobble is in denial, in my opinion. I have no opinion on that, and if I did, I would not express it here, as the one thing I have learned here is that the d-word is not PC.

    I don’t have a problem with the PC issue. My argument is that the term “in denial” isn’t accurate.

    Am I “in denial” for disagreeing that 2+2=5? Am I “in denial” because I disbelieve claims that mermaids exist? I’m I “in denial” because I refuse to believe that NASA faked the moon landing?

    Is everyone that refuses to believe Claim XYZ “in denial” regardless of what Claim XYZ actually is? Shouldn’t the credibility of Claim XYZ be debated BEFORE you claim that a disbeliever is “in denial”?

    Now, if Person A understands the issues associated with Claim XYZ much better than Person B, then Person B isn’t in a position to say that Person A is “in denial.” Right?

  151. wobble says:

    docrichard says:
    July 16, 2012 at 4:10 am

    We cannot extrapolate from one region of Greenland to the whole world.

    Can we extrapolate from one region of Yamal to the whole world?

    “Heat waves, droughts, cyclical climate changes such as El Niño, and regional weather patterns such as high-pressure ridges can increase the risk and alter the behavior of wildfires dramatically.”

    So, how do you model something that “can” happen? Saying that something “can” happen means that it might happen or it might not happen. What quantitative value do you assign to that in a model?

  152. wobble says:

    docrichard says:
    July 16, 2012 at 4:10 am

    I have to confess that I am not sure what turnedoutnice is arguing. Which is a big pity, since he is addressing the key point of my argument, which is that the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate is generally agreed, since it is derived from basic physics (as Rob Dekker has set out).

    The “basic” physics suggests that infrared radiation is absorbed by CO2 which means that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause additional absorption of infrared radiation. The “basic” physics suggests that increased absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere will increase surface heating due to the assumption that the atmosphere will reradiate at least part of the absorbed energy as infrared radiation in all directions including downward.

    I think turnedoutnice is claiming that the “basic” physics isn’t adequate for the purposes of properly modeling what actually occurs.

    Now, it’s OFTEN true that “basic” physics fails to be adequate for the purposes of properly modeling what actually occurs. Remember the analogy about the dropped piece of paper? t=(2d/g)^0.5 is “basic” physics, but it’s an inadequate model. Using this model MIGHT give you the right answer under certain conditions (conditions which may or may not be likely), but anyone that understands the issue beyond the “basic” physics will tell you that using the model will most likely give you the wrong answer.

    So, turnedoutnice is claiming that he understands the absorption and reradiating issue well beyond the “basic” physics level, and he is claiming that the current range of models being used by both “sides” in the debate will most likely give you the wrong answer.

    Is it agreed by all, or the majority on this list?

    I’m not sure what you mean by “this list”, but most skeptics don’t assert this claim. Most skeptics seem to be comfortable acknowledging a limited amount of warming based on the “basic” physics.

    Overall, I think turnedoutnice needs to present his argument in more simplistic terms so that he can try educating people who only understand the “basic” physics. Because right now, I think even people who understand the claims he’s trying to make aren’t understanding how he’s getting there.

    If it is not, we must all accept as fact that (1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, (2) that it is increasing, (3) that this increase commits the earth to a modest increase in temperature, and therefore (4) we must debate climate sensitivity and decide on the importance of this increase on the climate as a whole.

    Actually, we don’t have to accept 1 through 3 as “fact”. There’s a big difference between accepting something “for argument’s sake” and accepting something as fact. There’s a big difference between accepting something “until more convincing information is provided” and accepting something as fact.

    This is a big problem with the CAGW debate. Too many believers in CAGW accept things as “fact” based on any level of evidence. Frankly, it really hurts your side to do this because it’s incredibly unscientific.

    However, lets’s say we accept 1-3 until more information become available.

    Now, docrichard, I wish most people who accept the CAGW hypothesis understood what you’ve written here (except for the “fact” part). When I discuss global warming with people who accept the CAGW hypothesis – even technical people, I usually get a blank stare when I convey your above points. And most people – even technical people – believe that all AGW is CAGW. The fact that these people believe in CAGW is meaningless. Why should they be credited with not being “in denial” when they don’t even understand the basics. They’ve simply accepted something on little more than blind faith. But apparently, this is what the climate “science” discipline wants.

  153. wobble says:

    wobble says:

    Now, it’s OFTEN true that “basic” physics fails to be adequate for the purposes of properly modeling what actually occurs.

    BTW, I think this is a key point.

    CAGW proponents often claim that “it’s basic physics” therefore anyone that doesn’t believe in CAGW is denying “basic” physics.

    This is dead wrong on two levels.

    1. As I’ve repeated stated. Using only basic physics often provides the wrong answer. Technical people always learn that the next level of understanding may reveal that using a more basic approach provides the wrong answer. This is because the next level of understanding introduces effects which has a much greater influence than the basic effects. For example, an air mass and wind can have a greater effect on a piece of paper than gravity.

    2. As you’ve pointed out, the concept of CAGW doesn’t simply rely on basic physics. As you’ve acknowledged, there is still much to learn about the climate’s feedback mechanisms. It defies logic to claim that something unknown is basic physics.

  154. docrichard says:

    Tony G says

    “As to your ‘facts’, you lose it at #3, because you assume that there is only ONE feedback mechanism (CO2). Climate is much more complex than that.”

    You have not understood. I will say it once more.

    Basic textbook physics teaches us that the amount of CO2 that we have released from geological storage will increase the greenhouse effect sufficient to raise the global temperature by about 1.1*C. We have measured a 0.8*C increase, and the rest has been taken up by the oceans, to be released in due course.

    Now come the feedbacks, Tony.

    The increased temperatures will set off feedback mechanisms – primarily :
    1 increase in water vapour,
    2 changes to albedo,
    3 changes to lapse rate
    4 Changes to clouds
    5 Releases of methane and CO2 from soil
    6 Changes to vegetation

    Models work with the short term changes, 1-4. The effect of clouds is somewhat uncertain, with your side claiming that they are a negative feedback, and our side claiming a weak positive. Whatever the effect of clouds, in a warmer world it will be lessened, and slightly move towards being a positive feedback (cloudbase is higher in warm air, and higher clouds have a more positive feedback).

    The models do not factor in 5 and 6, as they cannot yet be quantified.

    The sceptic case hangs entirely on the work of Lindzen and Spencer, both of which have their flaws IN addition, you have to address the paleoclimate and other lines of approach which also point to a climate sensitivity in the region of 3*C.

    So I do not propose only one feedback, and at #3 I was not addressing feedbacks.

  155. docrichard says:

    wobble:
    “Can we extrapolate from one region of Yamal to the whole world?”
    This is why it is so important and significant that the temperature record is measured not just from one line of inquiry, but from many – dendrochronology, coral, ice cores, and stalagmites, from off the top of my head.

    “Heat waves, droughts, cyclical climate changes such as El Niño, and regional weather patterns such as high-pressure ridges can increase the risk and alter the behavior of wildfires dramatically.”

    So, how do you model something that “can” happen?

    That is one reason the models do not include forest fires as a feedback. I was addressing Smokey’s claim that forest fires are not more likely in warm conditions.

  156. wobble says:

    docrichard says:
    July 16, 2012 at 10:57 am

    Now come the feedbacks

    Is this a comprehensive list? Do any other feedback mechanisms exist? Yes or no?

    And what about the issue of whether or not you could claim that I’m in denial?

  157. wobble says:

    docrichard says:
    July 16, 2012 at 10:57 am

    Basic textbook physics teaches us…

    Have you forgotten what I taught you about relying on basic textbook physics, or was it over your head? I ask because you don’t address the issue at all.

    We have measured a 0.8*C increase, and the rest has been taken up by the oceans, to be released in due course.

    The fact that you claim this definitively is very strange given this discussion. It’s very unscientific. You don’t know if the observed data is attributable to the effect described by basic textbook physics or not.

  158. docrichard says:

    wobble said:

    The “basic” physics suggests that increased absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere will increase surface heating due to the assumption that the atmosphere will reradiate at least part of the absorbed energy as infrared radiation in all directions including downward.

    Where would the other part go? I know of no mechanism for the energy to be stored for a significant amount of time in the CO2 molecules.

    wobble says:
    If it is not, we must all accept as fact that (1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, (2) that it is increasing, (3) that this increase commits the earth to a modest increase in temperature, and therefore (4) we must debate climate sensitivity and decide on the importance of this increase on the climate as a whole.

    Actually, we don’t have to accept 1 through 3 as “fact”. There’s a big difference between accepting something “for argument’s sake” and accepting something as fact. There’s a big difference between accepting something “until more convincing information is provided” and accepting something as fact.

    I would say that if someone denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, they are straying into denial territory.
    Likewise, to deny that it is increasing is very much in denial land.
    Those are two facts which are about as factual as facts can get.
    It follows from this that there will be an increase in temperature from the increased CO2. I have seen (but cannot find) a vid of Pat Michaels being pretty scathing about skeptics who deny that the CO2 released so far has produced a temperature rise.

    So, apart perhaps from our colleague turnedoutnice, are we all of one mind on this point?

  159. docrichard says:

    wobble:
    Is this a comprehensive list? Do any other feedback mechanisms exist? Yes or no?
    Yes, sure. David Evans said there are “thousands”. I would love to know what they were. But note that those on the list are all positive – with a small query over clouds.

  160. wobble says:

    David Evans said there are “thousands”.

    Wow, is that list comprehensive?

    But note that those on the list are all positive

    Wow, all positive feedbacks. I’m surprised winter ever reoccurs! I’m surprised that the climate hasn’t been warming since the beginning of time.

  161. wobble says:

    docrichard says:
    July 16, 2012 at 11:51 am

    Where would the other part go?

    Increased convection.

    It follows from this that there will be an increase in temperature from the increased CO2.

    No, the earth isn’t committed to warming from this at all. It’s hardly fact.

    I have seen (but cannot find) a vid of Pat Michaels being pretty scathing about skeptics who deny that the CO2 released so far has produced a temperature rise.

    I’m sure he provides evidence. That doesn’t make it fact. Again, you use the term deny without a proper understanding.

    So, apart perhaps from our colleague turnedoutnice, are we all of one mind on this point?

    I already explained that, “lets’s say we accept 1-3 until more information become available. “

  162. Rob Dekker says:

    wobble said

    The “basic” physics suggests that infrared radiation is absorbed by CO2 which means that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause additional absorption of infrared radiation. The “basic” physics suggests that increased absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere will increase surface heating due to the assumption that the atmosphere will reradiate at least part of the absorbed energy as infrared radiation in all directions including downward.

    I think turnedoutnice is claiming that the “basic” physics isn’t adequate for the purposes of properly modeling what actually occurs.

    If that’s all there is to the story of “basic” physics of AGW, then I understand that you don’t accept AGW theory.
    There are some wavelengths in IR where CO2 has an optical length (at sea level air surface) of a few meters.
    An increase of CO2 would simply reduce that optical length to even less than a few meters, which obviously will immediately be compensated by convection. Thus, if looking from the surface upward is all there is, there would not be any noticable effect on global surface temperatures at all, even from a doubling of CO2.
    Do you know what you missed ?

    What if you look at this planet’s IR emissions from space down, instead of from only from the surface up ?
    Recall this graph :

    which I presented in my July 14, 12:34 post, along with an explanation on what basic physics tells us about what happens if we tweek with the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.

    For starters, do you know why that big dip in IR emission around the main CO2 absorption bands shows up as 220 K ? What does that suggest about the altitude where CO2 radiates from ? And why does it radiate from that altitude ?
    And why it is that that emissions from that absorbtion band do not vary much (and why we are lucky) even if we were to double CO2 concentration ?

    Now, you can ignore these questions just as you ignored my question on snow albedo effect in June 2012, but I hope you understand that until you actually address such basic physics questions, your statements that the concept of CAGW doesn’t simply rely on basic physics and your accusations that other people are very unscientific are simply empty rethoric.

  163. Rob Dekker says:

    wobble said What claims DO the IPCC modelers make about the overall accuracy of their feedback assumptions?
    You did not like my answer, so why don’t you enlighten us ?

  164. Rob Dekker says:

    And wobble, while you are at it, please provide us with a reference to the definition of the concept of CAGW .
    I can’t find it anywhere in scientific literature. Did you invent this ‘Catastrophic’ label yourself, or did you copy it from someone ?

  165. docrichard says:

    wobble
    this is beginning to get circular and tedious, and I’m off for a couple of weeks. Can we wrap it up by my accepting that your qualified acceptance of 1-2 rescues your good self from the denial category.
    So long, and thanks for all the gobbets of information,
    Richard

  166. wobble says:

    Rob Dekker says:
    July 17, 2012 at 12:36 am

    If that’s all there is to the story of “basic” physics of AGW, then I understand that you don’t accept AGW theory.

    I didn’t say that I didn’t accept the AGW hypothesis. docrichard had asked for a simplification of turnedoutnice’s comments.

    Recall this graph… along with an explanation on what basic physics tells us about what happens if we tweek with the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.

    OK, it’s great that you want to label a lower convection hypothesis as basic physics, and it’s also interesting that you ignore others’ claims that this is an incomplete depiction of CO2’s first order effect on climate.

    you ignored my question on snow albedo effect in June 2012

    I didn’t ignore it at all. Quite the opposite. I acknowledged the massive amount of positive feedback such melt represents. I stated that I was surprised that the earth could ever experience any cooling again about that. Why are you trying to claim that I ignored it? Maybe you didn’t like the fact that I agreed with you?

    I hope you understand that until you actually address such basic physics questions, your statements that the concept of CAGW doesn’t simply rely on basic physics and your accusations that other people are very unscientific are simply empty rethoric.

    Rob Dekker, you’re using a no-win argument. In order to argue that basic physics concepts dictate a first order effect you’re being forced to imply that the earth’s climate system is incredibly simplistic rather than complex. This is forcing you to take a position of relative naivete while attempting to label others of naivete or in-denial.

    I hope you understand that you should give up the in-denial argument and either engage the debate regarding the level of complexity required to cause a first order effect or simply accept arguments that it’s possible that CO2 might not have caused any portion of any observed warming.

  167. wobble says:

    Rob Dekker says:
    July 17, 2012 at 12:58 am

    You did not like my answer, so why don’t you enlighten us ?

    You didn’t provide an answer for me to like or dislike.

    I don’t know about any claims or representations regarding the accuracy of a model’s feedback assumptions. It would be interesting to read the language of such claims or representations. And it would also be interesting if any models omit any claims/representations.

  168. wobble says:

    Rob Dekker says:
    July 17, 2012 at 1:07 am

    And wobble, while you are at it, please provide us with a reference to the definition of the concept of CAGW .

    You don’t know what is meant by CAGW????

    What is it that you don’t know?:

    1. Do you not know what the C stands for in the acronym?;

    2. Do you not know the definition of the word that C stands for?;

    3. Do you not understand why the word that C stands for is used?; or

    4. Are you ignorant of the hundreds of scientific papers, the dozens of speeches, and the several congressional testimonies which clearly describe conditions captured by the use of the word which C stands for?

    Which is it?

  169. wobble says:

    docrichard says:
    July 17, 2012 at 3:07 am

    this is beginning to get circular and tedious

    This was inevitable given the fact that you continuously reassert the same argument despite the fact that it’s been thoroughly defeated many times, on many different levels, and from multiple perspectives.

    Can we wrap it up by my accepting that your qualified acceptance of 1-2 rescues your good self from the denial category.

    I appreciate your friendly gesture, but I don’t need to be rescued from the denial category. Now, if those on your side of the argument stopped including those that basically accept 1-2, then we probably wouldn’t have much of a problem. The problem is that the in-denial expression is used for those that don’t accept 3-4.

Comments are closed.