Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
How should responsible Global Warming Skeptics respond to opinions from intelligent members of the general public who have been perplexed by the Warmists and Alarmists?
We should reply in a strictly fact-based way, using official sources — being careful not to speculate or over-complicate the matter. Here is my shot at it.
At a recent meeting of a local discussion group a well-spoken retired teacher presented a list of important issues that, in his opinion, have received less coverage by the media than they deserve. “Climate Change” was on his list.
He said it was unfortunate that the main proponent of human-caused “Global Warning” was a prominent Democrat (former VP Al Gore), because that led to the issue becoming politicized, with his fellow Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other. He speculated that had a leading Republican promoted the same issue, the reaction would probably be the reverse.
He then raised several points, citing the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other expert sources. He said that Global Warming is really happening, with a rise of over 0.7⁰C, and we humans are the main cause due to our massive use of fossil fuels that generate atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas that warms the Earth.
During the discussion period I agreed that global warming is real, that atmospheric CO2 undoubtedly causes some warming, and that some of the increased CO2 is certainly due to human actions. However, I pointed out that, although atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise, and at an accelerating rate, global temperatures have not statistically increased for at least 15 years. Therefore, while CO2 levels have definitely caused some of the warming, and rising CO2 is mostly caused by human activities, CO2 cannot be the main cause.
The presenter assured me that he respected my opinions, but, while he was not a scientist, he was relying on scientists and scientific organizations that had studied the issue. He then read a few quotes, including one that said human actions were likely to lead to a “tipping point” where the ice caps melt and there is runaway warming on a catastrophic scale.
I have prepared the following strictly fact-based response, using sources the presenter himself mentioned and being careful not to speculate or over-complicate the matter.
1- It is undoubtedly true that average surface temperatures have increased significantly since 1880. Human activities are responsible for some portion of that warming. [The image below is the latest GISS Global Temperature Index anomaly. The black squares indicate the mean temperature anomaly for each 12-month calendar year. The thick red line indicates the mean temperature anomaly smoothed over 60 months (five years). This graphic shows a net increase of about 0.8⁰C (about 1.5⁰F) since 1880. While I think “data adjustments” have increased the apparent warming by a few tenths of a degree, I accept that warming since 1880 is at least 0.5⁰C (about 1⁰F)]
2- Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen steadily, and the rate of increase has doubled since reliable CO2 data from Mauna Loa became available around 1959. [The image below is the latest NOAA ESRL Atmospheric CO2 showing an increase of about 1 ppm/year in the 1960’s and about 2 ppm/year in the 2000’s. The current rise is approaching 3 ppm/year as the current level is approaches 400 ppm. The pre-industrial level is estimated to have been about 280 ppm.]
3- When compared to actual polar satellite temperature observations, the IPCC climate models have predicted way too much warming, particularly after 1998. [The image below is the latest RSS Global temperature anomaly since about 1979 when good global temperature data from polar orbiting satellites became available. Note how, from 1999 to the present, the actual observations of temperature (thick black line) consistently fall below the yellow band (IPCC climate model prediction range with supposed 5% to 95% probability).]
|
Original Caption (Verbatim) “Fig. 1. Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Again, after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.“] (my bold)
|
Please note that, according to the actual RSS polar satellite temperature observations (thick black line), there has been absolutely no net warming after 1998. Indeed, 2013 is about 0.6⁰C (more than 1⁰F) cooler than the middle of the predicted range, and even 0.3⁰C (more than 0.5⁰F) cooler than the lower edge of the predicted range. Also note that the thick black line falls well below the yellow band, which indicates that the statistical 5% to 95% confidence level claimed for the IPCC climate models is not valid. Over the most recent 15-year period, actual satellite temperature observations have consistently been cooler than the central prediction of the IPCC climate models, by from 0.2⁰C to 0.8⁰C (about 0.4⁰F to 1.5⁰F).
4- According to the NASA GISS Global Temperature Index, when smoothed over a calendar year, there has been no net warming for 15 years. Even when smoothed over a longer period of five years, there has been no net warming for seven years. [The image below is a close-up of the upper right corner of the first image in this posting.]
|
[The black squares represent the temperature anomaly for each given calendar year (12 month average). Note that 1998 is warmer than 2013, indicating no net warming for 15 years. The thick red line represents the 5-year running mean (smoothed over 5 years which is 60 months). Note that 2003 is at the same temperature as 2010, indicating no net warming for at least seven years using the most conservative smoothing period.]
|
CONCLUSIONS
All of the above facts and data come directly from official, government-sponsored climate research organizations. I have provide web links so anyone can check them his- or herself. If any reader thinks I have distorted or misrepresented any of the above material I will appreciate it if he or she posts a comment to this blog detailing any objections.
The following conclusions involve some speculation on my part.
a- Politicization of the issue. I agree that “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” have been way over-politicized. Had the main proponent been a Republican, positions might have been reversed. However, I cannot imagine any Republican of similar national prominence to a former VP falling for the idea that we humans are responsible for the majority of the warming we have experienced, or that the warming process is likely to lead to global catastrophe. And, even if he or she, in a weak moment years ago, went along with the initial dire predictions, any reasonable and responsible politician (of either party) would understand that the absolute disconnect between actual temperature observations and predictions of IPCC climate models invalidates the idea of human-caused catastrophic climate change, and reverse their positions.
b- Activists in the catastrophic climate change industry purposely misrepresent the views of responsible Skeptics by making a number of false claims:
- FALSE CLAIM – Skeptics do not believe the basic science of the Atmospheric “greenhouse” effect.
- RESPONSE – We do accept that water vapor, CO2, and other ‘greenhouse” gases are responsible for the Earth being around 33⁰C (60⁰F) warmer than it would be if there were no “greenhouse”gases in the Atmosphere. However, based on the failure of the IPCC climate models to comport with actual temperature observations for at least 15 years, we question the IPCC position that doubling of CO2 will warm the Earth surface by 1.5⁰C to 4.5⁰C (3⁰F to 8⁰F). For example, I believe the true value (called “climate sensitivity”) is only a half or a third of what the IPCC claims. Therefore, if Atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise, which is most likely given the rapid development of China, India and other countries, that will not result in any catastrophic “tipping point”. As a Global Community, we have quite a bit to worry about, and Global Warming (aka Climate Change) is nowhere near the top ranks.
- FALSE CLAIM – Skeptics do not believe the Earth surface has warmed significantly since 1880.
- RESPONSE – We do accept that average global surface temperatures have increased by at least 0.5⁰C (1⁰F) since pre-industrial times. Many of us think that the thermometer record is somewhat unreliable. It is a matter of official record that, in recent decades, old temperature data prior to the 1970’s have been adjusted down by as much as 0.3⁰C (0.5⁰F) and data after the 1970’s adjusted up, which has increased claimed net warming by a few tenths of a degree. NASA GISS and other official record-keepers say these “data adjustments” are valid, but many of us think they are self-serving. However, we could be wrong, and the net warming since 1880 might be as much as 0.8⁰C (1.5⁰F).
- FALSE CLAIM – Skeptics do not believe that human activities have any part in causing the warming.
- RESPONSE – We do accept that unprecedented burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, and some changes in land use, are responsible for a significant fraction of the actual warming. However, based on comparison of actual temperature observations with IPCC climate models, I am convinced that the majority of warming is due to natural causes and processes not under human control or influence.
PS: When I sent a draft of this posting to my retired teacher friend, he courteously thanked me for my thoughtful and considerate message, and admitted he did not completely understand climate change. However, he said he still trusts what he believes are the overwhelming number of scientists who have examined the evidence and reached a conclusion.
Nice article. Re your retired teacher friend: he doesn’t understand the science behind climate change, it’s too much for him, he’s math-challenged, he doesn’t have the time or inclination to dig deeper, but he is going to trust the experts. Your friend is a fool. Even a child knows by now that experts have agendas. Your friend seems to think scientists are above the fray. Ask him to read The Double Helix, or any book about Carlo Rubbia. And while he may be nice, and marginally informed on the climate issue, his refusal to take a more serious look after he has been presented with evidence that ought to prompt such a look marks him as a dogmatist, and a fairly simple-minded one at that. I’m way past tired of people who when you present them with ineluctable evidence that all isn’t well with the climate change business, they say, oh, that’s nice, but I’m still going to believe what I believe. Logic is lost on them.
A very good article.
From my experience, if you continue to send factual articles similar to those posted on WUWT daily, most reasonable individuals over an extended period open their mind and have in many cases completely changed their mind. Recent temperature data and lack of Hurricanes and tornadoes have made it increasing difficult to blindly believe in CO2 as the main cause of warming. I find that incredible how large the communication circle has grown as new skeptics forward my e mails to others. For example numerous WUWT articles now get posted weekly on an ASME environmental news letter.
I repeat I try to distribute data plots, and factual information while avoiding opinion articles to avoid controversy, since it is more difficult to argue against government produced graphs such as the UAH monthly satellite data, which shows the long period of no temperature rise
A nice article, however, in a sense you are just fuelling the fires of stupidity by showing the short time series temperature graph without giving any kind of context.
There are two ways to show the context:
1. To show that much of the CO2 rise POST-DATED most of the warming. Or to put that another way, the 1910-1940 warming occurred before substantial rises in CO2 and that it is the same size and duration as the 1970-2000 warming that supposedly CAN ONLY BE caused by CO2.
2. The second is to show a longer time series such as the central England temperature record. This shows that temperature has been constantly changing and that any change in the 20th century does not appear in any sense to be abnormal in this record.
Up close even a pimple looks like a mountain. It’s only when you allow people to see it from a distance, that its true nature can be ascertained.
You can also show proxy records that go back first 100’s of thousands of years, and then millions of years. Also include CO2 levels for those time periods. Show that the only thing unusual about temperatures over the last 100 years is how cool it has been compared to the rest of this planets history.
Experts have agendas, and non-experts don’t? And non-experts know more about a subject than experts, who are blinded by ideology and/or involved in a worldwide conspiracy, right? I see how this works.
Nice strawman, did you have help building it?
The claim is that “experts” must always be trusted. Pointing out that experts can have agendas too refutes that. It says nothing about agendas of non-experts or relative knowledge between the two groups.
Now if you care to debate honestly, please do so.
Ben, nice contortions. Non-experts like algor clearly are not blinded by ideology. Perhaps by $$$ signs? Eyes wide shut?
Dear Ben,
Please provide your explanation of all the temperature excursions across the Holocene, what caused temps to go up, and then down? Hell, even first half 20th century vs. second half 20th century temperature plots are hard to tell apart. What is it that you and your experts know that we are all missing? That grant money for research is only available to those espousing the correct message?
Sometimes experts can’t see the forest because all the trees have grant money on them.
And “saving the earth” is such a noble cause.
“Doesn’t understand”, “math-challenged”, “fool”, “dogmatist”, “simple-minded”, “Logic is lost on them”.
Well played sir.
The core issue highlighted by your well intended attempt to educate is that for a large segment of the “uneducated” population CAGW/CACC has been turned into a mindset -a matter of outlook on life, propagated by the MSM’s uncritical reporting of the dogmas of the climate establishment- in some cases a conviction with near religious overtones.
History unfortunately teaches us that it is impossible to reason with faith, not even when one cites facts actually provided by the very sources of the belief system -your retired teacher being a perfect example.
“However, he said he still trusts what he believes are the overwhelming number of scientists who have examined the evidence and reached a conclusion.”
Typical. Most Teachers have a hard time with critical thinking. Their standard way of thinking is based on the authority of the curriculum and text books. It is the rare teacher that encourages the development of rational, critical and creative thought processes.
I am a (now) former teacher. I concur 100 percent.
If teachers trust the textbooks, someone needs to write a textbook about the teachers of China during the 1950’s and 1960’s. They were used as useful idiots. First they were used to disseminate government propaganda during The Great Leap Forward, and then they were horribly used as scapegoats during The Cultural Revolution. It has taken China decades to recover.
As I passed through school the good teachers I had were few and far between, but I thank God for the good ones.
I have found errors in text books and even when I bring documentation that proves it, the teacher would still cling to what’s in the text book because the text book was reviewed by a committee before being published and those other works are just the opinion of one person.
In 5th grade my teacher told my class that the moon didn’t rotate on its axis; because you always saw the same side of the moon. I brought in four technical sources and did a independent observer class demonstration to finally prove the science. Yeah teachers can believe in fantasy.
I wonder if saying “government-funded” scientists would make a difference. Are there any non-government climate scientists predicting environmental doom?
“Are there any non-government climate scientists predicting environmental doom?”
Sure. But if you eliminate government, university, and environmental organizations, that 97% drops to about 25%
Interesting.
What he “believes”, and what the “overwhelming number of scientists” have concluded, are not the same thing.
What Ira states as the “skeptical” position is, in fact, what the “overwhelming number of scientists” accept.
What Ira’s teacher friend believes is, in fact, what only a small number of scientists and a large number of activists believe.
Therein lies a big problem: what many are led to believe is not the truth.
“Activists in the catastrophic climate change industry purposely misrepresent the views of responsible Skeptics by making a number of false claims:”
while true, also leads us to:
Activists in the catastrophic climate change industry purposely misrepresent the data, observations, and proper science by making a number of false claims and misleading statements while using virtually all of the logical fallacies.
Text books are the tools a teacher is supplied with, those and, if they are lucky, some chalk. They are instructed in the curriculum they are to teach because that is generally set at a state level and their “job” is to insure that the students meet state standards. They are not required to understand what they teach and in fact while some do, many do not. They are often about as well informed about the subject as their students. Creativity is “encouraged” only in English and Art. Students getting “creative” in chemistry are a hazard and very few understand the process of “creativity” in mathematics. My daughter, now in her late twenties, is going through a process of discovering just how much high school cheated her of a real education.
The simplest argument against catastrophe is that if natural variation is capable of suppressing global warming for 15 years, then natural climate variation must be at least as strong as human climate forcing.
Therefore models calibrated when natural forcings were reinforcing anthropogenic warming predict at least twice as much warming as we are likely to see.
The problem is, that the natural climate variation is oscillating in time, while the human climate forcing is increasing with time. My hope is that the GHG effect is saturating in future.
Emissions are increasing, the forcing from those emissions is not, in fact they are decreasing.
CO2 is pretty close to saturation already.
Thanks Eric for your short but pithy comment!
I agree. I picture the situation as several horses in a tug of war. One, representing the Human contribution to Global Warming, is pulling to the right, increasing Global temperatures. Some of the others, representing various Natural causes for Global Warming AND Cooling, are pulling to the left, decreasing temperatures, and some are pulling to the right, increasing temperatures.
Obviously, when both the Human-caused warming horse and most of the Natural processes horses are pulling to the right, both will team up, and temperatures will increase rapidly. For a “pause” to occur, some of the Natural processes horses are pulling to the left strongly enough to counteract both the Human-caused warming horse and the Natural processes horses that happen to be pulling to the right.
The 15 years plus of no net warming PROVES that some subset of Natural processes are stronger than Human-caused warming. THEREFORE, it is impossible for the majority of warming to be due to Human activities.
Ira
Au contraire. The simplest argument against catastrophe is that it has not happened already. Natural levels of atmospheric CO2 have at times in the past been many times the present. The mean estimate for the Middle Cambrian is about 26 times the present with a minimum of at least five time the present and a top range that Geocarb III doesn’t chart (over 8,000 ppm). Similarly, the Jurassic estimate mean is five time the present (400 ppm), with minimum of about two times and a maximum of ten times present levels. So, based upon geological evidence, the “C” in CAGW is extraneous. Since catastrophe did not ensue then, it cannot ensue now.
This is what you tell them Ira:
The cause of the pause was the cause before the pause.
The higher solar activity during SC17-23 (overcoming lower SC20) caused the global warming phase that ended at least a decade ago. The Earth’s temperatures have on average leveled off as the ocean heat content accumulation from all those years of the Modern Maximum in solar activity, from 1936-2003 from my calculations, using both Svalgaard’s new GSN and the SIDC numbers (they give the exact same result!), has been mitigated by the cooling effect of lower solar activity periods during all the solar minimums since 1936, and the SC23 declining phase through SC24.
The Sun warms and cools the Earth by emitting more or less photon flux. Earth cools off with insufficient incoming photon flux. A good proxy for the solar spectrum (total photon flux) is F10.7cm radio flux, a small slice of TSI on the sun’s frequency spectrum. The solar flux and sunspot number track very closely.
When the Sun is “hot”, we’re hot, when it’s not, we’re not. Over the course of a single rotation, or over the course of a whole cycle or series of cycles. The warming/cooling effect works in short time frames and long time frames.
For example, when we were in the “solar all-quiet” earlier this summer, the sunspot number dropped to zero for a day for the first time since the last solar minimum, with a corresponding drop in solar flux down to 89 sfu. That week was the coldest week all summer. The farside at that time had a lot of spots. In early July, SSN was 256, solar flux was 201, and it was hot. I have US temperature map data to back this up.
Solar cycle #24 had a daily average solar flux of 100 sfu/day as of July 10 (when I last did the calculation), and will be slightly higher now after a more active summer of mostly over 120 sfu/day,
Comparing cycles, in order of cycle, in sfu/day (F10.7cm measurements started in 1947):
#19@139
#20@113
#21@135
#22@123
#23@122
#24@100.
For cycles before #19, we rely on SSNs.
This analysis, extended to both the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum (among any others), explains the temperature drops experienced here on Earth result from deep, sustained solar slowdowns, especially during the Maunder, when the SSN was nonexistent quite a while, decades.
During the Dalton Minimum, SSN was zero for the whole year of 1810, when the depth of cold measured in at an almost 2C drop over the previous 9 years. The average SSN didn’t rise high enough to raise temperatures back again to where they previously were for almost two decades after 1810.
As long as solar flux is above 120, it’ll stay warm and very slightly build more heat into the system. When SC24 winds down, and daily SSNs are down and solar flux drops below 120 every day for the duration of the minimum and into the next cycle #25 (expected to be a low cycle), we will experience a noticable temperature drop (on average), as has happened during every solar minimum, whether it be between cycles as in 2008-10, as in 1810, or during a sequence of low cycles, as during the Maunder.
To make a long story short, a “hotter” Sun from 1936-2003, when solar activity as measured by sunspot number was 31% higher for 68 years than the annual average SSN for the previous 183 years, caused global warming.
A less “hot” Sun since then caused the “pause” – a misnomer – and in due time, an even “cooler” Sun, however small a variation in total magnitude, will cause global cooling.
Further analysis indicates the Sun causes extreme weather effects – but that’s for another day…
The Sun causes warming, cooling, and extreme weather effects. The Sun did it – it always has, it always will. It will do it again and again until the end of time.
CO2 increased from solar warmed ocean outgassing and fossil fuel use, but it does not, cannot, and will not be the driver of weather or climate on Earth. The Sun is.
Can you provide a link to the temperature data which shows “2C drop over the previous 9 years”? Thanks.
Nice summary; are you published elsewhere?
Nick Harding,
Try using the WUWT Search facility for Ira Glickstein and you will find other essays.
Richard
Nick, THANKS for the kind words. For links please Google or Bing “Ira Glickstein”.
My personal Blog is at http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/ and my free online novel, “The Hawking Plan” is at http://2052hp.blogspot.com/
Lots of other stuff is out there. (All costing absolutely nothing, and well worth it ! :^)
Ira
How could something so far away have any effect on earth! It makes no sense! I blame trace gases.
Bob,
I can’t discern from your discussion of the Sun’s influence if you are including the solar cycle variation in magnetic field and the resulting change in cosmic rays and/or the greater output of UVC (which I have read can increase by ~20%) during the solar cycle. These factors generate or inhibit aerosol production in the atmosphere.
The TSI variation is I believe in the neighborhood of +/-0.1%, and does not reflect the total warming potential of peaks in solar activity.
Also I am not sure if your sfu measurements pertain to the top of the atmosphere or at the Earth’s surface (if that matters).
Thanks!
Tom
Has there been good research done on the increase in atmospheric water vapor contributed by man during the last century? Consider the increase in water vapor from large-scale agricultural sprinkling; the man-made increase in acre feet of surface water; and bringing to surface aquifers that have been sequestered for millennia.
Would a back of a napkin calculation show any warming from this to be comparable to the conjectured contribution from anthropogenic CO2 or not?
A recent WUWT article on this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/28/new-study-claims-to-confirms-water-vapor-as-global-warming-amplifier-but-other-data-says-no/
The new study has been heavily plugged by warmistas, but the above article gives real, radiosonde, data that debunks it.
Answer NO. The figures for period before 1992 has either been compromized by interpolation or by a complete change of temperatures and CO2-values from responsible scholars working in field Water and Air. The geologic analyses from almost all of the world was compared and analyzed in Norrköping, on the Swedish eastcoast. this was due to the fact that it by then had one of the best laboratories for biologic and chemical analyse of provtagning
sampling under strict scientific forms were made around the world usually on behalf of the individual countries goverment. Reason from 1956/58 to sample and analyze were four:
* Because of previous earthquake disasters researchers around the world were interested to see how CO2, which all volcanoes emit in varied amount throughout his lifetime and afterwards, and SO2 changed the closer an outbreak man came. Even today, almost all monitoring stations that measure CO2 primarily designed to measure CO2 changes from the Earth’s interior and at the surface of known risk areas.
* Forecast. It was assumed then, do not forget that it was in connection with the paradigm shift to the realization that the earth consists of a number of tectonic plates, that the weather in a micro area and up to 2000 meters were affected by emissions from the Earth’s interior as well as pollution from industries. Does that say a lot about this. From 1970 until 1988, there are a lot of studies that are currently either been forgotten or whose readings “adjusted” ….. see below.
* Inversion of a number of the world’s major cities. The whole situation calls for basically half a treatise expressly to explain the cause, effect locally, regionally and across continents. Leaving the question of the moment.
* From the 1960s, specialized technical equipment to be used to explore potential oil fields of specialized geologists. Main researchers and geologists specializing in this place at that time of Viak Linköping and technology developed was based in part on survey instruments that my own father and to have produced to check for gas leaks that occurred due to ruptured gas and sewer lines in the ground . First presentation of the technology that they unfortunately could not afford to seek patents for made in Gothenburg Trade and Sjöfartstidning 1952 More modern technology and analysis methods was a scientist from the late 1950s, worked at Saab AB, aircraft, in Linköping.
In early 1990’s the hugh sampling figures as well as results of biologic and chemical analyses were about to be dissipated. So I had two summer holidays working on geotechnical department at Viak in Linköping and because my father had had with me as his assistant at his own sampling in eastern Sweden Nyköping down to Kalmar and into to the lake, I was asked if I could contact the researchers at Department of Water at Linköping University. The answer I got from it was that they did not have the correct values. It was better to interpolate or otherwise calculate by computer what it “should” have been ……
As we go forward in time. When last giddy CO2 “scientists” started its activities, I was active in some science groups related to the history and archeology. I was then contacted by one of the “reputed” the researchers often referred by agencies and interest groups. He thought the fact that I shared his desire to show an association. Genius, otherwise I can not call him, was kind enough to send me their “readings” he used as input into the model … all the fixes contained in the raw material I received. Had them in my old computer is now in a laptop that is never used on the web …..
So unlike many who speak out here, I have grown up with the problem, sampling, read basically everything that in terms of scientific reports, studies, dissertations, etc. in five languages.
(Always had too little to read so I used to have it as bedside reading)
I doubt it. Persistence is too short.
If water is sprayed in the air or ground made wetter, the water evaporation would cool the ground due to removal of latent heat, and this cooling would decrease evaporation. This negative feedback is a self limiting event, with average net evaporation only driven by level of absorbed solar energy at the surface. If the ground is dry, adding water would have a local surface cooling effect, and a local increase in water vapor, but the vast majority of the Earth surface is covered by water or has reasonably wet ground, so this does not change the average atmospheric water vapor.
I’ve seen figures that up to a third of the ocean rise was due to the draining of aquifers.
On the other hand, we did have a Republican administration that fell for the idea that a certain Middle East country was harboring WMD, and this might lead to a global catastrophe.
Politicians will first identify their objective, and then form a strategy that will lead to that objective. In the case of the Democrats and other leftists, this seems to be radical wealth distribution, statutory limits on fossil fuel consumption and other pipe dreams. Right-wing elements have their pipe dreams as well, so we should all be wary of these types. Won’t get fooled again, we hope. Remember 9/11.
Prominent Democrats who also said Iraq had WMD include John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and more.
BTW: Several prominent Republicans who embraced global warming include John McCain, Mitt Romney who was for it before he was against it, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Arnold Schwazenegger, Jon Huntsman, Oylmpia Snow and Susan Collins.
And not only politicians: One who was qualified to opine was Richard Butler “… appointed Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the UN weapons inspection organisation in Iraq, “. He was very definite in his judgement that Saddam had WMD.
There are some who believe that Saddam wanted everyone to think he had WMDs, under the theory that no one would dare to attack him if he did.
There are others who believe, with some contemporaneous empirical evidence, that the WMD that Sadaam was known to have (and had used against Iran in the Iran/Iraq war and also deployed against Iraqi Kurds in the Halabja Massacre of 1988) were simply transported across the border to the Ba’athist Assad government in Syria to avoid detection during his obstruction of UN inspection resolutions prior to the 2003 invasion.
OK that’s enough about WMD’s and Iraq. This is WAAAAAYYYYY off topic. Further comments will be snipped
Again, mind boggling.
Thus proving that ANYONE can fall for ANY load of crap, as long as the organized left are spewing it out. You proved the opposite of what you were intending to show there, CRS, and more soylent green! shows you why.
Fact is, everyone thought Saddam had WMDs, including Saddam. Everyone. Claiming otherwise after the fact is disingenuous. It was even a policy of the Clinton administration to deal with them.
I will never forget 9/11, and I will never forget that it was a DIRECT RESULT of Clinton’s actions… which is one of many reasons that I despise them (Clintons).
A number of people did not think so. The French did not. William Pfaff did not. I did not. Clinton?
Everyone, except for the weapon inspection teams.
A lot of weapons inspectors did not think so, and some had their lives destroyed for speaking out.
‘Fact is, everyone thought Saddam had WMDs, including Saddam. Everyone. Claiming otherwise after the fact is disingenuous.’
What you mean is everyone in the USA as the establishment and media there told ’em it was so. That belief was incredibly widely scorned in Europe long BEFORE the war. My father, in his eighties, who had never been politically active before in his life, marched against the war before it began. Because it was so widely rejected before the fact it effectively ended the political careers of two senior European politicians who supported the USA: Tony Blair & Jose Maria Aznar.
Nope – it was singularly the Americans who widely accepted the WMD story. I recall an opinion poll in Spain before the war that had around 94% of the population against it. Opposition levels were similarly high in other European countries.
2 minutes to 9/11 in Chicago, you thought I’d forget ?
Actually it was the Clinton regirme who started that particular story. After all, Huissein did use WMDs to commit genocide against the Kurds and the “Marsh Arabs” (Shiite Muslims living in the Tigris and Euphraties river delta.) Anyway they have since found parts of his WMDs with all the fighting going on.
Yep. The WMDs is another complex issue that is generally oversimplified.
On the other hand, we did have a Republican administration that fell for the idea that a certain Middle East country was harboring WMD, and this might lead to a global catastrophe
Please remember that Saddam Hussein used nerve gas on Halabja, killing over 3,000 people. Since he had it before—and used it—why not again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
http://www.ibtimes.com/25-years-after-worst-chemical-weapon-massacre-history-saddam-husseins-attack-halabja-iraq-city
Of course, maybe you don’t count sarin and mustard gas as WMDs?
Iraq and used WMDs against it’s own people. That is a fact. We also found equipment that had been disassembled and was ready to be reassembled for the creating of toxic gases. The equipment needed for a nuclear program were also found mothballed and hidden away.
It’s a complete myth that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
there are also many who never had suited up in WMD training who think WMD only means nukes.
I second this comment!!
CAGW and Iraq are two major issues, among others, that have exposed those in power on all sides to be deceptive beyond what we previously imagined. We should all be critically re examining everything we’ve believed, and everything they are currently trying to lead us to believe.
1. The earth is in the grip of a brutal ice age…has been for several million years.
2. AGW is a conspiracy theory.
3. The proposed cure for AGW will condemn millions of children to misery and death.
Sad, is it not? You took the time to present a well-reasoned argument, yet your friend still fell back on an appeal to authority. That in a nutshell describes the problem all of us face. No matter what we provide as evidence, it is disregarded. Few people want to think for themselves.
Indeed, this is my experience also. The peer pressure is just too much and they are afraid to take a stand against the overwhelming “consensus”. The other response I hear, “You may be right, but if there is even a one in a million chance you are wrong, don’t we owe it to our children to do something to prevent a catastrophe?”
I suppose that’s why the boys and girls over at SkS constantly push that 97 per cent nonsense. Whenever a warmista fails in an argument, he/she immediately falls back on that.
An answer to the precautionary principle is not all that comlicated:
Vis, so what insurance premium for rising sea levels and more weather extremes are you willing to pay real cash for?
QED.
I like to ask them how much they would be willing to pay for an insurance policy that would cover an meteorite hitting their house?
Exactly.
Ira,
This is exactly the kind of article and information the public (and the politicians) need. I have recently expanded a course requirement for the World Bank’s Coursera course “Turn Down the Heat…” into a critique of that course and explanation of climate sensitivity, inexplicably not even mentioned in the World Bank course.
I find journalists and talking heads almost never mention climate sensitivity and maybe don’t even know the concept. Without referencing climate sensitivity, almost all such journalism and commentary is superficial or worse. And the endless arguments and ugly attacks are mostly the result of this ignorance. I hope your “Guide for the Perplexed..” is widely read. While still a work in progress, I’ve tried to explain climate sensitivity and its importance to a lay audience here-
http://climatesensitivity.blogspot.com/
Doug: Thanks for the kind words. I looked at your linked website and it seems well done. I hope others who took that World Bank course, and other courses that fall for the Warmist story, follow it to get a more balanced picture.
Ira
PS: The sentence where you write “Guide for the Perplexed..” seems to indicate you caught on to where I got the title for my posting. It is a 12th-century book by Maimonides. :^)
Thanks, Dr. Glickstein. Very good article; short, very clear, and straight to the point.
“gases are responsible for the Earth being around 33⁰C (60⁰F) warmer than it would be if there were no “greenhouse”gases in the Atmosphere.”
Actually, the earth is warmer due to having an atmosphere, the GHE is only partially responsible for this.
I always try to avoid that argument. It’s to much for much physics for most people. 🙂
Bingo – convection and atmospheric mass are the main holders and movers of heat.
Coupled to the the Earth having oceans which act as huge heat sinks, and which allow transportation of that heat polewards; they distripute energy absiorbed in the equitorial and tropical areas, poelwards.
Just a thought, say that the Earth only had land mass throughout 45S to 45N and no ocean in that region such that the ocean was only at high latitudes, how much larger area would the polar ice mass be?
John,
If there are greenhouse gases, this implies they are in an atmosphere. It is the combination of atmospheric lapse rate and absorbing gases that determine the level of warming, so you are correct in that both are needed. However, You can have an atmosphere with no absorbing gases, and there would be no warming, so it is the presence of the greenhouse gases that cause the warming.
I like to point out that Mars’ atmosphere has about 10 times more CO2 in it than the earth’s does, yet it’s poles get cold enough to freeze CO2.
Leonard, THANKS for pointing out:
Ira
Your retired teacher is relying on nothing more than his belief.There is an important difference between relying on a mere belief that because some are labeled experts, they must be correct, and a thorough and competent analysis of relevant facts, data and level of uncertainty.
Indeed,would the teacher not have relied on Nobel Prize winner Antonio Egas Moniz, who was described at the time, 1949, as having given psychology it’s greatest advancement in history, the prefrontal lobotomy. There are numerous such examples. Why does your teacher reject the morej obvious option: “I don’t know”?
Refer your teacher friend to the American Meteorological Society’s survey of its members that showed that only a very slim majority (52%) believe that most of the warming has been human caused. I don’t have the link at the moment, but it was posted here on WUWT a year or so ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/
and ask him to show you any survey where the vast majority of scientist think AGW will cause world wide disaster.
This article points out the power of the appeal to authority argument. Yet, we know there are lots of examples of authority that is critical of AGW. The OSIM, therightclimatestuff web site, Burt Rutan, Nobel winning physicists, etc. Maybe a reference page with references to all these authorities would a useful addition.
Here’s the link I just mentioned:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ams%20global%20warming%20survey&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CDgQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.climatechangecommunication.org%2Fimages%2Ffiles%2FAMS_CICCC_Survey_Preliminary_Findings-Final.pdf&ei=uQ4RVOSmLI6pyAS1woCQDw&usg=AFQjCNGJrdCmDBS7LUt5pZAlduHCvmtHPg&sig2=GEj1COIBeaBpapcAgdTxNg&bvm=bv.74894050,d.aWw
The amount of scientific consensus on global warming and the value of that consensus are both overhyped.
It is mostly politics, Ira, and only tangentially related to science. No amount of argument will change the mind of someone who thinks fossil fuel use should be reduced because ‘it is the right thing to do’.
So true. Climate alarmists are in the grips of a mass hysteria. Nothing short of a drop in mean temperatures of .5 C (which is going to happen over the next few years) is going to make a difference and even then the die-hards will still be in denial.
Mass hysteria indeed – except that don’t polls show that a majority of the American public is not so alarmed about this alleged impending catastrophe?
On the side of us skeptics is “The sky is falling!” story.
Point 1 needs to make a much stronger the case about the adjustments. Showing the chart with just the adjusted data just burns in the falsehood. It would be better to plot or sketch in a dashed line offset by the amount of the adjustments to illustrate your point in the same scale as the chart. Even shade grey the gap between these line as “adjustement uncertainty — it matters.”
A minor point. Plot the Y axis with leading zero.
Not as good: ,8 .6 .4 .2 0 -.2 -.4 -.6 (easy to overlook the decimal point)
Better: 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 (these look smaller)
“Significantly since 1880” – Our 2 story non-zoned house has a constant 3 F temperature variation top to bottom. So is that 3X significant?
Temperatures have been adjusted? Look close at the temperature graph and try to remember a little
history. So the great 1970’s ‘Coming Ice Age’ scare (a compilation shown here – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/ ) was all based on temperatures in 1974-78 which had never seen lower than 1968?
Those who remember the past are still forced to repeat it by the masses who cannot remember it.
A very interesting point. It is real hard to see any “Coming Ice Age” worry of the late 1970’s in the temperatures as adjusted and plotted. The Ministry of Truth must have made the cold winters of the Carter years an unevent.
“Significantly since 1880” – Our 2 story non-zoned house has a constant 3 F temperature variation between the upper level and lower level 10′ difference. So is that 3X significant?
Temperatures have been adjusted? Look close at the temperature graph and try to remember a little
history. So the great 1970’s ‘Comming Ice Age’ scare (a compilation shown here – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/ ) was all based on tempertures in 1974-78 which had never seen lower than 1968?
Those who remember the past are still forced to repeat it by the masses who cannot remember it.
Excellent even-handed write-up Ira. Skeptics don’t need to be shrill or argumentative. As you’ve shown, truth wins by focusing relentlessly on facts from the alarmist’s own data sets.
The only change necessary for your post to reflect my own views exactly would be adding the word “probably” to your final sentence. Uncertainty cuts both ways and the issue of attribution is still so data-less I’m not ready to go all the way to a definitive assertion quite yet. However, the weight of existing evidence, as well as Occam’s Razor, strongly favor the null hypothesis.
Another “False Claim” that irks me is that some alarmists continue to characterize skeptics as anti-science, anti-evolution religious zealots. While there are certainly a few of those, it’s simply another group ad hominem attack that is grossly inaccurate. Being pro science doesn’t mean trusting what some scientists say, it means following the data – wherever it leads.
I try to be an optimist on matters such as this. You were respectful, laid out a concise yet detailed case and kept your emotions in check. The only thing I may have added was a brief explanation of where the “97 % consensus” originated and that many, many credentialed scientist are not in sync with the AGW theory. You planted some seeds of truth in his mind. They may germinate down the road or not, but you handled it the right way in my opinion. My take away, if we control our emotions and stay fact oriented we will gain much more ground.
@noaaprogrammer I’m sure that whatever change man has wrought to the quantity of water vapor is completely overwhelmed by the primary source: Evaporation from the oceans. I doubt we can make much difference at all.
@James McCown: Your answer really wasn’t to the question I had in mind. (I could say the same thing about the amount of CO2 the oceans release compared to the amount man contributes to the atmosphere.) What I’m after is comparing the relative affect of anthropogenic H20 to anthropogenic CO2. (In my opinion the effect of both on Global warming is negligible.)
On net, man’s contribution to atmospheric water vapor will always precipitate out and the world would return to it’s pre-man equilibrium. However, man keeps pumping more water into the atmosphere. This results in localized increases in water vapor. Averaged over the whole planet, the increase isn’t large, but the increase is where the people are, and that’s also where most of the climate sensors are.
I remember reading about a study someone did regarding temperatures in California’s Central Valley which is a big agricultural region that relies heavily on irrigation. They found that over the last 100 years there had been a slight cooling during the day and a slightly larger warming overnight.
The CO2 vs time plot is not a smooth exponential. During the past ~15 years, the increase in CO2 has been very linear. The rate is only accelerating if you go back to around 1989 and earlier. Interesting that the linear portion of the CO2 curve corresponds closely to The Halt.
Just reply to the perplexed: “Global Warming is apocryphal.” (from the Oxford: of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.)
In spite of having followed the CAGW/warmist story for 5 years, I remain confused about what is claimed about CO2 warming the planet:
Is it necessary for the atmosphere to warm first, and then do the oceans warm as a consequence of atmospheric warming?
That is how it looks to me, however the warmists seem to have the atmosphere not warming and the oceans warming. Doesn’t some law of themodynamics say the air has to warm first? Since the oceans are cooler than the atmosphere, doesn’t heat flow into the water mean heat flow out of the atmosphere, and an increase in oceanic thermal energy require an increase, at least initially, in thermal gradient? FIRST, not at the same time or afterwards, but first?
The original theory is that an increase in CO2 as a GHG will cause more Long Wave Back Radiation which will warm the atmosphere so it is weak science to think that the back radiation will warm the ocean without first warming the atmosphere. Judith Curry has some a good discussion on this and she is not convinced about ocean warming.
Thanks, Doug, you are asking the correct questions! The prevailing climate theories often contradict basic physics as you point out….when global warming stalled for the past 15 years, the climate science community scrambled for an explanation that they could justify. One of these was the rather unbelievable concept that the “heat was hiding in the abyss” (i.e. deep ocean). How the heat got there, no one could explain.
Please keep visiting & reading WUWT, especially posts by experts such as Dr. Roger Pielke! You will learn much by being a regular reader! Cheers, Charles the DrPH http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/pielkes-response-to-agu-statement-on-climate-change/
Yes, you are correct. The first thing that has to happen is the air has to warm as a result of increasing CO2. None of the other CO2 induced AGW effects that we are supposed to be afraid of can happen without this first effect happening. CO2 does not cause the other AGW effects directly. That is why the pause is undermining the cause. The whole CAGW scare rests on the atmosphere warming over the longer term. Given the mass of the ocean and the heat transfer mechanisms and the very small temperature difference that CO2 has supposedly caused in the atmosphere it is going to take a very long time to warm the oceans by a significant amount.
The warm air would only warm the surface tension layer of the water which would increase evaporation, thus leading to a cooler ocean. Only an increase in short wave energy can heat the ocean beneath the surface tension barrier.
Owen, anything that decreased the amount of heat leaving the oceans, even if short wave radiation stayed the same, would result in the oceans warming as well.
MarkW,
True, but it depends on whether the evaporation or radiation is the larger method of heat release from the ocean. If it is evaporation, then the ocean cools as heat is evaporatively released from the boundary layer. If it is radiation, then the theory might hold some water. The problem is that water is not a black body, but a selective absorber/emitter – it has a very distinct frequency response that causes IR only to penetrate millimeters into the surface (and only emit from the first millimeter as well). Only the higher frequencies penetrate to any depth. Thus, at the temperature of the ocean, only the top millimeter can radiate to space in the infrared (blackbody spectrum for its temperature). As the surface layer heats due to absorbing this IR energy, its evaporation potential increases, increasing the likelihood that those molecules will be whisked away into the atmosphere taking all their energy with them. The only way for this energy to go beneath the surface layer is for the waves (with the help of wind) to mix it down. This also increases evaporation as the churning adds mechanical energy to the water. The oceans are a very complex energy environment that tends to be extremely over-simplified in most of these discussions.
Mark W,
So Sublimation of water is 2,830,000 J/kg. http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/524/
And since most of this energy is taken from the nearby sea water – it will cool
Specific Heat Sea Water = 4,009 J/kg oC 2,830,000/4,009 = 705 or 705 kg by 1- C
Since there is 1,0000 Kg per m^3 or 100 Kg per cm-m^2, 1″ (2.54 cm) of water sublimated will cool the next (705/100)/2.54 = 2.77″ of water 1 oC. Also average evaporation from the oceans found to be at 140 CM per year.
As a textbook on thermodynamics stated, at normal temperatures, effects of radiant heat transfer can be ignored.
The sun warms both the oceans and the atmosphere. However the oceans lose that heat to the atmosphere, which then loses the heat to space. If the atmosphere is warmer, because of CO2, it will be harder for the oceans to lose their heat to the atmosphere, so they warm up as well.
To vastly simplify it, thermodynamics says that a gas will change temperature much faster than a liquid. And the atmosphere and the oceans will attempt to reach equilibrium over time. So, a temperature increase caused by longwave radiation reflected from CO2 in the atmosphere would necessarily cause the air to heat faster than the ocean.
However, the ocean is capable of storing much more heat than the air. Some of that heat is attributable to the transfer of heat from warm air to a relatively colder ocean, when those conditions exist. But the vast majority of the stored heat comes from the direct transfer of energy from sunlight.
All this has the observable effect of the oceans moderating atmospheric temperature. You can see this if you take a look at any map of average temperatures and follow a line of latitude. Inland temperatures are hotter in the summer and colder in the winter than the coastal temps.
I like this response especially, as it brings us back to our common experience: the “oceans moderating the atmospheric temperature”. Which says the atmosphere changes FIRST, and then the oceans moderate it.
I recognize BTW that the process is immediate and interactive, however no change can be “moderated” unless it first exists. Due to the thermal capacity and conductivity differences between the atmosphere and seawater, a moderately large thermal disconnect – one large enough to be observable – must develop between the air and the water before thermal transference will occur at a reasonable rate. There will be a time delay in both directions. If, however, the heat transference is between the oceans and the atmosphere, this time delay will still exist. So we need to carefully look at local oceanic and regional and global sea temperatures vs atmospheric temperatures and see which warms first.
In the case of land, it is obvious that the air warms rapidly, but this is strict solar. We see work on El Niño/La Nina movements of warm or cool water, but what we haven’t seen is atmospheric temperatures over the oceans. That air is going somewhere. It may be measureable – if we can nail down that the warmer air is directly attributable to El Niño waters, then that atmospheric energy can be removed from the heat content vis-a-vis CO2 warming.
At any rate, the timing of temp changes ABOVE the oceans vs the seawater will tell us whether the atmosphere is warming the oceans or vice versa.
I am a retired teacher. I am capable of critical thinking. I have been skeptical of global warming from the beginning. I read this website at least 100 days per year. I started on the old John L.Daly site, Still Waiting for Greenhouse. And if you want to share something with your retired teacher friend, have him take the Al Gore Unabomber Quiz which you can find via a google search on the words Al Gore Unabomber.
I also started out by reading the old John Daly site. Good place to start. I was looking for some actual. atmospheric warming figures rather than hand waving mumbo jumbo. That site led to other links- ultimately to “Climate Audit: and to Antony Watts’ blog.:
A big problem is that CAGW includes both a metaphorical carrot and a stick. A Heaven and a Hell.
If a skeptic points out the climatic dangers are exaggerated, their minds switch to their imagined future world of windmills & solar panels .
On the converse side if a skeptic tells them that sustainable Earth is a fantasy (that the manufacture of solar panels requires nasty greenhouse chemicals, that windmills ball-bearings will wear out way more than they think) then their minds drift to their imagined horror of the hurricanes & tornadoes that will kill them.
I have done this. I have tried explaining they are way too afraid, but they want the sustainable Earth too much – and I have tried explaining the sustainable Earth is a fantasy and they start talking about how ocean rise will destroy civilization.
My current belief is that we have to mention both, over and over again, that the sustainable Earth is a fantasy and the dangers are over-rated.
Seems like on average people in the government have the hardest time with not believing that global warming is not a real issue. I wonder if they are really just scared of running out of government and this issue is a promise of ever more government. Kind of like some people are addict to food and money….take it away from them and they go nuts. They have to have it and need more of it to be happy.
It’s the old when all you have is a hammer thinking.
Govt is about control. Those who gravitate towards work in govt tend to be those who believe that the world would be so much better off if only they were in charge. There are many in govt who really don’t care that much if CAGW is true, however “solving” the problem involves transferring lots of money and power to govt, and hence to them. Money and power that they wish to use to further their goals of perfecting mankind.
I had an email exchange recently with a confirmed Warmist. He claims to be a scientist, yet apparently cannot see that the graph of surface temperature levels off after 1998 or so. But his main argument, clearly based on talking points from organizations like Greenpeace, is that ‘d*ni*rs’ are all funded by fossil-fuel companies (and of course, the Koch brothers).
I pointed out that this is purely ad hominem, essentially claiming skeptical scientists are dishonest, corrupted by corporate patrons. It’s a not-so-nice way of dodging any debate on the facts. He did not respond. He said he prefers to believe that mankind is having a deleterious effect on the Earth and the climate, and that he plans to do everything he can to live in a more ‘sustainable’ way, for the benefit of generations to come.
There is no arguing with this attitude: It is an ideology, a faith, not science. And that’s what we’re up against.
/Mr Lynn
Exactly.
There’s a lot of statistical ignorance as well. I can’t tell you the number of warmers that I have argued with who dismiss the pause as being nothing more than an artifact of that big El Nino in 1998. They actually draw a line from the peak of the El Nino to today, and declare that of course it “looks” like it is cooling, but if there hadn’t been that El Nino, then it would be obvious that we are still warming.
Everyone under the age of 55 or so has been taught all through their school years that man is trashing the planet and that burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment. Small wonder then that so many are predisposed to believe in CAGW.
I wonder if he is like a relative of mine who thinks she is doing her part to save the planet by sorting her trash. When the alarmist actually do the things they want others to do, that is not using fossils fuel and living in a cave, then I may change my mind. Then again maybe not.
Good work Ira.
This is what is needed as our gullible comrades return to sanity.
The herd was stampeded, almost into mindless mitigation policies, these people will straggle back at their own speed.
However, as much as I admire your patience , I am leaning more toward the boot to the rear philosophy of cult deprogramming.
Somewhere someone is feasting on the wealth of a lot of chicken little types.
Also, the “tipping point” is key. There can be no “tipping point” in climate, else geological climate would be chaos after chaos. The Earth’s lovely stable climate shows that the stability is like that of a marble at the bottom of a bowl, where to perturb the marble just results in the marble returning to its stability point at the bottom. The alarmists would have us believe that it’s like an upturned bowl with a marble positioned precariously at the apex, where to perturb the marble brings calamity. If that was true, Earth’s climate would have tipped out into something calamitous yonks ago. Put it this way: whatever calamitous state is the final stable resting place of Earth’s climate, must be this state (ice ages and all), because it is the one which has endured.
Also, recommend they read “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton, showing the environmentalists in all their rancorous money-grubbing ethics-free glory. OK, it’s pulp fiction, but if you’re going to read one, read this one. Here’s a great passage:
Drake picked up a sheet. “This is recycled? It looks damn good.”
“Actually, it’s fresh paper.” The designer looked nervous. “But no one will know.”
“You didn’t tell me that,” Drake said. “It’s essential that recycled materials look good.”
“And they do, sir. Don’t worry.”
Couldn’t agree more. Michael Crichton’s best selling novel is an ideal place for a climate beginner to start.
Also, Ira, get your friend to put 97% Consensus in WUWT’s search box.
That’ll open his eyes to the debate. 🙂
Another negative feedback from melting arctic sea ice would be an increase in snow fall on the land masses surrounding the arctic.
Another point is that melting arctic ice is not the strong positive feedback that many on the warmist side like to claim.
Yes, ice does have a lower albedo than open water, but it’s dark six months out of the year, so albedo doesn’t matter then. For the rest of the year, the sun is so close to the horizon that the difference in albedo is much smaller.
Secondly ice is an insulator. The loss of sea ice means that it is much easier for the water to lose it’s heat to the atmosphere, and since it’s so cold up there, there is very little water in the air, so that heat has little trouble escaping to space. Loss of ice could actually end up being a net negative feedback.
Just what I have been looking for!
Like your article but find it is hard to get most people to read even that amount of data. My shortest most effective article is as follows:
Climate Change is based on three dependent Theories.
Theory One – Green House Gas Theory – the first doubling of Carbon Dioxide content in the atmosphere is predicted to cause up to 1 degree C of warming in the atmosphere due to increased back radiation. Issues which may limit temperature rise are the logarithmic decline in increase of back radiation as CO2 concentration increases and saturation of the back radiation spectrum by Water Vapor.
Theory Two – Amplification/Positive Feedback Theory – the predicted temperature rise due to back radiation increase is theorized to increase humidity in atmosphere which is predicted to cause 1 to 4 Degrees C of additional warming. The main issue is that the predicted humidity and temperatures increases have not been observed in the atmosphere by decades of balloon and satellite so the Climate Sensitivity to increases in CO2 appears to be over estimated. See “missing hot spot”- the largest temperature rise was predicted for the Troposphere in latitudes around the equator. Climate models do not do a good job of handling clouds and vertical energy transfers.
Theory Three – Catastrophic Climate Change Theory – The additional warming is predicted to cause Catastrophic Changes to the Climate. Main issues are both the Global Temperatures and the rate of temperature increase are running way below Computer Model Forecasts. There is no scientific link between Mild Warming and Catastrophic Climate Events.
The three theories are dependent on each other like three legs of a stool so the Climate Crisis falls down if you take any one away.
The Positive Feedback Theory is predicted to cause the majority of the warming but the empirical real world data is pointing to Climate Sensitivities that are lower than forecast. Show real temp vs models graph.
The simple message is that their precious experts are not wrong but that they may have overestimated the sensitivity and therefore the amount of warming and therefore the seriousness of the crisis. This message is less threatening, easier to understand and will plant a seed of doubt in their minds. I have seen this work even on committed liberals- it causes them to get agitated and mad as the doubts creep in.
Good luck with your friend.
He speculated that had a leading Republican promoted the same issue, the reaction would probably be the reverse.
And he’s dead wrong. Democrats line up on this not just because a Democrat told them to. It’s because they are primed to want the kind of changes that the “solution” to global warming would entail.
That’s a good explanation of why a leading Republican wouldn’t promote ACGW to begin with, but I have little doubt that a good portion of Republicans would have got behind the idea if it was “their issue.” Much of the electorate is uninformed about the issues they support – not because they are unintelligent, but – because delving into political issues isn’t worth their time, when they have jobs and families and any number of other things of more pressing importance to their daily lives. Politicians of all ideologies use this to their advantage, because getting reelected is their major concern.
A few points I would like to say. First of all, I strongly disagree that had a Republican been pushing AGW and these same solutions, the vast majority of us skeptics would NOT have agreed with him. We did NOT disagree because of that. In fact, early on, even many republicans were on board with AGW.
Second, the graph in section one should go from -2C to +2C. 2C is the supposed magic number, the way it is drawn makes it look way scarier than it is. Having the +2C line on the graph shows how far below the temperature increase in which it even starts becoming a concern is helpful.
Third, in the model comparison section 3, have the Y axis go from -1C to +1C. Much more clearly gets across the point that the models are not matching reality.
I think you all probably got my intent… of course I meant to say “.. I strongly disagree that, had a Republican been pushing AGW and these same solutions, the vast majority of us skeptics would have agreed with him.”
The Democrats project like crazy — it’s probably true that, had a Republican been the initial spokesman for AGW, that the Democrats would have opposed it. Therefore, by their reasoning, yada yada yada.
CO2 induced global warming is the biggest fraud since the church created purgatory at the end of the Middle Ages. A ‘Reformation’ in science is going to be needed to turn things around. The fundamental issue is that there is no such thing as an equilibrium average climate that can be perturbed with forcings and feedbacks. Nor is there such a thing as a climate sensitivity to CO2. The Earth’s climate is determined by the balance between wind driven evaporative cooling and the solar heating of the oceans.
In order to understand the global warming fraud it is necessary to go back and start with Manabe and Wetherald’s paper in 1967 (M&W). They created what is best described as a mathematical platform that could be used for testing computer climate algorithms, particularly for atmospheric radiative transfer calculations. However, the assumptions that they used automatically created the mathematical artifact of global warming. This also fed speculation dating back to the nineteenth century that CO2 could cause global warming.
M&W began with an equilibrium average infra-red atmosphere that is by definition controlled by the long wave IR (LWIR) flux. They assumed a 24 hour average solar flux and an exact solar-LWIR flux balance at the top of the atmosphere. They then used a ‘blackbody surface’ with zero heat capacity for the Earth’s surface and assumed a fixed relative humidity distribution. This is the perfect mathematical recipe for global warming. Any increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration must by definition increase the surface temperature and be amplified by the water vapor feedback. This of course has no relationship whatsoever to planet Earth.
The next step in the fraud was to add an ocean layer to the M&W model. This was just a few layers of water with a thermal diffusion coefficient and a heat capacity. The fact that the penetration depth of the CO2 LWIR flux into the ocean is only 20 micron was ignored. Any minute heating effect from CO2 is obliterated in the real ocean by the surface wind speed variation. The entire global warming flux from CO2 is removed by an increase in wind speed of a few centimeters per second. The climate models are still incapable of simulating the ocean oscillations. This is a fundamental requirement for any realistic climate model.
Now, follow the money. NASA put a man on the moon in 1969. By the mid 1970’s NASA was hurting for money and started to look at global warming for funding. The result can be seen in Hansen’s 1981 Science paper. About this time, the long term ocean oscillations switched from net cooling to net warming and stayed that way for the next 30 odd years. By the mid 1980’s, the ocean warming had started to show up in the climate record and the Hadley Center was able to start shouting about global warming.
A third level of fraud was also added to the climate models. It was now claimed that the observed increase in LWIR flux from CO2 had produced an observed increase in the weather station record, which is in fact impossible. An empirical ‘climate sensitivity constant’ was created so that 1 Watt per square meter of increase in LWIR flux from any ‘greenhouse gas’ produced an increase of 2/3 C in ‘surface temperature’ as measured by the weather station record.
The increase in LWIR flux for the greenhouse gases was calculated using the HITRAN database. This came from the Air Force Geophysics Lab, so it could not be ‘corrected’. Instead, as the ocean warming slowed and the weather station record showed less warming, aerosols were added to the mix and adjusted to make the models cool down a bit.
The fox is also guarding the henhouse, and the climate modelers also have control of the selection of the weather station data and the ‘homogenization’ process used to create the global climate record. Probably half of the observed global warming comes from weather station data ‘fiddling’.
The Earth started cooling about 15 years ago. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation changed first. The sun stopped producing as many sunspots with cycle 24. The El Nino Southern Oscillation slowed down. The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation is now starting its cooling phase. We are headed to at least a Dalton type minimum. The climate models of course are hard wired using empirical ‘radiative forcing constants’ to produce global warming from CO2 and other ‘greenhouse gases’ independent of the Laws of Physics.
Last year, with the start of the release cycle for the Fifth Assessment Report by the IPCC, the Earth itself called the climate modeler’s bluff. There has been a sufficient lack of measured climate warming over 15 to 20 years for the modeling fraud to be revealed to those that choose to look.
Explicitly or implicitly, the work of Manabe and Wetherald can still be found in the climate models. The mathematical global warming artifact is still there, lurking deep down inside. The models still have to be ‘constrained’ to give the correct theological global warming answer. However the writing is on the wall and the climate Ponzi scheme is starting to collapse.
References
Manabe, S. and Wetherald, R. T., J. Atmos. Sci., 24 241-249 (1967), ‘Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity’
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6701.pdf
Hansen, J.; D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind & G. Russell, Science 213 957-966 (1981), Climate impact of increasing atmospheric CO2
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html
Clark, R. Energy and Environment 24(3, 4) 319-340 (2013) ‘A dynamic coupled thermal reservoir approach to atmospheric energy transfer Part I: Concepts’ (Paywalled)
Clark, R. Energy and Environment 24(3, 4) 341-359 (2013) ‘A dynamic coupled thermal reservoir approach to atmospheric energy transfer Part II: Applications’(Paywalled)
http://www.venturaphotonics.com/ClimateFraud.html
Yup. It looks good on paper. If you assume we live in a purely radiative world contained within a closed glass box. In the real world, however, it doesn’t work at all. Even the postulated 1 degree of global warming for a doubling in CO2 is nothing but a mathematical artifact.
The upside down diabetes promoting Food Pyramid is a wonderful example for skeptics to point out now that Atkins has been vindicated and paleolithic diets are quite popular. It was also a single bullet theory (of heart disease instead of climate change) based on political support of the Michael Mann of his day, Ancel Keys. Pointing this out makes your type of serious argument about fraud and overwhelming consensus supporting it not sound so far out and conspiratorial to laypeople. Most open minded liberals, the only demographic left that are yet to be converted to skepticism, including liberal scientists, just can’t believe such a big fraud is possible. Well, there it is, modern precedent for it, one that overwhelmed the entire medical profession for decades, that just like climate alarm, which had little solid evidence behind it, and lots of lying with statistics, which the American Heart Association and various U.S. Surgeon Generals etc. all widely promoted.
The problem is you still hear the diet cr@p from the heart disease charities and even from official AMA publications. The fact of the fraud has not been widely distributed to the rank and file and the falsehood is still part of the medical curriculum. There are a number of professionals who are taking a “fake but true” attitude after the revelations.
Need to remember all of Abraham Lincoln’s famous quote, “you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
That it is true “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time,”
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin110340.html#dEpAU3tuZuClz0vg.99
Good post, but since most of the propaganda these days avoids the lack of temperature rise and emphasizes extreme weather events, I would include more than just temperature in the arguments. For example:
Sea levels are slowly rising on average, but they have been rising since records have been kept, and the rise is not accelerating as it must for AGW.
Ocean temperatures have not risen as expected by AGW.
Extreme events like hurricanes have not increased and in fact appear to be decreasing. Hurricanes especially were supposed to be stronger and more frequent, but when was the last time a category 3 hurricane hit the US coast?
Tornadoes have not increased.
Floods and droughts have not increased
Wildfires have not increased.
AGW theory requires a hotspot in the tropopause for the warming to be caused by CO2 feedback (the atmosphere about 10KM high, mainly above the equator). This is called the “distinct human fingerprint” by the EPA. This hotspot does not exist.
The polar bear population is doing just fine. Canada and Russia will not put them on the endangered list because they aren’t endangered, in spite of US pressure.
Food crops are not failing. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN is reporting increases in yields of all major food crops in this century, and the numbers of undernourished people is declining. Perhaps because CO2 is a nourishment, not a pollutant.
The arctic ice levels are today very close to normal. The Antarctic ice has been above normal for a record period of time. There is no downward trend in global sea ice.
Land snow and ice coverage levels have not decreased either.
Did I leave anything out? I think various charts and graphs demonstrating all of these facts, from reputable scientific sources, are available here I am sure.
You could add that even the IPCC says there will be what they quaintly refer to as “net benefit” from both warming and CO2 for the next several decades even using their own exaggerated CMIP 3 & 5 projections.
If it works out the way I think, we’ll be past his phase of human development while still suffering from net benefit.
There is an overall downward trend in global sea ice, though, since 1979.
Clay: GREAT LIST !!! Here it is in a box so more may read it.
Ira
While I agree the quantitative aspects of global temp anomalies are at heart of the matter, some very specific qualitative predictions were made through the years. Enough time has passed to conclusively show those were wrong too. Some failed predictions:
– Arctic Sea in a late summer-fall NW passage was to be icefree or mostly disappeared by 2013
– snow in most of the UK
– devastating superstorms relentlessly pounding us by now (now they are out to 2050).
– climate refugees fleeing by the millions
others failed qualitative predictions I’m sure.
correction: snow free winters in the UK.
The only thing that gives my Alarmist friends pause is the worry that they could be the last ones to recognize this was all a scam. Its a fad for them, a way to “prove” how sciency and smart they are. They are terrified at being exposed as fools, esp the ones who were arrogant re the certainty of the science. I can identify them by seeing the blood drain from their face as I explain how the 97% Consensus was fabricated.
I don’t need Dr. Ira Glickstein, or anybody else for that matter, to tell me, what to say, and to whom.
All the facts he listed have been repeated thousands of times in public and in private, and had no effect on those who lie for money, or on those who lie because they want to feel better about their pathetic selves.
Never in human history the truth, the facts, or any logical arguments convinced the servants of the prevailing prejudice, be it religion or a scientese myth. The gold and the sword always win.
Very true. You can’t reason with a wall.
Alexander Feht:
On the other hand, as many wise men and women have said: “It is better to light one little candle than to curse the darkness.”
Ira
What are our future teachers being taught ?
Shows the consensus meme will be the hardest to break.
Question along those lines using the same methodology as Lewandowsky. What percentage of nuclear physicists think nuclear energy is the best form of power generation and we should switch to nuclear power?
Ira, you say:
“I have prepared the following strictly fact-based response, using sources the presenter himself mentioned and being careful not to speculate or over-complicate the matter.
1- It is undoubtedly true that average surface temperatures have increased significantly since 1880. Human activities are responsible for some portion of that warming.“
How is this bolded part in any way ‘fact-based’? It is only conjecture-based opinion.
Kristian
Please note that the purpose of the presentation is to convince others while being strictly truthful.
If you want to help people to listen to what you say then you need to start from where they are and not where you want them to be.
You ask and say of the presentation
Sorry, but it is certainly true and not “only conjecture-based opinion” because humans add to the warming in several ways; e.g. urban heat islands, land use changes, etc..
These observed additions to warming are so small that they cannot be identified as part of ‘measured’ global warming, but they are not “only conjecture-based opinion”: they are observed reality..
If you want people to understand that the human contribution to global warming is trivial and irrelevant then start from their understanding that “Human activities are responsible for some portion of that warming” because it is a truth which they know.
Richard
Richard: THANKS! Your reply to Kristian is right on. Always excellent to read your postings.
Ira
Are you pulling my leg here, Richard?
Ira clearly states “It is undoubtedly true that average surface temperatures have increased significantly since 1880. Human activities are responsible for some portion of that warming.“
So you think Ira meant by ‘some portion of that warming’ UHI and land use which according to you are ‘observed additions to warming’ but ‘so small that they cannot be identified as part of ‘measured’ global warming.’
So what warming are they ‘observed additions’ to Richard? Certainly not Ira’s ‘average surface temperatures [that] have increased significantly since 1880.’ Or are you saying that his ‘portion of that warming’ is 0.0001 degrees or something of that order – not measurable, but still there?
I have a feeling that’s not what he meant when he wrote what he wrote. Because that would be a bit bizarre, and completely pointless without qualifying it, don’t you think?
Are you sure that Ira, by what he said, didn’t rather mean something along the lines of “We ‘KNOW’ that adding CO2 to the atmosphere somehow ‘MUST’ make Earth’s global surface warmer. So even if we can’t see it anywhere in the actual data, we ‘KNOW’ that we ‘MUST’ have contributed some to the significant global warming since 1880”?
If you start out giving them that one, you’ve already lost right there (in their mind, they see you agree with them and that’s it, case closed).
Kristian
My reply to you was true and accurate.
It was endorsed by Ira Glickstein who says it was “right on”.
In these circumstances I see no reason to consider your assertions of what you think he may have intended.
Richard
Richard, your reply to me was nothing but silly pedantry, apologetic quibbling. If Ira really meant UHI and land use changes contributing an unmeasurable (!) amount to the significant global warming observed since 1880, then why express himself the way he did? Further down, under the ‘Conclusions’ heading, he very clearly expands on what he was getting at higher up:
“FALSE CLAIM – Skeptics do not believe that human activities have any part in causing the warming.
RESPONSE – We do accept that unprecedented burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, and some changes in land use, are responsible for a significant fraction of the actual warming. However, based on comparison of actual temperature observations with IPCC climate models, I am convinced that the majority of warming is due to natural causes and processes not under human control or influence.”
Or are these two statements completely unrelated? Ira is NOT claiming as FACT(-based) that we ‘are responsible for a significant fraction of the actual warming’? Through our CO2 emissions?
The original post was dealing with how to respond to a fellow non specialist who feels the “scientific concensus” is to be trusted. IMHO the response can’t be based on the science but on what lies behind the “consensus” itself.
I would give them the whole climategate email file. It exposes not so much the science but the behaviour and attitudes to the science of the core, key players inside the “consensus”. It reveals the basis for the “consensus”, why it is so vigorously fought for and why it is so fragile.
Any non specialist who goes with the “consensus” flow would find the climategate email file good reason to stop and reflect and maybe dig deeper.
And possibly then find their way to WUWT.
Point him to Donna’s books–the first 10% of the Kindle editions can be read for free. That ought to plant a seed of doubt.
Another seed-planter: a list of failed predictions. (As a commenter above laid out.)
A third: What “we” do in the West won’t matter, because by 2040 China and India will be emitting twice what the whole globe is emitting now.
A fourth seed-planter: Renewable energy has been vastly over-hyped. It’s not all that clean, it’s expensive, there’s no room for enough of it to power our societies, it has hidden costs, the pioneer countries are hurting, etc.
I think those four key points, following Ira’s initial set, can knock many crusaders off their high horses.
Another avenue of attack on his trust in scientists would be to point him to Susan Crockford’s site, which documents how one example-group of scientists has put its thumb on the scale in the alarmist pan.
http://polarbearscience.com/
“However, he said he still trusts what he believes are the overwhelming number of scientists who have examined the evidence and reached a conclusion.”
I’ll ignore the question of whether an “overwhelming number of scientists” actually have examined the evidence and reached the conclusion that most global warming is man-made, because I want to look at another issue here.
Why should he, or anyone else, “trust” them to the extent of taking their claims seriously? My, and most people’s, response to a lot of scientific claims is “Meh. Maybe they’re right, maybe not.” We do not “trust” or not “trust” the scientists involved.
Why should the Global Warming claims be met with a different response?
I can only think of one reason. We are told (a) that if the claims are true, that is, if Global Warming is happening, it will result in a catastrophe, and (b) we can take action to avoid the catastrophe.
But (a) and (b) are further claims from the same bunch of scientists. Unless we take (a) and (b) seriously, we have no reason to get sufficiently worked up about the general Global Warming to “trust” the scientists. This means that we must already “trust” the scientists who claim (a) and (b) before we can “trust” them on the general Global Warming claim.
So why should we “trust” the scientists who claim (a) and (b)?
Another very important point, and one that is difficult to refute is this:
If these predicted tipping points existed, they would be reached, and therefore tipped, whatever the caused of the warming. This has not happened in the two most recent warm periods (Roman & medieval), and you must therefore conclude that they do not exist.
If the tipping points do not exist, there is little if any reason for alarm.
“The image below is the latest GISS Global Temperature Index anomaly. ”
Note the clever misdirection on that graph. The error bars.
Why is the second error bar placed in 1947 ? Why 1882 ?
It is correct that some indication of uncertainty be on the graph and that it changes as records become more accurate. By why fluorescent green? It is not normal for the error bars to be the most prominent feature on a graph. What this does is highlights the temperature at three dates.
These dates are not accidentally chosen this is the old trough-to-peak trick. It would be more honest to pick the the 1940 peak but then it would be clear that the warming has been going on since at least 1900.
I would suggest finding another graph that does not have this kind of visual misdirection on it.
Cherry picking the temps of two isolated dates does not indicate anything. You should use a linear regression that includes all data over the period in question.
Greg
You say
Sorry, but you are wrong.
Are you really trying to claim that there was net warming between two times when the earlier time was measured to be the warmest of the two?
Clearly, the “two isolated dates” do indicate something; they indicate there was no net warming over the period with those end points (to within the measurement error). Indeed, that is true not only for – as in this case – global average temperature anomaly (GASTA). It is also true for my temperature as measured by the nurse, and if I want to compare my state now and last week then I compare the actual measurements taken now and then.
But that is not the only way to assess the net warming. You suggest using a linear least-squares fit that includes all data over the period. Why linear? And, anyway, you would still obtain an indication of “no net warming for 15 years” but, very importantly, the way you gained that indication is a procedure (i.e. linear regression) that would be meaningless to most people. (And if the nurse tried to fob me off with a linear regression instead of my actual temperature then I would complain to the Specialist.)
The presented information is true, correct and comprehensible to any intelligent audience.
It is the right information to provide, and if its provision were to induce your type of point from the audience then that would provide an opportunity to explain different forms of data presentation and interpretation.
Richard
Question : Are there any figures available or studies which quantify the Heat Energy released to atmosphere by mankind? Are there any assessments of the effect of that on global temperatures? I’ve done a google search but drew a blank .
UHI is a well known fact and the significant difference in temperature between urban locations and surrounding countryside is well documented , albeit that to my mind climate scientists underplay the amount of the difference. UHI represents, in part at least, the production and release of heat into the atmosphere by man and which increases temperatures at the local level.
The amount of that heat release has increased significantly since the industrial revolution and continues to increase at a high rate as more countries industrialise and improve living standards for their citizens ( viz China, India etc ).
I wonder what is the direct effect on global temperature of heat release to atmosphere as opposed to the indirect effect of greenhouse gas ? I wonder what portion of the very small increase in global temperature can be attributed to man via this direct heat energy release to atmosphere; is it trivial or significant?
Any information, comment or pointers to any research would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
I would also say the using RSS is a cherry pick that could be attacked. It is certainly a “convenient” choice.
I suspect that UAH estimations are more accurate but at least show both so that you avoid any counter argument that you have chosen the data set that favours your position.
If that makes it less clear, err on the side of caution and just use UAH.
Ira
Whilst there is much to commend in this post, there are a number of stark errors, by which I mean pure scientific errors (as opposed to being a correct representation of your own belief). For example, you state:
“RESPONSE – We do accept that water vapor, CO2, and other ‘greenhouse” gases are responsible for the Earth being around 33⁰C (60⁰F) warmer than it would be if there were no “greenhouse”gases in the Atmosphere.”
The figure of 33 degC is pure conjecture. I would suggest that the dominant reason why the Earth is (allegedly) some 33 degC warmer is due to the distributions of land and ocean masses. It is easy to test this. Consider the Earth as being entirely land between say 50S through to 50N with no oceans or lakes whatsoever in that region, and oceans only at high latitude. What would be the temperature of planet Earth?
What one would see is desert through 40S to 40N, there would be little or no rainfall, and hence high daytime temps and low night time temps. Deserts typically have an average temp of just over 20degC say 22 to 24 degC. Now compare that to the average which we see on planet Earth as it is today, equitorial and tropical ocean 30 degC plus, sub tropical land masses (which are not deserts) having an average temperarture of over 30degC.
If oceans were only at high latitude above 50S, above 50N, the polar ice caps would be greatly extended since the energy/heat which today is being absorbed in the equitorial and tropical oceans and which is distributed polewards would no longer be distributed polewards. The equitorial and tropical oceans could theoretically be well over 40 degC whereas in practice they are only about 30degC (or slightly over) and the additional 10degC is being distributed polewards on the conveyor belt currents warming high latitude oceans (rather than further warming the equitorial and tropical ocean itself).
In this scenario one would not see the gulf stream around the UK and Iceland, polar ice would engulf Scotland, at least in the winter months.
The temperature on planet Earth would be very different. What dictates the temperature is not some theoretical radiative budget but rather natural real life processes and the fact that the planet is a water world (which acts as huge heat sinks and which pump heat all over the planet) , and the distribution of land masses and oceans.
You state:
“During the discussion period I agreed that global warming is real, that atmospheric CO2 undoubtedly causes some warming, and that some of the increased CO2 is certainly due to human actions.”
Again, that is an unscientific statement. We do not “undoubtedly” know that CO2 causes some warming. The earliest that such a statement could be made is when we know what caused (i) the Holocene Optimum, (ii) the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods, (iii) the late 1690s to 1730s warming seen in CET (iv) the say 1860 to 1875 warming, (v) the 1920 to 1940 warming: and (vi) the reason for thepost 1998 ‘pause’. When all this can be explained and when we are in a position to rule out whatever caused those events as being the cause of the late 1970s warming, then it may be possible to say CO2 causes some warming, but even in that scenario, it probably could not be said that CO2 undoubtedly causes some warming, but rather that CO2 may well cause some warming, or probably causes some warming.
As matters stand, there is no empirical observational evidence that backs the claim that CO2 causes warming in real life atmospheric conditions.
I am not saying that it does not, merely that factually there is no empirical observational evidence that backs the claim that CO2 causes warming in real life atmospheric conditions.
richard verney 12:54am: “The figure of 33 degC is pure conjecture.”
Not purely. The figure is from measurements by thermometer field at earth surface and now earth satellite field at their orbit. The measurements of the approx. 33 degC difference are then confirmed by reasoned basic 1st principle text book analysis.
I agree. The 33K is simply based on the actual estimated mean global surface temp – ~288K – minus the BB temperature of Earth as seen from space, based on the average IR flux measured (240 W/m^2) – ~255K. This is a fair starting point.
“Human activities are responsible for some portion of that warming.”
How much have human activities contributed to the non warming over the past 2 decades?
Where’s the EVIDENCE?
Perhaps temperatures would have been falling instead of holding steady?
We should reply in a strictly fact-based way, using official sources — being careful not to speculate or over-complicate the matter.
Spot on Ira. No guesses, no approximations, no flannel.
So, no ” humans are responsible” w/o evidence. No global warming w/o evidence, No global cooling w/o evidence.
I guess that leaves ,no climatology. Just right.
What explains the drops in the “5% to 95%” confidence range of the simulations (shown in yellow) around 1983 and 1992? Without these the discrepancy between observed facts and models would be even greater.
AND why does the 5 to 95% range seem to widen post 2000, when surely the evidence post 2000 should be more certain and of better quality, and our understanding post 2000 should be better such that one would expect a narrowing in the band post 2000?
What you call “false claims” are in fact willful PR firm tutored slander. And the word “fraud” does not occur in your summary. As long as you stick to just facts, you lose, since laypeople have to rely on authority to for the interpretation of such rather technically involved facts. But real, exposed fraud is simply undeniable. In the last year the central hockey stick team is widely promoted two completely brazen frauds any school kid can fully understand, the Marcott 2013 bladless input data hockey stick and the Cook 97% consensus study that claimed to omit psychology papers but in fact included them. But you are not going to help expose that fraud. Well why not? Politeness is not the persuasive and normal human response to being loudly slandered by Enron level scammers. The proper response is animated anger and direct in your fact challenge, using strong and accusatory words. But skeptics don’t do that on average, so they put very little political and ethical pressure on working scientists to speak up.
Obviously, Science by Consensus is still alive and well and in most believers’ minds trumps any actual understanding of the matter.
Ira
You use a land ocean temperature index to 1880.
Can we do a reality check here whilst you tell me how we measured the still largely unexplored world in order to come up with a global LAND temperature index? (which largely ignores the SH) . Mind you the land temperatures almost assumes respectability when we look at our belief that we had a good handle on the virtually unknown global ocean temperatures much before the 1950’s, other than in very narrow and well defined trade routes such as those sailed by the merchant ships.
I wrote about the lack of rigour in SST’s here.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/27/unknown-and-uncertain-sea-surface-temperatures/
We set far too much store in our belief that we know with such certainty historic global data on everything from land to ocean temperatures and Arctic ice to rainfall amounts. Much of it is speculation derived from such things as tree rings, moss and boreholes, or sailors throwing buckets over the side of a ship.
tonyb
Dear Ira
You have made a massive blunder. In your temperature chart that starts in 1880, you have failed to show that any possible CO2 induced warming could only have started around 1950 as humans had not yet put much CO2 into the atmosphere as well as the lag time for any response to additional radiative forcing. Since you ask for fact based official data, have a look through the CO2 reference page on this site for the data that will confirm my statement.
With this information, you can now show that the warming that occurred prior to 1950 has a similar warming rate as the accepted date range of modern, possible human caused warming. That information may be the tipping point needed to convince your non-skeptic audience that maybe the skeptics are right after all.
Lastly, why use 5 year smoothing? you lose the last 5 years of data, as that can’t be included in the smoothing.
Actually, I think you lose the last 2.5 years of data when you do a 5 year smoothing. I guess I don’t know everything… yet.
Excellent post.
But you should have asked your retired teacher friend, “why the name change”?
It’s also important to place the CAGW scam in its wider context, Ira, the financial & political aspects are more important than the scientific, IMO.
I’m an artist, not a scientist, & frankly much of the science goes whoosh, straight over my head, but a couple of years ago I set out to look into the CAGW issue, & it’s a minefield.
I found that the IPCC is a political organisation, masquerading as a scientific one. The IPCC looks ONLY at CO2 as the engine of climate change, & that is preposterous. The IPCC won’t look at the variable sun, ocean oscillations, Earth’s variable orbit. These are not in its remit. IPCC has been set up to find CO2 is the cause, it’s a rigged game.
& has been from the start.
Hansen’s televised speech to Congress, which kicked this thing into high profile public view, June 1988, was fixed for traditionally the hottest day of the year, in the middle of a heatwave. Just to make sure of dramatic TV, Hansen & Senator Tim Wirth had sabotaged Congress’ air conditioning.
This is detailed in Michael Crichton’s excellent book, State of Fear, along with much else.
This scam is funded through inflating poor peoples heating bills & collects $360 billion per year, & politicians like the multi-millionaire Gore profit, as well as the 1%s on the stock market, through Cap & Trade.
The “Greens”, like the WWF & Greenpeace like to present themselves as poorly funded Davids battling the Evil Goliath Big Oil.
They are Communist fronts.
& most well funded : http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mainstream-media-dont-know-big-green-has-deeper-pockets-than-big-oil-/article/2548405
Behind the whole CAGW farce is a drive for bigger Govt & more Govt control, leading to One World Govt, & a vastly reduced human population, ostensibly to “sustainable” levels. This is code for easily controllable levels. Google : Lord Monckton and Globalist Death Plan for Humanity.
It seems as though your friend has two problems :
1) He defers to what he believes is an overwhelming consensus of scientists, although he is unlikely to be able to specifiy which scientists and why he thinks them all to be in agreement. In agreement about what? A good counterpoint would be the total lack of consensus with respect to the “pause.” How can anyone claim to understand climate/climate change if they can’t figure out the “pause.” So exactly why does he still have any confidence in those scientists? There have been dozens of theories about the lack of warming – not even remotely close to any consensus, and none of them with any persuasive evidence.
2) He obviously greatly fears a “tipping point” and runaway warming. You might start out by pointing out times in the past when the Earth was much warmer and had much less ice – so what happened to reverse that ? I believe WUWT has had some articles that dealt with runaway warming and why it never happened, or could happen.
There were also articles that dealt with what I believe was one of his main fears – melting ice releasing methane ( a short lived GG) – and showed that very little methane released this way actually managed to get into the atmosphere. In general, point to the empirical evidence that casts doubt upon all of the
predicted positive feedback meachanisms (humidity, for example, where 100 year’s of data show no
evidence of an increase due to the warming that has occurred). Also ask him, as a simple research task, to produce any evidence of those positive feeback mechanisms and point out that no one believes CO2 alone can do much- global warmists arguments depend entirely on net positive feedbacks. Very large net positive
feedbacks.
Finally, the fact that if climate sensitivity to CO2 is at the low end of estimates, we are close to an asymptote and further additions of CO2 to the atmosphere will have practically no effect.
Actually, I’m not even sure one would accomplish anything with that friend – he obviously
considers himself incapable of evaluating evidence and coming to a conclusion and also incapable of defending any conclusion he might reach. I don’t believe his opinion has any relevance.
I can’t feel too superior to Dr. Glicksein’s teacher friend, because I, too, have been hoodwinked by scientists. And if circumstances hadn’t forced me to put a lot of effort into investigating some of the instances, I would never have known it.
Science is too important to be left to the scientists. But most of us laymen lack the time and/or ability to investigate for ourselves what scientists say. In a large percentage of the times I’ve actually been able to investigate, I’ve found the scientists wrong. (I include skeptical scientists in this, too; the Brown-Eschenbach law comes to mind.)
The sad fact is that we laymen will always fall prey to scientists because there just aren’t enough hours in the day for a layman really to examine everything scientists say.
Think segmentation.
People’s views about global warming (climate change) cover the spectrum from fervent belief to outright denial and all points in between. A single post (or book, or TV program) can’t convince everyone, so it’s important to be clear about the target audience. Ira’s post will do well in adding to the ranks of the agnostics. It doesn’t require a ‘position’, it only requires that the audience takes the facts at face value. Then they can decide for themselves. But it does require that the audience invest some time in looking so it helps if they are already somewhat suspicious of the worst claims of the alarmists.
For that reason I also like billkerr2013’s comment (at 9.19pm).
First it’s simple (great for cocktail conversations when you have, maybe, ten seconds). Second it’s explanatory rather than missionary. Third, there’s a chance it leads to more questions. That’s all we can hope for.
After all it’s questions, and not certainty, that we have.
So WHO is politicizing it? he introduces politics from the outset. He is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Oh, and just a major kudos to Anthony and gang for how quotes are now displayed. Much, much easier to read and they stand out very well! Outstanding changes to your site Sir Anthony!
Trusting the consensus, without knowing why, is like what I saw on an older episode of “Brain Games” last night, one guy standing in a line to nowhere on the street in Vegas, he had trouble getting someone to stand in line with him, but eventually convinced a couple people to stand in the line to nowhere, pretty soon large crowds started lining up in the line to nowhere, as the line (consensus) got bigger it attracted more people faster and faster Thats what trusting the consensus means. Tell your teacher friend as fallible humans we are all standing in lines to nowhere, but the trick is to stand in as few of those lines as possible.
“We should reply in a strictly fact-based way, using official sources […]”
I strongly disagree.
Bureaucratic thought-policing is the problem, not the solution.
Official sources do NOT admit the truth. (They won’t even go near it.)
Lukewarmists are the problem. In the spirit of political compromise, they interpolate between fact (nature) & fiction (models based on false assumptions). The truth is thus excluded from posturing because it’s too far from the center. For those actually prioritizing truth, there’s no good strategy because the context is so corrupted by lukewarmist devotion to social compromise.
Ira,
If I remember an earlier guide to the perplexed correctly, Maimonides required his reader to be conversant with the scriptures. That your teacher clearly isn’t may explain his inability to accept your clear explanation.
And also, he doesn’t want to.
j ferguson: Congrats on being the first in this thread (as far as I can tell) to recognize that the Title I chose for my posting is from the great 12th Century rabbi, Moses Maimonides.
Good point about being familiar with the underlying material before you can be sure about which opinions to accept and formulate your own.
Ira
“Note that 1998 is warmer than 2013, indicating no net warming for 15 years.”
______________
Not too sure about that. Just because 1998 was warmer than 2013 it doesn’t follow that there’s been no net warming over the whole period.
Linear regression of the annual mean GISS best estimate data shows net warming of around 0.06C/dec between 1998 and 2013. Not much, but it’s still there and needs to be acknowledged if we’re being “strictly fact-based”: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2014/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2014/trend
DavidR
I supported the use of end point temperatures in my above post here. I commend you to read it and – if you then disagree – to dispute it.
Richard
richardscourtney
Thank you for your response. I have now read your previous comment on end point temperatures in which you state:
“Are you really trying to claim that there was net warming between two times when the earlier time was measured to be the warmest of the two?”
The trend between the two endpoints, if of sufficient duration, provides predictive information about the long term general direction of the data. End point analysis has no predictive value, it just draws a line between some past point and the latest point and says ‘warmer’ or ‘colder’.
Yes, 2013 is colder than 1998; but since 1998 there have been two years that were warmer than 1998 and the underlying trend suggests that there are likely to be more record high temperatures in future years.
Using your body temperature analogy, I’d say that you were fluctuating in and out of a fever, the trend of which currently suggests that your long term condition is more likely to worsen than improve over time.
DavidR
Thankyou for tyour argument.
You say
Yes, but so what!?
The disputed phrase made no prediction. It said
It does indicate that.
Now, you say trend analysis provides predictive information. True, but only for limited future time and only if the assumed trend is correct. You want to use a linear trend and I asked why linear and not some other curve: you have not addressed that. Please note that a linear trend from 1970 to 1998 would not indicate temperatures since 1998.
And you conclude saying
Your assertion about “a fever” is without merit unless you can provide evidence that those “two years” had higher temperature than existed in the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warm periods. And you do not define what you mean by “worsen”. Do you have some idea as to what would be the Earth’s ‘best’ temperature?
And there is certainly no indication that “there are likely to be more record high temperatures in future years” although it is certain that previously not measured high and low temperatures will occur if you wait sufficient time.
At issue is how to present clear and accurate information about the global warming scare to the general public. That is provided by the statement
and I have yet to see any reason to not use it.
Richard
DavidR says:
…the underlying trend suggests that there are likely to be more record high temperatures in future years.
The trend says no such thing. There has been no global warming for almost twenty years. Global warming has stopped, throwing the alarminst camp into fits of consternation. They are now regrouping, and have invented more than fifty excuses for why global warming stopped many years ago.
It is all BS. Now they are claiming that they could have predicted the “pause”. Nonsense. If theat were true, then they could predict just when global warming will resume. If it does. Or if global cooling does not commence.
They will not face reality. They refuse to admit what everyone here can clearly see: they were WRONG. It is as simple as that.
But they are rent-seeking scientists riding the grant gravy train, so they will not admit that they were wrong. They are not honest at all, are they?
@ dbstealey –
If, like a warmist, one defines ‘predict’ as ‘observe in the past’, then it is absolutely possible for them to predict when the warming will resume, or when significant cooling will commence. You’ll just have to wait until after it happens for them to be able to make that particular prediction.
richardscourtney
I agree that if we simply take 1998 as a start point and 2013 as an end point, ignoring all that happened in between, then it is right to say that there was no net warming. In fact, it’s right to say that there was net cooling of -0.02 C (GISS).
My argument is that this doesn’t tell us anything of any great substance. Anyone could pick a cool year in GISS, such as 2008, and claim that there has been net warming because 2013 was warmer than 2008. That’s true too, in as far as it goes; but it is also a rather trivial observation.
Also, if 2014 or 2015 turn out to be warmer than 1998 in GISS, which is a possibility if El Nino conditions arise, then ‘end point’ analysis requires us to state that there was net warming between 1998 and 2014/15; just as there was net warming between 1998 and 2005 and 1998 and 2010. True, but again not very useful.
I return to the point, which you appear to accept but regard as insignificant, that end point analysis robs us of the predictive value provided by the long term data. In my view, this is the main benefit of regression analysis.
You say there is “no indication” of future record warm temperatures: regression analysis of the data disagrees with you there. The period 1998-2013 in GISS (and all data sets except RSS) points in a direction that suggests future warm records are more likely to be set than future cool records over the near term.
David.
DavidR
We are discussing how to provide clear and factual information to the general public.
That is achieved by making the statement
It is not relevant if “we” are told “anything of substance” (whatever you mean by that).
There is no “predictive value” in regression analysis because – as I repeatedly pointed out – its ‘prediction’ depends on the curve (i.e. the model) one attempts to regress. Simply, if you don’t know the curve – and ‘the pause’ demonstrates nobody does – then regression analysis is a guess about the future. You keep saying you want to use a linear model, and you have repeatedly refused to answer why you want to use that model, but ‘the pause’ shows that a linear model is wrong. Nobody knows the model to be applied.
Anyway, we are discussing how to provide clear and factual information to the general public.
The “predictive value” assertion is merely a method to bamboozle the public. It is the same misrepresentation as the climate model predictions: the only thing we know about those predictions is that they are wrong and we don’t know how they are wrong and how much they are wrong.
We do NOT know the future and you can choose whatever version of chicken entrails you want to use to delude yourself into thinking you do.
Back in 2000 at a briefing at the US Congress it was claimed to me that, “The IPCC doesn’t make predictions”. I replied, “You say the IPCC doesn’t make predictions. The IPCC says it is going to warm. I call that a prediction.”
Now, I call it a failed prediction.
Richard
DavidR: I don’t think my retired teacher friend would be impressed by a plot of linear regression. Like the Sheldon character on my favorite show “The Big Bang Theory” when he tries to explain science to the Penny character, you are not helping a non-scientist to understand.
Besides, the graphic clearly shows that, between 1998 and 2013 there have been several excursions both up and down.
Bottom line: If I weigh less now than I did in 1986, I can truthfully say there is no NET weight gain over that period.
Ira
Ira,
I see the logic in your position and accept that 0.60 is indeed lower than 0.62. I also agree with your observation that the graphic clearly shows fluctuations over time between 1998 and 2013.
My argument is that while you may weigh less now than you did in 1998, fluctuations in your weight aren’t likely to stop in 2013. Is there any way to predict which way it might go in the next 15 years?
With end point analysis the answer is a straight ‘no’. With regression analysis the trend shows that, while you may be lighter now than you were in 2013, you’ve had a tendency to ‘put it on’ a little over the past 15 years. Over two fairly recent years you were even heavier than you were in 1998.
Regression analysis suggests that your recent weight loss may be temporary, because the linear trend between 1998 and 2013 is upward. It may turn out to be wrong; but regression analysis is based on sound methods and, in my view, gives us a slight advantage over end point analysis in these situations.
David.
What “perplexed” me about global warming was the big snow storm in Oct of last year that hit South Dakota. It wiped out thousands of cattle. (Anyone remember that?) It went by with little notice in the MSM. That’s when I started paying a little more attention. Now…it looks like another dumping of snow is coming for those folks up north in a few days.
Nice read Ira….Thanks
“…. IPCC CMIP-5 simulations are therefore not valid because observations have been well outside the 5% to 95% confidence range for 15 years running.”
_______________________
CMIP5 near-term projections are predicated on a range of surface temperature data, not on a single satellite lower troposphere data set. The official observational data used is the average of HadCRUT4, GISS and NOAA base lined to the 1986–2011 period, as shown in AR5 (WGI) Figure 11.6: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-9.jpg
Observations to 2013 are outside 90% of model runs on the cool side, but still within the full model range. If/when observations stray outside the model range or remain outside the 90% range for more than 10% of observations (annual is used) the model ensemble will become invalid. At the moment, the CMIP5 model ensemble is not invalid, and a “strictly fact-based” response shouldn’t be claiming that it is.
DavidR:
You are correct that some of the official data sets (HadCRUT4 and GISS …) tend to show slightly higher temperatures than RSS (and UAH) satellite-based observations.
Do you think that, for the period from 1998 through 2013, terrestrial thermometer data sets are better indicators of changes in Global temperature ANOMALIES than satellite observations? If so, I would love to see your argument.
In any case, you do say that:
So, if we set the confidence limits a bit more conservatively before we rely on the CMIP-5 and other official Global Warming projections to spend recklessly on questionable fixes for a supposed problem that may not exist, we can say the CMIP-5 model ensemble is not valid.
Ira
Ira Glickstein, PhD,
“Do you think that, for the period from 1998 through 2013, terrestrial thermometer data sets are better indicators of changes in Global temperature ANOMALIES than satellite observations? If so, I would love to see your argument.”
___________________
The fact that the two main satellite data sets in use disagree about the rate and direction of lower troposphere temperature change between 1998 and 2013 is hardly a ringing endorsement of the superiority of satellite data. RSS cooled at a rate of -0.04C/dec and UAH warmed at 0.06C/dec.
In fact, UAH is in much better agreement with the surface data sets: HadCRUT4 (0.05 C/dec); NOAA (0.04 C/dec); and GISS (0.07 C/dec) than it is with RSS for that period. So I might reverse the question and ask you why you have such faith in the satellite record between 1998 and 2013 when its 2 main producers flatly disagree with one another?
DavidR
Global warming has stopped.
The stop was more than 15 years ago and – according to NOAA in 2008 – the models “rule out” that such a “pause” could occur.
Reality has done what the models “rule out”.
In other words, reality has demonstrated that the models cannot and do not predict and/or project present and future climate. Live with it.
Richard
richardscourtney
“Global warming has stopped. The stop was more than 15 years ago…”
__________________________
Four out of the five main global temperature data sets, the exception being RSS satellite data, show a ‘best estimate’ warming rate above 0.05 C/dec over the past 15 years. This includes UAH satellite data by the way, which shows the most warming of all over the past 15 years (0.13 C/dec).
” according to NOAA in 2008 – the models “rule out” that such a “pause” could occur.
Reality has done what the models “rule out”.”
__________________________
As I’ve pointed out above, according to the ‘best estimate’ data from most of the global data producers, there is no such pause. The warming isn’t statistically significant, but I don’t think anyone has claimed that it should be over a period as short as 15 years.
David.
David says… “As I’ve pointed out above, according to the ‘best estimate’ data from most of the global data producers, there is no such pause. The warming isn’t statistically significant, but I don’t think anyone has claimed that it should be over a period as short as 15 years.”
=======================================
By this time we should be well into the feedbacks presented by the models, and yes, the warming should be statistically significant over this period of time. A 90 to 97 percent failure rate is nothing to base public policy on.
If natural variables of a moderate or neutral ENSO, (La Nada vs a super El Nino) and a still warm AMO allow such a change, then it is highly likely that the failed models have a C.S. to Co2 that is way to high. There is a great deal of peer reviewed work in the scientific journals that indicate this to be true.
The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp. 331-353, 1975)
– Wilford G. Zdunkowski, Jan Paegle, Falko K. Fye
+0.5 °C
Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp. 822-825, June 1979)
– Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick
* Reply to Robert G. Watts’ “Discussion of ‘Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature'”
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp. 114–117, January 1981)
– Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick
+0.3 °C
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
– Sherwood B. Idso
+0.4 °C
Revised 21st century temperature projections (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 1–9, December 2002)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis
+1.9 °C
Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, November 2007)
– Stephen E. Schwartz
* Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on “Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system” (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 113, Issue D15, August 2008)
– Stephen E. Schwartz
+1.9 °C
Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 4, February 2008)
– Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann
* Reply to comment by Andrey Ganopolski and Thomas Schneider von Deimling on “Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition” (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 23, December 2008)
– Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann
+1.3-2.3 °C
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy
+1.1 °C
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications (PDF)
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
– Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi
+0.7 °C
Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum (PDF)
(Science, Volume 334, Number 6061, pp. 1385-1388, November 2011)
– Andreas Schmittner et al.
+1.7-2.6 °C
Probabilistic Estimates of Transient Climate Sensitivity Subject to Uncertainty in Forcing and Natural Variability (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 24, Issue 21, pp. 5521-5537, Novmeber 2011)
– Lauren E. Padilla, Geoffrey K. Vallis, Clarence W. Rowley
+1.6 °C
Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, Number 1, January 2012)
– N. P. Gillett et al.
+1.3-1.8 °C
Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content (PDF)
(Environmetrics, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. 253–271, May 2012)
– Magne Aldrin et. al.
+1.9 °C
Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models
(Climate Dynamics, April 2013)
– Troy Masters
+1.98 °C
A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 40, Issue 11-12,pp. 2651-2670, June 2013)
– J. H. van Hateren
+1.7-2.3 °C
An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity
(Journal of Climate, Volume 26, Issue 19, pp. 7414-7429, October 2013)
– Nicholas Lewis
+1.6 °C
The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955–2011 simulated with a 1D climate model
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp. 229-237, February 2014)
– Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell
+1.3 °C
A minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity
(Ecological Modelling, Volume 276, pp. 80-84, March 2014)
– Craig Loehle
+1.99 °C
David A
That is blatant falsehood.
ALL THE DATA SETS SHOW THAT GLOBAL WARMING HAS STOPPED.
Your red herring is pure trolling.
Please explain why published excuses for ‘the pause’ now total 52.
Richard
Ouch
It was David R and NOT David A.
Sincere apologies. It was a typo and not an insult. Sorry.
Richard
There have been prominent Republicans who have pushed the Catastrophic Global Warming meme. McCain and Romney to name two. You can’t get much more prominent than the last two Republican presidential nominees.
Dr. Glickstein, Perhaps you could send your friend some articles detailing the many problems with the claims that a vast majority of scientists support the catastrophic view of global warming.
“The Earth’s surface has warmed significantly since 1880. ” No big surprise there since that was the end of the LIA.
Ira, you might talk about the timing of science. The discovery that temperature leads CO2 is fairly recent (1999?) by scientific standards. A lot of science and scientists are still catching up to this discovery.
A similar situation happened with ulcers. Acceptance by the medical profession was years behind the actual discovery of an infectious agent. Even 20 years after, some 80% of doctors surveyed still believed stress was the main cause.
“Science progresses one funeral at a time.” — Max Planck
Kuo, Lindberg & Thomson, Nature, 1990
I like the idea of calmly chipping away at a smaller number of the CAGW alarmist’s main points. That will probably raise a few questions in the minds of most reasonable people. That’s a start.
Assumption that “CAGW alarmists” are reasonable people is a fact not in evidence.
IN ORDER to get you friend to rethink his trust in “scientific authorities,” I think it is necessary to shake it.
My gambit is to expand on the CO2 issue by contrasting the unmeasured and sweeping assertions of the IPCC and Dr. Susan Solomon in PNAS on CO2 residence times (50 to 200 years to 1,000 years, respectively) – compared to Tom Segalstad’s 35 careful studies using long taught methods of radioactive decay like Carbon 14, which find recurrent measures of 5 to 12 years residence time for CO2.
Then push this: Do you trust the unmeasured sweeping claims of the “authorities?” Or repeated experimental results whose methods you’ve studied in High School and College? (Are you data driven? Or “theory” and authority driven?)
I think a logical fork like this one is necessary in order for someone to shake-off their naive dogmatism and think things through for themselves, instead.
Small point of order –
In item number 3, I think it’s counterproductive to refer to satellite observations as being from polar-orbiting satellites. While most everyone here might understand orbital mechanics, the average (even the educated average) person most likely does not. Calling it a polar-orbiting satellite is likely to give some the impression that it’s intended to primarily observe the poles, and I’d bet good money that there are even some who would envision a ‘satellite’ hovering over either the north or south pole.
You know, I was about to say that your point is a little obscure. But then, I realized that when I read the OP, I first thought it was describing satellites particularly observing the poles, too. (Not “hovering over” them, though). Since I knew what was meant, the thought was somewhat fleeting.
Maybe better would be:
“satellite observations from satellites that give coverage to (insert percentage of earth coverage here) of the planet.”
LeeHarvey: Thanks for your comment. I got the “polar orbiting satellite” nomenclature from the RSS site, http://www.remss.com/research/climate, viz:
Since the graphic, right at the top in big black bold says “Global 80S to 80N” I think it is pretty clear that the satellites are orbiting along longitude (up/down) lines, going over the poles each sweep.
I doubt the target audience (intelligent non-scientists) knows or cares how the satellites orbit. I must admit, however, I am surprised any WUWT regular could imagine a satellite hovering over one of the poles :^).
Ira
I would certainly hope that WUWT readers would be excluded from the population who might imagine a remote weather observatory (I can’t even bring myself to refer to it as a satellite if it’s not orbiting) holding a position that’s reasonably close to stationary relative to any point on the earth other than one on the equator. Among the general population, though? I know for a fact that they’re out there.
Ira,
The hovering maybe not but there is an orbit that nearly hovers over the poles. It was originally used by Soviet communications satellites to provide TV/radio coverage to the northern parts of Russia. It has an apogee of about 24000 nm above the poles and a perigee of about 300nm at the other pole (numbers from distant memory – real heights may be way off this.) It spends about 8-10 hours looking down at the north pole and about 2-4 hours swinging back around to do it again. I have never heard of anyone doing so for the southern hemisphere as I guess no one wanted to spend that kind of money to provide TV signals to the heart of Antarctica. IF we wanted to observe the poles in a continuous manner it would take three in this orbit offset by 8 hours or each hemisphere. It would be as though someone hovered a satellite over the poles…
Owen, thanks for the info. It seems quite clever to exploit the fact that the closer a satellite orbit is to the center of the Earth, the faster the satellite travels, and vice-versa when the orbit is further away. Good way to maximize the fraction of time a satellite can service one polar region. But, not quite hovering!
Ira
@ Owen –
I’m familiar with the orbit you described, but considering that the current RSS measurements only go to 80 degrees, I’m guessing that their range and field of view preclude getting accurate measurements from a very high apogee.
We may be over-complicating this whole thing. It isn’t rocket science, after all!
Oh, wait…
Another issue has been a weak understanding of statistics. “Normal” statistics underestimates the frequency of “rare” or “extreme” events in dynamic systems like Climate, the Stock Market, and many other physical systems.
Most of the time this is not an issue, but this difference causes us to statistically underestimate the frequency of extreme events such as the 2007 Financial Crisis, Hurricane Katrina, or the Challenger and Columbia Disasters.
Dynamic systems are not like a toss of the coin or a roll of the dice. Dynamic systems respond and adapt. Change is the normal order of business in dynamic systems. Our intuition leads us astray, because it sees change as being abnormal.
As a result we tend to underestimate the risk involved in investing in the Stock Market, we tend to underestimate the possibility of Storms, Floods and Droughts, and we tend to underestimate the likelihood that Space Shuttle Missions will end in disaster.
I don’t think you can state this as a fact. Temperatures have, undoubtedly, risen since 1880. But is the increase “significant”. This question can only be answered by knowing the internal variability of the system over a long period of time. How do we know that +0.7 C temp variance is unusual if we don’t know what the variability has been over several thousand years? This is the essence of the hockey stick debate.
If you look at the error bands applicable to the temperature measurements, we do not know whether it is warmer today than it was in the 1880s.
All one can say about temperatures is that there appears to be quite a bit of multidecadal variation, and looking at the period 1850 to date, the 1880s and 1930s and today appear ‘warm’ but we do not know whether it is today warmer than it was in the 1880s or 1930s, save that as far as the US is concerned, it was probably warmer in US in the 1930s than it is today.
Richard Verney: Yes, it was most likely warmer IN THE USA in 1934 than the most recent peak in 1998. Yes, given the error bands, it is possible the average Global temperatures in the 1880’s were a bit higher than today, BUT it is most LIKELY, IMHO, that it is around 0.5 degrees C (1 degree F) warmer today.
Ira
Ira, thanks for the article you made some good points. As for your friend listening to the scientists he’s probably listening to the scientists that get the most press coverage. If a scientist says, “if we hadn’t calculated global warming you would never have known it”, he doesn’t get much press coverage. But if a scientist says, “we’re passing a tipping point the planet is going to burn up” he gets a lot of press coverage.
You know, this might be a good time to mention the “Our Climate” App:
http://ourclimate.info/
available for iOS.
Not sure why they don’t have Android and Win8 versions.
Ask the human beings living 20 thousand years ago, before OC2 was an issue, did they have extreme weather? What was it like living in London or New York, 20 thousand years ago?
Well, traffic was lighter.
Sorry, had to say it. 🙂
Traffic may have been lighter, but I bet it was a lot harder to get around.
The West Side Highway wasn’t just under water… it was under thousands of feet of ice.
I continue to be amazed at how the principle argument supporting catastrophic AGW is the appeal to authority. It is so because XYZ “World Organization” says so, or “97% of all scientists say so”. They ask us to ‘suspend your disbelief’ (i.e. don’t be a “Denier”) and just accept what the ‘majority’ says. That is not a very scientific way of thinking …. however, it is a religious way of thinking.
‘just accept what the ‘majority’ says. That is not a very scientific way of thinking …. however, it is a religious way of thinking.’
What religion, that you know of, relies on majoritarianism? All that I know of rely firstly on scriptural and/or tradition authority. Majoritarianism is the preserve of politics not religion or science.
How do we know that +0.7 C temp variance is unusual if we don’t know what the variability has been over several thousand years?
==========
and is this meaningful if climate is a fractal distribution? how can you calculate variance from the mean when the mean and variance change with the scale?
” When I sent a draft of this posting to my retired teacher friend, he courteously thanked me for my thoughtful and considerate message, and admitted he did not completely understand climate change. However, he said he still trusts what he believes are the overwhelming number of scientists who have examined the evidence and reached a conclusion.”
Blind faith in the Big Eco doctrine. I ran into the same thing in this thread:http://www.wired.com/2014/09/fantastically-wrong-n-rays/#comment-1572617920
Some places are open to discussion and others just like to fling poo at the heretics.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-sun-explains-95-of-climate-change.html
More data showing solar/climate strong correlations.
I certainly think that human Co2 has NO effect whatsoever on earth’s atmospheric temperatures.This mantra keeps on repeating itself here. C02 has been at 1000’sppm during ICE AGES remember? No one has been able to prove a C02 effect except in a laboratory flask
We have to keep on repeating. The AGW people keep right on spouting the half truths that are their hallmark. No battle is ever easy against a dedicated and well financed opponents.. In an apparent contradiction to the so called tipping point, why hasn’t the planet had a tipping point? AGW seems to have missed this point. They just ignore arguments. The science is settled so they are not even engaging in their usual ‘ let me show you where you are wrong ‘ . Too bad it’s not settled and the pause is reason, I think they are trying to have this AGW idea go mainstream without too many questioning it. In time though, more scientists will come to question AGW. It doesn’t fit with reality.
Lots of commentary here so I’ll be brief.
1. I accept the “0.7 C since 1880” premise for discussion, but maintain that it’s debatable because of problems with measurement methods.
2. I never miss an opportunity to reject the unspoken presumption that a warmer earth is “bad”. Nobody has anything besides speculation to back that up.
3. I never miss an opportunity to point out that the “greenhouse effect” in fact makes earth habitable. Subtract water vapor from the atmosphere and see how you like that temperature.
4.I reject the idea that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is “bad”. Look at some of the research on what carbon enrichment does for some (but not all) plant life.
5. I often use the “What temperature is your house?” and “How do you know?” example to point out the difficulty of measuring the planet’s temperature.
Just one more thing. There are a lot of people who are ignorant and not persuadable about this subject. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree, even if you know better.
jpatrick: GREAT summary! THANKS.
ALL: Well worth reading again.
Ira
Ira – I agree – jpatrick wrote an excellent summary and most of these comments are worth re-reading. Your OP, too – more than twice! (As usual.)
When I think about the “97%” I think back to college. Since I’m getting old, my college days in climate and meteorology (I have a degree in both) pre-date the global warming issue.
How do my college science friends and professors stand on the issue? Honestly, I don’t know how most stand. But of the ones I do know, the quick answer is about 50-50.
I can make a substantial list of my retired profs who think the whole thing is a crock. However, some are true believers.
My friends who moved to other fields or are in the private sector are overwhelmingly skeptical.
My friends who stayed in academia or went on to government are mostly “warmists”.
My friends who are forecasters are the most skeptical of all.
My friends that work for grants and do theory, are mostly warmists.
So, we are split as scientists. That’s all I try to tell people who ask. It’s not settled and I’d be very skeptical of those who tell you it is since it’s obvious that’s not true.
I had one friend who I really respected who told me in 1986 that acid rain would destroy all the eastern forests by the year 2000. He is a smart guy and genuinely meant what he said. I don’t know what he’s doing now. I had another friend who was certain that profilers would replace weather balloons. I had a professor who swore that virga was impossible because mathematically, rain could not evaporate before it reached the ground. Every year, Joe Bastardi told me were we going to have a snowy winter 🙂 Forecasting is tricky…LOL
And furthermore…
Whenever we see a graph of recent temperature trends, the y-scale typically has a total range of about 2 K. I’d like to see something a little more representative of the changes in question. Plotting an absolute scale (y- range of 300 K) might be fun, but it’s still not relatable to the average person. I’d propose a range indicative of what’s normally seen in populated regions of the earth – say, 220 to 320 K. It would still be a nearly flat line, but it would give a lot more perspective of the changes in temperature relative to measures that people understand.
It’s amusing how confident people can be when they have no real idea about climate change, but find themselves competent to decide who to trust 🙂
I would push a bit further on *why* he trusts the scientists he does – can he tell the difference between a scientist who knows what they’re doing, and one who doesn’t? Is it simply a matter of “one scientist, one vote”, and he goes with the majority?
When it comes to a demarcation between a scientist proffering something genuine, versus something fabricated, I might suggest he ask them for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement:
1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean your hypothesis is false;
2) a logical argument that the lack of those falsifications means that your hypothesis must be favored over all others (including the null).
The null hypothesis, is of course, natural climate change explains all observed climate change.
Thus far, nowhere in the history of mankind, has any AGW proponent been able to come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW.
“…….It is undoubtedly true that average surface temperatures have increased significantly since 1880. Human activities are responsible for some portion of that warming……..”
Really?
There is ZERO proof of this.
If what you say is true, how can you explain the many warm periods that occurred prior to human existence on earth?
If what you say is true how can you explain the demise of the many ice ages?
If what you say is true how do you explain the HIGHER CO2 levels DURING one of the ice ages?
If what you say is true, how do you explain that CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature rises?
CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere. It constitutes LESS THAN .04% (.0004 ) of atmospheric gases. Less than 4 parts in 10,000.
And we are to believe that this trace amount of atmospheric gas has any influence whatsoever on the climate because……..well, because global temperature predictions from computer models that have been DEMONSTRATED TO BE WRONG !! – predict higher temperatures.
What absolute rubbish.
What is needed is a Richard Feynman; a scientist who relentlessly sought the truth based on real facts and real science.
JohnTyler: I’m sad to say that with extreme Skeptics like you who are unfamiliar with the basic physics of how Earth’s Atmosphere and particularly water vapor and carbon dioxide make this planet livable, we responsible Skeptics don’t need any opponents. Absent the Atmosphere our Earth would be about as cold as the average surface temperature of the Moon.
Yes, the IPCC models are not valid and their predictions (projections) are way too warm, as demonstrated by my third graphic. Yes, the hockey Team has most likely introduced data bias into the terrestrial temperature record. The Warmists are mistaken, and the Alarmists are wrong about CATASTROPHIC warming, but, thank Goodness for CO2 and water vapor and the (albeit ill-named) “greenhouse” effect.
Ira
Ira;
I am NOT saying that CO2, in SUFFICIENT CONCENTRATIONS, cannot contribute to warming. I am saying that at a concentration of 0.04% in the atmosphere, it is simply too small to have any affect on climate, notwithstanding the theoretical underpinnings of this thesis.
Further, you did not address any of my points, esp. the FACT that CO2 levels have been shown to RESPOND to temperature changes (with a lag of hundreds of years) and not vice-versa. If CO2 levels lag temperature, then how can CO2 CAUSE temperature changes?
Secondly, there have been ice ages in which CO2 levels were higher than CO2 levels today. How is this possible if higher CO2 levels correspond to or cause warmer climate?
Lastly, many historic warm periods in the earth’s history ended in ice ages. Well how is this possible if the warm periods contained high levels of CO2? Would not these high levels of CO2 PREVENT a cooler climate and more importantly, prevent an ice age?.
Of course, all ice ages ended in global warming; so where did the CO2 come from that caused the ice ages to end, especially since much of the planet was covered in ice?
Look, it is abundantly clear that climate scientists simply do not know all the factors (and their interactions) that control or affect climate, for if they did, they could explain the historical climate.
THEY CANNOT !!!!
If you cannot EXPLAIN the historic climate you cannot presume to predict the future climate AND it most certainly demonstrates that climate scientists simply do NOT YET HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE to explain what causes changes in climate.
Yet, this being the case, you and others claim , with 100 % CERTAINTY ( !!! ) that the TRACE levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have indeed contributed to some warming.
No one has the knowledge , yet, to make this claim with any degree of certainty. It’s OK to hypothesize that this is in fact the case, but an hypothesis is just that; an educated guess. It is not proof, it is just an assertion.
You cannot have it both ways; if the knowledge of any physical/chemical mechanism is incomplete – which in this case it is – then you cannot claim with a 100% certainty that factor “X” is CERTAINLY a cause of “Y.”
There must be other factors or mechanisms, not yet understood nor yet discovered, that obviate any affect on climate due to the heat-trapping affects of TRACE QUANTITY levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. When these other factors are ascertained, we can expect a full explanation of the historical climate.
Until then, climate “science” will continue to be a politico / ideological war waged by anti-capitalist Lysenkian pseudo-religious zealots. You will note that despite the AGW proponent’s near perfect record of being wrong over the last 10 to 15 years, they continue to press their case with ever greater zeal. They are impervious to the data and the observed facts.
This alone should raise all sorts of red flags as to the true motivations and intentions of the AGW proponents, AS WELL AS THEIR FUNDAMENTAL THESIS !!
Perhaps we should just follow the money.
JohnTyler
You assert
YES! Really.
I addressed this point above and this link jumps to it. Please read it and get back to me if you dispute my explanation.
Richard
I’ll agree with some AGW since the end of WWII. How much is not known and is not knowable.
But counting the 1908-1941 warming as AGW is simply not plausible. Emissions at that point were tiny compared to today. The amount of that warming that was “A” is negligible.
But it’s standard practice to show the sharp 1908-1941 warming in the alarmist arguments.
The 1908-1941 warming was remarkably similar to the 1977-2005 warming in duration and intensity. One was clearly natural. The other? That’s what we debate here.
Not only did we not produce much CO2 pre-WWII, we had a lack of interest in measuring the temperature, on a continuous basis, of every jungle, desert, and middle of nowhere, ocean. The transportation infrastructure, that we take for granted, was very limited, and very expensive, in the early half of the 20th century. We can’t even find an airliner full of people, with today’s technology, in the Indian Ocean. How accurate is the temp record, from 1894, of the same Indian Ocean? Can you really just guess, from Africa, to Australia, and on to South America, and make the data meaningful?
I think the idea of a “global temp”, is a construct of the “space age”, where we really started to see the planet for what it was. In the 30’s, there where only 6 temps. Coat, jacket, sweater, long sleeves, short sleeves, and shorts. Very few cared, or were willing to support financially, what the temp was 3000 miles away, when they were not sure, if there was going to be, dinner tonight, or not.
The confidence, in the accuracy of a global temp, pre-1960, as got to be lower, than post-1960. That doesn’t is make it wrong, it just means it could be much different than commonly accepted, as the “data”.
The point that I am making, in my earlier post, is that the possibility exists, of an even warmer period, from 1908-1941, than the genius minds at GISS, and HADCRUT, are portraying. There are issues with the sampling of large regions of the globe. There is the plenty of uncertainty in how much warmer the 1977-2005 period was, as compared to the 1908-1941. They have an incentive to push the data, as far as they can, in the direction that shows, “unusual warming” in the later period. The easy way to do that is to reduce the prior warming. When you have large sections of the globe, with sparse coverage, confirmation bias, can rule the decision making process. The adjustments that were made, were made in that direction. So we may be talking about, only a few tenths, available for the “A”, in AGW.
Russ R: Right! IMHO, the “A” in AGW is responsible for about 0.2 degrees C of warming, and may be as high as 0.3 or as low as 0.1. (In degrees F, that is a range of 0.2 to 0.5.)
Thus, we humans are responsible for only about 25% of the Globsl Warming since 1880 claimed by the official hockey Team, which is about 30-40% of the actual Globsl Warming when data bias is taken into account.
Ira
Here’s a thing that may blow the minds of your non-sceptic friends. Show them one of those temperature graphs – say the one from 1880 to 2010 – but with the temperature axis ranging over 50-60 degrees Celsius, the approximate value of the planetary greenhouse effect.
On that scale, global temperature is practically a flat line. Obvious, right? Not to the average layman, raised on climate alarmism. I guarantee, at least subconciously they have been thinking of the temperature anomaly (which is all they normally get to see) as the whole of the temperature, and think the Earth has got twice as hot since 1960!
Of course the downside is they will think you’re lying…
thanks – you musta wrote this for me – it has my nickname in the title
– – – – – – – – –
Ira Glickstein,
I appreciate your attempt to overview a polarized complex situation. It is a difficult thing to do reasonably.
I’ve an overall concern.
You acknowledged it was speculation when you said “Activists in the catastrophic climate change industry purposely misrepresent the views of responsible Skeptics by making a number of false claims”. It is a speculation that could be seen to negatively influence the validity what you call “all of the above facts and data come directly from official, government-sponsored climate research organizations”. It is my understanding that the set of all “activists in the catastrophic climate change industry” (as you called them) has a significant number of individuals in common with the set of all scientists who authored, contributed papers to and reviewed ‘The Physical Science Basis’ sections of AR3, AR4 and AR5. Designate the former set as ‘Set A’ and the latter set as ‘Set B’. There appears to be a growing and reasonable public perception that influential roles in ‘Set B’ were significantly populated by individuals of ‘Set A’.
Ira, so I have the following speculative working premise for further discussion of your article. It can be viewed as reasonable for science observers and watchdogs to have significant integrity concerns with the scientific efforts of those in ‘Set B’ who were also significant influential members of ‘Set A’.
Depending how follow-up comments go then I may have additional comments on the main article.
John
In regards to “trusting”, our host and others (Curry?) trusted the conclusions they were presented with initially. Then they began to look a bit closer at things in the fields they were familiar with. They began to smell something.
TheWayBackMachine (http://archive.org/web/web.php) can be a great tool for showing how CO2 is such a powerful climate temperature changer that it can even reach back into the past and change records made years and even multiple decades ago.
Just find the web address for the current list of records and copy it into the main “search” box.
(They do seem to making such searches a bit harder by changing the address of the current records but even that says something.)
That might break the spell for some.
Surely if a guy believes in AGW because “scientists” have a consensus about. Point out that there isn’t a consensus amongst scientists. Not even amongst climate related scientists- maybe not even “climate scientists”. Would you take the word of Catholic Church that the Pope is God’s representative on Earth- (only some Catholics would not you) so why would take the word of alarmists that there is a consensus on AGW.
Firstly: people believe what they want to believe, and they would like to believe that they can trust experts and the media. It is a big ask to expect them to drop their whole belief system on the back of an exchange with someone they hardly know.
Secondly: Before a stranger will accept you they need first to include you in the landscape of their minds. Did you know that if someone does you a favour they become much more likely to help you again. More likely to help you than someone you have personally helped. People always need to take that step of allowing someone into the landscape of their minds, after that first step has been achieved they will then begin to open themselves up to helping you (or in your case listening to your point of view).
You have started a discussion, he has already responded with a grudging thank you. You have actually manipulated yourself into a place where you can start to reason with him.
There are a ton of comments I didn’t read through so this may already have been covered.
An interesting addition to your “guide” would be an answer to exactly how your friend replied — that an “overwhelming” majority of scientists believe in AGW as a catastrophic event which must be dealt with. My belief is that this is patently false and there have been a number of breakdowns over the years of the various percentages thrown around attempting to sum up the opinions of the scientific community to show consensus.
My recollection is that it’s more along the lines of 33% fully buy in, 33% aren’t sure and 33% are skeptical, but it would be nice for someone to lay that out in a coherent and defensible fashion.
Whilst your guide is useful in rebutting the alarmist view of global warming and their belief of skeptics view of global warming I think it overlooks one really important point. Can Man do anything about it anyway?
I have not seen anything anywhere to suggest that even if the AGW theory was correct that any amount of money can actually fix it. I have friends who say but we need to buy insurance for the sake of future generations. But would you buy insurance if the probability of a payout was minuscule if it occurred. Of course you wouldn’t especially if the cost of that insurance was so high that it impacted on the economic capability of future generations to cope with any other future issues that may arise. Even warmists seem to acknowledge that any impact of action will take hundreds of years to have success although none of us will be around to see it.The sheer futility of the solution is really the best argument one can have to rebut warmists alarmism. Then we can perhaps getting on with fixing some issues we can solve.
From a layman’s perspective, I think it is important to discuss the impact of overreacting to warming, especially considering the science of CAGW has not panned out. As far as I can tell, the general public’s reaction to warming is not driven by the actual warming itself, but rather from hysterical predictions of the warmists. People generally act in their own self interests and if they fear their homes becoming submerged; frequent, destructive storms; and the devastation of the food supply–of course they’re going to want to act. However, if we can show that the science behind CAGW is not sound; that the terrible consequences predicted over the past decades have not come to fruition; and how the curtailing of carbon sources of energy will have a negative impact on their lives, we can change a lot of minds.
Since 2008 Western economies have stagnated along with wages. However, food and energy prices have continued to increase, meaning that for many people their standard of living has actually decreased. These people need to understand that restriction placed on carbon-based energy sources will only make their lives worse. It will cost them even more to drive to work, to buy groceries, and the price of all goods will increase. They will suffer even more, while the people making the laws will face no decrease in their living standards.
I own a furniture company, and I’ve made some progress on convincing acquaintances (who accept man-made global warming) that action on CAGW will have a negative influence on their lives. I give them an example from my business: In my line of work there are literally hundreds of parts that go into making a piece of upholstered furniture. All these parts come into the factory to be assembled. However, before they ever make it to my loading dock, these parts are manufactured somewhere else. When energy prices go up, every piece that comes into the factory is impacted. Every staple, screw, nail, piece of lumber, cushion, spring, cotton, caster, tack strip, webbing, and roll of fabric have energy factored into their production, as well as there transportation. Then of course energy is factored into the actual production to run the lights, heating/air, saws, spray booths, air compressors, computers, etc. Finally, it takes energy to ship out the finished goods, to either a retailer or directly to the customers. People need to take the big picture into account. Even small increases in energy prices can have an exponential impact on the cost of goods. This hurts average people and there is little that can be done to offset damage.
Planebrad: Well-stated! Predictions of Catastrophic human-caused Global Warming have not panned out, despite rapid increase in CO2, so the climate models and parameters such as climate sensitivity used by the IPCC are not valid. The “boy cried wolf – but there was no wolf.”
On the other hand, for most workers, wages have stagnated or decreased even as the cost of products and services have gone up. There is no extra money available to pay taxes for the government to waste on unnecessary subsidies for carbon mitigation, nor for industries and businesses to spend to comply with “green” legislation. Why burden an already struggling economy to try to fix a non-existent problem?
Yes, we should do things that make economic sense. We extra-insulated the house we built 11 years ago, I installed a programmable thermostat to conserve energy by allowing warmer summer temperatures during certain hours during air conditioning season (and the reverse during heating season), my wife and I have shared a hybrid Prius for the past decade, we recycle, etc. A friend of mine has installed solar panels for hot water and electricity in his home and our house of worship and is involved in building a “net zero” solar energy development here in central Florida.
Let the market decide and let us ADAPT to whatever MODERATE Climate Change comes our way.
Ira
I thank you for your effort in trying to assemble convincing responses to believers in AGW
there are some improvements I would add
Trace out for the believers the actual theory of enhanced GW as most in my experience don’t understand it -thinking it is all due to CO2 end of story
Emphasise the role claimed to be played by WV feedback then quote most recent findings (WUWT) that WV in atmosphere has not increased then throw in for good measure returning Arctic sea ice growing Antarctic sea ice and data on storms etc
lastly do not underestimate the need for people to believe ( something any thing) because emotion usually trumps reason
As some one wrote centuries ago a timeless book called Popular Delusions and the Madness of cCowds