NOTE: This post is the second in the series from Dr. Roy Spencer of the National Space Science and Technology Center at University of Alabama, Huntsville. The first, made last Friday, was called Atmospheric CO2 Increases: Could the Ocean, Rather Than Mankind, Be the Reason?
Due to the high interest and debate his first post has generated, Dr. Spencer asked me to make this second one, and I’m happy to oblige.
Here is part2 of Dr. Spencer’s essay on CO2 without any editing or commentary on my part.
(Side note: Previously, I erroneously reported that Dr. Spencer was out of the country. Not so. That was my mistake and a confusion with an email autoresponse from another person named “Roy”. Hence this new update.)
More CO2 Peculiarities: The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio
Roy W. Spencer
January 28, 2008
In my previous post, I showed evidence for the possibility that there is a natural component to the rise in concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Briefly, the inter-annual co-variability in Southern Hemisphere SST and Mauna Loa CO2 was more than large enough to explain the long-term trend in CO2. Of course, some portion of the Mauna Loa increase must be anthropogenic, but it is not clear that it is entirely so.
Well, now I’m going to provide what appears to be further evidence that there could be a substantial natural source of the long-term increase in CO2.
One of the purported signatures of anthropogenic CO2 is the carbon isotope ratio, C13/C12. The “natural” C13 content of CO2 is just over 1.1%. In contrast, the C13 content of the CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels is claimed to be slightly smaller – just under 1.1%.
The concentration of C13 isn’t reported directly, it is given as “dC13”, which is computed as:
“dC13 = 1000* {([C13/C12]sample / [C13/C12]std ) – 1
The plot of the monthly averages of this index from Mauna Loa is shown in Fig. 1.
Now, as we burn fossil fuels, the ratio of C13 to C12 is going down. From what I can find digging around on the Internet, some people think this is the signature of anthropogenic emissions. But if you examine the above equation, you will see that the C13 index that is reported can go down not only from decreasing C13 content, but also from an increasing C12 content (the other 98.9% of the CO2).
If we convert the data in Fig. 1 into C13 content, we find that the C13 content of the atmosphere is increasing (Fig. 2).
So, as the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased, so has the C13 content…which, of course, makes sense when one realizes that fossil-fuel CO2 has only very slightly less C13 than “natural” CO2 (about 2.6% less in relative terms). If you add more CO2, whether from a natural or anthropogenic source, you are going to add more C13.
The question is: how does the rate of increase in C13 compare to the CO2 increase from natural versus anthropogenic sources?
First, lets look at the C13 versus C12 for the linear trend portion of these data (Fig. 3).
The slope of this line (1.0952%) represents the ratio of C13 variability to C12 variability associated with the trend signals. When we compare this to what is to be expected from pure fossil CO2 (1.0945%), it is very close indeed: 97.5% of the way from “natural” C13 content (1.12372%) to the fossil content.
At this point, one might say, “There it is! The anthropogenic signal!”. But, alas, the story doesn’t end there.
If we remove the trend from the data to look at the inter-annual signals in CO2 and C13, we get the curves shown in Figures 4 and 5.
Note the strong similarity – the C13 variations very closely follow the C12 variations, which again (as in my previous post) are related to SST variations (e.g. the strong signal during the 1997-98 El Nino event).
Now, when we look at the ratio of these inter-annual signals like we did from the trends in Fig. 3, we get the relationship seen in Fig. 6.
Significantly, note that the ratio of C13 variability to CO2 variability is EXACTLY THE SAME as that seen in the trends!
BOTTOM LINE: If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??
Loquor (04:00:13) :
“Regarding Mann and dishonesty, it seems like the jury is still out in this case of bristlecone pines”
There is evidence that Mann was aware of this issue in 1998 and choose to ignore it. For example, he tested his data for statistical relevance and found none yet he did not report this extremely important detail in his paper. I am pretty sure you would call an omission like that scientific fraud if it was committed by a skeptic. After all, Mann ‘should have known better’ so he must have omitted it deliberately (sic).
Here is a good summary of the case against Mann: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2322#more-2322
FWIW – I do agree that the citation of the Khilyuk/Chilingar is probably unjustified. However, to be fair you must direct similar accusations of dishonesty at any paper that cites MBH98 or its derivatives.
This debate is so complex that it is impossible for even the most informed person to become an expert on all topics – especially when the experts interpret the same data in different ways. This means that most people have to decide who they trust when it comes to resolving differences of opinions.
Our own differences of opinion can be traced back to differences in who we trust. I simply do not trust the IPCC and many of the key scientists that are behind the report. The poor handling of the Mann/Hockey Stick issue has made it is pretty obvious to me that the IPCC is an advocate for the hypothesis that CO2 is the primary cause of the current warming and that it is only interested in scientific opinions that support this hypothesis. If this was a trial and CO2 was the accused then the IPCC would be the prosecutor. Of course, this does not mean that the accused is innocent – it just means that one must view the IPCC’s version of events as inherently biased toward showing that the accused is guilty.
The solar issue is a good example. The IPCC dismisses the effect of the sun as insignificant despite the mountains of circumstantial evidence that there is a poorly understood connection between the sun and climate (e.g. sunspots correlate well with climate). I realize that correlations do not equal causations but if one wishes to argue the reverse (i.e. no cause and effect relationship exists) then these correlations must be explained. The IPCC does not attempt to do this and relies on the argument that it is possible to assume that no solar-climate link exists since no solar-climate link has been proven to exist. In my opinion, this argument is complete nonsense and any impartial attribution analysis would attempt to quantify the magnitude of the unknown solar effect and include that when reporting the range of CO2 sensitivities. Here is one attempt that presumes this unknown effect comes from cosmic rays: http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
“Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).”
I am not arguing that Shaviv’s analysis has been proven correct, I am simply arguing that it is plausible enough to include in any analysis that attempts to place upper and lower bounds on the magnitude of the CO2 effect on climate. Unfortunately, doing this will simply add to the uncertainty and the IPCC does not want any uncertainty that would distract policy makers from committing to drastic action on CO2…
Loquor complains about “…the level of dishonesty that is displayed constantly from “sceptical” scientists. In this regard, there is simply no alarmist counterparts, at least not scientific ones.”
That statement is ridiculous, if not outright mendacious.
Mr. Bojangles: I respect if you beg to differ, but if you intend to convince anyone who does not already suspect that this is all a big UN-leaded hoax or something like this, you really should provide some examples rather than just stating your unsupported prejudices.
I have now provided loads of examples where Lindzen, Spencer, Michaels and Carter cite highly unreliable literature they obviously do not themselves believe in. I have made a case for the striking inconsistency wit which the same people explain away a rising trend in the satellite measurements from 1979 and onwards with the exceptional El Nino year 1998 – fair enough, but not when the very same people nonetheless shamelessly use this very same year as a valid starting point in a dubious 10-year trend to support the claim that global warming stopped in 1998. I have listed Michaels well-known fraudulent treatment of James Hansens testimony.
I have further asked if anybody here truly believes that an intelligent and experienced atmospheric researcher – as Spencer undeniably is – could credibly claim to be unaware of basic textbook facts that first year ecologists are required to know to pass their exams.
The only conclusion I can produce for all this is that all these sceptic scientist are either knowingly dishonest or capable of a really breathtaking level of self-delusion.
So far, I see not a single one here seriously disputing any of these points.
The only counterexample I have seen here is the well known Hockey Stick Controversy. When it comes to erroneous claims and dirty tricks, I really do not see how anybody can claim that the Hockey team and the 2x Mc have anything to reproach each other for. I will not try to settle the ongoing controversy about bristlecone pine proxies here and I acknowledge that McIntyre might well have a point here, but this is hardly an example of dishonesty any more than Shaviv or Svensmarks reliance upon their own quite dubious data – as I said, I do not think that any of these two are dishonest at all, either, they are just on to something they really believe is potentially very interesting (though poorly supported).
When it comes to discussions of dishonesty, it is very decisive to me that the grand NRC report co-authored by the very respectable and somewhat sceptic John Christy found no evidence at all of conscious fraud or fakery in his review of the work of the Hockey team.
And even if we assume or the sake of the argument that the MBH98/99 Hockey sticks are completely void, useless, silly and plain wrong, we are still left with the reconstructions of Moberg, Rutherford, von Storch and numerous others which might differ slightly from the original MBH98/99 in the wobbliness of the shaft, but nonetheless all lead to pretty much the same conclusion about the present warming. Certainly none at all support unusual warmth in the 15-16th centuries as 2xMc found, and everybody except for themselves seem to agree that their statistical argumens are completely irrelevant and unimportant.
I have yet to see any evidence at all for scientific dishonesty from any respectable “alarmist” scientist.
loquor (05:53:24) :
“The only counterexample I have seen here is the well known Hockey Stick Controversy.”
I am sorry. The Hockey Stick will go down in history as the most egregious example of scientific fraud since cold fusion but it will take close to 10-20 years to collect enough data to undo the damage. We are already seeing proxy some studies coming out that use rigorous statistical analysis techniques and demonstrate that the MWP was most likely as warm if not warmer than today.
The fact that so many pro-IPCC scientists seem to live in denial about this and continue to insist that the hockey stick has any merit what so ever is the main reason why I believe that the IPCC is hopelessly biased towards blaming CO2 and that its conclusions cannot provide any useful guidance to policy makers.
Ironically, I do accept the counter argument that even if the MWP was warmer than today that does not mean that CO2 is not causing the current warming. As with any political scandal it is the reaction to the facts that undermines the credibility of those involved rather than the facts themselves.
I even accept that your criticisms of some of the skeptics has some merit, however, your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the much more odious transgressions of Mann et. al. undermine your own arguments.
I have noticed a general rule in climate science. If someone supports the CO2 hypothesis then any amount of bad science can be forgiven because they are “mostly” correct. Yet if someone rejects or even casts some doubt on the CO2 hypothesis then even the tiniest error is used to declare the person “dishonest and untrustworthy”. You can see this pattern repeated over and over again with Christy, Spenser, Linzden, Loehe, McIntryre, etc.
I keep hoping that I will find someone with a pro-IPCC view who can make a case for CO2 induced warming but is willing to acknowledge the flaws and uncertainties in the science supporting their view. Steve McIntyre and many of the regular skeptical posters on his blog do try to make this more mature pro-IPCC argument. Ironically, this fact is not known by most pro-IPCC types because they fear anyone who dares to criticises them.
CO2 interannual variation due to ENSO are mostly related to fire in forest and coal/peat, it’s organic carbon as fossil fuels are…so why should c13/c12 ratio be much different?
That’s from IPCC AR4 about interannual variability:
” Since the TAR, many studies have confirmed that the
variability of CO2 fluxes is mostly due to land fluxes, and that
tropical lands contribute strongly to this signal (Figure 7.9). A
predominantly terrestrial origin of the growth rate variability can
be inferred from (1) atmospheric inversions assimilating time
series of CO2 concentrations from different stations (Bousquet
et al., 2000; Rödenbeck et al., 2003b; Baker et al., 2006),
(2) consistent relationships between δ13C and CO2 (Rayner et al.,
1999), (3) ocean model simulations (e.g., Le Quéré et al., 2003;
McKinley et al., 2004a) and (4) terrestrial carbon cycle and
coupled model simulations (e.g., C. Jones et al., 2001; McGuire
et al., 2001; Peylin et al., 2005; Zeng et al., 2005). Currently,
there is no evidence for basin-scale interannual variability of the
air-sea CO2 flux exceeding ±0.4 GtC yr–1, but there are large
ocean regions, such as the Southern Ocean, where interannual
variability has not been well observed.”
So how can you contrast this theory with c13/c12 regression from detrended data if the source of this carbon is organic and depleted in c13 as fossil fuels?
Some news about Indonesia peat/coal/forest fire:
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/08indo_fires.htm
C13/c12 ratio simply allow to discern between mostly organic(wood,coal etc..) and mostly inorganic(ocean,volcano) carbon source.
All,
Sorry that there was no reaction in the last days from my side. I was heavily involved in a similar discussion on a skeptics’ discussion list…
It will take some more week to respond to a few remaining questions here, if still somebody is listening…
Regards,
Ferdinand
A fast question JP:
El Niño events are from near all times, including the pre-industrial times. Pre-industrial d13C was near stable, only influenced by temperature. Now we see a huge decrease. Thus it seems not so plausible that vegetation suddenly started to increase in decay/burning in pace with human emissions…
Raven:
I wrote a longer comment respondering to your comments in detail, but apparently this was lost in the spam filter. Anyway:
Regarding the “odious transgressions” you write about with respect to the Hockey stick (MBH98) – I am pretty familiar with all the McKittrick/McIntyre debate, the NRC and the Wegman reports, and forgive me, but there is nothing in the links you provided that suggest anything remotely like conscious fraud. I am seriously willing to read any arguments – I am not stubbornly rejecting anything – but your links simply do not support your conclusions.
As you have correctly identified, it all boils down to whether bristlecone pines are useful or not – so surely by your own standards, anyone claiming that there are gross statistical problems with the study are committing fraud. And nobody has ever found anything similar to the unusual warmth in the 15-16th century as 2xMc found. Would you then say that this claim represent an “odious transgression”, too?
Actually, McIntyre himself states that the suspicion against the bristlecones back in 1998 was that there might be a co2 fertilisation effect, and that this suspicion is now shown to be wrong by Abaneh. So to use this to claim that MBH somehow ought to have thrown them out afterwards just because someone claimed that this might be a problem seems quite strange to me.
Does not it make you wonder that the NRC and John Christy examined it and found no evidence of any ill intent? And that the Wegman report found only statistical quibbles which have all been addressed and found unimportant?
And seriously: Whatever one thinks about MBH98, it is inescapable that it was a pioneering study with respect to temperature reconstructions that has been used extensively by all followers – even if they dsagree with the conclusions like von Storch/Zorita, 2xMc or Moberg et al. To discredit anybody relying upon anything like this would be to discard anyone and everyone working on past temperatures.
However, I agree that it seems now like McIntyre is on to something with the bristlecone pines. So let us say that these proxies are no good, and the shaft of the MBH98 was too straight. Then we are left with something like Moberg et al. or von Storch – which makes just about no difference with respect to the conclusions on the present temperature changes. In my view, the main reason why this study has gained so much attention is the ferocity with which sceptics have attacked it, maybe because some people have thought that this was a core pillar of the entire AGW hypothesis. I am completely willing to believe that it was wrong, but I am not surprised neither that there are problems with a pioneering study nor that the author of such a work will defend it more eagerly than the rest of the science community. Let me repeat the comparison with Svensmark: His lab workers seem to be pretty much the only ones (maybe barring Nir Shaviv) who still cling to his theory in its “hard” version – and once again, by your very strict standard this would also amount to fraud. Maybe I have a more lenient view upon what constitutes fraud than you, but I apply it consistently.
And you may not trust the IPCC, but the facts remain that they have reacted upon this critique and moderated the conclusions based on MBH in the FAR report. This seems to me like proper scientific conduct, does not it?
I understand your scepticism towards the UN generally, but since the IPCC process is done by independent scientists and is based on the science done outside the control of UN, I do not think that the fair critcism that can be levelled at the UN on many other levels applies to the IPCC.
On the contrary, I have never seen Lindzen, Michaels or Carter acknowledge any errors. They just seem to keep going with unreconstructed claims disproven decades ago – and honestly, to advance, based on K&C, that “AGW is wrong because humans are not directly heating the planet by more than 0,01C” is not exactly “the tiniest error”, is it? And unless you want to argue that these three really believe AGW to be based on direct heating (in which case they should probably find another job), then this is not an error at all, but deliberate misinformation, is not it?
Really, whatever one thinks of the UN or international policy measures, it is not a tough call to me whom to trust in this case. And I would trust the same people had they arrived at a different conclusion.
loquor (03:25:17) :
“so surely by your own standards, anyone claiming that there are gross statistical problems with the study are committing fraud. ”
These are more the standards that you put forth when you imply that Dr Spenser was ‘dishonest’ for musing about CO2 on this forum. Or that Carter and Linzden’s reference to a single dubious paper is enough to justify a similar dismissal of all of their arguments. If the transgressions of Christy, Linzden etc amount to dishonesty then Mann’s actions amount to fraud. If Mann made an honest mistake then so did Christy et. al.
If you want any example of how Mann should have handled the criticism then I recommend you look at Loehle 2007 and the recent Loehle, C., and J.H. McCulloch. 2008: http://www.ncasi.org/Publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
Note the acknowledgements:
“Thanks to all authors who posted or provided climate time series data. Thanks in particular to Eric Swanson, Gavin Schmidt, Steve McIntyre and the visitors to ClimateAudit (climateaudit.org) who helped uncover errors in data handling.”
Note the thanks to Schmidt who was anything but gracious when he tore Loehle’s orginal paper apart.
It is interesting to contrast the behavoir of Loehle to the behavoir of Mann and the climate science community when orginally confronted with McIntyre’s findings.
In 2004, the attacks on McIntyre and McKitrick were gratuitious and extremely unprofessional. The fact that McIntyre’s views are starting to be accepted by the science community makes the public personal attacks at the time even more odious.
Take a look at the tone for yourself: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98
I seems obvious to me who is more trustworthy.
Even if I give Mann and the climate scientists that defended him the benefit of doubt by acknowledging that M&M paper was an unexpected public attack. That does not change the fact that they defended in indefensible position and still have not admitted they were wrong. For me that is the unforgiveable transgression. If I am going to trust someone’s scientific position then I have believe they would change their mind if presented with new evidence. The message I have be getting from many in the climate science community is “our mind is made up and would argue that CO2 induced GW is happening even if a glacier covered New York City”.
Incidently, I say the reference to the Khilyuk/Chilingar is a small detail because I never really noticed it despite the fact that I have read many things that Carter and Lindzen on published on issue. If they mentioned the human heat contribution more than once it was not definitely not the central part of their argument.
All of the major arguments which they do repeat over and over again are either indisputable facts or legitimate interpretations of the evidence.
Well, Raven, we may have to agree to disagree about the Hockey Stick controversy, but I will note that even if we accept every word of McIntyres that I have read and that you have quoted here, there is nothing in this suggesting outright fraud. You do not adress any of my arguments with respect to co2-fertilisation, statistics or the NRC report, and you do not seem to have read the McIntyre quotes I refered to thoroughly.
Again, I think that every single critique point of Mann et al. you raise applies equally, if not more, to Svensmarks behaviour with respect to his own theory. And what distinguishes both of them from Carter, Lindzen or Spencer – if we accept that the criticisms leveled against them are entirely valid – is the fact that they both made pioneering work which was then later found to be in error. It is quite normal for those scientists to cling much harder to their own theory and only slowly budging – especially when some of the more vocal criticisms leveled at you are clearly politically motivated, as has been the case with both these two. Would you argue that Svensmarks attitude tantamounts to fraud, too?
Anyway, by any standard, there is a world of difference between these two and Spencer, Carter and Lindzen. These latters are not advancing new hypotheses, but merely trying to float an issue that has been dead as a doornail for 40 years (before any of them ever started their careers) with no new support.
You may perceive the K&C quote of Carter and Lindzen in the paper i provided as “a minor issue”, but if you actually read it, you will discover that this was actually their major scientific base – really, their only example – for their whole paper in which they claimed that the Stern review unduly neglected sceptical science, and there would have been no paper without this. The kindest explanation I can produce for this would be an extraordinary capability of self-delusion with these authors.
“All of the major arguments which they do repeat over and over again are either indisputable facts or legitimate interpretations of the evidence”.
Well, I´m sorry, but that is simply not true. How about “Water vapour is 98% of the greenhouse effect”, “Global warming stopped in 1998”, “a doubling of co2 only leads to a 2% increase in the greenhouse effect”, “My (Richard Lindzen´s) views upon negative water vapour feedback are shared universally by other scientists”, “Global temperatures have been falling for the recent years”, “Satellite data show no warming”,”Satellite data show no warming when corrected for the exceptionally warm 1997/98 El Niño year”, “James Hansen overpredicted warming by 300% in 1988” etc. etc.?
By all accounts, there is not a single one of these claims (which they, as you correctly observe, “repeat over and over again”) which are indisputable facts and at best a few which can be considered legitimate, if quite unusual, interpretations. On the contrary, many of them are outright fraudulent (with Michaels´ erasure of Hansens two lower scenarios as the most outraging example), untrue (staellites show no warming) and certainly internally contradictory (when Spencer and Carter erase 1997/98 from the satellite record but use it as a starting point for a 7-8 year trend). And since everybody knows that the effects of GHG are not additive and that water vapour is really a feedback on the relevant timescales, it makes no sense to use “water vapour is 95/98% of the greenhouse effect” as an argument against AGW from co2.
Even is we accept that Mann and all his work is void, fraud, bogus bankrupt or worse and discard everything he has ever made and everybody using his data – and applies the same sentencing standard to the mentioned sceptics- then this still leaves us with huge evidence in favour of AGW and with all the above sceptics as discredited frauds.
Ferdinand, forest fire in Indonesia are set by human every year but el-nino induced droughts create the condition for widespread fires as happened in 1998.
http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/Publications/Detail?pid=339
Anyway which data source are you using for preindustrial d13C?
“Water vapour is 98% of the greenhouse effect”
“a doubling of co2 only leads to a 2% increase in the greenhouse effect”
“My (Richard Lindzen´s) views upon negative water vapour feedback are shared universally by other scientists”
Linzden’s opinions on water vapour feedback are reasonable scientific opinions that you may disagree with. That does not make them dishonest. Frankly, I think his theories fit the empirical data better than the GCM predicted water vapour feedback.
“Global warming stopped in 1998”
“Global temperatures have been falling for the recent years”
“Satellite data show no warming”
“Satellite data show no warming when corrected for the exceptionally warm 1997/98 El Niño year”
All of these statements are supported by the data. I realize that someone could come to different conclusions by cherry picking different dates, however, I don’t see how you can claim that one person’s cherries are the ‘truth’ and another person’s cherries are ‘lies’.
I should probably mention that the lack of any warming in the satellite data is the most persuasive argument that the ‘consensus’ has got it wrong. At a minimum it casts enough doubt that we really should wait another 10 years before committing to any drastic CO2 reduction measures. Conversely, I will change my opinion on CO2 if the trend reverses suddenly and warming catches up to the 0.2 degC/decade trendline predicted by the the alarmists.
Basically, I put more weight on people with opinions that are supported by the real data than on people whose opinions are based on theoretical models.
“James Hansen over predicted warming by 300% in 1988″ etc. etc.?
You make a big issue about Micheals leaving out Scenario B and C and I agree that the data should not be deleted. However, Hansen did repeatedly refer to Scenario A as the ‘business as usual’ scenario so Hansen can only blame himself if people come along later and claim that Scenario A was the primary prediction.
Scenario B did include volcanoes but it also assumed a much lower amount of of GHG forcing so Hansen is being dishonest when he tries to claim that the difference between Scenario B and A can be explained by the Pinatubo eruption. The real difference is the difference in forcing by non-CO2 GHGs like methane – a problem that seems to have gone away without any action on the part of governments.
In short, if Micheals and Linzden are to be criticized for taking Hansen at his word when he said that scenario A was business as usual then Hansen should be taken to task for deceptively claiming that the volcano in 1992 explains the difference between the two.
Lastly, if you have a problem with Michaels then you should also have a big problem with Briffa who deleted data from his tree ring series presented in TAR. I realize that Briffa has come up with rationalizations to justify this deletion but there are many people that don’t accept this rationalizations and feel the data should have been included. If you accept Briffa’s explanation then you should also accept Micheal’s explanation for omitting Scenarios B and C.
Raven:
Lindzen´s Iris effect is a legitimate theory, but I do not see how anybody with a knowledge on the data (as you undeniably has) can seriously claim that this is better supported than the mainstream view, as documented by Soden, Hansen, Mnschwaner and others. At best, Christy et al. produced some flimsy indications of a negative feedback effect, but there just about zero evidence for an overall net negative or even zero feedback. So it is not fraudulent for Lindzen to insist on his theory, and I do not rule out that it might one day be vindicated to at least some degree, but at present any fair-minded who has read the papers cannot escape the conclusion that it certainly is not exactly well-supported. And for him to state that his views on negative water vapour feedback are “shared universally” by other scientist (as he told the British House of Lords in his testimony) is flatly ridiculous as really no one besides himself and a very few contrarians share anything remotely like this view. I fail to see how you could possibly arrive at any other conclusion on this statement of Lindzens.
I do not understand how you can claim that the satellite data do not show warming, even when corrected for the El Nino year 1997/98 – are we looking on the same data?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
Christy himself (properly) acknowledged the error in his dataset years ago. To be sure, there are still uncertainities in the agreement between tropospheric and surface data, but the he claim “Satellites show no warming” is simply not true judged by any standard – and when you state:
“Basically, I put more weight on people with opinions that are supported by the real data than on people whose opinions are based on theoretical models”.
then you should remember that just because a researcher measures something, that does not necessarily make his measurement “real data” – in fact, in this previously alleged satellite/surface discrepancy it was the “real data” which were in error.
And about cherry picking – the exceptionality of “the exceptionally warm El Nino year 1997/98” has been highlighted by just about every scientific AGW advocate I have heard of, and I think it is fair, as Spencer and Carter argued, that this year should be excluded from the satellite data (in which case the dataset still shows clear warming, though). However, when they now go and claim that there is no need to correct for this year and apparently think that it is an excellent starting point for a 8-10 year trend, then this is not merely a cherry pick, but a striking inconsistency. I refuse to believe that you cannot see this?
And I do not understand why you want to defend Michaels obvious fraud – forgive me, but just about every argument you make is misleading or just wrong. Go read Hansen´s paper:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/hansen_et_al_global_climate_ch.php
“Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns”
“Scenario C is a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined”
“Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases”.
So Hansen boldly stated in his paper that scenario B was “perhaps the most likely” – and surely, both the Pinatubo eruption and the lack of a rise in methane has contributed to the fact that the B scenario came closer to the reality? I thought that this was just a fact? “Business as usual” do not translate into “most likely” – and in any case, if anybody thought so, Hansen explicitly rejects any such interpretation in his paper, where by this term, he referred to a stable rise in co2 and methane, no action and no volcanic eruption and called his B scenario most plausible.
I have not studied the Briffa controversy in detail, and I am prima facie not sure that I will necessarily want to defend his actions or conclusions – I will go and read the transcipts first. But just from your version of this, there is still a world of difference between leaving out data where you tell people that you do so and why – and then as Michaels did, just to leave out data without telling anybody so, and with the undeniable motive of making Hansens projections appear silly.
I am ready to accept that Briffas exclusions might be biased by his convictions – hey, in this very moment I am myself writing a scientific paper on genetics in which my arguments are to a large extent based on exclusion of some data which I believe to me misleading. I am probably biased by some previous convictions on genetic relationship, and I might well be wrong – in which case people who do not believe so much in phylogenetic inference as I do might try to replicate my work and prove me wrong. I would hate that, of course, but I could not do anything but to disagree and try to present counterarguments – or, grudgingly, acknowledge my error.
But if someone with a personal and politically motivated antipathy against me or my preferred methods or results (happily, this is not anyway half as big a problem in genetics as in climatology) just analysed the data I had excluded without looking at those I did include and used this to claim that I was all wrong and that this was all politically motivated BS to justify shady communist government interference etc. then I would just know that their attacks were not worth bothering with.
[snip]
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
loquor (15:29:40) :
“And I do not understand why you want to defend Michaels obvious fraud – forgive me, but just about every argument you make is misleading or just wrong”
Hansen is on record in senate hearings claiming the Scenario A is the ‘business as usual’ scenario and makes no mention of Scenario B. There are numerous other inconsistencies between the record of his testimony and what he actually wrote in his paper. If Hansen is going to distort his own science when he is in public then he should not be surprised that others rely on his public statements rather than what was written in the paper.
That said, I agree that deleting the curves from the figures was highly inappropriate and Micheals undermined his credibility by doing it.
We could probably go on forever listing the human foibles of people involved on either side of the debate. I am not sure what it would accomplish. However, I would like to address the issue of no warming since 1998:
1) I realize that if you draw a trend from the start of the satellite record you will see warming. However, choosing the start of the record is an example of cherry picking too because we know the 70s was bottom of a cool period. The fact that we have no data prior to 1979 does not make the AGW cherry picking any better than the cherry picking of skeptics.
2) Many AGW advocates seem to think any rising trend validates their arguments. This is a bad assumption. The primary skeptic argument is that CO2 sensitivity is much lower than the IPCC says. This means we can expect some warming but nothing to be concerned about. As a result, any trend that is less than about 0.2 degC/decade falsifies the alarmist argument and validates the views of Linzden, Spencer, et al. For that reason, the leveling off which we have seen in the last 10 years is quite significant even though it has not turned the corner into a negative trend.
Even if most of the isn’t fossil CO2, couldn’t it be a gas balance between the atmosphere and the ocean an biosphere (natural absorption/emission sources) which is affected from an annual increase of the CO2 level in the atmosphere and that this higher CO2 level then persists?
The temperature anomaly CO2 covariance in the former CO2-post i think is more striking!
Well, Raven,
I do not dispute that there are human foibles on both sides, nor that we could probably go on arguing about them, but I will say a) that it is hard to ignore that these “human foibles” are much more predominant on the sceptic side because of the want of scientific backup, and b) that I do not think Hansen´s testimony and the paper can be fairly described as a human foible. You state:
“Hansen is on record in senate hearings claiming the Scenario A is the ‘business as usual’ scenario and makes no mention of Scenario B. There are numerous other inconsistencies between the record of his testimony and what he actually wrote in his paper”.
That does not seem to be at all true? Are you making this up? I cannot find the complete transcripts of the testimony, but from those parts I can find (see comment from the sceptic Knappenberger in the realclimate link) it is clear that Hansen explicitly did mention all his three scenarios AND relied mostly on the B in the detailed explanations in both the oral and the written testimony:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/the-heat-is-rising-at-the-washington-post/#comment-10865
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf
James Hansen: “The other curves in this figure [besides the observations] are the results of global climate model calculations for three scenarios of atmospheric trace gas growth. We have considered several scenarios because there are uncertainties in the exact trace gas growth in the past and especially in the future. We have considered cases ranging from business as usual, which is scenario A, to draconian emission cuts, scenario C, which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000”.
Hansen attached his paper to the written testimony – and he explained very explicitly what was meant by Business as usual. I just do not see that there is anything to blame Hansen for in this case? The distortions or omissions appear to have arisen entirely from Michaels very own take on Hansen´s testimony.
And with respect to the 1998 and the satellites: By your standard for cherry picking, it would seem that just about every choose of a starting point would be a cherry pick? Surely, the trend from 1979 is not very long, but you have to choose just SOME starting point – that is, if you want to undertake scientific inquiry? The only thing you can do is to find some objective grounds for choosing this specific point and try to explain your choice by making the reasons clear. For the satellite temperature measurements, the argument that we only have data from 1979 and onwards seems to me as a pretty good objective argument for choosing this year and showing the entire record – especially when you correct for the annual anomalies like the EL Nino years. A 30 year-trend is surely objectively better than an 8-year trend – and it is certainly more objective to show the entire existing trend than picking one random record temperature year as a starting pointand showing just a third of the record, is not it? If someone had shown only a selected part of the curve that showed large warming, then I would agree that it were a cherry pick, but I am not aware of any alarmists having done so?
If you want to argue that the 70ies were a cool period and that this represents an “innate” cherry pick making arguments based on this record so far dubious, then why were Michaels and other sceptics then more than happy to claim the satellite record was highly trustworthy and reliable just a few years ago, when it – erroneously, as it proved – appeared to show cooling or at least no warming?
And none of this adresses the major problem I asked you about: It is not just cherry picking when you insist upon correcting for El Nino years in the satellite record from 1979-98 but not from 1998-2007, is it?
Finally, you state:
“Many AGW advocates seem to think any rising trend validates their arguments. This is a bad assumption”.
Indeed, but are you referring to scientific AGW advocates or political/popular ones? To claim that any short term rise represents some kind of “proof” of AGW is as foolish as claiming that global warming stopped in 1998, but I do not know of any AGW scientist having tried to validate their claims by references to arbitrarily rising trends? And with respect to the sensitivity issue, then why does anything less than 0,2/decade – over ONE decade, that is – falsify the calculations of sensitivity? Everybody knows that there is a huge heat content in the oceans – actually, the measures of the size of this heat content indicates that we have already surpassed the limits of sensitivity as argued by Lindzen (0,5-1C), and that we would still have at least 0,5C in the pipeline even if we stopped emitting co2 tomorrow, which, at a co2 level of just 400 ppm, would indicate that the sensitivity for doubling to 560 ppm should be much higher.
Loquor: “Everybody knows that there is a huge heat content in the oceans – actually, the measures of the size of this heat content indicates that we have already surpassed… ”
This is a very mysterious argument. Is there a “huge heat content in the oceans” we ahve to be afraid for, and which contribute to the climate sensivity? This I regard as kind of an “escape argument”. You can’t change the topic of a discussion, which is global warming of the earth’s surface. BTW: If there is not much temperature anomaly on the surface warmth from the surface can’t be transported to cooler deep blue.
I recognized that RealClimate has started this “Loch Ness heat monster” story, in order to to save the climate models.
–
Loquor: “the limits of sensitivity as argued by Lindzen (0,5-1C), and that we would still have at least 0,5C in the pipeline even if we stopped emitting co2 tomorrow, which, at a co2 level of just 400 ppm, would indicate that the sensitivity for doubling to 560 ppm should be much higher.”
Also 0,5 degrees climate change is no problem, and aslo there is no proof at all that the climate change the last 100 years is caused by CO2. Not at all!
There has been faster and bigger climate changes the latest 1000 years than the presumably at most 0,5 degrees since 1880. Watch the best climate graph, the Loehle graph (reviewed and adjusted after comments from AGW-Gavin schmidt):
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
Why I’m not say 0,5-1 degrees is becase of this study of temperature measurements and socio-economical factors which proves GISS data bias:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12492
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/M&M.JGRDec07.pdf
BTW, if we have 0,5-1 degrees AGW today, which isn’t likely, we must know the climate sensitivity is declining at higher CO2 concentration, so doubling means probably less than “0,5-1” degrees. The absorption band of CO2 is very limited.
Here is Hansen’s testimony:
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/Hansen.0623-1988%20oral.pdf
He describes Scenario A as business as usual in terms that let the listener believe that Scenario A is what would happen if nothing changed. That is was I was basing my claim on.
In my opinion any calculation of a trend in climate science is an exercise in cherry picking. For example, I assume that you don’t make the argument that longer is better because the 10000 year temperature trend is clearly down. The same is probably true for the 1000 year trend until very recently. This does not mean that short term trends are useless – it just means that anyone using short term trends must place them in the proper context before drawing conclusions. It also means that someone drawing conclusions from a 30 year trend has no business calling someone a cherry picker for using a ten year trend.
When I said a trend of 0.2 degC/decade I should have mentioned that it would have to be over several decades. Right now the the trend is in the 1.5 degC/dec range over the entire range of the satellite data but the mid troposphere trend is lower at around 0.8 degC/decade (something that directly contradicts GHG theory because the troposphere is supposed to warm faster than the surface).
I would be convinced that CO2 is the dominant climate effect if the current cooling spell reverses and pulls the 30 year trend line above 0.2 degC/decade over the next 5-10 years. if the trendline stays the same or decreases I would feel that the skeptics view has been validated.
As far as OHC goes – I have read conflicting reports. Some people feel that OHC has been declining since 2004 which implies there is not as much ‘warming in pipe’ as you might think. The response of the climate after volcanic eruptions tends to support the fast response rate hypothesis.
Well, fair enough, Raven. I do not think that your scepticism is that well founded nor warranted by the data you present, but I think that we could argue for hours over conflicting datasets, and I do credit you for being (at least somewhat) open to scientific arguments.
About Hansen: I do not see how the transcript of his testimony could possibly support your claim that he “makes no mention of Scenario B”? And it appears to me as if he makes it painstakingly explicit what is meant by BAU, as I said, AND that the BAU scenario was on the high side?
And about the cherry pick thing: As I said, you have to choose SOME point somewhere – the question of cherry picking only arises when you fail to provide justification for your choice. The longer is indeed normally the better, but of course you must make sure that the time series is comparable or meaningful with respect to what you are looking at. Everybody would agree that comparing the Andean Ice Age 450 mio. years ago or the Carboniferous 300 mio. years ago with today would not be meaningful to assess whether the anthropogenic contribution to the co2 rise could influence the climate.
When you want to find out whether the present warmth is unprecedented in human history, you should try to include all our knowledge on human history. When you want to adress major solar forcing changing over timescales of millenia, you need millenial evidence. When you want to infer anything about human co2, you should use comparisons within the time frames of the last million years or so. Actually, I do not think that anybody denies that the trend is clearly down since the Eemian maximum, so a 10000 year trend is fine with me. It is not the trend that matters in itself, but the explanations associated and what this means for the future.
When you do not have sufficiently good data for some question, you can only use the best avalibale evidence. When you want to analyse the direct surface measurements, you can only use data since 1850. And when you want to look on the tropospheric data, you can only look upon the data available. If you want to find out how the surface and the tropospheric temperature interact, then you have no choice bu to look at the time series 1979-2008 and then say, well, sorry, but this is all we have. But what reasons for picking one year, which coincidentally is the warmest due to an EL Nino event, as the starting point for a 10 year trend, can you produce other than a willful intent to show that warming has stopped? You complain about any rise being taken as evidence for AGW – I do not think that is really true, but if some AGW scientists took the time series from 1989 to 1998 to claim that a major disaster were underway, then I would call it an equally ill-intended cherry pick and surely you would, too. But how can you then complain about the 1998-2007 being called a improper cherry pick? Your arguments here seem quite inconsistent to me.
To the moderator:
The following are examples of unprofessional, reprehensible statements:
Loqor 3-2-08
To put it bluntly, his course bears much more resemblance to an overconfident undergraduate student preparing for an exam, who halfway through his textbook starts to wonder about what he has read so far – and then, instead of reading the rest of the book (in which it is revealed that all his questions have been asked and answered decades ago) goes on to claim that he has made a groundbreaking insight that will henceforth shake all scientific inquiry and Civilisation As We Know It. All this writing of Spencers is exactly like that, and there is just none of his claims that have not been done to death countless times before.
Now Dr. Spencer sure is no amateur nor an overconfident undergraduate, but either he must be amazingly ignorant of some basics he really should know better, he must be capable of an extraordinary level of self-delusion, or hest must be deliberately misleading. He undeniably does have a somewhat dubious record of making frankly absurd scientific claims (both about climate science and about evolution) that noone with his background or skill could possibly not know were dead wrong. I am struggling to believe that Spencer as an atmospheric physicist/meterologist could really be unaware of the enormous body of research that exists on the field.
Honestly, I am mostly inclined to believe that this is a deliberate intent of blowing smoke from Dr. Spencer, which is disgraceful for anyone, but only more so for a scientist which often make tacit allegations against most of his collegues for the very same thing.
I find it awfully hard to believe that Spencer could have written this rubbish in good faith, and with his double standards with respect to El Nino/1998 mentioned above in mind, he only reinforces the impression of dishonesty.
I can forgive him for speaking nonsense about creationism, since he obviously has no clue about evolutionary biology (and you should respect people´s faith), but when he makes statements about his own subject which even I can easily spot are outright lies, then I simply think that Spencer is a disgrace to his profession.
Loqor 3-2-08
By any objective standards, there is simply a level of dishonesty in the skeptics camp that really makes it difficult to believe any claims from these people.
MODERATOR REPLY: I agree these fit the criteria, but these comments were created before I created the policy, and thus I can’t in good faith apply rules to comments written prior to the existence of policy.
To Mr. Watts and Mr.McRae,
of course, you are welcome to disagree with my statements, but I do not see how they are in any way “unprofessional” or “reprehensible” – and looking at them again, I fully stand by my words.
If I think – as I do – that Dr. Spencer is fully aware about the well-established anthropogenic origin of the co2 rise, and that he thus is deliberately trying to mislead his audience here, then are not the terms “dishonest” or “outright lies” fully appropriate?
And when Spencer advocates creationism by saying that darwinism is a religion, and that white moths turning into black moths does not prove evolution, then what other precise description than “nonsense” would you fairly suggest for such arguments?
I understand that those words may sound harsh, but harsh words can indeed be well deserved and in their place. Of course, you should only use them when they apply. In this case, I think that my wording is entirely appropriate.
You may like what I say or not, and I fully respect whatever feelings you may have. But if you disagree with my wording, then you should try to demonstrate or argue that my accusations are undeserved, unfair or erroneous.
So far, I have seen nobody here who have wanted to argue these points. In my view, this – once again – speaks to the credit of the educated and knowledgeable audience of this forum…………:)
REPLY: Loquor, I do appreciate the mostly civil tone you’ve conducted yourself with. I tend to try not to get involved in debating people who don’t use a real name, so thats’ why I don’t engage this ongoing debate. My view is that if your opinion is important enough to espouse as representing the truth as you see it, then you should stand behind it. That is exactly why I use my name on this blog, right at the top, instead of cute pointless names like “Rabett” or “Tamino” or “SOD”. You are welcome to continue your discussion, but I won’t be joining in for that reason. Shadowboxing is never really productive, and the shadow has the advantage since there is no risk to the shadow’s reputation. By the same token, the shadow’s opinion is essentially worthless to science.
Science has never been advanced by an anonymous person, there was always a real person at the center of discovery. Spencer may say things that you disagree with, and some may even seem foolish, but he has the courage to put his name to it at least. – Anthony Watts
Is the ability to predict important to science? is successful prediction one measure of the validity of a theory, or the lack thereof?
There is an interesting drop in global temperatures ST (Hadcrut3) and LT (UAH) over the past year or so. Both ST and LT anomalies are now near-zero.
The IPCC model projections utterly failed to predict any such cooling, based on their assumption that CO2 primarily drives temperature.
Such cooling is not unusual, and occurs every few years. What is different this time is that ST has dropped as much as LT – about 0.6 C. All the warming since ~1980 has been temporarily eliminated.
Based on the correlation of Global ST. LT and dCO2/dt it should be possible to (reasonably accurately) predict dCO2/dt and CO2 for the next few months. Most of the data (except Dec07 and Jan08) and data sources are at: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRaeFig5b.xls
Regards, Allan
Loquor,
Roy Spencer is an honorable person. He became interested in this specific subject as a result of emails I sent to him and others, starting on December 31, 2007. It is that simple – there is no sinister motive.
Your above comments about Roy are highly unprofessional. Your libelous statements are typical of attempts to silence debate on the science of global warming. The mantra “the science is settled” is the BIG LIE of our time.
Like Anthony, I publish only under my real name. What is your real name?
Allan M.R. MacRae
An excellent paper by Roy Spencer is published here:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
REgards, Allan