This was a bit of a surprise, hat tip to Bucko36 – Anthony
In Science, Ignorance is Not Bliss
By Physicist Walter Cunningham, NASA Apollo 7 Astronaut in July/August 2008 Issue of Launch Magazine. http://launchmagonline.com/index.php/Viewpoint/In-Science-Ignorance-is-not-Bliss.html
Cunningham writes:
“NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused” warming
“[James] Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him.”
BIO Note: Physicist Walter Cunningham, an award-winning NASA Apollo 7 Astronaut, was the recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal and Navy Astronaut Wings, the 1969 Haley Astronautics Award and named to Named to the International Space Hall of Fame. Cunningham is a member of the American Geophysical Union and fellow of the American Astronautical Society. He also worked as a scientist for the RAND Corporation prior to joining NASA. While with RAND, he worked on classified defense studies and problems of the earth’s magnetosphere. He has accumulated more than 4,500 hours of flying time, including more than 3,400 in jet aircraft and 263 hours in space.
For Complete bio see: http://www.waltercunningham.com/introduction.htm
Excerpts:
It doesn’t help that NASA scientist James Hansen was one of the early alarmists claiming humans caused global warming. Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him. […] NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. Advocacy is replacing objective evaluation of data, while scientific data is being ignored in favor of emotions and politics. […] I do see hopeful signs that some true believers are beginning to harbor doubts about AGW. Let’s hope that NASA can focus the global warming discussion back on scientific evidence before we perpetrate an economic disaster on ourselves.
[…] The fearmongers of global warming base their case on the correlation between CO2 and global temperature, even though we cannot be sure which is cause and which is effect. Historically, temperature increases have preceded high CO2 levels, and there have been periods when atmospheric CO2 levels were as much as 16 times what they are now, periods characterized not by warming but by glaciation. You might have to go back half a million years to match our current level of atmospheric CO2, but you only have to go back to the Medieval Warming Period, from the 10th to the 14th Century, to find an intense global warming episode, followed immediately by the drastic cooling of the Little Ice Age. Neither of these events were caused by variations in CO2 levels. Even though CO2 is a relatively minor constituent of “greenhouse gases,” alarmists have made it the whipping boy for global warming (probably because they know how fruitless it would be to propose controlling other principal constituents, H2O, CH4, and N2O). Since human activity does contribute a tiny portion of atmospheric CO2, they blame us for global warming.
[…] The reality is that atmospheric CO2 has a minimal impact on greenhouse gases and world temperature. Water vapor is responsible for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect. CO2 contributes just 3.6 percent, with human activity responsible for only 3.2 percent of that. That is why some studies claim CO2 levels are largely irrelevant to global warming. Without the greenhouse effect to keep our world warm, the planet would have an average temperature of minus 18 degrees Celsius. Because we do have it, the temperature is a comfortable plus 15 degrees Celsius. Based on the seasonal and geographic distribution of any projected warming, a good case can be made that a warmer average temperature would be even more beneficial for humans.
Full Text at link below:
http://launchmagonline.com/index.php/Viewpoint/In-Science-Ignorance-is-not-Bliss.html
Theres a movement afoot! And it’s good!
Bravo!
To those familiar with the topic of the numerous weaknesses in AGW, this finely written essay doesn’t contain any new information. It is, however, far more credible than any diatribe from a failed divinity school student. Congratulations to Mr. Cunningham for having the courage to speak out so eloquently.
Finally someone associated with NASA is willing to comment. I supplied software for the man in space project doing capsule reentry calculations. NASA at that time was focused on real tasks. Thanks Walter for speaking out and thanks to Anthony for getting the link.
This –
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions
needs fisking
OT, sorry, but no mention of the eclipse today?
http://www.exploratorium.edu/eclipse/2008/index.html
The corona looked eerily quiet to me. Anybody else notice? or am I imagining things?
Cunningham might have been unlucky to be on the Apollo 7. Wally Schirra, the commander, was an old-school Test pilot with little interest in the scientific side. He also had a bad cold during the mission and Mission Control found him very uncooperative. It was said that Chris Kraft and the powers at NASA decreed that none of the crew would ever fly again, and they didn’t. The moon flights went to others, some of whom went there more than once.
Wow! Maybe this article should go in a front page add in the New York Times. I ain’t rich but I’ll pony up $100 to save the world.
I meant “full” page add. Egg on face.
Well, Cunningham has just forfeited any credibility. Obviously a tool of Big Oil and Big Business. Hansen may demand that he be put on trial. Al Gore won’t send him a Christmas Card.
And the media will ignore him. The Truth may not be disputed.
Sigh… (but a whole bunch of good folks will read about it here)
Once upon a time, I worked with real NASA scientists. Maybe some are still there and have ‘the right stuff’ to shut the crap down and get back to impartial science.
I sure hope so.
This is not the first paper by Mr, Cunningham. I am very impressed that he is willing to write again as the last time the alarmist were all over him with the usual claims that he isn’t a “climate scientist”. It appears that only if you are on the team are you a “climate scientist”.
I think Mr. Cunningham is right on the mark and that he will be one of the few at NASA studing climate that will not have egg on his face. I Posted the full article on Climatebrains.com earlier today and haven’t had a refutation as yet. This is a good sign that people are starting to look at the recent works and studies to form conclusions and the warmist are having more trouble keeping people under their thumbs. If this keeps up and the energy situation doesnt have a major change I look to have some very serious political fall outs later this year.
Congratulations to Mr. Cunningham, may he keep up the good work.
Bill Derryberry
The UAH daily data for July is all in at http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_chLT.r001.txt and the month of July 2008 is 0.0861 C cooler than July 2007. Going to a linear regression, and predicting the 12-month deltas for Hadley, GISS, UAH and RSS, I get…
* Hadley July 2007 anomaly was 0.406
Forecast 12-month delta -0.150
Forecast July 2008 anomaly 0.256
* GISS July 2007 anomaly was 0.53
Forecast 12-month delta -0.151
Forecast July 2008 anomaly 0.38
* UAH July 2007 anomaly was 0.255
Forecast 12-month delta -0.187
Forecast July 2008 anomaly 0.068
* RSS July 2007 anomaly was 0.363
Forecast 12-month delta -0.171
Forecast July 2008 anomaly 0.192
I realize that the numbers probably imply too much precision, but I’m just regurgitating what the spreadsheet said.
I knew there were publicly credible people out there who aren’t afraid to take a stand against the current craze.
Kudos to Walter Cunningham. I trust he will be an inspiration to other scientists more interested in the truth than afraid of false censure. Maybe the tide is turning.
Smokey says: “Kudos to Walter Cunningham. I trust he will be an inspiration to other scientists more interested in the truth than afraid of false censure.”
I hate to tell you but I kinda doubt it when he is just regurgitating misleading talking points like “human activity is responsible for only 3.2 percent [of CO2].” That’s the kind of stuff that may fly well with the non-scientific community but almost any scientist who knows, or has it explained to him, how that misleading figure was arrived at is going to be completely horrified that such arguments are being trotted out as credible arguments and is probably going to think that if this is the best that even someone like Cunningham can come up with, his case is pretty damn weak!
Going to the moon doesn’t mean you’re right.
This sentence alone: “The fearmongers of global warming base their case on the correlation between CO2 and global temperature, even though we cannot be sure which is cause and which is effect.”
is indefensible.
To quote Max Planck (via Atmoz)
An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning.
Also, any chance you’ll be relaying [Tamino’s] take down of Spencer’s misunderstanding of forcings and equilibrium timescales?
Are you interested in promulgating internally inconsistent rejections of mainstream climate science no matter how much they disagree with one other just to give the appearance of doubt, or giving a fair presentation of the issues?
REPLY: If it were anyone else but Tamino, sure, but he’s a persona non grata around here. He won’t link to my blog except to do a drive by hit(he’s stated that policy publicly) so I don’t plan on returning the favor. Tamino also ducked McIntyre, when he took Tamino to task in clear disproving of assertions Tamino made on tree ring proxies, even after prodding. He’s not considered a much of a fair player at CA either.
So if you have anything else on the subject, not written by Tamino, feel free to show it. And I’ll go one better. You can even make a guest post yourself, but you’ll have to use your real name, since I don’t allow guest posts by phantoms.
As far as you not liking what Michell saiid, take it up with him. I won’t change the post simply because you have an opinion on it -Anthony
[…] Science, Ignorance is Not Bliss Watts Up With That? – 01 August, 2008 01 August, […]
I cannot see how Mr Cunningham’s adventures in space are relevant. If being an astronaut were a relevant factor I’m sure Dr James Hansen’s lack of experience in a large rocket would have been brought out by now. What is relevant is the substance of his argument.
Over the last few days I have ventured to RealClimate more regularly than in the past to look at articles on a variety of subjects. One point which shines through many of the articles (and editorial responses to comments) is a presumption that everything was in balance before the industrial revolution.
That is a truism if one defines “in balance” as “unaffected by industrialisation”.
But if one defines “in balance” as “stable” it is palpably untrue. All sorts of changes to the climate have occurred historically, severe heating, mild heating, severe cooling, mild cooling and everything in between.
Mr Cunningham makes many of the points I find persuasive in the debate because he does not start from the position that everything was exactly as it should be in 1750 and any variance from 1750 must be unacceptable. But, if I might say so, I did not read anything in his article that I have not read many times before.
Thingsbreak,
Tamino’s conceit isn’t peer reviewed or published.
He is also generally spinning faster than a politician. Other than that, he does not accept criticism and has few FACTS. It is getting so bad that they are now starting to dispute IPCC AR4 published detail and creating their own world.
So, is there anything else you would like to say that might mitigate some of this??
By the way, Atmoz’s quote is exactly correct. The AGWers will die off and leave us to the next Political Catastrophe.
Cunningham isn’t a tool of the oil business – he’s “in” the oil business. Check his bio beyond the glam days of NASA and you might notice he’s hooked up to offshore oil production.
“The fearmongers of global warming base their case on the correlation between CO2 and global temperature, even though we cannot be sure which is cause and which is effect.”
is this the best he can do?
there is nothing new in that article and much of what he says is obviously false. extremely weak article.
Would someone please have this guy talk to our California AG Jerry Brown. Please???
Anthony, you do know this: “The reality is that atmospheric CO2 has a minimal impact on greenhouse gases and world temperature. Water vapor is responsible for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect. CO2 contributes just 3.6 percent, with human activity responsible for only 3.2 percent of that.” is just plain wrong don’t you?
Thingsbreak says , ” This sentence alone: “The fearmongers of global warming base their case on the correlation between CO2 and global temperature, even though we cannot be sure which is cause and which is effect.” is indefensible. ”
I must confess, I also found Cunningham’s attribution of CO2 rise, and falling global temperature, as a correlation indefensible.
Perhaps being aware of the scope and degree of the media brainwashing perpetrated on the public, Mr. Cunningham indulged the fib in order to avoid fatal cognitive dissonance in unsuspecting tree huggers.
That could be it.
Cunningham, while he doesn’t come straight out and say so, has zeroed in on the real problem.
The problem isn’t that AGW is politically motivated junk science. The problem is that it is United Nations sponsored politically motivated junk science.
Large numbers of people who think their national politicians are mostly crooks, think the UN is the font for all that is good and right in the world. Even admitting that AGW isn’t such a big problem (never mind it isn’t real) would force them to admit that the UN has perpetrated a gigantic fraud.
Cunningham is right. The way out of this is for a prestigous institution to redo the IPCC reports but sticking to the science and NASA would be a good candidate.
Andrew W:
“Anthony, you do know this: “The reality is that atmospheric CO2 has a minimal impact on greenhouse gases and world temperature. Water vapor is responsible for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect. CO2 contributes just 3.6 percent, with human activity responsible for only 3.2 percent of that.” is just plain wrong don’t you?”
What is just plain wrong? I suspect you think the problem is the “3.2% of that”.
“What the science says…”
“Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 Gt. The ocean releases about 330 Gt. In contrast, human emissions are only around 26.4 Gt per year.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
Work it out.
Andrew W (23:09:24) :
Here are some more facts for you:
From NASA
http://www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/Science/ResearcherResources/MeetingArchives/TeamMeeting20060307/2006_03_07/Chahine-INTRO-Final.pdf
Page 7
The small fraction of
~5% of water molecules above 500hpa altitude produce about 50% the total greenhouse effect
of the atmosphere.
It’s easy to see water is much more important as a greenhouse gas than CO2. The astronaut’s guess of 95 percent of the greenhouse effect of water looks plausible with only this one fact.
And we can’t control water vapor, now can we?
Hmmmm… fuel cell cars produce only water vapor. Isn’t that a dangerous greenhouse gas? Perhaps we should ban fuel cell cars?
Regards,
Jack
Jack,
I’ve wondered about hydrogen releasing water vapor, what it would be like for millions of cars on the freeway continually dumping water into the air and ground. I get this picture of driving in fog while fighting all the vegetation and mold creeping over the windshield and everything, and clouding over everyone’s solar cells. We can’t go back to horses, the methane problem is bad enough what with all the cows, you know. Looks like we’re in a pickle without a paddle. I think the environmentalists should do an international “Hold your breath day” and hope for the best.
And we can’t control water vapor, now can we?
We can and do substantially influence water vapour levels in the atmosphere.
Irrigation puts at least several billion tons of water vapour into the atmosphere each year and wikipedia says its residence time is 10 days.
Joel Shore stated in response to Smokey’s comment:
“I hate to tell you but I kinda doubt it when he is just regurgitating misleading talking points like “human activity is responsible for only 3.2 percent [of CO2].” That’s the kind of stuff that may fly well with the non-scientific community but almost any scientist who knows, or has it explained to him, how that misleading figure was arrived at is going to be completely horrified that such arguments are being trotted out as credible arguments and is probably going to think that if this is the best that even someone like Cunningham can come up with, his case is pretty damn weak!”
Okay then. Here’s a challenge to you. Name a scientist or two (or more) with the “correct” calculation that CO2 has on atmospheric warming. Also provide the names of papers and any electronic links to those papers that include that data and are relevant to the topic at hand. My challenge lasts so long as the above article stays on Anthony’s website. I’m betting that you haven’t got anything except the elitist snobbery you threw up there.
It seems odd that so many of the posts on here from a pro-AGW standpoint do not seem to use their real names. I wonder why?
Seriously, why? what are they afraid of?
“human activity is responsible for only 3.2 percent [of CO2].”
The obvious problem with this number is it only tells us the source of current production of CO2. It doesn’t say a thing about where the total amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere came from.
What percentage of CO2 currently in the atmosphere is from human production?
Also and unrelated question. If the earth and oceans haven’t warmed for the past several years, why does the CO2 keep going up? Don’t the oceans release CO2 as the earth warms? Thanks in advance.
Denis:
Yes, it’s curious (but I don’t know if it’s statistically borne out). But it does “feel” true. Especially when you summarize the major opposition to Anthony’s request/discussion about no anonymous posts (to help in the moderation of the blog). The loudest dissenters claimed that they wouldn’t be able to post their ANTI-AGW views because of possible retribution in their work environment. Yet, many of the adherents of AGW still seem to work in secret/anonymity.
That being said, I certainly appreciate the comments/postings by all honest brokers who are willing to stand up and be counted (especially by name).
Scott Ketcher:
“Also and unrelated question. If the earth and oceans haven’t warmed for the past several years, why does the CO2 keep going up? Don’t the oceans release CO2 as the earth warms? Thanks in advance.”
It seems to me that your question simultaneously debunks the argument. If I see something as RED and you see it as BLUE, will it rain in Seattle tomorrow? The answer is unrelated to the question.
If you do want to relate it, then I think it’s been pretty well shown that C02 concentration increases lag the temperature increases (by 800 to 1000 years). If that is true then why shouldn’t C02 concentration continue to increase given the warming since the LIA (despite recent and significant, in my view, cooling)?
Also, do you really mean to now lump all compounding C02 respiration, interaction and production by all past humans all the way back to our inception (insert your own timeframe/beliefs here) into the debate? And if that doesn’t work out… do we then add all mammals, invertebrates and other creatures with/whom human-kind has coexisted? Where does it end? How badly do we want to pin this on us?
At some point it seems like we’ll have enough evidence (I think we already do) to simply state: C02 is pretty important. Plants need it. Human activities provide a little bit of it. Plants make life on earth possibly by converting sunlight into sugar and other good things that we need to survive. Warm is mostly good. Cold is mostly death. But no matter what, significantly changing these things is predominately out of our purview. Better to adapt (as usual).
Sincerely,
JS
correction: possibly > possible
Glenn: Apart from the problems of producing hydrogen, transporting and storing, the net water vapor would be zero. In theory, no change in anything. Split water into O2 and H2, recombine to H2O. But it takes energy to split water, and to put the H2 into a container smaller than the Hindenberg, even more energy. A lot more. Which has to come from somewhere, and probably dumps a lot of CO2 and water vapor into the air. Without a major breakthrough, not a practical solution. Nuclear power plants can produce H2, what Green will stand still for building more of them?
“Almost any scientist who knows, or has it explained to him, how that misleading figure was arrived at is going to be completely horrified”
Oh no… we can’t have scientists horrified… It’s all us dummys out here who are supposed to be horrified.
Speaking only for dummys,
Mike Bryant
I’m glad Dr. Cunningham has added his voice to the gallery of people questioning the AGW hysteria. I hope more and more scientists start feeling free to question the IPCC orthodoxy. Heck, it looks as though even parts of the IPCC are about ready to drift off like an ice shelf calving away from a frozen continent of doctrine.
Meanwhile Hansen’s warning that the last great stade of Greenland might slough off like the Pleistocene Laurentide, swamping the world in almost no time at all. He says this without constraining the scenario – why the last great stades fell or what’s decimating Greenland ice pack more: Soot+surface ozone vs. GHG. The answer is, of course, soot & surface ozone. Even under the worst-case scenarios, Hansen’s analysis is half-baked b/c he doesn’t explicate other heating agents that are more-readily mitigated.
Perhaps Hansen’s Mountains of Madness, smoldering away, are melting it via geothermal activity.
“An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning.” While that may have been true when Max Planck wrote it, the AGW hypothesis became accepted as fact before it was proven scientifically. Outside forces in this case hijacked the science, giving us AGW pseudo-science instead. But, the lies, and political posturing of AGW nitwittery is, thankfully, beginning to backfire on them, and the AGW monstrosity is collapsing like a house of cards.
Cunningham Detractors —
1. Were you to read the original article there’s a comment to the effect that Burt Rutan reckons Cunningham to be correct. On one hand, then, we have a couple of certified “right stuff” genius types with a track record of designing and building and operating the most complex machinery in the history of mankind. On the other hand, we have atmospheric modelers using groupthink to assume that their models are correct. I think it’s telling that the smartest guys in the room (and in almost any room you can name) aren’t buying it.
2. The 3.2% is pretty close to the figure derived for proof (via isotopes) of fossil fuel burning. This is even more interesting given that —
a) there’s no accepted figure for how long a CO2 molecule lives in the atmosphere
b) the oceans absorb and emit CO2
…where the “interesting” part is that oceans emit the last that was absorbed, implying that the CO2 in the atmosphere is probably the sum total of that which humans have emitted for the past 200 years or so. I fail to see that Cunningham wrote anything that was incorrect.
3. The article is a brief synopsis, not a scientific paper meant to shed new light on things. He briefly spells out the upshot of the data vs the politics of the data. Cunningham is correct (in spades) in saying Hansen et al have transitioned from scientists to advocates, which is what his article is really about. In his view NASA employees ought to be specialists at their jobs and ignore politics; essentially the Hansen types are sullying an amazing history of nearly 50 years of spectacular success. I can see his point. At this juncture a number of us would still tend to believe something said by JPL but immediately suspect anything GISS does as being tainted. He knows this else he wouldn’t have bothered with an article about it. How long will it take for the agency (NASA) to regain the trust/image it once had?
This is an important question he raises, and apparenly you detractors can’t seem to figure this out. See comment #1.
I wonder why those that are AGW followers can’t admit that some folks have been in more than one mode of making a living. Most of the AGW scientists live on the Government grant tit. Mr Cunningham while for a time an astronaut has managed to make his living by science in the private sector. I find it to be mostly true that in the private sector that if your work isn’t correct enough to make a profit for your employer you don’t make it and are soon unemployed. Most of the AGW scientists are more concerned with massive costly change and disrupting the economy of many countries to stop something that has happened over the course of history for many centuries, Milena. Which study do you believe those that hide their work and only tell you their conclusions? Those that refuse to archive their raw data? Those that refuse to archive their adjusted data? I think not and this has been extremely evident in the AGW world. The question now becomes who do I trust?
I think that I will consider those that speak openly and give true bios. That tell me where they get their data and have it available for review. Those that consider recent data. Those that update their studies using the recently aquired data. Hide and seek is not part of the scientific method. I don’t care who the scientist works for if his data is available, his method is available, his computer codes are available, and his work is replicable. Most pro AGW Scientists are not providing most of the above and like a used car salesman saying just trust me. I think not. Having been in the real world and having dealt with the “just trust me” folks before I am skeptical of that argument.
IMHO we need more skeptic scientific thought. That is how science is self correcting.
Bill Derryberry Non-scientist!!!
Does UAH use James Hansens data as part of their processing? Does UAH use or do any systematic adjustment to their temp data?
I noted an odd use of language on their website, it is probably me being overly skeptical about so many climate scientist. However, I would really like to know if UAH data is raw or “adjusted”.
REPLY: It is processed, but not “adjusted” in the way that GISS does, i.e. there is no UHI adjustment for example. Here is a post I did on some questions previously that might help you understand. – Anthony
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/putting-a-myth-about-uah-and-rss-satellite-data-to-rest/
Someone else brought it up so I’ll ask the question….
If hydrogen vehicles create “water” then my question is “how much” and what impact will it have on our highways? Will it be a significant amount to affect the road conditions? What if it is below freezing?
I’m buying stock in salt.
The logistics of alternative fuels seem pretty hefty to overcome; not to mention the unintended consequences of “change”.
Hmmm, for the people who worry about water emission of hydrogen cars, it should be remembered that normal fuel combustion releases already water (from 1 to 2 moles of H2O for each mole of CO2 depending on the used hydrocarbon)
CH4 + 2 O2 => CO2 + 2 H2O
2 C2H6 + 7 O2 => 4 CO2 + 6 H2O
C3H8 + 5 O2 => 3 CO2 + 4 H2O
2 C4H10 + 13 O2 => 8 CO2 + 10 H2O
…
Here are the contributions from various gases towards the strength of the GH effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
note: “Carbon dioxide causes 9-26%” and ” water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. (Note clouds typically affect climate differently from other forms of atmospheric water.)”
also note: “It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive.”
“These figures come from Ramenathan & Coakley (1978) the 95% figure for water often quoted originated from this DOE page:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html
But as Gavin explains here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/co2-equivalents/index.php?p=367#comment-21829
“FR93 are discussing the absorbtion of downwelling SOLAR Near-IR by H2O and CO2 – that is the shortwave part of the spectrum (the 4.3, 2.7 and 2 micrometer bands). ”
The incorrect “95% water vapour” figure just goes around and around and around denialist blogs with blog hosts who should know better letting it live because it’s so useful to their cause.
On the issue of “human activity responsible for only 3.2 percent” of CO2, that’s on an annual basis, cumulatively we’ve lifted CO2 from 280 ppm to over 385 ppm, an increase of over 35%, and thats after natural sinks have removed about half of the anthropogenic contribution.
Anthony, a comment of mine was just caught by your spam filter (3 links)
Here are the contributions from various gases towards the strength of the GH effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
note: “Carbon dioxide causes 9-26%” and ” water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. (Note clouds typically affect climate differently from other forms of atmospheric water.)”
also note: “It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive.”
“These figures come from Ramenathan & Coakley (1978) the 95% figure for water often quoted originated from this DOE page:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html
@Bob B – Hydrocarbon engines produce water as well, and we’ve never noticed that being a problem yet (except for rusting exhaust systems). Fuel cell operating temperatures vary, but most seem to run hot enough to generate steam.
These Apollo astronauts where the elite and had huge “bottle”. Do any of us fancy sitting on the top of tons of LOx waiting to be blasted off.
The article is very well written and argued.
I wonder whether people in NASA are trying to change direction of the AGW “Super Tanker” which is difficult to change course.
It seems to me there may be people at NASA who realize that Hansen & Co’s predictions are not coming about , and perhaps they need to change direction to a traditional direction— like getting a man or woman on Mars. Wow think of the technical spin offs from that mission
Looking over the comments in response to Cunningham’s article, the arrogance of the pro-AGW’ers is palpable. Read between the lines and you’ll detect the ‘how dare anyone question us’ attitude, as they hide behind whatever bogus pseudonym they’ve chosen for that post. The sceptic side looks for a simpler explanation and cites references to back it up. No such behaviour by the other side. Have these so-called ‘experts’ with advanced degrees ever heard of Occam’s Razor?
[…] try to discredit Physicist Walter Cunningham, NASA Apollo 7 Astronaut and award-winning scientist, now that he’s dropped Thor’s Hammer o’ Doom™ on their Great Glow Bull Ponzi Scheme™. It doesn’t help that NASA scientist James Hansen was […]
If hydrogen vehicles create “water” then my question is “how much” and what impact will it have on our highways? Will it be a significant amount to affect the road conditions? What if it is below freezing?
H2O is a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion
statePoet1775 (16:52:48) : Maybe this article should go in a full page add in the New York Times.
Or something very much like it. I agree. I think it should also have a sidebar of agreements by prominent scientists. Not necessarily excerpted comments, like those seen in movie ads, but maybe a list headed by the statement, “The following endorse this message”.
I can see it now. Some graphic in the top 1/6th, followed by the text followed by a list of signatures. Like the Declaration of Independence. The graphic is to catch the eye. Not really needed. The top should have the appearance of a regular article so it isn’t skipped over as “just another ad.”
It may go along way in breaking the “consensus” idea and (hopefully) start a genuine debate of the issues.
Jason Salit (04:54:05) If that is true then why shouldn’t C02 concentration continue to increase given the warming since the LIA (despite recent and significant, in my view, cooling)?
Hm. Just a note that, assuming a 800-1000 year lag, the LIA could not be the cause of current CO2 rise as it was not that long ago.
The MWP might be a good candidate though.
Just as the RWP might be a good MWP candidate, assuming that what we are seeing is a rise from the lag.
Funny how we seem to be getting warming in a roughly 1000 year cycle isn’t it?
Andrew W (11:06:34) note: “Carbon dioxide causes 9-26%” and ” water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. (Note clouds typically affect climate differently from other forms of atmospheric water.)”
It doesn’t bother you that we’re claiming x warming as amount in the models with a precision of 3 decimal places when:
a/ we don’t even know how much warming is occurring from CO2 within a 200% range?
b/ atmospheric CO2 residence is estimated at anywhere from 7 to 200 years?
Please do explain how that all works again.
Come on Andrew – you cannot cite anything from wikipedia or realclimate. Its content is controlled by your side. Please use papers published in scientific journals that was not peer reviewed by members of the good ole boys network of climatology (Mann, et al).
For those who are so in love with J. Hansen I ask – ” Is he also a CO2 scientist?” Please read someone who is.
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf
If you don’t believe water vapor is the prime ‘greenhouse gas’ , then I sugest you spend a week in a tropical jungle clearing, and another week camping out in the soutern part of the Sahara desert.
Back in the 1930’s, when I was in school, I learned that science was about observations and the theories that best explained those verifieable observations,and could accurately predict other verifiable observations.
I have , in my work, found that no true scientist believes that anything is a true FACT, only that it has a probility of being true in that it can forcast something that can be observed. At this the theory of AGW has constantly failed.
Mike, the ranges given do not reflect uncertainty but rather, as mentioned, that “It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive.”
Here’s the paper that these GH effect contributions are based on:
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/publications/Ramanathan%20and%20Coakley%20RevGSP%201978.pdf
“It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive.”
Then percentages should be assigned to individual gases and gases in combination, with the qualification ‘at current atmospheric concentrations and averaged over the atmosphere.
As always with the Warmers, the fact this isn’t done raises the suspicion it is because the CO2 alone contribution is unimpressive.
Andrew: “Just plain wrong”
Yes, that is the paper that Gavin at realclimate chooses to agree with, or base his whiz math on. However, claiming this as the evidence for the 95% statement being “just plain wrong” seems just plain wrong. Perhaps Gavin would like to publish his results showing why those that disagrees with him are wrong.
Here’s the abstract of the paper DOE used:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/1993/smf9301.html
I’ve researched this subject for a couple hours now. Realclimate references Wiki, Wiki references Realclimate…you reference Wiki and realclimate…
I wonder who may be a contributer to Wiki’s global warming pages.
Andrew, you may be right that it is not possible to state “a certain percentage”. And it may be right that stating a certain global temperature doesn’t make sense either, or saying CO2 is “well mixed”, or you and Wiki may be wrong.
Look, both water and CO2 have warming and cooling abilities, dependent on various conditions, mutual effect on eachother, in varying quantities, etc.
There has been a practice of modeling with different scenarios, and I have a hard time accepting that a certain percentage is not possible because “influences of the various gases are not additive”. I suspect that there has been just that going on with these models.
But, water is by volume far more than all other greenhouse gases combined, and an enormously bigger amount than CO2. To ignore it or not include it in consideration of climate change IS “just plain wrong”, and I can point you to many articles, from government agencies to the funny papers where no mention is made of water, only CO2. So if you want to compare notes on what is “just plain wrong” I suggest you look elsewhere than at the claim that water is 95% responsible for the greenhouse effect.
Denis Hopkins (03:20:32) : said,
It seems odd that so many of the posts on here from a pro-AGW standpoint do not seem to use their real names. I wonder why?
Seriously, why? what are they afraid of?
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I have unpaid parking tickets. I’m afraid that some of these government employed defenders of the planet might call their cousin over in the traffic division on me.
That and hell fire of course.
“But, water is by volume far more than all other greenhouse gases combined, and an enormously bigger amount than CO2. To ignore it or not include it in consideration of climate change IS “just plain wrong” ”
It isn’t ignored by scientists Glenn, do you seriously think that water vapour is ignored in the work that contributes towards the IPCC reports??
Andrew W:
I suggest you read the excellent link provided by Ted Annonson (14:54:20) just above. It is written in a clear style that someone unacquainted with the field of climatology or meteorology can understand.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the article, which was written by a credible expert who has been studying this issue since shortly after Al Gore flunked out of divinity school. Please explain if, and how, Dr. Martin Hertzberg may be in error. In your opinion, of course.
Andrew
Thank you for quote mining me and creating a strawman of my statement.
I didn’t say it was ignored by scientists, nor did I mention IPCC. But I did somewhat specify where CO2 claims can be found, since the rest of the *sentence* continued: “and I can point you to many articles, from government agencies to the funny papers where no mention is made of water, only CO2.”
That was an introduction to the next thing I said to you:
“So if you want to compare notes on what is “just plain wrong” I suggest you look elsewhere than at the claim that water is 95% responsible for the greenhouse effect.”
Smokey.
The stength of the greenhouse effect for CO2 and any other GH gas declines logarithmacally with increasing concentration.
A combination of gases covering different parts of the spectum is more effective at trapping heat than lots of one gas.
Water vapour is the most important GH gas but because of that logarithmic decline thing trace gases punch way above their weight.
Water vapour is also a feedback, if the atmosphere is warmed through other factors it can support more WP.
The initial driver to the glacial-interglacial cycle that Earth settled into a million or so years ago is most likely to be the Milankovich cycles of the Earths orbit, which alter the distribution of solar insolation over the planets surface, this triggers an initial retreat in ice cover at the end of each glacial period, lowering the planets albedo, warming the planet further, causing a net release of GH gases, further warming the planet more ice retreat etc etc.
Hertzberg argues that the current increase in atmospheric CO2 is a result of a net release of this gas from the oceans, this is just dumb, if you do the numbers you find that the CO2 released by the burning of fossel fuels over the last century has been double that which would be needed to cause the observed level of atmospheric increase.
In actuality the oceans have been a net CO2 sink.
He mentions that warmer oceans in means they should release CO2, and this would be true if the increase in the partial pressure of the CO2 in the atmosphere weren’t greater than the increase in the partial pressure of the CO2 dissolved in the ocean, looking at it another way, if you pump more CO2 into the top of the coke bottle, more will end up dissolved in the coke, even if you do warm the bottle slightly.
Hertzberg’s graphs around the period of the great depression are missing some data points that might show a different picture, and I doubt that the measurements of CO2 back then (even using modern ice cores) would show such subtle variations over such short periods. (it takes a decade or ten for the air trapped in snow to become isolated from the atmosphere though the compaction of that snow, this varies with location.)
This: “The most authoritative study of the lifetime of CO2 in the
atmosphere was done by a Norwegian, Professor Tom Segalstad of
the University of Oslo. The measured lifetime, based on the studies
of some 50 independent researchers is at most about 5 years.” Is misleading bull shit. CO2 flux is well understood, as other people on this thread have shown.
Dr. Martin Hertzberg seems unduly concerned about Al Gore, rather than the substance of the IPCC reports, he likes to throw around emotive language, he actually strikes me as a bitter man.
“Dr. Martin Hertzberg is a combustion research scientist who
worked on the prevention of fires and explosions in mines and other
industries at the Bureau of Mines in Pittsburgh, PA.”
Oh, and he’s in the pay of the coal industry 😉
Glenn said: “Thank you for quote mining me and creating a strawman of my statement. ”
You were creating your own stawman.
“I didn’t say it was ignored by scientists, nor did I mention IPCC….”
Well if you want to ignore the IPCC and get into arguing about the nonsense published in the MSM, or on loony far right or far left political blogs fine, but don’t expect anyone with a serious interest in the science to be interested in debating with you.
Joel Shore (19:23:19) : Says …..I hate to tell you but I kinda doubt it when he is just regurgitating misleading talking points like “human activity is responsible for only 3.2 percent [of CO2].”….
We have gone over this before.
Nature is currently absorbing 98 percent of all the CO2 being produced.
CO2 is produced by many things. Man is one of them and contributes just 3.2 percent. We have every right to expect and in fact we demand, that nature absorb 98 percent of what we produce.
If you have a beef then take it up with the leaders of the soil bacteria. It seems to me that the soil bacteria are the ones that are really dumping CO2 in the atmosphere.
Serenity now………
Oh dear, oh dear, ladies and gentlemen, we seem to be descending into rudeness again. Let me recount a tale from 20-odd years ago to illustrate the folly (the parts in quotation marks are illustrative not literal).
A group of school children wrote to the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and asked to meet her to discuss some issues of policy. An appointment was arranged and the children arrived in Downing Street with their teacher. After the meeting the children and teacher were interviewed by the press. Some of the children said “Mrs Thatcher didn’t listen to us at all.” The teacher said “It was an interesting discussion, where the children said something the Prime Minister did not agree with she explained why she holds a different view.”
There is the world of difference between (i) not listening and (ii) listening but forming a different view. In this thread people from both sides of the fence have fallen into category (i) when the reality is that they are in category (ii).
On a different point, in this thread many comments have referred to certain emitters of CO2 as “natural”. Is there anything “unnatural” about human beings making their lives more comfortable through industrial development?
http://thefatbigot.blogspot.com/2008/08/unnatural-new-definition.html
Andrew,
You claim I made my own strawman, yet that would be kind of hard to do, but in any event you didn’t even attempt to support that ridiculous claim.
And I’m not “wanting to ignore the IPCC”, nor was the IPCC ever part of the subject. To imply that I wanted to ignore the IPCC, and as well, to imply that I claimed that scientists and the IPCC do not consider water as a greenhouse gas, is quite dishonest, AGWer. Is that clear enough for you?
“Well if you want to ignore the IPCC and get into arguing about the nonsense published in the MSM, or on loony far right or far left political blogs fine, but don’t expect anyone with a serious interest in the science to be interested in debating with you.”
Curious that you wanted to “argue about the nonsense” regarding what has been said on realclimate, a DOE site and launchmagazine.com. Perhaps you don’t have a serious interest in the science, and should not be “debating” here. Take your own advice.
You two both need to chill, please, pretty please?
Aye, I should have ignored the first round.
If man is natural then everything he does is natural including making hydrogen bombs. Oops, that can’t be right so man must be unnatural but that can’t be right either because then how did man originate?
Oh, I found the answer. Man was natural until the Industrial Revolution. Then the excess CO2 caused him to become unnatural and invent H bombs and other nasty things. The obvious solution then
is to reduce CO2 till man becomes natural again.
“Oh, and he’s in the pay of the coal industry ;-)” I see the smiley face. I will acknowledge you meant this as a joke.
However, I have read and heard so many AGW proponents accuse scientists of changing their results for money that it is having an effect on me.
My grandmother told me, “it takes one to know one.” If anyone is not so fortunate, maybe they can look up ‘psychological projection.’ Either way — after years of these kinds of slanders, I personally find it very hard not to be skeptical just because so many AGW proponents have exposed so much about themselves through their constant accusations.
It would be a lot easier to convince me if one did not have to overcome the nagging (and continually reinforced) impression that a large number of AGW proponents are projecting their willingness and motivations to lie about science onto other people.
So, go ahead, turn the tables and accuse me of projection, too. I can’t think of a better way to prove my point. Or, you could actually consider why one side thinks it appropriate to label their fellow citizens as ‘deniers’ even though they fully understand it carries connotations of excusing wholesale mass murderers. Conversely, so far, not even a small faction on the other side has stooped to the label ‘collaborators,’ even though the word appropriately matches the arguments that some small factions advance and they have the built-in excuse that they were negatively labeled first. In fact, the common label ‘alarmist’ is actually a positive word if you turn out to be right. No judgment is attached until the results are in. The contrast could not be starker.
So, are AGW proponents really trying to change minds or just win meaningless debating points? Actually changing minds is going to require some drastic changes in attitude and language as well as being right about the science.
Sorry, I’ll be good.
Glenn the abstract you link to is entitled:
“Solar radiation absorption by CO2, overlap with H2O, and a parameterization for general circulation models”
ie it addresses absorption of solar radiation coming down through the atmophere by CO2 and H2O, not infra-red radiation escaping from the Earth.
Do you have something from a scientifically authorative source supporting the 95% claim?
I’m afraid I still don’t get what point you’re trying to make in your last paragraph at 16:43:15.
I interpreted it as “why do you comment on the 95% BS when there’s lots of (alarmist) BS out there?”
If that’s not what you were saying, could you please rephrase your point differently?
Regards
jc stout — (“Oh, and he’s in the pay of the coal industry ;-)” I see the smiley face. I will acknowledge you meant this as a joke.)
We have all seen this particularly mendacious accusation repeated so often (anyone skeptical being on an oil or coal company payroll) that we can all have fun with it here and there. People do say this in seriousness. That said, I have to wonder what accusers are trying to imply. It sounds stupid, even on the face of it.
For example, I think of the 20 million bbl of oil used per day in the USA, over 50% of this is going into products like plastics. Assume for a moment that we all woke up in the morning tomorrow and found that our vehicles no longer needed gas — they were all electric — and all of our electric power generation came from a vast supply of safe Unobtanium run by 100% efficient, clean, non-polluting micro-plants.
Exxon wouldn’t go out of business. Nope. Oil and coal would be used for plastics, and the supply/demand curve would ramp up the per bbl price such that drilling in shale etc. would *still* be necessary assuming all of the easy to get oil was being consumed. It would still be being consumed, just not burned in engines.
The point being of course that the accusation assumes by definition that the only possible use for oil is to turn it into pollution via SUV’s. Obviously this doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense as it isn’t even remotely true, hence I question the thinking ability of anyone who makes this accusation.
randomengineer (22:07:34) :
I can take a joke. But when I laugh too much my unattainium starts to curdle, or solidify, or sublimate, or all 3 at once, or something. I forget. BTW, in the last few days learned how to obtain unobtainium. You just dig in the wrong place 19 times and then make an ensemble of the results!! 😉
Actually, I did not post my humor-impaired response because I wanted to pick on anybody or even suggest a silly limit on the levity of others. A few days back I tried to answer what I hoped was an honest question about what it would take to change my mind. My response to Andrew was just another attempt to outline an honest answer to that original question in case there are any AGW proponents who really want to know.
Hmm, lets see if this version works:
-However, I have read and heard so many AGW denialists accuse scientists of changing their results for political reasons – even of perpetrating a “hoax” – that it is having an effect on me.
-My grandmother told me, “it takes one to know one.” If anyone is not so fortunate, maybe they can look up ‘psychological projection.’ Either way — after years of these kinds of slanders, I personally find it very hard not to support the IPCC just because so many AGW denialists have exposed so much about themselves through their constant accusations.
-It would be a lot easier to convince me if one did not have to overcome the nagging (and continually reinforced) impression that a large number of AGW denialists are projecting their willingness and motivations to lie about science onto other people.
-So, go ahead, turn the tables and accuse me of projection, too. I can’t think of a better way to prove my point.
Makes sense.
Regarding your charges that the term “denier” is used because “it carries connotations of excusing wholesale mass murderers” I disagree, it’s convinient for denialists to make that claim as making such a link is used as a tool to demonise those supporting the mainstream IPCC position. Personally I use the terms “denier” and “denialist” as they’re accurate terms to apply to people who, as a result of motivations that have nothing to do with science, deny that AGW could be a problem, or even that it is actually occurring. Similarly I’m happy to refer to addicts of substances other than carbon as being “in denial” about their addiction, when I do so I’m not linking them to Holocaust denialism either.
-So, are AGW denialists really trying to change minds or just win meaningless debating points? Actually changing minds is going to require some drastic changes in attitude and language as well as being right about the science.
Hmm, that works too.
REPLY: Actually, no it doesn’t work, before you can understand anything , you’ll have to stop using the terms like, “denier and lie”. But it seems you are entrenched in that belief, so we won’t wast any time on “menaingless debating points” trying to convince you otherwise.
Nature will of course be the final arbiter, not the IPCC, which is a UN political body, not a scientific one.
“Dr. Martin Hertzberg is a combustion research scientist who
worked on the prevention of fires and explosions in mines and other
industries at the Bureau of Mines in Pittsburgh, PA. He also
contributed to our understanding of the fundamental mechanism of
combustion in gases and dusts. He currently teaches science and
mathematics at various educational institutions, and occasionally
consults as an expert on the causes of accidental fires and
explosions. He served as a meteorologist in the US Navy and has
been studying the global warming issue for the last twenty years.”
.http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf
He did not work for the coal industry, he was working, as an environmentalist, for a government agency that regulated the mining companies.
As for the graph of the depression, I suppose he could have shown the actual temps. instead of just a trend line. That would have realy shown the disconnect between CO2 and temp. since 1934 was the warmest year of the 20th century.
Personally I use the terms “denier” and “denialist” as they’re accurate terms to apply to people who, as a result of motivations that have nothing to do with science, deny that AGW could be a problem, or even that it is actually occurring.
That is rich, Andrew. You have it exactly backwards, of course, living in the fantasy world of AGW pseudo-science as you do. It is precisely the AGWers who are motivated by anything but science, be it greed, political power, peer pressure, herd mentality, ego, emotional instability, or any combination thereof. Nice try, though.
Sorry that I didn’t stick around yesterday to make these posts,but at my age I need a lot of rest.
During the 1950″s, a lot of neuclear bombs were tested. Each test produced a large quantity of carbon14, which reacted with the ozone to create radioactive CO2. ( C2+ 4O3= 2CO2+4O2 ) In about five years the radioactive CO2 had droped to normal levels. Since C12 and C14 are chemicaly identical, they were absorbed into plants and other CO2 sinks at the same rate. As an anthropoligist I am interested in any variations of C14, since that is used in dating organic items from the past.
C14 is formed by high energy particles, such as cosmic rays, alpha and beta patricles. When these particles move through the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons (1n) participate in the following reaction:1n + 14N = 14C + 1H.
“since 1934 was the warmest year of the 20th century.”
This is yet another of those false beliefs that go around and around on skeptic/denialist/whatever blogs. 1934 was the warmest year of the 20th century In the US, not globally.
In reply to the moderator: most of that comment of mine was simply taking jc stout’s (21:14:04) words and replacing the words “AGW proponent” with “AGW denialist”
I think it still made sense ie. his words cut both ways, but perhaps I should have used “skeptic” rather than “denialist”, his use of “proponent” was very considerate, it deserves a hat tip.
Andrew W
That is a very suspect point . If Paleoclimatologists can teleconnect a single stand of bristlecones with global temperatures, you would think that North America would be as well.
If you go to the beach and examine a handful of sand, it is a very good reflection of the the composition of sand on the rest of the beach.
The global record is polluted by stations in China which were moved and destroyed during the cultural revolution, stations in Russia where people may have lied about temperatures in order to increase their fuel allocation etc. The Global record is constantly fiddled with and adjusted, with little disclosure about methods. BTW, I don’t think South America or Africa show much warming since the 30’s either, so that term “Global” gets more and more suspect.
And that does not even take into account the poor state of the North American record (the most comprehensive in the world) in dealing with urban growth and encroachment, a topic being researched by our host.
Jeez, scientists across the AGW specrtum accept that warming has occurred throughout the 20th century, Spencer, Michaels, Carter included.
You yourself can “deny” that warming has occurred, you can come up with all sorts of “reasons” for your belief but people can do that with any “belief” from creationism, to flat Earth, whatever.
Your argument is not based in science, it’s contrary to the accepted science.
So why are you so strongly motivated to question the temperature records? What do you base your -I’m going to use the word that fits- denialism on?
The vast majority of that warming occurred in the the first 3 or 4 decades of the the 20th century, if not all of it.
So, if no warming has occurred since the 30’s in North America, South America, Africa, or Antarctica, you accept as gospel the definition of “global temperature” that relies solely on potentially suspect stations in Europe and Asia? Oh yeah, don’t even get me started on sea surface temperature “adjustments”.
I am skeptical. No issue in science has been this political since the concept of the Earth rotating around the sun. That is cause for suspicion. I’ll trust the North American records for now, as shoddy as they are.
Jeez
“No issue in science has been this political since the concept of the Earth rotating around the sun.”
I disagree, eugenics was the last really big science/political disaster. How many deaths did belief in eugenics cause? I would guess at least ten million. I’m sure someone has a better handle on the exact number than I do.
You might have me there.
Any July average temperatures out yet?
What the blazes!
We are heating up. We are not heating up.
Humans did it. Humans did not do it.
The El Nino effects alone, which we can all see indicates something is different.
Make up your minds guys.
Until the Earth’s average temperature rises 10 degrees and the oceans rise 50 feet and all the predicted “disasters” come to pass, the only intellectually honest term to characterize those not sold on the AGW hypothesis is “skeptic”. Anyone using the term “denier” is arrogating to himself an omniscience he simply has no business claiming – unless he has a time machine that allows him to travel 50 years in the future or just happens to be a living god. It’s impossible to “deny” something that hasn’t happened. In fact, I’m unaware of any prediction of the climate 50 years in the future that has ever been made or borne out successfully, so the track record on that sort of thing is entirely non-existent. Those who are all-fired certain of the future without possessing any documented predictive record to back it up (exactly what percentage of the previous 50 year predictions were correct?) might want to ruminate on that fact. Essentially, anyone using the term “denier” is being intellectually dishonest and ought rightly to be ignored.
The bottom line is you (AGW advocates) are proposing a hypothesis regarding the future. Others don’t think you’ve made a convincing case. That makes them skeptics of your assertion. The burden is on you to prove your case, not on them to accept it. You have no right to assume you are correct because you believe it and then use that as “proof” that someone is denying a reality that doesn’t exist.
Very well said KCOM, How can one deny a predicted future event? We are not climate change deniers, or even global warming deniers. We are catastrophic, global climate change skeptics. The earth has NOT catastrophically warmed. The seas have NOT catastrophically risen. Carbon dioxide has NOT caused any catastrophes. The earth still has floods and droughts, as always. We still have storms and sweet autumn nights, as always. We still have our facilities, our history and our ingenuity as we have always had.
We will adapt to any future climate changes, as we always have. Life is to be lived and enjoyed. We won’t let the boogieman keep us from living and conquering as we always have.
The catastrophes have always happened and we have always adapted and learned. As we learn more and more, deaths from weather catastrophes have become fewer and fewer. http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf
When the storm is coming, get ready for it. You will not turn it away.
Adapting to Climate Diversity,
As always
Mike
First, let me say that the post by kcom above was superb. Awesome! May I thoroughly plagiarize it, kcom? I’ve been saying the same thing, but not nearly as well. Kudos for framing the debate correctly, and very clearly.
Andrew W, thank you for responding. I have to wonder, though, about something you asserted [well, several things, but for example]:
So a warming planet causes later releases of CO2. Accepted. Cause and effect. But then, in the very next paragraph you criticize Dr. Hertzberg for pointing out the same cause and effect:
As Dr. Hertzberg states in his referenced paper:
You’ll understand if I simply accept Dr. Hertzberg as the climate expert here.
Mike Bryant, great response to kcom. I missed it until after I’d posted above. The pro-AGW side is always trying to frame the argument, by calling skeptics “deniers” of climate change. As you pointed out, that is false. The climate changes naturally; always has, always will.
It’s worthwhile to call them on it when they imply that skeptics don’t believe in “climate change.” In fact, we believe in natural climate change a lot more than they do.
Global warming from 1976-1998 is an established observational scientific fact. Historic and future climate change is an established scientific fact. Accidental actions by nasty little apes are not the cause.
Smokey,
I prefer to call it climate diversity. After all diversity is a good thing. Variety is the spice of life. Even the word change has positive meanings. Obama surely knows that. However the warmers are ruining that lovely word, change.
Some have moved from the paradise island of Hawaii because they did not like the sameness of the climate there. (idiots) I like the word diversity so much better because it was not chosen by the brainwashers.
Weep not that the world changes–did it keep
A stable, changeless state, ’twere cause indeed to weep.
* William Cullen Bryant
Loving and Adapting to Climate Change
Mike Bryant (no relation)
Mike, noted. ‘Diversity.’
And re: “change,” a person can experience ‘change’ if they are thrown into San Quentin for life on a bogus charge.
It’s best for citizens to keep that in mind when contemplating change simply for the sake of change, no?
“May I thoroughly plagiarize it, kcom?”
Most certainly.
I’m not an expert on the scientific intricacies of climate science, but I do know a little bit about English and logic. And calling someone a denier of something that hasn’t happened makes no sense. Every time I see someone do it I get a little steamed. People who do that should be called on it every time.
kcom,
I hope you are female cause I think I love you. But anyhoo… I seldom repeat a rhyme but this one might add to your case about predicting the future and explain why doing so, so often fails.
I’d like to predict the future
but surely if I do,
the One who owns the future
might pull a switcheroo.
Smokey,
you seem to have missed the bit in my comment about the increased partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, it’s a little bit important as it seriously affects the net movement of CO2 between the atmosphere and oceans. I guess it’s not really surprising that Dr Hertzberg has also missed this point because, and despite you attributing the title to him, he isn’t a climate expert, as Ted Annonson has pointed out, he’s a combustion research scientist.
Everyone else, regarding all this sickening fawning over Kcom’s comment.
Kcom seems to be defining AGW as if and when “the Earth’s average temperature rises 10 degrees and the oceans rise 50 feet and all the predicted “disasters” come to pass.”
Well if that was the definition of AGW used on this planet I’d have to agree that the term “denier” was inappropriate, and I wouldn’t use it, but..
AGW is warming of the globe as a result of Man’s activities, both GH gas emissions and land use changes. We don’t have to wait for future events and possible disasters to unfold as AGW has been happening for some decades now, denial of observed changes, or that these changes are in large part due to Man’s activities, is what I refer to as “denialism”. Such “denialism” always seems to have a political or ideological foundation, otherwise few of you people would give a damn about AGW.
My personal position is that AGW is real, and is based on good science, but that assumptions that it must or will lead to catastrophic changes in climate are likely to some extent to be ideological based exaggerations.
Andrew,
In Texas we call that hogwash. No one here has denied that the earth has warmed. The only thing that concerns me is the “catastrophic” part. It is not true, But that is what is being used to try to scare the good people of this earth. We cannot deny a catastrophe that has not occurred.
It has also not been proven that man is the largest contributor to the climate variety, diversity and change that has occurred on this earth. I don’t deny that he has, but I would like to see some proof.
Responsibly anticipating and responding to all changes,
Mike Bryant
Oceans are cooling, earth temperatures are cooling, new science and satellite information is being revealed almost daily, maybe CO2 is NOT well mixed, the global warming adherents are so worried they have commited 300 million dollars to advertising, more and more climate scientists are speaking out on the probability that we are not likely to see catastrophic scenarios, histories are being uncovered that throw substantial doubt on AGW, many people are beginning to doubt the myth of climate catastrophe, even the chairman of the IPCC doesn’t believe he can make up for his own climate sins in six lifetimes, the religion is falling apart and people are returning to whatever gave them solace before this enormous hoax. Catastrophism is falling apart under it’s own weight. We’ve been fooled before but we won’t be fooled again.
Living Life and Loving It,
Mike Bryant
kcom: “The bottom line is you (AGW advocates) are proposing a hypothesis regarding the future.”
Not exactly. AGW theory claims that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by at least a third over the past 150-200 years, mostly due to human activity. This CO2 increase has in turn caused atmospheric temperatures to rise, which is causing other changes associated with the earth’s climate system.
These factors are measurable and concern the past and the present. So it is not the case that AGW theory is only about the future. The evidence is plentiful, and it is available now.
Some people do not accept that the evidence points to global warming. That’s OK. But anyone who wants to dispute AGW needs to understand what it is they are disputing.
As I read Andrew W, I notice something that I’ve noticed of others commenting from the Pro AGW side, as well. When talking about CO2 outgassing, reabsorbtion, etc, they seem to assume that the biosphere is stablil. It is NOT. The biosphere is a main feedback to CO2 levels. It’s been shown that plant growth has increased in the last few years. I think a primary mistake that these folks are making is assuming a static insteasd of a dynamic system. Does anyone doubt that biological systems on Earth are extremely dynamic? We are releasing CO2 that was sequestered by plants long ago. They will sequester it again.
Wow, there was some terrible spelling in that post. My apologies.
I accidentally submitted the comment below with the wrong name and email address (it was auto-filled). Can you delete the previous one and use this one? Thanks.
– – – –
“Kcom seems to be defining AGW as if and when “the Earth’s average temperature rises 10 degrees and the oceans rise 50 feet and all the predicted “disasters” come to pass.”
“My personal position is that AGW is real, and is based on good science, but that assumptions that it must or will lead to catastrophic changes in climate are likely to some extent to be ideological based exaggerations.”
Yes and yes.
I’m criticizing the use of the term “denialist” or “denier” by those rabid AGW proponents who refuse to recognize that their predictions for a catastrophic future are conclusions about future events (based on highly complex theories, computer models, and data sets) and not directly observable facts. They have an opinion on what the data means (or they’ve borrowed one from someone else) and lost sight of the fact that in such a complex system other possible conclusions exist using those same data. Other people who don’t believe their particular interpretation (or don’t believe they’ve made their case sufficiently rigorously) should rightly be called skeptics. Using the term “denialist” in this context is one aspect of the bullying nature of catastrophic AGW proponents when promoting their view. (Another example being: “The debate is over.”)
Do you think anybody would even care or be commenting except for a few atmosphere nerds if the proposition was that CO2 would double or triple or quadruple or whatever and have absolutely no effect on the planet? Those throwing around the term denialist in a pejorative way are exactly the people who have a political axe to grind, who do seem to operate on the assumption that if AGW is true to any extent, then a catastrophic outcome is the only possible one. They are all about “ideological based exaggerations”, not just to “some extent”. “We have 10 years to save the planet” and claims like it have no basis in science that I can see. Show me the formula or calculation that yields the result of 10 years and not 20, or 50 or 500, or 16 months. And tell me exactly what “save the planet” means. It’s blather. And people who don’t buy the blather somehow become “denialists”.
Until they happen, all the catastrophic predictions are just that, predictions. They may come true, they may not, but that doesn’t change the fact that at this point in time they are predictions and not real events. (Aren’t we still waiting on that all-but-inevitable global cooling from the ’70s?) Those people who think they know the answer to everything should take a serious humility lesson. And you can be sure that those who won’t aren’t in it for the science, but are rather in it for the politics. They see their opportunity to run other people’s lives as they see fit and they’re grabbing for it with all the gusto they can muster. There’s always been a tendency for certain people to act that way. Catastrophic global warming alarmism is just the latest manifestation.
Well said Kcom.
But while the people you refer to are the most visible section of AGW proponents and their views are widely disseminated across the MSM, I think in general the science community (Hansen is becoming a notable exception, he’s getting old and too political) has a far more conservative view on the consequences of AGW, if you visit blog sites supporting the IPCC position, (Deltoid, Realclimate, Tamino, etc) you’ll find almost nothing on future disasters, on those blogs it’s all about getting whats happening now right, there’s much more caution about what’s going the happen in 50 years, and in fact thats rarely commented on.
One political result of their enthusiasm is that many people have seen this whole issue being dragged into politics – which was inevitable – and have adopted a political responce, many people have adopted the position that AGW = future disasters, and are attacking anything that supports AGW = enhanced GH effect as well.
So what happens next? The “science” put forward on sites like this one comes under the scrutany of the people who do the real science, and it’s found wanting.
If you look through this thread you’ll find nobody has had much of a rebuttel to my points about the 95% claim, or the 1934 warmest year claim, and Cunningham’s article contained plenty more “hogwash” as a Texan would say.
The politics all comes down to human nature, we have an instinct to see the very worst in those we disagree with.
Heres a flow diagram:
1. 1896 Arrhenius proposes Greenhouse Effect Theory, makes observation that if Man were to increase CO2 concentrations this would warm the planet
2. Throughout the 20th century Man increases CO2 concentrations.
3. Scientists become interested in the climate effects of changes, they measure a warming of the planet say they expect long term climatic changes that may be negative but needs more study.
4. Here be dragons. Whole issue becomes a political football, Doom Mongers claim climate disasters in future.
5. Conservative political thinkers react to Doom Mongers, attack climate catastrophies claims, but also attack the entire basis for AGW.
6. Science guys get hot under the collar at attacks on science, and on them. Point out faults in BS science being disseminated by “denialists”, some start to be pushed towards, close ranks, with Doom Mongers.
7. Conservative political thinkers return fire.
Well, that’s how wars get started.
Andrew says:
“Glenn the abstract you link to is entitled:
“Solar radiation absorption by CO2, overlap with H2O, and a parameterization for general circulation models”
ie it addresses absorption of solar radiation coming down through the atmophere by CO2 and H2O, not infra-red radiation escaping from the Earth.
Do you have something from a scientifically authorative source supporting the 95% claim?”
You seem to think Gavin is an authoratative source, enough to claim that the “95%” claim is “just plain wrong”. Interestingly, your “explanation” that the paper addresses what is “escaping from the Earth” does not match Gavin’s claim, which I have made available below. At least he speaks about greenhouse effects, absorption of different spectrums of “downwelling” radiation and ozone, instead of stuff escaping from the Earth.
He quotes the DOE, not the abstract, nor does he appear to have read the article itself, or if he had, did not actually quote from it. So I have the DOE article referencing a peer reviewed journal article, and you have some guy named Gavin on a blog saying “nuh uh”. And that makes the claim “just plain wrong” in your mind?
References:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/co2-equivalents/index.php?p=367#comment-21829
“As speculated above, the key reference for the DOE statement is Freidenreich and Ramaswamy (JGR, 1993). However, the appendix authors appear to have made an understandable but significant error. FR93 are discussing the absorbtion of downwelling SOLAR Near-IR by H2O and CO2 – that is the shortwave part of the spectrum (the 4.3, 2.7 and 2 micrometer bands). The key factor for the roles of H2O and CO2 as greenhouse gases is of course the long wave spectrum (i.e. 12-18 micrometers, 10 and 7.6 micormeters). The problematic statement regarding the relative roles:
“Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor. In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor.”
refers ONLY to the solar radiation absorbtion, not the long wave absorbtion (which is much larger), and doesn’t take into account ozone in any case, which is by far the dominant term in the stratosphere (particularly between 15 and 20km). Thus, I am inclined to stand by my calculations in the water vapour post which concur with the Ramanathan and Coakley (1978) results. I will email the DOE website and see if I can’t get a correction made.”
The paper:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/1993/smf9301.html
“Solar radiation absorption by CO2, overlap with H2O, and a parameterization for general circulation models”
“Freidenreich, S. M., and V. Ramaswamy, 1993: Solar radiation absorption by CO2, overlap with H2O, and a parameterization for general circulation models. Journal of Geophysical Research, 98(D4), 7255-7264.”
“Abstract: Line-by-line (LBL) solar radiative solutions are obtained for CO2-only, H2O-only, and CO2 + H2O atmospheres, and the contributions by the major CO2 and H2O absorption bands to the heating rates in the stratosphere and troposphere are analyzed. The LBL results are also used to investigate the inaccuracies in the absorption by a CO2 + H2O atmosphere, arising due to a multiplication of the individual gas transmissions averaged over specific spectral widths (delta v). Errors in absorption generally increase with the value of delta v chosen. However, even when the interval chosen for averaging the individual gas transmissions is the entire solar spectrum, there is no serious degradation in the accuracy of the atmospheric absorbed flux (error < 3%) and the heating rates (errors 40%). This parameterization is modified such that the resulting errors are less than 20%. When this modified CO2 parameterization is combined with a recently modified formulation for H2O vapor absorption, the resulting errors in the heating rates are also less than 20%. The application of the modified solar absorption parameterizations in a general circulation model (GCM) causes an increase in the simulated clear sky diabatic heating rates, ranging from nonnegligible (middle stratosphere and lower troposphere) to significant (lower stratosphere and upper troposphere) additions. The results here should enable a continued use of the older broadband parameterizations in GCMs, albeit in modified forms.”
Glenn, please read your own comment above carefully, as Gavin (and I) say, the Freidenreich and Ramaswamy (JGR, 1993) paper addresses absorption of SOLAR radiation coming down (down welling) as opposed to longer wave (IR) radiation moving upwards.
You state “Interestingly, your “explanation” that the paper addresses what is “escaping from the Earth” does not match Gavin’s claim…”
What I said – refering to the Freidenreich and Ramaswamy (JGR, 1993) paper – was: “ie it addresses absorption of solar radiation coming down through the atmophere by CO2 and H2O, not infra-red radiation escaping from the Earth”
How the hell can you turn that around and claim I was saying F&R (1993) was refering to “infra-red radiation escaping from the Earth”??
And no one has claimed anything about stuff escaping from the Earth as far as I can tell, except you. It either came from you or someone else. Who, Andrew? Gavin? The paper? The GAO article?
It’s valid to assume you meant that the Freidenrich paper should have considered infrared radiation escapting from the Earth. That is, it would be a valid assumption if one assumed you were being honest and had at least a basic understanding of the issue.
Yes, the paper addresses absorption of downward solar radiation, and I’ve already explained that. Gavin’s main claim is that the paper didn’t consider all spectrum. His argument did not include what escapes from the Earth.
As I said, Gavin gives no indication he had actually read the article. I suggest that for you to use Gavin’s blog as evidence for “just plain wrong” you should get the article and show Gavin to be correct in his claim that the article “refers ONLY to the solar radiation absorbtion, not the long wave absorbtion (which is much larger), and doesn’t take into account ozone in any case, which is by far the dominant term in the stratosphere (particularly between 15 and 20km). ”
Perhaps it is true that the paper does not include scattering and reflection of solar radiation, all “downwelling” wavelengths on any levels of the atmosphere, but I don’t see that shown in the abstract. Perhaps you disagree and base your claim, as does Gavin, that the abstract does provide enough information to assume that they do not include reflection. In that case, I’ll return to my original question to you. What makes you so sure as to say “just plain wrong”?
Brendan H:
That’s much too mild a description, Brendan. If “AGW theory” [in reality, the repeatedly falsified “AGW/CO2/climate disaster hypothesis”] were only a minor cause of a small temporary fluctuation in temperature as you imply, then all this would be only an insignificant footnote in an obscure technical journal.
But in reality, the pro-AGW people must cling to their ‘AGW = planetary catastrophe’ meme. Otherwise, what do they get out of it? So Brendan H, you can’t scurry away like that and avoid the central fact: AGW is insignificant; an impotent boogeyman that has been falsified by the Earth’s own cooling climate.
As Andrew W forthrightly admits:
[my emphasis].
Thank you for your honesty, Andrew.
More cracks in the AGW facade…
[…] Award-winning Astronaut Slams Hansen – Urges NASA to ‘Debunk the current hysteria’ over Warming […]
Glenn said: “And no one has claimed anything about stuff escaping from the Earth as far as I can tell, except you. It either came from you or someone else. Who, Andrew? Gavin? The paper? The GAO article? ”
and: “it would be a valid assumption if one assumed you were being honest and had at least a basic understanding of the issue.”
Should I laugh or cry? Maybe we’re on different wavelengths, or different planets.
The whole Green House/Global warming debate is about “stuff”, otherwise known as infra-red radiation, escaping from Earth, and how changes in the concentration of GH gases may affect this.
“It’s valid to assume you meant that the Freidenrich paper should have considered infrared radiation escapting from the Earth.”
Why, after I’ve repeatedly said “it addresses absorption of solar radiation coming down through the atmophere by CO2 and H2O, not infra-red radiation escaping from the Earth” do you think it’s valid to assume I meant the exact opposite???
“Gavin’s main claim is that the paper didn’t consider all spectrum. His argument did not include what escapes from the Earth. ”
But the paper wasn’t about IR escaping from the Earth!! Thats clear in the abstract you quote!!
Glenn: “Gavin gives no indication he had actually read the article.”
But Gavin says “FR93 are discussing the absorbtion of downwelling SOLAR Near-IR by H2O and CO2 – that is the shortwave part of the spectrum (the 4.3, 2.7 and 2 micrometer bands).” The abstract doesn’t refer to the specific wavelengths FR93 were examining, Gavin must have looked beyond the abstract to determine this.
“Perhaps you disagree and base your claim, as does Gavin, that the abstract does provide enough information to assume that they do not include reflection.”
I’ve been struggling to work sense out of your ramblings but you’ve lost me here, by “reflection” are you refering to IR radiation that has been emitted by the Earth’s surface after it has been heated by solar radiation?
Smokey said: “Thank you for your honesty, Andrew.”
Thanks, but I’m position on AGW hasn’t changed since I started studying the issue 3 years ago, so “More cracks” isn’t accurate as there’s been no change (on my account) in the “AGW facade”, and my opinion isn’t integral to such a “facade” anyway.
Also my above comments don’t mean I claim knowledge that AGW catastrophies won’t happen, just that I don’t see solid evidence that they will.
Smokey: “If “AGW theory”…were only a minor cause of a small temporary fluctuation in temperature as you imply…”
It’s not AGW theory that causes the rise in atmospheric temperatures. The rise is mostly caused by additional levels of man-made CO2. AGW theory explains the reasons for the rise.
Nor do I imply that CO2 is “only a minor cause of a small temporary fluctuation in temperature”. That is your creative inference. As for “mild”, my description is consistent with claims made by official agencies, eg:
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea levels”
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Or: “Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gasses [sic] produced by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)…forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.”
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/effects/
Does that sound like a “small temporary fluctuation in temperature”? I’d give that an unequivocal no. Does it sound like an “AGW = planetary catastrophe’ meme”. Not obviously, no.
BTW, did you manage to get the contact details of the generous wealthy person who’s handing out megabucks to corrupt media people to push AGW? My unemployed journalist friend who lost his home in the subprime crash has now moved into my garage with his family, who depend on him for support.
It’s rather damp down there and they’re subsisting on fast food, which is a well known health hazard. My mental health is also suffering. Last night he was banging his head against the garage wall, in frustration and despair, I guess. Fortunately, the garage wall is made of concrete, so no harm done, but my sleep was badly disturbed.
So for all our sakes, any information you have would be greatly appreciated.
Brendan H,
I’m sorry about that. Is that the reason for the snarkyness? If so, I understand. You are forgiven.
Now, if your ‘friend’ wants a payoff for promoting AGW, I refer you to any search engine, which will point you to the many organizations that shovel money into James Hansen’s and other AGW promoters’ pockets. But keep in mind that the recipients are those in positions of authority. The information is easy to find, but I’m not going to hold your hand and do your searching for you. I’m sure you understand.
To give you a helping hand, though, I suggest you do searches that include the Grantham Foundation, the David Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the Soros Foundation, the Tides Foundation, MovOn.org, the Heinz Foundation, and many similar organizations funding those who advocate AGW/climate catastrophe. [As an aside, there is a specific reason that the UN, the EU, and numerous individuals in influential positions fought tooth and nail for years to keep Saddam Hussein safe: click. The same type of monetary influence is corrupting climate science.]
I’m sure you also understand that your ‘friend’ would have to be the head of an influential scientific or news organization, as I repeatedly explained to you upthread. Why pay off many, when one is sufficient? The people making these payoffs are not stupid. It is well documented that James Hansen, as head of GISS, has already received over $1 million in ‘gifts’ — which we know about. Since the head of GISS has the utmost influence when it comes to giving pay raises, and promotions, and causing layoffs and downgrades when convenient, then there is no reason to give gifts, or grants, or payoffs by any other name to any lower-ranking employees; GISS employees naturally fall into line when the boss makes it clear that he expects them to toe the AGW line, because those who don’t, suffer. Human Nature 101.
If your pal can figure out a way to replace Hansen, then he, too, can become an instant millionaire, as Hansen has become. But as an unemployed nobody, he’s as out of luck as you or I.
Smokey: “But as an unemployed nobody, he’s as out of luck as you or I.”
That’s very disappointing news. My friend was hoping to board the AGW gravy train. On the other hand, he is ideologically very flexible. Now that Heritage and co. have lost their ExxonMobil funding, they may be prepared to hire some discount PR.
My friend is old-school. He’ll do alarmist, denialist, whatever. He’s the consummate professional that way. His only proviso is that payment be kept ‘off the books’. Any chance you could use your influence with your friends in the sceptic think tanks to help a fellow human in need?
Heat is life, to a degree.
I fear a cold planet not a warm one.
If I had to choose, I would much rather have the AGW “catastrophes” than another “mini” ice age.
Instead of trying to stop AGW mankind needs to find a way to create and control it in case of a real catastrophe occurs like the sun’s energy ouput being decreased or blocked by a dust cloud as our solar system wanders through the cosmos.
In the real world people enjoy summer and prepare for winter.
Mankind is not prepared…
Dr. William Gray isn’t impressed either. From icecap.us:
On the Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society
By Dr. William Gray
I am appalled at the selection of James Hansen as this year’s recipient of the AMS’s highest award – the Rossby Research Medal. James Hansen has not been trained as a meteorologist. His formal education has been in astronomy. His long records of faulty global climate predictions and alarmist public pronouncements have become increasingly hollow and at odds with reality. Hansen has exploited the general public’s lack of knowledge of how the globe’s climate system functions for his own benefit. His global warming predictions, going back to 1988 are not being verified. Why have we allowed him go on for all these years with his faulty and alarmist prognostications? And why would the AMS give him its highest award?
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) was founded in 1919 as an organization dedicated to advancing scientific knowledge of weather and climate. It has been a wonderful beacon for fostering new understanding of how the atmosphere and oceans function. But this strong positive image is now becoming tarnished as a result of the AMS leadership’s capitulating to the lobby of the climate modelers and to the outside environmental and political pressure groups who wish to use the now AMS position on AGW to help justify the promotion of their own special interests. The effectiveness of the AMS as an objective scientific organization has been greatly compromised.
We AMS members have allowed a small group of AMS administrators, climate modelers, and CO2 warming sympathizers to maneuver the internal workings of our society to support AGW policies irrespective of what our rank-and-file members might think. This small organized group of AGW sympathizers has indeed hijacked our society.
Debate. The AMS is the most relevant of our country’s scientific societies as regards to its members having the most extensive scientific and technical background in meteorology and climate. It should have been a leader in helping to adjudicate the claims of the AGW advocates and their skeptical critics. Our country’s Anglo-Saxon derived legal system is based on the idea that the best way to get to the truth is to have opposite sides of a continuous issue present their differing views in open debate before a non partisan jury. Nothing like this has happened with regards to the AGW issue. Instead of organizing meetings with free and open debates on the basic physics and the likelihood of AGW induced climate changes, the leaders of the society (with the backing of the society’s AGW enthusiasts) have chosen to fully trust the climate models and deliberately avoid open debate on this issue. I know of no AMS sponsored conference where the AGW hypothesis has been given open and free discussion. For a long time I have wanted a forum to express my skepticism of the AGW hypothesis. No such opportunities ever came within the AMS framework. Attempts at publication of my skeptic views have been difficult. One rejection stated that I was too far out of the mainstream thinking. Another that my ideas had already been discredited. A number of AGW skeptics have told me they have had similar experiences.
The climate modelers and their supporters deny the need for open debate of the AGW question on the grounds that the issue has already been settled by their model results. They have taken this view because they know that the physics within their models and the long range of their forecast periods will likely not to be able to withstand knowledgeable and impartial review (see Appendix). They simply will not debate the issue. As a defense against criticism they have resorted to a general denigration of those of us who do not support their AGW hypothesis. AGW skeptics are sometimes tagged (I have been) as no longer being credible scientists. Skeptics are often denounced as tools of the fossil-fuel industry. A type of McCarthyism against AGW skeptics has been in display for a number of years.
Recent AMS Awardees. Since 2000 the AMS has awarded its annual highest award (Rossby Research Medal) to the following AGW advocates or AGW sympathizers; Susan Solomon (00), V. Ramanathan (02), Peter Webster (04), Jagadish Shukla (05), Kerry Emanuel (07), Isaac Held (08) and James Hansen (09). Its second highest award (Charney Award) has gone to AGW warming advocates or sympathizers; Kevin Trenberth (00), Rich Rotunno (04), Robert D. Cess (06), Allan Betts (07), Gerald North (08) and Warren Washington and Gerald Meehl (09). And the other Rossby and Charney awardees during this period are not known to be critics of the AGW warming hypothesis.