I received this presentation of the “Bjerknes Lecture” that Dr. James Hansen gave at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union on December 17th. There are the usual things one might expect in the presentation, such as this slide which shows 2008 on the left with the anomalously warm Siberia and the Antarctic peninsula:
Source: James Hansen, GISS
Off topic but relevant, NASA has recently “disappeared”updated this oft cited map showing warming on the Antarctic peninsula and cooling of the interior:
There is also some new information in Hansen’s presentation, including a claim about CO2 sensitivity and coal causing a “runaway greenhouse effect”.
Hansen makes a bold statement that he has empirically derived CO2 sensitivity of our global climate system. I had to chuckle though, about the claim “Paleo yields precise result”. Apparently Jim hasn’t quite got the message yet that Michael Mann’s paleo results are, well, dubious, or that trees are better indicators of precipitation than temperature.
In fact in the later slide text he claims he’s “nailed” it:
He adds some caveats for the 2xCO2 claim:
Notes:
(1)
It is unwise to attempt to treat glacial-interglacial aerosol changes as a specified boundary condition (as per Hansen et al. 1984), because aerosols are inhomogeneously distributed, and their forcing depends strongly on aerosol altitude and aerosol absorbtivity, all poorly known. But why even attempt that? Human-made aerosol changes are a forcing, but aerosol changes in response to climate change are a fast feedback.
(2)
The accuracy of our knowledge of climate sensitivity is set by our best source of information, not by bad sources. Estimates of climate sensitivity based on the last 100 years of climate change are practically worthless, because we do not know the net climate forcing. Also, transient change is much less sensitive than the equilibrium response and the transient response is affected by uncertainty in ocean mixing.
(3)
Although, in general, climate sensitivity is a function of the climate state, the fast feedback sensitivity is just as great going toward warmer climate as it is going toward colder climate. Slow feedbacks (ice sheet changes, greenhouse gas changes) are more sensitive to the climate state.
Hansen is also talking about the “runaway” greenhouse effect, citing that old standby Venus in part of his presentation. He claims that coal and tar sands will be our undoing:
Hansen writes:
In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty.
That would be the ultimate Faustian bargain. Mephistopheles would carry off shrieking not only the robber barons, but, unfortunately and permanently, all life on the planet.
I have to wonder though, if he really believes what he is saying. Perhaps he’s never seen this graph for CO2 from Bill Illis and the response it gives to IR radiation (and thus temperature) as it increases:
It’s commonly known that CO2’s radiative return response is logarithmic with increasing concentration, so I don’t understand how Hansen thinks that it will be the cause of a runaway effect. The physics dictate that the temperature response curve of the atmosphere will be getting flatter as CO2 increases. Earth has also had much higher concentrations of CO2 in past history, and we didn’t go into runaway then:
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya — 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
There’s lots more in this paper to behold in wonderment, and I haven’t the time today to comment on all of it, so I’ll just leave it up to the readers of this forum to bring out the relevant issues for discussion.
I’m sure Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit will have some comments on it, even though his name is not mentioned in the presentation. My name was mentioned several times though. 😉
foinavon wrote:
“Of course not and one should be careful not to fall into the trap of considering that once an analysis (that might involve equations, computers or models) of real world data takes place, that the study thus becomes “theoretical”!”
That depends. If what is being modelled is well understood, it’s not theoretical. I.e., modelling the journey of a trip from Earth to Mars for a space probe is not theoretical. The physics are well understood. But as soon as you try to model something that is not well understood, the model becomes an expression of the theory. I know that, you know that. So I can’t help but feel that your reply was more about scoring a debating point than looking at the science in a balanced and fair way. (At least on that specific issue.)
The rest of your post is a bit of a waffle about how the science of atmospheric aerosols is well understood. I’m sure the basic physics are well understood. Only cranks would call that into question. (I note a few of them posting here, unfortunately.) But how they effect the environment at large… well I remain less than convinced, because I note the complete absence of further links in your reply to actual research that goes to the heart of these questions. Possibly that’s indicative of a serious gap in our knowledge.
Hope you don’t interpret my reply as too negative. I genuinely do enjoy reading what you post.
Manfred
December 23, 2008 1:21 pm
As temperatures fall, sea-levels falter glaciers and sea-ice recovers, there appears to be a tendency towards creating even more fear.
While the probability of these scenarios is becoming smaller with each month since the cooling cycle began, at least the (probability times danger) product may then be kept constant.
However, it really makes me worry about the state of mind of some people from the AGW crowd out there.
Graeme Rodaughan,
I’m not exactly sure why you’re directing all these questions at me, but since you have I’ll offer a few opinions and observations. That’s the best I can do, unfortunately. I don’t get paid a large government research grant or get sent cheques in the mail from the oil cartels. 😉
“The Troposphere hot spot is the “specific” signature for CO2 Global Warming as espoused by the IPCC – the hot spot does not exist (i.e can’t be found after years of looking for it).”
It does not exist, or is too slight to be measured relative to background “weather noise” or our instruments are not yet reliable enough to detect it. Admittedly, this is a big problem for AGW anyway you want to try to spin it.
“Hence the underlying theory of CO2 Global Warming is wrong – is this correct?”
It would not help the theory if the hot spot is not identified, as it would damage the credibility of the IPCC’s version of it. (Probably beyond repair, for other versions as well.)
“Have you got any real causation evidence of,
1. That CO2 will cause measurable Global Warming?”
No, but I don’t have causal evidence of evolutionary theory but I accept that as very probably true. Causal evidence is always preferred but not necessarily possible in every scientific research field. So the next best thing is to look for ‘overwhelming’ circumstantial evidence in support of such a theory.
“I.e a signal for CO2 induced warming can in fact be determined for the last 30 years, and the data that is used for that signal can be independently verified as correct. (i.e not fudged, obscured, manipulated or an artefact of a poorly sited measuring device).”
It’s warmed, we know that. But I will point out that warming does not prove the theory, the warming is something a good theory is supposed to explain.
“2. That Man Made emissions of CO2 will cause measurable Global Warming?”
That’s almost certainly true, but the interesting question is, “by how much?”
“3. That Global Warming is – in fact – Catastrophic? I.e. Cold kills more people than heat. Crops do better in the warm, than in the cold, etc.”
The answer to that hinges on the “by how much?” question.
“4. That Increases in CO2 will not allow for a Global Cooling? I.e. that CO2 is a contributer to Global Warming – or are you trying to have CO2 increases force all weather events? If so, please refer to later questions, re Pseudo-science.”
That depends on who you talk to and what you read. Certainly, the last IPCC report gave the impression in some paragraphs in certain chapters, that CO2 would now overwhelm all other ‘forcings’. That hasn’t happened. But someone making a wrong or dumb statement here or there, does not demolish the entire theory.
“1. What is the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration for plant life?”
I don’t know, but I presume you setup a green house and grow different types of plants under different CO2 levels, controlling for everything else, and you find out that way. I’d say people who run green houses have an approximate idea, so I would ask those people first.
But also keep in mind what is optimal for planet life may not be optimal for non-plant life.
“2. What is the optimal temperature for Planet Earth?”
Could you be more specific? Do you mean, what is the optimal temperature for humans? If so, probably the temperature as it is right now. Possibly slightly warmer. Cities are built on coastlines, etc. Changing the climate dramatically in any way would not be a good thing for humans. (Not that we can *therefore* do much about that.)
“3. What is the optimal method for measuring Planet Earth’s temperature?”
My opinion: satellites, because they have good coverage of most of the entire planet, especially the oceans.
“4. What is the optimal method for data management for the temperature data used in climate science? Specifically, wrt the surface temperature data?”
To pay a contractor to gather it, and pay another contractor to audit what the first contractor is doing.
“5. What is the value of openness and transparency with regards to publishing the raw data and methods in science. Specifically wrt the surface temperature data?”
Absolutely critical and central to the principles of science.
“6. What are the ,strong>specific falsification criteria for the hypothesis that “Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Warming”.”
There are many: global averaged temperature, concentrated warming in specific regions of the Earth, such as the poles and the tropics. Since feedbacks are crucial to the theory, humidity should be increasing substantially also. (These are only a few I’ve picked out of the air.)
“If “Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause both Global Warming and (now) Global Cooling” as some our now beginning to suggest. Is it still science, as per previous questions.”
There are regional effects. Some areas will cool and some areas will warm. But you can’t point to one area, i.e., Britain and complain about how hot the last summer was and blame it on AGW, and then next year point to the freezing cold winter in the same place, and blame it on AGW.
“1. That climate science has been throughly politicised and is no longer objective.”
Yes, true.
“2. The lack of transparency and openness of both data and methods by prominent Climate Scientists is a blight on the practice of science and at the very least raises a suspicion of fraud.”
Yes, true.
“3. That the impact on climate of human emissions of CO2 has not been effectively distinguished from natural variation of the climate.”
Yes, probably true (as the IPCC would say).
“4. That proposed mitigations, such as CAP and Trade will do nothing more than institute a regressive tax on human activity will creating a fake market for a fake product that will allow those who can participate in that market to profit at everyone elses expense.”
There is some confusion here I feel on what CAP and Trade is supposed to achieve. It’s there to encourage the development of new ‘greener’ sustainable alternate energy technologies. THESE will ‘save the planet’ (if it needs saving). CAP and Trade by itself is not meant to ‘save the planet’ directly as far as I can see. So the criticism of it on *that* front, is IMO misguided.
“5. That the growing calls for dissenting voices against the AGW Orthodoxy be silenced is nothing more than an assault on western civilization, free speech and human liberty.”
It’s a tactic that has worked well so far, apparently. It does run the risk of backfiring in a big way, though. Time will tell.
Graeme Rodaughan
December 23, 2008 2:14 pm
@kuhnkat (20:08:58) : http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html Thanks K. Great link – excellent article that highlights the politicisation of Science and the pervasive use of “Consensus” as a trick to hide a weak theory.
I like to remember that the consensus used to be that “the Sun circled the Earth”.
Of course there are many other examples.
Joel Shore
December 23, 2008 2:17 pm
Code Tech says:
WE” have raised the level of CO2? WE??? Can you actually prove this? Can you demonstrate how human activity has DEFINITELY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY raised CO2 levels? Not a theory, now, and not a model, but proof?
This is science, not mathematics. In science, nothing is ever proven because it is an inductive, not a deductive system. However, people who believe that the current rise in CO2 levels (or at least almost all of it) cannot be attributed to mankind are ignoring such an overwhelming weight of scientific evidence that frankly, I find arguing against them as useful as arguing against a young-earth creationist. Clearly, no amount of scientific evidence is going to convince such people of something that they don’t want to be convinced of. (There is more room to argue about how much warming this rise in CO2 will cause…so the sort of “skepticism” that argues for very low values of the climate sensitivity, while going against most of the current scientific evidence and understanding, is not nearly as out-there as arguing about who is causing the rise in CO2 levels.)
Mike D. says
The galloping doomsday paranoia expressed by the Chicken Little cacklers is NOT supported by science, not by good science anyway. The End is Not Near. We do not need to huddle in the cold and dark for fear the seas will boil and all life will be extinguished.
It is interesting that in a diatribe against alarmism, you have talked about having to “huddle in the cold and dark”. That kind of talk is alarmism, even moreso than what you attack, since the evidence that the sort of measures being proposed would result in such a thing is based on no science that I know of whatsoever.
William Ferris
December 23, 2008 2:29 pm
You have Hanson stating ‘if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty.’
This seems to give the impression that we are shoveling ‘tar sands’ into boilers like coal which is a nonsense statement. We are simply extracting the oil from sand deposits which contain oil. As traditional oil sources become more limited (although a lot of that is a matter of technological limitations) then how is replacing oil from that source with oil from tar sand extraction worse or better?
And if you use that oil in non-polluting ways and potentially in ways that produce less carbon isn’t that a good thing? Not sure if anyone has ever totaled up the energy (and hence ‘carbon’) produced in traditional exploration and extraction of oil wouldn’t a process that uses electricity produced from non-carbon sources to produce oil be a good thing?
This is a statement that seems more like a appeal to a common ‘environmentalist’ cause than science.
Joel Shore
December 23, 2008 2:33 pm
Graeme Rodaughan says:
Hence what was stopping run-a-way global warming when CO2 was well in excess of 1000PPM – i.e during the Ordovician?
Well, I think that Hansen has addressed the reasons why he thinks this case is different than the cases of higher CO2 in the past in one of the slides that Anthony showed above. Basically, his argument is that the rate of rise of greenhouse gases is likely unprecedented and thus negative feedbacks that can occur over longer timescales when the rise is more gradual may not be able to come into play for so fast a rise. He also points out that over the lifetime of the Earth, the sun’s luminosity has gradually increased, so the solar radiation that we receive is higher today than in some past events (not sure if the specific past event that you are talking about is long enough ago for that to be a significant difference).
Mind you, I am not saying that I believe that Hansen’s arguments in this regard are correct…But, I think those are the sort of arguments that you would have to address to show why he is wrong.
The Troposphere hot spot is the “specific” signature for CO2 Global Warming as espoused by the IPCC – the hot spot does not exist (i.e can’t be found after years of looking for it).
This is probably the most popular “skeptic” talking point (or maybe second after “the Earth is now cooling”) but that doesn’t make it correct. The “hot spot” in the tropical troposphere is a result of a very general piece of physics known as moist adiabatic lapse rate theory. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what specific process is causing the warming and applies equally if the warming is due to solar, reduction in aerosols, or even just to fluctuations up-and-down in temperature (for which it has been verified by both the satellite and radiosonde data).
Your claim that the hotspot can’t be found isn’t quite true either. There are known problems with both the satellite and radiosonde data sets for investigating these long term trends (whereas, the data is much more reliable for the fluctuations on monthly to yearly timescales where the hotspot is clearly present in the data). As a result, there are significant differences in whether or not you get a hotspot and how pronounced it is depending on which analysis you believe. Most scientists seem to believe that the models are correct on this one and that those data sets that do not show the hotspot are incorrect…But, regardless of whether that is the case or not, whether or not the hotspot is there doesn’t directly tell us anything about the mechanism causing the warming because it is independent of that mechanism. (If the hotspot truly does not exist, it would of course tell us that some important piece of physics is missing from the models…But coming up with such a piece of physics that gets rid of the hotspot on the multidecadal timescales while preserving it where on the shorter monthly to yearly timescales where the data shows it to clearly be there is rather difficult. I have yet to even hear someone propose a hypothesis that seems like it is even a potential candidate to do this.)
It is the cooling of the stratosphere as the troposphere warms that is a more specific signature that the warming is due to GHGs…and this is indeed what is observed.
Graeme Rodaughan
December 23, 2008 2:33 pm
Will Nitschke (13:47:32) :
Thanks for the effort with the answers. It appears that we agree on enough of the principles to have an effective conversation.
Cheers G.
Joel Shore
December 23, 2008 2:42 pm
Oh yeah, it is also worth noting that the most immediate first-order effect of the proposition that the “hotspot” is missing in the tropical troposphere is that a negative feedback known as the “lapse rate feedback” that tends to partially cancel out the positive water vapor feedback would no longer be present (at least in the tropics) and thus would seem to imply a higher climate sensitivity!
[The reason for this is that, at the end of the day, the earth equilibrates to a new level of greenhouse gases by raising the temperature at the effective level it radiates from…which is rather high in the troposphere…to the new temperature needed to again restore radiative balance. If the warming is larger in the mid and upper troposphere than at the surface (as would be true if the hotspot exists), then the surface temperature doesn’t have to rise as high in order to produce the needed temperature in the mid and upper troposphere.]
Joel: ignoring such an overwhelming weight of scientific evidence that frankly, I find arguing against them as useful as arguing against a young-earth creationist. Clearly, no amount of scientific evidence is going to convince such people of something that they don’t want to be convinced of.
Ah. So you’re just going to write it off. Gotcha.
Yep… no arguing with you, young man, you’re (insert petty insult here).
Sure, absolutely. The Earth is flat, and young. God put dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith. Yep.
Funny definition of “science” you have there, Joel. In my definition, you have to have something more than a fervent desire to believe something in order to even make some sort of useful hypothesis.
How about this: it is YOU who is ignoring such an overwhelming weight of scientific evidence that frankly, arguing against you is a waste of effort.
Ah, no, you won’t get that, will you? Because you threw it out first, and you’re rubber and I’m glue, or something.
Clearly, no amount of scientific evidence is going to convince you of something that you don’t want to be convinced of. Reply: Both of you, please reign it in, and like an irate parent, I don’t care who started it ~ charles the moderator
Joel Shore
December 23, 2008 2:47 pm
William Ferris says:
As traditional oil sources become more limited (although a lot of that is a matter of technological limitations) then how is replacing oil from that source with oil from tar sand extraction worse or better?
I think his point is simply in regards to the total amount of CO2 released. He is not imagining that we use tar sands in place of some of the traditional sources of oil but rather that we use it IN ADDITION TO these traditional sources of oil.
The topical talk by Hansen wherein he warns of the imminent threat of the seas boiling and Creation being extinguished from the Earth is NOT alarmism?????
Gimeabreak. You propose to shut down the US economy with punative taxes in an attempt to avert a hysterically false proposition, the seas boiling for God’s sake, and accuse me of being an alarmist for opposing you.
Sorry if I am alarmed at your less-than-sane and mutually debilitating paranoia. Perhaps it’s time to apply the Precautionary Principle to junk science.
Joel Shore:
“This is probably the most popular “skeptic” talking point (or maybe second after “the Earth is now cooling”) but that doesn’t make it correct…”
Doesn’t make it wrong either. Sceptics look for predictions that AGW theories make and check them against reality as best they can.
Now I don’t agree with the claim that AGW theory is “falsified” because a hot spot hasn’t been found yet. But it does need to be found. Or, AGW atmospheric physicists need to be more straight with the public on their level of certainty.
If the hot spot is not found, the IPCC model ensemble that claims it is there is shown to be wrong. That’s not something I think anyone can spin. Even individuals as clever as yourself or foinavon. 😉
And that creates a credibility gap for a scientific field that claims its forecasting is based on “100% settled” science.
Does it disprove AGW? No.
Does it support the notion that these atmospheric physicists have a solid grasp of what’s happening in the atmosphere? The answer is also no.
“it is also worth noting that the most immediate first-order effect of the proposition that the “hotspot” is missing in the tropical troposphere is that a negative feedback known as the “lapse rate feedback”
Sure, everything you say may be completely true. AGW might be solid, and it’s just that many of the underlying details are not currently understood very well. But even though the details and specific predictions may be wrong, the final outcome (somehow) remains correct. This is possible.
I currently work in the field of software engineering. I would have to say that if a programmer who worked for me told me, after I found that his functions and methods were crashing, not to worry because the application was still going to produce the expected outcome, well I would have a bit of trouble swallowing that. Sceptics have this mental BS meter and sometimes it starts flashing red. 😉
Graeme Rodaughan
December 23, 2008 4:39 pm
Joel Shore (14:33:35) :
Thanks Joel.
Comments inline below.
Hence what was stopping run-a-way global warming when CO2 was well in excess of 1000PPM – i.e during the Ordovician? Basically, his argument is that
(1) the rate of rise of greenhouse gases is likely unprecedented and thus negative feedbacks that can occur over longer timescales when the rise is more gradual may not be able to come into play for so fast a rise.
(2) He also points out that over the lifetime of the Earth, the sun’s luminosity has gradually increased, so the solar radiation that we receive is higher today than in some past events.
Responses.
(1) Rate of rise? – Distinguishing different rates of CO2 change – That will be hard to pin down empirically.
(2) Could be a factor – granted. Mind you, I am not saying that I believe that Hansen’s arguments in this regard are correct…But, I think those are the sort of arguments that you would have to address to show why he is wrong.
Agreed.
The Troposphere hot spot is the “specific” signature for CO2 Global Warming as espoused by the IPCC – the hot spot does not exist (i.e can’t be found after years of looking for it). This is probably the most popular “skeptic” talking point (or maybe second after “the Earth is now cooling”) but that doesn’t make it correct. The “hot spot” in the tropical troposphere is a result of a very general piece of physics known as moist adiabatic lapse rate theory. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what specific process is causing the warming and applies equally if the warming is due to solar, reduction in aerosols, or even just to fluctuations up-and-down in temperature (for which it has been verified by both the satellite and radiosonde data).
Your claim that the hotspot can’t be found isn’t quite true either. There are known problems with both the satellite and radiosonde data sets for investigating these long term trends (whereas, the data is much more reliable for the fluctuations on monthly to yearly timescales where the hotspot is clearly present in the data). As a result, there are significant differences in whether or not you get a hotspot and how pronounced it is depending on which analysis you believe.
Please check reference below from David Evans wrt “signatures” – an comment http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2451051.htm Most scientists seem to believe that the models are correct on this one and that those data sets that do not show the hotspot are incorrect…
Models trump data? I have a real issue with this. Ref Michael Crighton’s vigourous defense of empirical science at this link: http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html But, regardless of whether that is the case or not, whether or not the hotspot is there doesn’t directly tell us anything about the mechanism causing the warming because it is independent of that mechanism.
According to the IPCC – it’s the signature for CO2 Caused Global Warming. IPCC inform political policies across the world. If the IPCC get this wrong – a lot of people will be needlessly harmed. (If the hotspot truly does not exist, it would of course tell us that some important piece of physics is missing from the models…But coming up with such a piece of physics that gets rid of the hotspot on the multidecadal timescales while preserving it where on the shorter monthly to yearly timescales where the data shows it to clearly be there is rather difficult. I have yet to even hear someone propose a hypothesis that seems like it is even a potential candidate to do this.)
Your assuming that the underlying hypothesis that CO2 is a strong increasing forcing agent GHG at concentrations above 350 PPM. Hence new physics would be required to explain a missing hot spot – perhaps it’s the underlying assumption that is false.
On the previous point – try Occams Razor. What requires the least explanation.
(1) That the assumption that CO2 above 350PPM matters and the hot spot has just not been found after years of effort, ie. our instruments just don’t work. Or,
(2) That the assumption that CO2 above 350PPM matters is false.
My premise is that CO2 above 350 PPM is a weak warming agent and facing diminishing returns. No Hot Spot, No Tipping Points, – just no detectable impact from now on in. It is the cooling of the stratosphere as the troposphere warms that is a more specific signature that the warming is due to GHGs…and this is indeed what is observed.
I’ll need more info on this point.
Thanks G
As temperatures fall, sea-levels falter glaciers and sea-ice recovers, there appears to be a tendency towards creating even more fear.
Actually if you click on the Sea Ice link above you’ll see that it is the ice ‘recovery’ that is faltering, the Arctic sea ice extent reached its lowest ever extent for Dec 20 and remains below the already remarkably low 2007..
Syl
December 23, 2008 5:05 pm
Joel Shore (07:19:23)
“And, by the way, whether or not the global temperature anomaly has increased or decreased over the past several years depends strongly on exactly which years you include and which data set.”
Well, duh.
Nobody wants to give up their trend lines, their starting points, their averaging years. I want to look at detrended data. I want to forget anomalies exist and only look at absolute temperatures for a change. I know the charts will look a bit wierd because we’re so used to those nice, easy to read, pretty, curvy, trendlines that basically say LITTLE OR NOTHING because of those cherry-picking factors. But it’s time to get real and stop playing these games.
Show me the actual temperatures!
foinavon wrote:
“Except that that’s false, since Santer et al. in fact ended their study with data up through December 1999. This was a relatively strong La Nina (cool) year as it happens.”
The number I typed should have been 9 not 8. My mistake. A relevant quote:
“By using current data, the value of the Santer d1 test (a t-test) increases to 2.232 (from the 1.11 reported in their Table III), yielding an opposite conclusion in this respect from the one reported in the article.
These results are obtained not by doing the tests in a different way that I happen to prefer, but using the same methodology as Santer et al on up-to-date data.
You can check results to end 2007, which would have been readily available to Santer et al at the time of submission of the article as follows, yielding a d1-value of 1.935, which would be significant against important t-tests.”
“By using current data, the value of the Santer d1 test (a t-test) increases to 2.232 (from the 1.11 reported in their Table III), yielding an opposite conclusion in this respect from the one reported in the article.”
“you’d think that Gavin Schmidt, Santer and so on would be curious as to what would happen with 2007 results. RC has not been reluctant to criticize people who have used stale data and you’d think that Schmidt would have taken care not to do the same thing himself. Especially if the use of up-to-date data had a material impact on the results, as it does with the H2 hypothesis in respect to the UAH data.”
Full link here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4180
You also wrote:
“I’ve described exactly what the problems are with reference to the science. Anyone is welcome to argue against my descriptions, but no-one has chosen to do so, at least in respect of the science. If one is interested in the science on this issues one may as well address the science as it stands.”
Could you provide some links please on published criticisms of this data? As long as the criticism have at least made it into published journals and have at at least some form of review as a starting point, then they do need to be taken on board and considered fairly by all sides of the debate.
“Perhaps you’re not familiar with the scientific literature.”
I cannot begin to tell you how much of this complex subject I have no knowledge of whatsoever. 🙂
Therefore I am completely dependent on the opinions of the relevant experts and reviews, together with my capacity for logical reasoning.
“Pointing out what the science indicates is “unsatisfactory and evasive”!? In fact I’m complete agnostic of whether the models turn out to be correct or the measurements. I don’t share your need to throw my opinion on one “side” or the other. When we know we’ll know and will have learned something. Perhaps the models will have to be revised somewhat. Perhaps not. We’ll see.”
My “evasive” remark was in respect to your ability to express a lot of opinion (not knocking it, I’m always interested in opinions) but your inability to point to any credible science to back it up in the form of links. Possibly that’s just an oversight and you’ll rectify that promptly.
However, I do find it a little hard to swallow that you or Joel are “agnostic.”
I suppose I’m being harder on you guys because you are obviously both knowledgeable on this topic. There are not enough hours in the day to be critical of every silly argument or crank posting made by unknowledgeable people. So I am holding you and Joel to higher standards of integrity here.
Now let’s deconstruct a couple of statements to illustrate my concern:
Joel:
“It hardly seems miniscule when we have already raised the level of XXX over 35% and will likely more than double it by the end of the century.”
(I’ve replaced CO2 with XXX to make the statement more neutral.)
Is the above statement true or false?
Well it depends. If we’re talking about nitrogen then that is a major constituent of our atmosphere so a 35% change would be enormous. If we were talking about some rare trace gas, then 35% of almost nothing is still nothing.
How are statements such as these in any way neutral? You argue like this when you’re trying to win a debating contest, or a court case before a jury. You don’t argue like this if you’re trying to get to the truth.
Or let’s look at your previous statement which I’ve already commented on:
“Of course not and one should be careful not to fall into the trap of considering that once an analysis (that might involve equations, computers or models) of real world data takes place, that the study thus becomes “theoretical”!”
Again, it sounds sensible, measured and reasonable.
And in some contexts what you say is completely true, yet in other contexts it’s completely wrong. You can build a model of the human brain, or perhaps some aspect of it or the nervous system, and it can all be based on real world data collected from excellent studies and experiments. But the end product, that brain model, is still going to be highly theoretical.
So the truth might go either way or be somewhere in the middle. You and Joel are very intelligent guys and obviously say many things I agree with. But I’m also wading through a lot of spin doctoring. This is unfortunate.
hunter
December 23, 2008 6:12 pm
John Phillips,
Pictures don’t lie: http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=22&fy=2007&sm=12&sd=22&sy=2008
Ice is growing.
The ice grew so fast this year that it ahs slowed down, as it reaches it natural limits.
This latest attempt by AGW prmoters to explain away yet more of their failed predictions is sillier than most. Just look at the pictures.
Jack
December 23, 2008 6:28 pm
FYI,
on Venus and Earth comparisons, Al Gore latest video presentation, about six months ago, talks about this with graphics.
Mike Bryant
December 23, 2008 6:53 pm
“Most scientists seem to believe that the models are correct on this one and that those data sets that do not show the hotspot are incorrect…”
I have to go along with Joel on this one. The sooner we get rid of, adjust, hide, homogenize or massage all the data, the sooner these models will be appreciated for their jaw-dropping awesomeness.
Mike Bryant
Well, duh.
Nobody wants to give up their trend lines, their starting points, their averaging years. I want to look at detrended data. I want to forget anomalies exist and only look at absolute temperatures for a change. I know the charts will look a bit wierd because we’re so used to those nice, easy to read, pretty, curvy, trendlines that basically say LITTLE OR NOTHING because of those cherry-picking factors.
I think you have missed my point. The reason that one can cherrypick is because one is looking at too short a period. If you carefully compute errorbars on the trendlines of around 5 or 8 or even 10 years like Tamino has done over on his blog, you find that they are large…So, the real answer is that the trend is simply too uncertain for short time periods.
However, all hope is not lost. The simple solution is to look over long enough periods that the trend is robust to the exact start and end points and whose data set you look at. How long that period needs to be depends on how much precision you want in the trendline…but, roughly speaking, 12 to 15 years seems to be about the minimum period that you want to take seriously. This requires a little more patience than trying to discern the current trend in global warming (or not) from last month’s temperature anomaly…but it is the only meaningful way to talk about the temperature trends that are relevant.
I don’t see how looking at absolute temperatures rather than anomalies will help you and it will just introduce other severe problems. There is a reason why people have chosen to look at anomalies.
Joel Shore
December 23, 2008 8:23 pm
Mike Bryant:
I have to go along with Joel on this one. The sooner we get rid of, adjust, hide, homogenize or massage all the data, the sooner these models will be appreciated for their jaw-dropping awesomeness.
Cute. However, the actual fact is that in the real world, observational data can have lots of serious problems with it. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: As someone who does computational modeling for a living, I would probably be fired (or deserve to be) if every time I was presented with data that contradicted my modeling I said, “Well, then my modeling must be wrong,” or on the other hand, if I always said, “Well, my modeling is correct so the data must be wrong.” It is my job to understand the strengths and limitations of the modeling and (with help from the experimenters) to learn about the strengths and limitations of the data and to arrive at an assessment of whether I think the modeling is correct or the observational data is correct. And, I don’t think anyone who works with me would say that I tend to oversell my modeling.
However, there is sometimes good reasons to believe that the models are correct and (some of) the observational data is incorrect. And, my understanding of this problem suggests that this is indeed one of those cases. I’ve explained the reasons for this above.
At any rate, I have a standing challenge to anyone who actually wants to argue that the models are wrong on this point to even come up with a plausible hypothesis for what might be missing from the models that could potentially “fix” the problem by getting rid of the “hot spot” over the multidecadal timescales while still preserving it over the shorter timescales over which the data and models are in good agreement. I have yet to have someone propose anything that would even plausibly do this…let alone demonstrating more convincingly that it does actually do this!
Joel Shore
December 23, 2008 8:25 pm
Whoops…sorry for the sloppy coding on the above post. Only the first paragraph is Mike Bryant’s words; the rest are mine.
foinavon wrote:
“Of course not and one should be careful not to fall into the trap of considering that once an analysis (that might involve equations, computers or models) of real world data takes place, that the study thus becomes “theoretical”!”
That depends. If what is being modelled is well understood, it’s not theoretical. I.e., modelling the journey of a trip from Earth to Mars for a space probe is not theoretical. The physics are well understood. But as soon as you try to model something that is not well understood, the model becomes an expression of the theory. I know that, you know that. So I can’t help but feel that your reply was more about scoring a debating point than looking at the science in a balanced and fair way. (At least on that specific issue.)
The rest of your post is a bit of a waffle about how the science of atmospheric aerosols is well understood. I’m sure the basic physics are well understood. Only cranks would call that into question. (I note a few of them posting here, unfortunately.) But how they effect the environment at large… well I remain less than convinced, because I note the complete absence of further links in your reply to actual research that goes to the heart of these questions. Possibly that’s indicative of a serious gap in our knowledge.
Hope you don’t interpret my reply as too negative. I genuinely do enjoy reading what you post.
As temperatures fall, sea-levels falter glaciers and sea-ice recovers, there appears to be a tendency towards creating even more fear.
While the probability of these scenarios is becoming smaller with each month since the cooling cycle began, at least the (probability times danger) product may then be kept constant.
However, it really makes me worry about the state of mind of some people from the AGW crowd out there.
Graeme Rodaughan,
I’m not exactly sure why you’re directing all these questions at me, but since you have I’ll offer a few opinions and observations. That’s the best I can do, unfortunately. I don’t get paid a large government research grant or get sent cheques in the mail from the oil cartels. 😉
“The Troposphere hot spot is the “specific” signature for CO2 Global Warming as espoused by the IPCC – the hot spot does not exist (i.e can’t be found after years of looking for it).”
It does not exist, or is too slight to be measured relative to background “weather noise” or our instruments are not yet reliable enough to detect it. Admittedly, this is a big problem for AGW anyway you want to try to spin it.
“Hence the underlying theory of CO2 Global Warming is wrong – is this correct?”
It would not help the theory if the hot spot is not identified, as it would damage the credibility of the IPCC’s version of it. (Probably beyond repair, for other versions as well.)
“Have you got any real causation evidence of,
1. That CO2 will cause measurable Global Warming?”
No, but I don’t have causal evidence of evolutionary theory but I accept that as very probably true. Causal evidence is always preferred but not necessarily possible in every scientific research field. So the next best thing is to look for ‘overwhelming’ circumstantial evidence in support of such a theory.
“I.e a signal for CO2 induced warming can in fact be determined for the last 30 years, and the data that is used for that signal can be independently verified as correct. (i.e not fudged, obscured, manipulated or an artefact of a poorly sited measuring device).”
It’s warmed, we know that. But I will point out that warming does not prove the theory, the warming is something a good theory is supposed to explain.
“2. That Man Made emissions of CO2 will cause measurable Global Warming?”
That’s almost certainly true, but the interesting question is, “by how much?”
“3. That Global Warming is – in fact – Catastrophic? I.e. Cold kills more people than heat. Crops do better in the warm, than in the cold, etc.”
The answer to that hinges on the “by how much?” question.
“4. That Increases in CO2 will not allow for a Global Cooling? I.e. that CO2 is a contributer to Global Warming – or are you trying to have CO2 increases force all weather events? If so, please refer to later questions, re Pseudo-science.”
That depends on who you talk to and what you read. Certainly, the last IPCC report gave the impression in some paragraphs in certain chapters, that CO2 would now overwhelm all other ‘forcings’. That hasn’t happened. But someone making a wrong or dumb statement here or there, does not demolish the entire theory.
“1. What is the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration for plant life?”
I don’t know, but I presume you setup a green house and grow different types of plants under different CO2 levels, controlling for everything else, and you find out that way. I’d say people who run green houses have an approximate idea, so I would ask those people first.
But also keep in mind what is optimal for planet life may not be optimal for non-plant life.
“2. What is the optimal temperature for Planet Earth?”
Could you be more specific? Do you mean, what is the optimal temperature for humans? If so, probably the temperature as it is right now. Possibly slightly warmer. Cities are built on coastlines, etc. Changing the climate dramatically in any way would not be a good thing for humans. (Not that we can *therefore* do much about that.)
“3. What is the optimal method for measuring Planet Earth’s temperature?”
My opinion: satellites, because they have good coverage of most of the entire planet, especially the oceans.
“4. What is the optimal method for data management for the temperature data used in climate science? Specifically, wrt the surface temperature data?”
To pay a contractor to gather it, and pay another contractor to audit what the first contractor is doing.
“5. What is the value of openness and transparency with regards to publishing the raw data and methods in science. Specifically wrt the surface temperature data?”
Absolutely critical and central to the principles of science.
“6. What are the ,strong>specific falsification criteria for the hypothesis that “Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause Catastrophic Warming”.”
There are many: global averaged temperature, concentrated warming in specific regions of the Earth, such as the poles and the tropics. Since feedbacks are crucial to the theory, humidity should be increasing substantially also. (These are only a few I’ve picked out of the air.)
“If “Man Made Emissions of CO2 will cause both Global Warming and (now) Global Cooling” as some our now beginning to suggest. Is it still science, as per previous questions.”
There are regional effects. Some areas will cool and some areas will warm. But you can’t point to one area, i.e., Britain and complain about how hot the last summer was and blame it on AGW, and then next year point to the freezing cold winter in the same place, and blame it on AGW.
“1. That climate science has been throughly politicised and is no longer objective.”
Yes, true.
“2. The lack of transparency and openness of both data and methods by prominent Climate Scientists is a blight on the practice of science and at the very least raises a suspicion of fraud.”
Yes, true.
“3. That the impact on climate of human emissions of CO2 has not been effectively distinguished from natural variation of the climate.”
Yes, probably true (as the IPCC would say).
“4. That proposed mitigations, such as CAP and Trade will do nothing more than institute a regressive tax on human activity will creating a fake market for a fake product that will allow those who can participate in that market to profit at everyone elses expense.”
There is some confusion here I feel on what CAP and Trade is supposed to achieve. It’s there to encourage the development of new ‘greener’ sustainable alternate energy technologies. THESE will ‘save the planet’ (if it needs saving). CAP and Trade by itself is not meant to ‘save the planet’ directly as far as I can see. So the criticism of it on *that* front, is IMO misguided.
“5. That the growing calls for dissenting voices against the AGW Orthodoxy be silenced is nothing more than an assault on western civilization, free speech and human liberty.”
It’s a tactic that has worked well so far, apparently. It does run the risk of backfiring in a big way, though. Time will tell.
@kuhnkat (20:08:58) :
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
Thanks K. Great link – excellent article that highlights the politicisation of Science and the pervasive use of “Consensus” as a trick to hide a weak theory.
I like to remember that the consensus used to be that “the Sun circled the Earth”.
Of course there are many other examples.
Code Tech says:
This is science, not mathematics. In science, nothing is ever proven because it is an inductive, not a deductive system. However, people who believe that the current rise in CO2 levels (or at least almost all of it) cannot be attributed to mankind are ignoring such an overwhelming weight of scientific evidence that frankly, I find arguing against them as useful as arguing against a young-earth creationist. Clearly, no amount of scientific evidence is going to convince such people of something that they don’t want to be convinced of. (There is more room to argue about how much warming this rise in CO2 will cause…so the sort of “skepticism” that argues for very low values of the climate sensitivity, while going against most of the current scientific evidence and understanding, is not nearly as out-there as arguing about who is causing the rise in CO2 levels.)
Mike D. says
It is interesting that in a diatribe against alarmism, you have talked about having to “huddle in the cold and dark”. That kind of talk is alarmism, even moreso than what you attack, since the evidence that the sort of measures being proposed would result in such a thing is based on no science that I know of whatsoever.
You have Hanson stating ‘if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty.’
This seems to give the impression that we are shoveling ‘tar sands’ into boilers like coal which is a nonsense statement. We are simply extracting the oil from sand deposits which contain oil. As traditional oil sources become more limited (although a lot of that is a matter of technological limitations) then how is replacing oil from that source with oil from tar sand extraction worse or better?
And if you use that oil in non-polluting ways and potentially in ways that produce less carbon isn’t that a good thing? Not sure if anyone has ever totaled up the energy (and hence ‘carbon’) produced in traditional exploration and extraction of oil wouldn’t a process that uses electricity produced from non-carbon sources to produce oil be a good thing?
This is a statement that seems more like a appeal to a common ‘environmentalist’ cause than science.
Graeme Rodaughan says:
Well, I think that Hansen has addressed the reasons why he thinks this case is different than the cases of higher CO2 in the past in one of the slides that Anthony showed above. Basically, his argument is that the rate of rise of greenhouse gases is likely unprecedented and thus negative feedbacks that can occur over longer timescales when the rise is more gradual may not be able to come into play for so fast a rise. He also points out that over the lifetime of the Earth, the sun’s luminosity has gradually increased, so the solar radiation that we receive is higher today than in some past events (not sure if the specific past event that you are talking about is long enough ago for that to be a significant difference).
Mind you, I am not saying that I believe that Hansen’s arguments in this regard are correct…But, I think those are the sort of arguments that you would have to address to show why he is wrong.
This is probably the most popular “skeptic” talking point (or maybe second after “the Earth is now cooling”) but that doesn’t make it correct. The “hot spot” in the tropical troposphere is a result of a very general piece of physics known as moist adiabatic lapse rate theory. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what specific process is causing the warming and applies equally if the warming is due to solar, reduction in aerosols, or even just to fluctuations up-and-down in temperature (for which it has been verified by both the satellite and radiosonde data).
Your claim that the hotspot can’t be found isn’t quite true either. There are known problems with both the satellite and radiosonde data sets for investigating these long term trends (whereas, the data is much more reliable for the fluctuations on monthly to yearly timescales where the hotspot is clearly present in the data). As a result, there are significant differences in whether or not you get a hotspot and how pronounced it is depending on which analysis you believe. Most scientists seem to believe that the models are correct on this one and that those data sets that do not show the hotspot are incorrect…But, regardless of whether that is the case or not, whether or not the hotspot is there doesn’t directly tell us anything about the mechanism causing the warming because it is independent of that mechanism. (If the hotspot truly does not exist, it would of course tell us that some important piece of physics is missing from the models…But coming up with such a piece of physics that gets rid of the hotspot on the multidecadal timescales while preserving it where on the shorter monthly to yearly timescales where the data shows it to clearly be there is rather difficult. I have yet to even hear someone propose a hypothesis that seems like it is even a potential candidate to do this.)
It is the cooling of the stratosphere as the troposphere warms that is a more specific signature that the warming is due to GHGs…and this is indeed what is observed.
Will Nitschke (13:47:32) :
Thanks for the effort with the answers. It appears that we agree on enough of the principles to have an effective conversation.
Cheers G.
Oh yeah, it is also worth noting that the most immediate first-order effect of the proposition that the “hotspot” is missing in the tropical troposphere is that a negative feedback known as the “lapse rate feedback” that tends to partially cancel out the positive water vapor feedback would no longer be present (at least in the tropics) and thus would seem to imply a higher climate sensitivity!
[The reason for this is that, at the end of the day, the earth equilibrates to a new level of greenhouse gases by raising the temperature at the effective level it radiates from…which is rather high in the troposphere…to the new temperature needed to again restore radiative balance. If the warming is larger in the mid and upper troposphere than at the surface (as would be true if the hotspot exists), then the surface temperature doesn’t have to rise as high in order to produce the needed temperature in the mid and upper troposphere.]
Joel: ignoring such an overwhelming weight of scientific evidence that frankly, I find arguing against them as useful as arguing against a young-earth creationist. Clearly, no amount of scientific evidence is going to convince such people of something that they don’t want to be convinced of.
Ah. So you’re just going to write it off. Gotcha.
Yep… no arguing with you, young man, you’re (insert petty insult here).
Sure, absolutely. The Earth is flat, and young. God put dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith. Yep.
Funny definition of “science” you have there, Joel. In my definition, you have to have something more than a fervent desire to believe something in order to even make some sort of useful hypothesis.
How about this: it is YOU who is ignoring such an overwhelming weight of scientific evidence that frankly, arguing against you is a waste of effort.
Ah, no, you won’t get that, will you? Because you threw it out first, and you’re rubber and I’m glue, or something.
Clearly, no amount of scientific evidence is going to convince you of something that you don’t want to be convinced of.
Reply: Both of you, please reign it in, and like an irate parent, I don’t care who started it ~ charles the moderator
William Ferris says:
I think his point is simply in regards to the total amount of CO2 released. He is not imagining that we use tar sands in place of some of the traditional sources of oil but rather that we use it IN ADDITION TO these traditional sources of oil.
The topical talk by Hansen wherein he warns of the imminent threat of the seas boiling and Creation being extinguished from the Earth is NOT alarmism?????
Gimeabreak. You propose to shut down the US economy with punative taxes in an attempt to avert a hysterically false proposition, the seas boiling for God’s sake, and accuse me of being an alarmist for opposing you.
Sorry if I am alarmed at your less-than-sane and mutually debilitating paranoia. Perhaps it’s time to apply the Precautionary Principle to junk science.
Joel Shore:
“This is probably the most popular “skeptic” talking point (or maybe second after “the Earth is now cooling”) but that doesn’t make it correct…”
Doesn’t make it wrong either. Sceptics look for predictions that AGW theories make and check them against reality as best they can.
Now I don’t agree with the claim that AGW theory is “falsified” because a hot spot hasn’t been found yet. But it does need to be found. Or, AGW atmospheric physicists need to be more straight with the public on their level of certainty.
If the hot spot is not found, the IPCC model ensemble that claims it is there is shown to be wrong. That’s not something I think anyone can spin. Even individuals as clever as yourself or foinavon. 😉
And that creates a credibility gap for a scientific field that claims its forecasting is based on “100% settled” science.
Does it disprove AGW? No.
Does it support the notion that these atmospheric physicists have a solid grasp of what’s happening in the atmosphere? The answer is also no.
“it is also worth noting that the most immediate first-order effect of the proposition that the “hotspot” is missing in the tropical troposphere is that a negative feedback known as the “lapse rate feedback”
Sure, everything you say may be completely true. AGW might be solid, and it’s just that many of the underlying details are not currently understood very well. But even though the details and specific predictions may be wrong, the final outcome (somehow) remains correct. This is possible.
I currently work in the field of software engineering. I would have to say that if a programmer who worked for me told me, after I found that his functions and methods were crashing, not to worry because the application was still going to produce the expected outcome, well I would have a bit of trouble swallowing that. Sceptics have this mental BS meter and sometimes it starts flashing red. 😉
Joel Shore (14:33:35) :
Thanks Joel.
Comments inline below.
Hence what was stopping run-a-way global warming when CO2 was well in excess of 1000PPM – i.e during the Ordovician?
Basically, his argument is that
(1) the rate of rise of greenhouse gases is likely unprecedented and thus negative feedbacks that can occur over longer timescales when the rise is more gradual may not be able to come into play for so fast a rise.
(2) He also points out that over the lifetime of the Earth, the sun’s luminosity has gradually increased, so the solar radiation that we receive is higher today than in some past events.
Responses.
(1) Rate of rise? – Distinguishing different rates of CO2 change – That will be hard to pin down empirically.
(2) Could be a factor – granted.
Mind you, I am not saying that I believe that Hansen’s arguments in this regard are correct…But, I think those are the sort of arguments that you would have to address to show why he is wrong.
Agreed.
The Troposphere hot spot is the “specific” signature for CO2 Global Warming as espoused by the IPCC – the hot spot does not exist (i.e can’t be found after years of looking for it).
This is probably the most popular “skeptic” talking point (or maybe second after “the Earth is now cooling”) but that doesn’t make it correct. The “hot spot” in the tropical troposphere is a result of a very general piece of physics known as moist adiabatic lapse rate theory. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what specific process is causing the warming and applies equally if the warming is due to solar, reduction in aerosols, or even just to fluctuations up-and-down in temperature (for which it has been verified by both the satellite and radiosonde data).
Your claim that the hotspot can’t be found isn’t quite true either. There are known problems with both the satellite and radiosonde data sets for investigating these long term trends (whereas, the data is much more reliable for the fluctuations on monthly to yearly timescales where the hotspot is clearly present in the data). As a result, there are significant differences in whether or not you get a hotspot and how pronounced it is depending on which analysis you believe.
Please check reference below from David Evans wrt “signatures” – an comment
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2451051.htm
Most scientists seem to believe that the models are correct on this one and that those data sets that do not show the hotspot are incorrect…
Models trump data? I have a real issue with this. Ref Michael Crighton’s vigourous defense of empirical science at this link:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
But, regardless of whether that is the case or not, whether or not the hotspot is there doesn’t directly tell us anything about the mechanism causing the warming because it is independent of that mechanism.
According to the IPCC – it’s the signature for CO2 Caused Global Warming. IPCC inform political policies across the world. If the IPCC get this wrong – a lot of people will be needlessly harmed.
(If the hotspot truly does not exist, it would of course tell us that some important piece of physics is missing from the models…But coming up with such a piece of physics that gets rid of the hotspot on the multidecadal timescales while preserving it where on the shorter monthly to yearly timescales where the data shows it to clearly be there is rather difficult. I have yet to even hear someone propose a hypothesis that seems like it is even a potential candidate to do this.)
Your assuming that the underlying hypothesis that CO2 is a strong increasing forcing agent GHG at concentrations above 350 PPM. Hence new physics would be required to explain a missing hot spot – perhaps it’s the underlying assumption that is false.
On the previous point – try Occams Razor. What requires the least explanation.
(1) That the assumption that CO2 above 350PPM matters and the hot spot has just not been found after years of effort, ie. our instruments just don’t work. Or,
(2) That the assumption that CO2 above 350PPM matters is false.
My premise is that CO2 above 350 PPM is a weak warming agent and facing diminishing returns. No Hot Spot, No Tipping Points, – just no detectable impact from now on in.
It is the cooling of the stratosphere as the troposphere warms that is a more specific signature that the warming is due to GHGs…and this is indeed what is observed.
I’ll need more info on this point.
Thanks G
Normally I would refrain from adding to a pileup this large (362 comments!) but the following cartoon seems somehow appropriate:
http://mbaker.columbiastate.edu/cartoons_gifs/anxiety2.jpg
As temperatures fall, sea-levels falter glaciers and sea-ice recovers, there appears to be a tendency towards creating even more fear.
Actually if you click on the Sea Ice link above you’ll see that it is the ice ‘recovery’ that is faltering, the Arctic sea ice extent reached its lowest ever extent for Dec 20 and remains below the already remarkably low 2007..
Joel Shore (07:19:23)
“And, by the way, whether or not the global temperature anomaly has increased or decreased over the past several years depends strongly on exactly which years you include and which data set.”
Well, duh.
Nobody wants to give up their trend lines, their starting points, their averaging years. I want to look at detrended data. I want to forget anomalies exist and only look at absolute temperatures for a change. I know the charts will look a bit wierd because we’re so used to those nice, easy to read, pretty, curvy, trendlines that basically say LITTLE OR NOTHING because of those cherry-picking factors. But it’s time to get real and stop playing these games.
Show me the actual temperatures!
foinavon wrote:
“Except that that’s false, since Santer et al. in fact ended their study with data up through December 1999. This was a relatively strong La Nina (cool) year as it happens.”
The number I typed should have been 9 not 8. My mistake. A relevant quote:
“By using current data, the value of the Santer d1 test (a t-test) increases to 2.232 (from the 1.11 reported in their Table III), yielding an opposite conclusion in this respect from the one reported in the article.
These results are obtained not by doing the tests in a different way that I happen to prefer, but using the same methodology as Santer et al on up-to-date data.
You can check results to end 2007, which would have been readily available to Santer et al at the time of submission of the article as follows, yielding a d1-value of 1.935, which would be significant against important t-tests.”
“By using current data, the value of the Santer d1 test (a t-test) increases to 2.232 (from the 1.11 reported in their Table III), yielding an opposite conclusion in this respect from the one reported in the article.”
“you’d think that Gavin Schmidt, Santer and so on would be curious as to what would happen with 2007 results. RC has not been reluctant to criticize people who have used stale data and you’d think that Schmidt would have taken care not to do the same thing himself. Especially if the use of up-to-date data had a material impact on the results, as it does with the H2 hypothesis in respect to the UAH data.”
Full link here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4180
You also wrote:
“I’ve described exactly what the problems are with reference to the science. Anyone is welcome to argue against my descriptions, but no-one has chosen to do so, at least in respect of the science. If one is interested in the science on this issues one may as well address the science as it stands.”
Could you provide some links please on published criticisms of this data? As long as the criticism have at least made it into published journals and have at at least some form of review as a starting point, then they do need to be taken on board and considered fairly by all sides of the debate.
“Perhaps you’re not familiar with the scientific literature.”
I cannot begin to tell you how much of this complex subject I have no knowledge of whatsoever. 🙂
Therefore I am completely dependent on the opinions of the relevant experts and reviews, together with my capacity for logical reasoning.
“Pointing out what the science indicates is “unsatisfactory and evasive”!? In fact I’m complete agnostic of whether the models turn out to be correct or the measurements. I don’t share your need to throw my opinion on one “side” or the other. When we know we’ll know and will have learned something. Perhaps the models will have to be revised somewhat. Perhaps not. We’ll see.”
My “evasive” remark was in respect to your ability to express a lot of opinion (not knocking it, I’m always interested in opinions) but your inability to point to any credible science to back it up in the form of links. Possibly that’s just an oversight and you’ll rectify that promptly.
However, I do find it a little hard to swallow that you or Joel are “agnostic.”
I suppose I’m being harder on you guys because you are obviously both knowledgeable on this topic. There are not enough hours in the day to be critical of every silly argument or crank posting made by unknowledgeable people. So I am holding you and Joel to higher standards of integrity here.
Now let’s deconstruct a couple of statements to illustrate my concern:
Joel:
“It hardly seems miniscule when we have already raised the level of XXX over 35% and will likely more than double it by the end of the century.”
(I’ve replaced CO2 with XXX to make the statement more neutral.)
Is the above statement true or false?
Well it depends. If we’re talking about nitrogen then that is a major constituent of our atmosphere so a 35% change would be enormous. If we were talking about some rare trace gas, then 35% of almost nothing is still nothing.
How are statements such as these in any way neutral? You argue like this when you’re trying to win a debating contest, or a court case before a jury. You don’t argue like this if you’re trying to get to the truth.
Or let’s look at your previous statement which I’ve already commented on:
“Of course not and one should be careful not to fall into the trap of considering that once an analysis (that might involve equations, computers or models) of real world data takes place, that the study thus becomes “theoretical”!”
Again, it sounds sensible, measured and reasonable.
And in some contexts what you say is completely true, yet in other contexts it’s completely wrong. You can build a model of the human brain, or perhaps some aspect of it or the nervous system, and it can all be based on real world data collected from excellent studies and experiments. But the end product, that brain model, is still going to be highly theoretical.
So the truth might go either way or be somewhere in the middle. You and Joel are very intelligent guys and obviously say many things I agree with. But I’m also wading through a lot of spin doctoring. This is unfortunate.
John Phillips,
Pictures don’t lie:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=22&fy=2007&sm=12&sd=22&sy=2008
Ice is growing.
The ice grew so fast this year that it ahs slowed down, as it reaches it natural limits.
This latest attempt by AGW prmoters to explain away yet more of their failed predictions is sillier than most. Just look at the pictures.
FYI,
on Venus and Earth comparisons, Al Gore latest video presentation, about six months ago, talks about this with graphics.
“Most scientists seem to believe that the models are correct on this one and that those data sets that do not show the hotspot are incorrect…”
I have to go along with Joel on this one. The sooner we get rid of, adjust, hide, homogenize or massage all the data, the sooner these models will be appreciated for their jaw-dropping awesomeness.
Mike Bryant
Syl, this is going to blow your mind so hang on to your chair, but people have been living in rain forest for thousands of years, and burning them, and deforesting them, and farming them. Humanity has had a huge impact on the Amazon and and all the other rainforests on Earth for millennia, and yet the rain forests are still there
I have to agree with this one. Example A:
“Where the rain forests of Guatemala now stand, a great civilization once flourished. The people of Mayan society built vast cities, ornate temples, and towering pyramids. At its peak around 900 A.D., the population numbered 500 people per square mile in rural areas, and more than 2,000 people per square mile in the cities — comparable to modern Los Angeles County.”
Syl says:
I think you have missed my point. The reason that one can cherrypick is because one is looking at too short a period. If you carefully compute errorbars on the trendlines of around 5 or 8 or even 10 years like Tamino has done over on his blog, you find that they are large…So, the real answer is that the trend is simply too uncertain for short time periods.
However, all hope is not lost. The simple solution is to look over long enough periods that the trend is robust to the exact start and end points and whose data set you look at. How long that period needs to be depends on how much precision you want in the trendline…but, roughly speaking, 12 to 15 years seems to be about the minimum period that you want to take seriously. This requires a little more patience than trying to discern the current trend in global warming (or not) from last month’s temperature anomaly…but it is the only meaningful way to talk about the temperature trends that are relevant.
I don’t see how looking at absolute temperatures rather than anomalies will help you and it will just introduce other severe problems. There is a reason why people have chosen to look at anomalies.
Mike Bryant:
Whoops…sorry for the sloppy coding on the above post. Only the first paragraph is Mike Bryant’s words; the rest are mine.