Recently after some conversations with a former chemical engineer who provided me with some insight, I’ve come to the conclusion that many engineers have difficulty with many of the premises of AGW theory because in their “this has to work or people die” world of exacting standards, the AGW argument doesn’t hold up well by their standards of performance.
Today I was surprised to learn that one of the foremost and world famous engineers on the planet, Burt Rutan, has become an active climate skeptic. You may be familiar with some of Rutan’s work through his company, Scaled Composites:
Thanks to WUWT reader Dale Knutsen, I was provided a PowerPoint file recently by email presented by Mr. Rutan at the Oshkosh fly-in convention on July 29th, 2009 and again on August 1st, 2009. It has also now been posted online by an associate of Mr. Rutan’s.
There were a number of familiar things in the PowerPoint, including data plots from one of the USHCN stations I personally surveyed and highlighted, Santa Rosa, NM. Rutan had an interest in it because of the GISS adjustment to the data. For him, the whole argument is about the data. He says about his presentation in slide #3:
Not a Climatologist’s study; more from the view of a flight test guy who has spent a lifetime in data analysis/interpretation.
In the notes of his PowerPoint on slide #3, Rutan tells us why he thinks this way(emphasis mine):
My study is NOT as a climatologist, but from a completely different prospective in which I am an expert.
Complex data from disparate sources can be processed and presented in very different ways, and to “prove” many different theories.
For decades, as a professional experimental test engineer, I have analyzed experimental data and watched others massage and present data. I became a cynic; My conclusion – “if someone is aggressively selling a technical product who’s merits are dependant on complex experimental data, he is likely lying”. That is true whether the product is an airplane or a Carbon Credit.
Now since I’m sure people like foaming Joe Romm will immediately come out to label Mr. Rutan as a denier/delayer/generally bad person, one must be careful to note that Mr. Rutan is not your average denier/delayer. He’s “green”. Oh horrors, a “green denier”! Where have we seen that before?
From his PowerPoint, here’s his house, note the energy efficient earth walled design.
In his PowerPoint notes he says about his green interests:
My house was Nov 89 Pop Science Cover story; “World’s Most Efficient House”. Its big advantage is in the desert summer. It is all-electric and it uses more energy in the relatively mild winters than in the harsh summers – just the opposite of my neighbors.
The property has provisions for converting to self-sustaining (house and plug-in hybrid car) via adding wind generator and solar panels when it becomes cost effective to do so.
Testing Solar Water Heat in the 70s at RAF; the Rutan Aircraft Factory was converted to solar-heated water in the 70s, when others were only focused on gasoline costs.
My all electric EV-1 was best car I ever owned. Primary car for 7 years, all-electric with an 85 mile range. I was very sad (just like the guy shown) when the leased cars were recalled and crushed by General Motors. I will buy a real hybrid when one becomes available (plug-in with elect-range>60 miles). The Prius “hybrid” is not a hybrid, since it is fueled only by gasoline. A Plug-in Hybrid can be fueled with both gas and electricity. You might even see a ‘plug-in hybrid airplane’ in my future.
Interest is technology, not tree-hugging
Well that right there is reason enough to put all sorts or nasty labels on the man. Welcome to the club Burt, we are proud to have you!
Rutan’s closing observations slide is interesting:
And, in his notes he makes this mention:
Is the debate over? – The loudest Alarmist says the debate is over. However, “It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry”.
I think by the “loudest alarmist” he means Al Gore.
And his final slide:
Rutan’s PowerPoint file is posted at:
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
For those that don’t have PowerPoint, I’ve converted it to a PDF file for easy and immediate reading online which you can download here.
I wonder if in conversations with his biggest client, Virgin’s Richard Branson, he ever mentions Gore and their joint project? I’d love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation.
evanmjones: you spent a long time arguing that there was no correlation between CO2 and temperature, although the slightest glance at the data shows an obvious correlation. Now that I’ve shown you that, you suddenly say that’s not even important and want to talk about the ‘bigger picture’. Funny, that!
With your blow-by-blow description of the ups and downs of the temperature record over the last few years, you dance around the point without quite getting it: the ups and downs from month to month are weather, not climate. Climate is measured over decades, not months.
“You also seem to be saying the AMO and PDO are not meaningful to temperatures. Really? Are you saying CO2 is responsible for the rise from 1979 to 1998?”
The AMO and PDO indices have some correlation with global temperatures; they are related to measures of regional temperature, so it would be surprising if they didn’t. What you mean by “meaningful to temperatures” is not clear.
As for CO2… it is certainly the dominant contributor to the ongoing warming trend that didn’t start in 1979 and didn’t end in 1998, yes. If you want to believe that it wasn’t, you need to come up with a) some reason why its IR absorption properties mysteriously stopped working, and b) some other cause of the warming.
RW, you could not be more wrong that CO2 is the cause of global temperature increases. You do not even have a correlation, let alone causation.
To believe you, CO2 must have decreased just after the Medieval warming and during the little ice age, when global cooling occurred. Did it decrease?
To believe you, CO2 must have increased substantially to warm the globe out of the little ice age. Did it?
To believe you, CO2 must have decreased substantially since 1998 to create the recent cooling. Did it?
To believe you, CO2 must have increased remarkably just before and during the Medieval warming. Did it?
Please present your proof.
RW (11:16:33) :
Not even the IPCC makes a claim that strong. Is there something you know that they don’t?
RW,
it is certainly the dominant contributor to the ongoing warming trend that didn’t start in 1979 and didn’t end in 1998, yes.
I do not concede the certainty. CO2 rise did not accelerate until post WWII (and measures prior to that are via proxy). From 1950 to the mid 1970s, for whatever reason, temperatures cooled. So you will have to define your statement above more precisely.
Temperatures did increase from the mid ’70s to 1998. From then until the start of 2007, the trend is rather flat (the major oscillations being in warm phase). In 2007, the PDO went into cold phase and temperatures have dropped. That is a correlation. That is also the data.
As for post 1998, either include both the 1998 El Nino and the 1999-2001 La Nina or exclude them both and start in 2001. (Starting anywhere in between 1998 and 2001 is cherrypicking.) By either measure there has been a downward trend to date.
If you are implying, as you seem to be, that temperatures have increased since 1998 or 2001, you are simply not following the graphs.
As I said before, adjusted (not raw) temperatures have increased by ~0.7C during the 20th century. Not even the IPCC says that this is all due to CO2 increase. This is no emergency, whatever.
For the IPCC mainstream scenario to be correct, we would have to warm on the order of 0.4C per decade. (If the low-end IPCC scenario is correct, there is also no pressing emergency.)
Therefore, you must show me that positive feedbacks will come into play that greatly accelerate this trend for it to be an emergency. You have not addressed this point (other than to castigate me for bringing it forward).
If you want to believe that it wasn’t, you need to come up with a) some reason why its IR absorption properties mysteriously stopped working, and b) some other cause of the warming.
Fair enough.
a.) They haven’t, but the effects so far have been mild and there is the question of diminishing returns (not mysterious, but currently in dispute) and the IPCC version of the persistence of CO2 is currently sharply disputed. Then there’s that critically important positive feedback issue . . .
b.) There has been some recovery from the Little Ice Age, which ended around the 1840s. The Loehle reconstructions indicate that we are not yet recovered to MWP levels. (Solar electromagnetic measurements are currently being disputed, so we can set that aside until it is clarified.)
As for climate from the mid 1970s to present, there has been some increase. But the “Big Six” oscillations were all in cool phase in 1975. When they turned warm (one by one until until 2001) temperatures increased at a bit over 0.3C per decade. From 2001 to 2007, they were in warm phase. In the last two years, PDO has turned cool. The others are either wavering or are still in warm phase. Temperatures are definitely down from that point (Jan. 2007).
That is the story of the last 30 years of climate. The last century showed an (adjusted) increase of ~0.7C.
Therefore the dominant reason for the rise since the mid 1970s is the oscillation factor. CO2 has probably had a small underlying effect, but would not seem to be the main factor.
“RW, you could not be more wrong that CO2 is the cause of global temperature increases. You do not even have a correlation, let alone causation.”
Look, are you actually unable to comprehend the data, or are you just hoping that if you say the same thing enough times, someone will believe you? There is a strong correlation between CO2 concentrations and global temperatures.
“To believe you, CO2 must have decreased just after the Medieval warming and during the little ice age, when global cooling occurred. Did it decrease?
To believe you, CO2 must have increased substantially to warm the globe out of the little ice age. Did it?
To believe you, CO2 must have decreased substantially since 1998 to create the recent cooling. Did it?
To believe you, CO2 must have increased remarkably just before and during the Medieval warming. Did it?”
There has been no “recent cooling”. The last decade is the warmest in the instrumental record. CO2 is the dominant cause of the current rise in global temperatures. In what way does that have any bearing on the factors which caused previous climate changes?
evanmjones:
“I do not concede the certainty. CO2 rise did not accelerate until post WWII (and measures prior to that are via proxy). From 1950 to the mid 1970s, for whatever reason, temperatures cooled. So you will have to define your statement above more precisely.”
CO2 began to rise in the mid-19th century, and your points have little relevance to the attribution of the current global warming to rising greenhouse gas concentrations.
“Temperatures did increase from the mid ’70s to 1998. From then until the start of 2007, the trend is rather flat (the major oscillations being in warm phase). In 2007, the PDO went into cold phase and temperatures have dropped. That is a correlation. That is also the data.”
Clearly you are not willing to understand that you cannot measure climate over 10 years. It’s measured over decades. All your talk about cooling over 2 years, or 10 years, is meaningless. As I showed you, all indices show rising temperatures over the last 24 months. That is anti-correlation with the PDO. You would prefer to consider the last 30 months – this is called ‘cherry-picking’.
“As for post 1998, either include both the 1998 El Nino and the 1999-2001 La Nina or exclude them both and start in 2001. (Starting anywhere in between 1998 and 2001 is cherrypicking.) By either measure there has been a downward trend to date.”
Again, you’re simply not willing to understand statistical significance. You cannot measure any trend – positive or negative – since 2001.
“If you are implying, as you seem to be, that temperatures have increased since 1998 or 2001, you are simply not following the graphs.”
The data from 1975-1998 shows a statistically significant warming trend. The data from 1975-2008 shows a statistically significant and larger warming trend. There is no evidence at all of any cooling trend. You are simply not understanding the data.
“This is no emergency, whatever.”
Ah, finally, an interesting point that hasn’t been debunked a billion times. This is something we could have a sensible discussion about.
“For the IPCC mainstream scenario to be correct, we would have to warm on the order of 0.4C per decade.”
“the IPCC version of the persistence of CO2 is currently sharply disputed.”
Not by scientists.
“There has been some recovery from the Little Ice Age, which ended around the 1840s. The Loehle reconstructions indicate that we are not yet recovered to MWP levels. (Solar electromagnetic measurements are currently being disputed, so we can set that aside until it is clarified.)”
The word ‘recovery’ in the sense you are trying to use it means nothing. The climate never ‘recovers’. Didn’t I tell you that before? You seem to be trying to say that the warming was caused by warming.
You seem to have given up trying to deny the existence of a correlation between CO2 and temperatures, which is good. As you now want to talk about feedback, I’ve got a question for you. When you look at the paleoclimate record, do you see a) smooth variation, or b) long periods of stability followed by sudden jumps? It is believed that ice ages are triggered by variations in the Earth’s orbital parameters. Do these parameters a) vary smoothly, or b) stay the same for long periods and then suddenly change?
I did not say there was no correlation between CO2 and temperatures, I merely said it was poor and that oscillations (certainly from 1979 to date) correlate far better. The far greater ups and downs seem to have little to do with CO2. If CO2 were a dominating factor, it would follow the major wiggles. It does not. Therefore it may well have a minor upward imprint, but does not call the tune.
The 1979 – 1998 period was one of those sharp multi-oscillation. Since then, temps are clearly down, though not as far as the upswing. But that is because only one oscillation has gone cool and only just recently.
I will go so far as to say that a 30-year period is, in this case, too short to fully judge. We need 50 or 60. What we have now is a cool point (1979) to a point where things have just begun to cool significantly (2009).
We need to wait until the major oscillations have flipped back to cool (as in 1975) before we can isolate any non-oscillation related effects. Cool point to cool point. But we will have to wait another two decades for that.
As I showed you, all indices show rising temperatures over the last 24 months. That is anti-correlation with the PDO. You would prefer to consider the last 30 months – this is called ‘cherry-picking’.
However, you will note that my “cherrypicking” trend holds as far back as 100 months, whereas yours ceases abruptly after six months. Therefore your cherries are redder than mine.
Not by scientists.
By many scientists. (There was a peer-reviewed paper recently on just this subject mentioned on this blog. Using isotope ratios as evidence, just as those opposed to the position have.)
No point in spitballing over the semantics of the word “recovery”. The question is whether it has been this warm before without increased CO2. It seems that it has been. Therefore, even stipulating that CO2 accounts for 100% of the warming (upwardly adjusted from the raw or even the TOBS data, and not accounting for station siting), it has been this warm before. And the Roman Warm period is said to have exceeded the MWP. And the Bronze Age Maximum warmer still.
Therefore, even assuming CO2 has an effect, the extent of the effect is highly questionable and does not exceed natural parameters.
RW: BTW, I agree with you (and disagree with many here) that it is quite plausible for a 3% per year “contribution” to CO2 to drive up CO2 levels quite a lot over time. At this point there appears to be a 0.4% annual increase.
I don’t think this rates an emergency response, however. As Churchill might have put it, we are approaching the end of the beginning of our understanding of climate. Long way to go to the end.
Bob Meyer (02:33:18) :
“This engineers’ attitude isn’t arrogance. On the contrary it’s the result of having been humbled by nature on a regular basis. We fail far more often than we succeed, it’s just that we don’t try to sell our failures as successes.”
I agree Bob – you speak with the voice of well earned experience; as both an individual engineer and for the whole profession. I reckon that we could all live without ‘climate scientists’ but we sure would struggle without engineers. And I speak as a non-engineer.
RW NO, THERE’S NOT
There, do you feel better by shouting in bold?
No presentation of a graph, undocumented, without source, such as you offered above, is persuasive. It is, however, a lame attempt by one who has no armament at his disposal. You warmists are always yammering on about how climate is a long-term effect; therefore, produce some well-documented values for CO2 and global temperature over several centuries, and we will talk. I wish I had you as a hostile witness in a court-room with a graph like the one you offer; that would just make my day.
Roger Sowell (20:28:33) :
Hi Roger!
To RW: “I wish I had you as a hostile witness in a court-room…”
AGW just wouldn’t stand up in court. Is there any way that we could try it?
RW I have several questions. 1) What do you think of Al Gore’s year 2100 predictions compared to the IPCC’s predictions? 2) Do your models show constant proportional increase in temperature to the increase in ppm CO2 indefinitely or is there a diminishing return at some point? 3) When you say “not by scientists” can you elaborate on who you are talking about and where all this polling data on these “scientists” can be found? Thanks for your answers.
Jimmy Haigh (22:30:15) :
“AGW just wouldn’t stand up in court. Is there any way that we could try it?”
Jimmy, there are lots of ways, and I wrote about that here:
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/legal-challenges-to-global-warming.html
Since I wrote this (March 2009), Tesoro has dropped their lawsuit.
>>> RW
>>>As I showed you, all indices show rising temperatures
>>>over the last 24 months.
Not when I last looked they did not.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2007/to:2009/plot/gistemp/from:2007/to:2009/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2007/to:2009/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2007/to:2009/trend
Is that some sort of new-fangled AGW ‘inverted increase’?? Please explain.
.
evanmjones:
“I did not say there was no correlation between CO2 and temperatures, I merely said it was poor and that oscillations (certainly from 1979 to date) correlate far better. The far greater ups and downs seem to have little to do with CO2. If CO2 were a dominating factor, it would follow the major wiggles. It does not. Therefore it may well have a minor upward imprint, but does not call the tune.”
Well, I showed you the data already. I told you how you can replicate it yourself. I invited you to calculate correlations with oscillations. It seems you didn’t bother and instead you wish to stick to unfounded beliefs. If R² = 0.78, it would be mathematically inept to describe the correlation as ‘poor’. On what mathematical basis, if any, are you making your claims?
“The 1979 – 1998 period was one of those sharp multi-oscillation. Since then, temps are clearly down, though not as far as the upswing. But that is because only one oscillation has gone cool and only just recently.”
Temperatures cannot possibly be described as “clearly down” when the decade following 1998 has been warmer than the decade preceding it.
“I will go so far as to say that a 30-year period is, in this case, too short to fully judge. We need 50 or 60. What we have now is a cool point (1979) to a point where things have just begun to cool significantly (2009).”
Things have not “begun to cool significantly”. Once again you’re making statements that are completely contradictory to the observational data. We do have more than 100 years of instrumental data, you know.
“However, you will note that my “cherrypicking” trend holds as far back as 100 months, whereas yours ceases abruptly after six months. Therefore your cherries are redder than mine.”
I didn’t claim anything at all based on 24 months, other than using it as an example of how ridiculous it is to claim anything about climate based on less than 10 years of data. It seems you missed that point.
“No point in spitballing over the semantics of the word “recovery”. The question is whether it has been this warm before without increased CO2. It seems that it has been. Therefore, even stipulating that CO2 accounts for 100% of the warming (upwardly adjusted from the raw or even the TOBS data, and not accounting for station siting), it has been this warm before. And the Roman Warm period is said to have exceeded the MWP. And the Bronze Age Maximum warmer still.”
Once again, you switch your argument as soon as it comes under any scrutiny. How very tiresome. The attribution of the causes of previous climate changes is a separate problem to the attribution of the cause of this current climate change. Your point is what’s called a “straw man”.
“Therefore, even assuming CO2 has an effect, the extent of the effect is highly questionable and does not exceed natural parameters.”
This statement doesn’t make sense.
You ignored my questions about paleoclimate. Why?
Roger Sowell:
“No presentation of a graph, undocumented, without source, such as you offered above, is persuasive.”
I told you which data the graph was based on. The strong correlation is there, staring you in the face, and still you deny that it exists. This is irrational and it means that for you, this is about faith and not science.
MTS:
“RW I have several questions. 1) What do you think of Al Gore’s year 2100 predictions compared to the IPCC’s predictions? 2) Do your models show constant proportional increase in temperature to the increase in ppm CO2 indefinitely or is there a diminishing return at some point? 3) When you say “not by scientists” can you elaborate on who you are talking about and where all this polling data on these “scientists” can be found? Thanks for your answers.”
1. What are Al Gore’s predictions?
2. The forcing from CO2 is proportional to the logarithm of the fractional increase. The response of the climate to that forcing is likely to be highly non-linear but is extremely unlikely to be less than 2°C for a doubling of CO2.
3. The long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is well established. Perhaps you could clarify exactly who thinks it isn’t.
ralph ellis:
” >>> RW
>>>As I showed you, all indices show rising temperatures
>>>over the last 24 months.
Not when I last looked they did not.”
You were not looking at the last 24 months. The point to take away is that short term variations tell us nothing about climate.
Well, I showed you the data already. I told you how you can replicate it yourself. I invited you to calculate correlations with oscillations. It seems you didn’t bother and instead you wish to stick to unfounded beliefs. If R² = 0.78, it would be mathematically inept to describe the correlation as ‘poor’. On what mathematical basis, if any, are you making your claims?
Well, mainly on the fact that when the oscillations wiggle, the graphs wiggle. CO2 is a simple curve that does not conform with ups and downs. This indicates that it may have an underlying fingerprint, but does not closely correspond. Other factors such as “recovery” [sic] from the LIA, land use, black carbon/dirty snow, etc., also contribute.
Your contention is that CO2 is the primary driver. I do not think you have even vaguely proven that.
Temperatures cannot possibly be described as “clearly down” when the decade following 1998 has been warmer than the decade preceding it.
Um. Yes, they can if the trend is down.
Carter pointed out that inflation was worse under Reagan’s first four years than under his term. Well, when you took the average, this was quite correct.
Reagan’s replay was, “If the Carter administration were a book, you’d have to read it back to front to get a happy ending.”
Once again, you switch your argument as soon as it comes under any scrutiny. How very tiresome. The attribution of the causes of previous climate changes is a separate problem to the attribution of the cause of this current climate change. Your point is what’s called a “straw man”.
Stuff and nonsense. And tiresome. Reversion to the norm is not what I would call a straw man. YMMV. There have been many recoveries from cool periods. None of them have been due to CO2. Therefore, CO2 cannot simply be isolated as a primary cause.
This statement doesn’t make sense.
Then I will explain. The current maximum does not exceed the three previous maximums. Therefore the current maximum, whatever its cause, is within the natural range. There may well be CO2 influence, but it also would not appear to be “primary”, as it did not bring about the previous maximums and does not follow the ups and downs.
You ignored my questions about paleoclimate. Why?
Not particularly relevant, as there is currently no such “jump”. Sure, things can change fast, and not just because of Milankovitch cycles. The Younger Dryas ended in about three years; no one is sure why. Milankovitch cycles are said to have effect through positive feedback. Very well and good. So we look for evidence of positive CO2 feedback. The result, so far, is for negative CO2 feedback. So positive feedbacks a la Milankovitch do not seem to apply in the case of CO2.
I asked: On what mathematical basis, if any, are you making your claims?
You replied: “Well, mainly on the fact that when the oscillations wiggle, the graphs wiggle. CO2 is a simple curve that does not conform with ups and downs. This indicates that it may have an underlying fingerprint, but does not closely correspond. Other factors such as “recovery” [sic] from the LIA, land use, black carbon/dirty snow, etc., also contribute.”
That is not a mathematical basis. I ask again: On what mathematical basis, if any, are you making your claims? To be clearer – choose your data sets and calculate correlation coefficients between them. Tell us what they are. Do not waffle, please – just give us the numbers.
“Temperatures cannot possibly be described as “clearly down” when the decade following 1998 has been warmer than the decade preceding it.
Um. Yes, they can if the trend is down.”
There is no statistically significant trend in global temperatures over the last 10 years. For the nth time – climate is measured over decades, not years.
“There have been many recoveries from cool periods.”
There has never, ever, in the history of the Earth, been a ‘recovery’ from any climatic period, cold or hot, in the sense that you seem to mean it. If it gets colder, then unless whatever caused it to get cold changes, then it will stay cold.
“None of them have been due to CO2. Therefore, CO2 cannot simply be isolated as a primary cause.”
Non sequitur. Do you think that every climate change must have exactly the same attribution?
“Then I will explain. The current maximum does not exceed the three previous maximums. Therefore the current maximum, whatever its cause, is within the natural range. There may well be CO2 influence, but it also would not appear to be “primary”, as it did not bring about the previous maximums and does not follow the ups and downs.”
Non sequitur, as before. Think of it this way – if you get run over by a car tomorrow, your lifespan would certainly have fallen within the range of natural variability. Does that help us attribute the cause of your death?
“Sure, things can change fast, and not just because of Milankovitch cycles. The Younger Dryas ended in about three years; no one is sure why. Milankovitch cycles are said to have effect through positive feedback. Very well and good. So we look for evidence of positive CO2 feedback. The result, so far, is for negative CO2 feedback. So positive feedbacks a la Milankovitch do not seem to apply in the case of CO2.”
You have allowed yourself to be badly misled about feedbacks, it seems. Feedback cannot distinguish between forcings. The paleoclimate record demonstrates that positive feedbacks exist in the climate system. It is physically impossible for feedbacks to react to one forcing and not another.
Well, knock me over with a feather. RW is wrong again.
RW screams in bold: “There is a strong correlation between CO2 concentrations and global temperatures.”
Um… no, there’s not.
Notice in the chart the R^2 non-correlation of 0.07? There is no cause and effect between rising CO2 and temperature. None. 0.07 is way down in the noise.
But mathematics is helpless against cognitive dissonance.
Well, the multidecadal cycles switched from cool to warm as follows:
SO: 1977
PDO: 1977
IPO: 1978
AAO: 1980
AO: 1989
AMO: 1996
NAO: 2001
In 2007, the PDO went to cool phase. (The AMO and possibly the AO seem to be headed that way.)
So it is little wonder that the last decade has been relatively flat and warm. Since the PDO switched, it has cooled.
CO2 also rose steadily. But it also rose steadily from 1950 to 1975 during a cooling trend.
There is no statistically significant trend in global temperatures over the last 10 years. For the nth time – climate is measured over decades, not years.
I do not think it irrelevant to break up the ~30-year trend and examine it in light of the multidecadal cycles. YMMV. 20 years up to high point in 1998, eleven years down. Ocean cycles warming to 2001, steady to 2007, down since then. CO2 up steadily throughout.
There has never, ever, in the history of the Earth, been a ‘recovery’ from any climatic period, cold or hot, in the sense that you seem to mean it. If it gets colder, then unless whatever caused it to get cold changes, then it will stay cold.
You are stuck on the word “recovery”. But yes, obviously unless there is some change in environment, there will be no change in climate.
“None of them have been due to CO2. Therefore, CO2 cannot simply be isolated as a primary cause.”
Non sequitur. Do you think that every climate change must have exactly the same attribution?
No. But if one can show a valid hockey stick with only one change and one changing condition, the argument is strengthened. With continual ups and downs, the connection is weakened, especially if the current situation is less of an up or down.
It is physically impossible for feedbacks to react to one forcing and not another.
You mean possible? Typo? Or do I misunderstand?
You have allowed yourself to be badly misled about feedbacks, it seems. Feedback cannot distinguish between forcings. The paleoclimate record demonstrates that positive feedbacks exist in the climate system.
Sure they do. From a number of causes (continental drift, Milankovitch cycles + (possibly) Inclination). But not for CO2, which seems to be a tail, not the dog, and only varies by 100 ppm anyway. We have an over 100 ppm CO2 increase, but only a 0.7C increase in temperatures, and that 0.7C has questionable upward adjustments. Therefore, CO2 positive feedback does not appear to be at issue, at least not at this time.
BTW, just so you know, I have been the one approving your latest series of posts (complete, unedited). So I am perfectly willing to discuss the matter. It is even possible that we agree on more than we appear to. Our main material difference seems to be that you say CO2 is the dominating factor, while I say it is a more minor fingerprint, and that we disagree on the breakdown of the last 30 years (you appear object to looking at it in chunks from highest to lowest points, while I think it relevant to do so).
I read some of the adulatory posts on this page, and checked out Rutan’s presentation. It seems to me that there is no new revelation about the GHG theory in it. It is the same stuff I have been seeing warmed over repeatedly.
In my opinion all of his arguments have been answered repeatedly, and he doesn’t deal with the rebuttals. This is not the mark of a great engineer.
Some of the misleading slides he has shown have been mentioned by other posters.
eric,
I think if you put some real effort into it, you could be a little more vague.
Well, eric, you now how it is these days. Rebuttals, counterrebuttals, counter-counter rebuttals it’s all where you end . . . the debate is on, that’s for sure.
It’s all antidisestablishmentarianism. The question is, who is to be the establishment?
#B^1
evanmjones:
I’ve asked you twice but you have not told me what mathematical basis there is for your claims about correlations. Please would you tell me which data you are using, and what correlation coefficients you calculate for T v CO2, and T v other variable.
“obviously unless there is some change in environment, there will be no change in climate.”
I’m glad we agree on that.
“No. But if one can show a valid hockey stick with only one change and one changing condition, the argument is strengthened. With continual ups and downs, the connection is weakened, especially if the current situation is less of an up or down.”
I cannot make sense of this paragraph.
“You mean possible? Typo? Or do I misunderstand?”
No, it is physically impossible for feedbacks to react to one forcing and not another. For example, the ice-albedo feedback. Melting ice lowers albedo resulting in more heating and more melting of ice. It operates regardless of what initially triggered the melting. How could it be otherwise? You are saying, though, that feedbacks that operate for other forcings somehow do not work when CO2 is causing temperature increases.
“you appear object to looking at it in chunks from highest to lowest points, while I think it relevant to do so”
Any chunk of the temperature record less than 15 years or so long cannot tell us anything about climate. This is a non-negotiable fact – a simple matter of definition. Your continual talk about “trends” over 2, 5 or 10 years is mathematically meaningless – these “trends” are not statistically significant – and it’s also physically meaningless because climate is measured over decades, not months or years.
RW (15:41:16) :
One should be cautious with this sort of argument. For example, the ice albedo feedback might respond differently to melting caused by wind events +warm currents, for example, than to increased longwave trapping and/or a poleward shift of the general circulation.
A better example might be changes in atmospheric particulate matter, which might increase reflectivity in some areas and increase absorptivity in others. The number you would get for a radiative forcing might be the same for several scenarios and yet the feedback from water vapor or ice melt might be quite different.
Let me be more plain.
I do not dispute the fact that there has been some warming during the 20th century, though I heartily suspect it is about half of what is measured. That is to say the TOBS correction is more or less valid (though perhaps exaggerated), but the “neutral” (NOT) adjustments of FILNET are not valid. Unless, of course, it just happens that USHCN curators have an abject hatred of measuring temperatures on warm days.
I also do not dispute the rise in CO2, though I question the IPCC version of persistence.
Neither do I dispute that when you decouple the years the correlation strengthens.
However, when you run it along date lines (unlike your graph) you get multidecadal rises and falls that correlate with the rises and falls of the multidecadal oceanic-atmospheric cycles, while the rise in CO2 is a simple curve. I do not dispute the numbers in your graph, I merely note the arrangement, which is not strictly chronological.
I am sure I do not have to post the CO2 curve vs. temperatures arranged chronologically. We have all seen those until we are blue in the eyes. They are all over this site if you care to find them.
Therefore I suspect CO2 leaves a fingerprint, but is not the dominant factor. Even the IPCC does not attribute all of the 20th century rise to CO2, but allows for such factors as land use and black carbon (both anthropogenic). Most scientists believe that low sunspot activity contributed to the LIA, and that an increase brought us out. I call that “recovery”, you can call it what you wish. It is pure semantics, and I don’t really care what the label is.
Therefore I think that CO2 and other factors, some natural, some anthropogenic have had an upward pressure on temperatures since 1900, but the main run-ups during the ’20/’30s and the ’80s/90s are primarily due to the cycles and cannot be used to illustrate the effect of CO2 or the other underlying factors.
I further assert that even if the adjusted temperature record is correct and CO2 has contributed 100% to the adjusted warming, we have no real emergency. You have agreed that this is something that is at least arguable.
And yes, I believe in that positive feedbacks can occur and have occurred. But I do not believe that CO2 is creating an overall positive feedback. So far, evidence does not show much of an increase in ambient vapor or cirrus clouds, but rather an increase of low-level clouds which increases albedo and acts as a negative feedback. Spencer and others are currently fighting that one out.
That’s really about it.
As it is, this thread is about to fade off the queue and we are running in circles without saying anything new.