I have been remiss at posting reviews on several books that people have sent me. I hope to get some of them up in the next week. Dr. Spencer’s announcement below is a start, though his is the one book I don’t have. – Anthony
============
The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists
By Dr. Roy Spencer
Today (April 20) is the official release date of my new book entitled: “The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists“, published by Encounter Books.
About one-half of Blunder is a non-technical description of our new peer reviewed and soon-to-be-published research which supports the opinion that a majority of Americans already hold: that warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system — not to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.
Believe it or not, this potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously researched by climate scientists. The main reason they have ignored this possibility is that they cannot think of what might have caused it.
You see, climate researchers are rather myopic. They think that the only way for global-average temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced ‘externally’…by a change in the output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption. These are events which occur external to the normal, internal operation of the climate system.
But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change. Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.
As I travel around the country, I find that the public instinctively understands the possibility that there are natural climate cycles. Unfortunately, it is the climate “experts” who have difficulty grasping the concept. This is why I am taking my case to the public in this book. The climate research community long ago took the wrong fork in the road, and I am afraid that it might be too late for them to turn back.
NATURE’S SUNSHADE: CLOUDS
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.
How could the experts have missed such a simple explanation? Because they have convinced themselves that only a temperature change can cause a cloud cover change, and not the other way around. The issue is one of causation. They have not accounted for cloud changes causing temperature changes.
The experts have simply mixed up cause and effect when observing how clouds and temperature vary. The book reveals a simple way to determine the direction of causation from satellite observations of global average temperature and cloud variations. And that new tool should fundamentally change how we view the climate system.
Blunder also addresses a second major mistake that results from ignoring the effect of natural cloud variations on temperature: it results in the illusion that the climate system is very sensitive. The experts claim that, since our climate system is very sensitive, then our carbon dioxide emissions are all that is needed to explain global warming. There is no need to look for alternative explanations.
But I show that the experts have merely reasoned themselves in a circle on this subject. When properly interpreted, our satellite observations actually reveal that the system is quite IN-sensitive. And an insensitive climate system means that nature does not really care whether you travel by jet, or how many hamburgers or steaks you eat.
CARBON DIOXIDE: FRIEND OR FOE?
The supposed explanation that global warming is due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide from our burning of fossil fuels turns out to be based upon little more than circumstantial evidence. It is partly a symptom of our rather primitive understanding of how the climate system works.
And I predict that the proposed cure for global warming – reducing greenhouse gas emissions – will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that scientific knowledge is continually changing, it is increasingly apparent that the politicians are not going to let little things like facts get in their way. For instance, a new draft climate change report was released by the U.S. yesterday (April 19) which, in part, says: “Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced … Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.”
You see, the legislative train left the station many years ago, and no amount of new science will slow it down as it accelerates toward its final destination: forcibly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
But in Blunder I address what other scientists should have the courage to admit: that maybe putting more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. Given that it is necessary for life on Earth, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surprisingly small. We already know that nature is gobbling up 50% of what humanity produces, no matter how fast we produce it. So, it is only logical to address the possibility that nature — that life on Earth — has actually been starved for carbon dioxide.
This should give you some idea of the major themes of my new book. I am under no illusion that the book will settle the scientific debate over global warming.
To the contrary — I am hoping the debate will finally begin.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Re: David Middleton (13:06:13) :
Re: Dennis Nikols (12:41:39) :
No, David Middleton. The present is the key to understanding the past. It is not myopia but ignorance that you are talking about. It is hubris combined with ignorance that drives ideology.
The actual Lyell quote is, “the present is the key to the past.” However, geology is an extremely interpretive science… So it’s all about understanding the past through interpretation of the rock record in the context of modern Earth processes
In point of fact guys, the expression, “the present is the key to the past”, is not from Lyell and, to quote Stephen J Gould, is but “loosely translated textbook catechism”. Uniformitarianism was Hutton’s idea, not Lyell’s. The actual quote appearing in Lyell’s Principles is, “an attempt to explain the former changes in the earth’s surface by reference to causes now in operation.” And, by the way, the term uniformitarianism was used by neither Hutton no Lyell but William Whewell in an early review of Principles.
Given that it is necessary for life on Earth, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surprisingly small.
This is what started me questioning the ‘CO2 causes global warming story’ about five years ago. The comment by Dr Spencer The climate research community long ago took the wrong fork in the road, and I am afraid that it might be too late for them to turn back. is a good analogy. The further our viewpoints diverge the more difficult it is to understand each others argument. This is very unfortunate for reputation of science, in the future there are going to be some red faces out there.
Wade Burchette says:
There is a difference between “believ[ing] in God” and claiming that “intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism” ( http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I ) The former is a statement of personal religious belief that lies beyond the realm of science; the latter is a statement about science that some us feel shows poor scientific judgement.
Gail Combs writes, “No one here is suggesting we should all live like Al Gore.” I’m guessing GC doesn’t know how Al Gore lives – it’s nothing like what he prescribes for the rest of us. I would love to live like Al, but can’t afford it. I’m not so much into houseboats, but a fast 6-place turboprop would be really convenient.
“Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity” is an application of Occam’s Razor. One must be careful not to trim away too much using the Razor, as malice has a way of causing far more damage than does stupidity. As Einstein famously put it, “Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
There is no way to distinguish what is happening from intentional subversion. Herein lies an appropriate application of the precautionary principle.
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.
============
Fluctuations aren’t trends. Fluctuations are things that come and go. The notion that fluctuations in the global cloud cover is the cause of the long-term trend in waring just doesn’t make sense to me, if that’s what is meant.
David Middleton (11:00:43) said “… Looks like a trip to Barnes & Noble this weekend is in order”.
Good luck. Last time I was in there, I couldn’t find a single volume of anything that wasn’t 100% AGW party line. However, they did have a half dozen copies of algore’s latest screed. Maybe if their ‘science’ section was a quarter of the size of their psychology section, they might have some room for differing opinions.
Phil M. (12:32:19) said several strange but revealing things:
“Is a corallary to the skeptical viewpoint one that condones boundless consumption of natural resources? Judging by the impairment of air and watersheds in this country, I would hazard a guess that Nature does indeed care how many steaks we eat or how many jets we fly.”
Sounds like his goal is to return the planet to a an idyllic state of balance and harmony that could only have existed before the dawn of man! His romantic notion of nature unemcumbered by the ‘impairment’ of man’s endeavors is simply not realistic. He’s probably coming from the perspective of an urbanite to who has had liitle life experience with the rigors of nature. By the way, why does he use a capital ‘N’ in the word nature? Is it a proper noun?
He also said, “Wise though he may be, Dr. Spencer is clearly not an ecologist.”
What is an ecologist? Ecology is not a science. It is political philosophy cobbled together from politics and religion with a little bit of science mixed in. It is based mostly on objective opinion and faith and less on empirical observaton and facts. I’ve never met anyone who describes themselves as an ‘ecologist’ who was not a subscriber to other collectivist political philosophies. Fortunatley, Dr. Spencer is not an ecologist. On the contrary, he is a skeptical scientist.
“To say that the Earth has historically been CO2 limited and, therefore, an increase in CO2 is a beneficial thing is ridiculous. If this were true, shouldn’t excess N and P in terrestrial waterbodies also be beneficial to humans?”
Nice try, but sorry, no analogy here! Nitrates and phosphates are not the constructional basis for all life in aquatic ecosystems. But, if you’re saying that simply stating well documented scientific fact is grounds for being considered ridiculous, then we could stand for a few more ridiculous people in this public debate.
Wren (20:18:51) :
“Fluctuations aren’t trends. Fluctuations are things that come and go.”
Wren, get a grip on reality. Climate fluctuations are simply deviations from the trend. Some folks call them anomalies.
My wife happened to be out on a shopping trip today, and I happened to have a couple of Barnes and Noble gift certificates left over from Christmas. I asked her to see if they had Spencer’s book. Sure enough, they did, and I’m more than half way through it already. It’s thought provoking to say the least, and I look forward to the interesting discussions (arguments) that it will inspire.
Unfortunately, Barnes and Noble didn’t have Climategate: the CRUtape Letters, or Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. I may have to spend my own money for those. 🙁
@mbabbitt: Regarding the Bohr effect: shouldn’t this mean that submariners have better than ordinary health? Has anyone checked? If not, they should.
Gail was aware of that. She was being facetious.
(She was responding to Phil M.’s rhetorical question, “Should be recommend eating five pounds of hamburger per week”? Her response implied he was a high-consumption icon.)
Analogy Fail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Medical_Leech#Today
Dr. Spencer,
One tiny flaw in your logic. Most complex systems contain natural cycles and resonances. This means external forcing does become an issue if there is a synchronization between these the periodicity of the internal natural cycles and the periodicity of the external forcing agent.
This is the case with the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). A natural internal cycle governing the sea-surface temperature patterns in the Pacific ocean are synchronized with a combination of the 20.3 year lunar/solar tidal cycle (since 251 synodic months = 269 anomalistic months approx = 20.2928 Anomalistic (Earth orbit) years) and the 62.0 year
lunar/solar tidal cycle.
Smokey (20:24:29) :
Wren (20:18:51) :
“Fluctuations aren’t trends. Fluctuations are things that come and go.”
Wren, get a grip on reality. Climate fluctuations are simply deviations from the trend. Some folks call them anomalies.
====
Which is what I said, except for the “anomalies.”
A temperature anomaly is an index with a base period, not a measure of a deviation from a trend. A temperature anomaly could be on the trend line.
Mmmmmmmmm Global warming’s real.
“”George E. Smith (16:36:22) :
And why did they not simply hold all the temperatures constant, while they increased the CO2 so they could see what the climate effect of that is ?””
Because CO2 covers a small unique ‘window’ itself! However, convection and latent convection renders this inconsequential! Nothing to see here, move along please!
High five George, nice to see you in threads on an educational POV. 🙂
As soon as a ‘radiative’ forcing component of energy is ‘absorbed’ into the ‘kinetic’ system, it’s no longer a ‘radiative forcing’! Thus, the energy trans-locates to the attractor of ‘sensible heat transport’ and ‘latent heat transport’. IOW, CO2 in the lower troposphere makes no difference to temperatures. It only makes a difference in the more ‘rarefied’ regions of the atmosphere (low pressures [high altitudes] that are more open for irradiation into space). Thus, lower troposphere temperatures aren’t altered much by CO2 as they rely on convection with latent transport.
Got to go now!
Best regards, suricat.
Joel Shore (20:10:45) :
……The former is a statement of personal religious belief that lies beyond the realm of science; the latter is a statement about science that some us feel shows poor scientific judgement………..
Martin Rees the Astronomer Royal (AGW consensus advocate) is also a believer in “intelligent design”
Which of these two positions would qualify for “some us feel shows poor scientific judgement”
John from CA (12:56:34) : Looking forward to the read. “…, a new draft climate change report was released by the U.S. yesterday…”
… The language has dramatically changed from CO2 to Carbon Pollution …
Sounds much like the PDF pointed to in Tipsy Notes yesterday, John.
“Meeting the Energy-Challenge” (John P. Holdren)
Fact and fiction are seamlessly blended. Acknowledgements in the nature of “Wal… we may have been a little hasty in the past on this…” followed by “But consider this cold, hard fact!” which is an injection of blatant scaremongering fiction — over and over.
It absolutely infuriated me with its simplistic “lessons” and condescending tone and the obvious presumption that it would fool sufficient of the populace to give it authority.
It ends with the words: “it’s a huge asset and a huge opportunity to have a President who gets it! A President with vision.”
I think your president is being fooled; or else is wilfully careless — however, I fear enough good folks of trust but no expertise (and why should they have any?) will take the bait.
It all sounds so reasonable; as does any successful confidence trick.
“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover.”
Considering we’ve cut down over 50% of the rainforests, is this not enough on it’s own to explain the required decrease in cloud cover?
I watch a lecture about a reforestation program to restore Baboon habitat, satellite pictures clearly demonstrated a marked increase in cloud cover over the massive area of the scheme within 20 years, which seems pertinent to this.
Dr. Spencer, I have your book on order; I greatly look forward to reading it.
Phil M. – Get a life! Dr. Spencer’s point was a metaphor about the relative insensitivity of the climate system, not a justification of reckless consumption of resources. You completely misunderstand or, more likely, refuse to understand, because you have been trapped in that “ecological” mind frame that everything humans do in nature is bad for nature.
CO2 remains a trace gas in our atmosphere, yet it is fundamental to the development of plant life. So your analogy to N and P in terrestrial water bodies limps very badly. We have not yet understood the climate system sufficiently enough to be able to talk about whether (and how) a circumstance could arise in which a certain amount of CO2 is “too much.” That, in fact, is one of the essential questions you warmist ecologists fail to even ask, much less answer.
Pops (20:17:23) :
Gail Combs writes, “No one here is suggesting we should all live like Al Gore.” I’m guessing GC doesn’t know how Al Gore lives – it’s nothing like what he prescribes for the rest of us. I would love to live like Al, but can’t afford it. I’m not so much into houseboats, but a fast 6-place turboprop would be really convenient….
____________________________________________________________________________
Pops,
I meant exactly what I said. Al Gore lives the type of life Phil M. (12:32:19) : is scolding us about and I was trying to point out what hypocrites many of the “green” leaders are. I do much of my shopping at flea markets and buy my food direct from farmers locally. However our hypocrite leaders are trying to kill that type of “free enterprise” by the little guy. My favorite flea market has been under attack by the holier than thou green community of Orange county NC for the last three years. Orange county is very Marxist with Duke University & Chapel Hill, the town with more phds per capita than most other towns in the USA.
Roger Knights,
a quick search of ‘Health submariners’ in a study of one nuclear sub crew over 101 days submerged, brought up the cherry picked quote
“Of significance is the trend of decreasing numbers of complaints of any kind over time, suggesting resolution of pre-underway health conditions and secondary infections, isolation from further exposure to certain infections, and adaptation to submarine conditions.”
Interesting, as a friend with emphysema found relief with Budeyko techniques, which is a bit counter intuative.
Joel Shore (20:10:45) :
Starting discussions on evolution versus intelligent design is a warmer’s trick.
I think they have crash courses on how to deal with the uncanny situation where someone is trying to discuss AGW versus NGC. (Normal Global Cycles)
The trick is to
1) Attack the messenger. ( He said something about tobacco. He is religious. He is supported by Big Oil)
2) Mention the 2500 Scientists mantra.
3) Information overflow with lots of references to Red Herring papers in order to bog you down with Arrhenius and others
They don’t want a scientific discussion to disturb their true agenda.
The true agenda is the disbandment of the Western civilisation, and starting a new dark era of socialism and control of every mans activity via the UN.
Roger Knights 21:02:25, and my 02:27:36
Sorry, should have mentioned conditions, averaged at O2 at 19.2% CO2 at 0.49% , Ok, I’m a bit dyslectic but doesn’t that equate to 4900 ppm ?
Which does tie in with other submarine data I have read, so isn’t this another answer to the “CO2 is a pollutant” edict coming into force?
Bryan says:
That is simply not true. Rees does not dispute evolution. He does argue that the physical constants of the universe are pretty precisely tuned for life, but this does not deny that life evolved and does not even address the question of how they were tuned. (For example, one hypothesis is that there are many universes and this is the only one in which things worked out that way and thus we are here to see it.)
And, Rees is quite clear here http://saturn.astrobio.net/interview/1752/expectations-for-a-final-theory about what he thinks about intelligent design:
That hardly sounds like an intelligent design advocate.
At any rate, the issue is not whether or not one can find intelligent design advocates on either side of the AGW debate. Rather, the issue is that Roy Spencer is one of the few scientists on the “skeptic” side who is doing real scientific research and has any sort of even vaguely credible hypothesis of why climate sensitivity might be lower than is generally believed.
CRS, Dr.P.H. (17:49:39) :
I think the least we can expect is that you spell “Hansen” correctly. Where do you get this “Hanson” spelling from?