The 4th International Conference on Climate Change – Chicago, Il., USA
Consensus? What consensus?
by Roger Helmer MEP
I’m writing this in the Marriott Hotel in Chicago, where I’m attending the Heartland Institute Climate Conference (and I’ve just done an interview with BBC Environment Correspondent Roger Harrabin).
Ahead of the interview, I thought I’d just check out the Conference Speaker’s list. There are 80 scheduled speakers, including distinguished scientists (like Richard Lindzen of MIT), policy wonks (like my good friend Chris Horner of CEI), enthusiasts and campaigners (like Anthony Watts of the wattsupwiththat.com web-site), and journalists (including our own inimitable James Delingpole).
Of the 80 speakers, I noticed that fully forty-five were qualified scientists from relevant disciplines, and from respected universities around the world — from the USA, Canada, Mexico, Russia, Sweden, Norway, UK, Australia and New Zealand.
All of them have reservations about climate alarmism, ranging from concerns that we are making vastly expensive public policy decisions based on science that is, to say the least, open to question, through to outright rejection of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) model.
Several of these scientists are members or former members of the IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But how do 45 sceptical scientists stack up, you may well ask, against the 2500 on the official IPCC panels? But of course there aren’t 2500 relevant scientists on the IPCC panel. Many of them are not strictly scientists at all. Some are merely civil servants or environmental zealots. Some are economists — important to the debate but not experts on the science. Others are scientists in unrelated disciplines. The Chairman of the IPCC Dr. Ravendra Pachuari, is a Railway Engineer.
And of the remaining minority who are indeed scientists in relevant subjects, some (like my good friend Prof Fred Singer) have explicitly rejected the IPCC’s AGW theory. Whittle it down, and you end up with fifty or so true believers, most of whom are part of the “Hockey Team” behind the infamous Hockey Stick graph, perhaps the most discredited artefact in the history of science. This is a small and incestuous group of scientists (including those at the CRU at the University of East Anglia). They work closely together, jealously protecting their source data, and they peer-review each other’s work. This is the “consensus” on which climate hysteria is based.
And there are scarcely more of them than are sceptical scientists at this Heartland Conference in Chicago, where I am blogging today. Never mind the dozens of other scientists here in Chicago, or the thousands who have signed petitions and written to governments opposing climate hysteria. Science is not decided by numbers, but if it were, there is the case to be made that the consensus is now on the sceptical side.
Roger Helmer MEP Follow me on Twitter: rogerhelmerMEP
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
davidmhoffer
I can’t paste replies to replies, so I’ll just go by numbers.
1. 390 is 40% more than 280. We know that doubling CO2 is like two factors of 1.4, so we are half way towards a doubling using a more reasonable exponential growth rate than your linear rate assumption.
2. I am glad we agree. More CO2 leads to a warmer planet.
3. The scenarios range from 388 to 391 for 2010, and don’t increase as rapidly as you say. Nobody thinks we will have 4 ppm/year in just a few years. I would say 0.5% per year is about right (exponential rather than linear). This is a slow exponential, so short parts of it might look linear.
4. I was trying to explain that 255 K is a fictitious value representing the physically more meaningful Watts per square meter, which is what the actual budget tells us. Doubling CO2 increases this by 1 degree without feedback, but what that means for temperatures near the surface is dependent on what happens to the profiles. However the temperature increase does increase downwards, except in the tropics where water vapor dominance prevents much CO2 effect near the surface.
5. Obviously CO2 is not the only thing going on because aerosols counteract the warming, especially as seen in the more industrial northern hemisphere. I could say that the temperature has increased 0.5 C since 1970 with only 0.2 C expected from CO2 giving a 2.5 feedback, but I won’t play that numbers game. Yes, water vapor feedback implies water vapor keeps up with the warming, and if it didn’t we would have lower relative humidity, less clouds and precipitation, which would also be a mess due to drought and reduced cloud albedo. However water vapor is expected to maintain the relative humidity, mostly because we have a large ocean surface to maintain the air/sea equilibrium. What physical basis is there for relative humidity decreasing over the ocean? It makes no sense.
According to the IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report, we were consuming about 30 GT of carbon per year in 2004:
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/spm3.jpg
Below are the various projection scenarios, the higher ones being at 40 GT, a 33% increase, by 2020.
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig3-1.jpg
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig3-4.jpg
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig5-1.jpg
IPCC reports above should have been addressed to Jim D.
Jim D;
1. 390 is 40% more than 280. We know that doubling CO2 is like two factors of 1.4, so we are half way towards a doubling using a more reasonable exponential growth rate than your linear rate assumption.>>
38% more than 280 = 48% of doubling.
76% more than 280 = 78% of doubling.
100% more than 280 = 100% of doubling
200% more than 280 = 160% of doubling
These are all within the IPCC scenarios. Point being that we would have to grow fossil fuel consumption not a little bit exponentialy, but a whole lot, to get anywhere near that.
Joel Shore;
No. Your calculation of the surface change is based on incorrect assumptions of how the atmosphere actually exchanges energy. It is true that the change is expected to have some variation with height in the atmosphere…but the variation, on a global scale, at least, is certainly not as large as you suggest. Because, while in the tropics, the warming is expected to be higher at altitude, in the polar regions it is actually modestly the other way (i.e., the surface warms more than at altitude)…and I believe that globally the factor enhancement of the warming at altitude relative to the ground is only something like 1.2. >>
The explanation for 255 K rests upon the assumption of a uniform global temperature in order to arrive at an average approximation. Despite this having no basis in reality as the earth is certainly not uniform, I calculated the surface temperatures using the same basic model. So now we cry foul and say no no no the earth isn’t uniform. Fine, back to reality.
The earth spins and so the temperature fluctuates daily. It fluctuates by altitude, possibly up possibly down depending on how high we are. It declines by latitude, but sesonal variance increases. Add convection, evaporation, violent storm activity… no such thing as a uniform “average” temperature. .. like 255 K for example.
So even with the trend by altitude at the arctic zones being opposite that of equatorial regions, we still get a similar result. In equatorial regions, the surface number has to be teeny weeny. Check hadcrut, giss, what ever by latitude and it is. Arctic zones, they go up faster because the same amount of forcing drives a lot more temperature swing at lower temperatures than it does at high ones. But annual mean temp at 80N to 90N is about 255 to 260 K. Hmmm. So we might expect 1.1 sensitivity there, more like 0.3 in the tropics, average that out…. gosh 0.7 on average at surface.
But wait…. for water vapour feedback to triple that we need lotsa water. Let’s see, at the equator the temperature increase is really small so even with tripling it from water vapour we’d get a small number. the big damage will be in the arctic where we get a bigger temperature swing for a given forcing.
But wait. Its a smaller forcing in the first place. Let’s see, how much water vapour can the atmosphere hold at -25 versus -24? Huh? Almost zero and nearly zero?
So enough with my silly math based on things I don’t understand, let’s see some of yours. What SURFACE temperature change should we expect for +3.7 watts? Break it up by latitude if you want to make it more realistic. But I don’t see you getting to 1.1.
davidmhoffer
The scenarios are expressed in ppmv for each year. A couple of them reach 560 in the 2050’s. This corresponds to about 0.7% per year exponentially after 2010, which is half the world population growth rate to put it in perspective.
davidmhoffer says:
It is not based on a uniform global temperature. You can calculate an average for something that varies. In fact, that is the only reason to calculate the average of something, since if it uniform the average is trivial.
Hand-waving arguments are fine as far as they go but at some point one actually has to do real calculations. (One of the interesting thing about the “skeptic” movement is that they have vilified models to the extent that it now seems that they have more respect for hand-waving arguments and than for real calculations. That is too bad because you can pretty much prove anything that you want by hand-waving, whereas the numerical models are severely constrained by the actual known laws of physics. Yes, there is some room for variation in cloud parametrizations and such…but even then you are usually constrained by physics and empirical data. Without these sort of constraints, you can basically come up with anything that you want.)
The two basic problems that I see in what you have said above are: (1) While cold air might not hold very much water, where there is little water there is a much stronger dependence of the radiative effect on the water concentration. In fact, it is in the relatively cold regions of the mid- and upper-troposphere where the water vapor feedback is most important. (2) You are still very focused on local effects of where things, such as the radiative forcing due to added CO2 occurs. With the dynamics of the atmosphere, your intuition on this is not necessarily very good. Your conclusion that the polar regions are expected to warm more than the tropics is in general correct, although I don’t necessarily think that the reasoning that got you there is (and your actual numerical estimates based on that reasoning).
Well, yes, if you consider the negative feedback due to the lapse rate but don’t consider the positive feedbacks, then you will likely get modestly less than 1.1, maybe 0.8-0.9 K for the surface warming due to a doubling, I imagine. But, it doesn’t seem too realistic to include this negative feedback and not the positive ones, particularly when in the case of the water vapor and lapse rate feedbacks, these rely on much of the same convective physics. (After all, if climate scientists were running models that included the water vapor feedback and not the lapse rate feedback, people like you would be yelling bloody murder…and justifiably so.)
Joel,
I do the calcs without feedback because they are two different questions.
Question 1 – how much forcing and temperature change should be expected from CO2?
Question 2 – what is the sign and magnitude of the resulting feedbacks
I think you would agree that since Q2 is a consequence of Q1, any errors made in quantifying Q1 would invalidate the answers to Q2. So let’s get Q1 correct first. To that end:
IPCC => CO2 doubling => 3.7 watts => 1.1 degrees @ur momisugly 255K.
If we were to presume latitudinal temperature bands at earth surface (which I have made up just now on the spot for illustrative purposes only, these aren’t from real data, they’re just, an, uhm, model)
Tropics @ur momisugly 303K => 0.58 degrees
South Temperate @ur momisugly 291 => 0.65 degrees
North Temperate @ur momisugly 279 = > 0.74 degrees
Arctic @ur momisugly255 => 0.97 degrees
Yielding an average 0f 0.74 degrees. But, just as the temperature isn’t uniform from equator to arctic, it isn’t uniform by season either. So let’s consider the example of the North Temperate Zone where (in my home town at any rate) a really hot day is +40 and a really cold day is -40. If we apply the forcing to those numbers we get:
Cold day @ur momisugly233 => 1.26 degrees
Hot day @ur momisugly 313 => 0.53 degrees
So just as the models expect more warming in the mid to upper troposphere than at surface, they also expect more warming in arctic regions as opposed to the equatorial. So where does that get us to?
The hottest days go up perhaps 0.53 degrees but the coldest ones go up 1.26 degrees, with an average of 0.74. Living in a winter city I’ll take that deal. Oh wait we have to triple for feedbacks. That gives 2.22 for an average increase which equates to forcing at 288 (surface) of 12.36 watts/m2. If I adjust my hottest and coldest days in my home town by that amount, the coldest day goes up by 4.1 degrees. Sounds horrid. Starting at -40 sounds like not enough for my taste. Now the hottest day goes up by 1.74. I’ll take the deal, feedbacks in.
Observation suggests that the feedbacks have been far over estimated, that’s why the models have over estimated. Fine. But the point is that the presentation of the numbers has carefully avoided that:
1. The estimates relate to a temperature of the troposhere at about 4 km up.
2. Surface temperature increases will be less than that.
3. The warmest parts of the planet will see much smaller temperature increases than the coldest parts.
4. The coldest parts of the planet will see most of the temperature rise in the winter, and far less in the summer.
If we think in terms of where on the planet we see how much temperature increase, and in what season, we get a very different picture, don’t we?
davidmhoffer: First of all, you are continuing to do the calculations as if you can just balance radiative forcing locally, which is not the case.
The estimate of the first-order effect in the absence of any feedbacks is. The final IPCC numbers with feedbacks are global average surface temperatures, i.e., they include the lapse rate feedback in addition to the other feedbacks.
Surface temperature estimates are what everything beyond the first-order estimate is.
Roughly speaking, that may well be true…although your numbers are based on a very naive approach, so they are essentially meaningless. And, you neglect other less convenient facts, such as the fact that the continental areas will see larger temperature increases than the areas over the oceans. (In fact, I believe that the mid latitude continental areas where much of the world’s population lives are expected to see temperature changes larger than the global average.)
Not sure how true that is (particularly the “far less” part).
Yeah, maybe, but you are conveniently neglecting the facts that would give a more balanced picture, such as the greater warming over continents, the other changes in weather patterns (drought, extreme rainfall events), how these changes will affect sea levels, how these changes will affect flora and fauna already stressed by pollution and habitat encroachment and fragmentation, etc., etc.
You might also remember that the global average temperatures were only about 6 C cooler during the LGM…and that had a profound effect on things, with the place where I am sitting covered in a couple of miles of glacial ice.
Joel,
Roughly speaking, that may well be true…although your numbers are based on a very naive approach, so they are essentially meaningless.>>
Itz really easy to call my approach naive and meaningless while refusing to suggest what the approach should be or providing any hard numbers or calculations of your own. Repeating over and over again that my approach is meaningless provides no value. Here’s some actual value. I pulled NASA/GISS temperature records broken down by latitude a few months ago, so what the heck, let’s stop using Dave’s made up on the spot model for illustrative purposes and use some actual numbers:
http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/temperature-anomaly-by-latitude-nh.png
Well waddya know.
Arctic +1.7
North Temperate + 1.1
South Temperate + 0.8
Equatorial + 0.6
So, Dave’s naive theory appears supported by observation. Could be coincidence. Everyone gets lucky sometimes. Well if we could further confirm Dave’s theory by looking at temperature swings on a seasonaly basis… I haven’t yet got my hands on a dataset broken down by seasonal, but I can look at the DMI web site for daily temps at 80 degrees N:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Zip through the years and what do we find?
Well waddya know.
Almost ALL of the variation comes in the COLDEST parts of the year. To be fair, there’s not much variation once temps rise to 273 because the ice starts to go through a state change instead of a temperature change. So just look at 270 and below. You will find that the VAST bulk of the temperature variation from normal that combine to result in warming at that latitude occur at the COLDEST time of year. The warmest parts of the year, even excluding the melting point temps, show almost no variability at all.
So, you’ve accused me of arm waving, yet put no facts, numbers, formulas, or predictions on the table of your own while calling mine naive. I am always amused when people accuse my of arm waving while waving their arms. You can complain all you want that my approach is naive, it ignores feedbacks and lapse rates and mid continent versus edge continent and what ever else you don’t like about my approach, but the OBSERVED facts are:
1. The warmest part of the planet see much smaller temperature increases than the coldest parts.
2. The coldest parts of the planet see most of the temperature rise in the winter, and far less in the summer.
Even if my explanation for the reasons is completely wrong THOSE ARE THE OBSERVED FACTS FROM 130 YEARS OF TEMPERATURE DATA.
Explain it with any physics you want, any models you want, those are the facts. Regardless of what drives the change, the bulk of it happens in the depths of winter in the highest latitudes.
davidmhoffer is right. Prof Freeman Dyson agrees:
Dyson’s article is well worth reading.
Smokey;
Thanks, interesting guy.
Joel Shore;
I could not find temperature data by month by latititude, only by hemisphere. So I looked at NH by season, and waddya know, summer changes the least, winter changes the most:
http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/seasonal.png
Of course if we could break it up by latitude we would see the influence we already know is there from the latitude graphs I posted previously. That is that in the Arctic the divergence between winter and summer would shrink with the bulkj of the change being in winter. I even looked at it just as January (coldest month) versus July (hottest month) and got the same result:
http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/monthly-jan-versus-july.png
Again, if we could break it up by latitude, we would find that the change is biased toward the Arctic in winter. So, not by naive theory but by OBSERVATION we see that:
1. The warm areas of the planet experience the LEAST warming.
2. The coldest areas of the planet experience the MOST warming.
3. Most of what the cold areas experience is in the WINTER
4. If we had daily data we would expect the same thing; namely that even on the hottest days, most of the temperature increase would be at night (the coolest part of the day) and the least at the peak.
End result? Not much warmer in the tropics. Temperate zones milder winters but only slightly warmer summers. Arctic much milder winters, somewhat better summers. Hottest days mostly elevated night time temperatures, peak temperatures not so much. In other words very little change where it does harm, most of the change where it does the least harm or is beneficial (check the polar bear population increase last few decades).
So now that we understand (from observation) that a temperature increase is of far less significance due to the distribution of temperature change by latitude and season, let’s worry about things like extreme weather. Warmer planet = more energy in system = more extreme weather events, right?
WRONG!! What drives weather?
TEMPERATURE DIFFERENTIAL. It all starts with wind and convection driven by temperature differential.
What did I just show you by observation? Less daily temperature differential, less seasonaly temperature differential and less latitude differential. Less extreme weather, exactly opposite of what the IPCC predicted. And what have we seen? Hurricane index down. Tornado index down. Droughts? Half of North America was in a drought in the 1930’s, itz warmer now than it was then…. no drought. Must be something else making that happen.
SO… if the IPCC “knows” this stuff they certainly aren’t sharing it with the public. they’re presenting it as a catastrophe. The are representing the warming as if the hottest days get hotter by the same amount as the coldest days. They pretend that the Arctic is going to melt when most of the warming will take place well below the freezing point. They are claiming more extreme weather when clearly warming can only diminish extreme weather.
So tell me Joel, why are they doing this? Are they incompetant? Or just liars? Or both? If you have a credible answer, put it on the table. But no more arm waving. Facts, theory, calculations and predictions followed by comparison to the data.
And that paper I threw at you that you claimed was biased? Have a look at AMSU which gives you the temperature trends this last decade at various altitudes. Ooops.
davidmhoffer:
Let’s see, we’re at 380, so to double in 70 years we would need to go from current (1.9 ppm) to 5.43 over the 70 year period.
Joel Shore;
You have misunderstood my statement. I said the RATE of emissions doubles in 70 years if the emissions increase at 1% per year>>
Based on current 380 and 1% year over year increase in emissions we would get to double the rate in 70 years. To get to double 380 (th number I was working with) would require 115 years. At the end of the 115 year period we would be producing 5.9 ppm/year additjonal CO2 which would require TRIPLE our current production and NO negative feedback from increased biomass growth and assumed no switch to nuclear, higher engine efficiencies, or ower energy farming techniques and so on. Not a chance. Even with China and India industrializing coal isn;t going to triple our prodiuction capacity any more than oil will.
davidmhoffer says:
I don’t know what sort of negative feedback you are imagining in the carbon cycle. Your assumption imagines that the biosphere, oceans, etc. continue to absorb the same ***FRACTION*** of our emissions as they do now. That is about the most optimistic scenario possible. There is some debate over whether and when sinks will begin to saturate…but I haven’t heard any belief that they will actually get bigger so that they absorb more carbon even as a fraction of ever increasing emissions.
As for switching away from coal, using more energy-efficient farming techniques etc.: Simple economics says this will happen much faster if we put a price on the use of these energy sources that represents all of their costs, rather than keeping their prices artificially low because the costs are externalized.
davidmhoffer: As for your other posts, you are basically only considering…and exaggerating…the trends that work toward your favored conclusion and are ignoring the rest. Hence, you choose to emphasize (and exaggerate) the extent to which the warming is and is expected to be in the coldest places at the coldest times of year and ignore other inconvenient facts such as the greater warming over the continents than over the oceans.
Your view of extreme weather is also too simplistic. The weather extremes come from a variety of factors. One factor is the amount of heat energy available. One factor is the temperature gradient. Yes, the temperature gradient at the surface between the tropics and the poles is expected to decrease but that is only part of the story. Another part of the story is that the temperature gradient at altitude between tropics and poles may actually increase. And, there are expected to be general poleward shifts in weather patterns, greater drying of soils due to higher temperatures, etc., etc. There is a reason why dispassionate scientists are coming to a very different conclusion regarding the warming and its effects as you are.
Joel Shore says:
May 24, 2010 at 10:31 am
davidmhoffer: As for your other posts, you are basically only considering…and exaggerating…the trends that work toward your favored conclusion and are ignoring the rest. Hence, you choose to emphasize (and exaggerate) the extent to which the warming is and is expected to be in the coldest places at the coldest times of year and ignore other inconvenient facts such as the greater warming over the continents than over the oceans.>>
The seasonal comparison was done with CONTINENTAL ONLY.
Really Joel, all you’ve done is more arm waving. If the best you can do is say that I am exagerrating (but don’t explain what is exagerated) that I am ignoring other data (but don’t say what) that there’s expected to be greater drying of soils (hey! what happened to the greater humidity we were promised?) and now your claiming temperature gradient between poles and might increase GOOD GOD MAN LOOK AT THE EFFING DATA THATS NOT WHAT IT SHOWS.
Joel Shore;
I don’t know what sort of negative feedback you are imagining in the carbon cycle.>>
Good god many do you know what a plant is? Have you not seen any of the studies about the effects of CO2 increases on plant growth?
Joel Shore;
As for switching away from coal, using more energy-efficient farming techniques etc.: Simple economics says this will happen much faster if we put a price on the use of these energy sources that represents all of their costs, rather than keeping their prices artificially low because the costs are externalized>>
So now you are arguing that the price of oil is subsidized? There are tons of subsidies in the energy market… for biofuels, for wind farms, for solar, despite which they aren’t catching on. And I have news for you. any farming practice that can reduce energy costs, regardless of what the energy source is, will be implemented. Trucking companies, shipping companies, air craft companies, ALL spend ENORMOUS amounts of money on R&D trying to squeeze every last penny out of their energy budget. Trucking companies are installing data loggers on their rigs and analyzing the number of gear shifts and timing over a specific haul to figure out if they can improve the driver’s skill set to save fuel. Shipping companies are experimenting with sails to reduce fuel use in ocean tankers. An efficiency increase of just 1% will get an engine manufacturer a huge market share increase. R&D in the billions is already being spent on efficiency because energy costs are so high.
Your statement shows you know even less about economics and current industry practices than you do about climate. You claim to have a PhD in physics, but the best you can do is arm waving. When I show you ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS you attempt to refute them with predictions from models. What mickey mouse kind of university awards a PhD to someone who thinks model results are more accurate than ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS?
You’ve had multiple opportunities to bring value to this discussion, but you have descended into arm waving, and retreated into claims of what models say as if they were the reality and the planet we live on just a representation of the models. Why you bother to continue to look the fool is beyond me.
davidmhoffer says:
Yes, but the point is that you are considering only effects that tend to minimize the importance of the effects and conveniently ignoring those that do the opposite. So, it may be true that the increase in temperature is larger in the cold season than the warm season (and that this happens to hold for continental only data). However, what you are neglecting to mention is that the continental rise in general is greater than the rise over the oceans. So, this fact works against your conclusion that the rise in the warm season will somehow be insignificant. Yes, it will tend to be less than the global rise because of the seasonal effect but it will also tend to be more than the global rise because of the continental effect. How the exact magnitudes work out, I am not sure, but the point is that you can’t just selectively look at the things that support your pre-conceived point-of-view and ignore everything else. That is why objective reviews of the data and literature, such as that of the IPCC endorsed by various national academies of sciences, paint a very different picture from those who are selectively looking at the science with the intent of trying to re-enforce what they want to believe.
This statement is typical of your level of analysis. The point is that the current ratio of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to our emissions already includes the effects of increased uptake of CO2 by plants. What you are proposing is that this effect, which to my knowledge every serious scientist believes must eventually start to saturate, will not only fail to do so but will in fact become an ever larger player, absorbing a larger and larger fraction of our increasing emissions.
Joel Shore;
Yes, but the point is that you are considering only effects that tend to minimize the importance of the effects and conveniently ignoring those that do the opposite. So, it may be true that the increase in temperature is larger in the cold season than the warm season (and that this happens to hold for continental only data).>>
You’re the one that said continental was more important so that’s the data I used, now you accuse me of ignoring the ocean because suggenly it is more important in your mind and claim that the relationship hold only for continental data. Wrong again. Here’s NASA/GISS Land and Ocean:
http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/seasonal-land-and-ocean-nasa-giss.png
Same relationship though variability in fall was a bit of a surprise. Is it muted? Well sure it is, ocean doesn’t heat up or cool off as fast as land does so the amplitude is less. Same relationship hold though. Most warming in the cold areas, least in the warm areas.
Joel Shore;
How the exact magnitudes work out, I am not sure,>>
Meaning despite your claim to expertise you don’t actually know what the models say nor have you looked at he data yourself.
Joel Shore;
That is why objective reviews of the data and literature, such as that of the IPCC endorsed by various national academies of sciences, paint a very different picture from those who are selectively looking at the science with the intent of trying to re-enforce what they want to believe.>>
Let’s see, would that be reviewed work of respected climatologists who contributed to the IPCC like:
Michael Mann, who produced a computer program that drew the same basic hockey stick graph regardless of dataset?
Kieth Briffa, who produced a 1000 year temperature reconstruction for the whole planet based on just 12 trees with one tree weighted to be 50% of the data?
Phile Jones and Michael Mann who produced a composite tree ring temperature reconstruction for the front cover of AR4 (since replaced) with the last few decades of data discarded in place of temperature data instead? And then insisted this was standard scientific procedure? And then said that even though the last few decades the tree rings did not track temperature there was no reason to believe that they had the same problem for the previous 960 years?
Phil Jones who says he collaborated with China on data they say may not have existed but he can’t find the raw data he says they gave him so that they can be compared?
The IPCC, whose models can’t reproduce the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period and so instead set out to do studies showing that the LIA and the MWA never existed, and published AR4 on the basis of a handfull of reconstructions that don’t show it despite dozens of reconstructions from all over the world that do, here’s just a few:
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
And you want to accuse ME of being selective while endorsing THEM?
Joel Shore;
This statement is typical of your level of analysis. The point is that the current ratio of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to our emissions already includes the effects of increased uptake of CO2 by plants. What you are proposing is that this effect, which to my knowledge every serious scientist believes must eventually start to saturate>>
Wrong. Again. Most greenhouses shoot for about 1300 ppm, way, Way, WAY past the point where the IPCC insists we’re all gonna die. In fact, here’s a time lapse video of seedlings in 450 ppm atmosphere versus 1270 ppm. We’re talking some serious biomass uptake here as CO2 increases, not to mention that plants need less water in high CO2 environment, so what is now marginal desert becomes arable land for even MORE biomass to grow on. If you actually knew what you were talking about you would have brought up positive feedback due to outgassing from the oceans instead of trying to pooh pooh negative feedback from plants when clearly you haven’t a clue about what to expect.
I’ve noticed your comments here and there and they always seem to be the same. You shoot your mouth off, reference your degree, and expect to be believed because of it. When pressed for details, you don’t have any. Asked for facts and numbers, you don’t have any. Confronted with actual data, you make vague references to models. Backed into a corner with oberved data that refutes the models and IPCC reports you hold so dear, you call the arguments naive, simplistic, typical of this level of analysis, selective and not from a peer reviewed source like your vaunted IPCC. In brief your whole argument rests on “I have a PhD so shut up and listen to me”.
You’ve walked face first into a left hook so many times that if you want to get up off the matt one more time I will start calling you Rocky.
In fact, I’m going to tell you what I think. I think you are a sell out. Your carreer in physcis has petered out and you are trying to remake yourself. You have colleagues with less talent that you but they’re doing really well because they are on the climate gravy train. They get grants, media interviews, speaking engagements. So you’re trying to get on the bandwagon. Defend the IPCC ina few blogs. Volunteer for speaking engagements on climate change for low end audiences who can’t challenge your PhD. Make a career change because theoretical physics is a tough gig to make a living off of. I think you know the science is fraudulent, you’re letting yourself be seduced by the money and glammour. Is that how you want your grandchildren to remember you? Because by the time they grow up this debate will be over.
If you want to be serious about this debate then don’t be shooting your mouth off about CO2 and plants without looking at it first. If you’re going to defend the IPCC models, then you better have a technical explanation and data prepared to explain the discrepancies. Better still, grow a pair and start telling the truth. Leave a legacy that your grandchildren won’t be embarrased about. Until then, this is who you are:
http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/climate-humour-page-the-climatologist-and-follow-the-money-series/the-physicist-and-the-climatologist-follow-the-money/
Is that who you want to be?
davidmhoffer says:
I have enough faith in your abilities to comprehend written English to believe that you can determine that this is not what I was saying at all. Did you just misread what I wrote or are you actively distorting it and then setting up strawmen” that have little to do with what I said?
Again, you invent strawmen. Even if you were correct that 1300ppm is optimal, that would not be evidence to support your notion that somehow the plants are going to uptake a larger and larger FRACTION of our annual emissions as the CO2 levels increase. At best, you might hope that they continue to take up the same fraction that they do now…although this seems doubtful, particularly given the fact that greenhouses don’t go even higher than 1300ppm, which suggests diminishing returns as you approach such levels.
However, you are also ignoring the fact that plants growing in greenhouses are very different from plants growing in the real world. In particular, the plants that respond strongly to increases in CO2 are the ones where that is the primary limiting factor. If the limiting factor is something else, then you will get little response. In a greenhouse, you are able to adjust the other factors too, so there is a larger payoff for adjusting the CO2 than there would be in the real world where the growth is often primarily limited by another factor.
Your psychoanalytical skills are not very impressive. I have considered a switch toward climate science…but it would be no gravy train for me. In fact, it would be much more difficult than staying within the confines of the areas that I have successfully worked in. The question is not whether it would be more lucrative or glamorous but rather whether the price that I would have to pay, financially and in terms of stature in going from fields where I have a reputation and experience to ones where I don’t (and also likely a geographic move from a place where I am settled), is worth it in order to work on problems that I think may be more important and that I find more motivating.
Unlike you, I will not question your motives or sincerity in your beliefs on the subject. I just think that those beliefs on the science are captive to your predispositions, probably on the basis of your political ideology.
Rocky,
You want to get pummeled again, its up to you.
To summarise:
I offered a physical explanation of certain issues.
You said I was over simplifying, but offered no explanation of your own.
I offered sample calculations to support my explanation.
You said I was naive, but offered no calculations of your own.
I offered real world observations to support my explanation.
You pooh poohed that, referenced models as if they somehow trump reality and admonished me that what happens over land is more important that what happens globaly, but offered no explanation of your own, let alone observations.
I offered land based observations that supported my explanation.
You said oceans were the larger part of the planet and would not follow the same pattern, but offered no explanation.
I provided combined land and ocean based observations that support my explanation.
You complained that I was deliberately misunderstanding what you wrote. Which part of “(and that this happens to hold for continental only data)” did I misunderstand?
I provided you an example of a negative feedback to atmospheric CO2 concentrations with evidence from greenhouses and you respond that greenhouses aren’t the real world. Here’s a database listing hundreds of species and the dozens of studies that have been done on CO2 uptake of plants in high CO2 environments. The odd one goes down, almost all go up, and they go up by 50% or more. Rough biomass estimates are +60 GT/Year from breakdown, -120 GT/Year photosynthesis uptake. +50% wipes out our ENTIRE fossil fuel consumption and then some, we’re only contributing 30 GT/Year.
You complain that other limiting factors would limit CO2 uptake benefits. Like what? High CO2 environments reduce water consumption and increase heat tolerance. What limiting factors are you speaking of? Oh I forgot, you just make claims you don’t offer explanations or data.
You claim my pshychoanalytic skills are limited, but admit you are considering a career change. you imply your motives are altruistic. I snorted coffee all over my keyboard on that one, thanks.
Then there’s the points I made which you never even responded to, which I won’t bother listing.
Your parting shot, having provided no explanations, data, or observations of your own, having attempted to refute my real world data with models, having disputed my facts and reasoning with logical well thought out comments like “naive” “simplistic” “selective” you now resort to suggesting that I am incapable of understanding the subject matter because of how you think I vote? OOOOOH NOW YOU’VE GOT ME!
Rocky, you’re on the canvus. Stay down.
There will be an article out soon drilling into these issues in detail based entirely on AR4 data, formulas and references. I’ll drop a note here when it is ready. Of course since it relies on facts and realk world data rather than faked and falsified peer reviewed literature, I’m expecting you won’t believe it.
Rocky,
Itz considered good advice to study your opponent while preparing for Rocky II. Here’s the article as promised.
http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/catastrophic-global-warming-refuted-data-source-ipcc-ar4/
If you can look me in the eye after having read this and still maintain that there is any value to climate mitigation efforts, then I expect you to do so with facts, explanations, and confirming data.