Guest post by Thomas Fuller
Before I start, I’d like to remind readers that as a guest poster, the opinions I voice here are not those of Anthony Watts, and should not be taken as having been endorsed by Watts Up With That.
I am going to propose an idea based on my position as a Lukewarmer regarding climate change. I fully expect to get a lot of criticism from commenters here, and I welcome it. My idea is new (at least to me), and if it is a good idea it will be sharpened by your criticism–and of course, if it is rubbish, best to know quickly, right?
I think the debate on climate change needs some new ideas and criticism too. So blast away–but please bring your A game. I neither need nor want to see the equivalent of ‘you suck, dude.’
Families, businesses and yes, even governments, need to make plans for the future. Those plans used to include assumptions about the physical environment, although most of those assumptions were passive acceptance of the status quo. However, it is now difficult to make assumptions because various theories of climate change and its effects have people wondering if their homes will be threatened by sea level rise, drought, hurricanes or floods.
Because of the competing number of possible futures (the IPCC has many scenarios and many more have been pulled from the science fiction rack and offered up to us), people are somewhat paralyzed by too many choices. I think it is time to recognize that all of use engaged in the debate about climate change are not doing the rest of the world any favors. We are making their life more difficult because they cannot make plans with any confidence.
If there is one dataset that I trust regarding the Earth’s climate, it is the measurement of atmospheric concentrations of CO2. It has been freely available for examination, it is replicated by measurements in more than one site, and in my mind survived criticism from people such as the late Ernst Beck. I trust the numbers.
The numbers show that concentrations of CO2 were 315 ppm in 1958, when Mauna Loa started measuring. Concentrations now are 390 ppm. That is a rise of 19%. The central question in climate change is, ‘What is the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2?’ Is the atmosphere easily influenced by CO2, producing more water vapor and adding to temperature rise, or is the atmosphere largely indifferent? Despite protestations from both sides, the honest answer is we don’t know now, and we are not likely to know for another 30 years.
Temperatures appear to have risen globally, although the accuracy of the data is not yet fully determined. The rise since 1958 appears to be about 0.5 degrees Celsius.
If these were the only statistics available to us, we would quickly conclude that the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to all human-related activities might well be 2.5 degrees Celsius. This would lead to the supposition that, if concentrations of CO2 rise to about 600 ppm, which certainly seems possible, that the Earth’s temperature will rise about another 2 degrees C. Since it’s based on measurement of temperatures, it can be presumed to include all the effects we are having on temperatures, not just CO2.
And I am arguing, no–proposing, that we do exactly that. Attempts to refine models and measurements have been unsuccessful and have served to heighten suspicion and muddy the debate. I have seen very credible arguments for sensitivities that are both higher and lower, but these arguments are based on data or models that have much higher levels of uncertainty associated with them, ranging from differing ways of measuring tropospheric temperatures to analysis of varves from Finnish lakes.
I don’t see undisputed data that will allow us to do better than the 40 years of good data we have now. So I think we should provide a ‘rough and ready’ estimate of 2 degrees C climate change this century to the public, business and politicians, so they can start making plans for the future.
It should obviously come with an asterisk and error bars, and should be presented as ‘crude, but the best we can really do at this time.’ Much like earlier and simpler climate models have often done better in handling projections of future climate, our rougher and cruder metrics may serve us better for now.
We need to stop throwing sci-fi fantasies out as plausible outcomes. We need to provide a range of outcomes based on measurements that we trust.
We also need not to be distracted by elements of the debate that have only served a political purpose. Current temperatures are not unprecedented. There was a MWP and a LIA. Sea level is rising at 3 mm per year. The ice caps are not going to disappear this millenium.
None of that really matters. Temperatures are rising, and more quickly than they have often in the past. (Yes, they have risen this quickly on occasion.) It is the speed of change and the numbers of people those changes will affect that are actually of more concern than the total temperature rise. The people in developing countries are actually more vulnerable than the last time there was a big quick rise–hunter gatherers didn’t have homes and could just move out of harm’s way, and they were few enough in number that they would not have been labeled ‘climate refugees.’
So, I call for all those involved in the climate debate to throw down their weapons, embrace this practical solution as being of use to the rest of the world, climb aboard the Peace Train and sing Kumbaya. Right.
No, have a look at this–tell me if it’s remotely possible that the skeptic community could sacrifice its current temporary, but very real advantage in the debate and agree that a rough metric that acknowledges warming but puts sane boundaries on it would be of use to the rest of the world.
Again, I’d like to thank readers who have made it this far for listening to a different side of the debate in a forum where you are more comfortable seeing the failings of your opponents exposed. If you find the gaping flaw in my logic, my idea can die quickly, if not quietly. If you see merit in my proposal, any indication of such would be warmly welcomed.
Springer:
How about we think about what we should do knowing that the interglacial period we’re in will end soon and most of north America and Europe and Asia returns to the way it was 20,000 years ago – buried beneath two miles of ice with global temperature 8C lower than it is right now.
The forcing of those changes amounts to a rearrangement of solar energy from some latitude bands to some others in some seasons. The forcing we are subjecting the system to now is much larger. The next ice age is good and cancelled. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. And we already know how to prevent ice ages in future. The problem is that we are going way overboard at present, based on the numbers.
Ya think the delusional catastrophic global warming crowd is willing to talk about that?
I can’t speak for them, of course.
Thomas appears concerned that we need to agree so we can act. It is these “actions” that people are concerned with. For now the clear answer is more nuclear, cleaner fossile fuel (particulate pollution, not co2) develope other alternatives when they make economic sense on thir own without assistance, making energy as cheep and abundant as posssible so we can develpe economies naturally and reduce population growth naturally through said economic development.
Thomas, your being a self professed san fran lib may make it hard to accept such answers, but I appreciate your willingness to talk. BTW, the sad state of calif is a perfect example of how such “needs to act”are often disasters 100 percent human made.
I have grown up to have a deep seated cynicism of statists and Fabians telling me what to do and using my money to do it.
We know what the fastest, cheapest, most efficient and freedom and democracy minded means to fund climate change adaption is – free trade. World leaders do not want it.
We know what developed nations ought to be spending money on regarding energy infrastructure – nuclear. World leaders do not want it.
We know that a warmer, wetter world is a more habitable and productive one. World leaders never put it like that.
Mr. Fuller,
If you think it possible to move discussions forward by accepting we have caused temperatures to rise and something must be done, it is equally reasonable to suggest we should instead assume that man will be just fine even if we are causing temperatures to rise. We have nothing to worry about. We have adapted and adapted to our surroundings for millenia. We will continue to do so hindered only by the interference of Governments and poverty. The way forward chosen by unaccountable bodies of the former will not rectify the latter.
The best thing that could happen is that we abandon the ‘science’ althogether. A lot of it is actually moralising dressed up with contentious ‘facts’. This is acceptable to the politicians who direct the funding to where it provides *them* with the most advantageous excuse for a bigger role for the Government. Why have there been almost no empirical investigations into atmospheric sensitivity to CO2? If the science is settled why is a large amount of taxpayer money being spent on continued research? Why are subsidies being thrown at unreliable energy (wind) and costly energy (photovoltaics) in our own nations and yet we are also made to fund hydroelectric (reliable and effective) in two space faring nations?(China and India). The very narrow focus of so-called solutions we are being lumped with all mean less money in our pockets and less choice. That makes us less able to adapt!
I am of the view that a long time ago climate change theory became a vehicle through which politicians, technocrats and advocates could gathered more authority and exercise more control. Few of them lead by example so clearly have enviro-morals of negotiable virtue. We can all see the hectoring busibodies who are attracted by the power – the Franny Armstrong and Eugenie Harveys of this world. Others who seek population reduction, those who are gripped by a Malthusian nightmare that has been disproven time and again.(Like the Optimum Population Trust) A varied bunch with a rainbow of motivations. They seek not just to influence our livestyles but select them too. For those reasons alone I think it worthwhile to fight it.
Abandoning the ‘science’ and focusing on perfectly decent political and social issues such as global development and reliance on unpleasant regimes for energy would allow a much more grown up discussion. It would be more honest too. A lot of climate advocacy is actually a roundabout way of tackling poverty and inequality. Well let’s stop wasting time and billions of dollars and pounds a year on climate science and look into ways to lift people out of poverty. In a flash the discussion would return to where it should have stayed – Is wealth redistribution right, and if so should wealth be redistributed by force (Government subsidies and development aid) or by choice (trade)?
I see no reason why we can’t manage adjusting to a 2C increase in temperature, especially since (we are told) the increases will mostly be at Northern latitudes and at night. It wouldn’t surprise me if those changes netted to a benefit overall.
In the meantime we will continue to improve our energy technologies, especially nuclear and solar, and as those improve we will move away from fossil fuels.
I don’t foresee much of a problem unless we fritter away trillions of dollars in carbon taxes and attempts to force GHG emissions down that will result in negligible temperature improvements, while blocking nuclear power — which seems to be the climate change agenda.
I suspect that by 2100 the climate change controversy will sound like worry over the horse manure piling up in the streets of 1900 New York City.
Gary says:
October 21, 2010 at 6:51 am (Edit)
Steven Mosher asks: “So Toms question is really this. If you accepted, for the sake of argument that 2C was a reality, what would you suggest we do. what would you be willing to do.”
The smart thing to do then is to increase capacity for flexible and dynamic response. Free the markets to invent solutions to problems. Reduce governmental dictates and actions that warp markets (eg, ethanol subsidies) and waste resources. There’s a much better chance of accommodating to stresses with diverse approaches. Control should be local, not global. Ecosystems adapt to both slow and sudden changes when they are permitted to do so. Figure out the specifics within this framework because we know that command and control has a history of abject failure.
#####
we have a winner. You see as a libertarian I see no problem with accepting the Presumption of climate change. What we know? we know that trying to fight climate change through “global action” has failed. MT and others are suggesting that we continue to risk the planet by persuing a path that is known to fail.
There are 4 major problems with your outlined suggestion:
1) The sun was measured to be more “intense” than “normal” for 30 of the 40 years you have “good/questionable” data covering the 0.5 degree rise. This was published by NASA, a warming advocate and reflects the first 30 years of satelite data. They said at the time, if the trend was also extended back to 50 years or 75 years, instead of the 30 we COULD measure, it could explain most or all of the warming. This was out in 2004, I think, before all the warming agendas.
2) There is data that now shows the slope for over 30 years and is now statistically significant that shows with the elevated temperatures seen on Earth, the Earth has shed progressively more heat to space. The theory of greenhouse gases was that they would feed more warming, because the heat would be trapped, satelite measurements show an inverted slope. Even as CO2 has risen (it is still a trace), the warmer we are, the more heat bleeds off.
3) Most damning of all. O2 has a heat adsorption signature. N2 has a heat adsorption signature. CO2 has a higher heat adsorption signature, hence the “theory” of gas house effect…. Mixtures of gases are strange, it turns out a mixture of 20% O2 and 80% N2 has a strange heat adsorption signature roughly EQUAL to CO2. This has been published quietly, not discredited, but completely changes the game and needs to be addressed!
4) Final problem. If you give governments any justificcation for a problem to be solved, they spend money. Taxpayers have no assurance, and these days, no realistic expectation the money will even be aimed at the target is liberated for…. Social security was raped and pillaged since… it started in 1940 something. Oil for Foof from the UN, well you probably remember UN officials stealing most, trading weapons to Iraq, all sorts of crap. If you give money, people on floating islands that have scientifically been proven not to be effected, maybe benfit in land area with tidal level changes in the Ocean, will want their payola, African governments who feel “heat is bad” weill want their money. Where those poor children are starving, have you seen the presidential palaces? The get Billions today, do you think they will “funnel this into climate change relief?” Do you really? Plus see items 1-3, there’s no porblen here but the variable output of SOL (thsun), with maybe our irregular orbit tossed in…
Sincerely,
Dave
BTW, you do NOT suck, dude, I think you’re well intentioned, but (maybe) not well schooled in this debate. Most of us are civil too, not troll like at all, except for me – Lower Pensinsula Michigan resident, born under the (mackinac) bridge, so always designated as a troll for life by all the Upper’s!
dave springer.
I take it you believe that adding C02 and other GHGs to the atmosphere will COOL the planet?
yes or no.
SRY, not a typist, should have reviewed my post. Let’s call it colloquial spelling mistakes!
Consequence: Hunger will continue to increase as more babies are born with not enough food to eat… [October 21, 2010 at 6:52 am]
Pamela Gray: That’s the Malthusian view, and it makes sense, except that humans have been confounding that view since Malthus’s time. Even though the world population has increased rapidly, the percentage of those going hungry has steadily dropped.
Almost all of the food problems today are caused by politics, not by a lack of food. Obesity is now a worldwide problem.
NOTE: I have foresworn the labels such as ‘l——-ers’. So bear with my new words.
There is a powerful reformation/renaissance occurring right now in climate science. It has been created by the independent thinkers (a.k.a. skeptics).
The existence of the reformation/renaissance and of its creators is well known to the AGW-by-CO2 supporters of any variety. The varieties (of AGW-by-CO2) are classified by me according to what their supporters postulate is the effect of their AGW-by-CO2 belief. I classify the varieties as follows: 1) catastrophic effect position, 2) significant effect position, 3) any effect position.
I assess that the lead post by TF is in the third category which is the “any effect” position.
With regards to its social/political implications, the “any effect” position is actually the most extreme of the three positions since there is no threshold needed to justify widespread governmental actions leading to less individual freedom of action. It says that “any effect” of humans living on earth must require widespread governmental action.
Once the principle of widespread gov’t action is conceded based on the ‘any effect’ position, then there would be an established precedent which, through continuous bureaucratic and ideological environmental lobbying, will lead toward a step by step escalation of the initial concern into an apocalyptic scenario.
Vigilance is needed to say focused on the current reformation/renaissance in climate science. I will not be distracted by the ‘any effect’ argument of TF’s post.
Priority is the current reformation/renaissance.
John
Michael Tobis says:
What are your comments based on?
As far as I am aware (from things like the Holocene Climate Optimum and further back), it is cooling that leads to aridification of the sub-tropics, not warming (cf, the Sahara, which according to archeological evidence was a very pleasant place when temperatures were higher than today). Perhaps I have read the evidence incorrectly, in which case I welcome being corrected.
#Tom Fuller:
It seems necessary to accept at least that since the end of the LIA, which saw a number of big volcanic eruptions and tsunamis, a longer lasting global warming was logically “inevitable”. The continuous rise of temperatures had been only interrupted twice, namely:
___by the first Arctic warming from 1919 to 1940 affecting the whole Northern Hemisphere (that originated from the ocean , discussed at: http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/ and
___the a period of three decades global cooling from 1940 to the mid 1970s, which started with three extreme winters in Europe (1939/40 to 1941/42)
(that originated from the regional seas (1939-1942) with possible further contribution by the NH oceans since Pearl Harbor since December 1941, discussed at: http://climate-ocean.com/ . In both cases the timing with the two World Wars was very close.
As the global cooling since 1940 was merely a temporarily disruption, the end-of-LIA temperature rise was to resume, as observed during the last few decades.
As this two events fall in the area of modern meteorology, and ample data and observations over the last 100 years are available, is seems irresponsible to make any planning based on data from about 1970s, as long as the two events 1919-1940 and 1940 to 1970 are not convincingly investigated and explained.
Tom,
I agree with your premise that “families, businesses and yes, even governments, need to make plans for the future.” I disagree that those plans should be made on the basis of any point forecast. Two decades of experience in developing competitive strategies for businesses taught me that because the future environment is unknown (and in most instances unknowable), you should not try to optimise a strategy for a specific future environment (e.g. your 2.5 scenario) . Good strategy is robust strategy — it allows one to prosper under a variety of future circumstances.
To oversimplify, what we should be trying to do is to develop a strategy that will work well whether the temperature goes up 2 degrees or down 2 degrees.
The problem with the proposals put forward by the AGW alarmists is that they require the irrevocable commitment of enormous capital resources to a single future scenario. That’s a gamble, its not a strategy.
Dear Thomas,
I read about 100 comments (300 total) of which 95% did not agree with your statement. In fact you are an alarmist who is trying to control the discussion into the direction of AGW back again, but the world is going the other way as the reactions above show.
It should be clear to you that Cancun will be a disaster in November, that subsidies will decrease, that the development for better and cheaper batteries will take many more years, that nobody really knows what the temperature will do the next decades, that nuclear energy will be the real solution, that CO2 is good and not bad, that the OZONE HOLE will always be there, that the ACID RAIN never existed and that AGW is the next political disaster!
I am sure that you have to stop your idea to bring alarmists and realists together.
—————
Steven Mosher,
Interesting polemic strategy . . . . academically interesting. ; )
The knowledge of the effects of CO2 alone on the Total Earth System physical parameters over climatic time scales when all other physical processes are included is actually not currently available to us; based on my understanding.
I think the current reformation/renaissance in climate science will be more open to investigation now that the advocates for AGW-by-CO2 are losing their control of the scientific process.
John
Thomas thanks for the challenge. As my handle suggests I have a tiny brain, in spite of that I’ve decided to give it a lash. I just hope my A game is up to your standards.
In your post you make a plea on behalf of John Q Public and business’, the world over, to be given some indication of what they can expect from our ever changing climate in the future. Your proposal; to simplify climate science to just a few variables which we know and from that produce a projected future temperature. From your own efforts you come up with a rise of 2°C for the next century. You then show your analysis to be credible if not reasonable by comparing it with the empirical record from 1958 to present when temperature rose 0.5°C, a close match to your projection. All very reasonable, if it was just that simple.
Unfortunately climate science, like real life, is not simple. If Donald Rumsfeld was a scientist he would talk about known-knowns (the factors you mention in arriving at your estimate), known-unknowns (cloud formation, prediction of volcanic eruptions), and unknown-unknowns (I won’t dwell on this too long, suffice to say we don’t really know what they are but Svensmark may be teasing one out, we just don’t know yet). Of course if Rumsfeld was a scientist the team would laugh at him and his unknown-unknowns since he wasn’t a climate scientist and they want us to believe there is no such thing.
It seems clear to me from reading your post that you would have to be sceptical of your own simplified projection as later in your post you state:
“The central question in climate change is, ‘What is the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2?’ Is the atmosphere easily influenced by CO2, producing more water vapor and adding to temperature rise, or is the atmosphere largely indifferent? Despite protestations from both sides, the honest answer is we don’t know now, and we are not likely to know for another 30 years. “
Now with my limited brain power I can’t come up with a rough and crude estimate like you to assuage the common man’s fears. But what I do know is that he ain’t going to be happy when he’s been sold a false bill of goods. Imagine if as a small investor you had borrowed €400,000 to build a solar power generation facility, in say Spain, on the strength of government subsidies for solar power only to later find out that the government was considering cutting subsidies. At the least you would be worried. And if the government went ahead and cut the subsidies I suspect you would be hopping mad and possibly bankrupt. Considering such an outcome, in the hypothetical situation I offer above, you have to ask is it wise or desirable to make any projection when you’re most likely going to be wrong and likely to mislead people, since as you admit “the honest answer is we don’t know now”.
Oh if it were all so simple. It is only reasonable to want to have some idea of what the future climate might bring to allow for planning. Wouldn’t it be great if we knew what to expect not only from climate but also in our lives. Just think you could miss that flight you really needed to catch because you would know the terrorists were going to take it over and fly it into a skyscraper. You would know what courses to take to get the job you really wanted and thereby avoid trying all those lousy dirty jobs that just weren’t for you. You would know who that special someone was and bypass all those dates and bad relationships with those other ones who just weren’t right. You’d even know the day you were to die which could really be helpful in planning a funeral.
So do I have a solution, well I have to be honest and the answer is no. The only thing I can offer is a simple homespun homily for all those out there worried about climate change.
Grow up.
Yup that’s it oh and one other thing stop scaring the kids you mindless bullies.
The most important issues in today’s and tomorrow’s world have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change or the global temperature rising 2 or 3 degrees C. The issues the average person is worried about are: family members, jobs, cost of living, medical bills, taxes, quality education, radical idiots of all stripes, the price of gas and oil, US stupidity, European stupidity, Russian stupidity, Chinese stupidity, Indian stupidity, Iranian stupidity, North Korean stupidity, Middile Eastern stupidity, etc ad’nausium. Who has room or time to worry about how warm the bleeding world is going to get after they’re dead? See what I mean?
The singular problems with all this debate are:
a) we can extrapolate basic radiative physics and assume the power density of the re-emitted radiation on the surface (any surface) will ultimately result in an atmosphere like ours, heating up
b) we aren’t constructing experiment after experiment to measure this but its okay our models are adequate
c) we have convinced ourselves that we don’t need to test the basic physics and hence are fooling ourselves that we understand all the physics
d) we then find ways to reinforce our argument because we have committed to an idea and are trying to be consistent – a very human trait.
I’ll say right now, in the spirit of Copenhagen, that Co2 DOES NOT HAVE A MEASURABLE EFFECT on surface temperature.
Why do I say that? Because nobody has shown by careful experiment that it does.
And if someone can give me the link to a paper that shows that this has been measured and not some pre-thermodynamics work of Tyndall or some idealised theory of Arrenhius then I’ll happily retract that statement.
Until the time that you do show this, and I don’t mean just demonstrating that Co2 absorbs and re-emits infra-red radiation, or that you can fuzzily assume that the atmosphere behaves in the same way as stellar plasma (using terms like opacity and LTE) …
You are just hoping and extrapolating ideas and in the process creating a belief system rather than a factual testable system.
And you do a disservice to rational and scientific thought.
Or put it another way channelling Claude Hopkins:
An ad man creates what seems like a horribly laid out advert and everyone he knows who sees it says “It’s horrible, good God look at the colours and the type face and what is that?…some black and white photo…” but the ad man just smiles and nods.
He is shunned by most friends and eager colleagues for being completely crazy and unconventional in their eyes….but the older wiser friends slap him on the back…as does his bank manager. Why?
Because his ad makes lots of money in the market it is meant for. And he knows this because he has TESTED IT again and again and again.
The same principle should be applied to AGW and the CO2 forcing idea. Don’t say or think you know based on how YOU see the world….actually know what the world is to the best of your ability before committing large sums of cash to contingency measures trying to accommodate for changes that you do to it.
Tom:
I’m exhausted from all the doom and gloom. I’m sick of catastrophic consequences. I’m numbed by alledged intellectual elitists with their utopian imaginery dreams.
So you caught me at a good time. I think there is some semblance of a solution. It may be what will ultimately transpire. However, history has taught me that any concessions made to control freaks are dilatory and transitory, always broken after time, with the original illogical aspirations acquired insidiously.
How can accepting this compromise change anything? You are missing the hidden meaning of the entire AGW fiasco. You also apparently don’t understand that a good portion of us on WUWT probably already agree that temps may rise 2 degrees in 100 years. How does admitting that change anything? There will be some that will still claim island and coastal inundation. Others, worse than we thought typhoons, and drought, etc. They want control and the money that goes with it…
Also, let’s say we can coalesce a group of people to consider adapting to some set of conditions that may occur. Then what? We know another hurricane will hit New Orleans. So the government let people move back. We know the Mississippi will flood again. So the government let people move back. We know printing dollars without backing will cause bad inflation, so the government prints more money. What’s the use? We have too many stupid people voting.
But for the sake of argument, I will sign on to your “club of WUWT” only under the following conditions, which I think are mandatory for anything that will work:
1. I would not agree to any arbitrary figure without pervasive global agreement to stop all argument concerning increasing [CO2] evolution.
2. I would not agree to any arbitrary figure without pervasive global agreement to eliminate carbon taxation schemes.
3. Abolition of the U.N. and acknowledgement that it has failed and that larger government leads to poorer government.
Firstly, the temp record sux, dude. You’re sorta skipping over step 1. Everything else just becomes “yeah, but what if”.
390/315 = 1.238095.
That is not in any system of mathematics I am familiar with, a 19% increase. I suggest it is closer to 23.8% than it is to 19%.
Just an observation.
One other thing I would like to comment on in your post Thomas comes near the end when you make this reasonable request:
“So, I call for all those involved in the climate debate to throw down their weapons, embrace this practical solution as being of use to the rest of the world, climb aboard the Peace Train and sing Kumbaya. Right.”
Well as you know to err is human to forgive divine (I hope I’m not plagiarizing). I am sure that many skeptics, like myself, would enjoy feeling divine even if only briefly. The problem is that making peace is hard. Especially so when, last week, Michael Mann complains in the Washington Post about skeptics abusing and attacking science. It’s a real pity the editors let Mann’s typo, using the word ‘science’, slip past when he really meant to write ‘me’.
I don’t know about you Thomas but I have always found it easier to follow people who lead by example rather than those who espouse that tired old meme ‘don’t do as I do as I say’ as Mann did last week. After all I have, to the best of my knowledge, never attacked or abused science. Well except for that time we stole that fist sized lump of sodium metal out of the High School chemistry lab and threw it in the local swimming pool, but I was an adolescent at the time and not a middle aged university professor.
I try not to waste too much time following the MSM. All that gossip about Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, and other A list celebrities and their children’s outrageous shopping sprees just doesn’t do it for me. I’d rather find out about what is happening in the WWE. However I do listen to the radio when driving to work and although you claim the skeptics are winning the day you’d never know it when a climate related news story or interview comes on the radio. Day after day it is the same old tired Malthusian doom and gloom doled out for the general public’s consumption.
Considering Mann’s continuing behavior as well as that of the disgraced Rajendra Pachauri and Phil Jones, neither of whom have the good sense to resign their positions, it doesn’t appear to me that the warmers are going to roll over and offer their throats any time soon. That coupled with the continued onslaught in the MSM by journalists and talking heads it is my opinion that the fight is far from over.
Thomas if you have ever competed in a combat sport you will understand implicitly that when you have the upper hand you do not stop to give the opponent a breather but instead press home your advantage. You never know your enemy could be playing possum waiting for you to let up. Considering that the CAGW, CACC, CACD followers or whatever they call themselves these days are showing no signs of letting up, but instead are continuing the battle, it is my opinion that any peace offering is premature especially considering the stakes. To be honest I don’t think the alarmists will ever give up and that being the case neither can we. Luckily those red buttons were just a fiction weren’t they?
“”” The numbers show that concentrations of CO2 were 315 ppm in 1958, when Mauna Loa started measuring. Concentrations now are 390 ppm. That is a rise of 19%. The central question in climate change is, ‘What is the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2?’ Is the atmosphere easily influenced by CO2, producing more water vapor and adding to temperature rise, or is the atmosphere largely indifferent? Despite protestations from both sides, the honest answer is we don’t know now, and we are not likely to know for another 30 years. “””
Thomas; you ask for new ideas to supplant the old IPCC discredited ideas; so why then do you repeat the unsupportable claim that CO2 rise in the atmosphere leads to more H2O in the atmosphere which leads to more warming.
H2O (vapor) in the Atmosphere ALWAYS leads to far more warming of the atmosphere than CO2 ever dreamed of; because it is H2O primarily (with a bit of assist from O2 and O3) that is mainly responsible for the attenuation of incoming SOLAR energy by perhaps 20% before it can reach the ground, or ocean. Then H2O (vapor) also captures its own fraction of the surface emitted LWIR radiation, which further heats the atmosphere.
So it is disingenuous to suggest that it is CO2 that leads to a warmer atmosphere and more water vapor. Water by itself is quite capable of maintaining the atmospheric water levels, without any assisitance from CO2. Yes CO2 does cause some atmospheric warming; I’m not going to fall on that sword; but the net result of more CO2 is simply a slightly higher global cloud cover.
The rapid fall of air temperatures at night in arid desert regions, is a vivid demonstration of the atmospheric warming capabilities of H2O and the total inability of CO2 to maintain that Temperature; even though it stays in the atmosphere (so they asy) for 200 years.
So Thomas; look for some really new new ideas; not some new way of recycling the old failed ideas.
And we don’t have to wait any 30 years; just go outside on a slightly windy scattered cloudy day, and wait for a cloud to pass in front of the sun. If the Temperature suddenly rises when the cloud passes between you and the sun, call your stock broker, and tell him to sell everything; and update your will as well !
In response to Richard Sharpe’s perceptive question:
Regarding the poleward migration of the extent of the subtropical arid zone, due to the general poleward migration of the main features under warming, the famous and terrifying Seager ’07 discusses the mechanisms to some extent
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;316/5828/1181
The dynamics are worked in detail by Lu at
http://ams.confex.com/ams/16Fluid/techprogram/paper_124519.htm
and model studies by Lu, Vecchi and Reisler are at
ftp://ftp.gfdl.noaa.gov/pub/gav/PAPERS/LVR_07_HADLEY.pdf
Regarding the moist mid-Holocene Sahara, I am not totally sure but at first blush it appears to me that the result is consistent. There we are talking about the movement of the equatorial rather than the polar edge of the zone. It was the southern Sahara that was lush at the 8 Ka temperature peak, again because the tropics expand and the other zones move poleward in warm times. So if I have this right it wasn’t the middle latitude moist baroclinic zone impinging on the arid Sahara, it was the tropical monsoon.
The basic response to “the climate is warming and CO2 is the cause” is no, it is not. There are too many reliable studies of non-UHI locations that show either zero warming or very, very little warming.
Until the climate science can properly account for no warming in such locations, when their CO2 theory requires there be warming at those locations, there is no cause for alarm.
AGW is not science, it is BS.