Bishop Hill writes:
Fred Pearce is on the receiving end of the full fury of the warmosphere for his article about the Lisbon conference in New Scientist. Pearce, discussing who had agreed to turn up, said this:
But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss.
Now Josh’s take:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@-Theo Goodwin says:
February 6, 2011 at 6:35 pm
” If what you have produced here is your idea of hypotheses then you need to return to high school for retraining. Stop wasting your time and our time on this forum.”
I don’t find I am wasting my time, the challenges to my POV help me evolve a better understanding, and erodes my ‘Morton’s demon’. But I apologies if you feel I am wasting your time and the other you speak for.
I try to respond to any reply I receive, but that does not mean I expect or require attention to any post I make. you are liberty to ignore my contribution of course.
I’m sorry if you find my admittedly shorthand versions of physical hypothesis that affect climate sensitivity are inadequate. I hoped they would be enough to indicate that there are at least something like physical hypothesis for factors involved in climate sensitivity in the ‘standard version’.
I haven’t claimed there is evidence providing confirmation.
I probably will comment further on feedbacks and sensitivity at some point, but in the detail you seem to demand it may take some time. I still owe a poster called Henry a response to his CO2 radiative cooling links and claims….
Perhaps you should have mentioned that Gavin Schmidt was one of the debaters. No wonder he avoids debating AGW. ;>)
Gnrnr says: Re;- CFCs chemical unreactivity.
February 6, 2011 at 7:05 pm
“So they are not chemcially inert. Which is it?”
They are chemically inert, so do not react with other molecules.
But the molecular stability is destroyed by strong electromagnetic radiation – UV.
Once the UV breaks them down the constituent Chlorine is free to react.
This is basic chemistry and was also covered in the link I gave earlier.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
February 6, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Mant thanks for picking up the CFC debate with izen. I need to get back to the day job (as a physicist) and you have saved me hours of research. I did not want to leave izen’s comments unchallenged. Also, you clearly know a lot more than I do about the subject!
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
“A September 1990 article, as if science hasn’t moved on since then in its understanding of ozone, the ozone hole and what could cause it, etc.
From the D’Aleo piece:
The ozone hole has not closed off after we banned CFCs. See this story in Nature:…”
Yes, I remeber this thread, it was one of the first I participated in here. Of course the research that seemed to indicate that the Cl2O2 photo-breakdown was slower than previously measured used a new methodology with uncertain errors due to contamination. It dates from 2007.
Since then science has moved on, the measurements have been repeated using several other methods, most notebly means of measuring the actual rate in the stratosphere.
Here is a post I made in the D’Aleo thread. –
izen says:
January 9, 2011 at 2:31 pm
For those that might think that the research quoted in the original thread essay has not been refuted –
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100722092227.htm
“For the first time, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) scientists have successfully measured in the ozone layer the chlorine compound ClOOCl, which plays an important role in stratospheric ozone depletion. The doubts in the established models of polar ozone chemistry expressed by American researchers based on laboratory measurements are disproved by these new atmospheric observations. The established role played by chlorine compounds in atmospheric ozone chemistry is in fact confirmed by KIT’s atmospheric measurements.”
Myrrh says:
February 6, 2011 at 4:58 pm
“So man-made Carbon Dioxide sinks?”
It is kinda disconcerting to find these basic misconceptions about the atmosphere croping up yet again. This is not rocket science, or even climate science, its basic physics known for at least a century.
The ratio of the kinetic energy of molecules in the atmosphere and the gravitational force means that the gravitational fractionation of different molecular weights is minimal over the 10Km height of the troposphere and insignificant up into the stratopshere. Gases are well mixed irrispective of their molecular weight.
The reason that natural halogen coumpounds do not make it to the stratosphere is NOT a function of their molecular weight. It is a function of their extreme reactivity with water.
Water vapor does not make it into the stratosphere in significant amounts as measurements from the last century and since have confirmed. This despite being almost the lightest molecule in the atmosphere.
The reason is the condensation and freezing of water vapor ‘rains out’ water vapor and it takes the halogens with it.
The water vapor takes a little of the CO2 as a dissolved component too, but most CO2 gets well mixed because unlike Halogen compounds its affinity for water vapor is much lower.
The reason why only Chlorine from big explosive volcanoes makes it to the stratosphere while CFCs and CO2 released at ground level migrate there is because there is no chemical process that links the CFCs and CO2 to water vapor which normally removes halogens before they reach the stratosphere. This removal process is only bypassed by explosive volcanoes that inject Chlorine high enough to avoid the water vapor in the lower troposphere.
All of this information is readily available for anybody who makes the effort to look it up, rather than seeks quibbles to carp about the settled science.
The only people who insist that debate stop are those who are afraid of what continued debate will reveal. If the science were actually “settled”, they wouldn’t fear debate. As others have said, follow the money to find what motivates them.
I was once involved in a discussion about “global warming” (or whatever the term du jour is) with someone who claimed to have a degree in environmental sciences (I don’t know if he actually did, although I have no reason to doubt it). So I asked him the following: “1,000 years ago, it was warm enough to grow figs and olives in Northern Germany. The evidence for this is indisputable; both the local churches and municipalities have numerous records of the harvest of both crops, and they had no reason to falsify them. Yet we STILL are not warm enough to grow figs and olives in Northern Germany today; so explain why I should be concerned about the planet getting warmer?”
His mouth opened and closed a few times like a fish out of water, and then he shut up.
Keep up the good work, Mr. Watt. But for you “warmists” here, if you want me to be concerned about the planet getting warmer, you’re going to have to provide evidence to me that the planet is at least as warm as written records and/or other evidence show it has been in the geologically recent past (2,000 years or so). So call me back when they’re growing figs and olives in Northern Germany, or when warm weather beetles are back in Scotland (there’s lots of evidence that beetles that live in climates warmer than Scotland has now used to live in Scotland, again about 1,000 years ago; all you have to do is dig to find their dead “bodies”), or when all the Viking settlements in Greenland are uncovered by the Glaciers, or .. well, you get the picture.
And don’t talk to me about your computer models until you’re accounting for solar output (both the increase in energy output due to more helium fusion occurring, and sunspots), and the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit (which varies over time and affects our climate).
I missed that comment of yours (the volume of contributions to this blog now far exceeds the time I have to read them, fascinating though so much of it is!), so for others, here’s a part:
That you and ge0050 have come up with such similar observations is a sanguine example of “Great minds think alike.”
Like Ron House (February 6, 2011 at 6:17 pm), I also appreciate your juxtaposition of the Great Pyramid with Stonehenge. Though one must be a bit chary of climatic determinism, it is clear that the first monument-building civilizations arose in warm, fertile climates.
I do recall, however, an argument that the great advances of Western industrialization and Enlightenment philosophy occurred in the colder regions of Europe (and North America) because of the sharp minds that were stuck indoors cogitating and inventing, not relaxing on tropical verandas. Their endeavors, of course, were all made possible by our old fossil friends, coal and gas.
/Mr Lynn
In reply to the 2/6/11 6:35 PM post of Theo Goodwin:
Melting ice would have had positive albedo feedbacks 10,000 years ago when the glaciers were melting, but the icecaps covering Greenland and the Arctic Ocean must have reached a stable equilibrium , else that positive feedback would have continued until there were no icecaps anywhere on earth. It turns out that increases in cloud cover now act as a NEGATIVE feedback.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticReflector/arctic_reflector4.php
“Being able to establish a definite seasonal cycle in polar clouds during this period would have been an important contribution to climate change research all on its own. But the results only got more interesting. Although sea ice and snow cover had noticeably declined in the Arctic from 2000 to 2004, there had been no detectable change in the albedo measured at the top of the atmosphere: the proportion of light the Arctic reflected hadn’t changed. In other words, the ice albedo feedback that most climate models predict will ultimately amplify global warming apparently hadn’t yet kicked in.
Kato quickly understood why: not only is the Arctic’s average cloud fraction on summer days large enough—on average 0.8, or 80 percent—to mask sea ice changes, but an increase in cloudiness between 2000 and 2004 further hid any impact that sea ice and snow losses might have had on the Arctic’s ability to reflect incoming light. According to the MODIS observations, cloud fraction had increased at a rate of 0.65 percent per year between 2000 and 2004. If the trend continues, it will amount to a relative increase of about 6.5 percent per decade. At least during this short time period, says Kato, increased cloudiness in the Arctic appears to have offset the expected decline in albedo from melting sea ice and snow.”
That negative feedback kept Greenland from melting over the last 10,000 years.
I wonder what negative feedback kept the Glaciers from expanding all the way to the
equator over the course of the Pleistocene- a shortage of water vapor to feed the icepacks? Changes in global circulation where the equatorial region kept more its heat rather than transferring it to the poles?
richard verney says: February 6, 2011 at 10:52 am I agree with your point wrt both monuments created in more climatically optimum times, as well with the difference in sophistication. However, unless the Stonehenge stones were glacially deposited, they came from 160 miles away, quite a feat in itself. The times when the human culture creates more than is needed for survival, such as monuments, decorative objects, etc., it is only because they are well-fed and not fighting for survival. Flourishing happens in warm climes, not cold. I would also propose that it is the tempering by cold intrusions, and learning to cope, that has led to the innovations of agriculture, domestication of animals, clothing, war (we’re starving, there’s nothing to hunt or forage for, so let’s steal from our neighbors), etc.
I thought this was a post about Gavin Schmidt and Fred Pearce.
Are those who are arguing that the science is settled doing so to support Gavin’s stance? If so why does he deny the opinion that he declined to attend the conference because the science is settled and he only is interested in discussing what policies are needed to mitigate the problem?
To me it seems Gavin is just misunderstood… Here is the climax again: “No ‘conflict resolution’ is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.”
He isn’t referring to us at all but rather to himself and his team. Who else “picks through scientific …to support a pre-defined policy position”? This is and has always been a hallmark of the so called environmental movement.
We are the science community that is focused on understanding. He and his team are doing all they can to avoid it for fear it would kill the cash flow.
I don’t know for sure but this interpretation makes more sense. Even a mediocre 9th grader isn’t ignorant enough of scientific method to think Gavin is doing science, so I assume he knows he is fudging the data.
Actually, though it is a not-so-carefully guarded secret within the community of Real Climate Pscientists, Gavin Schmidt is really just Michael Mann with a false nose.
Think about it: have you ever seen them together?
From izen on February 7, 2011 at 5:30 am:
Thus we see, once again, Establishment Science™ at work. What is not being questioned is the “…established role played by chlorine compounds in atmospheric ozone chemistry…” The Nature piece linked at the D’Aleo article carefully concludes:
Thus that Science Daily piece stating said role is confirmed, is essentially meaningless, since that wasn’t being challenged. The exact chemical reactions, given the questions about the rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2), aka chlorine monoxide dimer, is what is in doubt. The basis of the Montreal Protocol remains, those dirty CFC’s are doing it, mankind is still at fault. The position of Establishment Science™ remains as it was.
Now, you have presented some balloon measurements, with the statement from the piece:
That presumably is referencing the rate of photolysis reported from work at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, mentioned in the Nature article:
Well, here’s another Science Daily piece (bold added):
Checking the page of publications arising from MLS data here, this citation is found:
No link to the paper there. The abstract and full text are available here.
Tens of thousands of measurements worldwide by satellite, trumps a few balloon measurements above Northern Scandinavia.
Establishment Science™ still prevails. It is still mankind’s fault. The Montreal Protocol was not enacted in error. No one in these articles is questioning that CFC’s, those chlorine compounds, are depleting ozone. They wouldn’t dare, it’d be career suicide.
All this furor, this infighting, is over questioning about the exact chemical reactions occurring. Because to question would be to admit doubt. There can be no doubt in Establishment Science™. There is Overwhelming Consensus, No (serious) Debate, The Truth Is Known. Establishment Science™ is Settled Science.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
“There can be no doubt in Establishment Science™. There is Overwhelming Consensus, No (serious) Debate, The Truth Is Known. Establishment Science™ is Settled Science.”
Quite right.
The Earth orbits the Sun; We share common ancestry with the rest of biological life and CFCs destroy ozone in the stratosphere.
Get over it.
Wondering Aloud says:
February 7, 2011 at 8:56 am
“To me it seems Gavin is just misunderstood… Here is the climax again: “No ‘conflict resolution’ is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.”
He isn’t referring to us at all but rather to himself and his team. ”
One of the funniest things about this whole issue is that BOTH sides are honestly and sincerely convinced that they are the people focused on increasing understanding by a rational and unbiased examination of the evidence; and BOTH sides consider that the other are people who are dishonestly and fraudulently picking through the evidence for cherries to support a pre-defined policy position.
As usual the people on both sides ascribe to themselves the moral superiority of neutrality and integrity, and project onto the other all the most heinous and disreputable traits they consider humans capable of. Neither side seems aware that the human capacity for self-delusion exceeds the capacity for honesty or deceit.
But to (mis)quote Feynman –
You can’t fool Nature.
izen says:
February 7, 2011 at 10:29 pm: “Get over it.”
I think that it is a pity that a valid debate about CFCs and ozone has become intolerant. There are clearly outstanding issues about chemical reaction rates and the quantities of CFCs in the stratosphere required to attenuate UV radiation. All of the research demonstrates that the science is not “settled”.
Roger Longstaff says:
February 8, 2011 at 8:50 am
” There are clearly outstanding issues about chemical reaction rates and the quantities of CFCs in the stratosphere required to attenuate UV radiation.”
Its the ‘actress’ and the bishop scenario….
There is no argument about whats happening;
Just the price.
izen says:
February 8, 2011 at 11:06 am: “Its the ‘actress’ and the bishop scenario….
There is no argument about whats happening; Just the price”
OK – I give up, you win.
Debating with you is the intellectual equivalent of “bashing the bishop”. As for the actress, I will try to take your advice and “get over it”.
All the best mate.
From izen on February 7, 2011 at 10:29 pm:
That’s it? All my research, writing, proofreading, and all I get is : Yeah, well, what I said at the start is still true! You can go stuff it! Yup, great job there intelligently refuting my points and responding in a reasoned manner.
In any case,
One:
Two: First off you’re being rather Earth-centered. If there is biological life elsewhere in the universe, it’s very likely we do not share common ancestry with it, although I suppose aliens could have been seeding life on different worlds.
Plus, from another angle, biological life may be relatively common. Amino acids of extraterrestrial origin (not created on Earth) have been found in meteorites etc. You can Google “amino acid asteroid” for info. Here’s an interesting example:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Amino_Acids_Get_Into_Some_Hot_Water_999.html
Some scientists believe these building blocks of life were “cooked” at deep-sea hydrothermal vents, leading to life originating there. However “the next step” has been found in meteorites, as read in this Discover piece:
As can be seen, the initial pieces of biological life may be “raining down from the heavens” and creating life wherever suitable throughout the universe, and we will have no common ancestry with that other biological life. Also, the possibility definitely exists there could have been more than one “origin of life” on Earth, thus it is also possible that all biological life on Earth does not have common ancestry. Since similar chemicals are found, lifeforms with similar chemistry are not automatically assured of having common ancestry. Moreover, one should be aware of the debate concerning the earliest forms of life on Earth. From the Wikipedia Prokaryote entry:
Read up on protobionts, for which work exists showing they may be formed spontaneously. Heck, go soak up the Wikipedia abiogenesis entry, learn about all the many theories about the initial origin of life, which, amazingly enough, is still a matter of serious scientific contention. See the “Multiple genesis” section, then finish off with this extensive Scientific American piece:
Indeed, about the only way one can say with absolute certainty “…We share common ancestry with the rest of biological life…” is if one absolutely believes all biological life descended from a divine being.
Three: The CFC’s themselves are harmless to the ozone. They do not destroy ozone in the stratosphere or anywhere else. It is the decomposition products that tear apart ozone, as in the chlorine radical, of which there are also natural sources.
Looks to me, for three of three, you goofed.
Get over that.
izen,
You apparently are unaware of something important in your defense of Establishment Science™.
The Nature article mentioned in the D’Aleo piece questions the photolysis rate:
That is with photolysis, with ultraviolet light doing the splitting.
However, groundbreaking research by Qing-Bin Lu has shown a statistical correlation between ozone depletion and cosmic rays. From PhysicsCentral, an American Physical Society (APS) site, comes this 2009 piece examining his 2001 and 2009 papers. There is criticism of the work presented, but also how it dovetails with the slow photolysis rate mentioned in the Nature piece. Later Lu had a new paper published in the February 2010 Physics Reports, abstract and paywall here, providing more and stronger evidence. The press release was covered here at WUWT, presumably because Lu also found, without looking for it, that CFC’s and the recent global warming appear linked.
So, Establishment Science™ can relax, the CFC’s are still at fault, the Montreal Protocol must stay in place. It’s cosmic rays doing the breaking down, not UV, that’s the difference. Perhaps it may even be a blend of both.
Except, Lu’s 2010 paper shows a connection between global warming and CFC’s, not carbon dioxide. Establishment Science™ cannot allow that, CO2 must be at fault, as they have said all along. Therefore, it cannot be cosmic rays, therefore it must be photolysis, therefore that new slower rate must be wrong. Establishment Science™ has spoken, thus it is the truth.
Side note: Although Lu 2010 was in a February 2010 publication, it was available online in, and the press release dates from, December 2009. As mentioned, it links global warming with CFC’s, not CO2. This perhaps is linked to a pseudonymous snarky drive-by comment in January 2010 at the PhysicsCentral piece by someone calling themselves “EliRabett“. There may be an interesting backstory behind that, or not. ☺
@-kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
You counters to the three claims I made would be described by one recent writer (Neil Stephenson – Anathem) as Kefedokhles I think….
“You apparently are unaware of something important in your defense of Establishment Science™…..However, groundbreaking research by Qing-Bin Lu has shown a statistical correlation between ozone depletion and cosmic rays. ”
Interesting, but as pointed out in the article, Rolf Müller and Jens-Uwe Strooß and more amusingly by the Bunny, have shown the correlation does not hold up.
The ‘Establishment Science™’ has UV levels, temperature in the S polar vortex and CFC levels as the major factors in ozone depletion. This past S polar winter, and next will have high GCR flux levels presumably as solar activity is low, so if Quing-Bin Lu is right, the size of the ozone hole last S polar winter and this coming S polar winter will be very big.
On the other hand there is some dispute I gfather over UV levels from the sun through its cycle, and polar stratospheric temperatures may be a factor, while ozone levels are a factor in stratospheric temps, so a nice feedback loop there…
Any idea what the recent ozone hole figures are ? And how that supports or refutes Quing-bin LU or supports the Establishment Science™.
Personally am very skeptical about any significant modification of the science of CFCs/ozone developed over the last 30 years.
From izen on February 9, 2011 at 9:02 am:
Now they’re only “claims”? I thought they were Irrefutable Facts from Settled Science, as marketed.
Once again, you duck. This time you also provide an obscure reference to a near-impenetrable 1000+ page tome that qualifies for an experiment in carbon sequestration as the original hardcover version is too valuable as a doorstop to burn.
Then there’s the irony of referring to a story where the Powers that Be (the Sæcular Power with the Inquisition) methodically restrict scientific inquiry, ostracize those with evidence that challenges the Establishment, actively suppress the truth, and are finally forced to capitulate after the truth becomes impossible to deny. Said truth originating with “outsiders” separate from the Establishment and the scientific community. Beautiful.
Then there’s the actual definition, found by a Google Books search, Result 4 of 4:
My counters to your three claims would be described as a person?
Bunny snark aside, did you look at the 2009 Rolf Müller and Jens-Uwe Strooß paper, available here? As found in the concluding “In summary…” paragraph:
So basically they’re admitting there could be something to Lu’s work, and not completely ruling out cosmic rays. Also, that deals with Lu’s 2001 and 2009 papers, not the 2010 paper. Thus it could be, as I mentioned, both cosmic rays and ultraviolet light, with the CR picking up the slack represented by the lower rate of photolysis by UV.
I found some cosmic radiation data here, select “Plot Monthly Data.” Among all the stations in the monitoring network, it’s pretty easy to pick out those whose data could use some quality control. But in general, as is easily seen, cosmic radiation has been in decline for the past few years. McMurdo is listed, there it’s been declining for the past few years.
NASA has their “Ozone Hole Watch” site here with info. The “hole” is largest in area with the ozone minimum reading lowest in the Southern Hemisphere spring, not winter. As seen with the Annual graphs (note the Annual figures are actually averages of a short period), the area of the hole has been shrinking and the ozone minimum reading increasing for the past few years.