Guest post by Dr. J Storrs Hall
A bit over a year ago, in the wake of Climategate, I put up a blog post over at the Foresight Institute which got picked up and run here at WUWT. The essence of the post was that there was lots of natural variation in the ice core record of climate, so that it was reasonable to be skeptical of scientists who claimed that recent CO2 variations were “the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend” (quoting myself).
Apparently that got enough exposure — and was persuasive enough — that over a year later the alarmists still feel the urge to “debunk” it. Most recently, Rob Honeycutt at the “SkepticalScience” alarmist fanboi blog weighed in with this: Crux of a Core, Part 1 – addressing J Storrs Hall. Now the thing about this particular piece that jumped out at me at first was the fact that he associated me with a graph I never used, and he calls me “Mr. Hall” to make me sound less qualified than other sources such as “Dr. Alley” he refers to. It’s Dr. Hall (and yes, I am a scientist, not a nanotech engineer as he claims), a fact that he could have discovered in 3 seconds with Google. That told me about all I needed to know about Honeycutt’s bona fides (in the original Latin sense of acting in good faith).
The only substantive point in the post is that GISP2 (or any specific ice core) is a local as opposed to global temperature record. Is it misrepresentation to use it as a proxy for global climate? Well, the inconvenient truth is that I’m hardly the first person to use ice cores as climate proxies in popular presentations:
… but, on the other hand, it’s actually an interesting question and one worth looking at.
How Ice Cores Record a History of Climate
That’s not my title, it’s from this page at the GISP2 site. Not “a history of local temperature,” — of climate. Here are some quotes from the abstracts of papers by GISP2 authors:
“Ice cores provide high-resolution, multi-parameter records of changes in climate and environmental conditions spanning two or more full glacial- interglacial cycles. …”
“Polar ice contains a unique record of past climate variations; …”
“One of the most dramatic climate events observed in marine and ice core records is the Younger Dryas (YD), … High resolution, continuous glaciochemical records, newly retrieved from central Greenland, record the chemical composition of the Arctic atmosphere at this time. This record shows that both onset and termination of the YD occurred within 10-20 years …”
“The Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) core can enhance our understanding of the relationship between parameters measured in the ice in central Greenland and variability in the ocean, atmosphere, and cryosphere of the North Atlantic Ocean and adjacent land masses. …”
“High-resolution, continuous multivariate chemical records from a central Greenland ice core provide a sensitive measure of climate change…”
“The accumulation record from the GISP2 core as an indicator of climate change throughout the Holocene” (paper title)
So, sure, a single ice core is not a global average temperature record; but it is quite a bit more than one thermometer. It’s just mud-slinging to claim that using it for a climate proxy is “misinformation”.
… especially when I didn’t just use one ice core in my post but two, and the other one was from Antarctica. One way to cut past the verbiage is simply to look at a comparison of the Greenland and Antarctic data and see how well they correlate:
(This is GISP2 in green, NGRIP, another Greenland core, in cyan, and the Vostok Antarctic core in blue. The Vostok has been scaled and shifted for a best match with the others; the temperature in Antarctica is colder, with smaller variations, than in Greenland. Furthermore, there are some time-scaling issues — note the temporal divergence of the two Greenland records before about 40 kya. It’s possible that NH/SH actually match better than this plot indicates. Look here for data.)
Nowhere near a perfect match, but it’s pretty clear that these are all from the same planet. Even Vostok shows the Younger Dryas, which is generally believed to be a mostly northern-hemisphere event. The NH has more variability in ice ages, notably the Dansgaard-Oeschger events, but the SH more, on a relative scale, in the Holocene.
The GISP2 people also compared their core’s record with Antarctic ones; on this page they say that it “shows close correlation between GISP2 and Vostok in the delta 18O of air in these ice cores.” (That’s a key temperature proxy.) On this page they say “Holocene climate is characterized by rapid climate change events and considerable complexity. GISP2 Holocene ¶18O (proxy for temperature) (Grootes, et al., 1993) and EOF1 (composite measure of major chemistry representing atmospheric circulation) show parallel behavior for the Early Holocene but not for the Late Holocene (O’Brien, et al., 1995).”
Note that bit about “rapid climate change events.” In the words of Jeffrey Masters here, “The historical records shows us that abrupt climate change is not only possible–it is the normal state of affairs. The present warm, stable climate is a rare anomaly.” (And he’s talking specifically about the lessons of GISP2 — although alas he takes home the wrong lesson from it.) See also this recent post here by Don Easterbrook.
Does GISP2 — or any other paleoclimate record — show us that climate change isn’t happening? No, of course not. It shows us that climate change always happens. The 20th-century warming was hardly unprecedented, and doesn’t call for unusual explanations.
From eadler on March 2, 2011 at 9:16 pm:
These must be two other polls than the one torn apart last year. As posted here on WUWT, copied from the Hockey Schtick:
Of the two questions from the poll that were featured, well, they deserved examination:
#1 is easy, “pre-1800’s” covers the Little Ice Age which ended around 1850, and temperatures have risen since that rather cold period.
For #2, CO2 isn’t mentioned, technically it refers to “changing” temperatures not specifically rising. And the wording is “significant contributing factor.” Your clumsy “murder” analogy doesn’t hold. This is more akin to citing high cholesterol and stress as “significant contributing factors” to a myocardial infarction. Actually, going by the question’s wording, agreeing is just specifying the percentage of “changing mean global temperatures” that can be attributed to human activities is significant, which is a far cry from what you’re trying to say. Only 10% can be considered significant, with 90% of the “changing mean global temperatures” being due to natural reasons.
You better cite those two other studies, that actually are polls of “active climate science researchers” as you have said, that actually show “97% of them believe that the earth is warming and humans are responsible” as you have stated. Because this one certainly did not.
Sorry, kadaka, but your historical revisionism won’t fly. Through the 1990s, corporate interests fought tooth-and-nail against the consensus on climate change. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition ). It is true that many of those corporate interests (although certainly not all of them) have abandoned this stance…but this is only because they were smart enough to realize that the scientific case had become so strong that it was no longer in their best financial interests to deny it but instead to come to terms with the fact that because of this scientific knowledge we were inevitably moving toward a future of a carbon-constrained world.
Yes, today the skeptics are a voice in the wilderness (although not, alas, on Capitol Hill at the moment) but that really just reflects the fact that the scientific evidence continues to go against them and whatever science they do try to produce, even by the few with serious scientific publication records, continues to be found seriously wanting. (See, e.g., http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/mathematical_analysis_of_roy_spencers_climate_model )
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:March 4, 2011 at 8:44 pm”Sorry Smokey, but we’ll have to write off “citizenschallenge” as another of the deluded. I looked at his blog.”
~ ~ ~
So does this mean I get banned?
By the way, why you got a problem with those words I wrote?
Smokey says:March 4, 2011 at 7:13 pm
citizenschallenge,
Pseudo-Science Daily is your Authority?? Well, no wonder you’re so confused.
~ ~ ~
Now wait a minute,
what has Science Daily done to get on the s– list?
Care to offer any details?
I’ve often wondered what color the sky is on Joel Shore’s planet. I know he’s not an Earthling when he says stuff like, “…the scientific case had become so strong that it was no longer in their best financial interests to deny it but instead to come to terms with the fact that because of this scientific knowledge we were inevitably moving toward a future of a carbon-constrained world.”
“Carbon constrained”?? Joel is probably different, but we earthlings are made of carbon. And of course we are certainly not moving toward a CO2 constrained world [which is probably what Joel meant to say]. China alone is more than making up for any reduction here.
Finally, the “scientific case” that CO2 will lead to CAGW has been thoroughly debunked. Maybe not on Vogon IV, or wherever Joel is beaming in from. But on Earth the disconnect between harmless, beneficial CO2 is obvious.
One last thought
Isn’t science about discussing and examining all legitimate inquire?
if that’s the case,
Why does so much of these WUWT discussion threads revolve around so much ‘shouting down’ anything that “disagrees” with you?
You guys like insulting SkepticalScience, but read those open threads and discussions, at least they are about discussing opposing views, in a civil constructive manner, rather than shouting them down with rabid insults. (OK there is occasional ribbing but the damnation I keep hearing in other place)
cheers,
Peter
Peter, if I want to test my theories or challenge the warming theories, I go to skeptical science. While there I can pick up links to papers to read and understand so I can make better challenges. There is useful information here too, but politics is allowed and gets well past the annoying point to those who disagree with it. But generally the science is not being “shouted”.
Reading above, D’Aleo regretted his use “shout”. You and Joel are welcome of course to maintain whatever caricature of this site that you want so you can stay in your comfort zone. And Joel, you are welcome to maintain your belief that it was corporate interests that got people like myself interested in this in the 1990’s or Steve McIntyre in the early 2000’s. But it is not true, it is just your wishful thinking.
citizenschallenge says:
“So does this mean I get banned?”
WUWT doesn’t ban commentators for being scientifically illiterate, so you’re safe. [BTW, your Phytoplankton Calcification link has been completely debunked by the WUWT Dave Middleton article, with charts showing just the opposite of what is claimed in the article you posted.]
And if Skeptical Pseudo-Science is such a great blog, why don’t you just spend your time there, instead of trying to convince people here that a 97% push-poll is anything other than fabricated propaganda?
WUWT is a true scientific skeptics’ site. In fact, a skeptical position is required by the scientific method. Purveyors of a new hypothesis have the obligation to try and tear down their own hypothesis. Where have you ever seen that done by climate alarmists? Against all the evidence, they still try to push their agenda. That is not science, that is advocacy; anti-science. Pseudo-science. Science fiction.
John Cook flogs the alarmist agenda at his mendaciously named blog. There is nothing ‘skeptical’ about it. Cook is a climate alarmist advocate. He pushes it every day, despite the lack of any verifiable evidence that CO2 is harmful. But then Cook is a cartoonist, which is basically a propagandist profession, no?
Finally, you never answered my question about any evidence of global harm from CO2. You stated:
“Tragically It is impossible to show you and your friends that information ~ since you refuse to look at it in good-faith!
The evidence is there!”
I promise I’ll look at whatever evidence you can provide. Just make sure it’s evidence, and not computer model output. Only verifiable evidence showing convincingly that CO2 causes global harm, what the harm is, and the damage quantified in a testable manner. After all, that is the whole basis for the “carbon” scare. Prove to us that it’s not a baseless scare.
Eric (skeptic) says:
I have never made claims about how particular people have gotten interested in the subject. All that I said was that it was a complete misreading of history to think that corporate interests were generally supportive of the science of AGW.
I think that in most cases, most of the people here have a very strong “free market” ideology (i.e., on the conservative or libertarian end of the spectrum) and it is the policy solutions implied by the science that strongly disincline them to believe the science. There are, of course, a few exceptions (e.g., Alexander Cockburn, a columnist for the left-wing Nation magazine is an “AGW skeptic”) but I don’t think there are very many. (And in Cockburn’s case, he is far enough to the Left that the conspiracy theories involving intellectual authorities become in many ways indistinguishable from those on the right end of the spectrum.)
From citizenschallenge on March 5, 2011 at 7:34 am:
This site ain’t (Un)RealClimate. Banning is an exceptionally rare event, and not done for merely having an opposing view. For a one-word reason for the bannings I have seen, and they were few, I’d say impoliteness.
Nah, they’re good words. I’m just wondering why you don’t follow what you yourself wrote. To wit:
I can see what’s happening when I turn on the network news. If there is a mudslide or hurricane or flooding or drought somewhere in the world, it gets tied to global warming, and we get warned such are going to happen more frequently and severely. Despite the pro-(C)AGW crowd saying global warming is climate which deals with several decades and certainly not with individual events which are weather, the media does it anyway, with statements from pro-(C)AGW people saying it’s global warming. It’s sensationalism. And when was the last time you saw the media support a “substantive learning process” that involved an equivalent presentation of both sides? As far as the media is concerned when it comes to (C)AGW, the Socratic Method does not exist. “The science has spoken, the science is settled, only bible-thumping unscientific hicks don’t believe it.” That is the media presentation. And you don’t question that?
You can see the governments of the “developed world” gleefully anticipating the new revenue streams from taxing “carbon emissions.” You can see the governments of the “developing world” gleefully anticipating payments in recompensation for the “past, present, and future damages from global warming,” for mitigation and adaptation schemes, even for the assorted “carbon sequestration” schemes. Corporate interests like GE and various automakers are pushing assorted “solutions” to “combat global warming” that couldn’t stand on their own without government subsidies and mandates, from wind turbines to electric cars. But with that government intervention, which includes research money (paying them to develop what they’ll profit from), riding the global warming hype, they’re making good money.
Electric cars, likely charged from a coal-fired electric plant. Did you see the ads for those new GE “hybrid” water heaters? They’re heat pump systems. They can’t be tucked away in a closet, they need lots of open air to draw in heat. Sounds great in the summer, but what of the winter? Where is that “free heat” that’s “saving you money” coming from? You heat the air, the air is used to heat the water, with the added inefficiency of the heat pump system. This is better than using a plain electric water heater with a 100% electricity-to-heat efficiency, or a thrifty gas-fueled unit? And sure it costs more up front, but you get to feel good about “saving the planet” so it’s all worth it.
The greatest crisis facing humanity is poverty, caused and/or exacerbated by the lack of available affordable energy. Yet government and corporate leaders are not addressing this by developing and providing cheap energy. Instead I see them lining up for the never-ending money stream coming from the hyping of (C)AGW. Greed comes first.
That “steady flow” arising from the “fight against global warming” is regularly documented on WUWT and elsewhere.
You sell yourself as anti-establishment, then claim the most pro-establishment side of the issue. You don’t question the one-sidedness of the standard presentation. Here in the comments on WUWT, I can read the horror stories of forced indoctrination into professing (C)AGW. Parents talk of their kids in public schools, who aren’t allowed to question (C)AGW and must affirm whatever claims are presented or risk bad grades, who must participate in assorted “feel-good” “save the planet” projects. College students say likewise, questioning the (C)AGW orthodoxy is not allowed. Aren’t you wondering why debate has been so thoroughly squelched?
And of course, there are the Climategate revelations. Don’t you dare wave them off as “stolen emails” or whatever. Their authenticity is not doubted. An anti-establishment person as you claim to be would surely acknowledge the importance of such releases in breaking down bogus establishment claims, from wherever they come. In them we note the “Climate Team” finds their theories don’t match reality. Post-Climategate, one of the leading members of the team, Dr. Phil Jones of UEA-CRU, agreed in February 2010 in a BBC Q&A that there has been no statistically-significant warming from 1995 to the present.
Where and when in all the media hype about the global warming crisis and the urgently-needed action to combat it, with governments and politicians pushing their urgently-needed additional powers of regulation and additional taxation to fight the crisis, with corporate interests lining up to sell their urgently-needed “solutions” to the crisis and eager for the good PR of being seen as “part of the solution, not part of the problem,” with special-interest “nonprofits” ceaselessly demanding the urgently-needed governmental fixes to the crisis along with ever-more donations so they can champion the push to fight the crisis, did any of these parties with a vested interest in promoting (C)AGW get around to noting for the public that there had been a 15 year stretch without any statistically-significant global warming?
You wrote good words. You have not lived up to those words.
That is still sad.
kadaka says:
Here is the full quote from the article that you linked to:
In fact, the best-fit trend over the 15 year period is not much lower than the trend has been over the period from 1975 to 2009 (0.16 C per decade). It is just that the errorbars over a 15 year period are still large enough that one cannot reject a trend of 0 with 95% confidence. Likewise, one probably could not reject a slope of ~0.24 C per decade with 95% confidence either (assuming an approximately symmetric probability distribution). This is just a statement about measuring trends over what are still relatively short time periods. The fact that it is turned into such a big deal by “skeptics” shows only how unskeptical they are to believe what they want to believe.
This is also an illustration of why in a debate between honest scientists and less-than-honest propagandists, the propagandists can often pull public opinion to their side. Real science is messy and there are all sorts of issues to worry about, like statistical significance of trends over time periods that are just not sufficient to determine the trends to high accuracy. Propagandists take advantage of this.
It also explains why there can be such a gulf between what the scientific community thinks the science shows and what those who are inclined to believe otherwise think.
Smokey says: . . . Only verifiable evidence showing convincingly that CO2 causes global harm, what the harm is, and the damage quantified in a testable manner.
After all, that is the whole basis for the “carbon” scare. Prove to us that it’s not a baseless scare.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
You know, I keep hearing variations on that mantra: there is no proof whatsoever that CO2 is happening,… CO2 is causing,… CO2 will harm, etc. etc.
To be honest I’m not sure what you are claiming or demanding.
So I wonder if we could start by focusing on definitions… are you claiming some of the following is nonsense?
~ ~ ~
#1) Carbon dioxide (CO2) consists of a single carbon atom and two hydrogen atoms bonded to it, one on each side. Because greenhouse gasses are comprised of 3 or more atoms, they are loosely bonded and have a certain freedom of movement and thus are affected by longwave radiation in the form of vibrations.
#2) The carbon dioxide molecule can absorb infrared radiation and the molecule will vibrate. As molecules return to a ground state the molecule will release radiation which will likely be picked up by another molecule.
#3) This keeps the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) close to the earth instead of being radiated out into space.
#4) The increasing atmospheric CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) has increased the amount of infrared radiation absorbed and re-emitted by these molecules in the atmosphere. Warming our globe and evidenced by countless proxies, most dramatically Earth’s shrinking cryosphere.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) that was silly and mostly your politics and imagination running away with you.
I would just a soon try to focus on the science.
Smokey says: March 5, 2011 at 7:43 am “Finally, the “scientific case” that CO2 will lead to CAGW has been thoroughly debunked. Maybe not on Vogon IV, or wherever Joel is beaming in from. But on Earth the disconnect between harmless, beneficial CO2 is obvious.”
~ ~ ~
What in the world was that linked graph supposed to make clear?
Are you thinking that climatologists believe CO2 is the only influence?
Besides! . . . since when do US temp figures represent global temps {which incidentally include oceans and not just the top two, three hundred meters either.}
~ ~ ~
Referring back to my previous post, there’s a cool simple little site put together by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research {or are they bad guys too?}
“The Greenhouse Effect” I’m curious do you dispute any of the assertions made on that website? If you could be specific that would great, thanks.
http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
~ ~ ~
PS. no one ever explained what was wrong with ScienceDaily?
CC, nice Freudian slip there (describing CH2 because you were thinking about the real GHG: H2O)
Joel claims “Real science is messy and there are all sorts of issues to worry about, like statistical significance of trends over time periods that are just not sufficient to determine the trends to high accuracy. Propagandists take advantage of this.”
Joel, propaganda is dispensed by both sides, weather is messy and the propagandists use that fact to claim, for example, that AGW means
lessmore snow.The sooner you come to grips with the fact that Mann98/99 is propaganda, the sooner we will take you seriously when you talk about his later work. Read Montford’s book, show what the mistakes are in the book, what conclusions are not mistaken, what science should do about it.
Eric: Others have already pointed out severe problems with Montford’s book. I don’t really see the purpose of wading even deeper into that abyss. Besides which, it is not clear what good it would do. I have already pointed out two serious errors in claims that Smokey was making about Mann; Nobody has really disputed what I have said about the facts…and yet it doesn’t stop the basic mantra, which seems to be pretty much independent of the facts.
By the way, I happen to agree with you to a certain extent on the more snow / less snow thing. It seems to me that the science involving regional trends in a warming world is sufficiently uncertain (at least in many aspects) that I don’t think one can say that more or less snow in one particular area is or is not a consequence of AGW with very high certainty, so citing it as evidence one way or the other seems premature at this point.
Eric (skeptic) says: March 5, 2011 at 6:33 pm “CC, nice Freudian slip there (describing CH2 because you were thinking about the real GHG: H2O)”
When was I talking about CH2?
(ps. can you describe the different atmospheric properties of CO2 compared to H2O?)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
As for east coast snow storms considering that
Weather is nestled within the Climate
and
it has been documented that the jet stream has shifted northward…
more moisture off the Atlantic Ocean…
while the East Coast was freezing their butts off… the Arctic was experiencing a heat waves –
They were shedding all that cold air and sending it down there to mingle with our warm temperatures.
But remember we are talking about Global warming ~ East Coast snow storms don’t mean squat compared to the glaciers that continue to melt with increasing tempo.
~ ~ ~
Jan. 21, 2011 “This past melt season was exceptional, with melting in some areas stretching up to 50 days longer than average,” said Dr. Marco Tedesco, director of the Cryospheric Processes Laboratory at The City College of New York (CCNY — CUNY), who is leading a project studying variables that affect ice sheet melting. ~ ~ ~
As for the South Pole take a peek – http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/antarctic-ice-melt
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
As for Pacific ocean regional cold spell, we got the La Nina helping that one along.
Stay tuned bet you a beer it’s going to get hotter, even along the East Coast.
Speaking of the Jet Stream check out this site I just came across, I’ll bet even you’ll like it.
California Regional Weather Server
ANIMATION: Archived Jet Stream Analyses
http://squall.sfsu.edu/scripts/nhemjet_archloop.html
Interactive, you can punch in your time selection and watch what the jet streams doing.
It’s even more broken up and dynamic than I thought. Lot of mixing going on.
CC: reread your March 5, 2011 at 3:03 pm Yes, what I learned from Jack Barrett. All air molecules have 3 translational modes that are the primary means storing energy since collisions dominate over intercepting LW by many orders of magnitude. Diatomic molecules like O2 add two rotations and one vibration (too weak to store much energy) for a theoretical 29.1 J per K per mole (the measured value is slightly higher). CO2 likewise has two rotations and 4 vibrations (relatively weak again) for 29.1 J per K per mole. H2O is the big daddy with three rotations and three weaker vibrations for 33.2 J per K per mole. That means H2O stores more heat than CO2. Then the question is how much outgoing LW is intercepted by the vibrational modes and it turns out that one angular vibration mode is enough for intercepting a wide range of photon wavelengths so CO2 and H2O are pretty much equal in that regard. Joel can correct any mistakes I have made that paragraph.
Joel, thanks for the confirmation on less/more snow. It’s not in the models (they show positive AO = less snow). It doesn’t show up in long term trends. Yet, when I talk to people who know absolutely nothing about climate or global warming, other than what they hear on TV, they will say things like “all this snow isn’t normal, we must be doing something to the climate” I conclude that is successful propaganda. It doesn’t bother me (as much as it should), but resolves me to keep up the battle for science.
Joel Shore is concerned about propaganda and significance over the quotes from Phil Jones – up until that admission, the BBC had been totally propaganderised to believe that global warming had accelerated. Then behind the scenes, their key people read my book ‘Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory’ – which you might do also if you truly believe in applying the rigours of science – i would be glad to have your criticisms too. I also briefed their chief interviewer over the phone before the interview.
So then you get less propaganda and more science – such as how much statistically significant warming has their been – and Jones proffered the none since 1995 date. I would have said 1998, but have less acess to the statistics than he.
As for trends – the real science shows that there was an even steeper warming trend from 1920-1940, especially in the northern hemisphere but also global. And another trend from 1945-1975 that was also global and cooling (and not, as the modellers thought for 30 years, due to human emissions of sulphur – but they have not publicised that new science). Thirty year trends can be very misleading.
There is nothing new in the late 20th century warming signal – not the rate nor the amplitude and indeed the centennial trend is a continuation of a longer term recovery from the trough of 200 years ago – and it would be equally foolish to expect this trend to continue, since there is a larger cycle at play.
This IS the science, Joel, that the propaganda machine of AGW does not want to admit to. And by the way – there is a quiet revolution going on in the calculations of CO2’s warming potential. Hitherto, the radiative forcing factor (RF) was calculated according to offline data codes largely within the private sector and spawned by NASA – it is a complex business and the paper trail of references eventually leads to some very grey literature. This is about to change. The writing on the wall says that the RFs have been way over-estimated. That means CO2 does not have the power the earlier modellers assumed – by the time it reaches 200 ppmv, its greenhouse work is all but done. That is why you find no evidence for either initiation or amplification of temperarure changes in the ice-cores. The effect of CO2 is not only too late (time lagged) but not enough to register statistically in the correlations. This was a mystery until now – and the simple answer is, CO2 has very little extra power to heat the atmosphere or surface at the levels that are relevant (from 200ppmv upwards).
Good science and statistical analysis will eventually show this and all of these models will be history. Climate change, however, will still be a major issue – which is why people like the sceptical Global Warming Foundation and others, do not embrace my work – because there are natural cycles and they could be heading downward – putting billions of lives at risk from extreme weather and food shortages. Mitigation remedies were always hopelessly misdirected – but adaptation strategies will require a lot of sound thinking and cooperation, maybe even some better modelling.
A couple of comments:
First, I am increasingly impressed with Peter Taylor’s posts. He gets it.
Next, Joel Shore, without actually saying it, admits that he hasn’t read A.W. Montford’s book – but then he goes on to criticize what it says. His mind is closed.
Finally, citizenschallenge says, “Because greenhouse gasses are comprised of 3 or more atoms, they are loosely bonded and have a certain freedom of movement and thus are affected by longwave radiation in the form of vibrations.”
AAARGH! Longwave radiation is not ‘vibrations,’ which are kinetic energy. And regarding the Arctic [OK, the ‘cryosphere’], that is a region. It is a natural regional effect. I asked for evidence of global damage due specifically to CO2. Still waiting.
Smokey, it’s true Joel hasn’t read the book, just Tamino’s and other reviews of it. Since that is the case, Joel should at least read McIntyre’s rebuttal of one of Tamino’s main critiques here: http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/27/taminos-trick-mann-bites-bulldog/ Obviously he should read the comments too, there is no defense of Mann’s poor methodology or Tamino’s prevarication, rather just appeals to scientific ideals that were discarded more than a decade ago by Mann and his defenders.
Smokey — seconded. Very informative and sane posts, indeed.
Thanks, Peter. Copied, linked, saved.
Peter Taylor:
A true skeptic (which apparently Smokey and Brian H are not) might ask for a little more evidence for these statements:
and
In fact, I have very little idea of how the 2nd statement could possibly be true. The approximately-logarithmic-dependence of radiative forcing on CO2 concentration follows from fairly general considerations (once you are in the concentration regime where the center of the dominant absorption line is basically saturated; the dependence on concentration is stronger before that). So, you don’t need to do detailed calculations to pull out that basic dependence. And, with a log dependence, its work is never done…The amount of RF going from 200 to 400 ppm is the same as that going from 100 to 200 ppm.
Furthermore, even Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer accept the radiative forcing value for CO2, and considering some of the arguments those two have been willing to embrace when they support the conclusion that AGW is not important, it is saying something when you can find statements in the accepted science of AGW that even they don’t dispute!
I am a scientific skeptic, despite Joel Shore’s apparent telepathic ability to mind-read and see who is, and who isn’t a skeptic. If and when there is convincing evidence of runaway global warming [now mendaciously referred to as “climate change” – Orwell would be jealous], I will change my mind.
But so far there is zero credible evidence of runaway global warming. In fact, there is no evidence of AGW. It’s computer models all the way.
The planet has been warming, in fits and starts, since the LIA. Coincidentally, CO2 has risen at the same time. Occam’s Razor says eliminate the extraneous variables. So eliminate CO2 as a “cause,” and we’re left with the simplest, most elegant explanation: the world is warming from a cold episode.
Joel wouldn’t know the scientific method if it bit him on the a …nkle. None of the alarmist clique abides by the scientific method, for one simple reason: If they did, their CAGW scam would be publicly debunked in their peer review journals. So they ignore the scientific method. Simples.
But it’s not science.