Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
As I continue to plow through Vol 1 Issue 1 of the new Journal Nature Climate Change, I came to the following amazing statement:
Communicating the value of climate modelling … requires confronting such apparent contradictions as the fact that increasing a model’s complexity — by adding the behaviour of clouds, people or ecosystem feedbacks, for example — may actually increase the uncertainty in climate projections. Atmospheric scientist Kevin Trenberth of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, has explicitly warned that unless such seemingly paradoxical results are communicated carefully, the more complex modelling being used in climate simulations for the upcoming fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may confuse both the public and decision-makers, thereby reducing their willingness to act. [My emphasis]
“Apparent contradictions”? Heck yes, and more than simply “apparent”! The Warmists finally understand that including the major natural cycles and processes that affect climate change in their models will make it that much harder for them to convince the public that human activities are the main cause and, therefore, changing our activities the main solution!
Yet, the title of the paper that includes the above quote is The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks – as if communications was the major problem, rather than the fact it is largely nonsense they are trying to communicate.
They base their opinion on Trenberth’s 2010 paper which includes these equally amazing words:
[An IPCC AR5 chapter] will deal with longer-term projections, to 2100 and beyond, using a suite of global models. Many of these models will attempt new and better representations of important climate processes and their feedbacks — in other words, those mechanisms that can amplify or diminish the overall effect of increased incoming radiation. Including these elements will make the models into more realistic simulations of the climate system, but it will also introduce uncertainties.
So here is my prediction: the uncertainty in AR5’s climate predictions and projections will be much greater than in previous IPCC reports, primarily because of the factors noted above. This could present a major problem for public understanding of climate change. Is it not a reasonable expectation that as knowledge and understanding increase over time, uncertainty should decrease? But while our knowledge of certain factors does increase, so does our understanding of factors we previously did not account for or even recognize. …
Trial and error
It has been said that all models are wrong but some are useful. …
Performing cutting-edge climate science in public could easily lead to misinterpretation, and it will take a great deal of work communicating carefully with the public and policymakers to ensure that the results are used appropriately. … what to do about climate change is a high-profile, politically charged issue involving winners and losers, and such results can be misused. In fact — to offer one more prediction — I expect that they will be.
[My emphasis]
When confused, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.
Here is what they say (and what they may be thinking):
- Including important forcings, such as clouds, will increase uncertainty. (Yeah, we were much more certain when our simple models gave nice crisp conclusions that matched our political biases. Then we added some of the complexity of the real-world climate, and now the conclusions are uncertain. Could it be that our political biases are at fault? Nope, we just have to work on our communications tactics and “social and decision sciences” to sell this load of baloney to the great unwashed public.)
- The contradictions are merely “apparent” and the results merely “paradoxical”. (Yeah, if we merely communicate this stuff carefully so as not to confuse the public and decision makers and make them unwilling to act in the politically-correct way.)
- There are mechanisms that can amplify or diminish the overall effect of increased incoming radiation. (OOPS, we forgot about those effects that diminish the overall warming. How can we include them in a way that does not add to public uncertainty about our competence?)
- Scientific knowledge and uncertainty are supposed to increase over time. (So how come we keep looking dumber?)
- All models are wrong, but some are useful. (Why is it that as our models become less wrong they become less useful to our political agenda?)
- Public disclosure of climate science research results can lead to misinterpretation and results can and will be misused. (We better keep our climate research results away from the public until we get a chance to misinterpret and misuse them before the skeptics find out the truth behind our methods.)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Best summation of the point of Trenberth’s remarks:
The IPCC was created to further an agenda, not to do science. The intent was clearly to create panic among the public, the media, and government by making it seem as though the industrialized world was causing catastrophic ‘global warming’. What better vehicle than an ‘official’ United Nations report by an agency purportedly representing ‘thousands of scientists’, a ‘consensus’ that this alarming prospect was imminent, and emergency action by government was required. They might as well have called it ‘The International Panic Creation Commission’.
They were very successful. Even while responsible scientists and laymen increasingly question the ‘findings’ of the IPCC, the establishment media, academics, bureaucracies, and political leaders continue to pursue draconian statist ‘solutions’ to this imaginary crisis. Dr. Trenberth worries that any admission of error (‘uncertainty’) in the next IPCC report could undermine this movement toward world statism. And well he might—but only if Climate Realists can continue to challenge establishment ‘climate science’ and can undermine the legitimacy and raison d’etre if the IPCC. A concerted effort to abolish it cannot come too soon.
/Mr Lynn
I can’t believe that a substantial proportion of climate “scientists” are even this minute looking around to find another research field to move to before this whole charade comes crashing down.
OK, there are a few key players who are “in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er.” (Macbeth), but for the rest unless they are just outright stupid they know it is just a matter of time before the funding dries up and those last in the queue to get into new areas will have no chance of a new job when the reputation of climate “Science” hits rock bottom.
Michael J says:
April 29, 2011 at 12:04 am
I think many have missed the really alarming bit of Dr Trenberth’s statements. He really doesn’t understand how uncertainty works.
—————————————————————————-
Michael. From his position, he doesn’t need to understand that. As I have already said, he comes from a position of immutable truth. All he (or rather others who follow him) needs to do is communicate that to the great unwashed more effectively. You cannot win with such people.
Douglas
Philip Shehan April 29, 2011 at 7:50 am
Trenberth is talking about the uncertainty in predictions and forecasts of future climate, not measurement error. Go back and read what I said at April 28, 2011 at 9:58 pm.
The old models without the new parameters only look more certain because Trenberth et al ignored the uncertainty due to their limited ability to describe the real world, and only reported the uncertainty arising for different model runs (and even then ignored the uncertainty in absolute temperatures – reporting only difference from the mean etc etc).
With the addition of further parameters hopefully more of the uncertainty in the real world is modeled, so the scenario runs have more variation. Consequently the predictions and forecasts as reported look less certain, whereas in fact what is actually happening is the forecasts are better representing the variability in the climate.
What Trenberth meant to say was our old models badly underestimated the variability in the climate, and what we had previously reported was woefully understated. Our new models give a better estimate of that uncertainty, but they are still inadequate to adequately describe future climates, and we still haven’t attempted to calculate the real uncertainty in that.
Incidentally you should probably brush up on how to combine measurement errors.
This article neatly wraps up all thirty years of this nonsense. We’ve come from 20/20 ignorance, to blind understanding.
Andrew30 says:
April 28, 2011 at 9:22 pm
I can’t tell if you’re familiar with it, or if netdr2 is, but the logarithmic nature of CO2 concentrations to temperature is merely a rule of thumb. It breaks down at concentrations significantly above or below current levels, but does hold for much of Earth’s O2 containing atmosphere.
The logarithmic fit is simply from curve fitting and provides an easy to compute value useful in modeling or discussions at the lunch table. At much lower concentrations, the effect is more linear, at much higher, then you have to start deciding if it replaces N2 and O2 or just makes the atmosphere thicker. Your 200,000 ppm is close to current O2 levels.
One physical description is that the IR window is pretty much shut at current concentrations, increasing CO2 merely widens the window a little bit. At very low concentrations where most IR made it out, then a linear relationship is what you’d expect.
Various references, the first may be the best, perhaps you can read through them, look up some others and report with critiques of them all.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-seven-the-boring-numbers/
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-is-greenhouse-effect-logarithmic.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
“I have long contended that the temperatures since records began can be explained very adequately without resorting to CO2. …the temperatures since records began can be explained by natural cycles and no CO2 is needed.”
.
No they can’t because we don’t have a reliable temperature record. If you think that a dozens stations in 1850 have same precision of thousand in 2000? And even those thousand today, do you think the current temperature is measured correctly and with 0.1 Cº precision?
———————————
———————————
The text shows how current models are not even models since they are absurdly incomplete.
And it shows worse, the denial of warmists.
They even talk about what is in front of their eyes, but they don’t extract any consequence of the facts they list.
This is as opposed to the SIMPLE element of human activity. When I first got into all of this (somewhere in the late 1990s), one of my first questions was:
“Where is the quantified data on the different human activities and how much each contributes to warming?”
We have let them blame humans with sweeping statements, but besides carbon dioxide and the pitifully false Wang, Jones et al UHI study, they haven’t addressed anything else. It is too complicated for them. And they are here stating that shortcoming as fact.
The other aspect of this pathetic cry-baby statement is that they are arguing that a simpler model is better than one that includes everything. And rather than go out and LEARN about clouds, they whine to the public and policymakers that they need to simplify their models.
This is like arguing that Frogger is a better game than the more complicated and better video games, because all that 3D stuff and smooth action is just too much, and can we all please go back to Space Invaders and Tetris? Let’s all ditch our post-386 PCs, too. It’s all just too much to absorb.
If it is too much for them, Trenberth et al should just get out of the way and let the next generation get on with it.
Yes, watch the pea. It isn’t whether or not the “seemingly paradoxical results” are calculated properly. It is whether they are spoon-feeding it properly. This is their meme now, as long as skeptics exist: “The skeptics are only about communicating, so we will be, too.”
In other words, when a stand-up comic doesn’t get laughs, it isn’t the comic who is at fault, or the joke writers. It is the audience (or the stage lights, or the acoustics…). He must not have explained it to them well enough. — We all know how jokes go over when one has to EXPLAIN them…
A hint to Kevin: No one is laughing, except at your ineptitude. Thanks for at least admitting it, but we won’t let you try to compute using your abacus.
Did they really say it is too complicated for them? And they expect people to give them grant monies after that admission?
Ay-yi-yi. . .
TonyG says:
Ref my “It’s time for the B/S to stop. Period.”
“I would like to see that, too. How do you propose making it happen?”
For one, stop making lame excuses for repugnant behavior. If an idiot (and associated organization) makes a statement or correlation that flies in the face of moral decency, call them out on it. Excusing an idiot for being an idiot because he/she/it could be incompetent is just asking for more of the same. Why? Because you’ll just excuse it again.
Thanks netdr2 for that excellent point! I agree that anyone whose opinions are driven by scientific based truths and whose arguments follow the scientific method should weigh the information that cast doubts on the supposed multiplicative effect of atmospheric CO2.
The only minor quibble I have with your terminology is when you write “scientific based alarmists”. I suggest we reserve the term “Alarmist” for the non-science-oriented folks, many of whom are driven by political philosophy to believe big-corporations are driving human civilization to destroy Planet Earth and (a non-sequitur) that big-government is the solution. Unquestioned belief in Catastrophic CAGW is central to their agenda and some of them who have genuine scientific credentials are quite willing to prostitute false science to their service.
I would rather use the term “Warmist” for those whose belief in CAGW is subject to change based on real data (e.g., no statistically significant global warming over the past decade and a half despite continued rapid rise in CO2 levels, no significant multiplier effect of CO2 on water vapor, etc.). A Warmist has sufficient faith in the scientific method to change his or her views based on evidence.
On our side, we have those good folks I call “Disbelievers” (aka “Deniers”, a term with baggage I would rather avoid) who also tend to be non-science-oriented to the point they do not accept the well-established idea that certain Atmospheric gases (mainly water vapor and CO2) are responsible for the surface temperatures of the Earth being some 33ºC warmer that it would be if the Atmosphere was pure nitrogen. In my recent WUWT Topic a couple of them spouted nonsense about the Second Law of Thermodynamics preventing a cooler body from emitting radiation in the direction of a warmer body, and also claiming that radiation we call “light” (in the visible and near-visible range) lacked the “oomph” to be “thermal”, so only the radiation we call “heat” (in the mid-far IR range) can actually warm anything. These good people seem to be so driven by political (and in some cases religious) reaction against the CAGW Alarmists that they have the opposite and equally wrong doctrine of Disbelieving DAGW. Like their CAGW opponents, they are not reachable by science-based argument. Some in the DAGW camp have genuine scientific credentials that they misuse to come up with scientific-sounding nonsense to defeat the CAGW nonsense.
So, your fine posting has given me an opportunity to identify two groups who are unqualified for science-based argument, the CAGW Alarmists on the left, and the DAGW Disbelievers on the right.
That leaves us with the science-oriented Warmists, the Lukewarmers, and the Skeptics. We all accept the basic science of the Atmospheric “greenhouse” effect. We also accept the fact that human activities, primarily burning unprecedented quantities of formerly-sequestered fossil fuels and land use that has reduced the albedo of the Earth, have some effect on climate, along with a number of natural cycles and processes. As you point out, netdr2, increased levels of CO2, acting alone, would indeed raise global temperatures above what they would be given natural cycles and processes, but not enough to impel us to wreck our economies over.
Given the above accepted scientific truths, the main difference between Warmists, Lukewarmers, and Skeptics is how much they judge human activities to contribute to natural warming and cooling, whether or not that amount of anthropogenic warming would be a net benefit or detriment to human society, and what, if anything we should do beyond adaptation.
Warmists tend to judge the net human contribution to be on the high side (more than 1ºC or 2ºC or 3ºC warming), that it would be a net detriment to human society, and that individuals and governments should take strong action to ameliorate these effects, and we should do so sooner than later.
Skeptics tend to judge the net human contribution to be on the low side (less than 1ºC and possibly as little as 0.1ºC or 0.2ºC warming), that slightly more CO2 and warmth would be a net benefit to human society, that governments are so incompetent (or corrupt) that they cannot do much to reduce CO2 and land use even if it was justified, and therefore individuals and governments should take little or no action to ameliorate these effects, at least until the facts justify action.
Lukewarmers are somewhere between Warmists and Skeptic. Further data and scientific discovery may slide Warmists and Skeptics towards the Lukewarmer position, or the other way, no one knows.
Please get with the program, Andrew30. When any of us (on either side) who have been following the conversation speak of CO2 sensitivity, we assume a starting point somewhere around 270 or 280 ppmv that would double to around 540 to 560 ppmv. We all know that doubling from some much smaller value such as you suggest, 1 to 2 ppmv or from some much higher value such as you suggest of 100,000 to 200,000 ppmv would have far different effects on mean surface temperatures. Lets not create “straw-man” arguments that indicate you have not been paying attention or that you are purposely trying to obfuscate the issue.
SO FAR I have never seen Dr. Trenberth as the bad guy some around here make him out to be. He’s interested in the truth and he’s pursuing it. He’s also one of the brightest folks in his field. Let’s give him credit, particularly for acknowledging paradox explicitly; only the brightest people have the ability to see where the assumptions break down and only the brave capable ones who can defend themselves dare point it out. Good work Kevin. Best Regards, Paul Vaughan.
Here is the argument for an across-the-board Carbon Tax, collected at the coal-mine, oil- or gas-well, or port-of-entry and returned to the people on a per-capita basis:
1) Given punitively higher costs for products and services containing high quantities of fossil fuels, each individual and every industry will have an incentive to reduce usage -or- pay the higher price, according to their own judgment of what will be most beneficial to them.
2) That will get the government out of the business of picking winners (Ethanol, wind, …). People and industries will either pay the higher costs, take prudent risks to develop alternative energy sources that make sense to them, or reduce usage by being more efficient or vacationing locally rather than far away or using walking, bicycling, or using public transport, etc.
3) It will be inexpensive to collect the tax and hard to cheat since governments already impose taxes at ports-of-entry and quantities are measured fairly accurately at mines and wells.
4) Assuming the Carbon Tax is across-the-board (no exceptions or preferences for any particular fossil fuel or industry), and that all the money is immediately disbursed equally per-capita (both big ifs), and the tax starts relatively small and is increased annually according to a pre-specified schedule allowing people and industries to plan long-term, there should be little or no disruption of the economy.
5) Yes, some people will turn around and spend the money they get when the Carbon Tax revenues are dispersed on GHG-creating activities. But, some will look to their own self-interest and, over time, change their behaviors. Industries, faced with inexorably rising costs for fossil fuels, will spend their own money according to their own interests. Yes, some will continue to use fossil fuels and try to pass the costs on to consumers. Others will invest in alternatives and some of these will turn out to be bad choices. But, some will make good choices and prove out new ways to effectively reduce energy costs. That is called “creative destruction”.
The main justification for such a Carbon Tax is not any real danger of extreme global warming. It is the cost, in blood and treasure, of defending our access to oil from unstable areas of the world. We need to increase our levels of self-sufficiency. So long as foreign petrol is available at less cost than alternative, non-fossil sources, even at current inflated levels, industries and people will not switch away from fossil fuels or do anything much to conserve.
When gas cost $4-$5 a couple years ago (and now with costs around $4) people did (and do) use less. All that extra money goes to the oil companies and (mostly) foreign countries. With a Carbon Tax we’d get the same effect, but the money would stay here.
Although I do not believe our political system will ever pass a Carbon Tax that meets all the above requirements, I support the idea as a political tactic. You can’t fight something (the cap and trade scam, for example, which is a politician’s delight) with nothing. By saying we favor the Carbon Tax we can pass as concerned citizens and call the bluff on the phony-environmentalists who talk about saving energy but do nothing.
I’m wondering whether there is a current chart like the sea ice page that shows past and current temperature projections?
Ira,
In addition to what you stated, one more key aspect that needs to be studied through observations and data collection is that whether the earth’s system has a homeostatsis kind of mechanism wherein natural processes react to the addition of the extra CO2 to keep temperatures within a certain narrow, stable range. Nobody seems to have looked at this possibility.
Paul Vaughan on April 29, 2011 at 9:00 pm
SO FAR I have never seen Dr. Trenberth as the bad guy some around here make him out to be. He’s interested in the truth and he’s pursuing it. He’s also one of the brightest folks in his field. Let’s give him credit, particularly for acknowledging paradox explicitly; only the brightest people have the ability to see where the assumptions break down and only the brave capable ones who can defend themselves dare point it out.
Sorry but Trenberth is a political animal. Faced with the unpalatable fact that the scenarios were going to diverge further and draw attention to their weaknesses he is simply out there as part of the advance publicity team managing expectations.
If you want to see Trenberth’s sophistry at work have a look at the statement in Trenberth, K. E., and J. T. Fasullo, 2010: Tracking Earth’s energy. Science, 328, 316-317.
Increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) (see the figure) and other greenhouse gases have led to a post-2000 imbalance at the top of the
atmosphere of 0.9 ± 0.5 W m–2 ( 5); it is this imbalance that produces “global warming.”
And then check on the reference (5) Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, and J. Kiehl, 2009: Earth’s global energy budget. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, No. 3, 311-324, doi: 10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1. which says:
Thus, the net TOA imbalance is reduced to an acceptable but imposed 0.9 W m−2 (about 0.5 PW). [my emphasis]
Obviously someone who is deeply misunderstood.
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
“Please get with the program, Andrew30. When any of us (on either side) who have been following the conversation speak of CO2 sensitivity,…”
The point I was making, which you appear to have missed, likely because I was not clear was:
The statement did NOT include a value of 270 or 280 ppmv, but instead made a general statement about doubling carbon dioxide causing an increase in temperature. It contain no actual value for ‘double’. It was thus no different that a moving goalposts prediction. The same ‘statement’ as been used since about 1975, with multiple base values for CO2. Papers from the past and the present use the same term with completely different meaning, the phrase ‘doubling of co2’ corresponds to No Actual Value.
Google: “doubling of co2 from”
doubling of CO2 from current values
doubling of CO2 from 280ppmv to 560ppmv
doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels
doubling of CO2 from present levels
doubling of CO2 from about 300 ppm to six hundred ppm
doubling of CO2 from 380 ppm to 760 ppm
doubling of CO2 from 370 to 740
doubling of CO2 from 275 to 550 ppmv
…
Ira I suggest that you send out a memo to “any of us (on either side)”, they do not seem to understand the unspoken value of ‘double’. Get with the program Ira, do not make assumptions; be clear; use Real Numbers, ‘double’ is Not a Number.
Double is not a recognized Constant.
>>
Philip Shehan says:
April 29, 2011 at 7:50 am
If you multiply two parameters with values of 2 and 5 in a calculation with each an uncertainty of 5% the result is 10 with an uncertainty of 5+ 5 = 10 % = 1.
But two parameters may not describe the reality of the situation. If you add a third parameter with a value of 1.5 and an uncertainty of 10% making the calculation more complicated but more realistic, the uncertainty in the result will 15 with an uncertainty of 5 + 5 + 10 = 20% = 3.
<<
I disagree. The error (in percent) for the product of two numbers in your example is:
e = ((.05)^2 + (0.5)^2)^0.5 = 7% or about ±0.7
The error for three numbers in your example is:
e = ((.05)^2 + (.05)^2 + (.10)^2)^0.5 = 12.2% or about ±1.8
But that’s the way I learned how to calculate error in engineering (for products). YMMV
Jim
It would be nice if I could correct posting errors. The first equation in my post above should read:
e = ((.05)^2 + (.05)^2)^0.5 = 7% or about ±0.7
I got the decimal point wrong while typing it.
Jim
Ira Glickstein, PhD says: April 29, 2011 at 9:52 pm
“Yes, some will continue to use fossil fuels and try to pass the costs on to consumers. Others will invest in alternatives and some of these will turn out to be bad choices. But, some will make good choices and prove out new ways to effectively reduce energy costs. That is called “creative destruction”.”
Ira, you left out the ‘Most will move production to China to reduce costs’ option?
That is called “economic destruction”, and it is already working.
You seem to be a bit naïve about international business and manufacturing.
>>
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
April 29, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Lukewarmers are somewhere between Warmists and Skeptic. Further data and scientific discovery may slide Warmists and Skeptics towards the Lukewarmer position, or the other way, no one knows.
<<
The problem with a feedback model such as depicted in Kiehl and Trenberth 1997 is that you don’t get to play with numbers willy-nilly. The energy flows require a specific response. If we assume that the atmosphere window is narrowed when GHGs are added, then this will indeed warm the surface. But the atmosphere must warm at a faster rate than the surface.
I’ve argued with many on the importance of the 15 micron CO2 absorption band (some say it’s more like 14.99 microns). We know that CO2 by itself can’t do the major lifting, so they add in H2O to compensate. The argument always deteriorates to how much is caused by CO2 initially and H2O after that. The advantage with narrowing the atmospheric window is that we don’t have to worry about which GHGs are causing it, and that any added GHG will work to narrow the window.
The KT 97 model responds with window narrowing by warming the surface, but it effectively warms the atmosphere faster. The current temperature measurements show the atmosphere warming, but not at the correct rate. That is, the atmosphere is warming at a rate from between 70% to 90% of the surface. For GHG warming, it must warm at a rate exceeding 120% of the surface (maybe higher than 150%).
So we can’t verify KT 97 with GHGs. However, if we alter the planet’s albedo, then the surface warms and the atmosphere warms at the correct rate. I always chuckle when warmist claim that we can’t explain the current surface warming without CO2. Actually we can–simply alter the albedo. In fact, we can keep the albedo changes well within the current known error slop for albedo and explain all the current surface warming.
Jim
Thanks Jim. That’s how I recall calculating errors as a research chemist but it’s been a while. I would have to check but I don’t think your corrections (if they are inded correct) alter the thrust of my argument.
Jim. Just tried this method of calculation:
An error of 5% for 2 is ± 0.1 so the value is between 1.9 and 2.1
An error of 5% for 5 is ± 0.25 so the value is between 4.75 and 5.25
So multiplying the upper and lower bounds means the calculated product is between 9.025 and 11.025. Close enough to 10 ± 10% especially if you take the result to 2 significant figures.
Ira Glickstein, PhD says: April 29, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Spending carbon tax monies.
Think a little deeper, Ira. What is available for the peasant to spend his windfall money on? Almost everything that matters has an equation “spend $ = more GHG”. If you think that John Citizen is going to buy electricity from windmill shysters, John Citizen will need convincing that it is cheaper BEFORE subsidies and that is does not require gas turbine spinning reserve.
You have a naive view of altruism of the common man. I credit her/him with a geat deal more common sense. All of them that I know see the push for alt energy rather like a compulsory Nigerian scam.
BTW, I live in Australia where I helped to discover abundant future energy, so your closing conclusions are lost on me. I’d still like to see a good persons’ guide, a list of ways to spend money while reducing GHG. Sad if it does not exist.
We are getting closer to the full title of Kubrick’s ‘Doctor Strangelove’, whose latter part was ‘or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.’
Andrew30 says:
April 29, 2011 at 11:57 pm /#comment-650926
replying to Ira’s post /#comment-650873 “Please get with the program, Andrew30. When any of us (on either side) who have been following the conversation speak of CO2 sensitivity, we assume a starting point somewhere around 270 or 280 ppmv that would double to around 540 to 560 ppmv.”
– The point I was making, which you appear to have missed, likely because I was not clear was:
The statement did NOT include a value of 270 or 280 ppmv, but instead made a general statement about doubling carbon dioxide causing an increase in temperature. …….Doubling is not a recognized constant.
(Grin)
However, Andrew30, the following is what I thought you were referring to – not that “doubling” is not a constant, but that the CO2 figure used as Ira takes for granted, comes from this sleight of hand and cherry-picking of data from the very beginning of the scam.
Callendar was anti-coal, he had an agenda and he stuck with it. Keeling continued under his tutelage, establishing ‘without a shadow of doubt in less than two years measuring of volcanic output + on the world’s biggest active volcano etc., that he was measuring a rise in a mythical ‘background CO2’ untainted by this vast production of CO2 all around him, again, the ‘background’ never properly defined or proven to exist etc.’.
So, I don’t agree with Ira’s “all agree”, for a kick off, because the 270-280 comes from this mythical cherry-picked agenda driven corruption of science – the rest of the science was and still is equally corrupt to continue the scam, but because this “doubling causing a 1°C rise is nowhere proved either, because it is nowhere proved that CO2 raises global temperatures. So:
It is nowhere proved that doubling CO2 can raise global temperatures.
All these types of, ‘new data clouds’ and the arguments then around them don’t deal with the basic premises about CO2 which AGWScience claims and has led to demonising of the food of Life. Frankly, I’m getting tired of these, we are being ripped off and plans to micro-manage us into poverty, ignorance, sickness and death to extinction of superfluous to requirements for slave labour to the elite are going on at full speed regardless.
Ira – first prove that CO2 is capable of causing global rises in temperature.
You’re promoting junk science here, as you did in your last discussion where you claimed that the heat we feel from the Sun comes from Solar, which in bog standard real science are not thermal, WE CAN’T feel them as heat, because they are not hot.
Your opening posts continue to spout unproven claims and junk science re properties of the AGW premise as if they are fact. You still haven’t proved that Visible Light can heat land and sea.
Prove that CO2 drives temperature.