# Skeptic Strategy for Talking About Global Warming

Guest Post by Ira Glickstein

What should a responsible Skeptic say to an astute audience? When recently invited by the “Technology, Engineering, and Science Plus” group in my community to give a talk and answer questions, I knew I would have an attentive room of tech-savvy professionals. However, they might not be fully tuned in to the details of the Global Warming controversy. Furthermore, they were likely to have opinions closer to the supposed “mainsteam science” orientation than mine.

In this posting, I’ve summarized the main points I think are most likely to align people who are both intelligent and reasonable to the Skeptic side. My Powerpoint (with talking points for each chart in the Notes section under each slide) is available [click here] for you to use and adapt as you wish.

A. Basic Climate Science – Water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and other “greenhouse” gases cause the Earth Surface to be warmer than it would be if the Atmosphere was just nitrogen.

1. Light energy from the Sun warms the Earth System, which consists of our Atmosphere and the Surface. Based on satellite measurements, the Sun provides 1366 Watts per square meter (W/m^2) at the Top of the Atmosphere. After accounting for the Earth’s spherical shape and albedo (reflectiveness), the absorbed energy averages out to about 240 W/m^2 for each square meter.
2. To maintain a relatively constant mean temperature, Output Energy must equal Input Energy, so the Earth System must emit about 240 W/m^2 out to Space, which it does.
3. We call the Input Energy “light” because we can see (much of) it. We call the Output Energy “heat” because we can feel it. However, whether it is “short wave” energy from the very hot Sun, or “long wave” from the more moderate Earth System, we know that energy is fungible. 240 W/m^2 of one type is equal, power-wise, to 240 W/m^2 of the other. A Watt is a Watt, no matter what :^)
4. But, there is an “issue” – if we consider the Earth System as a “black body”, according to the laws of physics, for the Earth System to emit 240 W/m^2, it would have to be at a temperature of only 255 Kelvin, where Kelvins are degrees Celsius above absolute zero. (The Earth System is not exactly a black body, but it is close enough for our purposes here.)
5. You may remember that anything above absolute zero emits radiant energy and that 0.0 Kelvin corresponds to -273ºC or -460ºF. The “issue” is that the Earth Surface has a mean temperature closer to 288 Kelvin, corresponding to about +15ºC or +59ºF. In other words, the Surface is about 33ºC or 58ºF warmer than the “black body” formula would indicate. How to explain this added warmth?
6. The generally accepted explanation is the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”. This is true science, but the name is somewhat misleading because a glass greenhouse works mostly by restricting convection while the Atmospheric effect works mostly by restricting radiation. I use “scare quotes” around “greenhouse” to acknowledge this semantic issue.
7. The Atmosphere passes most of the “short wave” energy from the Sun and absorbs most of the “long wave” energy from the Surface. The absorbed energy warms the Atmosphere and is re-emitted in all directions at a variety of “long wave” wavelengths. A portion of radiation from the Atmosphere passes out the Top of the Atmosphere to Space. A portion is emitted in the downward direction and is absorbed by the Surface. This absorbed radiant energy accounts for most of the extra 33ºC or 58ºF.
8. A variety of gases in the Atmosphere, primarily water vapor (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2), absorb and re-emit “long wave” radiation. These are called “greenhouse gases”.

B. Divergent Views – There is a valid, science-based argument between people I refer to as Warmists, Lukewarmers, and Skeptics. I distinguish their reasoned views from the far out, unscientific rantings of people I refer to as Alarmists and their equal and opposite reaction opponents, who I call Disbelievers.

1. VP Al Gore was not the first Alarmist, but his public lectures and his Nobel and Oscar-winning movie, An “Inconvenient” Truth, probably did more than anything else to bring Global Warming Alarmism to the fore in the consciousness of the major media and the general population.
2. The scene depicted above was the highlight of his presentation.
3. Gore displays the Ice Core record of the past 600,000 years for CO2 (red) and Temperature (blue). He points out the undoubted correlation between the two parameters. When one goes up so does the other. When one goes down, the other does as well. He points out that the then current CO2 level is considerably higher than that of the past 600,000 years, and he projects the future levels of CO2 assuming it continues to rise at current rates. So far, this is all true.
4. Dramatically ascending high above the stage on his motorized platform, he implies that mean temperatures will rise in proportion to the CO2. (My graphic is annotated in dashed blue to show the implied warming.) If that happens, he warns, more and more of the polar ice will melt, causing the seas to rise and flooding coastal areas. The ground under the polar ice will be exposed, further reducing the albedo of the Surface and causing further warming. We will reach a tipping point with runaway Global Warming.
5. The villain of Gore’s story is the human race and our habit of burning ever-increasing quantities of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) that release unprecedented amounts of CO2. This scene, more than any other event, is most likely responsible for the birth of what has come to be known as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, CAGW. In other words, catastrophe due to human-caused Global Warming. It has become the mantra of the Alarmists and an excuse for governments to regulate all fossil fuels as well as land use that affects albedo. Since all industry and agriculture and civilized life itself depends upon fossil fuels and land use, the Alarmists give suitably oriented politicos an excuse to regulate and tax and restrict virtually everything. We outdoors types will need an indulgence from the government every time we pass wind. And, we can forget about lighting a campfire :^).
6. But, as the annotations in my graphic above show, there is a fundamental “Inconvenient” truth about the ice core data. It has absolutely nothing to say about the current Global Warming controversy! Gore was misleading the media and the public when he implied that rising CO2 levels would cause corresponding increases in mean temperatures. In particular, as any scientist who took a close look at the ice core data would see, and as I show in the inset graph in the upper left corner, Temperature always rises eight-hundred or more years before CO2 increases. The same is true in the other direction. The Temperature falls eight-hundred or more years prior to CO2 decreases. What this shows, if anything, is that TEMPERATURE CAUSES CO2, or, that something else causes both to change, with CO2 lagging by hundreds of years. Gore got the direction of causation backwards.
7. When the falsehood of this implied causation was pointed out, Gore’s apologists claimed that it was a minor matter and, after all, despite the 800-year lag, both Temperature and CO2 were up together and down together for about 5/6ths of the record. Besides, they said, we are currently burning historically unprecedented amounts of fossil fuel, and, we know that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”, and so on and on. But, the truth is still that the ice core record is of a time when there were no humans to burn fossil fuels, so why did Gore bring it up since it has no relationship to our current situation? Raw, unfettered Alarmism has had its effect on the media, the political class, and we common citizens who have to pay the costs of the phony CAGW panic.
8. In politics, as in physics, every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction. In the Case of CAGW, that opposite (and equally false) reaction is what I call Disbeliever AGW or DAGW. These are people who use pseudo-scientific arguments in their claim that humans have had absolutely no hand in the mean temperature rise of the past century, or that there has been no temperature rise, or that the basic science of the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect” is untrue, and so on. I do not like to be to critical of the DAGW crowd because, when it comes to general political decisions, they are more likely than not to agree with me than my opponents, but my academic integrity and ethical duty as a licensed professional engineer require me to state what I see as the error of their arguments. (As I have in my WUWT Visualizing series [1, 2, 3, 4, 5])
9. Having dismissed what I regard as the unscientific Alarmists and Disbelievers, that leaves us with three groups that, for the most part, use rational science-base arguments for their diverse views. Of course, every member of each group has somewhat different views, and any attempt to divide them into three distinct types is bound to cross some lines. So, please consider my grouping as approximate.
10. Carbon sensitivity, which is the estimate of how much mean temperatures will increase if CO2 doubles from historical or current levels, is one way to determine which of the the three groups a person belongs to. The Warmists tend to accept the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimate of 2.0ºC to 4.5ºC. The Skeptics tend to set carbon sensitivity much lower, perhaps 0.2ºC to 1ºC. The third group, which I call Lukewarmers, would suggest 1ºC to 3ºC.
11. How much of the rise in CO2 is attributable to human use of fossil fuels is also estimated differently. Warmists would blame humans for nearly all of it, while Skeptics would say less than half. Similarly, the blame for the supposed 0.8ºC rise in mean temperatures since 1880 is mostly attributed to human activities, while Skeptics say that data bias “adjustments” by the official climate record keepers is responsible for about a third of the supposed warming, and that natural cycles, over which humans have no control, are responsible for about half of it, leaving only 0.1ºC (or maybe up to 0.2ºC) to human responsibility. Lukewarmers are somewhere in-between.
12. Skeptics have well-justified suspicions that the official climate data keepers were “cooking the books” to lend whatever support they could to the highest estimates of carbon sensitivity. Around the year 2000, US Mean Temperature data was “adjusted” down by 0.1 to 0.2ºC for years prior to the 1970’s, and upwards by 0.2 to 0.3ºC for years after the 1970’s, increasing supposed warming by 0.3 to 0.5ºC.
13. The surfacestations.org project published photos of official temperature measurement stations that were very near artificial sources of heat, with most being in the lowest two of the five quality levels established by the government. The poor quality stations were compared to nearby well-located stations. There were large temperature deltas that could only be accounted for if the the stations now poorly-located were originally well-located, but had been influenced by nearby development, such as paved parking lots, buildings, and air conditioning vents.
14. According to a figure in the 1990 IPCC report, 1100 to 1300 AD saw temperatures in the northern hemisphere that were higher than current levels. However, the IPCC 2001 report included the infamous so-called “hockey stick” chart that managed to make the Medieval Warm Period of about 1000 years ago disappear! (My Powerpoint set includes charts with evidence of each of the aforementioned issues.)
15. These suspicions were not fully confirmed until 2009 when someone (probably an inside whistle-blower) released emails and computer code from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the UK, and, later that year, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request yielded a stash from the US NASA-GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies).

C. Climategate – UK Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails and the US NASA GISS FOIA emails. What they tell us about the published Global Warming data.

1. I refer to the CRU as the Climategate Research Unit or, more simply, the Fudge Factory because the words “fudge factor” appear in their computer code. Phil Jones, PhD, is the CRU Director. He confirmed suspicions about the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph when, in an email, he called it “Mike’s Nature trick” (because a version of that graph appeared in a paper by Dr. Michael Mann in the prestigious journal Nature ). He also wrote that the “trick” was designed to “hide the decline” in tree ring proxy data. The tree-ring expert associated with CRU, Keith Brifa, PhD, admits, in one of the emails that “the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago”. (My Powerpoint set includes slides with direct quotes from the Climategate materials.)
1. Moving on to the FOIA emails from GISS, it is interesting to note that their HQ, in New York City, happens to be in the same building as the famous restaurant where Jerry Seinfeld dined with George, Kramer, and Elaine. (It was never revealed what Kramer did for a living – perhaps he was the chief analyst at GISS :^)
2. The most revealing email from GISS is reproduced above. It was from Makiko Sato, PhD to her Boss, GISS-Director James Hansen, PhD, detailing the seven different analyses and comparisons of US mean temperatures for 1934 and 1998. The later year was the hottest in the 1990’s, so it was, let us say “inconvenient” that 1934, according to data published by GISS in 1999, was over 0.5ºC warmer. If Global Warming was almost entirely due to recent human activities, and was accelerating, how could the 1930 have been warmer?
3. Just as the Hockey Stick made the Medieval Warm Period disappear, GISS tried mightily to make 1934 cooler than 1998, but only succeeded in reducing the 0.5ºC lead into a dead heat. Notice that the 0.5ºC “adjustment” is more than half the supposed total warming since 1880.
4. I would like to trust the work of taxpayer-supported science, but, it seems, we must rely on President Reagan’s advice regarding the old Soviet Union, “Trust, but verify!”

D. What We Can and Should Do – Energy policy (cap and trade scam vs carbon tax). Efficiency, conservation, “green“, and renewable sources.

1. I am quite sure that Global Warming is REAL (i.e. the mean temperature of the Surface has increased by 0.5 to 0.6ºC since 1880) but, most of that increase is due to Natural Cycles over which we humans have no control.
2. However, the warming is PARTLY Due to Rising CO2 Levels and human actions are PART of the Cause.
3. There is not and never has been any real danger of catastrophe or even of serious net detriment to human life due to increased CO2 levels. Indeed, modest increases in these parameters are most likely a net benefit.
4. However, we Skeptics have to be realistic in the current political climate. Like it or not (and I do not like it) the official climate “Team” (i.e., the “Hockey Team” :^) has convinced the political and media establishment, and much of the population that something has to be done. We cannot fight something with nothing, so we need something more than a passive policy of do nothing because nothing is necessary.
5. Therefore, I favor reduction of the carbon footprint by efficiency, conservation, recycling, and so on, plus the introduction, if and when economically practical of so-called “Green” energy, including Nuclear, Water, Wind, Biomass and, particularly, “Clean” Coal.
6. If nothing else, these will do minimum harm and, if successful, will reduce US dependence upon foreign oil. We have spent, and continue to sacrifice too much blood and treasure protecting our access, and that of our allies, to energy from unstable regions of the world.
7. As for the Cap and Trade scam, it is a Politician’s Delight that rewards powerful Interests, wrecks the economy, and will NOT significantly reduce carbon emissions. It seems to me that some countries and US states that have adopted Cap and Trade have realized their folly and are backing away from it.
8. You may be surprised that I favor some version of a straight Carbon Tax, collected at the mine, well, and port, with the proceeds returned on an equal basis to citizens and legal residents. Yes, James Hansen and (pardon the expression Ralph Nader) also favor it, but, so do conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, the Wall Street Journal, and others on the right. My support for this tax is based on what I wrote above, “We cannot fight something with nothing” and “We have spent, and continue to sacrifice too much blood and treasure protecting our access, and that of our allies, to energy from unstable regions of the world.”

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
Jenn Oates
May 30, 2011 8:50 pm

Awesome, Ira, THANKS. I will definitely use this in both my classes, and educate the parents who give me grief for not teaching AGW in my classroom. And maybe my colleagues, but as science teachers in a suburban high school, they know the science is so totally settled their minds are made up. 🙂

Don and Liz Healy
May 30, 2011 9:00 pm

Under B 7: “The Temperature falls eight-hundred or more years prior to Temperature decreases.” ..should that last prtion not be CO2 decreases?
I greatly appreciate the presentation and will continue reading the rest of it.
Thanks
[THANKS for catching that error. I just fixed it. Ira]

John Trigge
May 30, 2011 9:01 pm

Point B.6 states:
“What this shows, if anything, is that CO2 CAUSES TEMPERATURE, or, that something else causes both to change, with CO2 lagging by hundreds of years. ”
Shouldn’t this be “TEMPERATURE CAUSES CO2” as it appears you are referring to the real message in the ice record rather than what AG espouses?
[THANKS for catching that error. I just fixed it. Ira]

Don and Liz Healy
May 30, 2011 9:04 pm

Correction to the correction; the quote came from section B. paragraph 6, not 7.
Thanks

Carl Chapman
May 30, 2011 9:07 pm

For me, the most important point in the debate is the role of feedbacks. The Alarmists assume, with no reason and no evidence, that positive feedbacks will magnify the insignificant primary effect of CO2 by a factor of at least 3. A relatively stable system has to have negative feedbacks, which counteract any forced change. Measurements of outgoing energy vs increased temperatures indicate negative feedback reduces any forced change to about 1/3 of what it would be. That means the alarmist’s estimates, or scenarios, are out by a factor of about 9. A “Technology, Engineering, and Science Plus” group would be familiar with the concept of feedbacks.
I think some quotes from Richard Feynman are worthwhile. I’m sure I know what he would have said about people who ignore measurements and study the output of models, who “lose” their data rather than share it, and who continue on pushing a theory after their predictions repeatedly fail.

steptoe fan
May 30, 2011 9:10 pm

yes, a good summary, still, it’s hard to swallow and stick to the basics when the AGW crowd seems to continually have their way with govt and media. makes a person want to repeatedly bat them with every exposed falsehood the IPCC cranked out.
in Seattle, this same group of the agenda have had their way for decades now, and the public schools have been teaching this gospel long enough that it is simply a matter of we are past the science now …
so, what’s a heated rhetoric correct comeback for … we’re past the science ?

May 30, 2011 9:14 pm

Nice succinct summary – excellent job.
(And in the spirit of continuous improvement – I fear that there might be a minor typo or two in point 6 about temperature causing CO2)
[THANKS for catching that error. I just fixed it. Ira]

Karl
May 30, 2011 9:15 pm

I like your overall presentation. I do not like your conclusion: “We can’t fight something with nothing.” This is appeasement. You favor heavily subsidized inefficient, intermittent wind and solar. Why? You’re an engineer. You know these don’t work…certainly not on a commerical/industrial scale.

Editor
May 30, 2011 9:20 pm

One thing you’ve done, and I’ve seen elsewhere, that is really good is to talk about Earth’s 255 Kelvin blackbody temperature if it had no atmosphere, or at least no greenhouse effect. It gets people thinking about how different things could be, how important the greenhouse effect we have is, and is a giant step away from allowing yourself to be accused of denying there is a greenhouse effect. That also opens several paths for discussion about how it’s changing now.

Dougmanxx
May 30, 2011 9:22 pm

“Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing,”
Lord Christopher Monckton
This is also many times sound economic policy, but sadly we have gotten caught up in the cult of “do something” rather than letting the system fix itself. Do nothing. Be courageous.

Gerald
May 30, 2011 9:25 pm

“You may be surprised that I favor some version of a straight Carbon Tax, collected at the mine, well, and port, with the proceeds returned on an equal basis to citizens and legal residents.”
After all the rational, well thought out, well reasoned discussion, you have failed to apply the same effort and analysis to this part of your solution?
After using so many words to say that increasing Co2 is not a catastrophe, now you want to tax it anyway? for what reason then? you just said it’s not necessary.
Never in the history of mankind has a company, corporation, or for profit organization paid taxes. in every instance the cost of taxes is simply passed on to the consumer. period. so what good will it do to have those same proceeds “returned to the citizens”? why not just let them keep it in the first place. installing a new “cash” loop in the system will only empower the politicians and propagate this theory of redistributing wealth. If you want to take from one person and give to another, then just say so and do that. don’t disguise it as some kind of tax to improve the environment. what a bunch of brainwashing B.S.

rbateman
May 30, 2011 9:32 pm

Waste not, want not.
The unintended consequence of a carbon tax is, that once enacted, it will never go away, but grow into another pile of tax money that will be tossed to special interests.
The problem we have now with GISS (and other beaurocracies) is that they have figured out how to game the system to perpetuate themselves.
More beaurocracy and more taxes are not the answer, but you could make the argument that they are the problem.
Energy conservation is a good thing, especially when it doesn’t cost more.

Frank
May 30, 2011 9:32 pm

Can I get university credit for reading this? Thank you so much.
In a nod to Ayn Rand…. B3 states a watt is a watt … A=A

Joe Prins
May 30, 2011 9:36 pm

Sorry, Anthony, sir, I have to disagree with your point 8. You can fight the something with nothing. It is called the truth. The truth is that the over-regulation and environmental regulation of the (oil) industry makes recovery of available and proven assets currently too dear. Linking the blood spilled to the global warming argument is really too simplistic and simply wrong. It would have been simpler, and a lot cheaper, to not go to any war and simply buy the oil on the open market. Most oil hungry countries, including Europe, have done so for years. The war in Iraq and Afganistan is political and strategic. Looking at a map you will note that Iran and Syria are now seperated and sandwiched between the “friendly” powers of Israel, Iraq and Afganistan. And it still denies Russians a warm water port, although they are now trying to do that through Iran. This Canadian from Northern Alberta would like to make a friendly suggestion: Take the shackles of the (oil) industry, tax them if you must on production and in that way remove the dollars from the satraps in the Middle East.

Hector M.
May 30, 2011 9:38 pm

The bit about ‘Mike’s Nature trick … to hide the decline’ is poorly described. The trick was about deleting the post-1960 part of tree-ring data because it implied a falling instead of a rising temperature, and collating instead instrumental data for the deleted period. Critics have argued that such divergence should have been shown and explained. Since no explanation has been provided, it has been suggested that tree-rings (in particular some of them) may not be a truthful indicator of temperatures even for periods without instrumental data.

gyptis444
May 30, 2011 9:40 pm

CO2 CAUSES TEMPERATURE TO RISE or something causes both to rise.
[Thanks for pointing out my error. It has been fixed. Of course it is TEMPERATURE that CAUSES CO2 to rise. I knew that, but my tongue got in the way of my eye tooth and I couldn’t see what I was saying :^) Ira]
seems incorrect in view of the 800 years lag.
I feel your acceptance of carbon tax is misplaced tokenism. We Australians now have a Prime Minister and Federal Government who are captive to Green and Independent politicians who hold the balance of power. In the week before the last federal election, our Prime Minister repeatedly denied that she would introduce a carbon tax in the life of this Government. Six months later, she announced that she will in fact implement a carbon tax. Whatever is the initial level (\$ per ton) it will surely escalate as rapidly as the Government can manage over the passage of time. This will have the effect of increasing the cost of living especially fossil fuels, transport (of everything including food and people), manufacturing, building – it is hard to think of any area of the economy which will not be impacted detrimentally by this tax. If you are an Australian manufacturer whose overheads increase to the point of being non-competitive with overseas plants, I suspect you will give up manufacturing and turn to importing the goods more cheaply from an overseas manufacturer who does not pay a carbon tax. End result: loss of Australian jobs, no reduction in global emissions, increased social welfare bill to be paid by the taxpayers, increased inflation and unemployment.
Also, I could not help noticing that your presentation does not even mention the IAC Review of IPCC processes. That report contains irrefutable evidence of political interference, lack of transparency, bias, failure to respond to critical review comments, poor handling of uncertainty, use of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed material which had not been critically evaluated or flagged as such. IPCC had no policy to preclude conflict of interest. With such malfeasance how could IPCC possibly arrive at the truth? If one is permitted to ‘cherry pick’ the data/literature accepting everything which suports AGW/CAGW and totally ignore any evidence to the contrary, one can prove anything you like!
I am a 68 year old retired person dependent on superannuation to support my wife and myself. I am not looking forward to having to choose between
(1) eating but freezing
(2) staying warm but starving
Either way I will suffer because of this idiocy!

David Falkner
May 30, 2011 9:54 pm

This presentation does not speak to biological particulate matter. Does pollen absorb short or long wave radiation?

icecover
May 30, 2011 10:11 pm

Sorry but there ain’t any warming, have a look at AMSU temps so not needed just feeding into AGW BS excuse moi LOL

Jerzy
May 30, 2011 10:27 pm

Carl Chapman says:
May 30, 2011 at 9:07 pm
“The Alarmists assume, with no reason and no evidence, that positive feedbacks will magnify the insignificant primary effect of CO2 by a factor of at least 3.”
But most alarmists don’t know that they assume that.

jaypan
May 30, 2011 10:31 pm

Nice work. Thank you.
However, it is starting with “TEMPERATURE CAUSES CO2, … with CO2 lagging by hundreds of years”, to concede later on that “… the warming is PARTLY Due to Rising CO2 Levels and human actions are PART of the Cause”.
How’s that working? If statement 1 is true, then statement 2must be wrong, and the other way around. Or am I wrong? Have been in the past …

May 30, 2011 10:55 pm

“The bit about ‘Mike’s Nature trick … to hide the decline’ is poorly described. The trick was about deleting the post-1960 part of tree-ring data because it implied a falling instead of a rising temperature, and collating instead instrumental data for the deleted period. ”
Wrong. briffa deleted the data because
1. it didnt correlate with temperatures ( it was negative)
2 including it would have raised the estimate of the MWP
That is the explanation he gave in the primary lit.

izen
May 30, 2011 10:57 pm

John Trigge says:
May 30, 2011 at 9:01 pm
“Point B.6 states:
“What this shows, if anything, is that CO2 CAUSES TEMPERATURE, or, that something else causes both to change, with CO2 lagging by hundreds of years. ”
Shouldn’t this be “TEMPERATURE CAUSES CO2″ as it appears you are referring to the real message in the ice record rather than what AG espouses?”
Temperature causes a CO2 rise for 1/6th of the effect and CO2 causes a temperature rise for the other 5/6ths of the warming.
Causation is not unidirectional in this instance, it is a positive feedback system.

Jack Hughes
May 30, 2011 11:00 pm

Thanks for doing this.
I’m not sure if I agree with your conclusions about “having to do something instead of nothing”.
If you disagree with a religion you don’t have to set up a rival religion and you don’t have to compromise with them.

Layne Blanchard
May 30, 2011 11:01 pm

Ira,
The other side is not interested in negotiation on this issue. Any ground they gain only serves to feed their obsession. After all, it isn’t really about the climate.
We’re dealing with an irrational cult. And there is good evidence these folks are mixed with others who intend us serious harm. Negotiation is pointless.
We could go all out with Thorium, and save the hydrocarbons for the other things we can make with them. But until this idea gains favor, there is no reason we shouldn’t go all out on coal, and the other vast supplies of hydrocarbons in the USA. We need to declare a national energy emergency, and begin re-establishing our pre-eminence of growth. The climate cabal has hobbled and damaged our economy. It must be destroyed completely, or like a vampire, will return to feed again. We would still manage our resources. But we need to find the proper way to separate the two issues in our dialog: To vanquish the cult, but still convey care for the environment.
The motives behind the entire issue of CO2 are:
1. A desire to suppress, damage, or destroy the US, (and other western economies)
2. A desire to create a global issue, requiring global government which would necessarily be dictatorial and socialist/communist/Malthusian wack job psycho evil.
3. A criminal desire to steal VAST amounts of wealth, with clingers on, rent seekers.
4. A self flagellating cult which loathes humanity and sees spiritual redemption in self deprivation.
Please note that reducing temperature isn’t on the list!
Q: Which of these groups should we try to reason with? A: None of them.
I think ample evidence exists in recent history. Nothing like a string of 50 news stories of catastrophic storms to dispel the notion of “disruption”. And Dr. Richard Keen’s article on highest records in North America and these two from Steve Goddard make a point anyone can understand.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/june-1934-all-48-states-over-100-degrees/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/1934-an-inconvenient-truth/

Dave Wendt
May 30, 2011 11:04 pm

If you had quit after section C I would have granted you a conditional thumbs up, but after reading through section D, I’d say if that’s the best you’ve got you should just stay home and turn off your computer because you’re worse than the warmists. “We cannot fight something with nothing,” so instead of agreeing to something completely moronic we should settle for something that is merely incredibly stupid.
The folks taking advantage of this manufactured “climate crisis” to move their agenda ahead have been pushing that agenda relentlessly for more than a century. They like to think of themselves as revolutionaries, but they are really reactionaries against the only real revolution in human history. The one that said that the governors need to be subject to the people not, as has been the case over most of the world over most of history both before and since, that people must be subjects of the government. All the revolutionary liberation movements before and since have merely sought a coup de tat to replace one set of overlords with another with a different vocabulary and nomenclature but the essential subservience of the populous preserved. The notion that giving these folks just a little will dissuade them from their long term goals is incredibly naive. The ink wouldn’t be dry on the bill authorizing your Carbon Tax before they were back angling to undercut personal liberty and free economic choices with a barrage of new planet saving measures.
As to this incredible sentence
… I favor reduction of the carbon footprint by efficiency, conservation, recycling, and so on, plus the introduction, if and when economically practical of so-called “Green” energy, including Nuclear, Water, Wind, Biomass and, particularly, “Clean” Coal.
It is completely self contradictory. You claim to support efficiency and conservation, but then “particularly’ endorse “Clean” Coal, by which I assume you mean the current absurd proposal that all new coal powered generating plant be required to capture and sequester their CO2 emissions. Every analysis of these plans that I have seen suggests that they would increase the fuel input required for each unit of output by at least 50% which seems to me to be the exact opposite of increased efficiency and conservation.
If we really can’t be bothered to defend personal liberty and economic freedom from the new feudal lords of the world’s dictatorial bureaucracies we probably deserve our fate, but there is no need to hasten its arrival by wrapping their treachery in a protective cloak of supposedly “skeptical science”

brc
May 30, 2011 11:04 pm

I definitely disagree with a carbon tax. While it sounds theoretically efficient, tax collection and redistribution is not a zero sum game. Even the most scrupulous government and tax office is going to burn a lot of that money in collection, prosecution and auditing. Then, if you climb back down from a theoretical land where politicians are pure of heart, then you end up in a situation where you have opened up another wedge for lobbyists and special interest groups to carve out their own niches in the legislation., to enrich themselves and weaken their competitors. You’ve only got to look at the bio fuels mess to see where it would end up.
Once the government gets a tax collection in place, it can’t leave it alone. So you can expect gradually increasing taxation and less and less compensation paid, until it ends up as just another revenue source, just like cigarettes, alcohol and liquid fuels.
If you sincerely believe that reducing carbon emissions is a problem, then by all means put a sunset clause on existing types of power generation – eventually all the old ones will be decommissioned and you’ll have gotten rid of them without disrupting anyone. There is no point in taxing existing infrastructure and destroying wealth for token gestures. Eventually new technology will arrive and make old technology obsolete. One single breakthrough in cold fusion or hot fusion, one single development in fission nuclear – and the whole game changes. And when that happens, the most important thing that will be required is flexible energy laws and regulations, and access to deep capital markets to develop and roll out the new technology.
In other words, sit back and wait for the inevitable technological breakthrough. It will happen so fast your head will spin. You didn’t have to tax horseshit to get the Model T made. All you had to do was let Henry Ford have a go and keep his winnings.

juanslayton
May 30, 2011 11:10 pm

I think your description of the present results of the surfacestations project will be challenged. The results are not so simple as the impression left in B-13. The evidence for UHI in specific sites is clear enough, and can be invoked whether or not the larger picture remains under investigation. Perhaps a slight rewording will avoid a challenge.

StuartMcL
May 30, 2011 11:17 pm

I’m with Carl Chapman. To me, the biggest flaw in the Alarmist argument is their insistence on strong positive forcings resulting in catastrophic outcomes.
Any system in which strong positive feedbacks are dominant must eventually destroy itself. Based on the relative stability of historical climate over millions of years it seems fairly clear to me that negative feedbacks must be predominant.

izen
May 30, 2011 11:19 pm

@- Carl Chapman says:
May 30, 2011 at 9:07 pm
“For me, the most important point in the debate is the role of feedbacks. The Alarmists assume, with no reason and no evidence, that positive feedbacks will magnify the insignificant primary effect of CO2 by a factor of at least 3. A relatively stable system has to have negative feedbacks, which counteract any forced change.”
But the climate DOES change in response to the Milankovitch cycles, ice-cover loss and volcanoe eruptions. The magnitude of those changes to small causative effects are the reason and evidence the ‘warmists’ have for the present estimates of climate sensitivity.
” Measurements of outgoing energy vs increased temperatures indicate negative feedback reduces any forced change to about 1/3 of what it would be. ”
That is very difficult to reconcile with the MWP, LIA and the effect of large volcanic eruptions. It would also negate any effect from the measured changes in solar energy, they would be FAR too small to show up in the climate if they are reduced in effect by 1/3rd.

galileonardo
May 30, 2011 11:19 pm

Ira,
If it wasn’t 2 am I’d be more specific, but speaking from just the graphic communication standpoint, I think you miss the mark a decent bit. I hope you are open to such critique, and I apologize if not, but I think you do not do your important message justice with your slides. I concede that I am using the Google doc conversion of your file, so what I am seeing is likely not quite an accurate representation of what you are presenting. But if I had to sum up my advice in a word it would be this: simplify.
Just because you can make a cast shadow doesn’t mean one is required. There are many “easy” fixes you could make to better present your message visually and have your audience absorb more of it. And you certainly do not want to overwhelm your audience with cluttered/whizbang graphics. You don’t have to fill every square inch. Add/modify slides if necessary. Again: simplify. Think timeless, minimalist.
If you return to that ideology you will be surprised at how easy it is to get your message across, not only graphically but verbally (and don’t be surprised if by simplifying your graphics you find yourself simplifying the verbal content). I would also advise against too much rhetoric (me, of all people, I know). All it takes is one word to turn some of your audience off and it can be contagious.
Well now you got me started but my bed beckons me. I have dealt with critiques such as this one I am giving for a long time, so I hope this isn’t an offense. And remember, I’m looking at a Google doc. Your slides may look quite different from what I am seeing. As for my critique, the goal is to improve the work, not “rip it to pieces.” I love critiques as they have so often helped me in particular instances and thereafter. Hopefully you share those sentiments.
Let’s quickly take slide #3. My suggestions. You use a high-resolution image of the Earth on #1 but then in #3 use a highly pixelated lo-res picture, and further it appears to be placed upside-down near as I can tell. NASA provides hi-res images of all three bodies you are free to use. I suggest you track some down and replace them. I would suggest getting rid of all extraneous text effects, even the dashes in the arrow shafts (solid lines). Make your title stand out as currently all of the larger text titles are competing with each other. Reduce font size as needed and tighten leading if it helps fit issues.. You aren’t making eye charts. Use a smaller image of the sun that still “contains” the related text block. Get rid of the blue stroke around the Earth. Make “Earth System” block of text a solid single color without a stroke. Make text color throughout more uniform and use less of them (good old white text can be magical, as can “white space”). Same with your number of fonts. Pick a different color for “Heat” label. Hard to read.
All right. Now I really am off to bed. I’ll have another look tomorrow night, time permitting, though I’m sure there are other graphically-inclined members of the WUWT audience that can lend an opinion, hand or, stylus to you. Best of luck.

Steeptown
May 30, 2011 11:21 pm

What about the gravitational compression being the cause of the surface temperature being 288K (33C higher) rather than 255K, which as about 5k above the surface, in the troposphere, where the mean is of the IR emitted to space? IOW, it is nothing to do with the “greenhouse effect”. Or am I just a DAGW?

May 30, 2011 11:27 pm

Here is another vote to NOT appease the alarmists. To give even an inch, puts their evil agenda one inch closer to implementation. They will come back time after time until they get their goals, one inch at a time.
We accepted nothing less than unconditional surrender from the WWII perpetrators and we should accept nothing less from the perpetrators of the climate fraud, another attempt to take over the world. I say this based on the fact that the key people know they are cheating to scare people into action. Some of them have actually admitted to exaggerating to scare people!
Thanks
JK

Tenuc
May 30, 2011 11:27 pm

Nice clear and logical presentation, Ira, but a couple of things missing…
The role of spatio-temporal chaos and complexity in our climate system.
The problems with GCM’s and why they are useless at predicting future climate outcomes.
Your concluding argument conflates mitigating climate change with energy independence. As CO2 levels lag temperature, as you confirm at the start of your presentation, there is no logic to your assertion. ‘Do nothing’ is the only valid conclusion, as we just don’t know if we are going to be lucky enough have another climate optimum or end up in with a little ice age again.
Hope the presentation goes well for you – ‘break a leg’.

TA
May 30, 2011 11:31 pm

Personally, I think deniers (mostly rational people) should be pushing for large-scale mitigation of black carbon (soot). It seems to speed up the melting of ice, which unlocks more water into our hydrosphere. Since we all know water vapor is the greatest GHG of them all, it would seem a no-brainer in eliminating this particulate from our environment and receive immediate benefits. Not to mention the health benefits we would get from not inhaling it.
I think the positive news that would result from eliminating (or severely curtailing) our output would put the alarmists on their heels.
Will it ever happen? I highly doubt it. They are ‘all-in’ on tying all GHG mitigation schemes to CO2. It’s madness.

Doug in Seattle
May 30, 2011 11:32 pm

I agree with almost all of what you are saying, except the business of the carbon tax.
As an environmental I practice a personal policy of doing no harm. A carbon tax will do harm. It will make energy more expensive and will be abused by politicians and bureaucrats.
I see no harm in supporting research into alternatives, but that would not require another new tax. All we would need to do is transfer the funding currently wasted on global warming modeling the derivatives based on that modeling. There’s many billions there.

Kev-in-Uk
May 30, 2011 11:34 pm

jaypan says:
May 30, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Yes – a point that seems to get ignored. If we accept the 800-1200 year TEMP vs CO2 lag is valid – then there is no real way to consider that 100 years of CO2 increases will cause any warming for another 700 years!!
The time lag in ice cores is a measurable piece of info – implying that any CO2 change will rise 800-1200 years AFTER a temperature change. So, it is reasonable to conclude that at least some of the current warming is due to events that happened 800-1200 years ago.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientists level of understanding to subtract 800 to 1200 years from 2010 and come up with a ‘date’ of 800 to 1200AD for the time period when the temperature was hotter. And what do we find in that period – oh, look, it’s the Medieval Warm Period !!
Hence the reason the ‘team’ want to expunge the MWP!

Logan
May 30, 2011 11:39 pm

I quickly reviewed the PP, and it is indeed a great job, but too complex for many in the audience, and it omits certain points.
First, the ‘390 ppm’ is in itself a propaganda spin to make 0.04% sound larger. In speaking one would remark that the human contribution is about one-hundredth of one percent. Then, go on to Carl Chapman’s point that a dubious positive feedback is required. Mention Roy Spencer.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
who is an expert critic of feedbacks and includes an overview on his website.
Next, include more on natural cycles and the solar-terrestrial aspects. Mention that Cycle 24 is probably an analogy to the Dalton Minimum.
You might mention the Petition Project, to refutes the ‘consensus’ claim.
And, include a mention of the Green Agenda website —
http://www.green-agenda.com/
and tell everyone to read down the list of quotations from environmentalists and other alleged leaders. If any normal person reads that list, they will realize that AGW is not about science in the first place! You include some of the climategate emails, and you could also include some of the more extreme quotes.
Logan

Doug in Seattle
May 30, 2011 11:40 pm

That should be “environmental professional” in my reply to Ira G.
Dang keyboards always fail to read my mind correctly.

BravoZulu
May 30, 2011 11:42 pm

I favor efficiency and conservation as well. It is just common sense. I agreed with practically everything you wrote. I would certainly not favor labeling it reducing the carbon footprint or giving intellectual validation to alarmist political speech. I would state what you said which invalidates the alarmism and cuts their argument off at the knees. There is no need to invalidate the arguments of those that say humans haven’t caused any warming. Just correct that to say significant warming and for all practical purposes they are usually saying the same thing as you even though they may not be technically correct. Who cares about the fraction of a degree and why pander to paranoid types that do. I would never validate what any political activist says or even sound like I was. They will just use that validation as evidence how right they are.

Barry
May 30, 2011 11:45 pm

I haven’t had the chance to complete the article yet, but something caught my eye. It says
Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming. I think you meant Anthropogenic
[THANKS Barry, I fixed it. Ira]

Richard111
May 30, 2011 11:46 pm

I still cannot get my head around the claim that, say, 15 micron radiation from a cool body will be absorbed by a warmer body that is already radiating at 15 microns proportional to its greater temperature.
A solid body has a much larger heat capacity than a gaseous body. For each body the emitted radiation is a COOLING process. The warmer body will have a huge surplus of molecules that have emitted 15 micron radiation so will be able to absorb that 15 micron radiation from the cool body above. THAT ABSORBED RADIATION CAN ONLY RETURN THE ABSORBING MOLECULE TO THE ENERGY STATE THAT EXISTS AT THE SURFACE OF THE SOLID BODY. That absorbed energy CANNOT pass into the layer of WARMER molecules below.
To claim otherwise means radiative cooling under any conditions cannot exist.

May 30, 2011 11:58 pm

I’m sorry Ira – I don’t agree about the can’t fight something with nothing and that going down the carbon (sic) tax route is the least painful option.
I think its the start of a very slippery green-owned slope that will be used to wield a large stick over the middle classes of the world in an attempt to appease feelings of guilt for simply existing.
In Australia – the carbon tax is just a wealth redistruibution exercise
1. tax the sources
2. who will then put up the costs
3. compensate ‘exposed’ industries
4. compensate ‘poor’ households.
5. spend the leftovers on green energy projects
Can you see who foots the bill? Anyone above the arbitarily drawn line in the sand. Today, the tax might be \$20 a tonne and the line drawn at \$80k and over, tomorrow it could be \$100 a tonne and then paid back in means tested bands until its just the ‘wealthy’ middle classes foot the majority of the costs.
In the meantime, the government incurrs huge administration costs and the money-go-round is only left with a tiny bit for green projects that actually do nothing of note.
Its a socialist’s wet dream and one we can’t let slip through in any shape or form .

Paul Deacon
May 31, 2011 12:04 am

Thank you, Anthony, for your useful resources in the fight. In general, I find your arguments unduly complicated (but I do not know your audience).
I think you should say something about global computer modelling, and its preponderance on the warmist side of the argument. You might probably also draw out the following:
– The scientific agenda is controlled by the modellers (fudge makers).
– Convincing empirical evidence supporting the warmists is as yet lacking (and positive feedbacks in the models have not been proven).
– The warmists, who control the agenda, are not prepared to countenance natural variation (the “null hypothesis”). It is only because they control the agenda that they can do this.
– The sceptics are empiricists, the warmists are theoretical thinkers (we have perhaps a classic stand-off that has existed since 17th century philosophy, say Descartes vs. Locke – I suspect that the UK has become thoroughly Europeanised in its philosophical and scientific thinking over the last generation or so, tending away from empiricism).
– The possibility of a non-warmist theory gaining currency and becoming generally accepted (e.g. the Svensmark cosmic ray hypothesis).
– How many years can pass without warming before the general public reject warmism?
I am (very) disappointed with your political conclusion, which does not follow in any way from your previous thought. There is plenty of ammunition with which to fight the political fight. Essentially, warmism should be fought FROM THE LEFT. That is to say, sceptics should bang the following drums:
– Increased energy prices and/or rationing are highly damaging to developing countries, which need cheap, abundant energy in order to lift their peoples out of poverty.
– “Carbon” taxes are regressive taxes (they hit the poor more than the rich).
– The practical social consequences of “anti-carbonism” can fairly be described as undesirable (if not downright evil). Among these consequences are increased world food prices brought about by bio-fuel policies in the USA and the EU, which cause hunger and starvation.
– And so on.
All the best, and good luck with your talk.
p.s. Please note that “adjusting” historic climate data will come back and bite the warmists, as with the passage of time it becomes a game of diminishing returns (or perhaps more accurately “negative feedbacks”).

Keith Minto
May 31, 2011 12:12 am

Ira, an excellent report.
Is that 800yr CO2 miss- match with temperature consistent at 800yrs and repeatable over time ? I say this as I have not seen graphs with enough resolution to convince me.

P. Solar
May 31, 2011 12:16 am

I would suggest anyone wishing to use this guide or the associated PowerPoint document for presentation to or education of others corrects the abundant misuse of capitalisation and scientific units. It does not help when presenting yourself as an authority if you can’t write properly, or if you pretend to lecture people on science yet you write Watt instead of watt.
It’s a simple question of credibility.
Almost every other common noun and even adjectives are capitalised throughout this text. English grammar (unlike German) only capitalises proper nouns , ie. names of people, buildings, organisations, countries etc.
The sea, air, atmosphere, coal, wind, wood are common nouns and should not be capitalised.

recycling, and so on, plus the introduction, if and when economically practical of so-called “Green” energy, including Nuclear, Water, Wind, Biomass and, particularly, “Clean” Coal.

Not one of those capitals is grammatically correct.
“The Temperature falls eight-hundred or more years prior”
The temperature of an object is a simple property like its colour or smell, it is not its name. No capital T.
“a temperature of only 255 Kelvin, where Kelvins are degrees Celsius above absolute zero. ”
S.I. standards state that unit names in full, like kelvin are not to be capitalised. The abbreviated form (K) usually is a capital. So temperatures are measured in kelvin not Kelvin not Kelvins.
” while the Atmospheric effect works”
Words that describe something are called adjectives , eg. big, fat, cool, foreign, artificial, stupid, ignorant… they are not even common nouns and should not be capitalised.
This is not pedantry, if you want to present yourself as a knowledgeable authority and lecture others it helps if you can write properly.

Philip
May 31, 2011 12:19 am

Nice article. I especially like the clarity of your alarmist/disbeliever dichotomy. Seems to me they are just two sides of the same coin … everybody who disagrees with them must be a paid up member of the opposite side.

AusieDan
May 31, 2011 12:21 am

With respect, your conclusion is wrong.
Your proposed method is defeatism – appeasment.
That was tried before in the 1930’s.
Hitler just took what we gave and demanded more.
The Greens will never be satisfied until a (very) few of us are back, living in caves and hunting with spears.
The AGW fallacy can be defeated.
In fact it is being defeated as we debate.
Ordinary people are realising one by one, in the privacy of their homes, that they have been trcked.
They do not like it.
We don’t have to fight with empty hands.
As already said, the truth is a powerful weapon.
There is comedy and sarcasm as well.
These are strong medicine.
The Australian leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott is winning the fight as he engages everyday with people in their workplaces in small groups.
It concentrates the mind most wonderfully when you realise that the path to hell is not only paved with what looks like gold, but that it takes your job away and your family and way of life will suffer.
The popularity of the Australian government is now down to 28% and they are too fearful to put the proposed carbon tax to an election.
We will win.
There is no doubt.
But please do not conceed the battlefield when the beginning of the end is now so clearly in sight.

May 31, 2011 12:31 am

Much has changed in the three years I’ve been engaging others on the subject of climate change.
The average person, without much understanding or political inclination seemed to had been swayed by much of what was read in the paper, or saw on television.
Most had a vague understanding for the subject, but usually was verbatim from what they heard or read, and usually not a subject most would discuss at any length. That could have been for either, not knowing enough about the subject or not feeling comfortable about talking about it with strangers.
Since Climategate, much of that has changed.
Climategate has done more for the common man or woman than we know. While Climategate might not be the subject that is talked about, more people are willing to express their skepticism.
When people ask me what I like to do when not consulting, I tell them I manage a climate blog.
Silence usually follows, or a pause, but almost every time I am asked what I think.
So I tell them. I tell them global warming is a farce.
And the ones I talk with always, and I do mean always, agree with me.
The average person that’s skeptical, are apprehensive with a stranger when it comes to bringing the topic up. But once you open the door, they become talkative and seem to ask me more and more questions.
The word is getting out, regardless how hard the alarmist screams we have reached a tipping point.
I guess what I want to say is, that while the media wishes us to believe that Climategate was a non-factor, it has struck a chord among the common man and woman that I don’t think the alarmist community will ever recover from.
It sure is a good feeling to come from being laughed at for my opinion,to being just another among many that think that CAGW is a lie.
We truly have come a long way.

Jeff B.
May 31, 2011 12:35 am

I second Karl above. As a fellow engineer why are you for wasting money on things like wind and solar that don’t work but that will waste a lot of capital fast? Your duty is to say no to such folly. For if other scientists and particularly engineers who convert science into reality won’t say “no,” who will?
Further I don’t submit willingly to a carbon tax as the best way to throw a bone to the political class. You should also be able to see how thoroughly they have squandered other taxes. Giving them more never helps. Case in point, Seattle Public Schools as mentioned by steptoe fan.

May 31, 2011 12:53 am

Ira,
What is your goal for this presentation?
If it is to pursuade the audience that the alarmist CAGW science is flawed, then stick to that and drop any mention of carbon taxes, the merits of such, or any other discussion about what we should or shouldn’t do.
By introducing the notion that we should do something at all, you are conceding they may be right, and the discussion that follows will be all about the last few points in your slides, the rest will be forgotten. If you want to provoke a debate about the actual science, then do a presentation about the science.

Jack
May 31, 2011 12:58 am

I enjoyed the presentation, to me a non-scientist but climate change skeptic it seemed scientifically reasoned and well presented. As for your idea of a carbon tax at the mine, well, and port I don’t see how it could happen in this economy. There are millions of people in Canada, the USA and around the world trying to make sure that they have enough money each month to pay the rent and put food on the table.
What would be an interesting is a “voluntary carbon tax system”. It would be a voluntary contribution system where individuals are allowed to contribute to a fund to help “fight” carbon. All contributions must be identified by amount and by the donor’s name, no anonymous donations and donations are not tax deductible. Then all the donations are published monthly on a website for the world to see.
The media could then analyse the published list and see if global warming alarmists such as Al Gore or James Hansen or George Soros or Cate Blanchett (who’s pushing a carbon tax for Australia) are contributing significant portions of their income to the fund to “fight” carbon. If not, why aren’t they doing their bit to fight global warming with money out of their own pocket?

Scottish Sceptic
May 31, 2011 1:02 am

I think the fundamental difference between sceptic/alarmist stems from a difference in approach.
The alarmist takes the approach that they should create the best climate model based on the known parameters that they know could affect the climate. For historical reasons “feedback” effects are actively encouraged in climate “science” to explain the way a small change in solar irradiation can cause a much larger change of global temperature leading to ice ages. Similarly “sunspots” are not accepted … because they aren’t part of an accepted climate model (i.e. there’s no “scientific” way to assess their impact). Similarly “clouds”, “ocean currents”, “changes in magnetic poles”, “deforestation”, “urbanisation” and a host of other variables aren’t accepted. Leading to the equation:-
Global warming = (let’s take a guess to make the curve fit …3?) x the small bit of real science (based on atmospheric gases).
This leads to the infamous 1.4-5.8 warming, on which a lot of ‘ “scientists” ‘ (double quotes to show that it isn’t even vaguely science) have speculated and have made 2+2 = all hell and damnation.
The sceptic. Prefers to say: “if we don’t know how to model the climate and have to invent a 3x multiplier, then this doesn’t sound like good science. So, unless I can see real evidence it is predictive, then I’m inclined to categorise this under ‘interesting’ unless or until I can see some proven correlation with any of the supposed affects
… extremes of weather: No.
… continued global warming as predicted: No,
… the kind of honesty & scientific caution which generally marks out a subject as one worth listening to: No!”.

Ross
May 31, 2011 1:09 am

I think the whole CO2 can warm the earth as explained bt Kiehl & Trenberth in their 1977 paper and diagram is a joke.
Their total incoming solar radiation is 342 – 107 = 235 W/sq m the same as their outgoing. The maximum blackbody temperature for this irradiance is minus 18 degrees C.
The problem their logic has is – where does this so called “back radiation” come from ?
Think about it – if their chicanery in calculating their so-called constant irradiance model is correct and 235 W/sq m is the effective incoming solar radiation which heats the earth to minus 18 C and the earth radiates the appropriate energy for minus 18 C – 235 W/sq m out to space – Where does the extra energy come from to create this so called “back radiation”?
How does the earth get hot enough for their claimed 390 W/sq m “surface radiation”.
Their diagram describes a perpetual motion machine situation and I thought most physicists know this is inpossible.
The problem is they reduce the solar constant by a factor of four to arrive at their incoming solar irradiance of 342 W/sq m before rget reduce it by the albedo of the atmosphere.
One factor of 2 is because half the earth is in darkness at any one time. Therefore they reduce their figure for incoming solar irradiance by half.
How is it possible that because half the earth is in darkness the incoming solar radiation is reduced by a factor – ie halved? It cannot even affect the average radiation because the earth is constantly rotating, points in darkness enter light zones and warm up from a cold state while warm points enter darkness and start to lose heat.
So this first reduction in the incoming sloar irradience is, to my mind, nonsence.
The second reduction by, again a factor of 2, is because the surface being irradiated is a half sphere and they consider it to be a circular disk which is half the area of a sphere.
So they cut the 1366 W/sq m in half because half of the earth is in darkness and then they cut that 683 W/sq m in half again because they want to consider the earth as a circular disk.
Can’t they calculate the surface area of a sphere ??
Anyway the whole process is smoke and mirrors and simply nonsence.
I can’t understand how they have got away with it for so long without becoming the laughingstock they rightly deserve to be.
Finally, to obtain a temperature of plus 50 C – a temperature that is regularly achieved in Saharan Africa, the Middle East, parts of American deserts etc requires about 618 W/sq m according to Stefan-Boltzman.
From Kiehl & Trenberth I can only find 168 incoming solar + 324 “back radiation” = 492 W/sq m.
492 W/sq m givrs a maximum temperature of 305 K or 32 C.
Now somebody should tell those meterologists that the IPCC is effectively disputing their reports of temperature above 32 C because the graphic Energy balance from IPCC AR4 FAQ, Figure 1 plainly says so.
Even more unbelievable is the claim that whilst the sun can only heat the earth to minus 18 C “greenhouse gases can magically heat it to plus 50 C.
The final joke in all their bad science is :
All of the reduction mechanisms employed to reduce the incoming solar radiation to the earth are geometry – Half darkness, half area – they have nothing to do with the atmosphere.
In that case they should apply to the moon.
Heat tge surface of the moon with :
342 W/sq m – plus 5.5 degrees C
1366 W/sq m – plus 120 degrees C.
http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/kids/moon_temperature
“During the day the temperature on the Moon can reach 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius), while at night it can drop to -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius). The Earth, which has an atmosphere, has a much more comfortable range of temperatures. ”
This is the NASA kids website – perhaps a few escaped and got jobs at the IPCC ?

Bryan
May 31, 2011 1:16 am

Ira Glickstein
I have followed your previous two posts.
You strike me as a guy whose heart is in the right place however you have decided that the truth lies at the midpoint between IPCC proponents and those who think that the IPCC peddles pseudoscience.
A few days ago you asked for help in understanding the recent Postma paper.
Just because you do not understand how the adiabatic lapse rate is derived it is wrong to blame Postma.
This formula is in fact an accepted part of mainstream climate science.
If you like I can give you an IPCC advocates derivation of the formula perhaps, then you will accept it.
Posters like Joel Shore will not point you there because it does not fit in with the cruder 33K “greenhouse effect” claim.
Once you rumble the crude claims by someone like Joel they pull back to the second line of defence.
Which is that their previous statement was’ a simplification because you might not be smart enough’ to understand what is really going on.
Folk like Joel think its a bit of a propaganda battle and they certainly know which side they are on.
Science has never progressed by taking the midpoint between opposing propositions.

Larry in Texas
May 31, 2011 1:17 am

Thanks Ira! While I don’t agree with your carbon tax policy prescription, your Power Point is quite informative and I will use it when necessary.

Ross
May 31, 2011 1:24 am

Greenhouse gas theory is contradiction. From NASA, the home of James Hansen – the “head honcho” of global warming – sorry – climate change.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/
“Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth’s average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C).”
Now from
http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/kids/moon_temperature
“During the day the temperature on the Moon can reach 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius), while at night it can drop to -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius). The Earth, which has an atmosphere, has a much more comfortable range of temperatures. ”
Huh –
The moon with no Greenhouse gases is 123 degrees C during the day
BUT
“Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth’s average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C).”
Doesn’t anyone see there is something wrong here ?
They’ve cooked the books by confusing average with maximum – without our atmosphere the earth would be almost exactly like the moon.
Our atmosphere protects us from the sun – it does not heat us but rather keeps us cool during the day and because of water vapour warm at night.
Carbon dioxide cannot heat the earth.

Disputin
May 31, 2011 1:36 am

Ira, You are a star. I’m booked to give a presentation to a local group in a couple of weeks time on “Why I am a sceptic” and your presentation (which will receive full acknowledgement) will be invaluable.
As a sceptic, I’m further out than you, in that I see no evidence that the theoretical behaviour of CO2 actually has any perceptible effect in the real world. I suspect this is because, as you said, a greenhouse doesn’t work by the greenhouse effect. The Warmisti always express the effect of CO2 as a radiative forcing, whereas in the troposphere virtually the sole means of heat transfer is convective (as the pretty little cumulus clouds I’m looking at now show so well). My bet is that the Earth only radiates from the top of the troposphere and there the atmosphere is too thin to stop much of the energy being reabsorbed by CO2.
I’m with most of the rest with regard to appeasement. It didn’t work in 1938 and it won’t work now. Threaten true believing politicians with defeat, and sue the a**e off lying climatologists.

Joel Heinrich
May 31, 2011 1:39 am

A4: ” (The Earth System is not exactly a black body, but it is close enough for our purposes here.)”
No it is not, not even near. A black body has an absorptivity coefficient (a) of 1, a transmissivity coeff. (t) of 0 and reflectivity coeff. (r) of 0. With a+t+r=1.
Now for the incoming short wave radiation:
Earth’s albedo means r=0.3,
And the transparent atmosphere means t~0.6, which leaves a~0.1.
You could say that the radiation eventually gets absorbed by the surface and the deep ocean, but this still leeves you with a=0.7. This is NOT close to a black body.
As for the outgoing long wave radiation:
A black body has an emissivity coeff. (e) of 1 over all wavelengths. Take a look at the absorption spectrum of the atmosphere and you can see that the atmosphere is not close enough to a black body.
A5: “You may remember that anything above absolute zero emits radiant energy”
Except of course when it doesn’t, like N_2 or O_2. Or just how much energy (long wave radiation) are they emitting and where is it accounted for?
” The “issue” is that the Earth Surface has a mean temperature closer to 288 Kelvin, corresponding to about +15ºC or +59ºF. In other words, the Surface is about 33ºC or 58ºF warmer than the “black body” formula would indicate. How to explain this added warmth?”
For any given amount of energy to be emitted, a black body has the lowest possible temperature. Any body that is not a black body MUST have a higher temperature then that. The fact that the Earth is not a black body, and not even close to one, accounts for much of the 33K in question.

May 31, 2011 1:49 am

Section D needs a different slant. Instead of offering to compromise with the politicos that are pushing carbon taxes or cap and trade, we should demand that the government entities that currently sponsor climate research fund scientific efforts to address all of the mechanisms that potentially lead to warming. The science isn’t settled. I as a scientist want the truth. Your audience needs to know that most of the alternative mechanisms have not been supported with their tax money. The need to write their legislators to rein in the bias in the science world by supporting work, especially empirical, that addresses other mechanisms for heating the planet. I think sections A thru C are convincing that there is no empirical evidence that CO2 alone caused the warming observed and that anecdotal evidence is equivalent to hearsay in court. If the audience follows your presentation that far, they will arrive at the correct conclusions about carbon footprints and such.

David, UK
May 31, 2011 1:53 am

Jack Hughes says:
May 30, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Thanks for doing this.
I’m not sure if I agree with your conclusions about “having to do something instead of nothing”.
If you disagree with a religion you don’t have to set up a rival religion and you don’t have to compromise with them.

Totally agree. Meeting the alarmists halfway is not a good principle – it’s like Chamberlain returning from Germany, shaking his piece of paper (which, by the way, was just a blank sheet of paper for propaganda purposes, which illustrates perfectly how delusionary the whole affair was). The “do nothing” principle only refers to matters of CO2 capping and legislation, it doesn’t have to mean “be passive.” Two things sceptics should do is 1) continue to show how detached from reality alarmist science is, and 2) bring these charlatans to justice – starting with Mann.

Tim Spence
May 31, 2011 1:53 am

There’s an significant error in the powerpoint, where it asks “Where does C02 come from” . It says that C02 is released from decaying plants but doesn’t mention living plants.

rbateman
May 31, 2011 1:59 am

Joe Prins says:
May 30, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Simply buying the oil on the open market is Chinas strategy. They figured out that an economic race is a better game than war. In a couple more years, they’ll have the economy we once had.

Dodgy Geezer
May 31, 2011 2:04 am

@steptoe fan
“yes, a good summary, still, it’s hard to swallow and stick to the basics when the AGW crowd seems to continually have their way with govt and media. “
The worm may be turning. Here is a Telegraph report of last spring’s weather, which resulted in the highest CET temperature since 1893. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/8546729/Sun-lovers-enjoy-warmest-spring-since-1659.html#disqus_thread
You will be amazed to hear that the reporting is reasonable, and there are NONE of the usual obligatory messages about Global Warming. Could it be that the wheels are finally coming off the bandwagon…?
A hat tip to the author of the piece, Andy Bloxham.

Scottish Sceptic
May 31, 2011 2:11 am

I didn’t really put that as well as I should. The alarmist really takes the view that despite the problems with the temperature record and the huge unknowns, you should base your view of the future on the “best” climate model. As their best model only considers “greenhouse” gases and has to multiply by 3x, then this is the “best science” so the “best science” is that CO2 (if continued to be released on a curve which has nothing to do with science but economics) will cause a rise in temperature as predicted. Despite all the problems This is the best science
They take the view, that despite all the provisos, because this is the “best” science, then clearly this is what government policy MUST be based on.
I believe the sceptics are more “world weary” than the alarmists. We tend to come from a variety of professions where we have all no doubt had our fingers burnt by valuing “theory” over “reality”. We have no doubt all met people whose readings were not to be trusted, all met machines which simply refuse to work as “theory” intended. We have all had to deal with systems which are so complex they really can’t be understood in every minutia as a complete unit, and have learnt to assess these complex systems using proxies: from the squeaks and rattles of car engines, to the level of faults on a production line: we have learnt how to assess when a system has “a problem” whether, mechanical, electrical or human.
So, when we look at the climate, we are much less inclined to religiously accept the “theory” until it is tested in practice. Until then, we value our experience that we should first find real indications of a problem before accepting that the machine/system is at fault because experience tells us that often it is the theory (or personnel) which is wrong.
In short, the two sides take the view:
A) The best “Scientific” theory says … global warming … therefore policy must be based on this “science”.
B) OK there’s this theory, but as there is little evidence the theory is correct, let’s first look for simpler explanations: like human error or fluke variations. So, do any of the indicators exceed the normal variations expected under normal operating levels. No! So, let’s base policy on what is actually happening not what some (add you own expletive) theory says.

Sergey
May 31, 2011 2:13 am

You make assumption common to all parties in AGW debate, that there is energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation, holding at every moment of time. This assumption is manifestly WRONG. Energy can be stored and released in climate system in a form which is not measurable, that is, heat content of the ocean. While average surface temperature is around 15C, average bulk ocean temperature is around 3C, so ocean is not in thermal equilibrium with atmosphere. Moreover, this non-equilibrium is maintained for thousand years, that is, a powerful heat pump operates, which takes heat from ocean and adding it to atmosphere. Notice that heat capacity of ocean is 1000X larger than that of atmosphere, that is, to warm the atmosphere by 1 C we need to cool ocean only to 1/1000 degree C – an immeasurable quantity. We know that this heat pump is ocean conveyor circulation, and all short-term temperature fluctuations can be explained by variations of the power of this heat pump. Heat balance at planetary scale is valid only for thousand years time scale. Notice, that time lag 800 years is exactly the time of ocean mixing by global circulation.

Nils M. Nielsen
May 31, 2011 2:17 am

Your section D doesn’t impress me. Since I live in a reasonably cold and windy place, I want a lot of heating both inside and outside my house to have a nice life. That heating doesn’t come from CO2 absorbing IR, as shown about 100 years ago: http://www.giurfa.com/gh_experiments.pdf
There may be a lot of energy in the wind, but it is an unstable energy source, and you need a backup facility to take the load when the wind turbines are not able to deliver. Green energy? What other side effect do one have of wind turbines? If you create one green working place, how many do you lose? Look at Spain and England/Scotland.

John Marshall
May 31, 2011 2:19 am

Sorry but you introduce, correctly, the lag between temperature rise and atmospheric CO2 rise which does a long way to disprove the GHG theory ( it is still a theory not a law) but go on about how accurate the GHG theory is. You can’t have it both ways.
There is another mechanism that raises the average surface temperature above that of the black body radiation formulae and that is adiabatic compression. Never mentioned by you warmists!

Scottish Sceptic
May 31, 2011 2:33 am

How many climate “scientists” does it take to have an argument?
One! and enough time for natural variation to swing the climate the other way!

May 31, 2011 2:33 am

An interesting and well constructed presentation, however I would have one minor issue. The point –
“A. Basic Climate Science – Water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and other “greenhouse” gases cause the Earth Surface to be warmer than it would be if the Atmosphere was just nitrogen. ”
– is not entirely correct. Have a look at a colour photo of an Apollo astronaut and note the blue tips to the fingers and the blue overshoes. This was silicone rubber insulation to cope with the extreme temperatures on the Moon. The sunlit temperature on the Moon is greater than any surface temperature on Earth, and the temperature in the shade is similarly lower than any point on Earth. As the Moon is essentially at the same orbital distance from the Sun, it should be clear that our atmosphere (including water cycle and convective flows) keeps Earths surface cooler than it would otherwise be during the day, and warmer at night. (Speed of radiative heating and cooling of Luna regolith means that the four week Luna diurnal cycle is not the primary cause of this temperature difference, it is the lack of atmosphere)

Frosty
May 31, 2011 2:35 am

Strongly disagree with the conclusion, it heads they win (Cap n trade) tails we lose (carbon tax).
I already pay a “climate change levy” on my energy bills, how is that not a carbon tax?

roger
May 31, 2011 2:43 am

And all the while the world’s poor and hungry are pushed further to the wall by Global Warming increasing the price of maize according to Oxfam, who, aided by the BBC this morning cry crocodile tears, knowing full well that that mandated ethanol percentages in the oh! so green! first world are the prime cause of the wretched situation of starving hordes in Kenya and many other parts of the third world.
Universities today teach many subjects, but it seems common sense linked with humanity is an alien concept.
Politicised charities are ugly beasts.

May 31, 2011 3:21 am

Dr. Glickstein
I searched your expose for word ‘ocean’, could not find one. I think that the most important factor in the natural climate change is the oceans-atmosphere link, with solar thermal input more or less constant, as many respected scientists claim it to be; but that is not where solar story ends as graphically shown here

Brian H
May 31, 2011 3:35 am

The watts-in vs. watts-out analysis that attributes 33°C to the effects of GHGs omits a huge but “poorly understood” mechanism in the steady-state processes of the planet: cloud cover and cycling. So the most you can honestly say is that, “if it weren’t for clouds, we’d have to attribute the temperature discrepancy to GHGs; as it is, we don’t know if the clouds cause none, some, or all of it. Sorry!”
But neither lukewarmers nor Believers are prepared to be that honest. Therefore there are many more of us Dis-Believers than you are comfortable with.

May 31, 2011 3:35 am

Ira has a talent for writing articles that generate lots of resposnses. I like that.
But in this article, he proposes a compromise with the alarmist crowd. Compromise is unacceptable, because they have no evidence showing that the added CO2 is damaging the planet. Sergey, Hoffer, Scottish Skeptic, and others put it very well above.
The demonization of “carbon” is being done for reasons that are unrelated to science: much higher taxes, world government, control of the population, etc. There must be no compromise, unless empirical evidence is produced showing that harmless, beneficial CO2 is causing global damage. But so far, there is no such evidence. Thus, there can be no compromise with the alarmist crowd. Otherwise, a fine article.

polistra
May 31, 2011 3:38 am

If your conclusion is the same as the Warmists (we need a carbon tax) your argument is totally meaningless. You might as well skip the whole thing and just say “John Holdren said it, I believe it, that settles it.”
The Carbon Cultists are NOT arguing for the sake of scientific details, they are arguing to achieve governmental control and Wall Street profits. The “science” is a mere exiguous variable, a public-relations vehicle to persuade educated people to go along with their purposes. This was all laid out clearly in their 1975 manifesto.

Brian H
May 31, 2011 3:41 am

P.S. I dare you to insert the above as a succinct sample of the thinking of DisBelievers. We can always use more recruits.

Chris Wright
May 31, 2011 3:44 am

Overall, a very good piece.
I regard the ice core evidence as crucial. As far as I’m aware, the data shows no instance when a change in CO2 caused a corresponding change in the temperature. This strongly suggests that, presumably due to negative feedbacks, changes in CO2 has a completely negligible effect on the climate. It then follows that mankind’s emissions have had a neglegible effect on the climate, and that the modest warming we enjoyed in the previous century was primarily natural. In other words, it’s Nature doing what Nature has always done.
But I disagree on one thing. I suspect that the combination of a slightly warmer climate and the increase in CO2 has, overall, been of great benefit to mankind. Despite more doom-mongering on the BBC’s Today program this morning – it’s funny how we’re always doomed twenty years in the future – mankind has never been more prosperous.
I think the biggest threat to the well-being of mankind is indeed climate change. But it’s not the climate itself that threatens us. It’s the poisonous CAGW delusion that, if allowed to progress unchecked, will cause the world to squander countless trillions of dollars trying to solve a problem that almost certainly doesn’t exist. That this money may be diverted from solving real problems such as clean water and malaria is a crime against humanity.
Chris

ROM
May 31, 2011 3:47 am

I am a layman, a retired farmer but have been heavily mixed up in agricultural science for some 30 or more years until very recently so have attended my share of a very considerable number of science presentations, forums and highly technical discussions so I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly in talk only presentations right through to power point presentations.
1 / How long, what time period do you have for your presentation?
30 minutes maximum will see most audiences out for a presentation and another 10 to 20 for questions if you’ve got them really interested.
2 / Those 34 PPT slides are full to the extreme in my opinion of often messy detail which in many cases is quite hard to sort out from the other detail, an item which just turns any audience off real fast.
So 30 minutes max for the PPT presentation, one minute to absorb each slide.
If that’s the case as we say in Australia, you’ got Buckley’s chance of pulling that one off, ie; none!
20 simplified slides and you will have a good presentation.
If you go the hour, you are very, very good of maybe just get everybody to bring along the pillow and slippers.
3 / Those slides are so full of detail that it is darn near impossible to grasp the message in each slide without a couple of minutes of quite intense concentration and after that happens 3 or 4 times in a row most of the audience just switches off with their eyes wide open.
If the audience is concentrating hard on interpreting the slide it ain’t listening to the speaker unless the audience are all ladies. They can do half a dozen things at the same time.
Us men are rather limited and apparently can only do one thing at a time!
It’s even claimed that some of us men can’t chew gum and walk at the same time.
Content I will leave for far more competent and knowledgeable science people to comment on.
However, mankind needs four things for his survival.
1 / He must have water [ which he thinks he should get for free ]
2 / He must have food. [ which he will pay as little as possible for ]
3 / He needs shelter, ie; houses, buildings , clothes and etc and for those he will expend his entire wealth to show off his status in his culture and society.
4 / He needs energy. [ He will pay well for energy but only under heavy duress ]
Even a cowpat fire used by the very poorest of poor in places like India is an example of the single greatest differentiating characteristic between humanity and animals as it is only man who deliberately harnesses and uses energy for his own purposes.
And energy, cheap, totally reliable coal based energy is the single biggest reason behind the creation of the great Industrial Revolution that began in Britain in the late 1700’s.
An with the immense and totally reliable until now supplies of cheap energy that first drove and then was further developed by that same Industrial Revolution, the great sweep of the Industrial Revolution has spread across the planet to all it’s peoples and has continued it’s ever onward development to this day.
The Industrial Revolution has enabled mankind to reach levels of prosperity, health, knowledge and even surprisingly, peace with his fellow man far exceeding anything ever seen before in the 100,000 years or more of modern Homo Sapien’s existence.
And it this energy, the very basis of our modern existence, of our industrial revolution that the stupidity of the AGW/ACCo’s and their running dogs in politics want to tax out of existence and to force our civilisation back into a dreary disease and hunger and famine driven existence.
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it

David L
May 31, 2011 3:49 am

Dougmanxx says:
May 30, 2011 at 9:22 pm
“Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing,”
Lord Christopher Monckton
This is also many times sound economic policy, but sadly we have gotten caught up in the cult of “do something” rather than letting the system fix itself. “Do nothing. Be courageous.”
I agree completely. I work in manufacturing and there’s always the knee-jerk response to do something, any random thing, when there’s a change in the output of the manufacturing process. This is called “chasing the mean” and has been shown to actually increase the variability of the process. A prudent course is to study carefully for real cause and effects and then fix the actual problem with a robust repair.

John Finn
May 31, 2011 3:49 am

Overall quite a good summary. I do have one nitpick, though. You say
Temperature always rises eight-hundred or more years before CO2 increases.
This is only true if no other atmospheric CO2 sources other than ‘natural’ ones are present. Temperature is not responsible for the ~100 ppm rise in CO2 concentration since ~1850.

wayne
May 31, 2011 3:51 am

Ira said:
There you go. I was going to stay out of your way this thread but then I saw your plea in the very last sentence. Btw, you’re getting pretty good at bypassing the sticky science points! Better!
However, on the correct science side; you do want to be correct don’t you?; you have just one big misstep in topic A. The 33 ºC greenhouse effect (GHE) is not correct, at all. That is what some would call AGW science propaganda, plain and simple, toss all GHGs, water and co2, and keep the clouds, ‘bout normal.
If you have a pure nitrogen atmosphere, or any atmosphere without greenhouse gases, there are no clouds. Right?
And with no clouds then there isn’t 77 to 79 Wm-2 of albedo from the clouds. Right?
Here, I’ll calculate the correct greenhouse affected offset for you from the figures in Trenberth & Kiehl 2009 paper:
1364/4*(1-23/341) = 318 Wm-2 incoming solar irradiance, not 240 Wm-2, that is with clouds. And as you said, the output has to equal the input so the OLR (outgoing long radiation) would also be 318 Wm-2.
And this 318 Wm-2 gives you an effective temperature of (318/σ)1/4 or 273.7 K (0.5 ºC) mean surface temperature.
And this gives you 288K−274K or about 14 ºC of a GreenHouse Effect, not 33 ºC. Hate that term! Applies better to bugs. See how snidely they trip you? I’m sure you just overlooked that picky little science fact. You should correct all references to that in your paper to be scientifically correct. Is it real? Yes, but the sum total is a max of 66 Wm-2 and even Trenberth himself has fessed up and admitted to it (hidden in his 390−324 = the real 66 Wm-2 upward flux).
Also, I noticed in you PowerPoint presentation on slide #3 your bold TOA flux is listed at 1336, it should be 1366 Wm-2.
———
Now on the nitty-gritty of your post. I agree with nearly all of what you have said but, as many have raised, I must complain of D.#8 on some kind of carbon tax, NEVER!
I don’t take this point so politely and softly and cushy as many others here, soft words have proven to have no effect.
Never appease terrorists, never! You don’t ever cave in Ira. The AGW side of this fiasco is just that to myself, family and friends, mental terrorists that have brought terror to this entire world’s populous, and, they have done it using warped science, it’s in the papers every single day. They have been proved wrong over and over and over and over again. Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi has proved all of this AGW ‘science’ wrong now years ago.
Science is one thing I have always loved, enjoyed and respected for it’s purity and clarity over the many decades and they spit on it. Ticked? You bet! We should give absolutely nothing to the AGW pushers, especially taxing life itself, for that is what carbon is, life. The only thing the AGW side haven’t moved to yet is munitions…. wait…. 10/10 showed bombs is on their minds…. well, not real ones, yet. Ira, never appease terrorists, never. They live a lie.
Poor Aussie friends, got bald-faced lied to by their government. Surely we in USA are of better temper if our government ever tries to lie to us, our forefathers taught us that there is proper time to fight for what you believe and hold to be true:

Jim Cripwell
May 31, 2011 3:54 am

Ira, you write ” The Warmists tend to accept the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimate of 2.0ºC to 4.5ºC. The Skeptics tend to set carbon sensitivity much lower, perhaps 0.2ºC to 1ºC. The third group, which I call Lukewarmers, would suggest 1ºC to 3ºC.”
There is a fourth group (I call the out and out deniers) who claim that all these figures are based on estimates which have not been validated, since the numbers have never been measured. It is theoretically possible to measure total climate sensitivity, but the estimate of no-feedback climate sensitivity, which is a vital step in the estimate of the numbers you quote, can NEVER be measured, and is, therefore a hypothetical and meaningless number. There is doubt that it can even been estimated.
We simply do not know what the climate sensitivity for a doubling of Co2 is.

John Finn
May 31, 2011 4:04 am

Chris Wright says:
May 31, 2011 at 3:44 am
Overall, a very good piece.
I regard the ice core evidence as crucial. As far as I’m aware, the data shows no instance when a change in CO2 caused a corresponding change in the temperature. This strongly suggests that, presumably due to negative feedbacks, changes in CO2 has a completely negligible effect on the climate.

No this is not correct. Following the ice ages, CO2 was a feedback which amplified the (probably solar-induced) warming trend. The temperature shift from glacial to inter-glacial is of the order of 5-8 degrees. It is inconceivable that the sun is solely responsible for any more than a fraction of this.
The question is: what happpens now that CO2 is an independant ‘primary’ forcing. Will strong positive feedbacks be induced as they have in the past or will the feedbacks be neutral or even negative. I tend to agree with Willis E. (I think it was him) who suggested that climate sensitivity is not a constant. For this reason I go with a modest temperature increase of <1.5 deg C for 2xCO2.

Jean Guichard
May 31, 2011 4:09 am

According to Marcel Leroux, man is responsible for 0.28% of the “greenhouse gaz”. All the models considers CO2 as a blackbody, that is not science! We have to consider each molecule as independant .Any temperature effect due to “human CO2″is quite small.Also, as told by by Tim Ball, Earth is not a cold planet, and geothermy takes a role.
I guess we shall have a social agenda for the world :
-more energy available in poor countries,by helping them to develop their own ressources ( coal, uranium….)
-more grain for the poor by stopping biofuels and controlling speculation,
-Improve employment level by developing economically sustainable technologies,
-improve efficiency of our technologies,
-more funds for the civilian research on H2 fusion, that will give low cost energy for more time than earth,life!
I apologise for my poor broken pidgin english ; I just want to show you we can propose a brighter future than the greens.
Jean “Littlejohn”Guichard

Little Oil
May 31, 2011 4:11 am

I do not think anyone has mentioned the most powerful argument.
Earth’s temperature has only risen about 0.8 Degrees C over the past 120 years. Future predictions of catastrophic rises are based on computer models. The reality is that temperatures have not risen since 1998 but humans are pumping out record volumes of CO2. I think that in this short period we have emitted 25% of human produced co2 for no rise in temperature.

Roger Knights
May 31, 2011 4:12 am

Joe Prins says:
May 30, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Sorry, Anthony, sir, I have to disagree with your point 8.
…………….
Paul Deacon says:
May 31, 2011 at 12:04 am
Thank you, Anthony, for your useful resources in the fight.

The author is Ira Glickstein, which you can see if you look sharp and squint.
You shouldn’t have to, of course, but I’ve given up trying to change things here.

Jamie Cawley
May 31, 2011 4:16 am

For a simpler audience you can make the argument simpler and, perhaps, more convincing…..1. It is agreed by all main sources that temperatures rose less then 1C during the 20th centuary, much the same as they rose over the 19th. This is a very small rise and drastically less then has occurred even in the recent past i.e the 10C rise in temperatures over 50 year shown by Greenland ice deposits 11,000 years ago. 2. Temperatures have not risen this century despite the continuing rise in CO2. 3. Water vapour accounts for c.85% of the green house affect and varies we don’t know how. 4. We cannot (yet) forecast future weather long-term or even over more than 4 weeks (as deviation from annual average for the period). Any longer forecasts are scientifically invalid or, more prosaically, guesses. 5. Were CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to double, temperatures would (all else being equal) rise by around 1C. Any additional rise is posited on a runaway feedback effect on water vapour concentrations for which there is no evidence at all. CO2 has risen by around one third from man’s activity so far. 6. For what it is worth we are still, geologically, still in an ice age. For the vast majority of the earth’s history (85-90% of it) there has been no permanent ice at the poles. There is now which makes this an ice age, albeit in an ‘interglacial phase’.
There is no evidence of a problem from rising temperatures which appear to be as stable as over any period, there is no evidence to support the theory of runaway feedback from increases in CO2. What completely beats me is how such nonsense got such a grip on worlwide bien-pensant imagination. But then, why did so few see that bankers were lending to people who obviously weren’t going to repay?

Roger Knights
May 31, 2011 4:16 am

One strong argument that should be added is the futility of the developed world’s cutting CO2 emissions on its own–and the impossibility of getting the undeveloped world to do so (even if it “agrees” to do so).

May 31, 2011 4:16 am

No matter how many proofs are shown, I fear that the core of skeptics will never change its mind. The only hope is to find politicians sympathetic to the case, and there seems to be more of them in the US.
Of course, the sky-rocketing costs of “green” energy could help in these times of high debts

pat
May 31, 2011 4:17 am

btw it’s not a “carbon tax”, it’s a carbon dioxide tax.
no to any carbon dioxide tax.
as for the so-called instability of the countries where some western countries source oil, how about giving up military control of those countries and instead just compete in the market for the oil like everyone else.

Dr A Burns
May 31, 2011 4:18 am

“2. However, the warming is PARTLY Due to Rising CO2 Levels and human actions are PART of the Cause.”
There is no hard evidence to prove this.

H.R.
May 31, 2011 4:30 am

Jaypan and a few others beat me to it, Ira – your well made point that CO2 lags temperature – but I’d like to add that if that is the accepted direction of causality, shouldn’t the question be, “How much must the temperature rise to double atmospheric CO2?” And of course the other question would be, “How much must the temperature drop to halve the amount of atmospheric CO2?”

izen
May 31, 2011 4:34 am

@- Joel Heinrich says:
May 31, 2011 at 1:39 am
“For any given amount of energy to be emitted, a black body has the lowest possible temperature. Any body that is not a black body MUST have a higher temperature then that. The fact that the Earth is not a black body, and not even close to one, accounts for much of the 33K in question.”
Correct, and the rising CO2 is a key component in changing the effective albedo of the Earth in the very part of the EM spectra that carries most of the energy away from the surface.
It is because water vapour, CO2 and CH4 have such pronounced interactions with longwave radiation that they dominate the energy balance of the surface while the absorption/emissivity of O2 and N2 are several orders of magnitude smaller and therefore of little relevence EXCEPT as part of the ‘heat-sink’ that stores the thermal energy that the CO2 and other GHG’s convert from the OLR.

Scarface
May 31, 2011 4:45 am

“We cannot fight something with nothing, so we need something more than a passive policy of do nothing because nothing is necessary.”
“Therefore, I favor reduction of the carbon footprint by efficiency, conservation, recycling, and so on, plus the introduction, if and when economically practical of so-called “Green” energy, including Nuclear, Water, Wind, Biomass and, particularly, “Clean” Coal.”
“You may be surprised that I favor some version of a straight Carbon Tax, collected at the mine, well, and port, with the proceeds returned on an equal basis to citizens and legal residents.”
I believe in true science and the free market, so I disagree with you, although I admire your work greatly.
I don’t see why mankind has to act on flawed science and I don’t see why the government should tell us how to heat our house, based on that flawed science.
Lets get the science back to how it’s supposed to work and let the people vote with their wallet on what to choose.
What we really need is another Age of Enlightenment after this Age of Stupid.

May 31, 2011 4:50 am

Mr. Glickstein, like all the “lukewarmers” and “alarmists”, does not know what he is talking about, and like all of them he has learned nothing from the intense debates (which I predict can therefore only increase in intensity, limited only by common sense, which unfortunately is at a low ebb everywhere now). In the face of such entrenched incompetence, one can only point to the critical evidence that definitively invalidates the greenhouse effect as promulgated by the mass of scientists:
Venus: No Greenhouse Effect [this is not a link . . kb]
Hint: See how I have approached the “radiating temperature” of a planet in that article, versus how the mass of scientists keep trying to make the surface of the Earth a blackbody. Then note how clear and simple (on several fundamental points concerning the warming of the atmosphere) are the results of my approach, absolutely and unconditionally confirming that approach. The lessons should be clear, to any competent physical scientist: There is NO greenhouse effect (an increase in “global temperature” due to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere); the Earth’s surface is NOT a blackbody, and DOES NOT RADIATE AS ONE; the planetary atmosphere is basically warmed (during the day) by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation, NOT from the surface; and the effect of increased infrared (heat!) absorption and emission in the atmosphere is just increased efficiency of heat transfer within the controlling hydrostatic (vertical temperature lapse rate) structure of the atmosphere, not increased warming (nor cooling) of the atmosphere. If you want to clean up climate science, you will eventually have to confront, and accept, my simple analysis of the Venus/Earth atmospheric temperatures — because that is where the truth lies, in the definitive evidence instead of in all the competing theoretical arguments so many find reassuring, but are in fact wrong and misleading. You are miseducating the world, and a whole new generation of students.

amabo
May 31, 2011 4:55 am

The trick to hide the decline, as far as I can recall, only refers to post-1960 proxy values.
Your figure mentioning this and the medieval warm period at the same time is rather confusing to me, as it seems to conflate the two.
I think the figure should be split in order to adress each point separately.

Alvin
May 31, 2011 4:58 am

This is incredible work Ira. I just wish there was an audio narration to go with it. Of course, if any of us use this we must know the stuff for ourselves before we can share it to ensure we are not hypocrites.

Roger Knights
May 31, 2011 4:59 am

sadly we have gotten caught up in the cult of “do something”

It’s not new. 100 years ago, alarmists (usually people in a moral panic about something or other) were shouting, “For Gawd’s sake, do something!” H.G. Wells called them “Gawdsakers,” a term that had a brief vogue back then.

May 31, 2011 4:59 am
J. Pulley
May 31, 2011 5:01 am

I think your point D.2 bothers me more than any other meme in the climate debate.

However, the warming is PARTLY Due to Rising CO2 Levels and human actions are PART of the Cause.

To which I respectfully respond: Please prove it, or qualify, refine, or retract the statement.
I’ve heard that before, and looked in vain for accompanying proof. I could be ill-informed in this regard, but as far as I can tell there are no (zero, zip, nada, none-at-all) unimpeached measurements that support any (that is “a-n-y”) assignment of causation for any degree of change in Earth’s global temperature, whether positive or negative, to either carbon dioxide or to humans or to human-produced carbon dioxide.
I could well be wrong about that, I’m not a meteorologist, climate scientist, or dendrophrenologist. If I am wrong and you point me to respectable reasoning based on reproducible data I’ll thank you. (But Jeez! Your own post points out CO2 lags temperature.)
I’m not a physicist either, but I did stay in a room with some network theory books once. It seems to me that if the assertion D.2 relies solely on the thermodynamic argument, as I suspect it does, then it reflects a naivete regarding complex systems. Certainly CO2 absorbs and re-emits a fraction of radiant energy that would otherwise escape. If the world was linear one might reliably reason from this measured fact to the conclusion that despite whatever damping mechanisms may exist, the global temperature must rise at least a tiny amount. The climate system is not linear, however, it’s complex verging on chaotic and D.2 does not follow from the basic CO2 heating model alone.
Finally, I do hope you don’t advocate a “strategy” of throwing a sop to soften an “astute audience” or shorten the distance they have to travel. Reasoning from idealized models (for the best of reasons, of course) is near the heart of this whole mess.

Brett_McS
May 31, 2011 5:01 am

“Carbon Tax … revenue neutral … return all revenue to the people”.
Except that the process of diverting investment to non-preferred ends destroys wealth. There is no such thing as ‘revenue neutral taxation’.
As an extreme but logically equivalent example imagine the government taxes everyone at 100% in order to make chocolate, then gives all the chocolate back to the people. Are people then as wealthy as they were before (ignoring ancillary costs)? According to the “revenue neutral” concept the answer must be ‘yes’. But clearly the correct answer is ‘no’. (For anything other than chocolate the answer would he “hell no!”)
One thing that would help greatly is for scientists to read the first few chapters on introductory economics. It’s not hard, but it’s a way of looking at things that brings the meaning of liberty to life (and don’t bother with the later chapters, for the same reason; most economists make a fatal mistake around about chapter 3 or 4 that invalidates subsequent chapters). But the basic stuff is good, and should really be taught in primary school.

Sergey
May 31, 2011 5:04 am

Basic physics of radiation cooling in this presentation is also wrong. Imagine atmosphere without CO2, but with clouds and water vapor. Its wet adiabatic lapse rate (that is, drop of temperature with altitude due to adiabatic cooling of air going upward, or heating of air going downward) will be 5C per 1 km. At the altitude at which outgoing radiation is in equilibrium with temperature (effective blackbody radiation) this temperature should be -18C. It is around 4 km altitude. So, the surface will have average temperature 20 C warmer than that, that is, 2C. This is approximately what we would have if there were thermal equilibrium of ocean and atmosphere, without any GHE involved. The whole difference between calculated surface temperature (2C) and measured temperature (14C) is due to absence of thermal equilibrium between ocean and atmosphere.

May 31, 2011 5:04 am

“1366 Watts per meter”

John B
May 31, 2011 5:11 am

Ira,
A sterling effort but I think you have a massive task in trying to align skeptics. The problem is that even if you remove the outliers, skeptics do not all agree with each other. The AGW argument can be summarized as something like this:
1. Human CO2 emissions have caused CO2 build up in the atmosphere
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
3. Human emitted CO2 has a significant added greenhouse effect over natural effects
4. Recent warming has been measured
5. This warming is unprecedented
6. It can be attributed to human emitted CO2
7. The warming will get worse due to positive feedbacks
8. We are fairly confident on the sign and magnitude of those feedbacks
9. The effects of the continued warming will be bad
10. There are things we can do about to mitigate the continued warming
11. The effects of those things will be good
Let’s not get sidetracked onto how accurate that summary is – you get the idea.
It is clear even from this thread that skeptics don’t agree on which step in that chain to refute. And you can’t just say “all of them”, because if you are skeptical about, say, step (3), then it makes no sense to even discuss the later steps. I honestly don’t know what the answer is. Being a skeptic of, say, homeopathy or creationism is easy – you argue that the whole thing is a crock. There are AGW skeptics that hold that view of AGW, but I think they are in a minority.
What do you think?

Latitude
May 31, 2011 5:14 am

“That will encourage low and moderate income folks to use walk, bike, or use public transportation to get to work, to vacation locally, and so on to save money”
=====================================================
good grief
Kumbaya, group hug
And all this saving money won’t hurt a single person on the other end that needs to make money.
Ira, I had my doubts before, now I don’t. Take off the rose colored glasses and the flip flops.

John Brookes
May 31, 2011 5:14 am

There are lots of things I’m ignorant on, but unlike some people here, I try not to advertise just how dumb I am.
One thing which confuses me is that bit about the 800 year lag of CO2 rise following temperature rise. Does the extra CO2 amplify the warming? In the absence of warming, can increased CO2 cause warming?

David L. Hagen
May 31, 2011 5:30 am

Compliments Ira on a well crafted presentation.
“Yes, James Hansen and (pardon the expression) Ralph Nader . . .”

Jimbo
May 31, 2011 5:33 am

You may be surprised that I favor some version of a straight Carbon Tax, collected at the mine, well, and port, with the proceeds returned on an equal basis to citizens and legal residents.

Why are you in favour of a tax on carbon bearing in mind you said?:

3) There is not and never has been any real danger of catastrophe or even of serious net detriment to human life due to increased CO2 levels. Indeed, modest increases in these parameters are most likely a net benefit.

Are you in favour of a tax on man-made soot which is responsible for much of the Arctic ice and glacial melt?

Scottish Sceptic
May 31, 2011 5:36 am

Skeptic Strategy for Talking About Global Warming
Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

bruce
May 31, 2011 5:38 am

800 y is about right for phase-lag if what you are seeing is variable geological (carbonate rock at ocean floor) carbon dioxide brought into atmosphere through, say, mechanisms like the Thermohaline Circulation. This is potentially seen in radiocarbon callibration data for Mangerud boundaries, from say, the Younger Dryas, when such ‘overturning circulation’ is thought to be shut-down or greatly reduced, with less old carbon being introduced to atmosphere. Here the callibration curve adds at least 1000 years to get ‘true’ date, reflecting a radical decrease in availability of old carbon. As the callibration is brought further into the Pleistocene (work of Goslar and others), I suspect other similar correlations will become apparent.

Jimbo
May 31, 2011 5:46 am

Ira Glickstein, PhD
Of course, if the Carbon Tax goes through (highly unlikely) that will penalize fossil fuels and give a relative advantage to carbon-free alternatives such as wind, water, and solar, as well as carbon-neutral alternatives such as biomass. I favored Ethanol when it was first approved for special subsidy, but I was wrong.

Here you go again. ;>) Please can you let me know your source that states that wind is carbon-free? You really do need to clarify that one. Co2 is released in wind power’s production costs, transportation, grid, roads plus conventional power has running as a back up for periods of no wind. The turbines have to be kept turning by conventional power [when] there is no wind to avoid damage………………………………..

May 31, 2011 5:48 am

I would mention thorium, specifically, as an alternative. This is surprisingly little
I enjoyed the presentation. …..Lady in Red

1DandyTroll
May 31, 2011 5:50 am

*clearing throat*
Rational friends, reasonable romans. Down to earth countrymen!
It is worse than we thought. This reefer madness.
We are gathered here today, not because it was where we really wanted to be, but because of necessity.
We are surrounded by the crazed climate communist hippie parade and they “wantses” to get paid.
For doing absolutely gobbledygook!
They are, of course, a bunch of heedless headless chickens running around screaming in alarm, just about what ever. Essentially, what about is of little import. It’s the screaming that they find so exciting. An inner ear thing perhaps, or just mindless?
There’s, apparently, not enough dope for them to smoke to even turn up to their own debate. No cohones.
According to reasonable logical conclusion there appear to be absolutely no neuron firing inside the skull of the hippie drone masses. It is like they’re all mindless puppies running around to their masters every whim only to gobble up the last of humanity.
We’ve all heard about it. Their message of what is to befall the rest of us if nothing is done.
It has been depicted time and again in movies. It has even been totted by hysterical media and government agencies alike, sometimes just for fun even.
Deep down we all know what it is the crazed climate communist hippie parade is all about. So let me ask you a simple question:
From where, do you think, does the mindless, gutless, heedless, shrieking z o m b i e spring from?

Jimbo
May 31, 2011 5:53 am

Typo:
by conventional power when there is no wind to avoid damage………………………………..

John K
May 31, 2011 5:56 am

Great stuff Ira.
Just a word of caution, in 2008 I did a similar presentation to a ‘third age science ‘ group – one of whom, would you believe, was a Cambridge (UK) alumnus (is that it?) of a world renowned scientist. They havn’t spoken to me since! Who was that said ‘If you tell people what they know, they think you are great, and if it’s what they don’t know they hate you’ All the best.

MikeL
May 31, 2011 6:06 am

A very good presentation It is realy good, clear and Succinct. Thank you.
The one theme that is lacking in your presentation is that you don’t question the hypothosis that CO2 and global warming will be bad for the planet. Plants need CO2, water, warmth and nutrients to grow. Higher levels of CO2 and warmer temperatures will promote plant growth that will certainly improve crop yields. I can’t quote a proper study, but I believe the increase in farmable regions in the north will more than offset farmland submerged by rising sea levels. We know that we can deal with warmer temperatures, we can’t deal with significantly cooler temperatures, so we should all be relieved that CO2 warms the earth (or at least doesn’t cool it).

sceptical
May 31, 2011 6:06 am

Mr. Glickstein, under section D point 1 you write, “1.I am quite sure that Global Warming is REAL (i.e. the mean temperature of the Surface has increased by 0.5 to 0.6ºC since 1880) but, most of that increase is due to Natural Cycles over which we humans have no control.”
Could you expand on which Natural Cycles and quantify each cycles role in the current warming?

Richard Ilfeld
May 31, 2011 6:07 am

We tax Gasoline to pay for highways. Simple and obvious — no way for that to fail – be unfair, etc. etc. We tax gasoline to pay for highways – and bike paths — and urban mass transit — and health care — and public sector pensions……….
When you tax something you get less of it. You raise its cost, falsely assigning capital to less efficient alternatives. You assign great judgement and wisdom to the public sector to direct the consequential spending, a presumption yet to yield a succesful real world trial.
Pooh, sir! Publish the truth and let Adam Smith’s invisible hand work. It will be messy and inefficient, but less messy and inefficient that your proposed alternative.

sceptical
May 31, 2011 6:11 am

Mr. Glickstein, in section B point 12 you write, “12.Skeptics have well-justified suspicions that the official climate data keepers were “cooking the books” to lend whatever support they could to the highest estimates of carbon sensitivity. Around the year 2000, US Mean Temperature data was “adjusted” down by 0.1 to 0.2ºC for years prior to the 1970′s, and upwards by 0.2 to 0.3ºC for years after the 1970′s, increasing supposed warming by 0.3 to 0.5ºC.”
Does a new paper which Mr. Watts was a part of show that these suspicions about US temperatures are mostly unfounded, that there is no known warming bias in the US temperature record?

Bob B
May 31, 2011 6:12 am

I would concentrate on Climategate and climate debates. The primary tool the warmists and eco-communists cling to is the appeal to authority, claiming all the scientists on thier side. I would spend a lot of time on Climategate and also introduce the fact that all the major “open” debates between the warmists and sceptics have been won by the sceptics. The debates in NYC with Michael Criton and Gavin Schmidt and the debate in Oxford should be highlighted in my opinion

Jeff Mitchell
May 31, 2011 6:17 am

Look, one of the assumptions is that global warming is bad. It isn’t. It improves the ability of agriculture to take care of earth’s human population. After all that showing that the alarmists are all wet, you still want to go along with them in some form? That doesn’t make any sense.
We’re about due for another big cold period, ie ice age. Were their predictions about CO2 and it increasing temps substantially actually true, we would want to get out ahead of the problem by stuffing as much CO2 as we could into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, I don’t think it is that effective at holding energy in and exacerbating increased moisture that will kick the temps up to catastrophic levels. Taking any action on reducing CO2 or deliberately stuffing more into the atmosphere just for the sake of appeasing the warmists or the coolists is a waste of money. It costs money to get carbon out of the ground. People want cheaper energy. People have always found a way to do it and there are several promising technologies for getting it. The problem is the warmists aren’t really about solving CAGW, they want control and they’ve found a lever to get it. As soon as they get control, they won’t care any more. And we will all be hosed to the max.
The green’s hypocrisy shows in the manner they treat mercury. When I was a teen, it was all the rage to worry about that element. They were about eliminating all sources of it. But wait, now we are being forced to switch to mercury bearing light bulbs and not a peep out of them. They are willing to poison the environment to get control over energy production. They hate energy in ANY form. Most people do not want to go back to the stone age. They want to advance, go to the stars, go where peeps haven’t been before (where have I heard that before? :). We need energy to do that. While we’re waiting on new technologies, carbon is our best alternative. The cost of carbon was high enough before the current administration that lots of research was being devoted to researching new technologies. I’m all for not having to pay for carbon if there is something cheaper.
We need to fight back. We can’t give in. The bureaucrats want to take our freedoms away. The motto for the campaign of the current administration was “yes we can”. They are in office now and saying ala Megamind “no you can’t”. They are telling us we can’t buy the products we want by prohibiting manufacturers from making them. We are less safe because car manufacturers have to make lighter and more energy efficient vehicles. We can’t have what we want because the government won’t let us use the energy necessary to have what we want, even if we have the money.
This post basically says, sure the AGW crowd is wrong, but we’ll go along just to look like we’re doing something. STOP IT.

Dave Springer
May 31, 2011 6:21 am

“Greenhouse” warming is primarily done by the ocean. Sunlight penetrates and warms the ocean to a depth of 100 meters. Water is quite opaque to infrared wavelengths thus the energy from the sun cannot escape radiatively except from a very thin film on the surface. Conduction and convection are the only means by which the energy from sunlight absorbed below the ocean surface can make its escape.
This is EXACTLY the same mechanism by which greenhouse gases work. The big difference is there’s more water in the first meter of the ocean than there is in the entire column of air above it.
This is an elephant in the AGW debate room. It isn’t the atmosphere that warms the earth 33C warmer than a barren rock like the moon. It’s the ocean that’s responsible for most of that. The atmosphere does little more than establish a high enough surface pressure to allow an ocean to exist in the first place.

G. Karst
May 31, 2011 6:22 am

Many here seem to think that we are winning the war. While some battles are being won – the war is still being lost. Once AGWists infiltrated our schools and other social institutions, we were outflanked. As a good example, peruse todays BBC headline about OXFAM’s declaration that AGW is the direct cause of current high food prices AND all future price rises.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13597657
I always thought the Greek mythical monster (Hydra) was a fairy tale, but cut the pseudo scientific head from the AGW body and seven heads replace it. Where-o-where will we find a gorgon’s head? We are fighting against real sorcery with spoons. GK

sceptical
May 31, 2011 6:24 am

Mr. Glickstein, in Section B point 6 you write, ” What this shows, if anything, is that TEMPERATURE CAUSES CO2, or, that something else causes both to change, with CO2 lagging by hundreds of years. Gore got the direction of causation backwards.” Then in Section D point 2 you write, “However, the warming is PARTLY Due to Rising CO2 Levels…”
Your Section d point 2 would indicate that Gore did not get the causation backwards, CO2 can cause an increase in temperature even if increased temperatures of the past were not initially caused by an increase in CO2. It would seem the relation between CO2 and temperature is not as simple as you imply in Section B.

DR
May 31, 2011 6:30 am

8. You may be surprised that I favor some version of a straight Carbon Tax, collected at the mine, well, and port, with the proceeds returned on an equal basis to citizens and legal residents. Yes, James Hansen and (pardon the expression Ralph Nader) also favor it, but, so do conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, the Wall Street Journal, and others on the right. My support for this tax is based on what I wrote above, “We cannot fight something with nothing” and “We have spent, and continue to sacrifice too much blood and treasure protecting our access, and that of our allies, to energy from unstable regions of the world.”

Charles Krauthammer is IMO in the elitist ‘we know best’ camp on the Right, together with Karl Rove who also likes to choose our candidates. It won’t happen this time around.
Your tax proposal smacks of just another form of wealth redistribution.
Further, there is no need to rely on energy from unstable regions of the world when the U.S. sits on vast quantities of our own energy; the largest on the planet. What we need is a strong majority of representatives in government who are actually serving the people and not the other way around.

sceptical
May 31, 2011 6:34 am

Mr. Glickstein, in Section B point 5 you write, ” It has become the mantra of the Alarmists and an excuse for governments to regulate all fossil fuels as well as land use that affects albedo. Since all industry and agriculture and civilized life itself depends upon fossil fuels and land use, the Alarmists give suitably oriented politicos an excuse to regulate and tax and restrict virtually everything. We outdoors types will need an indulgence from the government every time we pass wind. And, we can forget about lighting a campfire :^).”
I think your fear of the government regulating passing wind is unfounded and shows an Alarmism which is not well grounded in rational thought. This Alarmism seems to be the basis of much of the “Skeptical” (I use the “scare quotes” around “Skeptical” to denote a semantic issue with the use of the term “Skeptical”) understandings of climate science.

Latitude
May 31, 2011 6:43 am

Why not just stop letting them define the argument….
Stop letting them start their charts after the 1800’s.
Start the charts and graphs at 1700, and have them explain the fastest rise in global
temperatures that could not have been man made.
If you consider that temperatures rose over 1/2 a degree from 1700-1800, and that had nothing to do with CO2….
…then you are only left with the conclusion that the recent rise in CO2 has slowed recent temperature rise down.

Don K
May 31, 2011 6:45 am

Carl Chapman says:
May 30, 2011 at 9:07 pm
“I think some quotes from Richard Feynman are worthwhile. I’m sure I know what he would have said about people who ignore measurements and study the output of models, who “lose” their data rather than share it, and who continue on pushing a theory after their predictions repeatedly fail.”
=======================
It isn’t necessary to wonder what Feynman would have said about global warming as presented by Gore and Hansen. What he actually said about the somewhat similar issue of Nuclear Winter was “You know, I really don’t think these guys know what they’re talking about”
(In fairness to modern nuclear winter theorists, they may have a much better grounded structure nowadays than they did in the 1980s. That’s due to the debacle when Carl Sagan rather spectacularly mispredicted on national TV the results of the Kuwaiti oil well fires. And also to the mountain of information on particulates provided by the Mt Pinatubo eruption.)

May 31, 2011 6:48 am

Dr. Glickstein still insists on conjuring out of thin air (literally) a human-controlled outgoing radiation modulator. Amazing. To those who say we should give the progressive activists nothing, except, perhaps, a figurative stake through the heart, I agree completely.

Olen
May 31, 2011 6:53 am

Good article. I thought I was a skeptic but seeing the difference between that and disbeliever I am now a disbeliever. When anyone has to lie, hide their work and exaggerate to make their point as the global warming crowd has done and for the purpose of outrageous taxation and regulations and restrictions, then I can give them no credibility. These are scientists who should know better and politicians who should know their restrictions and don’t know or care.
The word greenhouse has been misused and there is no proof nor has there been enough time to know the cause of any warming or cooling or that any change is unusual. What has happened has been a giant leap in the improvement in living conditions for humans due to favorable climate.
I believe global warming is a human invention and cause for political power and tax dollars are flowing to support the claim. I personally think my freedom and tax dollars can be put to better use than having either abused.

May 31, 2011 6:54 am

Good Presentation indeed! But I would add some discussion about the emaning of the Mean Surface Temperature. I like to compare the mean earth temperature with human body temperature. Both are systems far from isothermal equilibrium (Gott sei Dank!), but the human body has a thermal regulation that makes its temperature almost constant with variations of less than 1 oC (for healthy people) during almost all his life (~100 years). On the other hand, the Earth has 10 oC variations in one location during 24 hours, and almost 100 oC at two different points at the same time! Then, we can put in context a 0.7 oC change in 100 years.

Jimbo
May 31, 2011 6:59 am
Richard M
May 31, 2011 6:59 am

Ira, you have missed the most important item. The cooling effect of GHGs. What do you think causes the atmosphere to cool during the night?
Once a proper view of both the warming and cooling effects are given it is easy to show two things:
1) The CAGW proponents have intentionally skipped the discussion of an important part of the physics.
2) The overall effect of GHGs only warms the atmosphere to a certain degree. The cooling effect eventually takes over.
Your presentation could be MUCH shorter.

Jim
May 31, 2011 7:00 am

German nuclear cull to add 40 million tones CO2 per year (as they move to coal).
Germany’s plan to shut all its nuclear power plants by 2022 will add up to 40 million tones of carbon dioxide emissions annually as the country turns to fossil fuels, analysts said on Tuesday.
“We will see a pick-up in German coal burn,” said Barclays Capital analyst Amrita Sen. “Longer term, they will be using more renewables and gas but this year and next, we should see a lot of support for coal burn.”
The next commodity boom is going to be coal. When Germany no longer gives a damn about carbon emissions it is time to take note. The future is bright for coal and stocks in coal companies.

JP
May 31, 2011 7:05 am

Dr Glickstein did a pretty good job summarizing many of the main points in the ongoing “debate” (if one can still call it one). But, if we can for a moment ignore the politics, there is one over-riding factor that has been ignored – the destruction of Climate Science as a relatively pure science void of the kind of politiking one sees in the humanities. After the IPCC and Mann, Climate Science has gone the way of economics. There are now Conservative and Progressive wings in Climate Science. In the present case, the Conservatives are the sceptics and the Progressives are the Alarmists. The Progressive hold the initiative as that’s where all the money, prestige, and connections are. Gone is the idea of discovering the Truth for the sake of the Truth. Both sides have thier bloggers, partisans, politicians, and media personalities. But, lost in the public discourse is the idea of looking at the data and formulating reasonable theories. Now, it is an agenda into which the data must fit no matter what. The Alarmists have been guilty of this many times; however, the defensiveness of many skeptics have turned thier minds off to other ideas that might not be convenient.
The politics of this debate cannot be ignored, as the stakes are too high. The programs and regulatory protocols in many cases circumvent normal constitutional checks and balances. Already, we’ve seen this with the Supreme Court and the EPA. What will happen if new sets of CO2 mitigation regulations come from international bureaucracies? The costs of carbon trading and federally mandated emission controls could be in the hundreds of billions. And with these regulations there is very little recourse to the law.

Sal Minella
May 31, 2011 7:06 am

Dear Ira,
To quote you in response to Gerald:
“Yes, it is re-distributive to some extent, as is our basic income tax system. If the revenues are distributed equally to every citizen and legal resident, those who use less than the average amount of products and services with high fossil fuel content will get back more than the added costs of these items. That will encourage low and moderate income folks to use walk, bike, or use public transportation to get to work, to vacation locally, and so on to save money. If they adjust their behaviors, the money they get back will more than compensate for the higher prices they pay. High income people will, for the most part, just pay the added cost, and therefore will get back less than the higher prices they pay.”
I would like to point out that walking and biking do not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced by humans or the amount of fuel consumed by humans. The energy expended in these activities must be replaced with an increased consumption of organic materials (food). These materials must be grown using fertilizer and feedstocks. They must be transported, processed and packaged, utilizing fossil fuels at every stage. The human consumption byproducts include an increase in solid wastes and gaseous byproducts such as methane and sulfur dioxide. The increase in activity causes an increase in metabolic activity causing an increase in respiration causing an increase in the conversion of O2 into CO2.
There is no energy free lunch. I would daresay that the use of high energy content fuels like gasoline in an automobile are far more efficient and nonpolluting (and less expensive) than human-powered transportation will ever be.

mkelly
May 31, 2011 7:07 am

Ira says” 1.Light energy from the Sun warms the Earth System, which consists of our Atmosphere and the Surface. Based on satellite measurements, the Sun provides 1366 Watts per square meter (W/m^2) at the Top of the Atmosphere. After accounting for the Earth’s spherical shape and albedo (reflectiveness), the absorbed energy averages out to about 240 W/m^2 for each square meter.
Daytona Beach, Fl latitude is 29.21 N
Mt. Everst latitude is 27.59 N
Since Mt Everest is in general above the clouds no .7 reduction is needed for incoming solar. It gets the full dose.
Why, then Ira, is Daytona Beach which farther north and has a .7 reduction in incoming solar hotter than the top of Everest?
Why do we have a “heat index” ? Does that come from CO2?
Or for that matter a wind chill index?
Since, the wealthy buy more diamonds than the rest of us a carbon tax would hit them quite hard. I wonder what Tiffany’s feels about this.

May 31, 2011 7:08 am

Barry says:
May 30, 2011 at 11:45 pm
I haven’t had the chance to complete the article yet, but something caught my eye. It says
Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming. I think you meant Anthropogenic

Correct. Otherwise, that means “A catastrophe, global warming, shaped like a man” So, apparently, that would be Al Gore? Put another way, it follows the alarmist “algorerhythm”.

HankHenry
May 31, 2011 7:10 am

To the basic scientific points I’d like to add:
What is called “surface temperature” of the Earth largely resides in the oceans not the atmosphere. Roughly speaking the heat capacity of the atmosphere is represented by its weight. This is just 33 feet of ocean – the height a suction pump can lift water.

MarkW
May 31, 2011 7:18 am

Given the well documented good that enhanced CO2 does for plant growth. Given the fact that warmer temperatures are, on the whole, better for us and plants than are colder temperatures. (We are all in agreement that even doubling CO2 will only increase temperatures by a few tenths of a degree to at the absolute most 1 or 2 degrees C.)
It’s easier to make the argument that we should be subsidizing the production of CO2, not taxing it.

BeenThere
May 31, 2011 7:19 am

“However, the warming is PARTLY Due to Rising CO2 Levels and human actions are PART of the Cause. ”
You need to point out this is a THEORY not yet proved. You should then go on to describe the experiments and data that are needed to support the theory and what might disprove the theory. Science, not politics.

P Wilson
May 31, 2011 7:21 am

The main thesis of AGW is that Anthropogenic c02 causes global warming.
the secondary thesis is that this nominal global warming will cause catastrophes on the earth .
Lab experiments disprove the former proposition, as co2 is a much researched gas from the radiative aspect.
the secondary hypothesis is purely rhetorical

RJ
May 31, 2011 7:26 am

“B. Divergent Views – There is a valid, science-based argument between people I refer to as Warmists, Lukewarmers, and Skeptics. I distinguish their reasoned views from the far out, unscientific rantings of people I refer to as Alarmists and their equal and opposite reaction opponents, who I call Disbeliever”
Ira has learnt nothing from the previous threads on this topic
He is doing the sceptics cause harm now. And as for his support of a CO2 tax and calling it a carbon tax.

Bill Illis
May 31, 2011 7:30 am

What always bothered me about the CO2 and temperature history chart of Al Gore (and the ones used by the IPCC and the pro-AGW’ers), besides the fact that CO2 lags behind temperature throughout the entire 800,000 year record by 800 to 2000 years, …
… is mainly that the scale used for CO2 is wrong. CO2 can only explain about 1.75C of the 5.0C change in temperatures. Gore and the IPCC leave the reader thinking CO2 explains all of it. CO2 is just a small amount and all that sunlight-reflecting ice and snow in the ice ages explains the vast majority of the temperature change.
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/1640/last800klr.png

P Wilson
May 31, 2011 7:31 am

also, the amount of radiation that c02 interfered with is fixed at approx 8% of longwave radiation, which itself, doesn’t cause global warming or any more warming than shortwave did prior. Adding more c02 doesn’t change this percentage.
The only argument that c02 would cause global warming is if it increased the global air pressure on earth. This it cannot, since the percentage of c02 of the atmosphere is too tiny a fraction, and regardless of which, the volume of the atmosphere would increase to maintain similar pressures than would otherwise be the case (sincere there isn’t a lid to keep the atmosphere at a fixed volume)

P.F.
May 31, 2011 7:36 am

G. Karst’s link to the bbc article on food prices (May 31, 2011 at 6:22) contained this: “. . . regulation of food markets and invest in a global climate fund.” Initially, the backers of the AGW intended to regulate the energy markets. Now, not surprisingly, they want to regulate world food markets. This is consistent with Maurice Strong’s plan to devise a central one-world government through the UN.
Dr. Glickstein’s well-reasoned explanation of the science is useful, but not complete. The AGW tortured science is used to promote a collectivist ideology. [snip, this type of analogy trivializes the Holocaust – Ira]
Any discussion of climate change with a reasonable audience must include mention of the political and ideological underpinnings of the movement. One need not go far for the evidence. Ottmar Edenhofer, recently elected co-chair IPCC Working Group III said publicly only last November:
“Climate change policy has almost nothing to do with environmental protection any more. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economic summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated . . . One must say clearly that we redistribute defacto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
It’s not about climate, or ice, or sea levels, or even energy anymore. It’s about redistribution of “the world’s wealth” including food resources.

Ken Harvey
May 31, 2011 7:42 am

“I am quite sure that Global Warming is REAL (i.e. the mean temperature of the Surface has increased by 0.5 to 0.6ºC since 1880) but, most of that increase is due to Natural Cycles over which we humans have no control.”
Pray tell me, Dr Glickstein, what it is that convinces you so.
If one looks at the metrology uncertainties and then assume that all other bias has been eliminated, then there is no credible evidence that the atmosphere has warmed. The error bars have to be drawn in so wide that it is impossible to arrive at a valid mathematical conclusion that there has been warming rather than cooling, and, warm or cool, any change has been minute. I believe that too many otherwise sound thinkers are glossing over the appalling state of the data.

MarkW
May 31, 2011 7:47 am

Ira,
Only a tiny fraction of the defense budget goes to defending oil. We aren’t in Iraq or Afghanistan because of oil. We would still be defending the trade lanes even if the middle east didn’t have a single drop of oil.
If you really are concerned with using less middle eastern oil, then the obvious answer is to increase oil production everywhere else in the world, especially here at home.
The fact that you first bring up a disproven claim and then present a false dichotomy in order to solve it, does no service to the rest of your argument.

Dave
May 31, 2011 7:49 am

This presentation is way too complicated!
Three points.
1. The planet is warming well inside of natural variation and there is no proof it will continue to warm.
2. The is no real world evidence supporting manmade global warming.
3. Warming is not a danger, warming has always produced positive results.
Support each point with three simple examples. Then conclude with that is wy you are a skeptic.

MarkW
May 31, 2011 7:51 am

Even if the “lukewarmers” are right, and the earth is going to warm up 1 to 3 degrees C.
So freaking what? That’s not enough warming to make a difference in anything. So why should we impose massive taxation on energy in order to reduce what is a non-problem to begin with.

May 31, 2011 7:53 am

Thank you for your excellent clarifications, Dr Glickstein. Alas, like many here, I’m also confused over your suggestions on compromise. A “revenue-neutral carbon tax” is not only a pipe dream (when has any tax in the world remained “revenue-neutral”?), but more importantly, it’s an unnecessary concession to the key Warmist claim, that CO2 is a deletirious gas which needs to be somehow controlled. I can’t think of a single case where a concession on a core issue has done the generous party any good. Such a major give-away of a key principle with concessions to language and paradigm for political, instead of scientific reasons is not, in any way I can see, related to Machiavelli’s musings on practical statecraft, but an attempt to play clever, cynical and ultimately self-defeating “machiavellian” games with a powerful, well-funded, connected and recently, a very frightened and desperate opponent.
Since this battle now is waged primarily in the political, financial and cultural arenas, I would suggest that the simplest, most honest and straigh-forward push-back is still the only effective and principled strategy. We need to show and repeat the plain facts; that Warmist science is a pseudo-science; that Warmism represents identifiable and traceable commercial and political interests; and that adoption of Warmist solutions to a manufactured problem will undeniably result in nothing less than truly catastrophic global disruptions and levels of misery we thought we left behind in our past.

kwik
May 31, 2011 7:54 am

Dave Springer says:
May 31, 2011 at 6:21 am
Yes, that should be enough food for thaught to move Ira G. from Luke-skeptic to Disbeliever.
hehe.

Alan D McIntire
May 31, 2011 7:57 am

I suspect that as cost of oil goes up due to middle east instability, we’d NATURALLY conserve oil and gradually phase in other competitive energy sources REGARDLESS of any carbon tax. Any government intervention would tend to muck up the open market, much as government intervention in the past- urging Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take on more subpar mortgage loans mucked up the housing market.
I didn’t appreciate Ira Glickstein’s carbon tax proposal, but I DID appreciate his argument that the proposal is Machiavellian.

Mike from Canmore
May 31, 2011 7:58 am

Ira:
Have you read Ezra Levant’s “Ethical Oil”? Highly recommend it.
The price of crude reflects the magnitude of that risk as perceived by the market. What is the risk behind middle east oil? Essentially, the risk behind that oil is relatively low as perceived by the market. What drives the risk factor of domestic oil, (and I consider US, Canadian and Mexican oil as domestic; perhaps politically incorrect, but I bet you get my drift; I am Canadian BTW).
North America could easily be self sufficient on oil, but why would we when it is cheaper to buy the oil from the middle east?
The bigger question is why is the risk behind domestic oil greater than the political risk associated with totalitarian, right denying, woman abusing, gay hating radical Islam, regimes? Our political risk is all based on the environmental profiteers. The regulations, put in place to to appease that particular voting block, push the cost of exploration and recovery to points where it just doesn’t happen. (An outright ban is essentially pushing the cost to infinity).
The Alberta oil sands are the biggest on going toxic cleanup on the planet and Canadians are getting paid billions by oil companies to do so. Yet, they are demonized by the enviro profiteers. Why? I’m sure there are multitude of reasons but a large one is their green investments can’t economically survive without artificial costs placed on oil and coal. Look at Nat. Gas. Now that there is a glut on the market, due to technological developments, it has fallen out of favor with the enviro profiteers. Your tax at port, etc. only serves to artificially push the risk factor behind oil even higher which in turn makes the enviro profiteers waste of money projects more valid. Those ventures will not work, at least not with today’s technology, and we’ll end up paying for the coal, gas, nuclear, dams, etc in the future. Another question is what will politicians do with that revenue? They already have too much. Chances are they will toss it away on other worthless projects.
Regulations also have another hugely detrimental potential. Mark my words, one day, there will be a substitute for fossil fuels. Probably not in my lifetime which will hopefully at least another 40 – 50 years, but there will be. So the USA, due to its environmental regulations, sends all this money overseas to these unfriendly countries and essentially funds terrorism. Then along comes a substitute and voila, they have these huge expanses of oil sitting in the ground worthless. Congratulations. You financed these regimes through oil purchases and then get nothing for an asset sitting underneath your feet.
While getting off foreign oil is an excellent goal, placing a tax at port is not the answer. Reducing over burdening enviro regulations put in place only to satisfy a voting block of people, (who incidentally couldn’t shout from their metaphorical soap box if it hadn’t been built on the back of oil and coal), is the answer.
Read Ezra’s book. It is excellent.
Cheers
Mike Hodges

MarkW
May 31, 2011 7:59 am

The biggest problem with wind and solar, is not that they are uneconomical at current energy prices. It’s that they plain and simple, don’t work. Neither is reliable enough to be used for base energy production. The fact that they can and do go from 100% to levels much less in a mater of minutes means that some other form of energy production has to be available to take over from them, in a matter of minutes. The only form of energy that can do this is hydro. But hydro is only available in limited parts of the country. Other than hydro, the only other solution is some form of carbon based fuel, kept running in idle. The problem here is that these plants do not have an “idle” setting. These plants must be kept running at near their rated capacity, with the energy being produced just thrown away because it isn’t needed at this moment.
Until there is a proven method of storing terawatts worth or power at an economical price, wind and solar are nothing more than play things.

MarkW
May 31, 2011 8:01 am

Does a new paper which Mr. Watts was a part of show that these suspicions about US temperatures are mostly unfounded, that there is no known warming bias in the US temperature record?

The paper shows no such thing.

kwik
May 31, 2011 8:02 am

G. Karst says:
May 31, 2011 at 6:22 am
“Once AGWists infiltrated our schools and other social institutions, we were outflanked.”
mmmmm…..yes, but it didnt happen that way. They were already in our schools, but under another flag. The red flag. All they had to do was to add green to the red.
Then the flag is brown.

Darren Potter
May 31, 2011 8:03 am

With all due respect to Ira Glickstein, I take exception with his term of “Disbeliever”. The term, like “Deniers”, implies that man-induced Global Warming is settled science or absolute fact, and not being believed by some. Similar, using the term “Alarmist” to describe the pro-pundits of Global Warming (aka Al Gore, Michael Mann) gives them some credibility, where there should be none. One should never give the pro-pundits of Global Warming even a hundredth of a degree F., otherwise they will claim Global Warming is fact.
Given the lack of credible scientific evidence (hype don’t count) to back the claims of Global Warming, the credible scientific evidence that shows humans are not causing Global Climate Change, and the laws of physics and established science that run counter to the arguments set forth by Ira Glickstein’s so called “Alarmist”; a better description for “Alarmist” would be 419ers. In that the 419ers have promoted Global Warming to scam people and their governments out of money to pay for their unscientific non-work, and to force 419ers’ political beliefs and policies on the world.
As for Ira Glickstein’s “Disbeliever”, a better description would be ‘Down to Earth’ (as in those who didn’t fall for the 419ers scam). With the aforementioned description suggesting the term “Ungullible”.

CodeTech
May 31, 2011 8:03 am

Well, I was going to comment with a few corrections, however your document has already “DISMISSED” me out of hand as some sort of crank. So it seems only fair to do the same.

KT
May 31, 2011 8:07 am

I was enjoying what I was reading until I got to ‘D’.
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
May 31, 2011 at 4:24 am
“Yes, it is re-distributive to some extent..”

It is not ‘to some extent’. Climate policy is all about wealth redistribution.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation posted an November 2010 interview with IPCC official Ottmar Edenhoffer who said, “(I)t’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”
We all know the UN is trying to rule the world through its environmental governance scheme, Agenda 21, IPCC, NGOs, etc. It makes me sick to think anyone would give even 1/1000th of a breadth of hair to these evildoers.
Edenhoffer goes on to explain, “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
Please, free yourself from the touchy-feely world of appeasement and delete part D.
And please stop mentioning Krauthammer. He’s gotten plenty wrong and on this he is totally wrong. Remember, Krauthammer was once a staunch leftist and expounded the virtues of Marx’s ‘social justice’, and he may even still believe that, I don’t know. What I do know is that if you want some kind of carbon dioxide tax, stand on your own two feet and accept the hits should and when they befall.
No to appeasement. No to climate thugs.

Ed Scott
May 31, 2011 8:07 am

Tuesday, 31 May 2011
Professor Bob Carter
Alan Jones talks to Professor Bob Carter about climate change and a carbon tax.
“The public can smell a dead fish

Owen
May 31, 2011 8:12 am

You support a carbon tax?!?! Appeasement was tried by Chamberlain. And we all know where that lead. Great article, up until the point you caved into the insane demands of the ecofascists

May 31, 2011 8:14 am

“…We could go all out with Thorium…”
On this point, I wholeheartedly agree.
Anyone who knows the history of thorium reactors knows the U.S. had an early lead.
“…US physicists in the late 1940s explored thorium fuel for power. It has a higher neutron yield than uranium, a better fission rating, longer fuel cycles, and does not require the extra cost of isotope separation.
The plans were shelved because thorium does not produce plutonium for bombs. As a happy bonus, it can burn up plutonium and toxic waste from old reactors, reducing radio-toxicity and acting as an eco-cleaner…”
This fact is still true – when seeing the current arguement with Iran. If they were only concerned with supplying their people with cheap, clean energy, they’d see thorium as the answer.
Instead, they’ve put millions into the plants needed to “enrich” the uranium (and leading to the scare of them having “weapons grade” uranium).

Theo Goodwin
May 31, 2011 8:20 am

If this little essay contains your views on Warmista and on Sceptics, then you have given away the argument to the Warmista, something that you admit when you say that Sceptics cannot have nothing so must propose a modest mitigation of CO2.
Your little essay makes the egregious error of accepting Warmista terms for the debate and then attempting to show that, within those terms, Sceptics can present a reasonable alternative set of facts. Given this position, the Warmista have only to insist that the consensus is on their side and they have won. To actually oppose the Warmista, you have to reject they way they frame the debate and recognize that the debate is not about “facts” but about theories and methods.
You point out the dishonesty of the Warmista, Climategate and 1934-gate, and it is important that you do so. However, you say nothing about what this dishonesty says about the quality of science practiced by Warmista. To be in a position where “hiding the decline” is tempting requires people who are scientific buffoons to begin with.
More Coming…

Jeremy
May 31, 2011 8:23 am

I disagree.
The skeptic strategy for talking about CAGW is asking tough questions, and it’s been working quite well so far.
You don’t need slides, you don’t need talking points. Ask people who are sure that the globe is warming and humans are the primary cause tough questions. The best one is this:
–> How many weeks/months/years of no change in temperatures or decline in temperatures would it take for you to question the presumed “consensus” view?
You are guaranteed a good discussion with that one question. That question *will* make someone think. They’re essentially trapped with that question, they must come up with a number at which they feel the consensus is disproved. Most wont want to admit this, because the “science is settled” and it “cannot be wrong.” But if they think like that, then you can nail them for not thinking scientifically, they’ve essentially conceded that they act on faith, not disprovable hypotheses.

Mike Fowle
May 31, 2011 8:26 am

I do like the reasoned and sensible tone of your article. Although I think people like Al Gore are snake oil salesmen, there are many genuinely concerned people who worry about these issues and are more likely to be persuaded by reason than vitriol. I know that for many CAGW is akin to a religion but the best way to get through to them is the quiet voice of reason.

mkelly
May 31, 2011 8:44 am

Ira says: ” A Watt is a Watt, no matter what :^)”
If this were absolutely true (temperature wise) then the hottest spot on land would be the square meter underneath the 50000 W transmission towers of several radio stations.

Latitude
May 31, 2011 8:46 am

Smokey says:
May 31, 2011 at 3:35 am
Ira has a talent for writing articles that generate lots of resposnses. I like that.
====================================================
true…..
I’m amazed at the amount of people that think this is a good presentation though……

Ian W
May 31, 2011 8:48 am

steptoe fan says:
May 30, 2011 at 9:10 pm
yes, a good summary, still, it’s hard to swallow and stick to the basics when the AGW crowd seems to continually have their way with govt and media. makes a person want to repeatedly bat them with every exposed falsehood the IPCC cranked out.
in Seattle, this same group of the agenda have had their way for decades now, and the public schools have been teaching this gospel long enough that it is simply a matter of we are past the science now …
so, what’s a heated rhetoric correct comeback for … we’re past the science ?

They said something similar to Galileo when he said the Earth orbited the Sun – were they correct?
Should “we are past the science” have been said to Einstein when he showed the consensus Newtonian concepts were incorrect?
For science to advance it is almost always the consensus that is incorrect

Keith
May 31, 2011 8:54 am

New research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on the Norse disappearance from Greenland shows a significant temperature drop around 1100 AD as well as an earlier episode in 850 B.C. Climate variability with warming and dramatic cooling is acknowledged in this National Academy of Sciences-funded research.
http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2011/05/vikings

Theo Goodwin
May 31, 2011 8:54 am

You do not take up the question of theory at all. This is a most egregious error. As anyone familiar with scientific method knows, to consider facts independently of the theory that is used to specify and explain them is to consider them in a void. Also, the matter of theory is the Achilles Heel of the Warmista position because they have none. Well, of course, they use Arrhenius’ theory when they claim that atmospheric CO2 can reduce the flow of radiation from Earth to space. However, to draw conclusions about atmospheric warming from Arrhenius’ theory requires a theory of forcings. Specifically, Warmista have no physical hypotheses (no science) which can be used to explain and predict whether atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase or decrease in atmospheric temperatures. In other words, Warmista have no scientific account of warming produced by CO2.
Your constant reliance on the “facts” causes you to miss the absolutely crucial point that Warmista have no clothes. All that they have been able to present to the public are the hockey stick, Hansen’s ever-changing temperature records from the 1930s, and similar matters. Just think how little actual science went into the hockey stick.
After 1960, the tree ring data began showing a decline in temperature while thermometer data showed an increase in temperature. Briffa stated that he did not know what caused the tree ring data to decline. Do you not understand that the man admitted that he did not understand the decline. Was it a change in moisture? Who knows what it was? To this day, no one knows because Briffa did not have the scientific instinct to pursue the matter. But the one thing that can be known is that only vastly incompetent scientists will present tree ring data as a proxy for temperature when they do not know what natural features cause tree rings to change size. All of climate science is this weak and you are overlooking it. Why? Are you a Warmista?

Bob Kutz
May 31, 2011 9:02 am

Great summary and analysis of the full body of arguments surrounding AGW. Two points;
I am pretty sure in section B item 5 you meant to say anthropogenic instead of anthropomorphic.
Also; your final analysis . . . I will refrain from using the words that come to mind, but I strongly disagree with the notion we should just go along with the CAGW crowd and see where we end up. LETS BE CLEAR: A CARBON TAX IS JUST ANOTHER FORM OF CAP AND TRADE. YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO JUST GO ALONG WITH THE CAGW CROWD MAKES ME WONDER IF YOU ARE PRESENTING A TROJAN HORSE! You know; Win the argument by getting the other side to forfeit on the end game in the name of compromise. That kind of rope-a-dope stuff has no place in the world of scientific or political debate. We cannot achieve progress by solving problems that do not exist.
Conservation is a prudent strategy in all things, and doesn’t need some fairy tale about the evil air spirits to be credible.
We don’t solve our problems by putting on masks and dancing around a fire anymore, or making necklaces out of chicken bones and invoking magic spells. What you are advocating is, in effect, appeasing the CAGW crowd by allowing them to have the dance floor at night. If you do that, eventually all of the villagers will see your concession as an admission of the science, and the witches will soon be calling for an end to the blasphemers. This game has been played before.
Do not get confused here. Win it on the science and make the charlatans find a new job.

sceptical
May 31, 2011 9:15 am

Mr. Glickstein, the “Disbelievers” are out in full force on this thread and are coming after you for talking about physics.

Tom T
May 31, 2011 9:36 am

I think your recommendation is wrong. There is no doubt that if we do a little bit now it won’t stop the alarmists, it will instead embolden them. They will come back for more and more. These are big government types. They’re never are satisfied. It has never once work where people have said “we’ll expand government just a little bit here and that will stop them from expanding there.” George W. Bush Thought that would work with the prescription drug plan, but now have both that plan and Obamacare.
I don’t like your appeal to authority in evoking the name of Charles Krauthamer. I don’t think that Krauthammer knows a lot about global warming. But more importantly as of late Krauthammer has been a don’t make waves conservative, someone who believes that if conservatives give in a bit the other side will give a little too. There is no evidence that the other side will ever be satisfied.
The facts are on our side there is no reason to concede ground. This is an issue that the truth will win out in time. One can not run around saying “the sky is falling, the sky is falling” all the time if the sky never falls. Sure it might take another decade or so but eventually it should be clear that major changes to the climate aren’t happening. But if we allow for CO2 taxes and the like, it will only make them say “see even they admit global warming is a disaster, so we have to do even more.”

Chuckles
May 31, 2011 9:39 am

Ira,
I would cover the huge uncertainties in everything, actual measurements, models, projections the lot, and how little we actually know.
e.g.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/guest-post-in-the-beginning-was-the-confusion-by-angelo-ribino/

David S
May 31, 2011 9:47 am

The proper solution to a non-problem is to do nothing. If you want to talk about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, that’s worthwhile. If you want to talk about conserving scarce resources, that’s worthwhile too. But proposing solutions to non-problems is counterproductive.

DR
May 31, 2011 9:54 am

I think any manipulation of the market via taxes or legislation is interference with the natural ebb and flow of capitalism in its truest form.
The housing market bubble is a perfect example. Creating artificial markets or manipulating existing [free] ones via bureaucratic meddling or legislation thereby picking winners and losers is not an American ideal.
Now we have a ban of incandescent light bulbs ready to take affect next February. And for what reason? When the CFL bulbs first came out I thought they were neat, but over time I’ve learned to hate the very sight of them. They burn out, are horrible in cold weather and a health hazard. I recently cleaned off the shelves of our local hardware store of incandescent bulbs in preparation for the ban.

Theo Goodwin
May 31, 2011 9:57 am

izen says:
May 30, 2011 at 11:19 pm
@- Carl Chapman says:
May 30, 2011 at 9:07 pm
“For me, the most important point in the debate is the role of feedbacks. The Alarmists assume, with no reason and no evidence, that positive feedbacks will magnify the insignificant primary effect of CO2 by a factor of at least 3. A relatively stable system has to have negative feedbacks, which counteract any forced change.”
“But the climate DOES change in response to the Milankovitch cycles, ice-cover loss and volcanoe eruptions. The magnitude of those changes to small causative effects are the reason and evidence the ‘warmists’ have for the present estimates of climate sensitivity.”
Stick to the topic of forcings. The physical hypotheses that are needed would explain how CO2 causes changes in cloud cover and cause an increase or decrease in temperatures. There are no such physical hypotheses. If you have them, please publish them here. Do not assign homework.

jaypan
May 31, 2011 9:59 am

While Edenhofer tells clearly “it’s not about climate change at all anymore” and the German WGBU drafts the “Great Transformation”, sceptics are wasting time discussing the science. The one-world-government party is moving on, convinced that the public majority has accepted their propaganda already and is ready for the next step.
They even accelerate, before the climate facts get stronger against them.
We need to take their words serious and confront them.

Theo Goodwin
May 31, 2011 10:01 am

Logan says:
May 30, 2011 at 11:39 pm
“Then, go on to Carl Chapman’s point that a dubious positive feedback is required. Mention Roy Spencer.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
who is an expert critic of feedbacks and includes an overview on his website.”
Ira, you actually provide no evidence whatsoever in support of the Warmista claim that sensitivity is high. You should be thorough enough to realize that you cannot say that Warmista have evidence if you cannot state their hypotheses and the confirmation records for those hypotheses. As scientists, Warmista have the duty to provide hypotheses and evidence, something they have not done.

Scott Brim
May 31, 2011 10:03 am

Dr. Glickstein, I see that your academic discipline is in the field of Systems Engineering.
Science should drive the AGW debate, but the essentials of that science ought to be organized and documented in a way that conveys the essential scientific facts both to professional scientists and to the non-scientific public. A Systems Engineering approach could be of considerable value in accomplishing this objective .

A complement: If your audience happens to be well-versed in the Systems Engineering philosophy, your presentation is very effective in illuminating the scientific facets of the debate.
A criticism: If your audience does not happen to be well-versed in the Systems Engineering philosophy — which is the situation with the vast majority of the general public — your presentation is not very effective in illuminating the scientific facets of the debate, because there is too much information carried on too many graphics.

In the mode of deliberately simplifying the scientific issues to their barest essentials, and in the interest of not exceeding the general public’s attention span, the science side of the AGW debate boils down to this: “Is there reason to believe that the warming trend we have seen over the last three decades is anything more than an extension of the general warming trend which has been evident since the end of the Little Ice Age?”
If a disciplined Systems Engineering philosophy were to be applied to the process of answering this question, one would employ a knowledge-managed, procedurally-driven approach to accomplish two very essential subsidiary objectives:
(1) Assess the validity, accuracy, and reliability of the published temperature record from the end of the Little Ice Age to the present.
(2) Assess the validity, accuracy, and reliability of the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used to predict warming trends beyond 1 degree C for a doubling of CO2.
The science side of the AGW debate is quite simple: If the reliability of the published temperature record is open to question; and if the reliability of the General Circulation Models is open to question, then the fundamental premise of AGW is therefore open to question.
That being said, no one should underestimate the considerable time and expense which would be necessary to properly evaluate — while employing a disciplined Systems Engineering approach — the validity, the accuracy, and the reliability of both the published temperature record and the General Circulation Models.
As far as I am aware, no such disciplined evaluation currently exists. The need for such an evaluation is obviously self-evident.

May 31, 2011 10:12 am

“The Alarmists assume, with no reason and no evidence, that positive feedbacks will magnify the insignificant primary effect of CO2 by a factor of at least 3.”
But most alarmists don’t know that they assume that.
****************
More importantly the big gorilla of feedbacks is water vapor which has gone down steadily since 1950 or so.
Without increasing water vapor the CO2 sensitivity is small and CAGW can not be defended.

Lars P.
May 31, 2011 10:27 am

Dear Ira,
I believe points 5 & 6 are flawed.
They do not take into account the properties of water – the energy needed to warm and cool water and the huge energy that water releases when freezing (50 times more then warming at 1 degree) as well as the huge energy that water needs to evaporate.
I trust that these “water properties” and the fact the earth is spinning explain most of the temperature and not greenhouse gases.
When facing the sun the surface would get very hot (moon +100°C – earth in the deserts +50°C) but the oceans do not heat so fast. In the night the oceans cannot lose so fast the energy to freeze in 12 hours.
Greenhouse comes in second position, after the oceans, to explain average temperature, if any. The average +240 W/m2 is not giving proper results.
OK this is my gut feeling, haven’t done the calculations actually, shame on me, but it should not be impossible to check, will do it maybe tomorrow…

mkelly
May 31, 2011 10:32 am

sceptical says:
May 31, 2011 at 9:15 am
Mr. Glickstein, the “Disbelievers” are out in full force on this thread and are coming after you for talking about physics.
At least Dr. Glickstein has the fortitude to present here what he understands as the physics involved with the issue. He is treated with respect and intelligent discussion does take place.
I just don’t happen to agree with him on all he says.
I and others here are willing to discuss the physics with you. Please go ahead and start.

May 31, 2011 10:38 am

“Given the well documented good that enhanced CO2 does for plant growth. Given the fact that warmer temperatures are, on the whole, better for us and plants than are colder temperatures….It’s easier to make the argument that we should be subsidizing the production of CO2, not taxing it.” [MarkW, May 31, 2011 at 7:18 am]
WHAAAAT? Are you totally….wait…uh…actually, why not? Seriously. Unlike Mr Glickstein’s “machiavellian” scheme of giving away the prize in the hope that by blowing away our own heads, we’ll somehow trick the opposition, MarkW’s seemingly flippant suggestion has a much better chance. Imagine; offering prizes to serial CO2 emitters and showering R & D subsidies for CO2 generation technology! Why’s everyone cringing? Would it be illegal? Not yet. Shocking? Heck, yeah! Over the top? No, not compared to the chutzbah behind the CAGW scheme. Would it work? Of course it would; unlike the never-successful strategies of well-reasoned appeasement, such an in-yer-mug approach would demand courage and conviction, forcing real (and very entertaining) science and fact-based dialogues…for a change.

Reed Coray
May 31, 2011 10:47 am

Ira, thank you for the post.
From my perspective, you give short shrift to one of the most important anti-CAGW arguments. Specifically, “Where is it proven that additional CO2 (however produced) and/or global warming of a few degrees (however produced) are bad for the world?” It can be argued that more CO2 means enhanced plant life which translates into increased food for carnivores. It can be argued that for mankind warmer climates on the whole are better than colder climates. Maybe the latter can’t be proven; but by the same token there’s no proof that climates as is or colder climates are an improvement.
As many commenters have noted, to argue for a “carbon tax” is to appease the warmists. The skeptic argument says there is no problem. If there’s no problem, there’s no need for a tax. Just what problem is a carbon tax supposed to solve?
Finally, in response to
John B says:
May 31, 2011 at 5:11 am

Ira,
A sterling effort but I think you have a massive task in trying to align skeptics. The problem is that even if you remove the outliers, skeptics do not all agree with each other. The AGW argument can be summarized as something like this:
1. Human CO2 emissions have caused CO2 build up in the atmosphere
[Probably.]
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
[Only if both the denotation and connotation of a greehouse gas is limited to a gas that absorbs IR radiation. If a “greenhouse gas” connotes warming, then I take exception. After all, a blackbody absorbs all incident radiation including IR, but increasing the radius of a blackbody sphere in a circular orbit about the sun will not result in a surface temperature increase–at least for orbital radii large compared to the sum of the blackbody and sun radii.]
3. Human emitted CO2 has a significant added greenhouse effect over natural effects
[I don’t like the word significant–it’s too subjective. Furthermore, in this claim the connotation of a “greenhouse gas” includes surface warming, which as noted above, I take exception to.]
4. Recent warming has been measured
[Yes, but two points. First, I don’t trust many of the measurements–hell, many temperature records have been lost, so who can trust them? Second, the last decade has seen cooling, not warming.]
5. This warming is unprecedented
[Disagree.]
6. It can be attributed to human emitted CO2
[Disagree.]
7. The warming will get worse due to positive feedbacks
[This is a truism. If this claim is included in the warmist list, then I demand a claim 7a: “The warming will be reduced by negative feedbacks.”]
8. We are fairly confident on the sign and magnitude of those feedbacks
[No opinion as to the ‘sign’, but I have no confidence in the ‘magnitude’.]
9. The effects of the continued warming will be bad
[Maybe/maybe not. I believe a few degrees of warming over a period of one or two centruies will be “good.”]
10. There are things we can do about to mitigate the continued warming
[Unlikely–at least to any measurable degree.]
11. The effects of those things will be good
[Doubtful. And when compared to the negative effects of “those things”, I believe the net effect of try to ‘do something about global warming’ will be bad for mankind.]
em>

Don R
May 31, 2011 10:59 am

Hi Ira,
Any possibility of you giving a TED talk?

gdn
May 31, 2011 11:11 am

Two more things….
As part of demonstrating that current times are unusual:
For historical proxies, there are relatively few studies, by a few scientists, that attempt to tie everything together, and they are cross-contaminated by relying primarily on proxies which they never attempted to demonstrate were valid as *temperature* proxies, and currently show no correlation with temperature.
Rate of temperature increase: There’s a chart used by the IPCC which purports to show accelerating warming.
vs.
or

Alvin
May 31, 2011 11:15 am

Ira, after re-reading your accounts I may be one of the 95%’ers that cannot accept a carbon tax. I think with all the good that you have done with this, it still enables those government types who wish to tax and spend, a huge issue in the USA and abroad. The industries will still pass that tax on in the form of COGS to the buyers as a tax is simply a punishment that tends to decrease activity.
But keep going. I think you are onto something. Very close.

gdn
May 31, 2011 11:19 am

Rate of temperature increase: There’s a chart used by the IPCC which purports to show accelerating warming.
vs.
or
“http://bbickmore.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/monckton_accelerating.png?w=460&h=292”

Karen D
May 31, 2011 11:19 am

Great summary of a complicated topic. Since you’re inviting comments, I have a few.
First I would move the scare quotes in “Inconvenient” Truth so it reads Inconvenient “Truth” — the whole darn thing is pretty inconvenient if you ask me, it’s the truth that still eludes us.
Regarding the distinction between AGW and CAGW, I think it’s significant that even though the catastrophic part is not as widely believed as it was, AGW is still presented as a bad thing. Never mind that warmer temperatures mean more crops and less freezing to death, (and never mind that people almost certainly are not the driving force we egotistically believe we are) media outlets and politicians still put an alarmist spin on climate because scary stories sell better and a frightened populace is more easily led. My point is that once you’ve ruled out “catastrophic”, it’s fair to ask if a warming trend is bad at all.
I strongly disagree with your conclusion that skeptics gain ground by playing along with any kind of carbon tax or gratuitous greening. This is no time for fence sitting. Here in the US, while a few brave politicians have rejected Cap and Trade, the EPA is charging ahead with the very carbon regulation our elected representatives rejected. Recycling and biomass are great, but they are not going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil any time soon. Developing our own resources will.
In my opinion, the benefit we can gain from the global warming scandal is that the general public (such as myself) will snap out of the blind allegiance to media sources we’ve lapsed into in recent years and just say STOP! We’re on to your game, knock it off!
I appreciate the presentation you put together. It is a good tool for discussing the subject, breaking out the various elements so they can be examined and debated each in turn. Very helpful!

JPeden
May 31, 2011 11:22 am

Ira, I favor at the minimum an emphasis on showing that ipcc Climate Science is simply not real science and is therefore not credible, period, which can be fairly easily hammered home to an audience of scientists from the facts that, 1] it has not been able to make any correct predictions yet, but 2] still holds onto its “tenets” such that it will not allow them to be falsified. 3] The empirical evidence is always wrong, and counting, including the fact that that there has been no net disaster yet vs normal or natural climate.
But, regardless, have you considered making your finished lecture also a handout, so that the audience can take it home, go over it, and spread it around, thus also allowing some real “peer-review”, of at least your arguments?

izen
May 31, 2011 11:25 am

@- Jeremy says:
May 31, 2011 at 8:23 am
“You don’t need slides, you don’t need talking points. Ask people who are sure that the globe is warming and humans are the primary cause tough questions. The best one is this:
–> How many weeks/months/years of no change in temperatures or decline in temperatures would it take for you to question the presumed “consensus” view?”
An EXCELLENT suggestion.
Personally I would at least question the “consensus” if three consecutive years of this decade (2011-2020) were colder than the hottest year in the last decade (2001-2010), even if the decade was hotter on average than the last.
I would not just question, but be actively looking for alternative explanations if this decade is NOT hotter overall than the last.
I would point out that this is a high bar for AGW to pass, during the past century of warming there have been several instances of three years being colder than the hottest year in the previous decade, (it happened in the last decade) and a few times when the subsequent decade was NOT warmer than the preceding one.
But sauce for the goose….
What pattern of climate would cause the ‘skeptics’ here to at least question their presumed absence of AGW? What amount of warming/sea level rise and ice loss would cause ‘skeptics’ to doubt the proposition that the warming is entirely natural or insignificant??
It is pointless of course to ask this question of those for whom AGW is a matter of belief or disbelief, they are not thinking scientifically, they’ve essentially conceded that they act on faith, not disprovable hypotheses.

izen
May 31, 2011 11:48 am

@- Theo Goodwin says:
May 31, 2011 at 9:57 am
“Stick to the topic of forcings. The physical hypotheses that are needed would explain how CO2 causes changes in cloud cover and cause an increase or decrease in temperatures. There are no such physical hypotheses. If you have them, please publish them here. Do not assign homework.”
Okay, no homework! -grin-
The physical hypothesis that explain how changes in CO2 causes changes in the ‘greenhouse’ effect by slowing the rate of cooling at the surface by converting outgoing longwave radiation to thermal energy within the atmosphere is well known, established and recognized. Ira Glickstein, Prof Lindzen and Roy Spencer have all explained and acknowledged this rather basic bit of physics in the past.
The magnitude of this effect may be in dispute, but the reality of its existence is not.
After all the changes in the spectra of energy of OLR and DLR have been detected and measured as anyone who follows this subject will be aware.
I think that is why Ira Glickstein created a category of ‘Disbelievers’ who reject the physics and placed them beyond the pale with the ‘Alarmists’. He quite correctly identified both groups as beyond rational argument and can see any concession to the cohort who reject the known physics in favour of unfeasible processes that either negate the existence of the ‘Greenhouse effect’, or attribute it extreme abilities to derange the climate, undermines his own credibility with an informed audience.

Neil
May 31, 2011 11:49 am

steptoe fan:
so, what’s a heated rhetoric correct comeback for … we’re past the science ?
My best try so far is “You’re right. You’re past the science. You missed the turn.”
Cheers,
Neil

Theo Goodwin
May 31, 2011 11:53 am

Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
May 31, 2011 at 11:19 am
Layne Blanchard says:
May 30, 2011 at 11:01 pm
“I feel sorry for you because you cannot distinguish between merely mistaken scientists (the Warmists, who truly believe human civilization is headed for long-term problems if mean temperatures and CO2 continue their rise) and the irrational, rogue Alarmists who use scientific argument to support their need for continuing government grants and increased political control.”
Well, Ira, you really asked for this one. Ira, you have no clue what counts as criticism of scientific theory. The Bottom Line on your understanding of the debate about global warming is that you can identify a claim by one side and pair it with a counter-claim from the other side. You show no ability to inform your readers about the relative merit of the claims or of the science, so-called, practiced by the individuals making the claim. You do not understand the fundamental point of scientific method that the burden of proof rests on the scientist but that the sceptic need only show that the scientist has failed in his attempts at proof. Because you have no facility for criticism of science, you are the last one to tell another that they cannot distinguish between the honest and the dishonest science.
“I may be wrong, but I think rational, science-based argument can move the media and political elite, and the general population, to a more moderate view of climate change.”
Sir, a “more moderate view of climate change” is a fantastically tortured idea. To claim that such a thing exists is exactly analogous to claiming that we should hold a more moderate view of “E=MC2.” The theory or hypothesis has the evidence that has been presented for it, nothing more nor less, yet you are incapable of criticizing evidence offered or even identifying what would count as evidence. Your task amounts to nothing more than a nice person’s attempt to apply to this debate some vision of “balance” that is known only to you and that has no foundation in science or scientific method. In science, there is no truth to split. There is only Scientific Method and you are abysmally ignorant of it. You are going down the road of the benighted “Postmodern Science” which would have us throw our science and our policy preferences in a pot and stir them. That is madness, except for the communist whose goal never had anything to do with truth except to distract his victims from it.
Sir, are you unaware that, in your presentation that we are discussing, you correctly identify some of the crooks and charlatans, such as Jones, Hansen, and Gore, but then you end with the policy proposal that we compromise with them. How nutty can you get? You might say that you want to compromise with the moderate Warmista. But who are they and what do they claim? Sweep Jones (hockey stick), Hansen (temperature record and Schmidt’s models), and Gore off the table and what remains? Nothing that you mention. Who are they and what do they hold that you can defend?
If WUWT is to willingly subject itself to this level of discussion then it has given up opposition to the Global Warming Steamroller.

James Davidson
May 31, 2011 11:53 am

You say that for “black body radiation” the Earth’s temperature should be -18c, rather than the +15C it actually is, and attribute this to “greenhouse gases.” I have read that, if you calculate the “greenhouse effect,” Earth’s temperature should be +60C. The difference is caused by the most important “greenhouse gas,” -water vapour. Water vapour can form clouds, increasing the albedo. It can also produce thunderstorms which cause ” convective overturning” of the atmosphere, punting surface heat straight up to the top of the tropospher, where it is more readily radiated to outer space.

Jimi
May 31, 2011 11:57 am

Wow!….Awesome presentation all the way up until you dropped the ball on the one yard line.
I’m all for finding and using better Technology, but agreeing with a specific carbon tax just made your whole presentation BUNK!
Fossil Fuels are already taxed too much. For the sake of economics you can claim that we need a “Technology” tax, to use less fossil fuels, but to call it a “Carbon Tax” reinforces the idea that human are bad for the Planet, which you yourself admit is not the case. Humans may “contribute to change,” but that is a long distance drive from “cause damage.”
If you really feel it is important to call for a added tax, then at least add to your presentation a detailed explaination on exactly how the money is to be spent. Being Vague adds to our economic whoas!

A G Foster
May 31, 2011 12:06 pm

1) This “blood for oil” pratter is even sillier than CAGW. Sadaam invaded Kuwait because he wanted to be the one to sell off their oil, and that’s how it would have gone down had we not invaded. Wars cost more than oil, and raise the price of oil. So which is it: did we invade to bring the price up or down?
2) No presentation could be complete without teaching the history of sea level rise. They will be amazed to learn that nothing catastrophic can be extrapolated from current trends–only theorized.
3) Right, T does not force CO2; ice sheet extension forces both in tandem, and the delay may be explained by CO2 absorption. One would expect any amplification to show up as feedback like a rounded step function–the ocean circulates to some extent from the bottom up, i.e., in discrete quanta, but not discretely enough to press the issue–that CO2 absorbing rock complicates things.
4) What good is C&T with China around, and what good is it without China (see 1 above)?
So that the takeaway message is precisely what we’re fighting against. Other than that, you are reasonably informative. But “blood for oil”? That’s what I would expect from AP. –AGF

H.R.
May 31, 2011 12:13 pm

izen says:
May 31, 2011 at 11:25 am
“@- Jeremy says:
May 31, 2011 at 8:23 am
[…]
But sauce for the goose….
What pattern of climate would cause the ‘skeptics’ here to at least question their presumed absence of AGW? What amount of warming/sea level rise and ice loss would cause ‘skeptics’ to doubt the proposition that the warming is entirely natural or insignificant??”

To say that humans affect global climate I’d have to see more change in global climate than what the earth has seen before, such as:
– more than 100 meters of sea level rise.
– more than 100 meters of sea level drop.
– snowball earth… forever
– aligators and humingbirds at the poles… again
just to mention a few.
Wake me up when the earth experiences global climate that’s truly unprecedented, show me irrefutable evidence that humans dunnit with their e-e-evil CO2, and then I’m all in. Until then… I’m inclined not to buy.

May 31, 2011 12:19 pm

Point 7.
Can’t agree. There is no way a cooler atmosphere can warm the warmer earth’s surface by any means, including ‘back radiation’.
The ‘raised’ temperature of the earth has nothing to do this. It has to do with knowing what it is supposedly raised FROM. We don’t know that fact. All we know is theoretical calculations based on ‘black body radiation’ concepts – which are themselves to a degree theoretical – a true black body does not exist in the real world – it is a theoretical contruct.
Arrhenius deliberately ignored a basic fact about any real absorbant surface: heat is conducted DOWNwards and conducts back to the surface as the surface cools by convection (and some radiation). His paper stated clearly that he ignored this. A mega mistake.
However we can now test how a planetary body without an atmosphere behaves in this regard. We have real temperature data from the moon since the Apollo landings. These show a temperature elvation of 40K above the theoretical temperature. Not a greenhouse gas in sight.
details:

May 31, 2011 12:32 pm

I have to take issue with the portrayal of DAGW. IMHO, the “greenhouse” theory is ripe for a paradigm-change, that will make it more comprehensive of real-world situations. Just like when classical Newtonian physics was “expanded” into quantum physics and relativity.
I would find it very peculiar if the “greenhouse” theory were to be the one area of physics where no progress is ever done. Or has ever been done, since Arrhenius’ times.

Matt G
May 31, 2011 12:46 pm

You say that for “black body radiation” the Earth’s temperature should be -18c, rather than the +15C it actually is, and attribute this to “greenhouse gases.”
There is a big problem with this and has never really been solved. The ocean should be included with greenhouse gasses or missing a great energy value of the planet. This is general mainstream problem not just the statement of it. The atmosphere from the ground decreases temperature with height so the main source of energy must be the ocean. Without this body of water this energy would have already been lost to the atmosphere, so +15c would be reduced significantly still with the same atmosphere greenhouse gases composition. Therefore the true value =33c = greenhouse gasses + ocean heat. Greenhouse gases are still overestimated by a large amount, no wonder predictions are always wrong.

Matt G
May 31, 2011 12:52 pm

Temperature increases with higher pressure so this has to be taken into account, so putting a value on how much the ocean contributes would be very difficult.

JJ
May 31, 2011 1:00 pm

““We cannot fight something with nothing” ”
But apparently, we can fight it by cutting our own throats?
The sum total of your position is that we do not need to accept the Alarmist reasoning, just their mandates. We dont have to believe in the god of the volcano, we just have to sacrifice our daughters to appease those that do.
Sorry. No.
Perhaps we cannot fight something with nothing, but that is not the situation. They do not have ‘something’. They have nothing. We can fight the unsubstantiated assertion of something, with the reasoned demonstration of nothing. And we should.
We cannot capitulate our way to victory.

Theo Goodwin
May 31, 2011 1:03 pm

izen says:
May 31, 2011 at 11:48 am
@- Theo Goodwin says:
May 31, 2011 at 9:57 am
“Stick to the topic of forcings. The physical hypotheses that are needed would explain how CO2 causes changes in cloud cover and cause an increase or decrease in temperatures. There are no such physical hypotheses. If you have them, please publish them here. Do not assign homework.”
“Okay, no homework! -grin-
The physical hypothesis that explain how changes in CO2 causes changes in the ‘greenhouse’ effect by slowing the rate of cooling at the surface by converting outgoing longwave radiation to thermal energy within the atmosphere is well known, established and recognized.”
What you describe is Arrhenius’ hypothesis. Forcings are the effects on the atmosphere of this “slowed rate of cooling at the surface.” Now you can address those, which is the topic. Originally, Warmista held that the effects would be increased moisture whose overall effect on temperature would be an increase, a positive forcing. The facts never supported this. The Warmista have no physical hypotheses which describe the natural regularities that might make up positive forcings.

Jeremy
May 31, 2011 1:06 pm

izen says:
May 31, 2011 at 11:25 am
But sauce for the goose….
What pattern of climate would cause the ‘skeptics’ here to at least question their presumed absence of AGW? What amount of warming/sea level rise and ice loss would cause ‘skeptics’ to doubt the proposition that the warming is entirely natural or insignificant??

That’s easy, when the temperature follows dominant-positive-feedback models, I’ll accept the CAGW hypothesis. It doesn’t, hasn’t, so I don’t. When the sea level rise exceeds what it has been doing for the last century, I’ll think about things. It hasn’t, has actually started levelling off, so I dont. When the reduction of ice sea/land ice is no longer explainable by PDO cycles and is the same sign in both hemispheres, I’ll rethink. It isn’t, so I dont.

MarkW
May 31, 2011 1:16 pm

A “carbon tax” even if the proceeds are “given” back to the citizens, still has the affect of making everything made in the US more expensive. If you want to see more companies fleeing this country, that is the way to go.
You can’t stop at just taxing oil imports, you have to tax the energy content of every product brought into the US. You also have to refund this tax for any product that is exported.
Then you have to quintuple the size of the Coast Guard in order to stop all of the new smuggling of untaxed products. So there goes your transfer of tax funds back to citizens. All of the money and then some will have to go for policing the tax and it’s consequences. If you thought the drug war was bad …

groweg
May 31, 2011 1:18 pm

The science part of Ira’s presentation is very enlightening. Then Ira goes on to state that since the warmists have political momentum behind them we should compromise with them, have a carbon tax, etc. Thank God when Reagan came to office and the Soviet Union seemed on a roll he didn’t say “lets split the difference” and accept the Soviet Union as it was.
There is no place in public policy for accepting a scam that, because of its unjustified limitations on carbon-based energy, will sink our civilization into economic ruin. There is a need for righteous indignation over the global warming hoax. Ira is not up to that.

Latitude
May 31, 2011 1:28 pm

Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
May 31, 2011 at 1:06 pm
There is almost certainly some feedback where higher CO2 levels cause Temperatures to be higher than they would be otherwise. However, it is also true that Temperatures always start to rise when CO2 is near minimum levels and Temperatures also start to fall when CO2 is near maximum levels.
=====================================================
Ira, the elephant in the room is temperatures falling fast and very low, while CO2 levels stay elevated.
If there is any feedback from CO2, it obviously doesn’t work when compared to everything else.
There are several examples of elevated CO2 levels – staying elevated for 10’s of thousands of years (not 800 – 1200 years) – while temperatures fall and fall fast.
Obviously, if elevated CO2 levels can not even hold temperatures up….
…elevated CO2 can’t drive temperatures up

mkelly
May 31, 2011 1:35 pm

Ira says:”Imagine, if you will, the Sun being replaced by a cold object of the same mass. Of course, the Earth would cool to some low temperature, but gravity would remain the same as will most gases in the air (except for water vapor, which will precipitate out). Absent Solar radiation, the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect” will cease as well. OK, on cold Earth some lapse rate will occur. Will Postma’s math work in that case?”
Is it your contention that in PV=nRT that T is the driver via the sun and P of atmosphere has nothing to do with the mass of the atmosphere?

RJ
May 31, 2011 1:38 pm

Reed Coray
“1. Human CO2 emissions have caused CO2 build up in the atmosphere [Probably.]”
Probably on what grounds. Human emissions are around 8% or less of the total. Natural 92%. It seems unlikely that the increase is due to humans. A better answer might be unknown but unlikely.

Jan v J
May 31, 2011 1:44 pm

How can you (or anyone else) prescribe a Carbon (Dioxide) Tax for 0.7° (0.6° – or less) over a century?

RJ
May 31, 2011 1:52 pm

“The science part of Ira’s presentation is very enlightening.”
But is now being seriously challenged. Ira just will not let his old beliefs go. Especially this one
“This absorbed radiant energy accounts for most of the extra 33ºC or 58ºF.”
This is nonsense. Energy can not leave earth and somehow magically return as more to further heat the earth.

Sean Ogilvie
May 31, 2011 1:55 pm

My own critiques Part 1:
D 1; I am quite sure that Global Warming is REAL (i.e. the mean temperature of the Surface has increased by 0.5 to 0.6ºC since 1880) but, most of that increase is due to Natural Cycles over which we humans have no control.
I disagree. I think that the quality of the pre-satellite measurement is so poor that you can not be sure. Personally I think it’s warmed up but I’m not sure and I certainly wouldn’t put an estimate of any kind let alone one that tight. Anthony showed that the current US data is crap. God knows what it was like 20, 50, 100 or 130 years ago. It is probably better Today then ever before and that’s a scary thought.

RJ
May 31, 2011 1:56 pm

Jan v J
“How can you (or anyone else) prescribe a Carbon (Dioxide) Tax for 0.7° (0.6° – or less) over a century?”
A good question. Unless Ira is just trying to break his comments