Guest post by Joe Bastardi, WeatherBell
With the coming Gorathon to save the planet around the corner ( Sept 14) , my stance on the AGW issue has been drawing more ire from those seeking to silence people like me that question their issue and plans. In response, I want the objective reader to hear more about my arguments made in a a brief interview on FOX News as to why I conclude CO2 is not causing changes of climate and the recent flurry of extremes of our planet. I brought up the First Law of Thermodynamics and LeChateliers principle.
The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred in many forms but can not be created or destroyed.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume those that believe CO2 is adding energy to the system are correct. Okay, how much? We have a gas that is .04% of the atmosphere that increases 1.5 ppm yearly and humans contribute 3-5% of that total yearly, which means the increase by humans is 1 part per 20 million. In a debate, someone argued just because it is small doesn’t mean it is not important. After all even a drop with 0.042 gm of arsenic could kill an adult. Yes but put the same drop in the ocean or a reservoir and no one dies or gets ill.
Then there is the energy budget. The amount of heat energy in the atmosphere is dwarfed by the energy in y the oceans. Trying to measure the changes from a trace gas in the atmosphere, if it were shown to definitively play a role in change (and it never has), is a daunting task.
NASA satellites suggest that the heat the models say is trapped, is really escaping to space, that the ‘sensitivity’ of the atmosphere to CO2 is low and the model assumed positive feedbacks of water vapor and clouds are really negative. Even IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth said “Climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is…the fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
We are told that the warming in the period of warming from 1800 was evidence of man-made global warming. They especially point to the warming from 1977 to 1998 which was shown by all measures and the fact that CO2 rose during those two decades. And we hear that this warming has to be man-made with statements like “what else could it be?”
However, correlation does not mean causation. Indeed inconveniently despite efforts to minimize or ignore it, the earth cooled from the 1940s to the late 1970s and warming ceased after 1998, even as CO2 rose at a steady pace. Some have been forced to admit some natural factors may play a role in this periodic cooling. If that is the case, why could these same natural factors play a key role in the warming periods too.
Ah, but here is where the 1st law works just fine. After a prolonged period of LACK OF SUNSPOT ACTIVITY, the world was quite cold around 1800. The ramping up of solar activity after 1800 to the grand maximum in the late twentieth century could be argued as the ultimate cause of any warming through the introduction of extra energy into the oceans, land and then the atmosphere.
The model projections that the warming would be accelerating due to CO2 build up are failing since the earth’s temps have leveled off the past 15 years while CO2 has continued to rise.
Then there is a little matter of real world observation of how work done affects the system it is being done on. When one pushes an empty cart and then stops pushing, the cart keeps moving until the work done on it is dissipated. How is it, that the earth’s temperature has leveled off, if CO2, the alleged warming driver continues to rise?
The answer is obvious. They have it backwards. It is the earth’s temperature (largely the ocean) which is driving the CO2 release into the atmosphere. That is what the ice cores tell us and recently that Salby showed using isotopes in an important peer review paper. These use real world observations not tinker toy models nor an 186 year old theory that has never been validated.
Finally, as to the matter of LeChateliers principle. The earth is always in a state of imbalance and weather is the way the imbalances are corrected in the atmosphere. Extreme weather occurs when factors that increase imbalances are occurring. The extremes represent an attempt to return to a state of equilibrium.
The recent flurry of severe weather – for instance, record cold and snow, floods, tornadoes,, is much more likely to be a sign of cooling rather than warming. The observational data shows the earth’s mid levels have cooled dramatically and ocean heat content and atmospheric temperatures have been stable or declined. Cooling atmospheres are more unstable and produce greater contrasts and these contrasts drive storms, storms drive severe weather. A warmer earth produces a climate optimum with less extremes as we enjoyed in the late 20th century and other time in history when the great civilizations flourished.
Time will provide the answer. Over the next few decades, with the solar cycles and now the oceanic cycles changing towards states that favor cooling, there should be a drop in global temperatures as measured by objective satellite measurement, at least back to the levels they were in the 1970s, when we first started measuring them via an objective source. If temperatures warm despite these natural cycles, you carry the day. We won’t have to wait the full 20-30 year period. I believe we will have our answer before this decade is done.
UPDATE: I’m told that a follow up post – more technically oriented will follow sometime next week. Readers please note that the opinion expressed here is that of Mr. Bastardi, at his request. While you may or may not agree with it, discuss it without resorting to personal attacks as we so often see from the Romm’s and Tamino’s of the nether climate world. Also, about 3 hours after the original post, I added 3 graphics from Joe which should have been in the original, apologies. – Anthony
R. Gates says:
August 12, 2011 at 8:50 pm
C’mon Joe, you can’t honestly believe this, or perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying
=======================
No….its actually c’mon Gates.
No one can honestly believe an iota of what you say.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
R. Gates says:
August 12, 2011 at 8:50 pm
The net cause of the rise in CO2 beyond what is typical in an interglacial is the human release of that carbon through the burning of fossil fuels.
=======================
What is “typical”? Hahahaha. HUH?
What “net cause” and what pure scientific evidence do you have to show for it?
Oh…I thought so. Nada.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
TY, i have been posting for many years, that the earths atmosphere is NEVER in equilibrium, that thermodynamics forces it to SEEK balance but that balance can never be found because the countless factors at play are constantly changing….the state of climate “change” is the 100% NATURAL state of the earths climate.
every record shows constant change never a balance.
to single out human co2 are a DRIVER is sheer LUNACY and i am tired of so called “scientists” LYING to the public.
Bastardi is incorrect when he states that: “The model projections that the warming would be accelerating due to CO2 build up are failing since the earth’s temps have leveled off the past 15 years while CO2 has continued to rise.” Actually, a model projection cannot fail for it does not state a falsifiable claim. It is a prediction and not a projection that states a falsifiable claim but as the IPCC climatologist Kevin Trenberth states explicitly at http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/07/global_warming_and_forecasts_o.html, the IPCC models make projections not predictions. IPCC climatology is a failed science but it is not failed because the temps have leveled while the CO2 has risen. Rather, it is failed because its models do not make falsifiable claims.
“The answer is obvious. They have it backwards. It is the earth’s temperature (largely the ocean) which is driving the CO2 release into the atmosphere. That is what the ice cores tell us and recently that Salby showed using isotopes in an important peer review paper.”
R Gates:
You might be inferring more than was written. I did not read into it that he said humans aren’t releasing CO2, just that the implied cause and effect are opposite. Bastardi is not known for his eloquent diction. Agreed, that if indeed he is suggesting this, it is surprising and I would ask that it be backed up with some facts and data.
Thank you Anthony for your excellent BLOG, one that I enjoy reading daily.
Funny how the pseudo smart asses disparage this guy but he predicts the weather a damn sight better than the AGW worshipping met offices, care to explain that and how he knows nothing??
Seth;
Note the details of the “lag” argument. It posits a one-time step function,in effect, as the energy delayed in its transit to space does escape after the lag. This results in a “steady state” addition of energy equivalent to the power of the trapped IR x the duration of the lag.
If you suddenly eliminated CO2 from the atmosphere, that heat would persist for the duration of the lag only, before tailing off to zero and thus restoring the “pre-CO2” steady state.
Since that lag is mere milliseconds, and the trapped IR’s power is a minute fraction of that of the total insolation, there’s not much there there.
Re: Doug Proctor, August 12, 2011 at 6:01 pm:
Doug, thank you thank you for make a well needed statement on, specifically, precision and accuracy in this realm of climatology! I could never have said it so clearly myself ( though I have tried along the same lines in the past ).
Joe…. great interview and post kept clear for the more non-scientific.
Joe Bastardi presented a falsifiable scenario: If temps go up over the next decade then he’ll admit that he’s wrong.
I have yet to see a falsifiable scenario out of the warminista crowd.
Anthony;
Edit note: de-apostrophize your plurals. Apostrophes are for noun possessives, and abbreviations, ONLY. No plural’s. Correction: No plurals.
Koz;
The temperature increase reduces how much CO2 is held in the upper layers of the oceans, and this is the overwhelmingly dominant determination of how much is “left” in the atmosphere. Human emissions just improve the resulting increase. We then get to eat better, as the crop yields surge. Win-win!
I think someone else touched on this subject but here goes. First Joe is a great weather man and is attempting ( some what poorly ) to put into nomenclature a discussion that has become mystified to most people. This means in many ways dumb down the actual science yet attempting to allow people to understand that the dumbed down version is still based on sound and important science. I did not like it, but again I do not believe I am his target audience and many of the thins he stated made me cringe a little as they are not more verifiable than some of the more outrageous claims of Climate Scientists that through in ‘gotcha words’ like ‘may be as high’ as between 5 and 10 degrees warmer in a hundred years. Which is legalese in the science community for, may not happen at all.
Now as for Matt, of course I am skeptical of anyones comments. Heck even my own as it is based on my current level of understanding which may be incorrect. That being said, I believe CO2 does not ‘add’ heat to the equation, rather it slows the rate of the heat withdrawal from the atmosphere. This is an important distinction to make however as it does not mean that there is more heat added to the atmosphere but rather a slower decay rate in which heat radiates from said atmosphere. Again ALL the predictions that ‘MAY’ come about are actually predicated on feedback loops occurring which may not happen at all.
One important thing that Joe did say that I do think is important is that we may well have temperature and CO2 backwards as far as which is driving which. It is just unfortunate that currently both CO2 and temperature are in lock step with one another and may well be for the foreseeable future.
As regards the mass balance issue there is a way that it could be wrong as follows:
Humans release 100 units leaving 20 units unabsorbed. 80 units go into stimulated local and regional sinks. It could be that all of it gets absorbed locally.
Oceans absorb less due to higher temperatures from increased solar insolation allowing 30 units more than ‘normal’ to remain in the atmosphere. Or 50 units more if all the human emissions are absorbed locally.
In each scenario atmospheric CO2 content therefore rises by 50 units which is half the human emissions.
All 50 units will be C12 according to Salby. Previously the consequent change in the 12C and 13C ratio was thought to be entirely anthropogenic.
Without the human contribution the local and regional sinks would be less active and the natural system would be a net source producing a solely natural rise of 30 units or 50 units as the case may be.
In the two examples given the observed increase is half the human contribution which is approximately what we see in the real world. The mass balance argument therefore fails because it is a dynamic system responding locally or regionally with increased vigour to the human input.
Interestingly one only needs a small change in ocean absorption rates to achieve the effect. Approximately 30% (or 50%) of the size of the human emissions which would probably be just a minute fraction of the total oceanic flux.
On these figures the human contribution could be easily cancelled out by a very slight increase in oceanic absorption rates so the present setup should be regarded as temporary.
Likewise a small further decrease in oceanic absorption rates would have a disproportionate effect on atmospheric CO2 without any additional contribution on our part.
It is likely just a coincidence that for a portion of the late 20th century the effect of the increased solar insolation to the oceans ran roughly parallel to the rate of increase in human emissions.
The increased solar insolation to the oceans having been caused by a more active sun changing the air circulation so as to draw the jetstreams poleward, reduce global cloudiness (as was observed) and allow more sunlight into the oceans.
The smoothness of the change at Mauna Loa could be a result of the most dominant process being a longer term change in solar activity levels such as from LIA to date. Being dominant that process would suppress shorter term temperature effects other than the high frequency seasonal variations.
This reminds me of the mistake that some make as regards economic theory. Some insist that there is only one ‘cake’ of resources of a fixed size (the mass balance idea) and everyone must share it equitably. In reality the size of the ‘cake’ increases with greater economic activity (more human input) so most if not all people get richer.
If Salby is right and human emissions are irrelevant then that is how it must be happening.
Also, if Salby is right then the ice cores and various other proxies must be misleading for reasons we have not yet pinned down.
I note that plant stomata show much more variability but even they may well be under recording.
I suspect that it is natural and routine for atmospheric CO2 levels to vary by up to 50% over periods of several centuries and somehow the ice cores are not recording it.
After all a very small change in oceanic absorption rates must have a disproportionately large effect on the atmosphere because of the hugely different CO2 carrying capabilities. I see no reason for doubting that the oceans could cause proportionately large CO2 variations in the air on a regular basis.
“The observed behavior is what it is.”
Murry Salby
R. Gates says:
August 12, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Not likely Scarface. The rise in CO2 beyond what is typical for an interglacial period has not been due to warmer temps, but the release of billions of tons of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. This interglacial is different in 2 significant respects from past interglacials over the past 800,000 years:
1) CO2 levels are higher
2) A species has learned how to release billions of tons of CO2 from fossil fuels.
Well, since you are speaking about the interglacial cycles, wouldn’t you like to mention the steep drop we are due for soon? Please, explain that cycle with CO2. Thanks.
I’m saddened that Joe brought up those two scientific laws/principles.
They were not necessary and are irrelevant to the issue.
His contentions are correct without even mentioning them.
The system simply adjusts to the extra energy in the air to eliminate all or most of that extra energy with little or no measurable climate effect.
More CO2 slows down the flow of energy through the system a fraction but an adjustment to the water cycle speeds it up again for a zero or near zero net effect.
Say what you will about Bastardi. He has a very valid question for the warmers.
Warmers, answer this question:
1) What would it take for you to question your currently accepted understanding (presumably given to you by experts) on Anthroprogenic Global Warming?
Skeptics have an easy time with this one. If the global average temperature were following the previously made projections, or any of the previous extreme storm predictions were in fact holding true (they’re not), or ocean temperature were in fact following the CAGW projections, etc..etc… if any of those were in fact directly following predictions, I would question what I believe to be the case here.
What would it take for you to question?
I just love how Mr. Wilde’s comment flows into mine. 🙂
It is what it is indeed. Just because the weather was [X] last year, it will be [X] this year. That gives you X-X understanding of what the actual system you are observing does with the energy it is given. Why was the weather X last year? That gives you a vastly superior understanding of how Earth handles the energy it gets from the Sun.
As far as I know, and Mr. Bastardi is free to correct me on this, weather models predict temperature just fine without adding CO2 as a factor. I’d like to know how you guys get the temperature right everyday without slapping on that additional warming.
re: post by Joe Bastardi says: August 12, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Frankly, I’m not sure I’d even go quite that far. Of course I agree that clearly one side is right and the other wrong. I also agree that continued flat temps or cooling while CO2 continues to rise would put the nail in the warmista coffin, but I don’t think that a return to warming would prove AGW.
Why? Because it’s my understanding that there is some pretty solid research showing that the earth has gone thru multiple periods where the temperature has increased (or decreased) as much or more than the highest predicted IPCC values, and in shorter time periods. That being the case, it seems to me that even if we return to warming over the next decade or two, the null hypothesis would still hold – e.g., that temp increases on the order projected by AGW advocates are well within natural cycles, and natural cycles fits the existing data as well or better than the AGW hypothesis.
Until AGW advocates can come up with some way to prove that CO2 is far more likely to be the cause than natural cycles – or either the rate or magnitude of change becomes significantly greater than such changes in Earths’ history – the null hypothesis stands. So far I don’t see that they’ve come up with any way to get beyond correlation at the very best, and even that correlation is relatively meaningless because neither the rate nor magnitude of change is out of Earth’s historical norms.
We keep coming back to some of the most basic scientific principles; null hypothesis, correlation is not causation, falsification, level of uncertainty, empirical evidence, and so on.
Joe rocks!
it’s just hard for anybody to pin down an oiled weasel like a warmista.
Rhoda Ramirez claims:
“Joe Bastardi presented a falsifiable scenario: If temps go up over the next decade then he’ll admit that he’s wrong.” Ramirez’s claim is logically flawed.
First, “scenario” is synonymous with “projection” but a “projection” is not falsifiable; it is a “prediction” that is falsifiable. Second, nowhere in this thread does Bastardi state the prediction that the global temperature will not go up over the next decade. He observes that the global temperature has not been going up but this observation does not match the description of a “prediction.” Third, in the evaluation of a theory, a single prediction is not helpful; one needs predictions of large number for establishment of the statistical significance of the conclusions.
re: post by Terry Oldberg says: August 12, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Couldn’t agree with you more on the falsifiability aspect. Don’t’cha just love how they keep claiming trillions of dollars must be spent and the entire world order and our standards of living all radically altered because they know to a 95% certainty that our CO2 release is killing the planet based on their model projections, but those projections aren’t predictions and therefore they cannot be held to account or be wrong should their ‘projections’ turn out to be incorrect?
Really serious case of cognitive dissonance or what? Hellooooo Orwell!!! Oh, and Alice, are you under that mushroom? Oh, you’re SMOKIN’ that mushroom.
Don’t you love the way in which televisions want to discuss climate issues, and allocate 45 seconds to it !!.
BTW What about CO2 absorption saturation? As I understand it, the capability of CO2 to absorb more longwave is already at maximum levels, with no further ability to absorb. If there is not further absorption, there can be no further warming.
.
The question that needs to be asked of the warmists is what collateral they are prepared to put up against their assertions?
1. Money?
2. Their children?
3. Their career and reputation?
Just what is it that they will lay on the line when they make their claims?
It’s important to know…..
re: post by Terry Oldberg says: August 12, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Terry, I don’t for the life of me know where you are coming from in saying that Mr. Bastardi has made no falsifiable prediction that temps won’t go up over the next decade. At the end of his article he stated:
Seems pretty clear to me that he’s predicting world wide average temperatures will drop this decade, and if they increase instead, his position has been falsified. He even specifies the measurement method, e.g., by satellite, so we have a relatively objective method that isn’t as subject to problems and bias as surface measurements.
>>KevinK says: August 12, 2011 at 8:04 pm
>>Each time the energy is redirected it travels as IR radiation at the speed of
>>light. So yes the “Greenhouse Effect” does indeed slow the flow of energy
>>through the system, but due to the speeds involved it is only capable of delaying
>>the release of heat by something like a few milliseconds
Can you explain that again for me – I know for a fact that a low stratus layer of cloud can maintain the surface temperature up to 10o warmer, for the whole night.
..