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
Ralph says:
August 13, 2011 at 1:06 am
>>Rhys Jaggar says: August 12, 2011 at 11:56 pm
>>To the American audience who are all experiencing a huge heatwave this summer:
>>We over the pond in Britain are not.
“Ditto in N Germany. It has been week after week of low cloud, drizzle, aggressive summer anti-cyclones and cold winds of the N Sea. Its been dreadful.”
The upper and middle midwest in the USA are so cool that Warmista would describe it as “unprecedented.” My old hometown of St. Louis Missouri is looking at a week of high temperatures in the low to mid eighties. The last time that happened was just before the disastrous winters of 1976-1979. In normal conditions, August in St. Louis is no cooler than July, which can hit 100 daily. Today is only August 13, for goodness sake! Yes, Texas is suffering a very hot summer, but not an “unprecedented” summer. There are drought conditions in some parts of Texas that are not normal by any means.
Does the MSM cover this cooling? No, no, and no. I wonder if they will wake up when all the interstates through St. Louis are closed for days this winter?
Deech56 says:
August 13, 2011 at 2:29 am
If Co2 is rising because of increasing temperatures, and if temperatures are leveling off, why is CO2 still rising?
//////////////////////////////////////////////
The evidence from, the ice cores suggests that there is a lag of between 600 to 1000 years between rising temperature and later observed rising CO2 levels. If that evidence is sound and the driving process still applicable today, the CO2 levels presently being observed may be reflecting rising temperatures prevalent in the MWP, ie the CO2 levels are not a response to current warming or cooling trend.
Whilst considering this point, it is also important to bear in mind that the CO2 levels observed at Mauna Loa bear no significant correlation with manmade emissions. The only correlation is that there is an upward trend in both observation and manmade emissions. However, apart from that course correlation, the Mauna Loa observations do not correlate with the rate of change in manmade emissions (Mauna Loa observations suggest an essentially linear increase, whereas manmade emissions have been anything but linear) and significantly, on the few occassions when manmade emissions have slowed (due to economic problems etc), the Mauna Loa records to not show that slowing. It would appear that Mauna Loa is not measuring the true effects of manmade emissions. This may be because manmade emissions are only about 2-3% of the total CO2 emissions anually such that the signature of manmade emissions is lost/swamped within the noise/bulk of the natural CO2 emissions. . .
Rational Debate says:
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:
“Time will provide the answer. … 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.”
I reply:
The testing of a hypothesis is necessarily by comparison of the predicted outcomes of observed events to the corresponding outcomes in a set of statistically independent observed statistical events. For statistical significance, there must be many observed events and the associated predictions. The observed events must be a subset of a set of fully described statistically independent statistical events not all of which are observed. The latter events occupy a “statistical population.” The former events occupy a “statistical sample.” Projections occupy a “statistical ensemble.” A “hypothesis” is a procedure for generating predictions.
Elements of this structure are missing from Bastardi’s description. In particular, he has not described his hypothesis, the population or the sample in sufficient detail for this hypothesis to be tested. Additionally, he has committed the error of confusing a “projection” with a “prediction”; they are different concepts.
In view of the errors and omissions, Bastardi’s hypothesis cannot be described as a “scientific” hypothesis. In view of similar errors and omissions, IPCC Working Group I’s claim to the existence of AGW cannot be described as a “scientific” hypothesis. AGW can neither be statistically validated nor statistically invalidated because the needed structure is not present.
Terry Oldberg says:
August 12, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Good Work, thanks. Thanks for the reference too. The Gaia Modelers are not empirical scientists.
Bastardi:
“You and I cant run away from the truth. Global temps have leveled off. CO2 is rising.”
If that is true, your contention that temperature is driving CO2 falls apart. Why has CO2 continued to steadily go up (accelerating even) if as you say temps have stayed flat for 15 years (they haven’t actually, but that’s your claim)? Do you even read what you write?
Matt says:
August 12, 2011 at 6:36 pm
“Your claim that the broad science community is not in touch with physical, empirical reality is thoroughly unfair. There are countless empirical measurements of climate sensitivities and feedbacks and for a wide variety of forcing mechanisms. You can always claim that it is “not enough” and that’s fine. But, don’t say that it doesn’t exist.”
Your response is yet another Classic Example of a Red Herring Fallacy. Warmista, when challenged, always change the subject. My claim was that Warmista, either of the Radiation Only Gaia Modeler or the Hide the Decline variety, have produced no reasonably well confirmed physical hypotheses that could explain and predict the forcings found in natural processes such as cloud formation. They are not working on them and have no interest in doing so. They are not physical scientists and they are not empirical scientists. They are teenagers obsessed with their supercomputers. In the future, supercomputers will have to be treated the same way that cigaretters are treated today, if not outrightly banned.
Ralph says:
August 12, 2011 at 11:54 pm
>>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.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
Ralph, the clouds in your example are restricting heat loss since they are inhibiting convection.
R. Gates says:
August 13, 2011 at 7:23 am
“Without human activity during the Holocene, CO2 levels would be 280 ppm or lower today.”
Another Gatesism. Just a statement without evidence, without meaning, without context. The answers to all Gatesisms are: “So what” and “what’s your point?”
Slioch says:
August 13, 2011 at 6:29 am
What sceptics really want is a Warmista who will engage in debate without committing the Red Herring Fallacy. We want a Warmista who will not continually change the topic. Please note that you are a grand topic changer. Warmista introduced an argument and then fled from it by changing the topic. You are doing the same on a grander scale. Why won’t you address sceptical arguments? Have you ever asked yourself that question?
Matt says:
“@Smokey
“…The claim that the CO2 heat absorption is already saturated is just plain wrong.”
For Matt’s edification: click
Roger Longstaff says:
August 13, 2011 at 3:12 am
Theo Goodwin says: August 12, 2011 at 6:41 pm: “By the way, ‘skeptical’ is the Brit spelling while ‘sceptical’ is the American spelling.”
“Wrong way round, old chap.”
Maybe I asserted a mere prejudice. Given your response, I am beginning to think that ‘sceptical’ is the accepted spelling and that ‘skeptical’ is archaic. What do you think?
Matt says:
August 12, 2011 at 5:28 pm
“…..a simple back-of-the-envolope calculation that shows the warming from CO2 double to be about 2 deg. F”.
According to Trenbeth’s figures, the wattage flux at earth’s surface is about 490 watts, 390 in sensible heat and 100 in latent heat. A doubling of CO2 would supposedly increase that surface flux by something less than 3.7 watts. If all of that increase went into sensible heat, the
average surface temp would increase by (393.7/390)^0.25 -1 times the current avg temp of about 288 K , or 0.68 C = 1.2 F. That;s quite a bit less than your 2 F. Also, over 20% of the total flux goes into LATENT heat. That would reduce the actual temp increase to something like 1 F.
R. Gates says:
August 13, 2011 at 7:23 am
Without human activity during the Holocene, CO2 levels would be 280 ppm or lower today.
==================================================================
I don’t see what the point is…..
…CO2 was lower in the past, and temperatures were higher
Even with CO2 as high as it is now, temperatures have not gone up as high as they were in the past when CO2 was lower…………………….
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif
I think most of you are missing my point on the principle of the greenhouse effect
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
and BTW
As far as I know there are no actual measured test results that found that a doubling of CO2 gave such and such an increase in global temps. ….
All they did is look at the problem (of global warming) from the wrong end which is the worst mistake a scientist can make. They looked at global warming since 1750 and then they allocated a forcings to GHG’s depending on the increase of the specific GHG noted since that time. Eventually when that did not happen it got watered down to perhaps only half that amount (50%) and more such wild speculation.
What I am now finding (from actual samples from weather stations in the oceans and at the oceans) is that the influence of man on temps. is very little indeed
-minimum temps. is not what is pushing up average temps-
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Hopefully they’d be willing to bet that the temperature, per GISS, will be higher after the next three or seven years (2014 and 2019). They can do so on Intrade (and place other temperature- and ice-related bets), here: https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventClassId=20
Tom in Florida says:
August 13, 2011 at 7:57 am
Apparently, he has morphed from troll to resident wild-eyed Warmista.
John B,
I can’t speak for everyone but the facts will speak for themselves and no one can dispute measured empirical evidence. I’ll accept whatever facts are seen and measure the theories against observed facts. On that basis AGW is a big fail as the theory is not supported by a shred of empirical evidence. All the defence and waffling happening in support of that failed theory are dishonest.
If we’re on a high-temperature plateau, there’s no contradiction.
Dear Theo,
My comment was based upon almost 60 years of living in England, and trying my best to speak the Queen’s English. The dreaded “wiki” says:
“DefinitionIn ordinary usage, skepticism (US) or scepticism (UK) (Greek: ‘σκέπτομαι’ skeptomai, to think, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to:
(a) an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object;
(b) the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain; or
(c) the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).
In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about:
(a) an inquiry,
(b) a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing,
(c) the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,
(d) the limitations of knowledge,
(e) a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment.
However (if this is correct) the original Greek uses a “K”, so maybe the US spelling is more accurate.
But we woz ‘ere first!!
Terry Oldberg says:
August 13, 2011 at 7:36 am
Another good post. Though, I prefer to explain the matter by appeal to scientific method. Mr. Bastardi is using the word ‘prediction’ the way the man on the street uses it. In scientific prediction, one is claiming that a particular event, such as Venus in half-phase, is an instance of the natural regularities that make-up the physics of planetary orbits in this solar system. The crucial point is that the predicted event, Venus’ half-phase, is implied by the well-confirmed physical hypotheses that describe planetary orbits in our solar system. For my money, if you are serious about scientific prediction, then (1) you must be able to cite the well confirmed physical hypotheses and (2) they must imply the event predicted.
Mr. Bastardi is speaking like a man placing bets. It is a perfectly legitimate way of speaking but it is not science.
Not according to Britisher Fowler’s classic Modern English Usage :
“The established pronunciation is sk-, whatever the spelling; and with the frequent modern use of septic and sepsis it is well that it should be so for fear of confusion. But to spell sc- and pronounce sk- is to put a needless difficulty in the way of the unlearned, for sce is normally pronounced se even in words where the c represents a Greek k, e.g., scene and its compounds and ascetic. America spells sk-; we might pocket our pride and copy.”
@Robert Murphy says:
August 13, 2011 at 7:47 am
“Bastardi:
“You and I cant run away from the truth. Global temps have leveled off. CO2 is rising.”
If that is true, your contention that temperature is driving CO2 falls apart. Why has CO2 continued to steadily go up (accelerating even) if as you say temps have stayed flat for 15 years (they haven’t actually, but that’s your claim)? Do you even read what you write?”
Well it’s not called lag for nothing. You do know the definition of lag right? It’s a very easy word to remember because lagging rimes with dragging behind. See, very easy.
And as for global average temperature it is a mere statistical hodgepodge phenomenon that actually has gone down slightly all pending your point of view of course. This is also very easy, if your a rational sane person who looks at proper data it has gone down, but, if you’re a green socialist staring at phony data it has gone up. See, also very easy.
Did you see what I did there?
I am skeptical of CAGW not AGW. The “catastrophe” only exists between the ears of the alarmists.
FACT:
CO2 traps heat; too bad but that has been proven by Arrhenius around 1850.
A bottle filled with 100 % CO2 and another filled with air 380/1,00,000 Parts heat differently. if exposed to sunlight.
[The CO2 one heats more. Would the one with 380/1,00,000 Parts be measurably warmer ? ]
Denying this simple fact just makes the skeptical arguments look foolish.
The CO2 slows the release of heat so of course it causes temperature to rise.
It is like pulling on an extra blanket when you are in bed. It slows the release of heat.
Denying the obvious just makes the skeptical position look worse and the alarmist position look better.
The effect is only .4 ° C per doubling of CO2 and isn’t significant. The amplifying/diminishing factors have been misunderstood and there is where the errors begin.
Let me summarize a recent repositioning in consensus CAGW thinking which I think is forced by their being assaulted by observations of climate.
Recent CAGW Consensus Repositioning => Now with satellite records of many climate parameters plus other actual in-depth modern era observations of climate parameters, we see evidence that aCO2 effect on the climate observed is insignificant. BUT with the questionable ice core records as our basis we see that all these recent observations must be false. So dear public we are left with our GCMs that are based on circular reasoning to be the sole base of our claim that the science is settled and aCO2 is destroying or will destroy our planet . . . get on with world revolution. Close you lying eyes to the observations, imagine circular GCM modeling instead.
CAGWers, did I get that right?
I actually commend you for your adaptive capabilities. I predict soon you will adapt all the way to the skeptic side as you are pragmatists . . . you will stay employed that way. Good news for you.
John
So, essentially, Bastardi is to weather as Chuck Norris is to action, completely demolish’ the other side… :p