Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
In yet another futile attempt to explain away what I see as the reasonable and justified skeptical American reaction to the unending stream of nonsense being peddled as climate science these days, we have an article by a Special Correspondent to the Associated Press. I don’t know what makes the correspondent so special, but I suppose “Slightly Confused Correspondent” doesn’t have that same ring to it. The article is called “The American ‘allergy’ to global warming: Why?“.
Inter alia, the report talks about a 1975 study by Dr. Wally Broecker published in Science magazine. I love finding new papers I haven’t read, particularly early ones. The study was titled “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?“. The AP report says:
In the paper, Columbia University geoscientist Wally Broecker calculated how much carbon dioxide would accumulate in the atmosphere in the coming 35 years, and how temperatures consequently would rise. His numbers have proven almost dead-on correct.
In other words, the Special Correspondent’s claim is that we Americans are idiots not to believe in global warming, since Wally figured it all out thirty-five years ago, duh.
Well, that’s a bit of an exaggeration. His numbers were passable, not “dead-on correct”. But the interesting part is how he got the numbers. Here’s his graph:
ORIGINAL CAPTION: Fig. 1. Curves for the global temperature change due to chemical fuel CO2, natural climatic cycles, and the sum of the two effects. The measured temperature anomaly for successive 5-year means from meteorological records over the last century is given for comparison.
Dr. Broecker claims the temperature will follow a combination of the CO2 effect plus the Camp Century cycles. So … what are these gloriously named “Camp Century cycles” when they are not out working overtime for the good Doctor?
It turns out that Dr. Broecker is utilizing an analysis of the “Camp Century” ice cores from Greenland. The data is held at the NOAA Paleoclimatology World Databank. Broecker says that there is an underlying regular cyclic temperature variation in the ice core data. He is using the change in the relative amount of an oxygen isotope (∂O18) as a proxy for the temperature. It is not clear whether he used the exact data as is currently archived at NOAA.
Broecker says that there are two strong cycles in the data, at 80 and 180 years. He then derives the smoothed sinusoidal curve of the superposition of those putative 80 and 180 year underlying cycles. This is the curve called “Camp Century cycles” in his Figure 1.
To the Camp Century cycle he then adds the CO2 effect, and says that the result shows the future evolution of the global surface air temperature. TA DA!
So what’s not to like in his analysis?
Well, first, when I analyze the Camp Century ∂O18 data I find no strong 80 or 180 year cycles. As I mentioned, this may be because he used other data. But the dataset available at NOAA doesn’t show much in the way of regular cycles at all. In addition, Dr. Scafetta has assured us that the cycles are not 80 and 180 years … they are 60 and 20 years. I’ll let him settle that with Dr. Broecker.
Second, his temperature data (shown in Figure 1 by the heavy solid black line) doesn’t agree with the modern (HadCRUT3 or GISS) data. This is not surprising, as he is using temperatures given in a reference called “J. M. Mitchell, Arid Zone Monograph 20 (UNESCO, Paris, 1963), pp. 161-181″. In Figure 2 I have overlaid his data with the actual HadCRUT data.
Figure 2. Broecker’s Figure 1, overlaid with the actual HadCRUT3 temperature data in red. I have aligned them at the 1900 mark.
My first comment is that the HadCRUT3 temperature (red line) follows the “CO2 effect” line (solid line with round black dots) much more strongly than it follows “CO2 effect plus the Camp Century cycles” (heavy dashed line). However, his combination of Camp Century cycles and CO2 does a better job of explaining the drop in temperatures from about 1945 to 1970. Overall, his results not a very good fit to either line. Are they “almost dead-on correct” as the Special Correspondent claims? Hardly.
The main issue, however, is not how poor the fit is. It is that he has gotten these results using a method which I have not seen used much, a combination of CO2 plus some presumed underlying cycles. Mainstream climate scientists don’t do that much.
So we are left with a few possibilities:
1. Broecker got it right all the way down the line, and modern climate science just hasn’t caught up with his cyclical brilliance.
2. Broecker got it kinda right, but it could just as easily be by chance.
3. Broecker didn’t get it right at all.
So this 35 year old study is thrown in my face as a reason I shouldn’t be “allergic” to global warming?? I find the title of the article risible. I have many opinions on the global warming hypothesis, but I’m not allergic to any part of it.
I am, however, allergic to claims like those of Dr. Broecker being used as a reason I should swear fealty to the gods of warming. Part of the reason Americans are “allergic” to global warming are the ridiculous claims of useful idiots like the Special Correspondent, who actually seems to believe that Dr. Broecker settled all of these questions long ago.
My regards to all, and please don’t take this as an attack on Dr. Broecker’s work. He did his best with the data and information he had at the time.
w.
(I never did figure out what was so special about the Correspondent … perhaps in addition to believing that Broecker’sresults are “almost dead-on correct”, he can believe six impossible things before breakfast.)
Yeah, I had already read this and looked up the “Skeptical Science” take on the Broecker paper.
According to them they claim, “This was a very simple model, excluding the effects of the sun, volcanoes, other greenhouse gases, aerosols, and so forth, which Broecker acknowledged,” which is clearly not true since they include the “Camp Century” cycles.
They were of course trying to imply that CO2’s effect is so powerful that it alone could make accurate predictions of the future climate.
“Mainstream climate scientists don’t do that much.”
Gosh-dern it, Willis, now I have to clean a mouthful of herbal tea off of my monitor…again.
“My first comment is that the HadCRUT3 temperature (red line) follows the “CO2 effect” line (solid line with round black dots) much more strongly than it follows “CO2 effect plus the Camp Century cycles” (heavy dashed line). “
Eyeballing the graph it follows the C02 effect line very closely post 1975 i.e. “almost dead on correct”. This is clearly what Hanley was referring to.
That the paper contains other research which didn’t pan out or is outdated seems like a strong effort at deliberately missing the point.
“It is that he has gotten these results using a method which I have not seen used much, a combination of CO2 plus some presumed underlying cycles. Mainstream climate scientists don’t do that much.”
I would think because modern mainstream climate scientists have a better understanding of the forces in play over the length of the instrumental record and their associated effects.
Which demonstrates that correlation over some period of time may have nothing to do with causation. Dr Broecker should have been well aware of the foolishness of that strategy.
It sounds like the sine and ramp theory to me.
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
There is a 1/2 ° C per century temperature rise which is so slow that only climatologists could care about it. On top of this is a 60 year sine wave [caused by the PDO] which makes it seem faster and slower but essentially ads or subtracts noting.
It frightened some people into predicting “global cooling” in 1978 and pass the Kyoto protocol in 1998.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1978/to:1998/trend
This study doesn’t seem to see that the temperature is poised to go down for 30 years as we go into the negative phase of the cycle.
I dont get it.
Much as I dont believe in AGW, due to carbon, I dont think the charts shown say anything about the causation or correlations in context.
Put simply, the lines bounce around in roughly the same places then except for the supposed cycle lines, they all go up.
How does that help clarify things for the punter?
From the AP article:
It must be true, as the author felt no need to cite sources or examples.
Willis – Second, his temperature data (shown in Figure 1 by the heavy solid black line) doesn’t agree with the modern (HadCRUT3 or GISS) data. This is not surprising, as he is using temperatures given in a reference called “J. M. Mitchell, Arid Zone Monograph 20 (UNESCO, Paris, 1963), pp. 161-181″. In Figure 2 I have overlaid his data with the actual HadCRUT data.
Wasn’t this 1975 and the “Harry readme” file not been inserted yet? No wonder it does not match HadCRUT3 data.
“The Great Ocean Convey0r: Discovering the Trigger for Abrupt Climate Change” by Wally Broecker.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9162.html
Maybe somebody who read the original paper can answer this for me: How accurate were his predictions for atmospheric CO2 concentrations? It seems to me that if that part of his prediction was inaccurate, his whole model is invalid and meaningless anyway.
What they meant was that the author was an especially good correspondent in the view of the AP. This guy wrote an intelligent sounding, well written report. This attempts to obscure the fact that it is a one sided hit piece that would do Baghdad Bob proud. The entire article is designed to make the reader think that only stupid people and extreme right wingers don’t believe in AGW. Unfortunately for the AP. This sort of hit piece will probably have the exact opposite effect that the extreme left wingers over at the AP are hoping for… For one, I bet there are a lot of readers out there going “hmmm, I didn’t realize my beliefs were so right wing, maybe I should see if I like the TEA Party.
Surely the “Camp Century” cycles refer to regular solar oscillations? I recognize the graph from having seen it myself 30-odd years ago, and that’s how it was presented at the time, as a hybrid of solar cycles and CO2 increase.
It does not seem to occur to analysts that ‘human influence’ could just as easily ‘prevent the next ice age’ through one of their putative flip-flops as it could ’cause thermal runaway’. Given that so little is known about what causes ice ages, or ends them (agreed, he says they are caused by the Great Ocean Conveyor) it seems to me that to provide at least a smidgen of balance, one should indicate the possiblity that we may be preventing an ice age, as well as the possiblity that we are over-heating the planet, and finally the possiblity that neither is even remotely true and we have no influence at all. Or anywhere in between. At the moment the evidence is that we have no influence, in spite of theories that we do.
Personally I don’t think we are capable (yet) of anything like global engineering on that scale – not with CO2 in any case (too weak a forcing). Maybe land use change? Roger Samson thinks so. So, why is the warning always in one direction (hotter) when there is no evidence of a clear understanding of the change of either?
Given how remarkably stable the temperature is for thousands of years at a go, the wonder is that there are any ice ages at all. I do not look forward to my great-grand children having to live in a Younger Dryas event let alone a proper one.
“Are they “almost dead-on arrival correct” as the Special Correspondent claims? Hardly.”
There…. fixed!
What direct factual evidence is there that human activity has had or is having any detectable impact on global climate? The Scientific Method requires that any such hypothesis must be supported by direct fact-based evidence if it is to gain credibility. With the continuing absence of such evidence, the AGW hypothetical remains mere conjecture. That no such evidence exists is established by analogy to Sherlock Holmes’ “the dog that didn’t bark” proof. If such evidence existed, the alarmist community along with their supporters in the main-stream media would be shouting (barking) it from every podium.
Incidentally, some observers hypothesize a 60 year climate cycle, most recently comprised of the 30 year cooling period of 1940-1970, during which alarmists (Stephen Schneider, et. al.) were touting the perils of global cooling, and the subsequent 30 year warming period of 1970-2000, during which alarmists (Stephen Schneider, et. al.) were touting the perils of global warming. The thirteen-year global temperature record since 1998 reveals a discernible cooling trend which may indicate the onset of another 30 year period of global cooling – only time will tell since we have no laboratory other than the planet to work with.
sharper00 says:
September 26, 2011 at 10:57 am
So you’re saying they (mainstream climate scientists) figure that CO2 has somehow muted all the natural cycles during the instrumental that have been in operation for millions and millions of years?
Do you have a mechanism that would cause this? Do you have references to anybody else who has written about a mechanism that would cause this? Would the presence of weather instruments have some magical influence on these natural climate cycles? Could it be the concentration of CO2 subdues the weather–if so, we should use it to control floods, blizzards, tornadoes, hurricanes, and more.
Ah, the glories of wiggle matching!
I read that piece waiting to get off a flight to Toronto, and nearly had to grab the air sickness bag. The article displays the ‘presumptive hubris’ that many on the pro-catastrophic AGW (is that the right term now? 😉 ) display. There is no room for interpretation or gradations–just pure belief or you’re a heretic. That’s not science, and AP should (but likely won’t) apologize for putting its name on this kind of propaganda.
Jimmy says:
September 26, 2011 at 11:29 am
Not bad early on, but starting to exaggerate CO2 in the last couple decades. Data per their Table 1, plus Mauna Loa (1959 onwards) and Lawes Ice Core (1900-1958) CO2 data. Comma delimited.
Year, Broecker, Mauna Loa & Lawes Ice Core
1900, 295, 297
1910, 297, 301
1920, 299, 304
1930, 302, 308
1940, 305, 311
1950, 309, 312
1960, 314, 317
1970, 322, 326
1980, 335, 339
1990, 351, 354
2000, 373, 369
2010, 403, 390
@sharper00,
The point is the observed temperature follows the wrong curve on the paper’s graph. It doesn’t follow the predicted temperature curve, just this hypothesized CO2 effect (based on what?). It is not in any way correct, let alone dead on. However, it’s still really cool — here we have a hypothesis that 35 years later is definitely shown as wrong (to some degree or fully) by the actual observations. That alone tells us some things, such as these “Camp cycles” are either not strong or just artifacts of data.
Do AGW promoters not realize their own desperation? What is their desperation?
Well, if you go back 35 years to get a scientific study, and at the heart of that study is a set of climate cycles which contradict all post-Hansen work, and you claim that the 35 year old work does something that existing climate science has not done, namely, prove AGW, then you are pretty desperate.
NZ Willy says:
September 26, 2011 at 11:37 am
Thanks, my Kiwi friend. Cycles within cycles … I must confess, I have little faith in cycles. My brother told me “It’s easy to forecast the future … as long as it’s just like the past.” I refer you to my citation in the head post to “Riding a pseudocycle“.
w.
What is better pre 1850 temperatures [glacier advancing] or present temperature?
Assuming the idiot was correct?
In terms of increase crop yields, how much did our “pollution” add to wealth in the world- if idiot was correct?
@RockyRoad
“So you’re saying they (mainstream climate scientists) figure that CO2 has somehow muted all the natural cycles during the instrumental that have been in operation for millions and millions of years?”
I think it’s pretty clear that climate scientists don’t believe this nor did I say anything to suggest they do. However climate scientists are routinely attacked here if they do reference effects others than C02 to explain temperature variation so I don’t know if they can “win” on that one.
The rest of your post is just a continuation of an attack on argument I didn’t make.
@Ged
“The point is the observed temperature follows the wrong curve on the paper’s graph. It doesn’t follow the predicted temperature curve”
Well sure, we know (now) that temperatures are not easily predicted based on cycles. Remember that the next time you read a post here fitting temperatures to 60, 80 or 100 year cycles.
“just this hypothesized CO2 effect (based on what?). “
Based on the known of radiative properties of C02. These have been known for far longer than 30 years.
If you’re going to say those properties don’t work the way climate scientists think then you’ve put yourself entirely outside of the scientific field. Drs Spencer and Lindzen for example do not support that position despite clearly falling into the skeptical camp.
“However, it’s still really cool — here we have a hypothesis that 35 years later is definitely shown as wrong (to some degree or fully) by the actual observations. That alone tells us some things, such as these “Camp cycles” are either not strong or just artifacts of data.”
Nobody is pushing “camp cycles” as an explanation. The article Willis is disputing made no reference to them. What it did reference was Broecker’s C02 based projection and Willis’s graph shows that’s pretty much “almost dead-on correct.”.
gbaikie says:
September 26, 2011 at 12:33 pm
“Assuming the idiot was correct?”
Hmmm, I dont think it is good that we call the brave scientist “an idiot”. He made a prediction, and it was wrong. Now, it is far worse that AP presented it, because we know their approach. Name calling the other way around….deniers….right wing….
There was a lot of such predictions back then. And pure chance, it seems to me, whether they were correct or not. In my opinion all these predictions was a way to attract funds. Even back then.
Here is a Norwegian, Bernt Balchen, preaching ice free Arctic in year 2000. Back in 1972;
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zmI0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=L5wEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5376,3200988&dq=ice+free+arctic&hl=en
You’ve missed the key point!
The thing you missed is that the camp century cycles were predicting a cooling trend. This was all part of this “global cooling” scare that “didn’t exist”. In other words Broecker’s paper was an attempt to explain why the predicted cooling wasn’t taking place, and so he looked around and hit on CO2 as an explanation why the global cooling scare wasn’t materialising.
Move forward a few decades, and we are in almost the same position in reverse. CO2 was predicted to warm us by around 0.35c in the last decade. This has singularly failed to materialise.
just as the global cooling scare failed to materialise, now the global warming scare has failed to materialise.
We can only wait with anticipation for the next Broecker, to publich a paper showing that an even worse threat than CO2 is causing the predicted CO2 warming not to happen, and then we can sit back and watch the next global cooling scare take off using all the same scare tactics of CO2, except this time … not leaving an email trail of their corruption.
You can see related stories in the lower right corner. Observe how the same story is parrot’ed in newspaper after newspaper. Just like today!
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=wNJSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QH8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3032,3534056&hl=en
Oh, and observe the RCA AM Radio with Police Band….only $44.95.
PS. This may just be my imagination, but I seem to recollect the last 10 minutes of the global cooling documentary on the BBC was on these cycles.
For What It’s Worth Department:
CHARLES J. HANLEY was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 2000 for his investigation of an alleged massacre of civilians at Nogunri, at the start of the Korean War.
Subsequent investigation by veterans and military personnel revealed that the AP series was based on proven-false testimony by several soldiers who were not actually there, misquotations, bending of testimony by soldiers who stated that no massacre occurred, and misinterpretations of HQ phone logs. Forensic investigation after the fact also supported the claim that there was no mass-murder of civilians there.
Mr. Hanley subsequently threatened a publisher who was about to release a book detailing the problems with the AP series.
Two young men were walking down the sidewalk. A buxom young lady was coming toward them. Both gave admiring glances as she passed by. Shortly thereafter one of the young men started to sneeze. The other asked “Why are you sneezing?” To which the second man said he had an allergy. The first man asked “To what are you allergic?” “Foam rubber.” said the second.
Much in climate science is like this. They enhance much of what they do/say so it looks good but in reality its fake.
Now you know why I’m allergic.
I don’t understand how Broecker got this published 35 years ago with an “accelerating CO2 effect” curve. The CO2 absorption effect is logarithmic, with each incremental CO2 increase having less and less effect than prior increments.
I think even Arrhenius knew that.
“Last May the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It’s happening”.
400 years later and still getting it wrong!!
GeologyJim says:
September 26, 2011 at 1:24 pm
I don’t understand how Broecker got this published 35 years ago with an “accelerating CO2 effect” curve. The CO2 absorption effect is logarithmic, with each incremental CO2 increase having less and less effect than prior increments.
I think even Arrhenius knew this
******************
Right and the CO2 accumulation is almost linear so the warming should be decreasing as time goes on.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/to:2012/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/to:2012/trend
The ocean cycles [PDO] are NEGATIVE and will remain so for 20 to 30 years so the temperature will actually go down.
Blind belief in CAGW looses again.
Isn’t this just a new version of the Hockey Stick? Baseline is 0 starting in the 1800’s. And then shows a full degree rise since 1950? Also where is the cooling since 1998?
Jeff
@sharper00
Oh, no, I meant the -paper’s- CO2 effect line. How did this particular paper calculate and predict a rising effect line like that (is that line the forcing, or the contributed temperature)? And what is the actual scale of that line itself, or is it using the temperature axis?
From what other comments have shown, it seems the paper made predictions on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere with time, that’s what I was asking that question “based on what?” about. Remember, this paper is 35 years old, long before any of our current data, and I am curious about how the work was done that long ago.
And yes, the -paper- was about Camp cycles, so the results and presentation of the data and discussion have to be taken and understood in that context. And, without knowing what that CO2 effect line actually is, or what its scale is, nothing can be said with the overlap of the temperature record for a time with it, other than that means the temperature record has fallen beneath (later, and rose above earlier) the paper’s predicted temperature course.
@scottish sceptic
That would be a very interesting twist! You said something about a documentary? What was it called?
sharper00 says:
September 26, 2011 at 12:49 pm
No, it’s just the opposite–I’ve seen many climate scientists here offer effects other than CO2 that explain temperature variations and they aren’t routinely “attacked” as you claim.
That CO2 is a factor is not refuted–be it a minor one. That CO2 is the only factor isn’t empirically supportable. That the whole warming episode the earth has been experiencing for some time is catastrophic is illogical.
Maybe you’re under the impression that all “climate scientists” believe in CAGW; I certainly believe there are many (perhaps even most?) that believe otherwise.
sharper00 …
yep its “dead on” since 1975, right up until 1998 where it breaks down again … so lets see … 1925 ish to 1975 its badly broken and from 1998 to today its badly broken …
so since 1925 its been “dead on” for 23 years and broken for 63 years …
“I never did figure out what was so special about the Correspondent”
The word “special” can have different meanings depending on the context. In this case “Special Correspondent” is used in the same context as “Special Olympics”.
Ged —
Broecker assumed fossil fuel consumption would expand at 4.5% per year from 1960-1975, and 3% per year from 1975 onwards. He assumed that the (transient) climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 was 2.4 deg C.
What I found especially interesting is that even back in 1975, he was aware that approximately half of the anthropogenic CO2 was being absorbed by natural sinks, predominantly oceans.
And let’s not blame Broecker for the 80- and 180-year Camp Century cycles — that came from Dansgaard et al.
Isn’t there some glorious gab-fest for the hard-working world-savers in an exotic location due sometime soon?
Perhaps this is just another piece of dross to keep the CAGW story centre stage in preparation for another failure for all countries to agree on how to cut up the guilt monies to be paid for modern societies ruining the planet.
Non-CAGW believers often complain that the current models and predictions for 30 years’ time cannot be tested against reality until we reach that time. Maybe we can be convinced by a 30 year old prediction that turned out to be dead-on correct that the current state of models (and multi-million $ super-computers) are far better than back then, plus we ‘know’ so much more now, that we need to believe them.
Hmmm, I dont think it is good that we call the brave scientist “an idiot”.
Ok, you right, probably he had an average or higher IQ.
And guess clinging to idea we are about to enter an ice age despite the evidence was brave.
I should have directed that at the fool that using this old study as evidence- unless
he believes we need to substansively ramp up CO2 emission.
@GED
“Oh, no, I meant the -paper’s- CO2 effect line. How did this particular paper calculate and predict a rising effect line like that (is that line the forcing, or the contributed temperature)? And what is the actual scale of that line itself, or is it using the temperature axis?”
How it’s calculated it stated in the paper i.e
“The global temperature increase due to CO2 in Fig. I is calculated on the basis of the following assumptions: (i) 50 percent of the CO2 generated by the burning of chemical fuels has in the past and will in the near future remain in the atmosphere; (ii) the United Nations fuel consumption estimates are used to 1960 (H1); between 1960 and 1975 a growth rate of 4.5 percent per year is used, and from 1975 on a 3 percent growth rate is predicted; (iii) for each 10 percent increase in the atmospheric CO2 content the mean global temperature increases by 0.30C. These calculations are summarized in Table 1.”
How does he get 0.30C per 10% increase?
“A number of people have made estimates of the change in global temperature that would result if the atmospheric CO2 content were to double. These estimates range from 0.80 to 3.60C. Manabe and Wetherald’s value (5) of 2.40C, based on a model assuming fixed relative humidity and cloudiness, is the most widely used. The difference between this estimate and that of 0.80C by Rasool and Schneider (3) has been largely resolved. When an improved infrared radiation scheme is introduced into the Manabe-Wetherald calculation, the result drops to 1.9°C (6). However, Manabe and Wetherald (6) have suggested, on the basis of some preliminary three-dimensional calculations, that the effect in polar regions is much larger than for the “typical” atmospheric column. This polar amplification leads to an enhancement of the global effect, bringing the value up to somewhat above 2.40C. Although surprises may yet be in store for us when larger computers and a better knowledge of cloud physics allow the next stage of the modeling to be accomplished, the magnitude of the CO2 effect has probably been pinned down to within a factor of 2 to 4(7)
(7).
The response of the global temperature to the atmospheric CO2 content is not linear. As the CO2 content of the atmosphere rises, the absorption of infrared radiation will “saturate” over an ever greater portion of the band. Rasool and Schneider (3) point out that the temperature increases as
the logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 content. Thus, if doubling of the CO2 content raises the temperature by 2.40C, then a 10 percent increase in the CO2 content will raise the temperature by 0.32°C.”
So really nothing terribly outrageous
“And yes, the -paper- was about Camp cycles, so the results and presentation of the data and discussion have to be taken and understood in that context. And, without knowing what that CO2 effect line actually is, or what its scale is, nothing can be said with the overlap of the temperature record for a time with it, other than that means the temperature record has fallen beneath (later, and rose above earlier) the paper’s predicted temperature course.”
The C02 effect was and is well known. Quantifying it precisely in terms of the total climate response is something that’s been worked on for a long time.
In order to reconcile the amplitude of the Camp Century cycles with recorded global temperatures, Broecker had to divide the imputed Greenland temperature history (derived from the O18 fraction) by a factor of 4. He seemed fairly confident of the relationship between O18 and local temperature, though.
If he’s right then we’ve sure been wasting a LOT of tax dollars on climate research and modelling since then. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY12-climate-fs.pdf
I want my money back!
Willis,
When one reads “Special Correspondent” it is inevitable to think about the special students riding the short bus, but why insult those facing real challenges, when the “Special Correspondent” is selling bs deliberately?
Willis wrote, “I don’t know what makes the correspondent so special, but I suppose “Slightly Confused Correspondent” doesn’t have that same ring to it.”
Thanks, Willis. That made me laugh.
The Camp Century do18 isotope data says that the 1920 to 1940 period was the warmest in the last 800 years. The highest individual year was 1929 at +5.0C.
Today’s temperatures would only score at +1.0C on the same scale. The 1970s rank as cold as the Maunder Minimum temps.
I don’t see any regular cycles. There is a lot of variation and a few warm/colder periods. 1454 was the coldest year at -6.6C.
I especially do not see any CO2 trend in the data.
While people are ready to bash Dr. Broecker, it wouldn’t hurt folks to find out who he is. As someone that studied ocenography, Dr. Broecker is basically one of the founding fathers of modern oceanography and our understanding of the Earth system. He pioneered many novel methods to better understand how the world works. Back in the early 70’s, there was not as much data available for creating models. We knew our limitations in collecting data and did the best we could. The fact that his predictions are within spitting distance of what has really taken place is what is important. He tried to used the dominant power signals (FFT) from the core to determine a forcing function that was representative of all external factors then added in CO2. Lo and behold, without CO2, you don’t get what is occuring today.
Fine, it wasn’t perfect, but considering the lack of measurements and significantly less computational power at the time, this was an incredible prediction. And it shows: CO2 is driving the termperature change. Not the sun. Not cloud cover. Not some other mysterious force than has not been found.
Sensor operator says:
“[Broecker] tried to used the dominant power signals (FFT) from the core to determine a forcing function that was representative of all external factors then added in CO2. Lo and behold, without CO2, you don’t get what is occuring today.”
Horse puckey. If that were demonstrably true we wouldn’t be discussing the issue. Apparently you have never heard of the null hypothesis. Nothing unusual is happening. Actually, the planet is currently in what is called a “Goldilocks” climate; well within the parameters of the Holocene. Not too hot, not too cold, but just right. There is no verifiable evidence that passes the scientific method showing that CO2 has any major effect on temperature, droughts, storms, humidity, etc.
But that sounds like a swell model you’ve got there.☺
Does that chart show the 1940s blip to be about 0.5 degrees C higher than just before 1900?
So using a climate sensitivity of 2.4 C per doubling, he’s “dead on”.
Will this be reflected in the “likely” sensitivity presented in the next IPCC report?
I’ve posted this before, This sort of know-it-all doomsday rhetoric is what made me a skeptic.
The Man-Made Global Warming scam becomes evident when one looks at the narrative that spews from the soothsayer alarmists. Only evil and suffering can come from a warmer Earth.
Why can’t it be : “Congratulations children, The Energy sources that fuel our economies and our prosperity, give us long life and comfort, these fossil fuels will also cause our planet to warm gently, about 4 degrees over the next century. What luck!
With the warmth and extra CO2 for plant life, millions of acres of tundra will become forests. Millions of acres of frozen steppe will become arable. Starvation will end. Prosperity will reach even the poorest people. We must keep searching for and burning oil and coal so we can improve our climate and prosper. Humanity will become wealthy. With this wealth we can preserve habitat for animals, protect the rain forest. We will clean the oceans and the land. Our future is bright. We are entering the age of abundance. “
@HaroldW,
Thanks, that’s exactly what I was asking for. He did a good job with the data he had.
@sharper00
I think we are talking past each other. I’m not talking about the CO2 effect in the sense of the actual radiative physics of CO2. I was talking about the “CO2 effect” line in the graph, as it was labeled and illustrated. I was asking specific questions about that graph in and of itself, nothing about CO2 itself–only this paper itself and its methodology.
Thank you for the quotes you pasted.
Sensor operator says:
September 26, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Hey I’m am a pretty skeptical guy – many here will know this from my comments on WUWT, but sheesh, I’m with Sensor operator on this. It seems to me we are expecting a pretty high standard from a guy who was predicting the increase of temp into the new millenium back when everyone else was predicting an ice age. I look at the graph, and if I understand it correctly, it looks pretty darn good for a temperature forecast – better than all the stuff we have seen over the last 10 years. Is it because he tied it to cycles and CO2? By the looks of the diving cycle in the graph, it could pull everything back down again and the folks who predicted an ice age in the 1970s, too, could end up being correct. If so, deal me in on the cycles.
Willis, the author of this article is noted for publishing ONLY CAGW alarmist propaganda on AP, thats why he’s “special”, although his middle initial has changed from J to P on occasion, I suspect he’s just a sock puppet for one of the hockey team members.
I’m with Willis on this. At most, Dr Broecker’s chart looks like chance.
Charts like this tell a different story.
Oops, wrong chart. Here is what I wanted to post.
I particularly liked where he said that ferocity in defense of false beliefs often builds as evidence that the belief is false builds. I just love unconscious irony. It gets a Hall of Honor in my Museum of Irony.
I also liked ‘angry parts’ of the United States.
=============
Gary Pearse says:
September 26, 2011 at 5:00 pm
I’m with sensor operator insofar that I know well who Wally Broecker is and of his achievements.
My point (which might not have been obvious) is that Broecker built up an elaborate construction involving cycles plus CO2 to forecast the temperature. Now, this construction is being thrown up to claim that we’ve understood this stuff since 1975, so I’d have to be a fool or willfully blind or a conservative to not believe it, I mean, Wally knew all about this construction 35 years ago …
Only problem is, that line of inquiry (ice core cycles plus co2) has turned out to be a dry hole. Nobody’s doing that any more. Didn’t pan out … yet I’m told I’m dumb for not noticing how well Wally did 35 years ago …
Well, that’s not the only problem. When you extend Dr. Broecker’s magic formula out for another ten years, yikes … by 2050 he’s joined the long list of doomsayers predicting full-blown thermal meltdown.
Finally, you and Sensor seem to have missed my closing line in the head post …
w.
Smokey says: @ September 26, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Oops, wrong chart. Here is what I wanted to post.
Excellent graph Smokey especially when combined with this graph that shows “the planet is currently in what is called a “Goldilocks” climate.” If anything this interglacial is cooler and more constant in temperature than the last couple of interglacials.
I wish the politicians would leave well enough alone. As Robroy pointed out warm sure beats the heck out of cold. More food, more wealth, and a better life for more people.
What’s wrong with Wally Broeker’s conclusion.
The ∂O18 temperature cycles show up in the Greenland GISP2 ice core with alternating warm/cool periods every 25-30 years going back to 1500 AD. The cycles match well with glacier advances and retreats and with historic temperatures (without any CO2 effect prior to the 20th century). Since Broeker’s curves were published in 1975, anything later than that is completely conjectural, including the Camp Century curve. His post-1975 warming prediction can be made solely on the basis of the ice core curves, which we now know trend upward for the post-1975 period (not continuing downward as Broeker’s curve does). Thus, you don’t need any warming from CO2 to explain the 1978-1998 warming.
Another interesting question concerning Broeker’s “CO2 effect curve” is how he calculated the temperature effect of CO2. His CO2 effect curve purports to raise the temperature from -0.2 to +1.2 C in about 25 years. That’s a lot to ask for a miniscule increase in atmospheric CO2 over that period (only a few parts per million).
All FBI agents are special agents for some (dumb?) reason.
There is one lil problem with all this, why should we beleive the hatCRUT or GISS data? As far as I can see, there is a very good case for it being largely currupted with UHI effect, considering where the data is taken from and how, not to mention who it is taken from, people who have many good rea$on$ to make the earth look as warm as possible. And that is not even taking into account the many studies that so easily show that there is no discernable increase in temperature if you screen out the UHI effect, so easily in fact a six grader could do it and has (twice, I beleive).
Regardless of that, this idea is taken from data that we are not shown or given access to, it is thus not repeatable, does not follow the scientific method, and thus is not science.
Sensor operator:
“Lo and behold, without CO2, you don’t get what is occuring today.”
To reach that conclusion you must implicitly assume that the underlying cycle explains all other forcings. Ergo that conclusion is an overreach
I think the main issues are with the Correspondent, not Dr Broecker (a few comments notwithstanding, there is no call to attack the paper on personal grounds).
At best, it is a coincidental correlation unless you can also demonstrate how both the cyclical and CO2 components have been correctly predicted. Something a lot of people are missing; its not just the oevrall temperature prediction that has to be correct, its the underlying components. Otherwise it is mere correlation and coincidence.
There is a major problem with his CO2 effect curve. He shows a hyperbolic response when we know that there is only a 1.2C increasing from a doubling of CO2 concentration: a logarithmic relationship. I think his projection is totally bogus! I also don’t accept the significant cooling after 1980 of the Camp Century Curve. That would only happen if we were on the verge of another LIA. That’s right, that’s what the climate scientists were projecting in ’75!
Bill
Woa here,
Wally Broeker’s paper was a landmark work at the time(how could any Climatologist NOT know
of it). But he has long since stated that he does not believe the Camp Century Ice Core record
(and whatever cycles) is representative of any sort of Global temperature change.
I remember seeing the trailer for a documentary in 1973 or thereabouts which showed metre thick ice floes tumbling and sliding qown Fifth Avenue. It was so scary I never bothered to see the full film. That year there were 300 peer-reviewed studies on the imminent onset of the next Ice Age-peer review may check the methodology but is no predictor of truth, Geoffrey Donald Broadbent
Here’s a link to a book that is a rebuttal of his account by Bob Bateman:
http://www.amazon.com/No-Gun-Ri-Military-Incident/dp/0811717631/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317100736&sr=1-1
Here’s a link to the one-star reviews of Hanley’s book, The Bridge at No Gun RI:
http://www.amazon.com/Bridge-No-Gun-Ri-Nightmare/product-reviews/B000HWYX68/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar
Co2 is good for plants, trees and the planet. We’re short in co2 for the past 2 million years as throughout the planets history it avg 1,500-6,000 ppm. Co2 is good, so we should be increasing our emissions to be able to feed our population better.
Help feed humanity, more co2=more food. Increase you emissions. 500 ppm by 2030!!!
sharper00 says:
September 26, 2011 at 10:57 am
I would think because modern mainstream climate scientists have a better understanding of the forces in play over the length of the instrumental record and their associated effects.
sharper00, wake up! If having a “better understanding” is equivalent to “going 0-fer as to their relevant predictions”, it is you who has to examine your own understanding in regard to the practice of real science, which is obviously what your beloved “modern mainsteam climate scientists” are intentionally not doing. The fact that they are batting 0.00 doesn’t bother them!
Smokey
“Not too hot, not too cold, but just right. There is no verifiable evidence that passes the scientific method showing that CO2 has any major effect on temperature, droughts, storms, humidity, etc.”
Go rip into Monkton. just a few posts ago he proved that you get 1C per doubling. How come I didnt see you rip Monkton a new one??
Don Easterbrook says:
September 26, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Thank you for your thoughts, Don. The actual Camp Century data itself was unknown after 1975 when Broecker wrote. (Actually, the data ends in 1967.) But he was not using the Camp Century data. He was using the sum of the theoretical 180 year and 80 year cycles, which he merely extended into the future. So the “Camp Century curve” was not, as you say “conjectural” after 1975.
The Camp Century curve was no less conjectural regarding 1980 than it was regarding 1960. It is simply the sum of two cycles (80 and 180 yrs) picked from the cycles revealed by a Fourier-type analysis of the Camp Century data. As such, they can extend it as far as they wish into the past or future.
w.
Broeckers approach is not that bad. Truth is, that observations proved his exponentially rising curve after 2000 to be wrong. Modern climate “science” much more wrongly attributes the last rising part of the regularly repeated sine wave solely to CO2, which is much worse.
Juraj V. @ 2:26
Yes, temp rise and CO2 rise correlate best only in the last quarter of the last century. To mistake that correlation for causation is what I call the grandest example ever of the ‘Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc’ logical fallacy.
Oh, what fools we mortals be.
=============
Steven Mosher says:
“Go rip into Monkton. just a few posts ago he proved that you get 1C per doubling. How come I didnt see you rip Monkton a new one??”
Maybe because, as I’ve said before, that my view is in alignment with Lord Monckton’s? You keep trying to paint me into a corner. Why do you continue to dig that hole deeper? You just look foolish when you’re corrected.
I’ve tried to get you to understand the difference between verifiable evidence per the scientific method and my own [evidence-free] acceptance that 2xCO2 = 1°C
± 0.5°C warming. But your reading comprehension has still not improved. I’m beginning to think you’re just a self-promoter who doesn’t understand simple concepts [and I always repond to your attacks; I’m never the instigator].
But it’s what stampeded the herd. We have the urge to act like rational beings; trouble is, we aren’t.
================
Smokey, you and I are low-end lukewarmers. Me, I’m a lukewarming cooler. I don’t think CO2 is strong enough to help much in the coming grander solar minimum. We’re greening, yup, but not warming.
For how long even kim doesn’t know.
===========
Mosher, I suspect that Monckton was using THEIR OWN DATA to show that alarmism is misguided at best. The capitulation that Co2 causes some warming has been a BIG mistake on the skeptics side. Co2 causing any warming is not based in fact.
From the AP article:
…In the 1980s, as scientists studied Greenland’s buried ice for clues to past climate, upgraded their computer models peering into the future, and improved global temperature analyses, the fossil-fuel industries were mobilizing for a campaign to question the science.
Maurcie Strong, who started the IPCC is an oil man. The purpose of the carbon tax is not to stop oil, it is to make coal more expensive in comparison to oil, and thus make oil more profitable.
The reason this works is that coal is cheap in comparison to oil, but it releases more CO2 per unit of energy (because coal is carbon, while oil is a hydro carbon). So if you tax the carbon, the hydro in hydro carbon becomes more profitable due to increased demand (reduced supply of carbon).
Now, if the oil industry could just figure out a way to get paid to inject CO2 into the ground, which is how they increase oil recovery, they would have it made.
David Ball says:
The capitulation that Co2 causes some warming has been a BIG mistake on the skeptics side. Co2 causing any warming is not based in fact.
************
I too am skeptical of CAGW but denying basic science isn’t going to convince anyone.
If you have 2 glass bottles one with 100 % CO2 and the other with only air and pass sunlight through them the CO2 one will get slightly warmer. Denying this fact is not wise.
Scaling this simple test up to a planet size the British Royal Society claims that a doubling of CO2 would cause only .4 ° C temperature rise by itself , any other warming may be caused by feedbacks which may be positive or negative on balance.
They think the feedbacks are massively positive [about 8 X ] but that appears from history to be wrong. In fact several peer reviewed papers show that the feedback is negative so the actual warming would be less than .4 ° C . That shoots down CAGW fairly effectively.
Science seems to be saying the warming effect is real the feedbacks aren’t.
Steven Mosher says:
“Go rip into Monkton. just a few posts ago he proved that you get 1C per doubling. How come I didnt see you rip Monkton a new one??”
I didn’t see Monkton prove anything of the sort. He showed that the literature supported a wider range of possibilities, including negative feedback. In contrast, the mainstream (IPCC) interpretation only considers positive feedback.
None of the IPCC climate models for example consider what might happen to future climate if the feedback is negative. This is a gaping hole when it comes to deciding public policy, because no one has yet proved that feedback must be positive.
One a question such as feedback, until it is proven that feedback is positive (or negative) the models cannot make any claim of accuracy if they assume it is positive. Thus the IPCC now calls the model forecasts “projections” rather than “predictions”.
The models are based on assumptions that have not yet be proven to be true. One of the largest of these is the question of whether or not cloud feedback is negative or positive. As we would see on courtroom TV – objection your Honor, assumes facts that are not in evidence.
David Ball says: @ September 27, 2011 at 6:51 am
“Mosher, I suspect that Monckton was using THEIR OWN DATA to show that alarmism is misguided at best. The capitulation that Co2 causes some warming has been a BIG mistake on the skeptics side. Co2 causing any warming is not based in fact.”
CO2 may cause a wee bit of warming under laboratory conditions however causing warming that is measurable in the real world is an entirely different matter.
Anyone who is an engineer or scientist working outside the Ivory Tower has run smack dab into the real world where complex interaction between many factors is the rule and not the exception. Also if there is positive feedback loops you get an explosion ASAP. (As a chemist I have seen more than one.)
We KNOW climate fits into the complex interaction category and therefore the whole idea of computer models that can predict the future 100 yrs out when they can not predict next month is completely laughable.
Heck we have not even completed the first phase, identifying all the factors affecting climate!
The positive feedback loop for CO2 (and why is it CO2 and not something else like water vapor??) is also proved untrue by geologic history. If the CO2 feedback loop was true then earth would have been stuck with a Venus like temp and no life would have formed.
Of course now it is claimed the dinosaurs died out because of a temperature drop from a change in CO2….. Well actually a shut down of the gulf stream but of course CO2 has to be named too. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1268305/Dinosaurs-killed-sudden-drop-temperature.html
Interesting how the dailmail plays up CO2…. A better article in Physorg.com: http://www.physorg.com/news191527326.html
Note the average ocean temp is now 3.9C and the article mentions “over a period of a few hundred or a few thousand years, ocean temperatures fell from an average of 13 degrees centigrade to between eight and four degrees.” and we still have the gulf stream at 3.9C……
This is another interesting article at Physorg.com
Long debate ended over cause, demise of ice ages — may also help predict future
“Researchers have largely put to rest a long debate on the underlying mechanism that has caused periodic ice ages on Earth for the past 2.5 million years – they are ultimately linked to slight shifts in solar radiation caused by predictable changes in Earth’s rotation and axis.
In a publication to be released Friday in the journal Science, researchers from Oregon State University and other institutions conclude that the known wobbles in Earth’s rotation caused global ice levels to reach their peak about 26,000 years ago, stabilize for 7,000 years and then begin melting 19,000 years ago, eventually bringing to an end the last ice age.
The melting was first caused by more solar radiation, not changes in carbon dioxide levels or ocean temperatures, as some scientists have suggested in recent years….. “
Fred, it’s all the hydrocarbon bond, someday to be valued more for structure than for the energy released upon breaking it. You are right, though, that CO2 release varies according to the structure of the molecule.
===========
ferd berple says: @ September 27, 2011 at 7:32 am
“…Maurcie Strong, who started the IPCC is an oil man. The purpose of the carbon tax is not to stop oil, it is to make coal more expensive in comparison to oil, and thus make oil more profitable….
Not to mention that Maurice Strong had also jumped on the Nuclear Energy industry train.
Remarks by Maurice Strong, Chairman, Ontario Hydro and Chairman, The Earth Council, to the Uranium Institute, London.
David Ball
Denying that CO2 causes any warming is a losing argument. Why make it ?
Arrhenius showed that it does long ago and he was correct, and his experiments can and have been duplicated with minimal equipment. Why fight losing battles.?
The real disagreement is how does this scale up to a planet, and what are the feedbacks.
The basic warming is between .4 and 1° C per doubling.[A surprisingly large spread]!
The feedbacks range from negative 2 to positive 8 and this is where the bodies are buried.
ferd berple says:
September 27, 2011 at 7:32 am
“Maurcie Strong, who started the IPCC is an oil man. The purpose of the carbon tax is not to stop oil, it is to make coal more expensive in comparison to oil, and thus make oil more profitable.”
Re Maurice Strong being an oil man. Strong was a civil servant who got appointed CEO of the government-owned (at the time) PetroCanada. HQ’d in Calgary in a prominent red brick building with the plaza outdoors all red brick, it was known as “Red Square” by other petroleum companies in Calgary. My boss at the time also had an office in Red Square and he met the “Great” man in his office. He reported that Maury had a gold-plated telephone and other expensive appointments in his impressive office suite. He doesn’t like oil or coal but there is no question he is an elitist who is not planning to join us in our caves soon.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 26, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Willis, most of your point taken. I guess my estimation of the man is that here is a fellow in the midst of a consensus on an iminent ice age who predicts the reverse happening – a brave sceptic for my money. He ostensibly relies on apparently unfounded cycles and an over estimation of CO2’s affect but I suspect that his main mover was an inner contrary scepticism, a loathing of bandwagon consensus (I switch from sceptic to skeptic – which is right?). If we can get the sign right on what ultimately happens, that is about as good as one can expect.
ferd berple says:
September 27, 2011 at 7:32 am
The reason this works is that coal is cheap in comparison to oil, but it releases more CO2 per unit of energy (because coal is carbon, while oil is a hydro carbon). So if you tax the carbon, the hydro in hydro carbon becomes more profitable due to increased demand (reduced supply of carbon).
Coal is also a hydrocarbon not carbon, composition ~(CH)n whereas oil is more like (CH2)n.
The more ad hoc and ridiculous attempts there are to prop up, reinvent, and otherwise extend AGW the more they will undermine the foundation and ultimate credibility. Think Soviet propaganda line versus Chernobyl reality at this point or Taliban social order versus societal progress.
I wonder if Maurice Strong is in China advising them or being advised of his rights.
================
kim says:
September 27, 2011 at 11:07 am
I wonder if Maurice Strong is in China advising them or being advised of his rights.
____________________________________________________________________
Strong is in China as an Advisor because he got caught and is “wanted” in the USA and Canada. (The UN food for oil scam)
Among other references:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250789,00.html
(I cringe at using Fox as a source)
I’m a bit late to the party and I hope I didn’t hack up the code. Sorry if I did.
Willis:
I love finding new papers I haven’t read, particularly early ones.
I think that’s the biggest surprise for me in this thread. I know you are a huge fan of RC, but you apparently somehow missed their birthday celebration last July. They claimed Broecker’s paper appeared to be “the first use of the term ‘global warming’ in the scientific literature.”
As is so often the case, they were wrong, the great irony of which being that I took RC’s claim at face value in subsequent dealings with someone who repeatedly claims that the term “climate change” was invented by Frank Luntz in 2004 (the year she uses is wrong too, but anyway). I have since asked her many times if she knew what IPCC stands for and how old the IPCC is, but she’s addicted to her talking point and still trots it out frequently. For the record, the term celebrated at least it’s 40th birthday this past December, and I’m guessing if someone did a thorough search (I didn’t) the date would be pushed back even further (“climate/climatic change” goes back to at least 1912 and likely even earlier).
Back to Broecker. Willis, you might be interested to read the proceedings publication for the 1975 (it was a banner year for AGW if you delve a bit) NIH sponsored conference “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering.” The conference took place from October 26-29 and Broecker presented the findings of this very paper. That in itself is not exactly all that interesting I admit, but what is of interest, at least to me, is what the scope of the conference itself was. It was organized by Margaret Mead and William W. Kellogg, and some of our other old friends also participated: Stephen Schneider, John Holdren, James Lovelock. Mead made some rather poignant and now oh-so-familiar comments in her opening remarks:
What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings….At the center of this problem lie the relationships between scientists, technologists, human scientists, and political decisionmakers. Inevitably, different political interests will seize upon disagreements among scientists to buttress their own interests and to discredit scientific advice….It is therefore the statement of major possibilities of danger which may overtake humankind – or all life on the planet – within the lifespan of those who are already born on which it is important to concentrate attention. The old instinct to deny danger…persists in the attitudes of the peoples of the world and in their leaders who seek support, compliance, and reelection. If irresponsible scientific controversies provide encouragement for these impulses, there is little hope of providing the future protection that is needed….What we need to invent – as responsible scientists – are ways in which farsightedness can become a habit of the citizenry of the diverse peoples of this planet. This, of course, poses a set of technical problems for social scientists, but they are helpless without a highly articulate and responsible expression of position on the part of natural scientists. Only if natural scientists can develop ways of making their statements on the present state of danger credible to each other can we hope to make them credible (and understandable) to social scientists, politicians, and the citizenry.
I suggest you pick up a copy and read the whole thing. Lots of good stuff in it and IMO twas the cauldron for the manufactured consensus. I think it will probably be a collector’s item some day as people become more interested in the roots of the AGW movement now that is has exposed its true colors. I wonder if Mead’s words inspired Schneider to offer the infamous Discover quote 14 years later:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
I’ll leave you with a few excerpts of the comments and discussion that followed Broecker’s presentation as reported by the rapporteur:
During the discussion if the paleoclimatic record and changes in global temperature, skepticism was expressed concerning how representative temperature data from a single geographical area are for the globe as a whole.
A handful of participants expressed concern about local climatic changes introduced by direct thermal pollution as produced by large power parks and cities. While it was noted that global effects of direct heating are only a small fraction of the effect produced by atmospheric CO2 increases, it was acknowledged that local direct heating provided a dramatic example of man’s ability to alter the climate of his immediate environment.
The question of rising sea levels produced by global warming of the ice sheets of Greenland and the Antarctic was mentioned by the participants. It generally was agreed that sea-level rises would be more an expensive annoyance than a catastrophe. The large amount of energy required to melt ice implies that sea-level rises if only a few centimeters per year (at most) could be expected under a 2.5 degree C warming.
Actually, I can’t resist one more. This is from the comments/discussion following the presentation by Lovelock about his mistress Gaia, perhaps my favorite, and most telling, passage from the book:
A crucial exchange, perhaps the fundamental problem confronted by the Conference, occurred when a participant suggested that we should convey to the public the conclusion that “we don’t know enough, we are trying to learn more, let’s hang on tight while we can.” Immediately came the response, “No, let’s hedge against the worst.”
It looks like the science was “settled” at that very moment. Sorry for the long post. Tis my MO I’m afraid. Cheers!
galileonardo says:
September 27, 2011 at 9:43 pm
“Willis, you might be interested to read the proceedings publication for the 1975 (it was a banner year for AGW if you delve a bit) NIH sponsored conference “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering.” The conference took place from October 26-29 and Broecker presented the findings of this very paper. That in itself is not exactly all that interesting I admit, but what is of interest, at least to me, is what the scope of the conference itself was. It was organized by Margaret Mead and William W. Kellogg, and some of our other old friends also participated: Stephen Schneider, John Holdren, James Lovelock.”
See
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/Fall_2007.html
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
http://inthesenewtimes.com/2009/11/29/1975-endangered-atmosphere-conference-where-the-global-warming-hoax-was-born/
http://polistrasmill.blogspot.com/2010/03/aha.html
http://polistrasmill.blogspot.com/2010/04/global-warming-origin-of-crime.html
Galileonardo @ 9:43
That link of yours to Tuatara 1970(this past December) is amazing. They understood the millenial variations in climate better than climate scientists do now, including isotope evidence of the sun’s effect on the Little Ice Age. What a crime the hockey stick is.
================
Willis
I have been a fan of your posts for several years. Long may they continue.
As you are on the subject of CO2, I have a question.
Have you ever commented on Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s 2009 paper: ”Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse effects within the frame of physics” in the International J. of Modern Physics? It seems plausible science to me, so I find it strange that so many people, of what might be called the Lindzen/Spencer tendency, still refer to CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Is this just habit or convenience?
Michael
Michael Oxenham says:
September 29, 2011 at 11:45 am
I haven’t written about it, but I think it is totally incorrect. I read it a while ago, and I don’t recall much about it except laughing and throwing it in the circular bit-file. Hang on … OK, there’s a peer-reviewed rebuttal of their arguments here (PDF) by (among others) Joel Shore, who comments occasionally here on WUWT. The short answer is that G&T don’t know what they’re talking about.
w.
Willis
Thanks. Michael