Only a Century? Ya Wimps!

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

You’ve heard of “Post Normal Science”? I investigate “Para Normal Science”. That’s the kind of science that is based on the willing suspension of belief in the physical laws of nature. Continuing my investigation of para normal science, I find a group that takes the long view of sea level rise. They don’t mess about with decadal scenarios. They disdain looking a mere century into the future. The press release is here, the paper’s paywalled, abstract here. The press release is titled:

Sea levels will continue to rise for 500 years

Figure from the press release issued by the Niels Bohr Institute of the University of Copenhagen. Estimates prepared for the purposes of alarmism only, not warranteed for any other application. © 2011  by BeVeRyScArEd Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Neal’s Boring Institute. 

My favorite part of the press release about the paywalled paper was this:

Actual measurements. Not fake, counterfeit, false, ersatz, phony, bogus, pseudo, or imitation measurements. Actual measurements.

Whenever they say something like “based on actual measurements”, I can’t help but be reminded of Hollywood’s “Based on a true story”, and how far the Hollywood version always is from the actual story warts and all …

In any case, no matter how they designed their climate supermodel, scenarios five centuries long? I’m sorry, but that’s a complete wank. No one will be alive to see even the 200 year mark. It will make no difference to our current choices. Indeed, it will likely be forgotten before the year is out. It is probably produced specifically with the aspiration of receiving the honor of being entombed in the fifth IPCC assessment report, a fitting burial place for such work. It may be based on a true story, but the facts have been changed to protect the innocent, so much so that any resemblance to reality is purely coincidental.

But most of all, it is an exercise in projecting a simple curve into the future, which is a newbie error I was warned against in high school. You can’t just extend a curve out for 500 years, that’s a pathetic joke even if you do call it a “IPCC scenario”. Oh, wait, that terminology is so yesterday. The new IPCC bureaucratic scientese term is “Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) radiative forcing scenarios” … I kid you not.

But even if you call it a Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) radiative forcing scenario, still, five hundred years? Five centuries? Get real!

Para Normal Science at its finest.

w.

Advertisements

185 thoughts on “Only a Century? Ya Wimps!

  1. How can a learned person expect that man can use fossile fuels at the present pace till 2100, let alone till 2500???

  2. Heheh, I have the same problem when lecturers assert facts to be true unquestioningly. I study environmental science at uni. Luckily there aren’t many of these indulgent doomsday graphs.

  3. when Willis says the “w” word you know it’s gotta be bad…..I sprayed green tea all over my screen.
    Hairy palms anyone?

  4. Considering your experiment with CO2 and its warming potential we can ignore the GHG bits of this ‘research’ guesswork.

  5. The new IPCC bureaucratic scientese term is “Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) radiative forcing scenarios” …

    Another way to circumvent nosey parkers like us? If FOIA still holds, and paywalls don’t stop reasonable inquirers who sense b***s***, then make the script incomprehensible except to fellow-conspiratorscientists.
    In the UK at least, there is now a standard, called the “crystal mark“, which is about NOT using this kind of throw-dust-in-your-opponents-eyes use of language, but using “plain English”.
    Where have we seen this before? h’mm…the term “Medieval Climate Anomaly” was surely invented precisely to deny or hide the existence of the perfectly sound and properly-evidence-backed scientific term, “Medieval Warm Period”.

  6. My great great great great great great great great……..great…………great great great grandson will be living at Appartment 1033a, 37 Sun Street, North Mars Terraform Unit, Mars, in 500 years time according to my “predict the future” iphone app.

  7. “…the facts have been changed to protect the innocent,”
    Surely you meant “the facts have been changed to protect the guilty”

  8. Willis,
    Sir,
    You remind of a long deceased country man of yours, Mark Twain, and the way he took the piss out of people and society in a nice way. Your ideas about how our climate actually works is actually closer to the truth than most. Go forth and promulgate for those with new thought are rare.

  9. FWIW
    “But to attempt to assess that future calls for extrapolation, which as the designer of the de Havilland Comet said after he found out why Comets were coming apart in the air, is the fertile mother of error”
    Herschel Smith (1981). A history of aeronautical piston engines.

  10. The assumptions behind it are simply that human activity by various means is the primary cause of ocean sea level changes after accounting for the general interglacial process of gradually melting icecaps.
    The trouble is that it is hard to see how extra energy in the air from human effects on the composition of the atmosphere could have a significant effect on ocean temperatures and thus sea level changes for anything less than millennia given the thermal capacity of seawater as compared to that of air. That assumes that the energy in the air can get into the oceans in the first place which is not yet a proven fact given the cooling efficiency of increased evaporation from more energy in the air.
    I know Willis thinks that such energy can warm the oceans but I have yet to see adequate proof of that.
    Now we do know that during the late 20th century the ocean heat content did rise as the troposphere warmed a little but that was far too fast for it to have been a result of human action so where else could we look ?
    Furthermore the rise seems to have stopped now whilst the sun is less active. Coincidence ?
    I think not.
    What we have here is relatively short term ocean heat content variability (and thus sea level changes) arising from natural solar causes and not human activity at all.
    The best proposition I can think of is that the amount of solar energy getting into the oceans varies more than previously thought as a result of global cloudiness and albedo changes.
    Svensmark attributes cloudiness changes to cosmic ray quantities.
    I think it is the surface pressure distribution responding to solar induced changes in the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere as a result of different chemical responses at different levels in the atmosphere as I have explained elsewhere.
    Quite simply the more the jetstreams wander about latitudinally (someone here called it ‘loopiness’) the greater is total global cloudiness and a quiet sun allows far more of such wandering about than does an active sun.

  11. Unable to accept the inevitable long-term consequences of global warming, and ill-equipped to critique the science, Eschenbach resorts to mockery.

  12. What kind of warning would be issued from 16th century America?
    Perhaps the more feverish would been witch warnings.
    But assuming it was from sane rational folk.
    Probably it have to do the importance of building canals.
    Concerns about coal reserves for heating, and timber for
    ships. And probably something to do with Indians.
    Anyone think million of people might live in and on the ocean within a couple
    centuries?
    Crazy idea? Yeah.
    But flying across America on a plane would be pretty crazy
    in the 16th Century.

  13. richardjamestelford says:
    October 20, 2011 at 2:22 am

    Unable to accept the inevitable long-term consequences of global warming, and ill-equipped to critique the science, Eschenbach resorts to mockery.

    Richard, you’re right. I am so upset by what might happen in half a millenium, I just can’t accept it, it’s ruining my life. I can’t face the thought that 500 years from now, we might have a meter of sea level rise. Or six meters. Or neither. Or we might have an ice age. The thought of any of those outcomes? I just can’t accept them, they’re just too awful to contemplate.
    As a result, since I can’t prove it won’t happen in half a millennium, I can only mock those who not only know what tomorrow holds—they know what will happen so far into the future that no one now living will see it. Or be able to check it, but that’s just a coincidence …
    Meanwhile, sea levels have stopped rising for the moment … go figure.
    w.

  14. Betcha all the climate zealots in the MWP were saying exactly the same thing. And in the Roman WP. And the Minoan WP. And …

  15. In the previous thread mentioning this paper, Anthony shows the continuous sea-level rise since the last glacial maximum on this graph:
    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_png
    There is one absolute fact that can be gleaned from it, and that is that sea-level has been rising throughout this Holocene interglacial, and actually a little before it, beginning just after that glaciation was at its peak.
    The last time sea-level was NOT rising was in the run-up to the last glacial maximum, 24 to 21 kya (on that graph). A very sane hypothesis would state that if sea-level is NOT rising, it may very well mark the end of the Holocene, and the run-up towards another glaciation.
    Now unless I am misunderstanding the Y-Axis on this graph from Grinsted, they are trying to say that if emissions are stabilized in 10 years, sea-level will stop rising. Therefore humans, in their opinion, would seem to have the power to completely stop our Holocene interglacial. Would someone please ask these folks or Mark Serreze at NSIDC if they actually believe sea-level should NOT be rising. Should it be going down? Should it be static?
    If this isn’t a joke, then we are seeing the advancement of people not qualified to sweep sidewalks, let alone squander taxpayer money at National Institutes. I believe they are going to regret putting that green line on that graph. It deserves at least as much scorn as the straight handle of the hockey stick.

  16. I am a bit confused: from where it comes all that water? I remember when I was young, fifty years ago (half century), in Genoa (Genova-Italy), the water, at the harbor, was high as it is now. Same in Venice, where I go often, by personal experience and evidences looking at the basement of the buildings I know. I have a collection of old (XVI to XVIII Century) prints of Genoa, and I can recognize there, some of the buildings still in front of the harbor now. Looking at the boat in front of that building, I can guess that the water was one or two meter higher than today.
    Now: Due to the Archimedes law, (that excludes Artic/wet Antartic Ice), I am not able to figure out from where 5 meter of additional water comes.
    Furthermore, why do not guess that the water will be 2 meter low, making a forecast based on old prints of XVI Century?
    I understand I miss something about the reason why “the water MUST grow”, but, sorry, I am old and I prefer to use my memory and old artifacts instead of satellites.
    Thank you (sorry for my English, I am Italian, do not blame me!).
    Sergio

  17. Lennin, knew it, Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, Orwell knew it also in 1984! Control the language, you control the debate, control the debate you control the people!!! Dr James Hanson knows it also, control the past, you control the future (1984)! Greenhouse gas “pollution” has entered the vocabulary for the current “good”, until we change the language & take back control! Don’t let them do it, reclaim the dabte, reclaim our human “rights” to expore, discover, invent & design & finally make!!! Don’t let them tell us what we must do, don’t let them take control, it’s what lights their fire, so let us poor some CO2 & H2O on their flames!
    “The red line can be considered to represent business as usual where greenhouse gas emission are increasing over time”. Then again it can “not” be considered to represent……..etc! Then again they don’t say it “must” be or “has” to be. BTW, if it represents something, it isn’t real, it’s a simulation, not of the treal world! Control that language people before they contro you.
    On another note peeps, have any of you looked at UN Agenda 21 & seen what they have planned for the good ‘ol USA? Your finished, kaput, done for! They hate you guys, they’re obsessed with your systematic, piecemeal dismantling & disctruction!!! All because you like one nation under God, liberty & justice for all, & enshrine the free-enterprize capitalist system in your constitution!!! (Sure in ain’t perfect but it works). How weird is that? What kind of people hang posters on their bedroom walls of cold-blooded ruthless mass-murderers (why do they always come from upper/ middle-class well-educated & wealthy backgrounds) as iconic heroes for freedom & democracy for the “people”? Lenin & Che Gavara to name two, if you hung a picture of Adolf Hitler or any top Nazi on your wall they would nail you immediately & quite rightly, but not the former two ignobles!!! That’s disturbing IMHO! Oh well off for a well earned lie down in a darkened room ;-))

  18. For someone ill-equipped to critique the science, Willis, you seem to do fairly well at it.
    Just Sayin.

  19. Paywalled; I like it!
    You have to pay to get the full scoop on what’s gonna’ happen 500 years out.
    Nice racket.I got to get some of that action.

  20. Jim Turner says:
    October 20, 2011 at 1:30 am
    “…the facts have been changed to protect the innocent,”
    Surely you meant “the facts have been changed to protect the guilty”

    Nope! This, I suspect, is a neat double-entendre….., the innocent being you and me, those who they are trying to save. Like we need it.

  21. richardjamestelford says:
    October 20, 2011 at 2:22 am
    Unable to accept the inevitable long-term consequences of global warming, and ill-equipped to critique the science, Eschenbach resorts to mockery.

    I see you’re mightily seasoned at the self same skill, except that it is hollow, and habitual. I don’t need to race in in Willis’ defense, he already has. The things I’d like to say to you, Mr. Telford, will get snipped, and for good reason. Too bad you haven’t figured out what those reasons are.

  22. Dear Willis
    I am a coauthor on the study. I take no offense at your mockery, because that is pretty much the level of debate that I expect from WUWT (sorry, if that offends you).
    Lets try to find some common ground for discussion. I assume you agree about the following observations (concerning on average over the 20th century):
    * Sea level has been rising
    * Earth has warmed (Global Mean SATs)
    * Ocean heat content is increasing (since observations has been available= 1955)
    * CO2 is increasing.
    Here is a causal chain of events as i see them, and I would appreciate if you man up, and acknowledge exactly what it is you dispute:
    1) Increased CO2 -> Increased radiative forcing
    2) stronger radiative forcing -> increased heat / warming
    3) Heat/warming -> shrinks land-based ice, and expands the world oceans.
    Perhaps you do not dispute any of these points and agree with our projections. From your mockery it sounds as if your only question the value of multi century projections in general. Please clarify.
    “Lukewarmers” usually agree with all of the points above but only question whether the “climate sensitivity” in step 2 of the chain is really as large as climate models imply. In our study we avoid any uncertainty in climate sensitivity, by simply looking at the relationship between radiative forcing and sea level rise directly.

  23. But most of all, it is an exercise in projecting a simple curve into the future, which is a newbie error I was warned against in high school.
    I’m a high school teacher. Believe me, we still warn against it. Beyond ridiculous.

  24. I love it!
    Are those big bars on the right the error margins? I’m sure I was taught something once about what it means when your error bars are larger than your results. Now if only I could remember what it was…

  25. As I step away from my computer I accelerate to 3 m/h in 1 second. Extrapolating from these “actual measurements” I will break the sound barrier in a little over 4 minutes.
    I better button my pajamas.

  26. handjive says:
    October 20, 2011 at 1:28 am

    See your 500 year prediction, and raise it 500 years courtesy of Australia’s eminent leading climate scientist (who lives by the sea), Prof. Tim Flannery:

    Actually he lives by the beautiful Hawkesbury River.
    I’ve read reports that Tim also purchased his neighbours property next door. In keeping with the entertaining tone of Willis’ article, I’ve checked my crystal ball, (which also doubles as a way back machine, up to 500 days) and witnessed an ‘over the backyard fence conversation’ between Timmeee (they’ve killed Timmeee, you basturds) and his neighbour (lets call him Bob).
    BOB: Are the waters really going to rise halfway up to our bedroom windows Timmeee?
    TIMMEEE: Yes Bob, unfortunately we keep pumping this durdy pallushun into the air. It’s inevitable I’m afraid even if we stop polluding now.
    BOB: What are you going to do?
    TIMMEEE: Reckon I’ll sell as soon as possible, while there is still some chance of getting a few dollars for the property.
    BOB: But the waters won’t rise for a few decades yet will they Timmeee?
    TIMMEEE: No they won’t Bob, but I recently finished a report the council commissioned me to do. They’ll be introducing by-laws within 3 months to halt all developments. That’s going to cut the value of our properties by at least half.
    BOB: They’ve killed our property values, you basturds. Mate, why didn’t you tell me sooner? you know I still owe the bank heaps for my mortgage.
    TIMMEEE: Yeah sorry mate, been busy travelling with the climate commission. Tell ya what though, I know this agent who has contacts in a greenies group who are buying up river side properties to turn them into wildernesses. The greenies have a rich old lady benefactor, heaps of money. I reckon we can still get maybe 75% of the value if we sell quickly.
    BOB: Really? would you do that for me Timmee? Can I get out of this without owing the bank heaps? I’ll get out tomorrow if you can get me 75%.
    TIMMEEE: Sure Bob, of course I will, what are neighbours for. Leave it all to me, I’ll fix it. (cough)
    BOB: Oh thanx Timmee, you’re such a good mate and neighbour. I dunno how I’ll ever repay ya.
    Timmeee: No worries Bob, I’ll look after ya.

  27. Seen on a jar in a grocery store: “Contains real ingredients.” Ya think?
    The loudest ‘business’ and ‘Dragon’s Den” regular on CBC TV was talking derisively about a stagnant stock a couple of weeks ago and exclaimed, “That’s where money goes to die!” It is very hard to resist thinking of the IPCC as, “the place where science goes to die.”
    When anyone asks what “Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) radiative forcing scenario” means the correct reply is, “It means anything we want it to mean” and not, “a guess.”
    I have an acquaintance who is in the business of being a Serious Leftie and he pointed out the ‘virtue’ of taking this approach which is: post facto reinterpretation of events to leave him in charge. Covers all possibilties, if you get my drift.
    To me it means, “an approximation of modelling forecasts of rising CO2 concentrations made while fantasizing that we could find and burn enough carbon-based fuel somewhere on the planet to raise it above 550 ppm and [wait for it] the consequent calculated global temperature increase based on an inadequate understanding of a partially completed mathematical model of the heat engine that is our real atmosphere linked to the real ocean, deduced while simultaneously ignoring significant contributors to the root causes of climate changes such as clouds, variation across the spectrum of Total Solar Insolation and Galactic Cosmic Rays.” Much too verbose. So, put your tongue in your cheek, call it RPC and follow it with a large number.
    Perhaps we need another competition. Predict some of the content of the next IPCC Report. Submit a sentence of not less than 10 and not more than 15 words in which 8 words are identical to any actual 10-word string published therein. I am choosing 8 words to eliminate no-brainers like, “It is worse than we thought” and “Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) radiative forcing scenario.”

  28. A real problem is that sea level rise over the satellite record hasn’t accelerated despite rapidly rising CO2 and supposed hysterical melting of Greenland and Antarctica. Indeed sea level rise has de-accelerated. In Atlantic Canada the `acceleration’ occurred 1920ish and has been remarkably constant since then and the timing and consistency doesn’t jive with CO2 forcing.
    But the water has been locked on the continents due to all the flooding. Fine, but scientists who throw this out to explain recent sea-level fall must go back over the last 100 to 150 years and demonstrate that in years when there were floods in India, Pakistan, China, Australia, etc that there was a corresponding drop in sea-level. Unless this can be done then this `throw out’ excuse (explanation) is not valid. Any explanation will fit a `one off’ event.
    The point is that the paper, if it models the ACTUAL SATELLITE DATA sea-level rise, that shows no acceleration vs rising CO2, would show just what we have been seeing … a monotonous long term sea-level rise.
    Looking at the flooding vs sea-level would be interesting for someone with the data and skill …. Willis?

  29. as you may have guessed, in quasi-bankrupt Greece, it was reported as news: “The sea will rise by the year 2500”. Many attempts to buy waterfront properties form threatened owners were rejected. Thet did not believe the news.
    Usually, papers and sites publishing such science fiction get ads and banners for Siemens wind generators on green meadows with blue skies

  30. Willis, good article and smart counter of “richardjamestelford” who acts on the side of big money (solar, wind and governmental grants).
    Quite funny indeed to find someone who defends people who are “cooking” data to produce convenient results, identify trends out of these wrong results that have failed to come true short term – and now return with a 500 yr outlook. This is true belief, not science.
    Always a nice read, Willis!
    Rgds from Chile, Matt

  31. Before the economic bust we could simply have extended the industrial growth curve 500 years into the future and stated confidently that whatever the effects of rising sea levels we’d easily be rich enough to overcome the problems.

  32. I think you will find that ‘Busted’ make this prediction long before this group
    Busted – Year 3000 lyrics
    One day
    when I came home
    at lunchtime
    I heard a funny noise
    went out
    to the back yard
    to find out
    if it was one of those rough boys
    stood there
    was my neighbour
    called peter
    and a *?*
    he told me he built a time-machine
    like one in a film I’ve seen(yeah)
    he said I’ve been to the year 3000
    not much has changed but they live underwater
    and your great-great-great-granddaughter
    is pretty fine, is pretty fine

    he took me
    to the future
    in a *?*
    and I saw everything
    boy bands
    and another one
    and another one
    and another one
    triple
    pretty women
    swimmin round town
    totally naked

  33. “How can a learned person expect that man can use fossile fuels at the present pace till 2100, let alone till 2500???”
    The UK aparently has something like 30,000 years worth of coal under ground.
    Which we should be burning of course.

  34. “but the facts have been changed to protect the innocent” sorry Willis but I think this should actually be the names have been changed to protect the flow of government grant money. great response to a foolish attempt at fear-mongering.

  35. How dare you scoff at this paragon of modern science, Willis. After all, “Their model has been adjusted back to the actual measurements and then used to predict the outlook for rising sea levels.”.

  36. Aslak Grinstead, if you are still viewing the discussion, I have two questions:
    I welcome your graph because it provides an element of falsifiability as to the contribution of CO2 to the understanding of current warming (a warming which I will accept if we do not talk about absolute values or spatially averaged data). Would YOU agree that it’s a shame the graph does not show in detail the period 2000 to 2100?
    To me (and apparently many others) it seems patently obvious that significant reduction of human emissions of CO2 is going to be impossible unless there is a very high degree of certainty that the consequences of continuing to emit CO2 are much worse than the consequences of business as usual (BTW that puts the onus of that proof on those advocating a change). If we continue on your green curve into the future but sea-level persits rising at 3mm per year – at what date will you consider your hypothesis incorrect?
    Massive sea-level rise is the biggest billed consequence of human emitted CO2, but the data on global sea-level rise over the last few decades shows NO evidence for such massive sea-level rise. In fact, if anything, in spite of a near-exponential increase in human emissions of atmospheric CO2 the rate of sea-level rise appears near linear or maybe even close to peaking. That does not negate the possibility of a future massive sea level rise, but it does require a very dramatic pick up in the rate of sea-level rise to fulfill the dire predictions for 2100 and we have monitoring programs to detect that rise should it eventuate. I know several engineering professionals who openly anticipate about 2m of sea-level rise before the end of this century, but there is scant SCIENTIFIC evidence for that view. The’catastrophist’ view is even more prevalent in the wider community and the media (though clearly those with beachfront properties aren’t buying in just yet!). Why is the scientific community not tempering these views? It seems to me that it is inconvenient for funding and careers that real observations do not support a catastrophic view that was tenable (maybe) around the late 90’s, but not now, 10 years later, with no appearance of the doomsday scenario, nor any signs of it. Surely Haiti, the Boxing Day Tsunami in 2004, New Zealand and Japanese earthquakes show that the world faces catastrophes enough without inventing new false ones to frighten the gullible.

  37. Sea level will rise if temperatures rise enough to melt enough glacial ice and if ocean temperatures rise enough to induce continued thermal expansion.
    Antarctic ice melt is estimated to be adding 0.21 mm/yr and Greenland another 0.21 mms/yr. Maybe 0.3 mms/yr for other continental glaciers.
    Thermal expansion is estimated to be 1.6 mms/yr but has almost certainly fallen to Zero in the last 8 years since the oceans have not warmed at all. Recent papers have said that the thermal expansion formulae were over-estimated and should be reduced to 0.5 mms/yr or so.
    And in the last two years, sea level has fallen by 10 mms.
    So what we have is GHGs increasing, sea level falling, thermal expansion Zero. Its hard to square the numbers produced by any climate model related to sea level rise. Extra rain must have fallen and been stored on the land amounting to 6 mms/yr.
    So, what is the prediction for sea level rise given what has actually happened in the last 2 and 8 years. Tying previous sea level rise to GHG radiative forcing is mugs game because Aerosols offset all of the GHG forcing before 1970. It didn’t rise because of GHG forcing.

  38. Aslak Grinsted says:
    October 20, 2011 at 3:21 am
    Dear Willis
    I am a coauthor on the study. I take no offense at your mockery, because that is pretty much the level of debate that I expect from WUWT (sorry, if that offends you).
    =====
    You folks issued a press release with no substance and hid your calculations (if any) behind paywalls. I’m curious what sort of reception you expected.
    If you want an intelligent discussion, try providing some meaningful input.

  39. Willis,
    This press release is even “worse than we thought” :^) Here are the highlights..
    We first start with this…
    “Rising sea levels in the coming centuries is perhaps one of the most catastrophic consequences of rising temperatures. Massive economic costs, social consequences and forced migrations could result from global warming. But how frightening of times are we facing? Researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute are part of a team that has calculated the long-term outlook for rising sea levels in relation to the emission of greenhouse gases and pollution of the atmosphere using climate models.
    With this introduction, they immediately establish their manic CAGW credentials (i.e. scary disaster scenarios and use of models).
    Then we see this:
    “Based on the current situation we have projected changes in sea level 500 years into the future. We are not looking at what is happening with the climate, but are focusing exclusively on sea levels, explains Aslak Grinsted, a researcher at the Centre for Ice and Climate, the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.”
    OK. So their using climate models, but NOT LOOKING AT WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CLIMATE. Sounds perfectly reasonable [heh]…
    Then we have the hallmark of all climate modeling – tuning and hindcasting!
    “Their model has been adjusted backwards to the actual measurements and was then used to predict the outlook for rising sea levels.”
    Adjusted backwards? What the *(&$@ does that mean? Does this mean they ran the model for 500 years of simulated time, got present day sea levels that were absurdly high, then adjusted them down? Based on what? [sigh]
    The press release then continues with:
    Even in the most optimistic scenario, which requires extremely dramatic climate change goals, major technological advances and strong international cooperation to stop emitting greenhouse gases and polluting the atmosphere, the sea would continue to rise. By the year 2100 it will have risen by 60 cm and by the year 2500 the rise in sea level will be 1.8 meters.”
    So it is clear these researchers have NO interest in the politics of global warming and the green movement in general. NOPE. NONE. Of course, it’s clear they believe that governments will alter the world economy based on their pathetic modeling attempts [LOL]…
    When then have:
    “In the 20th century sea has risen by an average of 2mm per year, but it is accelerating and over the last decades the rise in sea level has gone approximately 70% faster.
    Really? I believe the data show global sea level rise is DECELERATING. But alas…
    And finally…
    He points out that even though long-term calculations are subject to uncertainties, the sea will continue to rise in the coming centuries and it will most likely rise by 75 cm by the year 2100 and by the year 2500 the sea will have risen by 2 meters.
    Well, at least they got one thing right…

    To all serious climate scientists out there. If you are wonder why the public is so skeptical of climate science as a whole, you can look no further than your own over-the-top press releases like this one. Until you all decide to reign in your loose cannons, you will not regain any credibility…

  40. Sorry the second question should have referenced the “RED” curve, not the green one. I think we’ll probably observe the green one with continued increases in human CO2 emissions 🙂

  41. David says:
    October 20, 2011 at 5:05 am
    Mars?
    I suspect only the proles will be sent to the Moon and Mars, our fearless leaders will be suffering in the Maldives. Making sure that no CO2 is necessary for their “primitive” lifestyle. Transportation will be provided by Triremes rowed by the few “essential public servants” left on the 3rd planet. The rest of the planet will be left to wilderness.

  42. tokyoboy says:
    October 20, 2011 at 12:59 am
    How can a learned person expect that man can use fossile fuels at the present pace till 2100, let alone till 2500???
    Fossil fuel use will increase until there is:
    1. A scientific breakthrough that delivers a lower cost alternative.
    2. An economic collapse.
    It has been suggested that fossil fuel use can be restricted by:
    3. A law or tax that restricts fossil fuel use without providing an alternative
    If history is any indication, Point 3 is unlikely to succeed in reducing usage, unless it causes Point 2. The net effect of Point 2 will be to drive the economy underground, turn ordinary citizens into criminals, and drive legitimate business elsewhere.

  43. tokyoboy says:
    October 20, 2011 at 12:59 am
    “How can a learned person expect that man can use fossile fuels at the present pace till 2100, let alone till 2500???”
    People who pay attention can learn an immense amount at WUWT. This is the best place to learn about differences between science and policy. Willis’ topic is science. Tokyoboy’s question is about policy. All of us must exert considerable energy to focus on the topic at hand. The key word is ‘focus’.

  44. Mr. Author of mocked paper, your relationship of rising CO2-warmer world-rising sea level has been spliced onto the natural rising sea level, has it not? Since natural conditions have not changed prior to the recent advent of anthropogenic CO2, and are still operating as far as I can see, you seem to be saying that natural sea level rise has ceased (and the conditions driving it) and has been overtaken by AGW sea level rise. What evidence do you have that natural drivers have ceased operating?
    However, isn’t it conveniant that the current proposed anthropogenic sea level rise measurements exactly model previous natural sea level rise. Nonetheless, if you are going to show that we should be worried about this change from one driver to another, I suggest using some kind of nature trick when splicing previous natural with current anthropogenic sea level rise. You should also find a better proxy for natural sea level rise so that you can more clearly distinguish between the two drivers and show that natural sea level rise was just a regional myth. If you are unsure how to proceed, I know of one or two esteemed scientists who would be happy to help you.

  45. richardjamestelford says:
    October 20, 2011 at 2:22 am
    Unable to craft a cogent rebuttal, richardjamestelford resorts to buffoonery…

  46. richardjamestelford says:
    October 20, 2011 at 2:22 am
    “Unable to accept the inevitable long-term consequences of global warming, and ill-equipped to critique the science, Eschenbach resorts to mockery.”
    What science? More mumbo-jumbo computer models? Present some genuine science containing actual reasonably well-confirmed physical hypotheses and I will provide a useful analysis of it.

  47. Aslak Grinsted says:
    October 20, 2011 at 3:21 am
    3) Heat/warming -> shrinks land-based ice, and expands the world oceans.
    Your premise is contradicted by the evidence. Global Temperatures have been dropping for the past 8000 years. Sea levels have not followed this trend. (see references below). If what you say is true, then sea levels should have been dropping for the past 8000 years in line with temperature decrease. They have not.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Epica-vostok-grip-40kyr.png
    The above reference shows temperatures have been dropping for the past 8000 years (present day is on the left).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
    The above reference shows sea levels have been rising for the past 8000 years.

  48. Aslak Grinsted says:
    October 20, 2011 at 3:21 am
    “Here is a causal chain of events as i see them, and I would appreciate if you man up, and acknowledge exactly what it is you dispute:
    1) Increased CO2 -> Increased radiative forcing
    2) stronger radiative forcing -> increased heat / warming
    3) Heat/warming -> shrinks land-based ice, and expands the world oceans.”
    Thanks for posting here! To express causal chains, arrows won’t do the work. You need some reasonably well confirmed physical hypotheses. These are universal generalizations that, when combined with statements of initial conditions, actually imply the phenomena, ocean rise, that you intend to explain scientifically.
    Your reasonably well confirmed hypotheses have to go beyond Arrhenius’ work. From Arrhenius’ work, it is not possible to infer more than a modest rise in temperature. No CAGW is to be found in Arrhenius’ work however far out you take it. In addition to that reason for going beyond Arrhenius, we taxpayers would like to see that climate science has actually produced some science. If you have no reasonably well confirmed physical hypotheses that go beyond Arrhenius’ work then you have produced no new science.
    If you depend on models then you are not practicing science at all.

  49. The new IPCC bureaucratic scientese term is “Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) radiative forcing scenarios” …

    In my view, the more obfuscated and pretentious the phrase … wait, let me rephrase that … the fancier the words and phrases used, the smaller is the mind that created it. Why use a $1 word when a 5¢ word will do?
    When the term gobbledygook enters my mind, that which I am reading is toast … destination: the trash bin.

  50. Dear Willis
    I am a coauthor on the study. I take no offense at your mockery, because that is pretty much the level of debate that I expect from WUWT (sorry, if that offends you).
    Lets try to find some common ground for discussion. I assume you agree about the following observations (concerning on average over the 20th century):
    * Sea level has been rising
    * Earth has warmed (Global Mean SATs)
    * Ocean heat content is increasing (since observations has been available= 1955)
    * CO2 is increasing.

    Two out of four…what does that mean?
    Earth has “warmed”. Dang, I keep having to repeat the same mantra, over and over and over again. 1 Cubic Foot of Air at 86 F and 60% in MN has more ENERGY in it that one cubic foot of air in AZ at 105 F and 10% RH. Unless you account for humidity, unless you account for urban heat island, you have NO IDEA WHAT THE NET ATMOSPHERIC ENERGY IS. And none of these WONKS even makes an ATTEMPT to calculate that.
    In a similar vein: “Ocean heat content is increasing.” Can we dispense with this “Gobels moment”? The measurements from 1955 to the Argo Buoys are garbage. They are a complete
    fabrication. There is NO WAY to compile the sparse data available and come up with a reliable
    record. That marvelous little graph with the continuous increase was as bogus as the Mann tree rings.
    The “miraculous flattening” found with the Argo buoys can simply be explained by the fact that the “Ocean heat” has not changed a WIT…and one can figure this out simply by the net density of the ocean, and doing a simple engineering calculation assuming the complete 0.9 watts per meter sq. of Hansen, et. al. (2006 publication) has gone into the sea..one would have a 0.009 F rise in temp. of the ocean (assmuing 15,000′ average depth. For a variety of reasons we have to realize the “Ocean” turns over and moves energy from the top to the bottom over the decades involved.
    The sea level as been rising. In a miniscule manner by the satellites. And I’m NOT GOING TO TRUST THAT NUMBER until we have say, 2 or 3 systems running at the same time. Why? Because there are DRIFTS that occur in that instrumentation. The plots I see have a signal tendancy which, alas, as an engineer “older than dirt”…I’ve seen far too many times in long term A/D data gathering systems…to put total confidence in the measurement. (And I HAVE worked with some sophisticated stuff, starting with 8 bit A/D and going to 32.)
    CO2 is increasing. Yeah, so what! We get into the whole “forcing factor”. On this I will put my “line in the sand”, and make the individual claim…that CO2 is NOT a controlling “Atmospheric Effect” gas. (HA HA, Why do I NOT use the term “Greenhouse” gas? Any idea on that from your Sea Level people. Quiz question, if you don’t know the answer to that you don’t know MUCH at all!) Rather, as Elsasser “S.W.A.G’ed” in his 1942 “On the IR Heat Balance of the Atmopshere”, and I have been ratching towards in my study of radiative transfer in a “grey gas”, up to some limit (2500 PPM, 3500 PPM) when distributed with the gradient H2O, CO2 acts as a “net exchange agent” in the troposphere. I.e., every quanta of I.R. in the 6 and 12 Micron range, absorbed, is re-emitted when the high end of the Boltzman distribution of energy O2 and N2, excite a CO2 molecule to a translational/rotational vibration mode and the CO2 “relaxes” emitting IR.
    Max

  51. Previous post: Meant to put quotes from “Dear Wills” to “CO2 is increasing” to indicate I took that from the alleged co-author of the study.
    [FIXED -w.]

  52. Perhaps we should look at what little substance these folks have presented. They have apparently derived some sort of equation or step by step model that allows prediction of sea level over time as a function of CO2 concentration, aerosol concentration, and (possibly) pre-existing trends. They have backfit the model to “real data” (how much? whose? over what timespan?). The backfit is actually a step in the right direction if you ask me. Actually checking if your model matches historical data is routine even in fields like economics that are probably centuries away from qualifying as sciences. IMHO climate “science” does it far too seldom and none too well.
    Speaking only for myself, I don’t want to trivialize the work these folks have done, because I’m sure that they have done a lot of it. But I and many others who post here could almost certainly build a similar — and equally good — model over a weekend using Excel or Open Office. The mechanical part of the model — estimate change rates, apply the changes, take a step, repeat 500 times is almost certainly straightforward. (And yes, there are certainly other ways to do the modeling). The problem is in estimating the change rates. Given the awful quality of most climate data I simply don’t think that can be done with any degree of confidence. If I built such a model, and wouldn’t trust it to produce accurate results. And I don’t see why I should believe anybody else has master the secret of Garbage In Gold Out.

  53. richardjamestelford says:
    October 20, 2011 at 2:22 am
    “Unable to accept the inevitable long-term consequences of global warming, and ill-equipped to critique the science, Eschenbach resorts to mockery.”
    ——————————-
    Unable to accept that sea level rise cannot be easily predicted 500 years into the future, richardjamestelford resorts to thread trolling.

  54. “© 2011 by BeVeRyScArEd Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Neal’s Boring Institute”.
    Willis, don’t put Niels Bohr’s Institute down – The great Niels is already rolling over in his grave at what is being done under his namesake.

  55. The Continents float on something: I remember – water. The Continents must be getting waterlogged to match actual data.
    I made a computer model based on actual data. My model shows that, yes, the Oceans are rising!!!
    Result: The Continents are sinking ….

  56. richardjamestelford says:
    October 20, 2011 at 2:22 am
    Unable to accept the inevitable long-term consequences of global warming, and ill-equipped to critique the science, Eschenbach resorts to mockery.
    ———-
    This is exactly why you people are quickly losing this battle. When your only defence to logical criticisms is to insult people, you’ve lost big time buddy.

  57. @Aslak Grinsted
    >I am a coauthor on the study.
    I am impressed that you are here and reading. Most authors of papers we discuss read and hide because of the sound arguments and serious discussions. We are of course used to the trolling and humour/derision that is inevitably provoked. You have to make allowances.
    >I take no offense at your mockery, because that is pretty much the level of debate that I expect from WUWT (sorry, if that offends you).
    We are toughened by years of abuse at the sites like RC and SkS. However I don’t think Ellis mocked you at all. I certainly hope I only mock actions, not people.
    >Lets try to find some common ground for discussion.
    That is what Anthony wants, and why the site does not delete anything that happens to contradict a particular paradigm. As you are no doubt aware, it is far more likely your works will be read here than anywhere else.
    The skeptical approach take my most reders here is captured well by Spender, “Of course, this evidence also supports one of the main conclusions of our Remote Sensing paper published earlier this year: there is a large discrepancy between the IPCC climate models and observations.”
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/10/our-grl-response-to-dessler-takes-shape-and-the-evidence-keeps-mounting/
    >I assume you agree about the following observations (concerning on average over the 20th century):
    * Sea level has been rising
    * Earth has warmed (Global Mean SATs)
    * Ocean heat content is increasing (since observations has been available= 1955)
    * CO2 is increasing.
    Well that is the main point isn’t it? From the style of your argument above, I presume you take these as ‘givens’ and thus the conclusion you seek is simply a matter of putting a scale on it. That is fine around a coffee table but it is not how one makes a scientific investigation. Anyone well read on the subject will know:
    * Sea level has been rising for far longer than any causal link to CO2 can be mooted and there is no meaningful (statistically significant) correlation between CO2 and sea level, particularly over the past 1000 years.
    * The Earth has warmed and it has also cooled and warmed again just within the past 110 years and the corrleation between temperature and CO2 is less than 0.6 while the correlation between tempeature and solar activity + clouds (GCR) is much better.
    * The ocean heat content is poorly known and it has not (detectably) risen to match the expected temperature rise that has been suggested by the rising and falling air temperatures, and now it is falling as the temperature stablises. Not so? According to you both should be rising.
    * CO2 is increasing but the increase is not entirely from anthropogenic sources. The balance between natural and human sources has not changed at all. Thus natural fluctuations must be considered and the lack of correlation to temperature explained. There is wide disagreement on the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere – by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude.
    >Here is a causal chain of events as i see them, and I would appreciate if you man up, and acknowledge exactly what it is you dispute:
    To remain civil and get a response from Ellis I suggest you don’t ask him to ‘man-up’. He wrote an analysis and put it on a public site where it is well known that 99% of posts of all types are allowed by the moderators.
    >1) Increased CO2 -> Increased radiative forcing
    Ellis and everyone I know agrees with this. It is a basic fact of life. It is more accurate to describe it as an increased forcing potential. If the IR has already been absorbed, there is no additonal heating available. Increased CO2 does not necessarily mean increased temperature in all possible cases, for example high ozone or water vapour levels will render the additional CO2 meaningless. It is also recognized that the temperature response to CO2 (even alone) is logarithmic, decreasing with increased concentration: 6 deg C for the 0-20 ppm and 0.04 deg for 700-840 ppm. Adding CO2 is NOT like adding insulation around a hot cup of coffee. The insulation is a fixed material and the CO2 is in a free flowing, open ended atmosphere. I assume you are already aware of the invalidity of that ‘insulation’ comparison.
    >2) stronger radiative forcing -> increased heat / warming
    There you are making a logical error. Stronger forcing potential for a particular component of the atmosphere does not mean an elevated response by the whole system. Not at all! And that is before auto-compensating system losses to space are calculated, such as was done by Prof A Bijan who used Constructal Theory to describe the behaviour of the atmosphere as a heat engine with an enormous capacity to vent additional heat if it was available. First you must deal with the actual response to additional CO2 within the whole system when its forcing potential rises. Basically, if there is no more IR to absorb, there is no more IR to absorb and if there is a temperature response, the atmosphere responds by dumping heat from the hotter zone faster into space.
    >3) Heat/warming -> shrinks land-based ice, and expands the world oceans.
    This is admitted by all. It is the physics of thermal expansion. You are probably aware that during certain climate cycles the total heat in the atmosphere is concentrated near the equator and the poles are frozen all year, and during others the heat is more evenly spread. As the heat from the sun is virtually constant (taking a long term view) and there is plenty of evidence that the ice comes and goes from the poles, an attempt to attribute any temperature change (up or down) to anthropogenic CO2 emissions must first assess, quantify and explain the natural variation for which there is so much evidence. This is not a delaying tactic, this is the baseline against which you have to show any AGW. I presume you are aware that the summertime temperature in the Arctic has not changed at all as the ice goes and comes (think: ocean currents + wind).
    >Perhaps you do not dispute any of these points and agree with our projections.
    Subject to my interpretations of them, I agree.
    >From your mockery it sounds as if your only question the value of multi century projections in general. Please clarify.
    I certainly question the value of multi-century projections based on defective premises. If you changed your stated premises to capture reality more closely, your projections would have very much larger error bars.
    >“Lukewarmers” usually agree with all of the points above but only question whether the “climate sensitivity” in step 2 of the chain is really as large as climate models imply.
    This is incorrect. Any ‘lukewarmer’ would know that there is a huge difference between an increase in forcing potential and forcing realised, same as in a heat engine. They question the sensitivity but in a broader manner. There is a (free download) programme available from Los Alamos Lab for determining the behaviour of any heat engine including all types of Stirling Engines and thermo-acoustic refrigerators (which is a class of Stirling). If you were to acquaint yourself with this programme it would serve to show that putting additional heat intput into a balanced system (one that is not ramping at the time) can often give very little to no change in the system parameters other than to increase the heat lost to the cooling side. This is particularly true for systems that have large radiative components in the heat flux, even when they are closed, which the atmosphere is not.
    >In our study we avoid any uncertainty in climate sensitivity, by simply looking at the relationship between radiative forcing and sea level rise directly.
    On that score you have failed and Ellis was correct to point it out. The rise in sea level taken on a decadal scale shows it is tapering down and CO2 is still ramping up. At any level of time delay, there is simply no good CO2 explanation. If you subtract the sea level rise that existed prior to industrialisation, factor in the temperature rise that was already occurring as we rose from the last ice age, and then examine the remainder as a function of CO2, what do you get? You will quickly see there is no visual correlation. This should incline you to assume that there is no close link between any sea level change and CO2 but it has not. The root of your problem is the assumption that the premises are valid at all times and therefore the challenge is to project the resulting assumed relationship.
    When you correct your assumptions will give a very much broader range of projections. The result will be highly unreliable for predicting the future sea level.
    Sincerely
    Crispin

  58. handjive says:
    October 20, 2011 at 1:28 am
    See your 500 year prediction, and raise it 500 years courtesy of Australia’s eminent leading climate scientist (who lives by the sea), Prof. Tim Flannery:
    Strangely enough, Australia’s pre-eminent climate scientist (who started out as a bone collector) has rarely been seen in public since making THAT gaffe despite being paid $180K per year to promote the AGW scare he profits from so handsomely.

  59. All I have to say is that any projection of the future is not science. It is at best extrapolation and more then likely when you are extrapolating at the scale of 500 years as seen here is nothing but fortune telling.
    To even ATTEMPT to call it science is nothing but ignorance or malice. I will give the people who call fortune telling science the benefit of the doubt and call them ignorant in this case, because obviously they forgot as Willis said the high school level stuff they “should know.”
    Regardless, computer modeling is never going to be real science. In science you confirm and test, you do not merely show that something is possible. This is not science, this is just some backwards attempt to fortune tell. Crystal balls? Yes, I think this is what this is.
    Sometimes I read other things on the internet and just sigh because it is not just climate science that is going down the road to “non-science” but other disciplines as well. I think in the end computers will be the death of us all through scaring us to death through stories that “could possibly maybe be true.”
    And to call that science? Hardly, more like fortune tellers who are peddling their stuff in the guise of science. I have no problems with them peddling scary stories or fortunes, but they should put in their papers “warning, no science involved” and they should not be taken seriously.

  60. I thought I’d share some geometry math I did of volumes and expanding spheres.
    A 1 metre increase of earths radius holds 510 thousand cubic kilometres of extra volume.
    Here’s the math (I leave it as OneNote printed it):
    ((4/3)*pi *((6370.001)^3))-((4/3)*pi *((6370)^3))=509904.4439697265
    Reduce by 30% to eliminate land area:
    .7*509904.4439697265=356933.1107788087
    So that’s 360 thousand cubic kilometres of ocean volume per metre radius increase.
    An interesting side experiment I did was to calculate how much extra volume there is in an expanded earth radius due to the larger surface area/volume of an expanding sphere, like how a balloon expands when it gets larger. Here is some math:
    Increase radius by an extra 1 metre from the previous calculation:
    ((4/3)*pi *((6370.002)^3))-((4/3)*pi *((6370.001)^3))=509904.6040039062
    The difference between the smaller radius calculations and the 1 metre larger radius calculations:
    509904.6040039062-509904.4439697265=0.1600341796
    Conclusion: There is an extra (.7*.16)=0.112 cubic kilometres of extra ocean volume room available on an expanded earth, per metre increase at its present radius.
    I was always curious about this particular physics question, and I have finally done the calculations.
    You should have seen my first calculations when I forgot I was using kilometres and did a kilometre increment instead of a metre. Good thing I proof read before posting my conclusions, though I wouldn’t be surprised if I did something wrong still.
    Note: In OneNote, after entering the = sign in the equations then hitting enter, OneNote performs the calculation and prints/displays it.

  61. Dear coauthors,
    “In our study we avoid any uncertainty in climate sensitivity, by simply looking at the relationship between radiative forcing and sea level rise directly.”
    So you’re ignoring all factors except that increased heat will melt ice? Do you disagree that if humidity increased enough, water as snowfall on land ice may become greater than melt water? If you agree that is possible, then there is a factor which might need to not be ignored.
    You use all of the 20th Century as being a warming trend, but are you ignoring whether the Little Ice Age before it was unusually cold? What part of the warming during the 20th Century was merely a return to the “normal” temperature, and must be considered as normal? When did the corresponding normal melting end? What happened to sea levels during the Little Ice Age? Did sea level change change [sic sic] significantly halfway through the 20th Century when fossil fuels began to be extensively used?
    Why not run that curve 50,000 years into the future, with an annotation that it may be invalid if there is a glacial period or two during that time?

  62. This is a hoot……
    Another A, B, and C scenario……where have we seen that before
    and they are complaining they are mocked on WUWT !!

  63. Max Hugoson says:
    October 20, 2011 at 6:42 am
    ….
    The sea level as been rising. In a miniscule manner by the satellites. And I’m NOT GOING TO TRUST THAT NUMBER until we have say, 2 or 3 systems running at the same time. Why? Because there are DRIFTS that occur in that instrumentation. The plots I see have a signal tendancy which, alas, as an engineer “older than dirt”…I’ve seen far too many times in long term A/D data gathering systems…to put total confidence in the measurement. (And I HAVE worked with some sophisticated stuff, starting with 8 bit A/D and going to 32.)
    =================
    Your conclusions re sea level rise are reasonable although the details are not entirely right. There are about two centuries worth of tidal gauge data and the last hundred years or so probably aren’t too sparse to work with. There are also about 20 years worth of Radar Altimeter data from a number of satellites — with a fair amount of overlap. I won’t go into the details about the problems with both kinds of data. We are working near or beyond the limits of reliable resolution for both the tidal gauges and the RAs. Anyway, the numbers for sea level rise are all over the place from zero (Morner) to lots and we’re all gonna die (Hansen,Gore, et al) with those the look roughly like science in a range between 15 and 35 cm a century. Local uplift/subsidence is often greater than sea level rise. Climate “Scientists” adds in a lot of what might well be science fantasy to jack the future numbers up a bit. Some of that might be justified.
    There are claims that sea level rise has accelerated due to human activity. The claims look bogus to me, but you’ll have to do your own research on that.
    Last time I looked, the Wikipedia article on seal level rise didn’t seem too awful.

  64. Oh, wait, that terminology is so yesterday. The new IPCC bureaucratic scientese term is
    Here locally, I prefer to call it language perversion.
    We’re being inundated with environmental speak by the “facilitating”, “engineering” firm H.W. Lochner, Inc., hired by our astute city council, who wants us all to submit to Gaia, the bitch from hell.
    Their favorite word seems to be “sustainable”, which used to mean “able to be supported, held up, or borne up from below; able to be kept up or going”, but now means Earth worship and Marxism.
    Please send help.

  65. Aslak Grinsted says:
    October 20, 2011 at 3:21 am
    “I am a coauthor on the study. I take no offense at your mockery, because that is pretty much the level of debate that I expect from WUWT (sorry, if that offends you).”
    Right. And we expect you to want to beat the crap out of Willis like Ben Santer wanted to beat the crap out of Pat Michaels. That’s what we expect from you alarmist boffins.
    “Lets try to find some common ground for discussion.”
    The first bit of common of ground should be to agree to agree that each side of the debate has its share of clowns and other assorted dimwits who couldn’t find their ass with two hands.
    ” I assume you agree about the following observations (concerning on average over the 20th century):
    * Sea level has been rising”
    Sure. But I’d like to hear how you account for it not rising in the warmest decade (2000-2010) on record. Averages are nice and all but the devil is in the details and the devil for you is in this bit of detail.
    “* Earth has warmed (Global Mean SATs)”
    Sure it has. Like it has many times in the past. They’re still finding human artifacts underneath retreating glaciers. In and of itself a warming planet means nothing other than good times because living things suffer when it cools.
    “* Ocean heat content is increasing (since observations has been available= 1955)”
    This is speculation and doesn’t belong in a reasonable discussion. Unlike troposphere temperatures with close to global coverage 24/7 for the past 30 years we have no comparable information about the average temperature of the global ocean which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.9C. What we do know with some small degree of confidence is the mixed layer isn’t as warm as the vaunted GCMs predict hence Trenberth’s infamous “missing heat”. Y’all let me know when you find it, eh?
    “* CO2 is increasing.”
    Thank God. The indisputable testimony of the geologic column is that pre-industrial level of CO2 is ice age level. Plants don’t grow well in ice and wherego the primary producers in the food chain go us. You might think it’s romantic to live in caves and hunt wooly mammoths for a living but I’d rather not thank you very much.
    “Here is a causal chain of events as i see them, and I would appreciate if you man up, and acknowledge exactly what it is you dispute:”
    Correlation is not causation. That’s what I dispute. Write that down!
    “1) Increased CO2 -> Increased radiative forcing”
    Very small effect confined to land surfaces. When the ocean is largely liquid it and water vapor control the climate not non-condensing greenhouse gases. However the increased CO2 is beneficial to plant growth and it also reduces the fresh water requirements per unit of growth. Moreover the optimum temperature for plant growth rises when CO2 increases. I realize all these good things are mere correlation with the fact that terrestrial plants evolved over hundreds of millions of years when CO2 levels were many times higher than today and evolution tends to optimize living things around the environment. You do believe in evolution, right? Sorry but I have to ask because the climate boffins never seem willing to acknowledge (in denial of) the earth’s long history of much warmer times with much higher level of CO2.
    “2) stronger radiative forcing -> increased heat / warming”
    Lost in the noise of other events. The global ocean’s average temperature is 3.9C which can only be explained by the average surface temperature being 3.9C over a period of time long enough for complete mixing to occur like, oh say, one completer glacial/interglacial period of 100,000 years which is long enough for conduction alone to equilized the ocean temperature from top to bottom.
    You want me to worry about the air, which has less than a thousandth the heat capacity of the ocean, getting a couple of degrees warmer when the whole damn biosphere today is a thin layer of warmth floating on a bucket of ice water? Get real. Cold is the enemy not warmth.
    “3) Heat/warming -> shrinks land-based ice, and expands the world oceans”
    Yeah, except that in the most recent decade which is, according to your camp, the “warmest on record”, the ocean drastically slowed its rate of rise. You need to explain that in terms of your theory that a warmer climate causes the ocean to rise. Something doesn’t add up.
    “Perhaps you do not dispute any of these points and agree with our projections. From your mockery it sounds as if your only question the value of multi century projections in general.”
    Sometimes mockery is the only response left when people are in denial of the facts. I’m sure you understand.
    “Please clarify.”
    Yes. Please clarify how the ocean rate of rise is the slowest on record during the warmest decade on record. I’m all ears.
    “Lukewarmers” usually agree with all of the points above but only question whether the “climate sensitivity” in step 2 of the chain is really as large as climate models imply. In our study we avoid any uncertainty in climate sensitivity, by simply looking at the relationship between radiative forcing and sea level rise directly.

  66. I appreciate the response of the few of you who has clarified your positions to my discussion points above. I could only make sense of crispin’s position. I am still looking forwards to a clarification from Willis though.
    I am impressed by how successfully the crowd has been driven to a frenzy. Your audience loves you, Willis. I am sure they also would like to know what you think.

  67. Aslak Grinsted says:
    October 20, 2011 at 3:21 am
    not very much for a coauthor.
    Aslak:
    Let’s say that all your points are valid. A sea-level rise that varies between 1.8 – 3.0 mm/yr should produce 0.90-1.50 meters of natural increase over a 500 year period without invoking global warming scenarios.
    Your paper indicates up to 5.5 meters over this period.
    Questions:
    1. How much of this do you attribute to Greenland and Antarctica land ice melt?
    2. Can you comment on the Arctic sea ice – roughly when it will disappear entirely?
    3. What temperature increase is required to lead to the 5.5 m scenario?
    4. Why the sea-level rise is so small at only three times the natural level?
    Thanks,
    Steve

  68. Bad case of fumble fingers this morning. “add” not “adds”
    “Seal level rise”, Probably that has to do with the arctic ice cap. Don’t do ice cap stuff. Make that “Sea Level Rise”

  69. Aslak Grinsted says:
    October 20, 2011 at 3:21 am
    Here is a causal chain of events as i see them,

    I believe Grinsted is confusing causal with correlation. He failed to show causation and made giant leaps on assumptions instead.
    Grinsted might also want to take a look at the behavior of the Pleistocene Interglacials, particularly the Eemian. The feared sea level rise postulated by the IPCC for the past 20 years falls well within the normal fluctuations without getting anywhere near the maximums. But the telling thing is that the Late Holocene is behaving much like the Eemian and is in the down trend from the max. Everything points to that, including the recent decadal cooling. Unfortunately for Grinsted and colleagues, the observed evidence does not support their models.

  70. Don K says:
    October 20, 2011 at 6:54 am
    “They have backfit the model to “real data” (how much? whose? over what timespan?).”
    Can any of them explicate the word ‘backfit’ or whatever word they want to use here?
    In scientific method, the relationship between a set of hypotheses (a theory) and the phenomena that they are used to predict and explain is clear as the finest crystal. When combined with statements of initial conditions, the hypotheses imply the phenomena to be explained. No Warmista, no computer modeler has provided an explication of the relationship between a model and the actual phenomena. None. Nada. Zip. That relationship, if it exists at all, is as muddy as the Yellow River. Now, let us all ask ourselves a most important question. Why have the Warmista and the modelers failed to clearly describe that relationship? Everything that they claim depends on that relationship, at least until they create some reasonably well confirmed physical hypotheses.

  71. aslak grinsted says:
    October 20, 2011 at 8:11 am
    “I could only make sense of crispin’s position.”
    Good. Recognizing that you have a problem is the first step to a cure. Read some basic works on scientific method. An excellent starting point is Carl G. Hempel’s “Aspects of Scientific Explanation.” If you like to be really challenged, get Isaac Levi’s books. The starting point for Levi is “The Enterprise of Knowledge.”

  72. Steve from rockwood says:
    October 20, 2011 at 6:45 am
    A model walks into an error bar….
    ===================================
    Now that is funny.

  73. Steve from rockwood says:
    October 20, 2011 at 6:45 am
    “A model walks into an error bar….”
    The bartender says: You may sit wherever you like, including my station.
    The model says: I just love climate science error bars.

  74. Tokyoboy, ask yourself the same question when the nuclear plants are shut down, as in Japan and Germany and its -10 C. We are insulated from the real questions of survival – you know food production, advanced medicine, transportation of the same and heat only because of fossil fuels. The “inconvenient truth” for the greenies is that there is no energy dense, portable substitute for fossil fuels that will be available in 1,2 or probably 500 years. Your question is mute if you want to survive. There are 6 billion of us now so what’s your alternative? the laughable wind turbines and solar panels? Did you see that the thermometer broke -20 C in the UK last winter and not a single wind turbine, that wasn’t frozen solid, was spining. It froze in Brazil for the first time in 60 years over the last Southern Hemisphere winter. Are you absolutely, consensually, IPCC-type, confident that “snow will be a rare and exciting event”. England had way too much excitement last winter. Thanks to coal and natural gas the lights stayed on. Heaven help Japan and Germany.

  75. @Aslak
    If you don’t like the extremism don’t respond to them. I see tehre is quite a range. I think we have the basis of a discussion. I don’t think the AGW supporters have had anything meaningful to say (just blog and run).
    I see that David Springer has made a fairly detailed response too. I am sure you are aware that the extraordinarily offensive (and consistently so) reactions skeptics have received at the hands of warmists drives their emotional responses. It is quite a reasonable or shall I say expectable reaction following the thousands of silly rebuffs of their sincere attempts to hold what used to be considered normal scientific exchange.
    I hope you will consider closely my main point which is that calculating a theoretical forcing is not the same as the system’s response to that forcing. The other main point was well covered by others too: that the sea level and temperature is not presently ‘cooperating’ with the CO2 rise, a suggested link that underpins the basis of your premises.
    A model tries to incorporate a number of theoretical calculations to produce an encapsulated picture of reality. They are useful and I use them all the time. Some, like beam deflection are really accurate. Others, like climate, are most inadequate for two reasons: poor characterisation (failure to include important factors) and low accuracy (large error bars). They are getting better but all in all, they are terrible. No one would invest in the stock market based on them, I hope (I guess one could over-estimate people).
    Surely you are aware of the ludicrous numbers that have been made about sea levels which are based on simple guessing, sort of hunches dressed up with numbers. Greenland melting in 50 years and alla that. It really is like shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. It is execrable to try to scare people into spending trillions of Dollars on absolutely unproven hare-brained schemes to control the climate. People are literally dying as funds are switched from much-needed upliftment to CO2 offsets that accomplish exactly nothing. Even as an exercise in ‘creating a common vision of a better society’ it is doomed to fail because the science is so bad and that will come back to haunt the (perhaps) well-intended authors. You will note how many bloggers think it is a commie conspiracy, but that’s just because any good commie knows a bandwagon when he sees one. Ditto rent-seekers and hangers-on who have no real job or academic prospects.
    I would be happy with your paper if you included the reality of the sea level and temperature changes that have occurred recently and indicate the huge range of futures that might be encountered when they are. Noting wrong with speculation based on observations. That, after all, is what skeptics do when observing the failure of temperatures to rise (significantly, in the technical sense) since 1995. At the least proper error bars might bring some sanity to the GW discussion. I find Flannery’s works absolutely unreadable bilge. It is evident by now he has nothing to contribute. I feel that with your evident skills, you do.
    And to all the noise makers and arm-chair experts populating this popular list: In spite of not posting it here, the Author has shown up to discuss the Paper and its implications and interpretations. Do him the courtesy of having the conversation.
    Aslak, if they do not offer substance and courtesy, go to Judith Curry’s site and discuss it there. We can redirect people from here. I would like to remain here for lack of time to survey everything. I have raised some points to which you could respond.
    Sincerely
    Crispin

  76. Sea level was between 4 to 6 metres higher during the last Eemian interglacial, 125,000 years ago.
    Temperatures were about 2.25C to 3.0C higher than today in the Eemian, about what is projected from global warming (this wasn’t caused by a CO2 increase however). So, one could surmise that sea level could rise 5.0 metres if temperatures were 2.25C to 3.0C higher.
    The high resolution ice core data, however, indicates that the warmest period in the Eemian (the time period when it was 2.5C to 3.0C higher than today) lasted for about 5,000 years. So, one could also surmise it took 5,000 years to melt enough ice and for ocean thermal expansion to reach sea level rise of +5.0 metres.
    500 years is 10% of 5,000 years. 10% of 5.0 metres is 50 cms.
    There you go. Another estimate (this time based on a real Earth example).

  77. Dear Aslak Grinsted,
    Can you please explain why the most accurate sea level measurements (the EVISAT satellite) have shown no sea level rise since it began operation back in 2003? If the answer is that natural variations have overwhelmed CO2’s heating effects than please show how these natural variations influenced sea level rise since the little ice age AND THEN CEASED and man-made factors replaced them. Use numbers and show your work! It is these unexplained gaps in reasoning that subject you to mockery. If you do not wish to be mocked then please explain such basic logical problems with observations, and measurements otherwise the shifting causation reeks of a childish “I can make myself invisible, just not right now.”

  78. Willis, I don’t always agree with you (where would the fun in that be?) but I like your style, this is the cruelest critique that I have read in sometime. Ouch!!

  79. aslak grinsted says:
    October 20, 2011 at 8:11 am
    I am impressed by how successfully the crowd has been driven to a frenzy. Your audience loves you, Willis. I am sure they also would like to know what you think.
    …………………………………………………..
    That is funny. Your paper would attempt to drive the worlds population into a frenzy based on speculation and assumption.
    The recorded trends of Air Temperature and Ocean Temperature as well as Sea Level have not followed CO2 rise as expected from those promoting global warming. If you haven’t followed this blog very close you might be surprised that terms such as // if, assume // do not get much traction here.
    The one thing I can promise is if you bring your data here for all to see it will be dissected better than any peer review. What better way to prove your theory than under the intense light of skepticism or would you just rather the world followed you like sheep?

  80. Aslak Grinsted says:
    October 20, 2011 at 3:21 am
    Lets try to find some common ground for discussion. I assume you agree about the following observations (concerning on average over the 20th century):
    * Sea level has been rising
    * Earth has warmed (Global Mean SATs)
    * Ocean heat content is increasing (since observations has been available= 1955)
    * CO2 is increasing.

    Please complete your assertion, by explaining how any of these observations are unusual over the last 10,000 years.
    Next, please provide some evidence, that these observations are accelerating and if so – are caused by Anthropogenic in origin.
    While I do agree CO2 is increasing (probably anthropologically), why should that fact be regarded with fear. Do you hate plants or just plant food, or just life in general? You are negative about that which enables all higher forms of life. The atmosphere has been dangerously low on CO2 for a very long time and only recently begun to return to more optimal conditions.
    Lastly, Why do you assume that present conditions, just so happen, to be the ideal and optimal conditions for this planet?! Why do you believe that climate will EVER be static? GK

  81. We’re clever specializers
    In the art of climatology,
    We’re very highly specialized
    In modelling futurology,
    We’re really rather good at,
    Yes, we’re good at hindcastology,
    And upside down’Tiljender,’
    Such a tricky methodology.
    Now you skeptics think our measurements
    Perverse and upside -downery,
    And some among you skeptics say
    We’re clueless and we’re clownery,
    But we’re very, very good at
    Yes,we’re very, very good at,
    Oh we’re really very good at
    Getting money from the guvernment!

  82. Willis,
    Not to worry, I am sure they have taken into account all of the potential variables: continental shelf deposition and erosion, ice melt and freeze rate changes, ocean temperature, future meteor impacts, tectonic plate drift and potenial regional plate upwelling and collapse, volcanism, ocean current changes, precipitation changes, solar radiation changes, etc., etc., etc. over the next 500 years. Simple stuff for the enlightened.

  83. Crispin in Waterloo says:
    October 20, 2011 at 9:13 am
    “And to all the noise makers and arm-chair experts populating this popular list: In spite of not posting it here, the Author has shown up to discuss the Paper and its implications and interpretations. Do him the courtesy of having the conversation.”
    Did you not see that the author showed up and said he understands only you among the replies he received here. Is it inaccurate to say that he is not doing the courtesy of having the conversation? Or maybe he is simply honest and is not capable of engaging someone else.

  84. When I look at the basic graph and I accept it on face value. It breaks down into nice little 100 year increments. In the first 100 year block of time, society needs only to resolve an estimated 1 meter of sea level rise. Certainly that is reasonable. I can only imagine what sort of technological development will transistion during that time concurrent with that need. so really not much of a chalenge.
    The second 100 year period will face a slightly more challenging 2 meters of sea level rise and have 100 years of experience in dealing with such a problem while having up to 100 years to resolve it. So again not much of a challenge.
    The following 100 years will face 1.5 meters of rise and have 200 years of experience in dealing with such a problem. Plus sufficient time to resolve it. A no sweat effort for sure.
    The next 100 years will face only 75% of a meter of rise and the last 100 period wil face only a half meter of sea level rise. These last two iterations should have no issue at all and may be bored with such trivial problems.
    Then again, this seems like some tired speculation and my basic assumption of accepting on face value seems to be a bit naive.

  85. At what point in the curve do we actually run out of water to add in? That is, there’s only a certain amount of water on Earth at the current time, and even if you melted the Icecaps….or does this scenario envision AGW getting to the point where it causes a rift in the fabric of space time, opening a gateway to a parallel dimension of water?

  86. Beth Cooper says:
    October 20, 2011 at 9:37 am
    Beth, I must say that, of all of the poems I’ve seen on this and other realted blogs, yours is by far the best I have seen to date! Love it!

  87. Crispin-
    Nicely stated (both posts). I hope Mr. Grinsted does return to the discussion.
    One point I am unclear on; it is known that the increased “heating” effects of CO2 in the atmosphere decrease with rising levels of concentration. At least I’m unaware of any contention that is otherwise. Yet, the various curves from the abstract don’t appear to show such an effect.
    Why? Is it assumed that there will be such an increase in “land-based” ice melt due to rising land surface temperatures that this will overcome the decrease in thermal expansion?
    If so, then the curves must have been generated by a function with significantly more variables than a simple correlation of past (assumed) sea level rise as a function of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Maybe he can comment on that.

  88. Aslak Grinsted [October 20, 2011 at 3:21 am] says:
    “I am a coauthor on the study. I take no offense at your mockery, because that is pretty much the level of debate that I expect from WUWT (sorry, if that offends you).”

    To Aslak Grinsted, please answer one simple question.
    In light of this, what do you believe sea-level should be doing today?
    [A] :: Increasing
    [B] :: Remain static
    [C] :: Decreasing

  89. Beth Cooper says:
    October 20, 2011 at 9:37 am
    ————————————-
    Nicely done Beth!

  90. A model walks into an error bar and yells to the bartender “I’ll have an IPCC report, on the rocks and hold the facts.”
    It is ridiculous to write a paper calling for catastrophic sea-level rise over a period of twelve generations (to which currently there has been no sudden increase in the rate of sea-level rise and in a world where the in-danger areas are already below sea-level), introduce yourself to the thread as a coauthor of said useless paper and then disappear. It is not necessary to directly engage any of us deniers but you could post a simple summary of your paper for discussion. I for one am curious to know where all this water is coming from. The ice shelves? Greenland? Antarctica? Looking at my back of the envelope calculation I get an Antarctica land-mass melting of almost 10%. Martha, get the boats ready…the research grants are coming.

  91. Aslak Grinsted says:
    October 20, 2011 at 3:21 am
    “1) Increased CO2 -> Increased radiative forcing
    2) stronger radiative forcing -> increased heat / warming
    3) Heat/warming -> shrinks land-based ice, and expands the world oceans.”
    1) and 2) are too simplistic, as negative feedbacks due to adaptation of the relative humidity does not occur in this simple reasoning; see e.g. Miskolczi’s theory.
    Beenstock and Reingewertz have shown that CO2 concentration CANNOT Granger-cause the temperature anomaly – so there MUST be a negative feedback, otherwise your simple line of reasoning would hold.
    see
    http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf
    I also have an opinion about publications like yours, Aslak, but I better keep it to myself.

  92. Chris D and Steve from Rockwood,
    I agree Beth’s piece was very good – but isn’t it a parody of Gilbert and Sullivan’s “I am the very model of a modern major general”?

    see from about 1:05 on.

  93. Aslak Grinsted says:
    October 20, 2011 at 3:21 am

    Dear Willis
    I am a coauthor on the study. I take no offense at your mockery, because that is pretty much the level of debate that I expect from WUWT (sorry, if that offends you).

    Heck, that’s OK Aslak, we’re about even in that regard. I take no offense at the shabby quality of your work, because that is pretty much the level of science that I expect from AGW supporters (sorry, if that offends you).

    Lets try to find some common ground for discussion. I assume you agree about the following observations (concerning on average over the 20th century):
    * Sea level has been rising
    * Earth has warmed (Global Mean SATs)
    * Ocean heat content is increasing (since observations has been available= 1955)
    * CO2 is increasing.

    I am uninterested in averages, they throw away valuable information. For example, although the average sea level has been rising, for the last few years it has been falling. Go figure. If you want my agreement, you won’t get it. Ocean heat content is no longer increasing. Sea level is no longer rising. Earth is no longer warming. Despite that, CO2 levels are still rising.
    Any real scientist would be saying “What’s up with that?” Instead, because your model predicted none of those outcomes (except the rising CO2), you want us to look elsewhere, you are using the usual magicians trick of misdirection, ‘focus on the averages, don’t pay any attention to the man behind the curtain’ you say … no thanks. I focus on the observations.

    Here is a causal chain of events as i see them, and I would appreciate if you man up, and acknowledge exactly what it is you dispute:
    1) Increased CO2 -> Increased radiative forcing
    2) stronger radiative forcing -> increased heat / warming
    3) Heat/warming -> shrinks land-based ice, and expands the world oceans.

    Man up? You’re asking me to “man up”, you unpleasant person? Why do you AGW supporters always want to throw in allegations of blame? Can’t you just stick to the science, like a real scientist woul… … oh. Right. Sorry, I mistook you for someone else. Never mind.
    In any case, to your questions. Increased CO2 increases forcing. In general, an increase in forcing is immediately followed by a large response involving clouds. See my work on the TAO buoys here and here for an example of the phenomenon. This immediately reduces incoming energy, as well as cooling the surface.
    As a result, while #1 and #2 are kina correct, the additional forcing does not lead to more warming. The earth, not being the moribund system you assume, responds to the forcing by inter alia increasing the clouds and thunderstorms to maintain the balance. I’ve demonstrated it with the TAO data, as well as with a year’s worth of the weather satellite photos (here), and with the ERBE data as well.

    Perhaps you do not dispute any of these points and agree with our projections. From your mockery it sounds as if your only question the value of multi century projections in general. Please clarify.

    I strongly dispute your implied jump from #2 to #3, that’s a bridge way too far. It assumes a dead system, one that doesn’t react to changes but slavishly and linearly follows them. You think the climate is linear and mechanistic. I think it’s flexible and responsive. However, that’s not why I think your projection is worthless.
    Five century projections based on any tuned model are a joke, Aslak. Your tuned climate supermodel, even if it is the Elle McPherson of tuned climate models, is incapable of telling us why the sea level has been falling for the last year. If it could do that, IT WOULDN’T REQUIRE TUNING.
    Let me state that again, it is important. Your model completely failed to forecast the last five years of changes in sea levels. I know your paper somehow failed to mention that, but I also know it’s true, and I’ve never even seen your model. Gosh, maybe I should go into the Nostradamus business myself … but I digress.
    Perhaps you trust such a Tinkertoy™ model for a prediction say half a millennium out, Aslak. Me? I’ll just point and laugh when you make that claim. If you believe that, I have a great deal on a bridge in Brooklyn I’ll sell you for a very cheap price …

    “Lukewarmers” usually agree with all of the points above but only question whether the “climate sensitivity” in step 2 of the chain is really as large as climate models imply. In our study we avoid any uncertainty in climate sensitivity, by simply looking at the relationship between radiative forcing and sea level rise directly.

    Not sure what that has to do with me, I think “climate sensitivity” is a meaningless measurement, for reasons I detailed here.
    Aslak, computer based models of anything are only as good as the theory they embody. No one has shown that computer based models of the climate are any better than random chance at predicting the climate. For example, we’re in about a 15-year hiatus in the warming. Not one single model (INCLUDING YOURS) was able to forecast that hiatus.
    So … since your models have failed so miserably at that much easier task, when you come in and want me to believe it is inaccurate in the short run but by gosh, you are really, really sure it will be spot on for the long run …
    Well, there’s not much left to do at that juncture except to get some beer and popcorn and wait for the crash, my friend.
    All the best, thank you for having the integrity to come here to defend your work. Unfortunately, as my high school science teacher pointed out, that kind of model fantasy, using a bozo-simple model to simply extend a line from today’s changes out 500 years, is indefensible.
    w.

  94. Steve from rockwood says:
    October 20, 2011 at 6:45 am

    A model walks into an error bar….

    Coffee up the nose on that one, my friend.
    w.

  95. aslak grinsted says:
    October 20, 2011 at 8:11 am

    I appreciate the response of the few of you who has clarified your positions to my discussion points above. I could only make sense of crispin’s position. I am still looking forwards to a clarification from Willis though.
    I am impressed by how successfully the crowd has been driven to a frenzy. Your audience loves you, Willis. I am sure they also would like to know what you think.

    Sorry I didn’t respond to you as quickly as you might have liked, Aslak. I went to bed at 3 AM after posting my piece, and since then I was doing this funny thing called “sleeping”.
    However, you’ll no doubt be impressed by my claim that using my model to linearly extend my average number of hours of sleep five hundred years into the future, I can confidently state that by then I’ll have slept a total of nearly 120 years, and been awake for 380 years … I can hardly wait, I’ve been missing sleep lately and I could really use those extra years of snoozing right about now …
    w.

  96. I once had to prove (in the rigorous mathematical sense) to an engineer that (1) it is possible to create an infinite number of ‘models’ that can fit any arbitrary set of data points, (2) if one adds another finite set of data points to the original set, an infinite subset of the ‘models’ will perfectly accommodate the additional points, and (3) the original set of data points therefore becomes totally useless for extrapolation to estimates of new points.
    The only practical use of mathematical models that ‘fit’ empirical data is to provide reasonable *estimates* of *interpolated* values.
    Once the measurement has been made. all “bets” are off.

  97. aslak grinsted says:
    October 20, 2011 at 8:11 am
    Only one very simple question for you: Do you stand by everything that was reported in the press release? Thanks.

  98. Tom Davidson says:
    October 20, 2011 at 12:06 pm
    —————————————————-
    Tom, I took a one day course on 3-D inversion with Doug Oldenburg of UBC (Vancouver, Canada). Dr. Oldenburg started the course by fitting a series of data points (perhaps magnetic measurements, I can’t recall) to a series of very different models, all to the same degree of accuracy (a least squares error). The first was a series of vertical zones, next horizontal ones, then arbitrary shapes with minimum gradient at the boundaries, then smallest volume and so on. All of these very different models fit the data equally well and all were just as valid.
    The point of the exercise was that if you don’t know something about what you are modeling, you can get any outcome you wish. He went on stress honesty about what you do know and what you do not know. Great course, great man. Constraining your model was the most important step.
    Interpolation is one thing, extrapolation quite another. I use polynomials for interpolation but they are very bad outside the boundaries of the data used to determine their coefficients.
    Models that attempt to predict the future are a form of extrapolation. They are unbounded along the trend of prediction. That is why I made the error bar joke. We have about 50 years of accurate measurements on sea-ice, we barely know if Antarctica is growing or shrinking, we’re not sure if Greenland ice is stable and yet we can predict sea-level rise at 5.5 m in 500 years without a blush. Only stock pickers have more misplaced self confidence.
    Sorry about the coffee Willis. Hope you like the punch-line.

  99. Wasn’t this model modeled after the Lehman’s fiscal model for the ideal model of projected fiscal modeling of modeled leveraging?
    /src off

  100. Dear Aslak Grinsted,
    You attribute sea level rise to CO2 in your press release.
    Can you give us your evidence that this, or any sea level rise / lowering, isn’t natural?
    Talkin’ ain’t walkin’ …and that is the problem.

  101. MikeinAppalachia says:
    October 20, 2011 at 10:13 am
    Crispin-
    Nicely stated (both posts). I hope Mr. Grinsted does return to the discussion.
    One point I am unclear on; it is known that the increased “heating” effects of CO2 in the atmosphere decrease with rising levels of concentration. At least I’m unaware of any contention that is otherwise. Yet, the various curves from the abstract don’t appear to show such an effect.
    ========
    Everybody — skeptic and warmer alike — has tacitly agreed to use Svante Arrhenious’ estimate that the greenhousing falls off with the natural logarithm of the GHG concentration. It’s probably included. If it weren’t the future lines would probably sail off to the right as straight lines of pretty much constant slope starting around 2100.

  102. aslak grinsted says:
    October 20, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    Hi Willis
    Thanks, for restating what you already said in yet another sarcastic way.
    Why don’t you answer my questions instead?

    It’s hard to explain the foolishness of doing a 500 year projection with a tuned model without being sarcastic, Aslak. Truly, my high school science teacher warned me about you, so it’s hard not to laugh when you show up all serious about knowing what will happen half a millennium from now, the perfect incarnation of his warning.
    In addition, I did answer your questions. From memory I said that #1 and #2 were kinda true, and that #3 was not. I gave you references to studies that I’d done to back up my hypotheses.
    So your specious claim that I am just “restating what [I] already said in yet another sarcastic way” is 100% bovine waste products. How about you respond to my ideas and my citations before you start whining about being ignored.
    But I’ll give it another shot. Let me go find your questions, hang on.
    w.

  103. Gotta love the Willis.
    Mr Grinsted.
    You keep assuming that CO2 makes the sea level rise.
    Since the level isn’t rising, and the CO2 level isn’t falling,
    I do not know why you would persist in this belief.
    The same goes for the warming. It isn’t, so when you say it is, I find that confounding.
    Also I believe as others here do, that melting ice and rising sea level are normal positive
    climate indicators as they have been for 8 millennia, even if today’s melting and rising
    are actually rather feeble.
    Maybe y’all should man up and make a 5 year prediction with a signed resignation filed, should your confidently touted predictions fail to come to pass.
    At least regale us with some of your more successful, past prognostications
    so that it might be possible for the less nuanced observers among us to judge your skill
    before we put our beach homes up for sale, or otherwise inconvenience ourselves,
    to favor your climate overlords.

  104. Aslak, you’re going to have to give me some more clues. I went back to look, and I had indeed answered your questions, viz:

    In any case, to your questions. Increased CO2 increases forcing. In general, an increase in forcing is immediately followed by a large response involving clouds. See my work on the TAO buoys here and here for an example of the phenomenon. This immediately reduces incoming energy, as well as cooling the surface.
    As a result, while #1 and #2 are kinda correct, the additional forcing does not lead to more warming. The earth, not being the moribund system you assume, responds to the forcing by inter alia increasing the clouds and thunderstorms to maintain the balance. I’ve demonstrated it with the TAO data, as well as with a year’s worth of the weather satellite photos (here), and with the ERBE data as well.

    Perhaps you do not dispute any of these points and agree with our projections. From your mockery it sounds as if your only question the value of multi century projections in general. Please clarify.

    I strongly dispute your implied jump from #2 to #3, that’s a bridge way too far. It assumes a dead system, one that doesn’t react to changes but slavishly and linearly follows them. You think the climate is linear and mechanistic. I think it’s flexible and responsive. However, that’s not why I think your projection is worthless. …

    For you to come back now, after I have provided clear answers to all your questions and no less than four links that were not in the head post, and claim that I was just “restating what [I] already said in yet another sarcastic way” is … is a … well, let me describe it as being free of honesty, accuracy and good will and leave it at that. As you can see, I answered your questions straightforwardly and sincerely, provided new information, and cited a wealth of supporting data. At the very least, it is extremely misleading of you to claim otherwise. At the very most? Haven’t a clue, but none of it is pretty.
    So if you have unanswered questions, you’ll have to pose them. I answered every one I found, as honestly as I could, as is my practice. Coming back to abuse me for not answering them doesn’t work. I answered them. You don’t like my answers. OK, we can move on now.
    In any case, I’m not upset by your momentary ethical lapse or your attempts at misdirection, happens to us all at times, I’m more than happy to answer your questions in as much detail as you’d like. What questions would you like to ask?
    w.

  105. Aslak a word to the wi….. well word to you anyway you will lose to Willis every time if you can’t be straight-forward and ready to admit that he might just be right on this ego is a very bad thing and you haven’t got the wordsmanship to keep up with Willis is a snark-off just be honest and sincere and let your mind be open and you might just learn something. great job on this again Willis.

  106. Miichael Larkin, I kinda hoped someone would notice the Gilbert and Sullivan ‘model,’ metaphor abounds… Chris D and Steve from Rockwood, thanks for kind comments.

  107. Seems to me these AGW chiefs just stick their fingers in their ears and keep repeating “the world is getting much warmer, sea level rise is accelerating, wild weather events are intensifying, all the ice is rapidly melting!” No, no, no, and no again. STOP with the crapola. }:o(
    BTdubs, nice to see matey getting pwned by Willis in the Mexican Stand-off above. Time to don the short trousers and cap, and go back to school.
    Also, it cracked me up to read in the article “sorry, but that’s a complete wank”! Does that word have a different meaning elsewhere?! Here in the UK it means a spot of…, shall we say, ‘hand-to-gland combat’! :oD

  108. Dear Aslak,
    Lots of science to deal with here. You have ducked all of it. From you, no science at all, and I really did hope that you would pitch in on the scientific issues. Oh well.
    I will respond to your email as soon as I have dealt with another (personal) issue. After which, I will submit my response to you, and to this site. The rest of our exchange remains private, as per our agreement.
    Behind a $39.95 paywall? The Danish taxpayer has paid for this. Who else? My advice: total honesty.
    Absolutly classic material from Lance “sound barrier”, and the “error bar” the model frequents. Hope they have some real, live, unfiltered, unpasteurised beer in the error bar.
    No time limits here. Come back to us when you can. Now time for imput from your co-authors?
    Best wishes,
    Richard.

  109. Aslak Grinsted says:
    Dear Willis
    I am a coauthor on the study. I take no offense at your mockery, because that is pretty much the level of debate that I expect from WUWT (sorry, if that offends you).

    Mockery, such as, say, this?
    As Mark Twain famously wrote of that kind of extrapolation:
    In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod.
    And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

    It appears that mockery of this kind, and concerning exactly this kind of “science”, has been around for some time, why do you suppose that is?

    Lets try to find some common ground for discussion.

    Do you mean actual common ground, or ground of your choosing, ground where you believe you control the rules and allowed evidence (and especially, disallowed evidence), and thus are certain of victory?
    Is this chosen ground “climate models”? Are you aware of the phrase the map is not the territory”? The most significant climate changes are, obviously, ice ages and the interglacial periods between them, please show how your model explains how ice ages start and end. Please show how your model also explains what caused the modern warm period, what caused and ended the little ice age, the medieval warm period, the dark ages, the roman warm period, etc. If your models and science cannot explain these, the most dramatic climate changes of all, why should I believe either? If your models and science are so poor that they cannot even explain such huge changes, why should I limit my discussion to that? Why should I limit my “common ground” to ground, which obviously has no connection with climate in the real world at all? You will note that these latter climate changes resulted in fairly large temperature swings, large enough to effect sea levels, and that they appear to have happened about every 500 years, please show that you do, indeed, understand what could only have been the natural causes of these (there being no industrialized civilization to have affected them) and show that the causes of these will not effect your 500 year projection. After all, you are a climate scientist, after all, and therefore you certainly must know what started and ended these climate changes, thus you must be able to show that such things have ceased, that they will not come along and screw up your nice little graph, right?

    I assume you agree about the following observations (concerning on average over the 20th century):

    As I said, you wish to assure yourself that I first agree with your “observations” and only your observations, as you give them. I should not, of course, ever disagree with them, but accept them uncritically, and I must never dare to suggest any observations not on your list! Thus I fight only by your rules, and only with the weapons you supply (if any), and thus cannot possibly win. However, I prefer to do what any good general must, to fight on ground of my choosing, the ground of actual, real world observations, which in this case means actual data taken from the real world and not from some model.
    That means I will not ignore the little ice age, or the periodic warming and cooling periods after that. I will take into account La Nina and El Nino events, rather than just blindly lumping them into an “average” and assuming that such events are all caused entirely by CO2. And about average and such statistics:
    The average American has one ball and one tit, that is all you need to understand about averages.

    * Sea level has been rising

    Granted, sea levels have indeed been rising since the end of the last ice age, but you know all about what starts and ends ice ages and can assure me that that is certainly not what is happening now, right?
    Granted, sea levels have been rising since the end of the little ice age, and you certainly know what started and ended that and can thus assure me that it is not happening now, right? Or perhaps you can simply deny the little ice age, medieval warm period, etc etc and thus give up any pretense at even being a climate scientist, or any kind of scientist at all, your choice.
    Recently, however, not granted, seas have been dropping lately, how do you explain that? CO2 goes up, seas go down, isn’t that the exact opposite of your claim?

    * Earth has warmed (Global Mean SATs)

    Granted, earth has warmed since the end of the ice age, which climate change you can explain in detail. Oh wait, they didn’t have SAT’s then, never mind. But wait, they had huge glaciers all over, and they don’t now, a pretty good proxy, so I guess you are not off the hook on that one.
    Granted, earth has warmed since the end of the little ice age, mostly around say 1880 and 1890, and somehow managed it without resorting to industrialization, and you can tell us all about how this happened, right? And they did have SAT’s then, maybe not as accurate or comprehensive, but they had them.
    Granted, the earth has warmed since the 70’s ice age scare, and, of course, you know all about that, right? And we are all certain that you would never have the start of you “rising temperatures” starting right about then, to make it look like it is rising faster than it is, correct? And, of course, you include the warm temperatures before that period, including the record breaking 1938, right? I mean, you would never just sweep such data under the rug, would you?
    Granted, the earth has warmed in urban areas, which contain many of the climate stations you are using for your SAT’s, but you know all about Urban Heat Island Effects, right? I mean, you can show that this has not effected your SAT’s, right? And the fact that for a decade or more now, climate stations all over the world have dropped off the grid, so that there are far fewer than there used to be also does not effect your SAT’s, right? I mean, a small number of climate stations at airports surrounded by large urban centers are just as good as a very large number of stations all over, right?
    Since 1998 or so, however, the earth has not warmed, despite rising CO2, can you explain that one?

    * Ocean heat content is increasing (since observations has been available= 1955)

    Not granted, if ocean heat content were increasing, the sea would be rising, it is dropping. In addition, there is uncertainty about such measurements, and more certainty that lately, now that we have more certain means, it is staying steady or even slowly dropping. Also, no secret reservoir of “missing heat” has been found in the deeps.
    * CO2 is increasing.
    Correlation is not causation. It has been shown that warm periods are followed by increased CO2. So, which is it, CO2 increasing causing warmth, or warmth increasing causing CO2?
    However, since we have been measuring directly, there does appear to be increasing CO2, so I will grant that one. Not as much of it as you think may be created by man, but it is there.

    Here is a causal chain of events as i see them, and I would appreciate if you man up, and acknowledge exactly what it is you dispute:

    There’s that causal thing again, see above.

    1) Increased CO2 -> Increased radiative forcing

    From CO2 alone, not enough to worry about, combined with water vapor, maybe, but then those cloud thingies get involved. All that shade, wind, rain, transport of heat from down here to up there screws up all the neat calculations. Really, someone should do something about that! Maybe if we cram all the climate into a model, where we can just push a few buttons and make it go away, so much neater.
    And really they tell us that all that combined radiative forcing from both CO2 and water vapor is causing effects now, well, if we can see the effects, shouldn’t we be able to measure the increased radiative forcing by now? Are you ever going to even try, or are you simply going to assume that your models are all you need? Is the age of actual experimentation over? Are we to go back to the pre Galileo age, when we make models of the crystal spheres that hold the planets, yet never think to actually use telescopes and look?

    2) stronger radiative forcing -> increased heat / warming

    Sooo, why aren’t we seeing this increased heat since 1999? I mean, the CO2 is going up, why isn’t the warming here? Could there be something missing from these models? Could the map and the territory be dissimilar?

    3) Heat/warming -> shrinks land-based ice, and expands the world oceans.

    We have the CO2, yet the seas are dropping, what is wrong with this picture? dropping
    If the world were warming, the ice would be melting, and the sea would be rising. The sea is dropping; therefore the world is not warming. Don’t need to be a climate scientist to figure that one out.

    Perhaps you do not dispute any of these points and agree with our projections. From your mockery it sounds as if you’re only question the value of multi century projections in general. Please clarify.

    See Mark Twain above, other people have made such projections in the past, and been mocked (and been dead wrong and mocked again). If you make similar projections now, you can expect to be mocked as well. And you should be.

    “Lukewarmers” usually agree with all of the points above but only question whether the “climate sensitivity” in step 2 of the chain is really as large as climate models imply. In our study we avoid any uncertainty in climate sensitivity, by simply looking at the relationship between radiative forcing and sea level rise directly.

    You have not “looked at” radiative forcing, you have made no direct observations of it at all, you only infer it from models that leave out too much to be representative of the actual climate. You also cannot explain sea level rise not in the context of man created CO2, yet it has risen and dramatically in the past before such existed, and is dropping despite it’s existence now.
    “Lukewarmers” are called that because they can’t seem to make up their minds. That is because they let you dictate the terms of the discussion to only what you want them to consider. That is because they have not used the scientific method, and looked outside the models, outside the theories, outside what you allow them to look at, and looked at the real world. Once you have, once you have actually seen the direct observations of the actual climate, what it has actually done and is doing, and not just some model somewhere, you give up all that wishy washy stuff.
    Once you have seen the territory, you don’t need the map anymore.


  110. Legatus says:
    October 20, 2011 at 9:37 pm
    Granted, earth has warmed since the end of the little ice age, mostly around say 1880 and 1890, and somehow managed it without resorting to industrialization, and you can tell us all about how this happened, right? And they did have SAT’s then, maybe not as accurate or comprehensive, but they had them.

    Many accurate observations in your post, but maybe a typo(?) or two in the above paragraph? Or did I misunderstand?

  111. gallopingcamel says:
    October 20, 2011 at 9:13 pm
    The only significant ice remaining is Antarctica and at the current rate of melting it will take a few thousand years.
    Pretty sure Antarctic ice overall has increased in recent times. If I remember right the west side has had some melt but the increase of the east side makes up for it 3 X over. Funny how you only hear about the side that has some melt and not that the other side is pushing record amounts. I remember reading this from a researcher who was working the icy side.

  112. F. Ross says:

    Legatus says:
    October 20, 2011 at 9:37 pm
    Granted, earth has warmed since the end of the little ice age, mostly around say 1880 and 1890, and somehow managed it without resorting to industrialization, and you can tell us all about how this happened, right? And they did have SAT’s then, maybe not as accurate or comprehensive, but they had them.

    Many accurate observations in your post, but maybe a typo(?) or two in the above paragraph? Or did I misunderstand?
    As for the dates, that is around the date that the little ice age ended, it may be as early as 1850, no one really agrees. Around this time the temerature warmed rapidly, to about the temeratures we now enjoy today (somehow managing this without SUV’s). It is also muddled because certain vested interests are very keen on the whole little ice age going away, if they cannot make it disappear, they can muddy the waters so much that no one wants to even think about it any more, since it is so surrounded in “controversy”. That is really known as “disinformation”, or, if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS. You simply throw out so many alternate theories that no one can find the truth in it all.
    Thay did indeed have SAT”s back then, because they had invented ways to measure the air temperature. Thermometers were around in smallish numbers, thus there are some records of air temperatures in some places. These can be compared to records now, to give at least some indication of how much temperatures have changed. Plus when the Thames river freezes over so hard that you can have a frost fair on it, that is a pretty good proxy. For that matter, George Washington being able to drag cannon over a frozen river is another good proxy. The simple fact that we have more records from this time than of earlier times allows us to read of things like that and deduce approximate temperatures, at least enough to see that it was considerable cooler then (not to mention just plain cold), and that it warmed rapidly when that period ended.

  113. Hi Willis
    I apologize for overlooking your earlier response on my tiny phone screen. You did indeed answer my questions. So, let me get this straight:
    * You agree that added CO2 heats Earth (but argue that cloud feedbacks lessen this effect).
    * You argue that this added heat is spent on more thunderstorms, but it will definitely not be heating the ocean, melting any ice, or warming the atmosphere.
    It seems like you should write a paper quantifying this anthropogenic impact on thunderstorms. Maybe you can look at extreme rainfall and flooding while you are at it.
    Regarding the recent dip in altimetry sea level: It is obviously due to ENSO. Please note, that this ENSO response was predicted before it happened (see Landerer et al. 2008) / find it on google ). So there is a really solid reason to expect the global mean sea level estimates “to reverse their recent downward trend and begin to increase as the La Niña effects wane”. You can consider that a short term prediction from me if you want, since you ridicule my long term projections.
    ——-
    Stephen Brown commented: “Willis, you are a marvel. Every time you strike a match, there’s a bonfire!” – yes, you excel at agitation. To all of the individuals who asked me questions in the comments. I yearn to respond to a few of your questions, but I cannot address a huge agitated mob.

  114. Isn’t the robustness of a model dependent on what they call ‘stress tests’?
    Which broadly means: if my input parameters at time zero change by x, what is the effect of that on output y? And if there is a statistical probability of stochastic events occurring in the future which also change the model’s output, how long before all you have is noise?
    As far as I undrstand it, with weather systems, they fulfil the characteristics of a chaotic system whereby small input variations both in the past, now and in the future rapidly produce sufficiently large output variations as to render all predictions pointless.
    Please point out if this is wrong.
    Because if the prediction is: ‘It’ll either rise or fall’,well forgive me for saying so, but I don’t need taxpayers’ money spent to prove that.

  115. Aslak Grinsted
    I have followed this discussion with interest.
    It seems to me that you face complete refutation many times over in three major categories
    1. methodology of positive science
    2. assessment of the downsides versus the upsides of global warming over whatever time-scale
    3. assessment of the upsides versus the downsides of any policy action intended to ameliorate the risks of global warming.
    I understand that the focus of your paper is only positive questions to do with global warming. However science does not supply value judgments, whereas policy requires them. So even if your positive science were all granted, the only result could be … so what?
    1.
    You say you could only make sense of Crispin’s position. Yet one of the criticisms was that you have confounded correlation with causation! How could you not make sense of that?
    Many criticisms go to the very heart of your methodology, for example your critics have shown you have relied on:
    • personal argumentation
    • assuming what is in issue
    • appeal to absent authority
    • confusing correlation with causation
    • invalid simple extrapolation
    • failing to take into account many relevant variables
    • failing to state – in words! – any actual reasonably well-confirmed causal physical hypotheses
    • failing to show how your model explains what caused the modern warm period, what caused and ended the little ice age, the medieval warm period, the dark ages, the roman warm period
    • etc.
    How could you “not make sense” of these criticisms? They represent complete demolition of your entire methodology!
    Thus the problem is that not only is your argument not scientific, but it is riddled with fallacies, and therefore it doesn’t even meet the minimum requirements of logical thought.
    So you don’t even get to square one in establishing the necessary basis for asking the questions that you want to assume as common ground for any discussion.
    In a rational discussion, you would either
    a) acknowledge the above criticisms as well-founded, and change your argument so as to take account of them, showing how you have still been able to maintain the same conclusion, or
    b) answer them to show they are not well-founded.
    But you can’t do either. For you to do a) would require not just a revised “model”, it would require a total change in your whole intellectual method. In other words, you’re wrong!
    2.
    But let’s assume you’re right. Okay.
    So what?
    Nothing follows from your hypothesis. You have not established any justification for any policy action whatsoever. It is no more relevant to policy than any other irrelevant fact.
    In order to justify policy action, the first thing you, or anyone, would need to show, is that the downsides of global warming would be worse than the upsides.
    The basic data set needed to show this, would be the evaluations of the humans interested in using the affected resources now and in the future. These evaluations are subjective, are dispersed in the minds of seven billion people, are constantly changing, and are universally discounted for futurity.
    So how are you, or how is anyone, going to obtain knowledge of that data set?
    Please admit that you, and any government official or group whatsoever, are not capable of that knowledge, and that without it, any pretension of government to justify policy action is false.
    3.
    But even if we knew that the downsides of global warming were worse than the upsides – which we don’t – the bald assumption that government is capable of automatically producing a better rather than a worse outcome, is worse than baseless. It is culpable invincible ignorance. For starters, the same data set would be required to know whether policy action would improve, or worsen matters, and government can *never* know it.
    The only way government policy could be assumed to produce a net benefit – however you defined the ultimate human welfare criterion – is by simply ignoring the costs. But obviously if you ignore the costs, anything will seem beneficial!
    The absurd belief that government can manage the ecology is just a re-run of the belief that it can manage the economy, which has just been proved wrong in the 20th century at a cost of over 100 million deaths.
    You should be saluted for being one of the very few of the warmists with the intellectual courage to actually attempt to engage in a dialogue of reason with your critics.
    And you should be thanked for openly exhibiting the utterly hopeless and self-interested mendacity of the entire irrational belief system, which is no better than the worst superstition.
    But if I am wrong, then kindly let us have your revised reasoning taking into account all the above criticisms, or showing why they don’t apply, and showing how you have still managed to arrive at the same conclusion.

  116. “I yearn to respond to a few of your questions, but I cannot address a huge agitated mob.”
    You come here to comment then play the “victim” card – it’s pretty much what I expected.
    Again, do you stand by the press release? Respond if you can, but I don’t think you will (too busy feeling sorry for yourself – and perhaps you DON’T stand by the press release after all).

  117. @Aslak
    ” I cannot address a huge agitated mob”
    +++++
    I do not consider myself to be agitated nor mobbish but rather, engaged.
    Justin J has given us a pretty calm dissertation outlining a number of issues I left aside. They are all, I think, worthy of a response as well. There are a larger number of issues related to climate science in general and I am not expecting you to defend the atrocious work of others. We will take each up with their respective authors.
    You will see above a comment was deleted for being nothing more than inflamatory trolling. This is a problem all over the blogosphere. However, think of how we scientists are dismissed as ‘trolls’ when we raise absolutely legitimate issues with papers on the climate and have our comments deleted, binned, boreholed (as RC calls it) or edited (!) post facto as happened at SkS. It is to the discredit of the warmist camp that they chortle with glee as they delete opinion contrary on their CO2 castles in the sand. It is literally farcical.
    AGW caused by CO2 is, in my view, a postulate that has run its course. It was entertaining; it brought people together; it raise awareness that mankind is capable of mismanaging and wasting the Commons; it showed people are willing to lie to get money. The billions spent to try to prove its truth have not been entirely wasted, just largely so in my view. We could have done much better by now. Mankind is still spending more than a trillion Dollars per year waging and preparing for war. This is universally (save in Strange States) considered to be a Bad Thing. Spending a similar amount of treasure to continuously replenish a gigantic ‘carbon’ trough into which the accounting, trading and industrial complexes have thrust their snouts is also a Bad Thing if the entire proposition is found (as I believe it has) to be lamentably defective.
    Your paper is about projecting sea levels. You are responsible for the science supporting those forecasts. Your work is based on premises that I think you were supplied, not that you derived them yourself. As several contributors have indicated, there are sound reasons to suspect that those premises are inaccurate or wrong. All you have to do is accept the reality of the numbers from the field and rework your projections. No problem. You can still correct that. This is not complicated.
    There is advantage to you personally and scientifically to re-cast your work in the mould of these perhaps new understandings. When we stand on the shoulders of giants, we should remember that some are giants of progress and some are gigantic frauds. To question the work of others is not wrong, it is expected. When someone tells me he has a mechanical device that delivers a net thrust http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214390.pdf I look for errors and misunderstandings, as well as holding out the possibilty that they may be the first to create one.
    Above all, I think you need to show that increased CO2 leads to actual warming and actual sea level rise, as that is the core claim of your paper. All the works I have seen which rely on the real measurements available do not support the claim, and all the works which do, are based on models created with the presumption that the conclusion was already known to be true. That is why in the Climategate files one finds the statement to the effect that ‘the data and methods were defective but the conclusion is correct”. Now, what could be sillier, and more unscientific, than that?

  118. OK @Frank K: regarding the PR.: It actually accidently went out ahead of my final corrections (as can be verified from the fact that it has a wrong phone number). But it is pretty much only the words “using climate models” in the intro which I would have removed. The desciption of the RCP scenarios was very simplified, but if you really want the details then go here and here. How you interpret these scenarios, has no bearing how my model will respond to them though.
    The victim card: I don’t feel singled out as a victim, because it is like this on pretty much all WUWT threads: I just wanted to highlight for bystanders that adressing WUWT really is like adressing an agitated mob. I hope a few will agree that WUWT is not a place you want to be associated with (even if you are a sceptic). If you want evidence, then you should try to count the number of insults, sneers, and sarcastic comments that you guys have posted. WUWT is clearly not the place for a polite debate. Lord WUWT is like the Monckton of Blogs. Finally, if you look at the crowd’s answers to my questions, then you will find it is a conflicting cacophony of views. That is why I wanted Willis in particular to answer.
    @Justin J: Our paper is just as much about adaptation as it is about mitigation (and I do not advocate any policies in particular, but just hope that we atleast can avoid the worst case). I think that my study actually save you guys alot of money as it shows that a 1m rise is pretty much given. With that info, you can avoid the costs in developing areas that will be exposed to the risk in the future.
    To hear you guys talk about “personal argumentation”: ROFL.
    When I said I could make sense of crespins answer, well then I just meant he was the only one who could express his views in a coherent manner, and with atleast a minimum of explanation attached.
    It is true that our model is based on a causative hypothesis, but that is not just pulled out of a hat. The form of our particular model is justified by process models like these of ocean heat content and similar for ice sheets. Once you have identified a causative relationship like that, then it is completely sensible to try to estimate the sensitivity etc from data. Especially when the processs model response can be condensed into a simple model like ours. These physical models are certainly much better justified that your hand-waving hypothesis, that the system will not respond to any forcing that is imposed on it …. Well, that just comes across as some hippie “Mother Gaia will protect us”. Do you also assume that climate, and sea level will have a zero response to volcanic eruptions and change in insolation?

  119. Aslak Grinsted [October 21, 2011 at 8:43 am] says:
    “I think that my study actually save you guys alot of money as it shows that a 1m rise is pretty much given. With that info, you can avoid the costs in developing areas that will be exposed to the risk in the future.”

    How much money? Please give an example scenario of this claim. Not a single person will purchase a property and then live to see one meter of sea-level rise in their lifetime. One meter, two meters, ten meters, are all a ‘given’ over an extended period of time between now and the end of the Holocene. This is not news. Humans still inhabit the same coastal cities that they created thousands of years ago. Even Venice is still here, and Holland, and New Orleans. Whatever tiny sea-level rise has occurred during the whole of human civilization has been adapted to, or simply ignored.
    You do have to address that astonishing green line on the plot though. Unless I am misunderstanding the Y-Axis you are trying to say that if emissions are stabilized in 10 years, sea-level will stop rising. Therefore humans, in your opinion, have the ability to completely stop the normal continuous on-going sea-level rise during our current Holocene interglacial. Is this true?
    In light of the historical record, exactly what do you *believe* sea-level should be doing today?
    [A] :: Increasing
    [B] :: Remaining static
    [C] :: Decreasing

  120. Jimash [October 20, 2011 at 4:20 pm] says:
    Maybe y’all should man up and make a 5 year prediction with a signed resignation filed, should your confidently touted predictions fail to come to pass. At least regale us with some of your more successful, past prognostications so that it might be possible for the less nuanced observers among us to judge your skill before we put our beach homes up for sale, or otherwise inconvenience ourselves, to favor your climate overlords.”

    I lke this! I like it a lot. This should be a continuous evaluation also. If they survive the first 5 years, they immediately start the next 5 year accuracy watch.
    Accountability is what is lacking. And if you think about it, this is a phenomenon everywhere, not just in Science. Just look at Sports, Politics, Education, Law Enforcement, Civil Service, and everyday life. I’m not sure if it is a devolving human failing or just a peculiar result of modern times and our narcissism. But almost without fail in all fields, humans are consistently failing to weed out the unqualified and in fact doing the reverse, via affirmative action and the Peter Principle. My intuition is that this will be ruinous to the human race.

  121. @Aslak
    I have the feeling you are trying to misrepresent what I have written by ‘semi-citing’ it in an amplified and lampooning manner. Please be careful not to do that – we will notice immediately.
    I refer to your writing ‘hand-waving hypothesis, that the system will not respond to and forcing that is imposed on it…” What you wrote is a mis-characterisation of what I wrote about a system response. I was pointing you to a free programme of great efficacy that can be used to simulate heat engines and I did this because you might not know such a tool exists. The atmosphere is a heat engine, not a greenhouse and this very early mis-characterisation of warming has caused many people to be confused about how things work. The mention of ‘Mother Gaia’ is irrelevant. That is basically Mother Earth News Goes Global. None of us here, at least the sentient ones, assume that the climate will ‘have a zero response’ to any of the forcings. In fact it is the mis-characterisation of this acceptance (that all forcing have at least some impact) which fills so many warmist blogs as they toss little calumnies back and forth and then giggle. It is like listening to Grade 2 sandbox talk.
    Please try not to allow the execerable example of some researchers to refuse to discuss their work and spend all of their time on misdirection. By misdirection, I mean inflating and deliberately misinterpreting things said as a way of trying to avoid addressing the points raised, however inconvenien, in the hope that be generating an emotional response will allow your to depart with some sort of ‘victory’ over your supposed oppoents. Science does not have ‘victors’ it has discussions that lead to a greater understanding of the truth, even if animated.
    I am actually surprised by your last post. I thought you were going to attempt to engage at least some of us in a discussion of the most important points we raised. I will be disappointed in you if you exit now without dealing wht at least some of them. There is no point in complaining about the ‘cacophany of views’ as you put it. I felt they were pretty consistent in addressing the premises you used as a departure point, and there were too many that were unnecessarily sarcastic, I agree. This is one of the few well managed sites where all opinions are welcome so you can expect a certain amont of venting. It is my hope that if you do not rise to the bait, but rather to the occasion, our views might help you in your work.
    Thank you for answering with your comment about a causative hypothesis. It is important (and much discussed here) that it is indeed a hypothesis, not an accept theory with validation in the field. As you can probably tell, the readers here are widely read and have concluded that the core premises, particularly the one assuming a causal relationship between CO2 and the global temperature is weak. I think any of us can tell you that the R value for correlation is 0.53. I am not sure if your read Dessler’s paper that was drawing a conclusion from a correlation of R=0.01. It would be a mistake to think skeptics are clueless about these matters. On balance, CO2= >T proponents are skating on very thin statistical ice.
    Let’s see how a review of the premises (your 4) would affect your forecast sea rise magnitude. As for the 1 meter, that will happen as Greenland continues its slow melt (if it continues) and if Antarctica stops or slows its net accumulation. Someone pointed to the increase on the East side. We already reviewed that paper here. Sea level will continue to rise as it has been for ages, I hope. It is stops we are in FAR more trouble than has heretofore been assumed because it means we really might be going into the (overdue) next ice age. Given the poor and logarithmic temperature response to CO2 and it unpredictabilty (low ‘R’) we will not be able to stave it off.
    The hypothesis that we are already causing an additional meter rise of sea levels with our CO2 emissions is not supported by any evidence from this, the last, or any century. None at all. Zero. Sea level change is not related to CO2 nor caused by it. It is a just-so story. The Earth has been a ball of ice (with low sea level) and had very high CO2 and the opposite (no summer ice, mundane CO2). Scary warming makes for vaguely entertaining Hollywood movies but not actual science or policy.

  122. Aslak Grinsted says:
    October 21, 2011 at 2:32 am

    Hi Willis
    I apologize for overlooking your earlier response on my tiny phone screen. You did indeed answer my questions. So, let me get this straight:
    * You agree that added CO2 heats Earth (but argue that cloud feedbacks lessen this effect).
    * You argue that this added heat is spent on more thunderstorms, but it will definitely not be heating the ocean, melting any ice, or warming the atmosphere.
    It seems like you should write a paper quantifying this anthropogenic impact on thunderstorms. Maybe you can look at extreme rainfall and flooding while you are at it.

    Thank you for the apology, Aslak, working on a phone screen drives me nuts.
    Not sure what your point is about thunderstorms. I don’t recall I said anything about the anthropogenic effect on thunderstorms, so why would I write a paper quantifying it? And you seem to think that “extreme events” are changing, but I find no evidence that is true, so I’m not sure what you mean there either.

    Regarding the recent dip in altimetry sea level: It is obviously due to ENSO. Please note, that this ENSO response was predicted before it happened (see Landerer et al. 2008) / find it on google ).

    I found Landerer et al, of course it’s paywalled. But really, are you serious? The abstract says:

    The analysis utilizes 200 years of simulated monthly data from the ECHAM5/MPI-OM coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, which includes a land-surface and runoff scheme.

    Your “evidence” is 200 years of model runs? Really? You’ll have to explain that one to me, Aslak … because 200 years of “simulated monthly data” and 200 sheets of toilet paper contain about the same amount of information about the real world.
    And I find absolutely no prediction of the decrease before it happened in the Landerer abstract, although it might be in the paywalled paper itself … but I doubt it, otherwise, they would have been crowing about it, and reasonably so. That’s a tough prediction to make.

    So there is a really solid reason to expect the global mean sea level estimates “to reverse their recent downward trend and begin to increase as the La Niña effects wane”. You can consider that a short term prediction from me if you want, since you ridicule my long term projections.

    No, there is no such “solid reason” in the Landerer paper, there’s a pile of useless model runs. However, since sea levels have been rising for at least a hundred years, your short term prediction (that they will rise again) is trivial.
    But predicting a fall of sea level is not trivial. So if there is a “prediction” of a sea level fall in the paywalled paper, break it out and copy it for us. Because I find nothing about such a prediction in the abstract, and any kind of prediction is extremely uncommon from AGW adherents—it is falsifiable, which seems to act on you folks like garlic on vampires.
    But hey, if he did predict the drop in sea level, I’ll give him huge props. So bring the prediction on, Aslak—what did Landerer say the predicted drop in sea level would be, and when did he predict the reversal would begin?
    Your turn, Aslak. Put your prediction where your mouth is. What did the prediction say about when the sea level would begin to decline, and how much did the prediction say it would decline?
    (Heck, I’ll make a prediction of my own. My prediction is that what Landerer said is not a prediction at all as you claim. It is some utterly prosaic and unfalsifiable statement like “in the event of an extreme la nina it is possible that the sea level might decline” or like that. So that’s my prediction, Aslak, that Landerer’s prediction is not falsifiable. Heck, now I’m all fascinated to see what you come up with, this should be very interesting.)

    ——-Stephen Brown commented: “Willis, you are a marvel. Every time you strike a match, there’s a bonfire!” – yes, you excel at agitation. To all of the individuals who asked me questions in the comments. I yearn to respond to a few of your questions, but I cannot address a huge agitated mob.

    I agitate for two very good reasons, Aslak.
    1. Because I’m tired of being lied to by climate scientists, and
    2. Because you and your mates are sitting on your asses and not doing anything about the lies, deceptions, and scientific malfeasance in the field.
    In other words, I agitate because you are not doing your job.
    I’m tired of people claiming that 200 years of “simulated monthly data” means anything. I’m sick of people like Landerer calling simulated model output “data”, and you referring to it as if it were data. I’m so over being referred to paywalled documents that as in this instance, when examined, say nothing like what you claim. I’m sick of folks like you sucking up public money and justifying it by taking some bozo simple equation, extending it out 500 years, and then claiming that I should be very, very worried about it. I was warned against that kind of puerile pseudo-mathematical nonsense of “extending a trend” by both my high school science teacher and Mark Twain, and unlike you, I listened to them.
    So yes, I agitate. I agitate for good, honest science. I fight for transparency. I advocate for not lying about climate model outputs as you do, by calling them “data”. That is active deception, Aslak, and you likely don’t even realize it, so I agitate for scientists like you to wake up. In fact, I agitate for a simple reason—BECAUSE YOU DON’T. If climate scientists like yourself would be out there fighting for transparent science, I wouldn’t need to agitate at all. Instead, you all refuse to make even the slightest negative comment when faced with egregious scientific misconduct … and then you bitch when someone like me has to do your job that I’m some kind of agitator.
    I agitate for climate scientists to clean up their own backyards from the egregious excesses of the Climategate conspirators. I agitate for people like you to develop the balls to speak out against bad science and malfeasance.
    So I’m glad to hear that I “excel at agitation” in your estimation, because I plan to continue to do it until folks like you take up the task, and until you stop wasting your education and your fine mind grinding out junk like 500 year forecasts and start cleaning up the execrable mess that is modern climate “science” … kick back, get a beer and some popcorn, this might take a while.
    Am I upset with you? No. You’ve let your idealism and your strange beliefs overrule your head entirely, but there’s lot’s of folks out there like that, it seems to be catching. I feel sorry for you, that you are engaged in a useless enterprise, predicting the future of 500 years from now. I’m frustrated by you, because climate science is in the dumper and you don’t seem to care, you’re lost in meaningless 500 year predictions that will be forgotten next week in the next bad news cycle. It’s not clear to me how you justify wasting your obviously good mind on such a puerile task, but that’s your business.
    So yes, Aslak, I do agitate … and I invite you to join me in the agitation for decent, honest, transparent science, where the practitioners are no longer, as today, terrified to say “we don’t know”, and seeming incapable of saying anything like “Fred, that’s malfeasance, don’t do it”. You could start by accurately describing your current endeavor, you could begin saying “we don’t have a clue what will happen in 500 years, but we’re happy to say we do, here’s some pretty colored lines on a page, we extended some trends for you.”
    I await the verification of your dubious claim that Landerer made a falsifiable prediction of the drop in sea level before it happened.
    My best to you, and thank you for being one of the few mainstream AGW scientists who is willing to defend his work in public, either here or anywhere … and that statement alone should tell you something about the strength of your side’s arguments …
    w.
    PS—Don’t know if it’s a common name in your country, but your name “Aslak” is great, it sounds like a superhero in a Marvel comic book.

  123. Aslak Grinsted says:
    October 21, 2011 at 8:43 am

    The victim card: I don’t feel singled out as a victim, because it is like this on pretty much all WUWT threads: I just wanted to highlight for bystanders that adressing WUWT really is like adressing an agitated mob. I hope a few will agree that WUWT is not a place you want to be associated with (even if you are a sceptic). If you want evidence, then you should try to count the number of insults, sneers, and sarcastic comments that you guys have posted. WUWT is clearly not the place for a polite debate. Lord WUWT is like the Monckton of Blogs. Finally, if you look at the crowd’s answers to my questions, then you will find it is a conflicting cacophony of views. That is why I wanted Willis in particular to answer.

    If you can’t bear “insults, sneers, and caustic comments”, then you shouldn’t have become a climate scientist, Aslak. You want us to spend billions upon billions of dollars based on your “science”, but you want us to play patty-cake with you and tickle your tummy and blow in your ear and not ask the tough questions? Sorry, this is 2011. Anyone who wants to waste the taxpayers billions is going to have to toughen up and make the case why we should spend that money.
    And as to “insults, sneers, and sarcastic comments”, I get many, many more of them here than you are getting, take a look at some of my threads. I’ve been called every name in the book … so what? Embrace the suck, stop whining and grow a pair, Aslak, and defend your work.
    Because saying oooh, those bad boys and girls were soooo mean to me, I’m not going to play, that doesn’t work any more. We’ve been cozened by that claim far too many times, and you want to spend our tax money on your fantasies. If you want to get some traction here, you’re going to have to put on your big-boy shoes, strap on your psychological buckler and greaves, and DEFEND YOUR WORK.
    Because if you don’t, all you’ll hear is hyenas laughing as you slink away from the campfire. I encourage you to make a stand, to fight for what you think is true. Ignore the boos and the catcalls, that’s just the pack howling, hoping for a kill, that chorus has been with us since the time of the ancient Greeks. The question is, are you going to roll over for the chorus, or are you going to make your voice heard?
    w.

  124. @Crespin: the hand waving thing was not aimed at you. Sorry if appeared to be so. It was aimed at Willis’ thunderstorms and clouds. I can sort of appreciate a lukewarmer position that some negative feedbacks are so great that there is nothing to worry about (although that is contradicted by evidence). But I don’t understand his position at all. Especially when he says the system is responsive, and yet it responds to forcing by completely contracting it.
    You seem to be from the “co2 saturation” camp. I think you should try to calculate what happens to surface T, if you double the concentration of a gas that is near saturation in the long wave band in a 1D column model of the atmosphere (be sure to have a high vertical resolution).
    Even though or press release mentions co2 in the rcp description, then it is actually just relating Radiative forcing to a SL response. It does not matter to this simple model whether the forcing scenario is a consequence of added CO2 or changes in the sun.
    Since you bring up correlations between CO2, temperature and sea level. Then let’s start by restricting ourselves to a period where the continents have not moved too much. Then you can look at Rohling et al.2009, or my page here for some scatter plots:
    http://www.glaciology.net/Home/Miscellaneous-Debris/relationshipbetweensealevelriseandglobaltemperature

  125. Crispin in Waterloo says:
    October 21, 2011 at 9:42 am (Edit)

    @Aslak
    I have the feeling you are trying to misrepresent what I have written by ‘semi-citing’ it in an amplified and lampooning manner. Please be careful not to do that – we will notice immediately.
    I refer to your writing ‘hand-waving hypothesis, that the system will not respond to and forcing that is imposed on it…” What you wrote is a mis-characterisation of what I wrote about a system response. I was pointing you to a free programme of great efficacy that can be used to simulate heat engines and I did this because you might not know such a tool exists. The atmosphere is a heat engine, not a greenhouse and this very early mis-characterisation of warming has caused many people to be confused about how things work.

    Thank you, Crispin. The climate is a heat engine. In turn, it contains a host of smaller heat engines (thunderstorms, dust devils, tornados). Between all of them, they regulate and govern the surface temperature. And as you say, unless you analyze it as a heat engine, the results will be meaningless at best and misleading at worst.
    See the work of Bejan, which references other “heat-engine” analyses of the climate.
    w.

  126. Aslak :
    “Even though or press release mentions co2 in the rcp description, then it is actually just relating Radiative forcing to a SL response. It does not matter to this simple model whether the forcing scenario is a consequence of added CO2 or changes in the sun. ”
    This is Aslak trying to wiggle out and getting in deeper.
    So, how much of current supposed warming ( or current cooling) do you attribute to Solar change ? ( couldn’t even read a summary or release on your sunspot paper)
    Doesn’t this admission cast even more doubt on the efficacy or accuracy of a simplistic model that is admitted to have needed adjustment to bring it into line with reality at some point ?
    Making your model results cross with reality at one point may not guarantee the dynamic reliability of such a tool.
    Are you admitting that you don’t know whether the current conditions are more dependent on
    Solar activity or trace gasses in the atmosphere ?
    And finally, does the fact that the release specifically and repeatedly mentions and points to
    so-called GHG’s in the atmosphere as the culprit, and the graph itself is labeled, as representing through it’s different colored lines future sea-level related to “emissions” scenarios, and Solar change is not mentioned at all as a a possible factor.
    How come that is ?

  127. @Willis
    Thanks for putting Bejan’s link up. He is a genius. It is a surprise that more is not made of the difference between a heat engine (rapid heat death) and a greenhouse (mechanical interruption of mass transfer retarding heat death). They are totally different systems yet gases are still referred to as ‘greenhouse gases’. They should be referred to as ‘working fluids’ by anyone dealing with atmospheric sciences. Perhaps there are not too many engineers working in that field.
    @Aslak
    I find Willis’ challenges to you a bit gruff by quite fair. I again compliment you for coming here to discuss your work. The need to stand up for proper science has never been greater. May we all do so together. It may have profound, unexpected results.
    Sincerely
    Crispin

  128. RE: aslak grinsted says: (October 21, 2011 at 10:29 am)
    “You seem to be from the “co2 saturation” camp. I think you should try to calculate what happens to surface T, if you double the concentration of a gas that is near saturation in the long wave band in a 1D column model of the atmosphere (be sure to have a high vertical resolution).”
    Using the University of Chicago MODTRAN web tool and forcing a constant energy flow of 292.993 watts per square meter looking down from 70 km up in clear tropical air, I got the following resultant surface temperatures:

        CO2          Temp
      280 PPM    300.73 deg K
      396 PPM    301.18 deg K
      560 PPM    301.63 deg K
      792 PPM    302.10 deg K
    1,120 PPM    302.58 deg K
    

    I believe these represent the raw effect of changing the CO2 concentrations without any climatic feedback effects. I believe this program was developed by the Air Force to calculate radiation levels that might be observed by flying aircraft over the wavenumber range from 100 kayzers (cycles per cm, CM-1) to 1498 kayzers. The nominal CO2 absorption band is around 667 kayzers.
    Below is a typical MODTRAN comparison spectrum that I found.
    The radiance here is in cgs units.
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hvznaYV8Rdw/Syygt0X4nOI/AAAAAAAAAgs/5Tl54KGfHjE/s320/Modtran.PNG

  129. Aslak Grinsted says:
    October 21, 2011 at 8:43 am
    “These physical models are certainly much better justified that your hand-waving hypothesis, that the system will not respond to any forcing that is imposed on it …. Well, that just comes across as some hippie “Mother Gaia will protect us”.”
    Aslak, you don’t have all the physics you would need to justify running an iterative model 500 years into the future and still posit that its results are in any way meaningful – well, even if you had them, the chaotic properties of weather would render it meaningless; look up the definition of chaos.
    After you have called us an agitated mob, I feel free to express my opinion about the kind of paper you produced. It’s charlatanry.

  130. Aslak Grinsted says:
    October 21, 2011 at 2:32 am
    “Regarding the recent dip in altimetry sea level: It is obviously due to ENSO. Please note, that this ENSO response was predicted before it happened (see Landerer et al. 2008) / find it on google ). So there is a really solid reason to expect the global mean sea level estimates “to reverse their recent downward trend and begin to increase as the La Niña effects wane”.”
    You are wrong in this regard as well. There was a La Nina in 2008; but sea level did not drop afterwards (and many more La Ninas before that; where sea level did not drop).
    That one guy called Landerer ran a computer program that showed a time series that is now used to say “We predicted something correctly” is not very remarkable; you fail to mention the many, many mispredictions of the AGW scientists which continue to mount. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

  131. @Spector
    Thanks for providing a scientifically sound number set. The Air Force does not play around with climate games, they just want the correct answer. As they say, it is basic physics. Such an additional forcing will drive the heat engine to transport a little more heat into the upper atmosphere, as Bejan shows. I am becoming convinced that clouds are the greatest long term forcing and cooling agent given a substantially stable gas mix. There is just so much cloud cover, the influence is huge. Imagine a comparison between a doubling of CO2 and a 50% reduction in cloud cover. Which would have more influence?

  132. Crispin in Waterloo says:
    October 21, 2011 at 3:07 pm
    …I am becoming convinced that clouds are the greatest long term forcing and cooling agent given a substantially stable gas mix. There is just so much cloud cover, the influence is huge. Imagine a comparison between a doubling of CO2 and a 50% reduction in cloud cover. Which would have more influence?

    Clouds cover does seem to overwhelm all other considerations. Any of various factors drive cloud formation and type, including CR apparently. If it wasn’t for CO2 distracting attentions and resources to CAGW, this nut would soon be cracked (at least quantified better). We would all be discussing actual climate drivers by now. We could then refer to new excellent models and begin the debate on climate control/mitigation. Fortunately, more and more people are coming to the same conclusion. Unavoidable, I would say. GK

  133. Aslak Grinsted says:
    * You agree that added CO2 heats Earth (but argue that cloud feedbacks lessen this effect).
    * You argue that this added heat is spent on more thunderstorms, but it will definitely not be heating the ocean, melting any ice, or warming the atmosphere.
    It seems like you should write a paper quantifying this anthropogenic impact on thunderstorms. Maybe you can look at extreme rainfall and flooding while you are at it.

    I, at least, agree that more CO2 will indeed heat the ocean, melt ice, and warm the atmosphere. However, the thermostat effect of thunderstorms, and the shade effect of clouds, takes place immediately, reducing the warming from the CO2. Thus, the amount of ocean and atmosphere warming and ice melting will be too small to worry about, as will the amount of “extreme rainfall and flooding”. This is because of the immediacy of the clouds effects, when the heat reaches the tipping point, the cloud forms immediately, the shade happens immediately, the surface is cooled by the shade, and that reduces the amount of upward longwave radiation. Reducing the amount of longwave reduces the “greenhouse effect”, less longwave means less for the “greenhouse effect” to effect. result, immediate heat drop and/or slowed rise (usually the former followed by the latter). Now less heat means less evaporation and less cloud formation (less than there would be without the shading effect), thus we only see a smallish rise in cloud formation, thunderstorms, etc, thus, no “extreme rainfall”. This is all reset every day by this thing called “sunset”, result, it never gets so hot or cold as to result in drastic catastrophic changes, such as is predicted by AGW.
    And as for that “extreme rainfall and flooding”, it seems if you can’t have your warming and sea level rising, you immediately switch to extreme rainfall and flooding. Are you just looking for a disaster to happen linked to CO2, to allow you to control it and us? This looks like a standard rhetorical trick, if you are bested on one point, rather than concede that you are wrong, or even could be wrong, you point in another direction and say “well…but what about this?” You need to be able to at least except the idea that sometimes, you may be wrong, and/or the other guy may be right (or you could both be wrong). You need to at least be able to look at someones idea that contradicts your own and be at least willing to entertain the thought that they may be right. That does not mean that you have to automatically agree with it, merely that you do not need to automatically get defensive and use any tactic to refute it, honest or not. “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle
    And how, then, are we to decide which ideas are to be accepted? Well, we could try this newfangled idea called the scientific method. And many people are here, and call themselves “skeptics”, because they first noticed that the proponents of AGW are most definatly not using the scientific method. Instead, we see logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks, deliberately hidden data and methods (even to the point of breaking the law to conceal it), mistaking the map for the territory (complete reliance on models), and just plain old brow beating and name calling. And then finally, we find “climategate”, where we find outright lying and resorting to hurting anyone who apposes AGW (blocking their papers, getting them fired), and we see these actions continuing, and even intensifying. And then, on the skeptics side, we start to see actual use of the scientific method. So, which side should a really educated mind take? If I hear about, say, the thermostat hypothesis, and then see actual data that shows it to be actually happening in real life, and even more, compare it with my actual personal observation of what happens to temperature on a hot day when a thunderstorm happens, should I at least entertain the thought that it may be true? Or should I simply dismiss all that, and say “my model doesn’t predict this, so it cannot be true” (mistaking the map for the territory)? Or should I say “well, none of my peers hold this position, so it cannot be true”? That is reverting to the pre scientific method, which says that it can only be true if some Famous Old Dead Greek Guy said so (“appeal to authority”). Alternately, you could be agreeing with your peers out of simple cowardice. That is, you agree with them because if you do not, they will shun or blackball you or block all your papers or cut off your funding. In that case, what is really happening is not science, it is mob rule. Ask Galileo about that sort of thing. Ask yourself, who turned out to be the scientist in the end, Galileo or his critics? Do you wish to be a scientist? So what actions will you take?

  134. “Suspension of belief”
    Don’t you mean suspension of DIS-belief? Suspension of belief implies that you believe in “para-normal” science in the first place.

  135. @G. Karst
    >Unavoidable, I would say.
    Agreed. It was a short trip for me to reach this conclusion. I knew a long time ago that CO2 could not be the major driver of climate (which I don’t need to go into now) but it was confirmed 7 years ago when the first significant studies on Black Carbon (BC) started to be published. I happened to know one of the most active contributors to this field and this person was very carfeul about publishing results after first getting an appointment, the implication being that no jobs would be on offer if the magnitude of the implications were understood. So the publication came eventually and it was filled with ‘maybe’s and ‘could be’s’ in order not to raise hackles. Over the past 7 years more and more has been published on the warming effect of BC. It is very large and as forcing is a zero sum game (a point often overlooked) it means the CO2 contribution grows proportionally less each year on the theory chart.
    It has now been admitted that biomass combustion (a sustainable renewable resource, if reasonably managed) is a large contributor to the BC content of the atmosphere. It is found at very high altitudes and has an enormous heating effect per kg. My estimate is about 2000 times a similar mass of CO2, given that the CO2 forcing has been so overstated. You won’t find a published value that high because it would put the screws to CO2. No one wants to end their career that quickly.
    So having been given insights early on and the role of BC in total forcing now being uncovered, I continue to learn the workings of the atmosphere confident that we are getting closer to a real understanding with the incorporation of the GCR-cloud effect. Long may we continue to make progress.

  136. @Crispin
    I wrote extensively on the role of black carbon several years ago. Actually James Hansen hisself earlier in his career had at times assigned as much as 50% of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect to soot. Given that northern hemisphere warming is much greater than southern and soot is largely produced in the NH and distance it travels from the source before falling out to the surface is limited to several thousand kilometers and also given that more “global warming” occurs in the winter than the summer and more in higher latitudes than lower it makes the black soot hypotheses quite reasonable on the face of it. It settles out on snow and ice, and it floats and concentrates on the surface getting darker and darker when the snow/ice melts only partially.
    Offsetting this however is its effect while it is still airborne and studies of airborne soot over the ocean suggests the shadow it casts causes a cooling effect rather than warming effect and, moreover, when it settles out onto a liquid ocean surface it has no further effect because it is incapable of lowering the albedo of water. Given that even in the northern hemisphere ocean surface is much greater than land surface the shadow cooling may very well be the dominant one in the global picture. This also has great appeal in being consistent with the facts on the ground because, beginning in the 1960’s great efforts were undertaken to limit the production of black soot and these were largely successful. The convenient fact around the black carbon cooling hypothesis is that global temperature started increasing at the same time that anthropogenic soot started decreasing. Given that around the same time as the anti-soot measures were enacted anti-sulfate measures were also undertaken and it’s quite firmly believed that anthropogenic sulfate emissions from fossil fuel combustion have a marked cooling effect from the same sunlight-blocking (shading the surface) principle.
    Rather than CO2 from fossil fuel causing some of the warming it is very likely IMO that the real anthropogenic story is more like partial filtering of fossil fuel combustion products, specifically filtering out the soot and sulfates, has tipped the balance from the emissions being surface temperature neutral to surface temperature increasing. In other words there would be no anthropogenic warming if we burned our fossil fuels as God intended and let all the emissions return to nature instead of filtering out some of those combustion products.
    In this same vein methane is also largely overlooked. It is now given as being responsible for up to 33% of total AGW and its production is increasing at twice the rate of CO2. There are many anthropogenic culprits for rising methane. Two the largest are rice production and ruminant livestock production. Others include blowoff from oil wells which are too distant from any economical means of collecting and transporting the natural gas (which is essentially pure methane), leakage from natural gas transportation pipelines, abandoned coal mines, fermentation in land fills, composting, incomplete incineration of waste products, and a host of other industrial processes and unwanted anaerobic fermentations.

  137. Willis Eschenbach says:
    October 21, 2011 at 10:33 am
    “The climate is a heat engine.”
    [sigh] No, it isn’t.
    There are heat engines within the climate system. Passive radiative heating and cooling that results in no matter being put into motion (i.e. work being accomplished) is a significant part of the climate system. If no work is accomplished there is no heat engine.

  138. Aslak Grinsted says:
    October 21, 2011 at 8:43 am
    “I don’t feel singled out as a victim, because it is like this on pretty much all WUWT threads: I just wanted to highlight for bystanders that adressing WUWT really is like adressing an agitated mob.”
    I suppose that’s fair from your POV. From my POV as an agitated mob member addressing the community of climate boffins is like addressing the Vatican. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  139. @ Aslak Grinsted
    You are a brave soul and I am deeply grateful for the hard scientific work that you do.

  140. @Aslak
    So, you’ve explained to me that the recent slowdown in sea level rise is explained by ENSO. That’s fair but it essentially means that predicting long term sea level rise or fall is dependent on being able to predict long term ENSO behavior. So start predicting long term ENSO for me.
    Really, Aslak. This is like a economist saying recessions are explained by a drop in the employment rate and then expecting that this answer would not simply raise the question of why the employment rate dropped.
    So Aslak, why the recent severe La Nina?
    Let me help you along. The La Nina happens in large part because of an increase in trade winds. The agitated ocean surface absorbs less solar energy through increased albedo and also causes it to lose heat faster through increased conduction and evaporation.
    Again, that’s a great explanation but it still doesn’t give us any predictive powers about ENSO because now we have to predict trade wind behavior which predicts ENSO which predicts sea level rise/fall.
    So start predicting long term trade winds for me, Aslak.

  141. Dave Springer says:
    October 23, 2011 at 12:59 am
    Willis Eschenbach says:
    October 21, 2011 at 10:33 am
    “The climate is a heat engine.”
    [sigh] No, it isn’t.
    There are heat engines within the climate system. Passive radiative heating and cooling that results in no matter being put into motion (i.e. work being accomplished) is a significant part of the climate system. If no work is accomplished there is no heat engine.
    ++++++++++
    The passive and cooling parts you describe are components of the heat absorbing and cooling elements of a heat engine. Bejan’s said it is a heat engine that sits on the very brink of a higher energy transport phase – in other words is sits at a maximun efficiency for the energy in it. If you add energy it immediately stabilises at a higher level of heat transport. That is why the average temperature is so stable across a huge range of conditions. It is easier to think of it as a thermo-acoustic engine because the components of a TA engine are separated logically. It is easier to think of the heat transport as a classical Stirling engine because of the way the heat moves through the atmosphere, which is it s ‘working fluid’.

  142. Crispin in Waterloo says:
    October 23, 2011 at 9:08 am
    Don’t be ridiculous. Everything you see outside isn’t a heat engine or a part of a heat engine. Asinine concepts like this are what give CAGW skeptics a bad name.

  143. Dave Springer says:
    October 23, 2011 at 12:59 am

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    October 21, 2011 at 10:33 am

    “The climate is a heat engine.”

    [sigh] No, it isn’t.
    There are heat engines within the climate system. Passive radiative heating and cooling that results in no matter being put into motion (i.e. work being accomplished) is a significant part of the climate system. If no work is accomplished there is no heat engine.

    Sigh … yes, the entirety of the climate it is a heat engine. The climate moves massive amounts of air and water from the tropics to the poles. Your claim that “no matter [is] being put into motion” is obviously false. What do you think drives windmills, if no matter is being put into motion by the climate?
    Or to quote Adrian Bejan, one of the most cited scientists on the planet:

    See, for example, p. 111 in (Bejan, 1984) . . . the convection loop is equivalent to the cycle executed by the working fluid in a heat engine. In principle, this heat engine cycle should be capable of delivering useful work if we insert a propeller in the stream: this is the origin of ‘wind power’ discussed nowadays in connection with the harnessing of solar work indirectly from the atmospheric heat engine loop. In the absence of work-collecting devices, the heat engine cycle drives its working fluid fast enough so that its entire work output potential is dissipated by friction in the brake at the interface between what moves and what does not move’.

    w.

  144. otter17 says:
    October 23, 2011 at 1:34 am

    @ Aslak Grinsted
    You are a brave soul and I am deeply grateful for the hard scientific work that you do.

    Thanks for thoughts, otter, they are good ones. One suggestion.
    Before awarding him the Croix de Guerre, how about we wait and see if he is indeed brave. The ball is in his court, there are a number of questions that other folks and I have asked him, and he is nowhere to be seen.
    So let’s see if he returns to answer the questions or not. Then we can decide if he is brave.
    Finally, if he is “brave” to briefly stand up and defend his views in front of the hostile mob, that would make me the Sergeant York of the blogs. Look how much abuse I take on a daily basis for doing the same thing you want to laud him for.
    It doesn’t take bravery to face the howling mob on the Web, that’s a joke. Answer who you want to answer, and ignore the rest. How tough is that?
    Having said that, he at least did show up to defend his work, albeit subsequently disappearing. He may reappear, I hope so.
    But to think that him defending his scientific claims in public is some noble act misapprehends the situation. People whose words carry weight in the current discussion are those who are willing to stand up and publicly explain and defend their views. They are those whose work and code and data are transparently displayed in the full glare of the public arena, for anyone to point out the errors … as has happened to me at times, people found very large errors in my work, and that’s science.
    Like you, otter, I give Aslak Grinsted big props for showing up at all to defend his work. He is one of the few scientists willing to do that, and it is a good thing worth encouraging. It’s just not a noble or brave thing. So what if people say mean, hurtful things to you? What, you a snowflake gonna melt with a little verbal heat from random internet chatterati? IGNORE THE POLLOI, and make a reasoned defense of the 500 year predictive abilities of a tuned model.
    Or not … in either case, the only bravery needed is the bravery required to expose your ideas to the public and see them shot down. Overcoming the fear of being publicly shown to be wrong, that takes some bravery. Aslak started down that path. I hope he continues to walk it.
    Thanks,
    w.

  145. Crispin in Waterloo says:
    October 23, 2011 at 9:08 am (Edit)

    … The passive and cooling parts you describe are components of the heat absorbing and cooling elements of a heat engine. Bejan’s said it is a heat engine that sits on the very brink of a higher energy transport phase – in other words is sits at a maximun efficiency for the energy in it. If you add energy it immediately stabilises at a higher level of heat transport. That is why the average temperature is so stable across a huge range of conditions. It is easier to think of it as a thermo-acoustic engine because the components of a TA engine are separated logically. It is easier to think of the heat transport as a classical Stirling engine because of the way the heat moves through the atmosphere, which is it s ‘working fluid’.

    Thank you, Crispin. The Bejan paper I cited gives the math underlying the analysis. Bejan is far from the only person to describe, analyze, or model the climate as a heat engine. The heat engine has two working fluids, air and water. Bejan models it as a simple heat engine, in what is obviously a “first cut” analysis.
    However, that’s not all that’s going on. The planet also contains a natural refrigerant which works in exactly the same manner as the banned Freons did in your fridge. Just as in your fridge, the working fluid (Freon for the fridge, water for the climate) is repeatedly evaporated in the area to be cooled, and condensed where the reject heat doesn’t rewarm the cooled area. See the trees? That’s how they stay cool, just like us. They sweat, except it’s called “transpiration”. That heat is carried away, and the water is condensed and the heat released elsewhere.
    That natural refrigeration cycle reaches its peak in the internal heat engines spawned within the whole climate heat engine—the thunderstorms. They act as natural air conditioning units, evaporating tonnes and tonnes of water to cool the surface, condensing it aloft where the heat goes upwards, and dumping cold water and the entrained cold winds on the surface. If we weren’t so familiar with thunderstorms, they would astound us, giant natural air conditioners running the same refrigeration cycle as in your household fridge … how strange is that?
    w.

  146. Ok, so if this paper by Aslak and his colleagues is fundamentally flawed with newbie high school error, then why not publish a rebuttal paper to the journal “Global and Planetary Change”? You guys seem to have enough comments and questions put together to come up with a two-page rebuttal. Peer-reviewed rebuttals are used in the scientific method to further subject a paper/idea to scrutiny from several other scientists (often with new data/ideas). From what I can tell, this paper has already passed through peer review at “Global and Planetary Change”, so a rebuttal is an option.
    What has been done here might have unduly hurt Aslak and his colleagues’ reputations in the public sphere. Instead of using the peer-reviewed rebuttal route and participating in the modern scientific process, this article is posted on a blog in public, accusing them of a high school error. Willis, you have to concede that there is at least a small chance that you are mistaken about your analysis of this paper. Thus, wouldn’t it have been more kosher (and nicer) to create a peer reviewed rebuttal to the paper? Sure, create a blog post about what you might put into the rebuttal too if you like, but maybe keep the language more subdued?

  147. The biggest problem I see with a 500 year prediction are these:
    The most recent major temperature changes, the modern warm period, the little ice age, the medieval warm period, that dark ages, the roman warm period, etc (there are more) are unexplained, and had temperature swings as great or greater than that predicted by doubling CO2.. Until we know why these happened, enough so that we can predict them well in advance, we cannot predict 500 years into the future. Some say we can predict them, and that we are right this minute starting into a little ice age, that being the case, we may want all the CO2 we can get.
    The most dramatic climate changes are obviously the ice ages, until we can predict these, can we even say we know anything about climate? I mean, they were BIG, if we cannot even predict that, how can we say we can predict this little stuff? And some say that we can, indeed, predict the next ice age, and that it is due right about now, that being the case, why are we worried about a small warming when we are scheduled for a large freezing?
    So if we cannot predict these major temperature events then we do not know enough about the climate to predict anything 500 years into the future.
    If it is true that we can indeed predict these events and have predicted both a little ice age and a full blown ice age happening starting now, then we not only need not worry about CO2, we will want all of it we can get.

  148. otter17 says:
    October 23, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    Ok, so if this paper by Aslak and his colleagues is fundamentally flawed with newbie high school error, then why not publish a rebuttal paper to the journal “Global and Planetary Change”? You guys seem to have enough comments and questions put together to come up with a two-page rebuttal. Peer-reviewed rebuttals are used in the scientific method to further subject a paper/idea to scrutiny from several other scientists (often with new data/ideas). From what I can tell, this paper has already passed through peer review at “Global and Planetary Change”, so a rebuttal is an option.

    Thanks for the question, otter.
    First, I continue to strive to have my work published in the journals. It’s more entertaining than hitting my head against the wall. Occasionally I’m successful. But wasting all that energy on a paper this trivial? I’d rather strive to publish my original work, that’s worth the candle.
    Second, impact factor. Consider the relative impact factor of WUWT and what was it, “Global and Planetary Change”. As I write this, WUWT is getting 5,000 site visits per hour. Five thousand people an hour come here to read, inter alia, my work. I just took a look. In the last year, my work on WUWT has gotten 772,344 page views. Not visits to WUWT, but people reading my work … so, where will I have more impact on the scientific discussion? Here, or there? Make no mistake, all climate scientists worthy of the name read WUWT. You’d be crazy not to, just to keep up with what’s going on. Plus it’s always great sport to see what Anthony’s up to, and what I’m up to, and Dr. Roy, and Ryan Maue, and the rest of the guest authors. That means that the same people who might, just might read my words in six months in some obscure climate journal, are pretty sure to read my words in the next day or so on WUWT. So my reach into the scientific community is far, far wider here than it would be there.
    Third, timing. I write here because I can counter dubious or alarmist claims as they are raised by the AGW supporters. It would be 3-6 months before a comment to the journals could get published, and by then you’d have forgotten which paper it even referred to …
    Fourth, retractions and challenges in the journals are always published in the metaphorical small print, with never the fanfare given to the original paper.
    Fifth, editors are protective of their reviewers (“they wouldn’t have missed something obvious”), and they get embarrassed if they publish something obviously wrong … and so they may not rush to publicize that fact.
    Sixth, those journal folks love credentials. I have a library card. Well used to be sure, but that’s it. Instead, I have experience coupled with years of study on my own. Doesn’t open many doors.
    Seventh, I’m really bad at writing those dense, long-winded, boring scientific paragraphs. It feels like putting my thoughts in a vice and smashing all the ideas together and squeezing out all the juice and flavor … so I avoid it when I can.
    Finally, I am in an enviable position. Unlike the many researchers who literally must “publish or perish”, I am an amateur scientist with a day job and a wife who works.This frees me to focus on having an effect on the ongoing scientific discussion, rather than focusing on journal publication. In other words, my only issue is where can I make the most difference? I’m not shackled to the journals as other researchers are.
    Anyhow, that’s the answers to your question. For this paper of Aslak’s? Far too trivial to justify the work of assaulting the journal citadel … but worth rebutting here.
    I’m still hoping he’ll return.
    Thanks,
    w.

  149. otter17 says:
    October 23, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    …. What has been done here might have unduly hurt Aslak and his colleagues’ reputations in the public sphere. Instead of using the peer-reviewed rebuttal route and participating in the modern scientific process, this article is posted on a blog in public, accusing them of a high school error.

    From my perspective, using a 500 year trend extension is unbridled alarmism. Given that, I hope that I have hurt their reputations.
    But you see, that’s not what really hurts their reputations. It’s that they don’t defend their own work. Aslak started to, and then vanished … his choice, not mine. He had, and was invited and encouraged to take, the opportunity to defend his reputation. To date he’s chosen not to take it.

    Willis, you have to concede that there is at least a small chance that you are mistaken about your analysis of this paper.

    Usually, otter, you’d be more than right about that. There’s a good chance any of us are wrong, peer reviewed or not. But that’s why I post here. So that people, including but not limited to the authors whose work I am discussing or criticizing, can step up and show me where I’m wrong. If I’m wrong, their ideas and claims are enhanced. That’s science.
    But am I wrong about a half-millennium projection of a trend from a simple tuned model? Do you realize what you are saying? Do you truly think the future is that transparent and predictable? Really?

    Thus, wouldn’t it have been more kosher (and nicer) to create a peer reviewed rebuttal to the paper? Sure, create a blog post about what you might put into the rebuttal too if you like, but maybe keep the language more subdued?

    Subdued? These are people using their crackpot theories to advocate for denying inexpensive energy to the poor based on their fantasies and fears of what may happen in the time of my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren (at thirty years per generation). History will judge them harshly for that hubris. I haven’t the slightest desire to see them succeed. If I can destroy their reputations, that’s a bonus, because they are engaged in trying to sentence the poor of the world to an energy-deprived squalor. Maybe you care about the rep of someone doing that. I, on the other hand, want to stop them from doing it, damage to their reputation is fine by me.
    So your feel-good advice, while it does great credit to your heart, is sadly neglecting your brain. These are people out actively trying to damage the economy, our own in part but particularly the economies of energy-starved developing countries. In some cases they have succeeded, the EPA is implementing the CO2 rules that will cost billions and do nothing … and the authors of this insanity say that they are doing it for the poor.
    Doing it for the poor? Their intention is damage the economy, and that can only hurt the poor, particularly in the developing world.
    Never forget that, and questions about their reputations will be much clearer.
    w.
    PS—What are the odds that someone will quote me out of context from this post, as though I wanted to destroy the reputation of innocent scholars? I am a man of science, I think real scientists are great, I have no desire to do anything to their reputations.
    On the other hand, activists making 500 year projections in support of depriving the poorest of the poor of inexpensive energy? Them, I’ll destroy their reputations and forestall their actions in any ethical way I can.

  150. All of this reminds me of playing Space Invaders as a kid. All of these studies are like the never ending stream of aliens. You keep shooting them down and another row pops up. Studies that actually point to AGW have become scarce like the flying saucer that would randomly pop up.
    In this respect I classify the studies into two groups. Group one (most of what we see) are the aliens. The studies that are built on the foundation that AGW is real and this is what is going to happen if we don’t change our ways and stop evil carbon. Group two ( the flying saucers) have become impossible to find. Is this because they think that no more work is needed in buttressing up their position or is it that they cannot come up with something that will hold water in the now focused stare of the Skeptic?
    All of the group one studies drive me nuts, how can we even begin to estimate the damage when there is no solid proof AGW is really happening. Funding for this segment of climate research should be deleted it is a total waste.
    I would love to see more of the group two studies. In a twisted sense the Climate Science field is wide open and if all the researchers would focus on the why instead of the what if we all could learn something. For this area of research I would gladly pay more or better yet just take it from the group one guys….

  151. Aslak Grinsted says:
    October 20, 2011 at 3:21 am
    1) Increased CO2 -> Increased radiative forcing
    2) stronger radiative forcing -> increased heat / warming
    3) Heat/warming -> shrinks land-based ice, and expands the world oceans.

    Dr. Grinsted, since the above GCM CO2 = CAGW “physics” has not yet produced even one relevant successful empirical prediction, and many empirical results have occurred which have affirmatively falsified “the [GCM] physics” by involving empirical occurrences opposite to the predictions made from “the physics”, don’t you think it’s time to give up your by now entirely Mantra-like invocation?
    Surely you can do better than that?

  152. Willis Eschenbach says:
    October 23, 2011 at 10:39 pm
    “First, I continue to strive to have my work published in the journals. It’s more entertaining than hitting my head against the wall. Occasionally I’m successful. ”
    __________________
    Oh, well that is quite good. How many many climate science papers have you published so far in journals?
    “But wasting all that energy on a paper this trivial? I’d rather strive to publish my original work, that’s worth the candle.”
    __________________
    But if this error is so trivial, how did it pass through peer review? I thought that type of stuff was what peer review was supposed to fix. If this paper is propaganda in your mind, it is your scientific duty to send a rebuttal to “Global and Planetary Change” to nip it in the bud and get it retracted. What if a summary of this paper influences politicians or the media?
    “Second, impact factor. Consider the relative impact factor of WUWT and what was it, “Global and Planetary Change”. ”
    _________________
    But science isn’t about impact factor. It is about being correct. It is about being peer reviewed and rigorously tested against the results/data of other the top-notch credentialed experts. What if there are some errors that you make in your articles at WUWT and they are not caught by lay people since they aren’t experts in the particular field you are publishing. Wouldn’t it be better to test your article against all the experts on the subject of historical sea level? They would be much more likely to catch errors that you may have missed. Then, you re-write your article to make it stronger and more effective.
    “Third, timing. I write here because I can counter dubious or alarmist claims as they are raised by the AGW supporters.”
    _________________
    Ok, if there are so many dubious claims, couldn’t you address them as they come and put several rebuttals and papers “in the pipeline” so to speak, such that a few months later you would have a steady stream of rebuttals coming into the journals?
    “Fourth, retractions and challenges in the journals are always published in the metaphorical small print, with never the fanfare given to the original paper.”
    _________________
    No, rebuttals are given equal weight so long as the evidence is there and the rebuttal paper’s writing quality is sound.
    “Fifth, editors are protective of their reviewers (“they wouldn’t have missed something obvious”), and they get embarrassed if they publish something obviously wrong … and so they may not rush to publicize that fact.”
    _________________
    Well, stand up and press the issue with the editors, then. Get some support from fellow scientists.
    “Sixth, those journal folks love credentials. I have a library card. Well used to be sure, but that’s it. Instead, I have experience coupled with years of study on my own. Doesn’t open many doors.”
    _________________
    Well, then go out and get a degree. What is your current education and background? If you are smart enough to see the evidence for what it is, then start taking classes to get a Master’s or PhD. Medicine is practiced by guys with an advanced degree, and so is almost every science field. Science doesn’t reward someone that doesn’t take the painstaking effort to study the breadth of subject matter under the tutelage of an expert professor. Maybe Roger Pielke Sr. could be your advisor?
    “Seventh, I’m really bad at writing those dense, long-winded, boring scientific paragraphs. It feels like putting my thoughts in a vice and smashing all the ideas together and squeezing out all the juice and flavor … so I avoid it when I can.”
    ____________________
    Well, then pick up a book or ask someone for help in scientific writing skills. Scientific writing is very precise and can put a distinct meaning to your ideas. Science doesn’t reward someone that doesn’t take the time to improve their skills.
    “Finally, I am in an enviable position. Unlike the many researchers who literally must “publish or perish”, I am an amateur scientist with a day job and a wife who works.This frees me to focus on having an effect on the ongoing scientific discussion, rather than focusing on journal publication.”
    ___________________
    That is precisely the criticism of your work that some have. If you want credibility with scientists outside of WUWT, you have to rigorously subject your articles to scrutiny from experts on a specific subject. WUWT will not provide that level of peer review since mostly laymen visit. This blog is not equivalent to a peer reviewed journal. Why else would Anthony be working tirelessly to get his data into the journals? Science isn’t supposed to be some easy hobby that you can do on the weekends. If you don’t like what the peer reviewed journal science is saying, tough. Of course you can decide to not believe it and shun publishing corrections, but that would likely be characterized as anti-science by every credentialed scientist out there. If you have a contribution to make to the science in good faith, do it in the journals.

  153. If you want the WUWT to peer review your work. I recommend creating a journal of your own. Ask Anthony to put a link in the sidebar that says “The Proceedings of WUWT” or whatever title you like for the journal. Then you could easily store all of your peer-reviewed papers by subject. You could show your work how the comments affected some of your initial assumptions or addressed errors, etc. You could publish the original and the revisions, and then the final product. All of your work would be in a journal and put in one place. All the WUWT authors could publish articles there following peer review on the blog. That way, a body of WUWT knowledge would build and you would eventually have more peer reviewed papers than the IPCC, thus overturning their credibility.

  154. Willis Eschenbach says:
    October 23, 2011 at 11:12 pm
    “But that’s why I post here. So that people, including but not limited to the authors whose work I am discussing or criticizing, can step up and show me where I’m wrong. If I’m wrong, their ideas and claims are enhanced. That’s science.”
    __________________
    No, that is blog science. Not all the authors of the papers that you are discussing even know about WUWT. You really ought to contact the authors for each paper that you critique and ask them to comment on the new “Proceedings of WUWT” article. If you create a journal, then they will likely come to do it. They won’t necessarily comment on a blog since that is not where science is done in any other field (not biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, none of those).
    “So your feel-good advice, while it does great credit to your heart, is sadly neglecting your brain. These are people out actively trying to damage the economy, our own in part but particularly the economies of energy-starved developing countries.”
    __________________
    I always say the golden rule applies, no matter if the people you are dealing with are absolutely crazy or not. It sounds like you need to become an energy economics activist. That is where your primary objections lie from what it sounds. You should focus exclusively on writing articles about politics concerning energy. I have no problem with voicing opinions on energy policy, but I do have a problem with voicing opinions about peer-reviewed science without attempting to participate in the peer review process.
    “PS—What are the odds that someone will quote me out of context from this post, as though I wanted to destroy the reputation of innocent scholars? I am a man of science, I think real scientists are great, I have no desire to do anything to their reputations.”
    ________________
    So what is Aslak if not a real scientist in your opinion, an activist? He publishes in the scientific journals and has studied science at a university; any objective person would characterize him as a scientist. I recommend that you become an energy policy activist in order to come up with an energy policy plan that won’t wreck the world’s economy. I recommend you write articles exclusively about energy politics or otherwise create a WUWT journal and get other scientists to participate.

  155. otter17 says:
    October 24, 2011 at 4:06 am

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    October 23, 2011 at 10:39 pm
    “First, I continue to strive to have my work published in the journals. It’s more entertaining than hitting my head against the wall. Occasionally I’m successful. ”

    __________________
    Oh, well that is quite good. How many many climate science papers have you published so far in journals?

    Five.

    “But wasting all that energy on a paper this trivial? I’d rather strive to publish my original work, that’s worth the candle.”

    __________________
    But if this error is so trivial, how did it pass through peer review? I thought that type of stuff was what peer review was supposed to fix. If this paper is propaganda in your mind, it is your scientific duty to send a rebuttal to “Global and Planetary Change” to nip it in the bud and get it retracted. What if a summary of this paper influences politicians or the media?

    It is quite clear you have no clue about what is going on in climate science. If you are surprised that trivial errors make it through what these days is far too often “pal review” rather than peer review, you have not been following the story at all. Trivial errors making it though is the most common story in climate “science”. You really should get out more, your naiveté is stunning.

    “Second, impact factor. Consider the relative impact factor of WUWT and what was it, “Global and Planetary Change”. ”

    _________________
    But science isn’t about impact factor. It is about being correct. It is about being peer reviewed and rigorously tested against the results/data of other the top-notch credentialed experts. What if there are some errors that you make in your articles at WUWT and they are not caught by lay people since they aren’t experts in the particular field you are publishing. Wouldn’t it be better to test your article against all the experts on the subject of historical sea level? They would be much more likely to catch errors that you may have missed. Then, you re-write your article to make it stronger and more effective.

    Certainly, I’d love to do that. However, for all of the reasons you so casually dismiss on this list, it is extremely difficult and slow to do so. It may well be that there are errors in my work that are not caught by the WUWT readers. What you fail to consider is that the peer review process catches less errors than are caught here. I know this because of the papers that get published in support of my claims here.
    Quick example. Some scientific fools published a peer-reviewed paper saying there was half the plankton in the ocean that there was in 1900. I wrote a long paper saying no way, that’s nonsense.
    About three months later, three separate scientific papers appeared saying no way, that’s nonsense.
    Could I have been one of those three papers? Sure … if I had the credentials and the desire. But from my perspective, my paper did far, far more to counter the bad science than their papers did. Why? Because my paper was a) timely, b) an interesting read, and c) exposed immediately to the harsh glare of the public. It is quite possible that my paper stirred some of the scientists to write their rebuttal.
    So while you claim that “science isn’t about impact factor”, that just means you don’t understand the stakes. I’m not here for theory. I’m here to get something done, namely to supply good science and counter bad science. I’m here to stop a bunch of folks from using bogus scientific claims to further impoverish the poor of the world by sentencing them to a lifetime of expensive energy.
    If you think “impact factor” isn’t important in the climate wars, wake up, get out of bed, and come join in the battle, you’ve somehow slept through the last decade or two.

    “Third, timing. I write here because I can counter dubious or alarmist claims as they are raised by the AGW supporters.”

    _________________
    Ok, if there are so many dubious claims, couldn’t you address them as they come and put several rebuttals and papers “in the pipeline” so to speak, such that a few months later you would have a steady stream of rebuttals coming into the journals?

    Are you being intentionally dense? I say I want to counter papers in a timely manner as they appear, not down the line when they are 3-6 months too late to do any good.
    You write to suggest that I counter bad science with a whole string of papers that are all 3-6 months too late to do any good.
    You sure you are awake here?

    “Fourth, retractions and challenges in the journals are always published in the metaphorical small print, with never the fanfare given to the original paper.”

    _________________
    No, rebuttals are given equal weight so long as the evidence is there and the rebuttal paper’s writing quality is sound.

    Wow, you truly are naive, it’s not just an act … take a look at the Steig paper on Antarctica. It got the cover of Nature magazine. Care to guess if the rebuttal got a corrected cover?

    “Fifth, editors are protective of their reviewers (“they wouldn’t have missed something obvious”), and they get embarrassed if they publish something obviously wrong … and so they may not rush to publicize that fact.”

    _________________
    Well, stand up and press the issue with the editors, then. Get some support from fellow scientists.

    BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA, oh, otter, you’re precious, truly you are. Read the Climategate emails to see the problems with that. And “get some support from fellow scientists”??? That’s even funnier. Climate scientists don’t do “support”. They have only a few tricks—they can shut their mouths, roll over and play dead. That exhausts their repertoire.

    “Sixth, those journal folks love credentials. I have a library card. Well used to be sure, but that’s it. Instead, I have experience coupled with years of study on my own. Doesn’t open many doors.”

    _________________
    Well, then go out and get a degree. What is your current education and background? If you are smart enough to see the evidence for what it is, then start taking classes to get a Master’s or PhD. Medicine is practiced by guys with an advanced degree, and so is almost every science field. Science doesn’t reward someone that doesn’t take the painstaking effort to study the breadth of subject matter under the tutelage of an expert professor. Maybe Roger Pielke Sr. could be your advisor?

    I’ve tried that. I contacted UC Berkeley and other schools in the area. They wouldn’t even reply. I found out something interesting. PhDs are not given to people who want to conduct new, trailblazing science. They are a way for an existing scholar to train his/her replacement in the ways of his knowledge (and the errors therein). They don’t want brilliant minds. They want people who think exactly as they do … and that’s not me. In addition, the schools I talked to all blew me off because of my age (64). When a scientist is training a replacement to keep his personal line of climate BS alive into the future, he wants a young guy, not his contemporary. What good would I do him, I’ll die about when he does.

    “Seventh, I’m really bad at writing those dense, long-winded, boring scientific paragraphs. It feels like putting my thoughts in a vice and smashing all the ideas together and squeezing out all the juice and flavor … so I avoid it when I can.”

    ____________________
    Well, then pick up a book or ask someone for help in scientific writing skills. Scientific writing is very precise and can put a distinct meaning to your ideas. Science doesn’t reward someone that doesn’t take the time to improve their skills.

    I wouldn’t know, I’ve always been improving my skills.

    “Finally, I am in an enviable position. Unlike the many researchers who literally must “publish or perish”, I am an amateur scientist with a day job and a wife who works.This frees me to focus on having an effect on the ongoing scientific discussion, rather than focusing on journal publication.”

    ___________________
    That is precisely the criticism of your work that some have. If you want credibility with scientists outside of WUWT, you have to rigorously subject your articles to scrutiny from experts on a specific subject.

    Nonsense. I have huge credibility with scientists outside of WUWT. Credibility doesn’t come from passing peer review, if that were true Michael Mann would be very credible. Credibility comes from the strength of your arguments. Scientists read my work and make up their own minds. What more could a journal article give me?

    WUWT will not provide that level of peer review since mostly laymen visit.

    Nonsense. Every climate scientist worth his salt reads WUWT. They’d be fools not to, if only to see what the opposition is up to. And the peer review I regularly receive here is more stringent than the review for my piece in Nature magazine. You’re talking about things regarding which you are innocent of experience and knowledge. Despite that, your claims might easily make it through peer review … but they won’t fly here on WUWT.

    This blog is not equivalent to a peer reviewed journal. Why else would Anthony be working tirelessly to get his data into the journals? Science isn’t supposed to be some easy hobby that you can do on the weekends. If you don’t like what the peer reviewed journal science is saying, tough. Of course you can decide to not believe it and shun publishing corrections, but that would likely be characterized as anti-science by every credentialed scientist out there. If you have a contribution to make to the science in good faith, do it in the journals.

    Of course, this blog is not equivalent to a peer reviewed journal. In many, perhaps most cases, it is far better. The peer review is superior to any journal that I know of, the readership is educated, smart, and merciless, and the reach is far wider than the majority of climate journals.
    You seem to have missed the part where virtually all the climate journals closed their doors to people who do not follow the party line on climate. You missed the Climategate discussions by the scientists on how to keep me, and folks like me, from getting published. You missed the part where the journals rolled over and refused to ask mainstream climate scientists to archive their data and code. Your ideas about science are like something out of my 1950s schoolbooks, full of good guys in white coats. The good guys are dead, otter, the journals are complicit, pal review runs rampant, crooks subvert the IPCC, “scientists” with an agenda and a scary story are feted, scientific malfeasance runs rampant, and the good scientists are all somehow struck dumb, unwilling to utter a squeak of protest …
    And in the middle of this huge mess, you come out here like some Pollyanna on steroids, full of light, sunny misinformation, to breezily tell me how I should do science? You don’t have a clue about climate science, but you’re willing to lecture me on how to do it?
    I’d cry if I wasn’t laughing so hard, otter. You are describing another planet, an imaginary world of honest scientists and impartial journals that has been ground to dust by Stephen Schneider and Michael Mann and James Hansen and Post-Normal Science and Jerry Ravetz and the inhabitants of the Climategate rats nest and the rest of their un-indicted co-conspirators. It’s lost in the dust of pal-review and bogus whitewash “investigations” and alarmism disguised as scholarship and unarchived data and secret codes and clandestine instructions to erase evidence of wrongdoing.
    So wake up, my friend, people are going to start pointing and laughing, you’ve got a lot of catching up to do, you’re late to the party and badly misinformed …
    w.

  156. otter17 says:
    October 24, 2011 at 4:13 am

    If you want the WUWT to peer review your work. I recommend …
    You really ought to …
    It sounds like you need to …
    You should focus exclusively on …
    I recommend that you become …
    I recommend you write …

    For a desperately naive guy, who seems to know nothing about climate science, who posts anonymously on the web, and who appears to have slept through the last two decades of the climate wars, you have an astounding fantasy going.
    Clearly, you think that
    a) you are qualified to tell people what they should do to fight their part of the climate wars, and
    b) that I might blindly follow instructions from some random voice on the web, and,
    c) other mainstream climate scientists will make their voices heard in support of honest science, and
    d) that your recommendations have the slightest connection to the reality of modern climate science, and
    e) that the journals are neutral arbiters conducting thorough peer review.
    In order of their appearance, the answers are: you aren’t, I don’t, you’re kidding yourself, no connection at all, and don’t make me laugh.
    It is recommended that you do your homework before donning your armor and going jousting, That works so much better than the other way around.
    w.

  157. Willis answers otter17:
    “Five.”
    And:
    “…wake up, my friend, people are going to start pointing and laughing, you’ve got a lot of catching up to do, you’re late to the party and badly misinformed.”
    Otter, you have been so owned. I suggest reading the WUWT archives for a couple of months before spouting your nonsensical talking points. And quit clicking on alarmist echo chamber blogs. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site, where truth gets separated from fiction, like wheat from chaff. You have considerable catching up to do.

  158. I was summarizing Willis’ position on the state of the climate science. Sorry if I accidentally said WUWT, characterizing the site as a whole. What is the official position statement on climate science for WUWT, btw?
    Ok, so to be clear, Willis Eschenbach, your position on the state of climate science appears to be as follows from what you have written above. Correct me if I am wrong in any way.
    * There is a climate war that must be won or else misguided politicians and scientists will create legislation and force CO2 emission reductions, causing further poverty for the third world.
    * Peer review in journals has been corrupted, and has reduced the number of correct contrarian papers that appear in journals.
    * WUWT is a better source of peer reviewed information than the existing science journals
    * Impact factor and website page hits are important in order to win the climate war.
    * It is ok to antagonize or reduce the reputation of mainstream climate scientists in order to win the climate war.
    We will have to agree to disagree, Willis. It would appear we are on opposite sides of the climate war. I wholeheartedly support CO2 emissions reductions using the best our current technology can muster. I wish to phase in emission reductions slowly over the next few decades and begin to ramp down faster as the technology improves. From what I have read so far, it seems there is a chance we can actually IMPROVE the world’s economy and increase third world energy access by reducing CO2 emissions. Check out this guy who made his own windmill for his village in Malawi.
    http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2006/12/homemade_windmi/

  159. @Dave Springer says:
    October 23, 2011 at 12:35 am
    @Crispin
    >…soot is largely produced in the NH and distance it travels from the source before falling out to the surface is limited to several thousand kilometers and also given that more “global warming” occurs in the winter than the summer and more in higher latitudes than lower it makes the black soot hypotheses quite reasonable on the face of it. …
    Offsetting this however is its effect while it is still airborne and studies of airborne soot over the ocean suggests the shadow it casts causes a cooling effect rather than warming effect and, moreover, when it settles out onto a liquid ocean surface it has no further effect because it is incapable of lowering the albedo of water. Given that even in the northern hemisphere ocean surface is much greater than land surface the shadow cooling may very well be the dominant one in the global picture.
    +++++++++++
    The shadowing of the earth by BC is only possible if the BC absorbs or reflects the incoming sunshine so the idea that it is net cooling is defective. The ground is shaded, but the atmosphere around the particles is heated by the energy that would otherwise have reached the ground. This was directly measured in the Asian Brown Cloud by 4 remote controlled aircraft which recorded much higher tempearatures than was expected. Do you recall that report? Not that long ago. In short, BC has an overall warming effect because it has a much lower albedo than the ground it shades.
    Regarding the atmosphere as a heat engine:
    The mischaracterisation of the atmosphere as a greenhouse was a serious mistake and it is misleading a lot of people. There is little that is similar to a greenhouse going on in the atmosphere.
    In Bejan’s Ch.5 of Convective Heat Transfer (2005) there is an explanation of how heat moves between a hot plate below and a cold plate above with photos. This is very much like the Earth with its thin, expansive atmosphere. It is mentioned above that the thunderstorms, for example, are discrete heat engines. This discrete behaviour is not because the atmosphere does not behave like a heat engine, it is because whenever there is a large thin fluid between a hotter plate below and a colder plate above, there is an automatic division of the fluid into cells that set up their own cycling of heat (from hot to cold) and these cells can only grow to a certain size based on the physical characteristics of the fluid. If there are no surface features nor strong winds like the jet streams, there is a tendency to divide into square or hexagonal cells that are similar in size and flow characteristics. This is an element of ‘self-organisation’, or more properly, it is inherent in the physics of the fluid.
    A heat engine has a hot end, a moving gas that changes in volume, a cold end which draws off the heat, and a storage medium for heat that can transport some in it back to the hot end temporarily in the form of expanded gas. It usually has a ‘regenerator’ which is water vapour in this case. It stores or yields heat in the form of a phase change. A thunderstorm qualifies on all counts as a heat engine. Multiple thunderstorms arising on a hot plain in Africa are represented by the naturally occurring cells between the hot and cold plates.
    When the atmosphere is considered to be a heat engine (a Stirling engine with walls of stationary air) it becomes quite easy to see what influence various elements of the atmosphere will have. Any additional heat drives the engine harder. The work done by this engine is the propulsion of air, basically. It transports water and air first vertically in the centre and horizontally at the bottom. Diurnal expansion and contraction also drives the engine.
    Bejan’s point about Constructal Law is that the system teeters on the edge of turbulence at all times. This is self-limiting. It is the most efficient at moving heat (doing work). If the temperature at the hot place (ground) is elevated the system responds by stepping its energy flow rate slightly, again staying just inside the ‘developed flow’ boundary and on the edge of turbulence. (Turbulence absorbs a lot of energy so it avoided.) Having dumped the heat upwards at the maximum possible efficiency the system returns to its earlier stable state. His point was that this is so obvious that it is not even interesting to study. If CO2 or Black Carbon or Solar variation or tilting of the Earth occurs, the atmosphere will change its dynamics to dump the heat into space at the most efficient rate with the whole thing stabilising automatically at the point of highest efficiency, which is as I said, on the edge of turbulence.
    They are not GHG’s, they are just working fluids with different capacities to capture incoming or outgoing energy during the time which the cells prepare to dump the heat. There is absolutely no greenhouse. Greenhouses heat by interrupting the very mass flows that Bejan points out automatically develop to move the greatest amount of heat away with the least energy. A direct consequence of the heating effect seen 1975-1995 is the drying of the upper atmosphere. That is exactly what a free-flowing heat engine cell would do with water vapour being a major component of the working fluid. All the pretty up-down, in-out, reflected, radiated, absorbed charts are fun to work with, but the engine will cool the atmosphere as soon as it heats up, slowing the transport if it cools below. It takes a catastrophic cooling to induce stratification in the atmosphere strong enough to create an ice age and I favour a GCR inundation as the primary culprit. In other words I favour the cloud hypothesis at the moment because it has the capacity to disrupt the engine’s function (cooling the prime mover).

Comments are closed.