Skeptic Agrees with Climate Change

 

[Note: Jim sent me this in response to an group email pointing out yet another hopeless alarmist website climatetruth.org. He says it is his stock response, written somewhat like a poetry or haiku, and some of you may find it handy – Anthony]

By Jim Goodridge, former California State Climatologist

It is hard to disagree with receding glaciers.

The increase in atmospheric CO2 is undeniable.

Yet as skepticism survives it is not about facts – but about cause.

There are those who would interpret facts to fit their agendas.

The Smithsonian Intuition initialized a solar constant measurements project

In about 1910 using the finest pyranometers available

They were not able to measure solar variation closer than 1%

The variation due to atmospheric water vapor was close to 2%

 

Thirty years of solar constant numbers were not usable for that objective

Solar constant measurements were made from orbiting satellites starting in 1978.

Measurements were made normal to the suns rays.

They were corrected for the mean Earth Sun distance

 

The resulting solar constant measurements were made to an accuracy of 0.1%.

They were found to vary as the historic Sunspot Numbers.

Sunspot numbers are available since 1700.

Sunspot numbers are cyclic and repeat every eleven years.

 

Taking the sunspot numbers since 1900 and plotting an 11-year running average

Results in a graph showing an increasing sunspot trend for 110-years

The Hadley Center has a 110-year sea surface temperature record

The trends in sea surface temperature and sunspot trends are similar

 

The effect of rising SST is lower solubility of dissolved CO2

The increase in atmospheric CO2 is consistent with rising SST

Where there is a need to support a conservation ethic.

The increase in CO2 was attributed to tailpipe emissions perhaps in error.

 

Some say that a skeptic is a thing of evil

Some should not consider alternatives.

If your job depends on a specific interpretation

Perhaps you should ignore the solar evidence.

 

Our lives are filled with self-delusion it is handy to deceive others

“Aside from skeptics in the history of philosophy

Others were strangers to the first principals of intellectual honesty”

Objectivity is the goal. Skepticism is a tool.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Durr

They seem to like the word “cause” on the other side, don’t they…

Bill H

loos like some one is having a hissy fit and loosing the battle…
no facts, just conjecture…. platitudes….
they real y are getting desperate..

I don’t see the “Agrees” part in there anywhere. Pliz explificate.

Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta

Jim Goodridge is a skeptic.
Skepticism is a tool.
Jim Goodridge is a tool.

John-X

Control is the Goal
People are tools.

But the word “cause” in line three refers to the varying climate—as in “correlation does not mean causation.” Hence, facts and cause. For CAGW proponents the “cause” means a political agenda or misanthropy, as the science certainly isn’t there.

Sean Peake

With all due respect to Mr Goodridge, what he wrote could have been set down over 10 years ago. He believes that correlation is causation. He focuses on the minor variability TSI and sunspots whilst ignoring that solar magnetics is likely a much bigger influence. He relies on data that no longer shows what he states. To quote Bob Dylan, “Things have changed.” I hope he snaps out of it.

@ Durr. Funny. “Cause” taken out of…..context.

DirkH

Climate truthiness?

DirkH

Even better. Climate Truthers.

Ted Dooley

Is he a poet?
and doesn’t know it?

u.k.(us)

If only,
there are fortunes invested in the outcome.
The smart money is pulling out now, it will take longer to wean others from the subsidies.
Just another failed Ponzi Scheme.
Brought to you by your elected officials.
Who, in case you forgot are only worried about the children.

Gail Combs

Durr says:
December 9, 2011 at 4:59 pm
They seem to like the word “cause” on the other side, don’t they…
_______________________________________
The CAUSE is political and Climate PSYCience is the Whorse they use to pull their “bus”
As a PSYCentist, if you do not get with the “Cause” you get tossed under the bus like Judith Curry was. Because the “Cause” is what is important not science because science does not even exist.

….postmodernism, the chief characteristic of which is the rejection of absolute objective truth. “What’s true for you may not be true for me,” encapsulates the postmodern idiom fairly well……
The history of the last 2,000 years can be divided into three periods. The pre­-modern world (up to the 17th century), the modern world (17th to late 20th century) and the postmodern world (late 20th century onwards). ……
Cracks began to appear in modernism with the dawning of the Romantic era (1775-1850) which encouraged subjectivity and personal experience. Building on David Hume’s ideas about the limitations of observation by sense alone, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) popularized the belief that knowledge is ulti­mately a matter of interpretation. After all, he reasoned, we cannot with any certainty know that our minds are correctly mirroring reality. Kant said, “You kant know.” Agnosticism became fashionable. The ship of reason was holed below the waterline. This laid the foundation for existentialism. If reality was a matter of subjective inter­pretation, truth and morality were relative not absolute…..
Existential philosophers like Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and others, proposed that the most important questions in life were not explainable by science. Science, contrary to public perception, is not a pure discipline where scientists with pure motives search for pure truth. These writers exposed what they felt were the false assumptions and presuppositions behind modernism. Karl Marx (1818-1883) claimed a person’s thinking was influenced and shaped by economic structures; Frie­drich Nietzsche by the desire to wield power (truth claims are mere power plays); Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) by unconscious sexually-oriented drives. With all of this psychological baggage in the mind, how could a person ever state with any certainty what ‘reality’ really is? Facts are ‘theory-laden’ and true objectivity is impossible. “There are no facts, only interpretations,” said Nietzsche. (He thereby assumed his own perspective was neutral!). The door to postmodernism had been opened…..
http://www.webtruth.org/articles/cultural-issues-26/postmodernism-35.html

This explains why we can never ever win an argument with a Warmist. To them there are no objective facts.
I actually had some idiot try to teach this nonsense to me in a management class. I told the philosophy teacher if he really believe the stuff he was trying to teach, then he could hand over his wallet and car keys and go outside and lay on the rail road tracks (Train due in about 15 minutes) That was the end of his part of the course. ~ Reality stomps wishy washy philosophy.
I never could understand why they include such crap in a management course in the first place. Must have been part of the general brainwashing I guess. No doubt we would get a “Sustainability” section added now a days and something else that was actually important would be deleted to make room.

Eric

I may be wrong but I believe alot of you are missing the point…Jim is a skeptic and the haiku is his stock argument for alarmists… IMO alot of it rings true.

Andrew Harding

If my interpretation is correct then the following is true:
Sunspots have an 11 year cycle from maximum to minimum and this has been observed for 311 years.
Sea surface temperature reflect this, therefore implying that the solar radiation emitted is also cyclical. (There will presumably be a lag due to the high specific heat capacity of water).
Oceans affect local climate disproportionately compared to latitude, due to the high specific heat capacity of water, which produces higher or lower temperatures depending upon the SST adjacent to any particular location.
This effect is negligible in the middle of a continent because the ocean is too far away and then latitude becomes the main consideration.
Because gases are more soluble in liquids at lower temperatures, then atmospheric CO2 will increase as the ocean temperature increases because the CO2 has to go somewhere.
To summarise:
Increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are a consequence of global warming, not the cause.
PH of the oceans goes up, not down as temperatures rise due to decreasing levels of carbonic acid.
Weather stations situated here in the UK will show a greater variation in cyclical temperature than weather stations in the middle of Asia, Australia or North and South America because we are closer to the ocean.
The amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere/oceans produced by mankind is tiny in comparison to the amount found naturally.
AGW is total b******s and is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on mankind, by mankind.
Is this a reasonable, if simplistic analysis of climate change?

David

It is a bit confusing and I’d never be so obtuse were I to write it. I’m understanding that he is attributing increased CO2 with reduced solubility of the oceans (to CO2) due to increased surface temperature which is correlated with increases solar activity (sunspots). I GUESS. Others seem to be confused as well………

tokyoboy

Andrew Harding says: December 9, 2011 at 6:15 pm
“Sunspots have an 11 year cycle from maximum to minimum”
Should be: “…….. from maximum to maximum”

Jimmy Haigh

Andrew Harding says:
December 9, 2011 at 6:15 pm
For the record, I totally agree with your reasonable, if simplistic analysis.

richard

just been flicking through this paper,
Death and Death Rates Due to
Extreme Weather Events
Global and U.S. Trends, 1900–2006
Indur M. Goklany
when i came to this,
aggregate
mortality and mortality rates due to extreme weather
events are generally lower today than they used to be.
Globally, mortality and mortality rates have declined by
95 percent or more since the 1920s. The largest
improvements came from declines in mortality due to
droughts and floods, which apparently were responsible
for 93 percent of all deaths caused by extreme events
during the 20th century,
This is a good thing isn’t it.

Curiousgeorge

As has been noted many times, the issue is not whether CO2 in creasing or the planet is warming or the seas are rising or falling. The issue is whether any of these things, separately or together, represent a clear and present danger. That has yet to be established. The sky has not fallen, nor does it appear likely to do so. Therefore the “cause” (saving humanity from itself) has no foundation. Like VIKI in the analogy below, they claim their “logic is undeniable”.
“VIKI decided that in order to protect humanity as a whole, “some humans must be sacrificed” and “some freedoms must be surrendered” as “you charge us with your safekeeping, yet despite our best efforts, your countries wage wars, you toxify your earth, and pursue ever more imaginative means of self-destruction”. In light of this understanding of the Three Laws, VIKI is controlling the NS-5s to lead a global robotic takeover, justifying her actions by calculating that fewer humans will die due to the rebellion than the number that dies from mankind’s self-destructive nature.”

jae

Far too many bumper sticker statements to get on all my bumpers. The “Hope and Change” ones make more sense, LOL.
Stupid.

Joanna

I agree with Andrew and Eric…of course he’s a sceptic. And I like the haiku format…can just imagine chanting it as a sort of mantra when entangled with yet another person arguing that ALL climate change is anthropogenic…

JJB MKI

Brilliant and elegant. For some that might be getting the wrong end of the stick here, it seems Jim is saying the observations and perceived facts may be used to fit in with more than one preconceived agenda (the example he gives is a simplified illustration). The myriad complexities of the climate system make this very easy to do whilst retaining a sense of total conviction and righteousness. Objectivity can only be found through scepticism, yet scepticism is now being presented as an ‘evil’ by those with a vested interest in stamping out objectivity and defining one narrative at the exclusion of all others, even (or especially) if they are not completely aware of their own behaviour. This is motivated by an endless cycle of religious self justification: ‘I am right because I believe this; I believe this because I am right’.
Or maybe I’m getting the wrong end of the stick?

Gillian Lord

Most important thing about it is that it is easy to read for people with low attention spans.

crackers345

Sean Peake wrote:
With all due respect to Mr Goodridge, what he wrote could have been set down over 10 years ago. He believes that correlation is causation. He focuses on the minor variability TSI and sunspots whilst ignoring that solar magnetics is likely a much bigger influence.
How so? Here is what the CERN CLOUD scientists wrote in their press briefing:
“This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.”

JJB MKI

@Gillian Lord:
That’s how I made it to the end! Maybe Bob Tisdale should think about employing haiku?

Jim D

Take the sunspot numbers and do an 11-year average.
You see peaks at 1950 and 1983.
It has been a downward trend since 1983.
The surface temperature has risen fastest since 1983.
This is fairly simple to verify.
What did he do wrong?

crackers345

Several commenters here have referred to Jim Goodridge as an “alarmist.” What exactly in his poem(?) indicates that? I don’t see it….
Maybe you’re labeling him in an attempt to dismiss him, but that won’t fly, not here….
CO2 warms planets. You can’t explain things without this…. There is certainly room (IMO) to disagree with the details, but physics is physics….

“The amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere/oceans produced by mankind is tiny in comparison to the amount found naturally.”
Just curious, but what are the actual numbers, there. Anyone? If 100% of the human-produced CO_2 (from burning fuel, not from breathing) were added up, just how much is that? If that CO_2 were well-mixed with the atmosphere (there’s a LOT of atmosphere) just how much would that compare to the amount that is already there? That is, you assert that it is “tiny”. What does that mean? Is 5% anthropogenic? 20%? 0.01%? And what is the basis for your number?
Granting that the oceans are an enormous CO_2 sink — not necessarily in a good way, during ice ages — granting the evidence that historically in the past CO_2 has lagged temperature and not led it, granting that warming would all by itself produce an increase in the CO_2 content of the air, all of these together do not suffice to prove that anthropogenic CO_2 is a negligible fraction of the current total atmospheric CO_2.
Numbers might. I’ve looked for them in the past, but haven’t found any that I’d be willing to believe because of the fairly large uncertainties about the sources and sinks other than humans. Does anybody have a clean, believable accounting that they’d like to share?
rgb

wayne

Andrew Harding says:
December 9, 2011 at 6:15 pm
> If my interpretation is correct then the following is true:
Sunspots have an 11 year cycle from maximum to minimum and this has been observed for 311 years.
Sea surface temperature reflect this, therefore implying that the solar radiation emitted is also cyclical. (There will presumably be a lag due to the high specific heat capacity of water).
Andrew, don’t think you interpreted the first part correct. He stated the 11 year cycle but the missing chart implied between his words is a centennial-scale secular increase and that secular increase he was speaking of matches the SST rise. Not the simple 11 year normal tiny bobble up and down in the TSI. See where he said “increasing sunspot trend for 110-years”.
(but your trailer was right on.)

“Take the sunspot numbers and do an 11-year average.
You see peaks at 1950 and 1983.
It has been a downward trend since 1983.
The surface temperature has risen fastest since 1983.
This is fairly simple to verify.
What did he do wrong?”
Take the solar activity proxies for the last 10,000 years.
Look at them.
The last time the sun was as active as it was in the 20th century
Was 9000 years ago
Close to the start of the Holocene.
The ocean is large.
The climate complex, with multidecadal cycles
And many feedback loops.
Thirty years?
Looking at one hundred year trends
For immediate causes
Is like seeing the world, flat
From your window
And being content.
The ant calls the hill upon which it lives a mountain
Because it cannot see the mountain on which that hill lives
That is less than a foothill of the mighty Himalayas
Across the sea.
The temperature record of the Holocene
Reveals that the hill whose slope alarms you
Calls to its fellows, higher still,
In a past uncorrupted
By anthropogenic CO_2, unforced
By any plausible influence but the Sun
The Earth itself.
Cold was the Maunder Minimum
Cold indeed, frozen Thames
With (strange chance) a quiet Sun.
So cold that all the warming seen
From then until now
May be simply explained
By natural variation
Regression to the mean
Excursion beyond
With CO_2 the minor factor
Not the Smoking Gun
Playing second fiddle to
Earth’s variable Sun.

RandomThesis

“Is he a poet?
and doesn’t know it?”
More like “He’s not a poet, and doesn’t know it.”

grandpa boris

@{the first half-dozen or more responses}
Did you actually read and understand the article before accusing the writer of being a “tool” or calling him “desperate”?

Jim D

Man has already increased the atmosphere’s CO2 by 40%.
It may be 100% by about 2060.
Doubling CO2 has the radiative effect of a 1% solar intensity increase.
This is five to seven times the solar intensity increase since the Maunder Minimum.

peter_ga

Some great philosophical comments back there.
Bertrand Russell, for example, in “History of Western Philosophy” appears to divide modern philosophy into a battle between the Romantics and the Realists. He sees the Nazis as the ultimate expression of the Romantics.
I would say that Romantics have their place, particularly in art; film, music, literature and so on. A little bit in politics. None at all in science. A little in engineering; things should look stylish.

crackers345

Exactly Jim D.
If the pre-industrial level of CO2 warms the planet by about 30 C — easy to calculate via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation….
…and CO2 has increased by 40% since then….
why is it surprising that the planet is another 1 C warmer, with more on the way as CO2 levels increase?
Moderator: Why don’t I receive emails of comments when I check the box for them?

Tony

I agree with the others here who sugget that perhaps the article has the wrong end of stick. This chant is stating how data is maniplated to show AGW, but that sceptics remain true unlike the scientists concerned.

Helen Armstrong

Like your work, Robbie Brown. Bravo!

crackers345

Notice how no one here is rushing to answer Robert Brown’s question about the CO2 accounting…. Because the commenters here DON’T know!
They don’t. They don’t even understand how good of a question it is.
Here you go:
there is 50 times more CO2 in the oceans than the atmosphere.
there is 19 times more CO2 in the oceans than the land.
The atmosphere contains about 750 Pg C, and about 100 Pg C is exchanged between the oceans and atmosphere.
Here is some accounting for you:
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html#b
180 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere warms the planet by about 30 C (Stefan-Boltzmann law).
Why, then, shouldn’t another 110 ppm warm it more? (Let alone another 300-500 ppm in our future…?)
Great questions, Robert.

Matt

Poem? Haiku? Am I the only who doesn’t know what these mean, or the only one who does? Because I cannot make out a poem/haiku style or format… especially the poor haiku is the most ‘abused’ form of literature, typically by westerners 😉

Tom Curtis

So Anthony, do you have the courage to plot the running eleven year average of the sunspot number against the running eleven year average of the SST as an update to this post. It’s easy to do, Tamino already has already made the graphs, and I’m sure he’ll let you use them with attribution.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/oh-pleeze/
Alternatively, do you prefer keeping this site a fact free zone to protect the arguments therein.
PS: If the recent rise in CO2 content in the atmosphere is due to warming oceans, why was the peak CO2 content of the atmosphere in the Medieval Warm Period 285 ppmv?

LevelGaze

@ Erinome
Try talking to people who actually do things. Horticulurists pump up the CO2 levels many times normal to enhance growth in some of their greenhouses . The temperature ain’t any higher than in the greenhouses with ambient CO2. Explain that, smartarse.

Pete H

Jim D says:
December 9, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Man has already increased the atmosphere’s CO2 by 40%.
It may be 100% by about 2060.
You want to run that by me again? Possibly you meant Mann!

crackers345

LevelGaze says:
Try talking to people who actually do things. Horticulurists pump up the CO2 levels many times normal to enhance growth in some of their greenhouses . The temperature ain’t any higher than in the greenhouses with ambient CO2. Explain that, smartarse.
Do I really have to explain to you the difference between a greenhouse and a planet?
(Get back to me on that.)

Richard111

Very nice. Among the many home truths I find these evocative:
“They were not able to measure solar variation closer than 1%
The variation due to atmospheric water vapor was close to 2%”

Just look at the effect of “greenhouse gases” in the 0.2 to 5 micron bands!
Now looking at energy budgets that include day side and night side
radiation effects. Non of this reduce by 30% and divide by four malarky.

The effect of rising SST is lower solubility of dissolved CO2
The increase in atmospheric CO2 is consistent with rising SST

Sorry to disagree here: the solubility of CO2 in seawater in/decreases with 16 microatm for 1°C in/decrease in global sea surface temperature (Henry’s Law). Thus the maximum 1°C warming since the LIA did rise the CO2 levels in the atmosphere with maximum 16 ppmv, but in reality with maximum 8 ppmv, as vegetation reacts to temperature in/decreases in opposite direction compared to seawater. Thus from the 100 ppmv increase (80 ppmv since Mauna Loa and South Pole measurements started), maximum 8 ppmv is from the increased seawater temperature. Moreover, the temperature record over the past 100 years is warming (1910-1945), cooling (1945-1975), warming (1975-2000) and steady (2000-current). While the CO2 levels show a continuous increase with incredible correlation with human emissions. Especially in current times: no increase in (sea surface) temperature, human emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels increasing at record level… See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
The atmospheric CO2-temperature correlation:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1900_2004.jpg
The CO2 emissions – atmosphere correlation:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2.jpg
Temperature and CO2 levels are negatively correlated in the period 1945-1975 and 2000-current.
Thus this is not an argument where you can convince any luke-warmer (alarmists anyway are unconvincible), as this is a lost argument and weakens the position of the skeptics where it really matters: if the extra CO2 is harmfull, harmless or even beneficial…

Roger Knights

tokyoboy says:
December 9, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Andrew Harding says: December 9, 2011 at 6:15 pm
“Sunspots have an 11 year cycle from maximum to minimum”
Should be: “…….. from maximum to maximum”

I don’t think so.

Andrew Harding says:
December 9, 2011 at 6:15 pm
PH of the oceans goes up, not down as temperatures rise due to decreasing levels of carbonic acid.
pH should go up and DIC (total dissolved inorganic carbon, i.e. CO2 + bicarbonates + carbonates) goes down if temperature was the main player, as CO2 escapes from the ocean surface. But continuous measurements at a few places (Hawaii and Bermuda) and regular seaship surveys show the opposite: DIC goes up and (calculated) pH goes down… See:
http://www.bios.edu/Labs/co2lab/research/IntDecVar_OCC.html

LevelGaze

@ Erinome
“Do I really have to explain to you the difference between a greenhouse and a planet?”
More to the point, try explaining to me the difference between a planet and an imperfectly controlled laboratory experiment involving tubes filled with gas, if you can.
Most people here are skeptics because they have invested a *lot* of time and effort – which could have been spent in much more enjoyable ways – actually digging into all this stuff, thinking about it, arguing about it, and in spite of their diverse minor differences of opinion, finding egregious flaws in warmist claims. They are battle-hardened experts from a variety of mathematical/scientific backgrounds,so they are far from ignorant people.
That is why willful ignorance is not well tolerated here. Nor are bland assertions of patent untruths.
CO2 heats planets? Then explain to me why it doesn’t heat greenhouses. If it did, engineers (and there are many here) would have cottoned on to this decades ago and the the world would now be luxuriating in endless, virtually free ‘green’ energy.

Robert Brown says:
December 9, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Just curious, but what are the actual numbers, there. Anyone? If 100% of the human-produced CO_2 (from burning fuel, not from breathing) were added up, just how much is that? If that CO_2 were well-mixed with the atmosphere (there’s a LOT of atmosphere) just how much would that compare to the amount that is already there? That is, you assert that it is “tiny”. What does that mean? Is 5% anthropogenic? 20%? 0.01%? And what is the basis for your number?
There is a double answer: about 9% of the current atmospheric CO2 is of human fossil burning origin, but at least 92% of the 30% increase in total CO2 mass is due to human emissions.
Let me explain that further:
Humans nowadays emit about 8 GtC as CO2 per year. The measured increase in the atmosphere is 4 GtC/yr (~2 ppmv/yr). Thus about 4 GtC/yr CO2 is taken away by natural sinks (vegetation and oceans). This is true in average for the whole period since the start of the industrial revolution, but in the begin period the natural variability (+/- 4 GtC around the trend, mainly due to ocean temperature variation) was larger than the “signal”. In total, humans have emitted some 380 GtC, while the increase in the atmosphere currently is at 210 GtC (100 ppmv).
Thus except for maximum 8 ppmv from warmer oceans since the LIA, the rest of the increase is due to human emissions.
Now, how much CO2 of human origin still is in the atmosphere? That is a quite different question. There is a lot of exchange of CO2 between the different compartiments: ocean surfaces exchange CO2 over the seasons back and forth. Vegetation does the same and the deep oceans take CO2 away near the poles and release that again, hundreds of years later, near the equator. That all makes that about 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged with CO2 from other compartiments within a year. Mainly the deep oceans remove the current CO2 composition, including the human component, but release the deep ocean composition of today, up to 800 years ago. Thus that reduces the number of original human CO2 molecules and only about 9% of the original emissions still reside in the atmosphere, even if humans are near fully responsible for the 30% increase in the atmosphere…