Burt Rutan writes in via email about an exchange he had with the proprietor of the website Scholars and Rogues, Brian Angliss. Burt writes:
I recently read a treatise showing that CAGW theory is a fraud. I thought it was a good summary and agreed to have my name used as a supporter of the facts when it was published by the Wall Street Journal. You can find it here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
Then, shortly after publication, an alarmist engineer wrote and “open letter to Burt”.
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/27/open-letter-to-burt-rutan/
I usually ignore these diatribes, but found a few moments to respond:
Scroll down to comment #4 for my answer.
I’ve reproduced Burt’s answer here for all to see:
Brian,
In my background of 46 years in aerospace flight testing and design I have seen many examples of data presentation fraud. That is what prompted my interest in seeing how the scientists have processed the climate data, presented it and promoted their theories to policy makers and the media.
What I found shocked me and prompted me to do further research. I researched data presentation fraud in climate science from 1999 to 2010.
I do not have time here to define the details; if interested in my research, a PPT or PDF can be downloaded at:
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
In general, if you as an engineer with normal ethics, study the subject you will conclude that the theory that man’s addition of CO2 to the atmosphere (a trace amount to an already trace gas content) cannot cause the observed warming unless you assume a large positive feedback from water vapor. You will also find that the real feedback is negative, not positive!
Specifically, the theory of CAGW is not supported by any of the climate data and none of the predictions of IPCC since their first report in 1991 have been supported by measured data. The scare is merely a computer modeled theory that has been flawed from the beginning, and in spite of its failure to predict, many of the climate scientists cling to it. They applauded the correlation of surface temperatures with CO2 content from 1960 to 1998 as proof, but fail to admit that the planet has cooled after 1998 in spite of the CO2 content increasing.
The failure of the IPCC machine is especially evident in the use of “models” to justify claims, so it might be worthwhile to just look at modeling and science.
Modeling is more correctly a branch of Engineering and there are some basic rules that have been flouted by CAGW _ CO2 modelers.
Firstly there has to be a problem analysis which identifies relevant factors and the physical, chemical and thermodynamic behaviors of those factors within the system.
Any claim that this has been done in the CO2 warming problem is PREPOSTEROUS.
There are perhaps a thousand PhD topics there waiting to be taken up by researchers.
We could start with work on understanding heat transfer between the main interfaces; eg Core to surface / surface to ocean depths/ ocean depths to ocean surface / ocean surface to atmosphere and so on, not having yet reached the depth of space at just slightly above absolute zero.
To claim that the entire system of atmospheric temperature moderation has been described by the fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 content while excluding the other obvious factors such as atmospheric water vapour content, solar flux and orbital mechanics is just nonsense.
The whole point of modelling when done correctly is that it links accurately measured input of the main factors and accurately measure target output. Where you have major input factors that are not considered and poor and uncertain measurement of all factors then all you have is a joke or more seriously Public Fraud based on science.
You do not have science.
CO2 is not a pollutant. When the Dinosaurs roamed, the CO2 content was 6 to 9 times current and the planet was green from pole to pole; almost no deserts. If we doubled the atmospheric content of CO2, young pine trees would grow at twice the rate and nearly every crop yield would go up 30 to 40%. We, the animals and all land plant life would be healthier if CO2 content were to increase.
Do the study yourself. Look at how and why the data are manipulated, cherry-picked and promoted. I will bet if you did, you too would be shocked.
The mark of a good theory is its ability to be falsified by new data. The mark of a good scientist is the ability to accept that.
Burt
The Difference between an Environmentalist and a Denier.
You can easily tell if someone is a true environmentalist, i.e. an advocate for a healthy planet – he is one who is happy to hear the news that the arctic ice content has stabilized. He is one who celebrates when the recent climate data show the alarmist’s predictions of catastrophic warming might be wrong. The denier, if he is an eco/political activist, always denies new data that show the planet may be healthy after all. The Media usually defines deniers as those who deny the scientist’s computer model predictions. However, denying the measured climate data meets a better definition in the world of science.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
> Why are the supposed rise in co2 that started at the end of the LIA not evident in any proxy record?
I’ve no idea what you mean by that. The, err, “official” so to speak CO2 record looks like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png CO2 variations in the ~10 kyr period before 1800 are minor.
> sea level rise, you mean we are going to get back to the levels of the Roman Warm Period? .. the salt mining in Italy certainly indicate a higher sea level than present.
Again, not sure what you mean. Sea level is higher now than during the Roman Period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png, perhaps.Or read http://people.rses.anu.edu.au/lambeck_k/pdf/242.pdf
> I shall await your kind response to my other facts as your post only addressed a few…
Alas I don’t know which I missed. Maybe it was
> Current AGW folks keep wanting to tell us that the early 20th century warming was caused by increased sun activity
Do we? You’ll need a cite for that. I counter with:
“Modelling studies are also in moderately good agreement with observations during the first half of the 20th century when both anthropogenic and natural forcings are considered, although assessments of which forcings are important differ, with some studies finding that solar forcing is more important (Meehl et al., 2004) while other studies find that volcanic forcing (Broccoli et al., 2003) or internal variability (Delworth and Knutson, 2000) could be more important.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-2.html
Thanks Burt Rutan for another brick in the wall enclosing the AGW Camp. AGW is the biggest political scam to have been perpetrated in history. It is not Science it is just self-serving biogotry. It has diverted valuable funds to Rogues, spoiled our landscape with hideous, useless windmills. Increasingly the economies of the whole World are on a knife edge and AGW impose crippling taxes to fund their insane junket. The cost of this junket will impoverish those nations stupid enough to believe these liars and cheats.
>> A physicist says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:27 pm
As a fan of both solid science and solid skepticism, it seems to me that (1) Hansen and his colleagues deserve credit for publishing forthright predictions <<
Given that Hansen predicts basically no change in sea level rise until 2040 (from the graph in your link), at which time he'll probably be long gone from God's green Earth, I think you're giving him too much credit. Any fool can predict something so far in the future that he faces no consequences from failure.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Niels says:
January 29, 2012 at 12:06 pm
“Do you really believe there were humans on Earth 3 million years ago?”
____
Some form of early human ancestor certainly was around then yes. They certainly were not Homo Sapiens, but they would continue to evolve. Probably some form of Australopithecus seems most likely.
Pathetic answer Mr. Gates, and you know it.
“A physicist says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Theo, you are absolutely correct. Having scored two impressive “bullseyes” with 1981 predictions of a global warming “hockey stick” and open Northwest Passage sea-lanes, Hansen and his colleagues are now “doubling-down” their scientific reputations, with a prediction of accelerating sea-level rise.”
I had a quick look at what Hansen is proposing and I’m not buying it. He is saying that ice loss will be exponential in the future. Funny how the ice after the last ice age didn’t seem to go away exponentially. Take for example the Columbia Ice Age Floods. They lasted from about 12000 to 15000 years ago (around 40 floods spaced around 50 years apart). This means that the North American glacier stayed in place and even returned after the flood water washed it away many times. And this was at a time when the earth was rapidly warming unlike the minor warming going on now. Ice is very hard to melt exponentially when there is a lot of it. While cataclysms can occur (the floods prove this), I think Hansen needs to come up with a good reason for any sudden conversion of ice to water. You only need to read the first comment in the linked article to figure out what this is all about.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 8:45 am
Either way, we’ve not seen global cooling this past decade as Mr. Rutan contends.
Please see the following slopes, each of which is for more than 10 years. Note that I am not getting into significance levels, but merely pointing out the slope is negative.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.58/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/plot/rss/from:1997.83/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/plot/gistemp/from:2001.67/trend
#Time series (hadcrut3) from 1850 to 2012
#Selected data from 1997.58
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00126185 per year
#Time series (rss) from 1979 to 2012
#Selected data from 1997.83
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00381703 per year
#Time series (gistemp) from 1880 to 2012
#Selected data from 2001.67
#Least squares trend line; slope = -3.86942e-06 per year
In fairness, I would like to point out that UAH is not yet negative for any time above 10 years, but that could easily change once the January or February stats are out.
Phew Anthony, I think we just witnessed the crossing of the climatic Rubicon or something similar; The Wall Street Journal article, Burts calm and measured response to a critic, the UEA/CRU Met Office capitulation? Global cooling trend for past 15 years!! and all coinciding with a noticeable rise in trenchant warmists or should that be former W? clamouring to get onto your site and clarify? justify their predictions/projections modeling before the inevitable media and public wake -up exposes them all. Or am I being too hard on them.
Erinome,
This is such a trivial error that I have to wonder about his other conclusions….
You are not even fit to tie this man’s shoes. The work he has done with making stuff work speaks for itself. The problem many University types and “Climate Scientists” have is most think they can go off and do a simulation, publish a paper and they are done. Do you realize how many simulations —good and bad–and real-world trial and error there is in actually making stuff like high altitude flights work?
Why do climate scientists shy away from devising testable, scenarios fir their models? I was on Brigs blog and Gavin refused to even talk about testing climate models. We have to wait 100yrs–so they say. The oldest 1988 forecast by Hansen is not even close to actual temperatures now. If he worked for like a drug company he would be fired such such a lame result
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 11:52 am
“I had a link to “what I think about GW” that would have made this clear, but your mod didn’t like it so it was snipped.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Is not Connolley’s somewhat snarky complaint the height of irony?
R. Gates said:
“Burt Rutan said:
‘They applauded the correlation of surface temperatures with CO2 content from 1960 to 1998 as proof, but fail to admit that the planet has cooled after 1998 in spite of the CO2 content increasing.’
——–
Respectfully, this is not an accurate statement. 9 out of the 10 warmest years on instrument record have occurred since 1998, with 2010 being warmer than 1998. For one claiming to pride himself on what the data tells him, it seems odd that you would misconstrue this so horribly. But then again, maybe not that odd, as you seem to have made up your mind about the status of things.”
______
Respectfully, this is not an accurate statement. The current anomaly is well below 1998. The negative changes in anomaly are getting more frequent. The amount of anomaly change is pretty even, but slightly more negative in recent years. And, as looking at changes in17-2 year moving averages, it is clear that the current average anomaly is negative for 10 out of 16 as of 2011, the frequency and magnitude of 2011 negative trends generally increases as the number of years in average, and such is the case for other recent years (I have the values in exel, but don’t know how to display it here).
Rank Year Anomaly Delta 98 Delta Cumulative Relative Delta 98
Anomaly Change Change Anomaly Rank
1 1998 0.55 0 12
13 1999 0.103 -0.447 -0.447 -0.447 -0.812727273 1
7 2001 0.245 -0.305 0.142 -0.305 1.378640777 6
5 2002 0.316 -0.234 0.071 -0.234 0.289795918 8
4 2003 0.324 -0.226 0.008 -0.226 0.025316456 9
10 2004 0.208 -0.342 -0.116 -0.342 -0.358024691 3
3 2005 0.334 -0.216 0.126 -0.216 0.605769231 10
8 2006 0.232 -0.318 -0.102 -0.318 -0.305389222 5
6 2007 0.261 -0.289 0.029 -0.289 0.125 7
9 2009 0.226 -0.324 -0.035 -0.324 -0.134099617 4
2 2010 0.476 -0.074 0.25 -0.074 1.10619469 11
12 2011 0.147 -0.403 -0.329 -0.403 -0.691176471 2
Question was -How come we did not cook when C02 was much higher
Connolley answer -Because that was more than 50 Myr ago. We weren’t around.
Yep an answer that I expected. Me hitting head, why did I not think of that.
Was not C02 well above the tipping point then? What happened to runaway warming? R. Gates care to jump in.
Niels says:
January 29, 2012 at 2:55 pm
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Niels says:
January 29, 2012 at 12:06 pm
“Do you really believe there were humans on Earth 3 million years ago?”
____
Some form of early human ancestor certainly was around then yes. They certainly were not Homo Sapiens, but they would continue to evolve. Probably some form of Australopithecus seems most likely.
Pathetic answer Mr. Gates, and you know it.
_____
? Obviously scientific research into the subject of human ancestry you find “pathetic”.
If you ask a broad question, you’ll get a broad answer. Ask a specific question, and you’ll get a specific answer.
Apologies for my poor editing.
Respectfully, this is not an accurate statement. The current anomaly is well below 1998. The negative changes in anomaly are getting more frequent. The amount of anomaly change is pretty even, but slightly more negative in recent years. And, looking at changes in 17-2 year moving averages, it is clear that the current average anomaly is negative for 10 out of 16 as of 2011, the frequency and magnitude of 2011 negative trends generally increases as the number of years in the average decreases, and such is the case for other recent years (I have the values in exel, but don’t know how to display it here).
@Rgates – I think you will find that the point is that real world measured atmospheric temperature and model predicted temperatures are deviating in a way the models do not cater for. If natural climate change can prevent CO2 warming for the most recent decade then this beggars the question as to the role of natural forced in the observed climate record from the 1980s and 1990s. What is the real role of CO2? Is it really the primary driver of atmospheric warming or a bit player?
Bob B says:
Erinome,
& This is such a trivial error that I have to wonder about his other conclusions….
You are not even fit to tie this man’s shoes.
At least I know not to present results that depend on the choice of units. Rutan, obviously, does not.
It’s exactly the kind of error an engineer makes in a science where he is badly out of his depth.
if there ever was a man who knew how make use of the atmosphere, Burt is THE man. Mr. Rutan has no peers.
connolley belongs on the pelosi couch.
nc says:
January 29, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Question was -How come we did not cook when C02 was much higher
Connolley answer -Because that was more than 50 Myr ago. We weren’t around.
Yep an answer that I expected. Me hitting head, why did I not think of that.
Was not C02 well above the tipping point then? What happened to runaway warming? R. Gates care to jump in.
_____
First, I’m am not a believer in “catastrophic” global warming, with the term catastrophic specifically meaning “the end of all life on earth”, or “run-away warming leading to the end of all life on earth.” Could CO2 levels rise to the point that human existence become a matter of doubt? Possibly. Our civilization has thrived during a period that CO2 has been around 280 ppm, and the grain plants that fueled our civilization have done well under Holocene levels of CO2 as well. It is a gamble to see what happens if CO2 levels go much outside this range, higher or lower. What will it do to the oceans and to our grain plants, would be my biggest concern.
But in general, it is very hard to compare two periods so remote in time as 50 million years ago and today and make any conclusions. Why would we want to look at time when human ancestors were tree shrews? The sun was much weaker in these past periods and the continents were differently arranged. The closest analogue we have in terms of levels of CO2 being like today and the continents being roughly like today is the mid to early Pliocene…around 3 mya or so. Lot’s of very smart people doing research every day into this period.
R. Gates says: January 29, 2012 at 3:13 pm
? Obviously scientific research into the subject of human ancestry you find “pathetic”.
Gates, stick to subjects you know. Australopithicus was not a human ancestor and it is likely that the creatures who were our ancestors at that time lacked tool-making capability, the ability to make and use fire, and even language itself.
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:46 pm
“I’m not entirely sure what your challenge is. The basic theory is that increasing greenhouse gases such as CO2 affect the radiative properties of the atmosphere, leading to a radiative forcing that tends to warm. This doesn’t directly affect clouds, though, only indirectly. But you are correct that the direct effect from CO2 is smaller than that total effect including feedbacks, from water vapour and ice-albedo and suchlike.”
Yes, and those who favor some version of an AGW theory must produce some reasonably well confirmed physical hypotheses which describe some connection between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and some feedback or admit that there is no physical science which shows that rising CO2 concentrations cause warming.
You do not know what reasonably well confirmed physical hypotheses are? I admire your frankness and humility. But your level of understanding reveals that you should not be commenting on these matters at all.
A physicist says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:27 pm
For your own good, please put down the pipe (or whatever) and go to bed.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 3:13 pm
If you ask a broad question, you’ll get a broad answer. Ask a specific question, and you’ll get a specific answer.
Take a closed container of air at room temperature and inject into it sufficient CO2 to raise the CO2 concentration to 5,000 PPM. After two weeks time what will be the temperature inside the container? After one month? One year?
James of the West says:
January 29, 2012 at 3:15 pm
@Rgates – I think you will find that the point is that real world measured atmospheric temperature and model predicted temperatures are deviating in a way the models do not cater for. If natural climate change can prevent CO2 warming for the most recent decade then this beggars the question as to the role of natural forced in the observed climate record from the 1980s and 1990s. What is the real role of CO2? Is it really the primary driver of atmospheric warming or a bit player?
_____
Again, you miss the point. Natural variability is only masking CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) forcing…it is not preventing it. Models do not handle natural variability well…nor can they ever. If they do (and this is Dr. Trenberth’s point), then they’ll simply have larger error bars. But models are not meant to capture natural variability, as no one can say how solar cycles or ENSO or volcanic activity will align 10, 20, or 50 years from now to create those smaller wiggles on a graph of temperatures that is in general trending upward.
To suggest that CO2 is a primary driver of climate, you really need to state exactly what you mean by that. A primary driver over what time frame, and compared to what other forcing? A primary driver at what concentration change over what time frame? These questions get to the heart of climate sensitivity and really, the heart of climate study.
I am very excited to be a student of climate at this point in history, as we are getting a front row seat to watch how a 40% increase in CO2 and similar increases in methane and N2O stack up against a quiet sun. This is long term forcing versus short-term natural variability. Very exciting times!
In addition, it’s very easy to see that Rutan’s example that I mentioned above completely fails to say anything at all about a warming or cooling world.
Suppose the average global temperature of each month in year Y is one degree higher than the previous year. That’s a *strongly* warming world of 1 degree/yr.
The quantity Rutan is plotting for each year, call it R(Y), is {May(Y)-Jan(Y)}/Dec(Y-1).
A small bit of algebra shows that R(Y) = f(Y)*R(Y-1), where f is a factor that is *always* less than one:
f(Y)=Dec(Y-2)/{1+Dec(Y-2)}
So R(Y) is always less than R(Y-1) in this scenario. Thus the slope of the graph of R(Y) vs Y will always be negative — i.e. it will trend linearly downward as Y increases.
Thus it fails completely to diagnose a linearly warming world. A similar argument shows that it also fails to diagnose a linearly cooling world.
That is, his analysis is completely meaningless. Even worse, it seems to intentionally obscure the point.
“When we check today’s sea ice level at the excellent web site Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis, we find that as of this very hour, Arctic ice is at record low levels. ”
Dare I say, completely MEANINGLESS in terms of the atmospheric energy balance?
The oceans have 500 times the thermal mass of the atmosphere.
WOW! Melting all the ice of the arctic. AMAZING specificity that the energy flow and dis-balance has!)
(Why hasn’t the overall atmospheric temperature shot up 50 degrees C., why would all that extra 1 watt per meter from Hansen, et. al. just go into the oceans, and just go into the arctic.
This is an argument of absolute ignorance of physics and science, in an of itself.
We have NO idea of the real cycles of the ice cap in the arctic. We have a 30 year set of “precise” observations, and that’s it. Again, the energy “imbalance” is just marvelous. All melting the ice on in the arctic. What about the flat ocean energy profile from the ARGO buoy’s? Nah, I don’t need to get into it. Pig-in-mud wrestling.
Robert E. Phelan says:
January 29, 2012 at 3:24 pm
R. Gates says: January 29, 2012 at 3:13 pm
? Obviously scientific research into the subject of human ancestry you find “pathetic”.
Gates, stick to subjects you know. Australopithicus was not a human ancestor and it is likely that the creatures who were our ancestors at that time lacked tool-making capability, the ability to make and use fire, and even language itself.
______
Sounds like you presume to know more about these things than I do, and I admit, its been many years since I looked into it in any detail. My last recollection was that Australopithecus was in the homo sapiens family tree and existed approximately 4.5 to 1.5 million years ago (covering the mid-Pliocene period in question). Certainly Homo habilis did not quite extend back 3 mya to the mid-Pliocene.
But I’ll defer to your apparent superior knowledge of the subject. Either way, it not important exactly the name of the human ancestor that lived during the mid-Pliocene, but more importantly it was a primitive creature that did not produce large amounts of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. About the only CO2 it produced was from its own breath.