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.
Bob B says:
Erinome, if you include Ocean heat content then:
Bob, the 1988 Hansen models do not project ocean heat content as far as I know. Can you point me to those results?
And Bob, you still are refusing to answer WHICH economic scenario you want to compare the model results for. There are, literally, hundreds of model projections out there, and until you specify which scenario we can’t even begin to discuss them.
The Pielke Sr post you referred to (appeal to authority?) is interesting, but it says right in it that it’s Hansen’s *2005* forcing number he’s discussing, not the 1988 projections. And he notes that Hansen’s number for net energy imbalance is within the error bars of the Loeb results. So what’s the problem?
But Pielke Sr then goes on to GUESS what number Hansen would give now — how is that fair to Hansen? He has begged the question….
Smokey, science is not a democracy….
Are you ever going to explain for us why today’s change in CO2-per-degree is 10 times that of an ice age?
> What specific kinds of empirical research, experimentation, and data analysis should we be performing within the operational climate system itself to assess the validity of the climate models?
And in all that time you’ve never thought to look into the IPCC reports? For AR4, you want chapter 8, specifically section 8.3 or perhaps section 8.6.3.1 Water Vapour and Lapse Rate
Hmmm … a cloud-cover-at-night-means-a-warmer-night denier?
(In fact, that can also be said of ‘humid’ night as contrasted with a much less humid (or dry) night atmosphere too, i.e., substitute ‘humid’ for ‘cloud-cover’ in the above.)
Is that the way I can read that – or do I have it wrong?
You are aware of the field of IR Spectroscopy and how that works … right?
.
Erinome, it’s been explained to you repeatedly. It’s also been repeatedly explained to you that CO2 is harmless, and that it’s beneficial, and why. And it’s been explained to you that the answers to all your other noob questions can be found in the WUWT archives. It is not the job of other commenters to spoon feed you knowledge to counteract the misinformation you pick up at alarmist propaganda blogs. If someone helpfully answers your questions, they’re doing you a favor.
Your problem is that you rarely answer questions yourself. Instead, you constantly ask questions, presuming that you’re cleverly forcing other commenters into a corner. You’re not, you’re just being a threadbombing pest. The answers to all of your questions are in the archives. Use a keyword and start reading. And if you start answering as many questions as you ask, people might start to take you seriously.
Erinome, I like these global growth projection to 2050:
http://antonioguilherme.web.br.com/artigos/Brics.pdf
Use this and tell me now you global temperature foercast and metrics to test against. I would exptect to see project globla temperatures and your 95$ confidence intervals in 5 yr steps to 2050
re post by: William M. Connolley says: January 31, 2012 at 4:44 am
I state a simple fact that ice core CO2 data is not a proxie calibrated to actual atmospheric CO2 levels at the area where the samples are taken even, let alone global atmo CO2 levels. Then as if you are debating that issue, you reply instead with a non sequitur:
None of which addresses the issue of whether the proxy data can be calibrated.
Then you continued with a logical fallacy both in assuming you have the least understanding of what I believe (it’s apparently from your reply that you don’t), and that your statement ‘dismiss T leads CO2’ somehow follows:
The issue is calibration of ice core atmospheric CO2 proxy, not the relationship in time of CO2 to temperatures.
If you’re going to take issue with my statements, how about doing so rather than pretending to when in fact shifting to other aspects entirely.
Correction: That rate of rising should be 0.045 to 0.052 deg.C / decade. It is seen in the green line on the plot at the foot of my Home page http://climate-change-theory.com
Such a rate implies that the trend would increase by about half a degree by 2100.
I wish I had been able to post first on this thread with “Getting some popcorn…”
An excellent thread.
To those who are still warmists – can you please explain how a complex dynamic system such as the Earth’s climate can remain sufficiently stable and bounded over the last 600 million years to support large complex life forms – and yet be driven by strong positive feedback to a trace gas that has varied widely over the same time frame.
The two points are strictly incompatiable – you can’t have both +ve feedback and dynamic stability, one of those points must be wrong
The real evidence of dynamic stability of the climate over the last 600 million years in the face of major shocks such as large meteorite strikes, and supervolcanos is clear evidence of the existence of strong negative feedbacks within the climate system maintaining a dynamic, bounded, stable climate.
I look forward to your responses.
> The issue is calibration of ice core atmospheric CO2 proxy
No, is isn’t, because ice core CO2 isn’t a proxy, it is a direct measurement. A thermometer is a proxy (length of mercury column a proxy for temperature, via a well calibrated expansion-with-temperature, of which the physics is well understood). Ice core CO2 comes from bubbles of actual air in the ice; this isn’t a proxy.
But if you don’t believe me.. *are* you “skeptical” of Ratan’s use of the ice core CO2 data? You have *read* his screed, haven’t you? It’s what this thread is about, after all.
> the Earth’s climate can remain sufficiently stable and bounded over the last 600 million years to support large complex life forms – and yet be driven by strong positive feedback to a trace gas that has varied widely over the same time frame.
Earth’s climate will remain capable of sustaining large complex life forms even at 2*CO2, so there is no contradiction. I think you’re misunderstanding “positive feedback”. It doesn’t mean “runaway”.
> strong negative feedbacks within the climate system
Of course: the strongest of which is R=eT^4.
Can somebody define “CAGW” for me?
Thanks in advance.
[Reply: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming; AKA: runaway global warming, climate catastrophe, climate disruption, and similar fairy tales intended to alarm the populace.]
re post by: William M. Connolley says: January 31, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Don’t be absurd. Ice core CO2 is the best measurement we are able to determine of the remaining CO2 within bubbles in the ice that has gone thru the firning process, has liquid water present, may have or have had microbial activity, has other chemical reactions which have occurred, diffusion issues, pressure issues, etc., etc.
From that, we estimate what it is thought the atmospheric CO2 levels were above the ice core at the time that ice was firned. That value, taken from a very few high latitude spots, is then extrapolated to supposedly represent global atmospheric CO2 levels.
Nowhere in there is an actual measurement of what the real atmospheric CO2 levels were above each of those spots during the decades of firning, let alone global CO2 levels.
You couldn’t get something that is more clearly a proxy than ice core CO2 levels.
While we are on acronyms, wheat does REP stand for that mods on this site?
[Reply: I’ll let Bob answer that if he wants to. ~db stealey, mod.]
Sorry,..that mods ‘use’ on this site?,
My God, I’m having a bad day,…’what’ not ‘wheat’!
I think Mr Tobias wants an acual definition, not simply an expansion of the abbreviation.
Mr Tobias, CAGW is the idea that human activity has raised a trace atmospheric gas, which provides a minor part of the atmospheric warming influence on the Earth, from almost catastrophically low concentrations, about the lowest in the Earth’s history, a tiny way towards former levels and that the atmosphere is so sensitive to this that the raise will destroy civilisation as we know it.
This presupposes that the rise in concentrations seen is abnormal (the theory assumes stable pre-industrial levels from evidence which would not have the resolution to show current rises). It presupposes that temperature is usually stable, so the climate changes in the late 20th century were abnormal (against all the available historical and palaeontological evidence that climate varies wildly and sometimes rapidly). This presupposes positive feedback in temperature, despite the fact that positive feedback is characteristic of unstable systems (see previous supposition). It presupposes that late 20th century warming was global, despite massive flaws and fraud in recording of said temperatures, and paucity of historical data, and despite the fact that some areas were cooling. It presupposes that the climate of the 1970s was optimum, and nothing warmer will do. It presupposes that this warming will just go away for 15 years, yet still in some sense be there, because although human activity is the only possible explanation for warming, some other mechanism opposing human influences must be hiding the recent rise with a counterbalancing drop. Which is still there underneath, even though temeratures have not actually risen. Or something.
Most cleverly of all it all relies on some models, and on the supposition that those models tell us the right thing despite the fact that they were proved to be wrong 15 years ago when it was first shown that the upper troposphere was not warming in low latitudes, where they all showed warming would first occur.
The more you all talk about carbon dioxide, the more I think you don’t all yet understand that it can have zero (0.00000…) warming effect. Backradiation (if it existed) could not warm the surface and any warming of the atmosphere just leads to more energy being radiated away, eventually getting to space because the surface won’t accept it.
David Ball says (January 30, 2012 at 7:24 pm):
I have never seen an explanation for Hansens historic temperature downward adjustments. I’ve seen the formulae, but never any rationale for doing so. Same for recent temperature adjustments up.
David, there’s a 2001 Hansen paper that describes about 0.29 C of adjustments for U.S. 48-State warming, or almost half of the approx. 0.7 C of 1930s-to-1990s warming which they’ve added via adjustments made to the old data since 1999.
Based on the old version of the 48-State U.S. data, a 2001 article on nasa.gov reported that “it is clear that 1998 did not match the record warmth of 1934.” But now NASA’s data shows 1934 as only 3rd-warmest year, and cooler than 1998.
Compare the graph “(a)” in this 1999 article:
http://webcitation.org/63wGUTWt6
to the the current version:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.gif
(compare the 1930s to the 1990s in each graph — see the 0.7 C difference?)
I don’t have your email address, David; drop me an email, and I’ll cc you on the emails, as part of my ongoing efforts to find an explanation for the rest.
http://www.burtonsys.com/email/
ExWarmist says: January 31, 2012 at 2:19 pm
To those who are still warmists – can you please explain how a complex dynamic system such as the Earth’s climate can remain sufficiently stable and bounded over the last 600 million years to support large complex life forms
======
from wiki
“Estimates of the number of major mass extinctions in the last 540 million years range from as few as five to more than twenty. These differences stem from the threshold chosen for describing an extinction event as “major”, and the data chosen to measure past diversity.”
Not that stable you must agree!!
======
ExWarmist says: – and yet be driven by strong positive feedback to a trace gas that has varied widely over the same time frame.
======
Co2 is not positive feedback – more co2= hotter but does not necessarily make more co2
H2O is positive feedback – more h2o vapour=hotter=more h20 vapour= htter= etc.
CO2 is a forcing; more co2=hotter
solar (TSI) is a forcing; higher tsi=hotter
Thanks William,
You say in the 2nd paragraph below.
William M. Connolley says:
January 31, 2012 at 2:44 pm
> the Earth’s climate can remain sufficiently stable and bounded over the last 600 million years to support large complex life forms – and yet be driven by strong positive feedback to a trace gas that has varied widely over the same time frame.
Earth’s climate will remain capable of sustaining large complex life forms even at 2*CO2, so there is no contradiction. I think you’re misunderstanding “positive feedback”. It doesn’t mean “runaway”.
[1] To create a climate catastrophy from CO2 emissions, the climate must be moderately to strongly sensitive to increases in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, A low sensitivity to CO2 will not do – is that correct?
[2] To be moderately or strongly sensitive to CO2, the climate must respond to increases in CO2 concentration with +ve feedbacks that amplify the warming effects of the initial increase of CO2 – is that correct?
[3] Do you accept that any long lived complex dynamic system must be governed by -ve feedbacks for it to be stable. Any complex, dynamic system governed by +ve feedback is inherently unstable, short lived and must invariably “tip” over into a state that it cannot escape due to the amplification of a +ve feedback. – is that correct?
If you agree with the above, then one of the following must be false.
[1] The climate is a long lived, complex, dynamic system.
[2] The climate is made stable by a governing set of -ve feedbacks.
[3] The climate responds to increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere with +ve feedbacks.
If you want to hold onto [3], your alternatives are the following.
[1] The climate is short lived. (are you a creationist? and even 6000 years is a long time in a +ve feedback system)
[2] The climate is not complex, and is not dynamic. (a bit hard to swallow).
[3] Systems can be long lived, complex, dynamic and governed by +ve feedbacks. ( a big ask).
Doug Cotton says (January 31, 2012 at 6:08 pm):
“…carbon dioxide… can have zero (0.00000…) warming effect. Backradiation (if it existed) could not warm the surface… because the surface won’t accept it.”
Doug, that’s incorrect. The only way the surface “wouldn’t accept” backradiation would be if the surface had an albedo of 1.0 (100% reflective) at the relative wavelengths. It doesn’t.
The warming effect from additional atmospheric CO2 is well-understood, calculable, and small — but not zero.
-Dave
“If you can’t quantify it, you don’t understand it.” (author unknown)
jjthom says:
January 31, 2012 at 7:05 pm
ExWarmist says: January 31, 2012 at 2:19 pm
To those who are still warmists – can you please explain how a complex dynamic system such as the Earth’s climate can remain sufficiently stable and bounded over the last 600 million years to support large complex life forms
======
from wiki
“Estimates of the number of major mass extinctions in the last 540 million years range from as few as five to more than twenty. These differences stem from the threshold chosen for describing an extinction event as “major”, and the data chosen to measure past diversity.”
Not that stable you must agree!!
It’s dynamic stability – not static!
I said that the climate was “sufficiently stable and bounded” to support large complex life – which you agree that life continued even in the face of major extinction events. To do so, the climate has to keep moving towards the mean. imagine a marble in an upright bowl. You move the bowl around and the marble rolls from side to side, it is in motion (dynamic), and keeps rolling through the centre. This is analogous to the climate, sometimes cold, or hot, sometimes wet or dry, but so far not too hot,cold,wet or dry for life – i.e. it is a bounded system.
The fact that the climate keeps returning to a mean suitable for life in the face of major disruptive events is the evidence of -ve feedback. A system governed by +ve feedback with have been terminated by the pertubations that caused the extinction events.
To extend the bowl and marble analogy for +ve feedback – turn the bowl upside down, and put the marble on top – what happens when you move (perturb) the bowl, the marble ends up on the floor – it is an inherently unstable system.
======
ExWarmist says: – and yet be driven by strong positive feedback to a trace gas that has varied widely over the same time frame.
======
Co2 is not positive feedback – more co2= hotter but does not necessarily make more co2
H2O is positive feedback – more h2o vapour=hotter=more h20 vapour= htter= etc.
CO2 is a forcing; more co2=hotter
solar (TSI) is a forcing; higher tsi=hotter
Strange – I thought that “and yet be driven by strong positive feedback to a trace gas” was clear and unambiguous.
I thought that it was obvious that I was describing a system (CAGW) in which there are feedbacks (more H2O vapour) to a trace gas (CO2), and that I was not referring to CO2 as a feedback. It is difficult to make it any clearer.
@jjthom says:
January 31, 2012 at 7:05 pm
(Missed the )
It’s dynamic stability – not static!
I said that the climate was “sufficiently stable and bounded” to support large complex life – which you agree that life continued even in the face of major extinction events. To do so, the climate has to keep moving towards the mean. imagine a marble in an upright bowl. You move the bowl around and the marble rolls from side to side, it is in motion (dynamic), and keeps rolling through the centre. This is analogous to the climate, sometimes cold, or hot, sometimes wet or dry, but so far not too hot,cold,wet or dry for life – i.e. it is a bounded system.
The fact that the climate keeps returning to a mean suitable for life in the face of major disruptive events is the evidence of -ve feedback. A system governed by +ve feedback would have been terminated by the pertubations that caused the extinction events.
To extend the bowl and marble analogy for +ve feedback – turn the bowl upside down, and put the marble on top – what happens when you move (perturb) the bowl, the marble ends up on the floor – +ve feedback is an inherently unstable system.
Beautiful video of a Burt Rutan creation:
There is an old saying in Texas…………………………as President George W Bush Jnr. would say: –
ExWarmist> climate catastrophy
Those are your words, not mine, or the IPCC’s. I’d call it a strawman.
> from CO2 emissions, the climate must be moderately to strongly sensitive to increases in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, A low sensitivity to CO2 will not do – is that correct?
I don’t know what you mean by high, low or moderate. To the degree of accuracy this thread can cope with, climate sensitivity is 3 oC, if that helps. That takes into account the std positive feedbacks, of course.Of your points:
[1] is true. [3] is badly worded: it should say that positive feedbacks have a role in the response to CO2, and that the response is larger that it would be without those feedbacks. [2] is badly worded too: as I’ve said before, only R=eT^4 is a strong negative feedback.
You’re suffering from the usual problem of definitions. When people talk about “positive feedback” it is easy to assume they mean gain>1 and runaway. They don’t, of course. Any climate feedbacks are always embedded within the larger system which always has R=eT^4 as a stabilising feedback.