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.
Wm Connolley says (February 1, 2012 at 12:41 am): “ExWarmist> ‘climate catastrophy’ — Those are your words, not mine, or the IPCC’s. I’d call it a strawman.”
Your argument is not with ExWarmist, it is with your brethren at NASA, Grist, etc.. E.g., Hansen’s statement that CO2 from tar sands and coal mean it’s “game over” for the planet.
Wm Connolley says: “To the degree of accuracy this thread can cope with, climate sensitivity is 3 oC, if that helps.”
If you’re talking about sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 as compared to 285 ppm, then 3 C is way too high. CO2, by itself, is good for about 1.1 C, and water vapor adds about 65% to that, yielding about 1.8 C, of which ~45% is history, leaving a very unalarming ~1 C of warming in prospect for 570 ppm CO2.
Wm Connolley says: “only R=eT^4 is a strong negative feedback.”
That’s incorrect. Only water vapor is a strong positive feedback, with albedo also probably adding a small positive feedback. The other feedbacks are mostly negative, and reduce climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions:
* Increased water-cycle cooling from increased evaporation from increased surface temperature,
* increased plant growth stimulated by increased CO2, which absorbs more CO2,
* diminishing (logarithmic) efficacy of CO2 as a GHG due to saturation of absorption bands,
* (probably) increased cloudiness from increased H2O evaporation,
* (possibly) increased convective cooling and increased evaporation & water-cycle cooling from increased windiness & storminess
The biggest question mark is cloudiness. It is poorly understood, but very important. If CO2-driven warming causes even a very small increase in daytime cloudiness, it would likely constitute a large negative feedback.
> Hansen’s statement that CO2 from tar sands and coal mean it’s “game over” for the planet.
That seems overly emotive language; I’ve disagreed with Hansen before. But Hansen doesn’t say “game over for the planet” though – either you or the journo have made that up. What Hansen said is at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110603_SilenceIsDeadly.pdf and it isn’t really clear what he means by “game over”. You’ll note he still doesn’t say “catastrophe”, though.
> The other feedbacks are mostly negative, and reduce climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions:
* Increased water-cycle cooling from increased evaporation from increased surface temperature,
– not significant, I think. And anyway, already accounted for in the estimates of CS.
* increased plant growth stimulated by increased CO2, which absorbs more CO2,
– not actually a feedback on temperature in strict terms; it is a negative feedback on CO2 levels. Since we know CO2 is increasing exponentially from human emissions, it is clearly a very small feedback and ineffective. In fact we know it is smaller than deforestation.
* diminishing (logarithmic) efficacy of CO2 as a GHG due to saturation of absorption bands,
– this isn’t a negative feedback. Its correct, of course; we’ve done that above.
* (probably) increased cloudiness from increased H2O evaporation,
– you’ve made that up. But again, cloud feedbacks are in the models. They are a major source of uncertainty. But you can’t just declare them negative by fiat.
* (possibly) increased convective cooling and increased evaporation & water-cycle cooling from increased windiness & storminess
– no/negligible.
[moderator: I botched the formatting on the previous one; please delete that one and use this one. Sorry! -Dave]
Wm Connolley says (February 1, 2012 at 5:01 am): “You’ll note he still doesn’t say “catastrophe”, though.
No, he used words like “deadly,” “monster” and “disastrous,” and asserted that the climate would not be stable unless CO2 is restricted to a “safe” level. Doesn’t that sound like a “catastrophe” to you?
In truth, the serious argument over CO2 emissions isn’t about whether they have a tiny effect on climate — who cares? The argument is about whether they have a catastrophic effect. As Dr. Lindzen famously wrote, “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll back of the industrial age.”
If CO2 emissions actually had catastrophic consequences, then crushing the economic aspirations of billions of people to avoid those consequences might actually make sense. Otherwise, it does not.
One of the things that annoys me the most about the climate alarmists is how they try to fudge their position depending on the context. When the argument is over policy, they hype the catastrophe, and cite the “consensus.” But to prove the “consensus,” they forget the catastrophe altogether, and just ask whether the climate got warmer in the 20th century, and/or whether anthropogenic GHGs contribute to warming.
Wm Connolley says: “* Increased water-cycle cooling from increased evaporation from increased surface temperature, [is]– not significant, I think. And anyway, already accounted for in the estimates of CS.”
Quantify, please! And accounted for where?
Wm Connolley says: “* increased plant growth stimulated by increased CO2, which absorbs more CO2, [is]– not actually a feedback on temperature in strict terms; it is a negative feedback on CO2 levels. Since we know CO2 is increasing exponentially from human emissions, it is clearly a very small feedback and ineffective. In fact we know it is smaller than deforestation.
The topic is sensitivity to CO2, not sensitivity to temperature. What I said was that it is a negative feedback that “reduce[s] climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions.” Which is right.
Elevated CO2 has the direct consequence of increased plant growth, which reduces CO2 levels — a negative feedback. Feedbacks on CO2 which operate through an intermediate mechanism, such as temperature, are simply that much more uncertain, as a consequence of the additional link in the chain of inference.
Also, CO2 levels are not increasing exponentially. Have you looked at the Keeling Curve? Over the first 25 years, there was a very noticeable acceleration in rate of CO2 increase. But over the last 15 years the acceleration in rate of CO2 increase has nearly ceased — even though CO2 emissions have continued to soar. That is evidence that negative feedback mechanisms are at work.
Also, this feedback is not small. Numerous studies have documented dramatically increased plant growth in the presence of elevated CO2 levels. A recent U of M study documented a 26% increase in tree growth at 570 ppm CO2, even with tree phenotypes adapted to current (lower) CO2 levels.
As for deforestation, that’s not a feedback. However, because deforestation is driven by agricultural requirements, increased agricultural productivity due to elevated CO2 levels is likely to result in reduced pressure on forests.
Wm Connolley says: “* diminishing (logarithmic) efficacy of CO2 as a GHG due to saturation of absorption bands – this isn’t a negative feedback. Its correct, of course; we’ve done that above.”
It is a negative feedback in the same sense that R=eT^4 is a negative feedback. Both serve to stabilize temperatures and reduce the temperature increase due to CO2 forcing.
Wm Connolley says: “* (probably) increased cloudiness from increased H2O evaporation,
– you’ve made that up. But again, cloud feedbacks are in the models. They are a major source of uncertainty. But you can’t just declare them negative by fiat.”
What, this from the guy who just declared, by fiat, that “only R=eT^4 is a strong negative feedback,” i.e., that clouds are not a strong negative feedback mechanism?
I said “probably.” Which is right. You didn’t even include that qualification in your fiat.
Wm Connolley says: “* (possibly) increased convective cooling and increased evaporation & water-cycle cooling from increased windiness & storminess – no/negligible.”
You’re right — if global warming does not cause increased storminess/windiness. But if you’re sure it doesn’t, then please tell Al Gore, so that he can fix the cover of his book.
> whether they have a tiny effect on climate — who cares? The argument is about whether they have a catastrophic effect
You’re still in false-dichotomy land. There is a wide expanse of problems that lie in the space between tiny and catastrophic.
> sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 as compared to 285 ppm, then 3 C is way too high…
One web page doesn’t trump peer-reviewed papers, especially when those papers alredy take Pinatubo into account. Try reading them.
> water-cycle cooling… accounted for where?
In the observationally based estimates, it is part of the climate system, and therefore included. In the GCM-based one, the GCMs include the same physics.
> The topic is sensitivity to CO2
Yes, to CO2 levels, not to emissions. Look at the defn of CS; it is always phrased in terms of CO2 levels, not emissions.
> You’re right — if global warming does not
You need to talk about what you believe, not what Gore believes. You’re not allowed to call into being negative feedbacks based on effects you don’t believe – that isn’t honest.
Wain effort discussing about wrong causes of climate change.The root and right causes of these phenomena originate from other sources , only modifyed by magnetic fields.
Relevant units of forces have diapason (12.363-3137)x1.3279668 10^20.
These are the causes of planet’s warming with strongly a lot of cycles and subcycles (as cycles of sunspots and reconnecting Sun’s magnetic fields etc.)
I’m late to the party here but Burt Rutan has scored a complete smackdown on Brian Angliss.
==============
@ur momisugly Nikola Milovic February 2, 2012 at 3:56 am
I think I would agree with you, but would like to investigate in much greater depth your ideas. The true forces / forcing has not been openly discussed as far as I know. Please provide some links and I’ll figure out the rest myself.
CO2 is a strawman idea but at least it can be taxed. 25 years of fraud has created a religious cult .
Mr. eyesonu,
I read your comment on my position on global warming, where you stated that you want to participate in the further elaboration of my ideas that opposes the current understanding of the causes of global warming. My idea is the basis for understanding real-logical and natural factors that are the foundation of all phenomena in our solar sistemu.They are caused by the basic laws that govern all relationships between celestial bodies. HUMAN FACTORS ARE HERE AS irrelevant in the case of CO2.
I want to have your address so we can share knowledge. I have a bit to prove my assertion, I do not want to be at these discussions, because they change the current general views on the causes of phenomena on the Sun and about the same. It is a mistake of science and people who do it to ignore the most important factors such as different forces are the main causes of all phenomena. What is it that everything in the chain of events occurs after exposure to these forces, it is necessary to use mindfulness and not empirical data and the measured data to be misused. I hope you will read this and get back to me because you are the only ones in all the discussions that you understand my position in all this.
For Mr. eyesonu,
What I said is not just an idea but there is a mathematical proof for the causes of phenomena on the Sun such as :
sunspots cycles and the recconection of magnetic poles of the Sun with a very large number of cycles and sub-cycles.About realization of my ideas will discuss particularly after changes mail address.
This is very extensive and important work that will change many of the current inadequate procedures that did not lead to real results.
If I’m right You’re the first who recognized the validity of my ideas. Thanks in advance!
For now there are my:
e-mail : nmilovic483@gmail.com
and a site that is currently in Serbian :
deciphermentsunsphenomena.simdif.com
“I’m late to the party here but Burt Rutan has scored a complete smackdown on Brian Angliss. ”
By completely failing to address the substance of Mr. Angliss’ critiques? Yes, that was brilliant of him.
Steven Sullivan says:
February 5, 2012 at 1:43 am
“By completely failing to address the substance of Mr. Angliss’ critiques? Yes, that was brilliant of him.”
What substance?