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.
William Connolley: ‘CO2 increases affect the radiative balance logarithmically, this is well known.’
As an engineer I have like Burt done an assessment of climate science and followed up on the physics. What you say is based on the assumption of 100% direct thermalisation of IR quanta by symmetrical molecules bit by bit due to collisions.There is no such mechanism because the energy is quantised. Thermalisation must be at second phases. The logarithmic function has no mathematical basis.
Tyndall’s experiment was done at constant volume so because CO2 has higher CTE than air, much of the temperature rise was due to increased pressure. Do the experiment at constant pressure and the remaining heating is probably at the walls of the container.
The three other mistakes are:
(1) To shield the upward IR thus removing the Prevost exchange offset to claim ‘DLR’ is from a heat source is seriously dumb as any process engineer knows, There is no ‘back radiation, no strong positive feedback – it’s an artefact of the modelling.
(2) Hansen’s 33 K present GHG warming includes lapse rate warming so is also dumb; reduce it to ~9 K.
(3) In 2010, it was revealed from experimental data that the climate models use double real optical depth also 40% of low level clouds with bimodal droplet size distribution have different optical physics.The net AIE is slightly positive, much greater in the past and polar atmospheres. It explains present Arctic melting and much present warming. A side effect is that because the data processing from albedo to optical depth is also broken, you can’t trust derived satellite data.
So, the IPCC models are useless. .This programme has been appallingly run. It’s time the farrago was ended. CO2-AGW may well be slightly negative due to self absorption near the Earth’s surface. The proof that it is low is that the N. Atlantic is cooling as the Arctic heads to the freeze part of its 50-70 year cycle. As for the 3% compound increase of CO2, have you read Murray Salby’s work and have you calculated the effect of warming SSTs, now reversing?
Excellent post and well argued. This should be read by every politician and presidential adviser, like Holdren, and in the UK that fool Huhne.
hide the incline says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:31 am
““he is one who is happy to hear the news that the arctic ice content has stabilized.”
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/arctic_sea_ice_volume_freefall.png
”
You do realize that this is not data, but a model?
On a somewhat tangential topic, I’ve wondered for some time about the feasibility of raising the CO2 concentration within greenhouses to promote higher productivity of high-value crops. Could anyone here offer some insight on the costs of obtaining clean CO2, and what kind of effect it might have on, say, watermelons or strawberries if they were grown with double or quadruple the current atmosphere’s level of CO2?
Brain Angliss (Scholars and Rogues) writes “You may not be aware of this, but greenhouse crops are very productive because farmers take great care to ensure that the crops have optimal nutrition. The farmers ensure that the crops in the greenhouses have enough water, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients in addition to higher carbon dioxide. Without increasing all of these nutrients merely increasing carbon dioxide in the greenhouse’s air will not produce fast growing, nutritious crops. This is why the greenhouse claim made in the Journal commentary was incomplete and misleading – higher atmospheric carbon dioxide only leads to greater productivity when all other nutrients are also more available.
This is one example of incomplete and misleading information from the commentary you signed.”
Once again the Alarmist position is (to quote Gavin at Realclimate) “simply wrong”.
The largest study, to date, of this has shown precisely the opposite:
Ainsworth, E.A. and Long, S.P. 2005. What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytologist 165: 351-372.
This meta-analysis of 279 published experiments in which plants of all types were grown under paired stressed and unstressed conditions found that CO2 induced growth enhancement was some 200% under stressed conditions compared with 80% enhancement under unstressed (optimal) conditions.
Where are these morons getting their information? Oh yes Nobel Prize winners, like Al Gore!
Do Burt Rutan and Sir Richard Branson ever get “off topic” from making their space plane and discuss global warming? Burt seems quite passionate about his position, Sir Richard seems to have taken a more politically expedient one that earns goodwill from all the “important” people.
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 2:04 am
——–
I think it is great that BR is attempting to provide a coherent theory – not something many do. But, his own slides are not self-consistent. On p 20, he can’t bring himself to believe the ice core CO2 record, preferring the Beck-type stuff. But by p 29, the ice core CO2 record has become exact and accurate (you can’t see the effect he wants to see from that chart, of course, if anyone looking is puzzled by what the funny arrows are for).
———-
Billy; you need to READ. Don’t just sound out the words. READING involves thinking about the concepts being presented.
p20 refers to actual measurements of CO2 levels. Direct measurements. Those are always preferable to proxies because proxies suffer from confounding factors. Where direct measurements are available, one uses those direct measurements. The ice core record, which is a proxy, needs to be calibrated against direct measurements. Not the other way around.
There is nothing about Burt not being able to bring himself to “believe” the ice core record. That’s in your imagination. The ice core record not used because there are direct measurements available.
p29 addresses the period substantially before direct measurements were taken. It is not scientifically valid to splice data from different sources into the one line. The ice core record is used to present the case of long-term “continuous” records over a period of 10,000 years up to 10,000 years before present.
Your statement that Burt takes the ice core record as exact and accurate must also be derived from your fantasies. Burt makes no statement about the exactness/accuracy. He just plots the lines and says where they come from.
If you have a record of direct measurements of CO2 available for that period somewhere in your archives; perhaps within your massive deletia from Wonkypedia, then cough up. You’re holding back science.
As for the “funny arrows” on p29 that seem so “puzzlling”, READ the whole slide.
The absolute accuracy isn’t important in that case because it’s the temporal distance between points of inflection that are significant. If those points can’t be accounted for by confounding factors in e.g. measurement methodology, then they are useful data even if they can’t be extrapolated to global scale; as could e.g. the tree rings of a lone, bristle-cone pine.
Mr. Rutan’s assertion that “Arctic ice content has stabilized” seemed cuckoo to me! Even here on WUWT, no-one claims that!
The US Navy (which from direct observation knows more about Arctic ice content than any other institution) is completely convinced of the opposite, and has addressed the American Meteorological Society (AMS) to this effect: Climate Change & National Security — Navy Implications.
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.
This sure doesn’t seem “stabilized” to most folks!
Moreover, when we compare the 1981 nonskeptical predictions of James Hansen and colleagues (“Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, James Hansen et al., Science, 1981) with the 1989 skeptical critique of Richard Lindzen (“Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 1989), we find that the nonskeptics have proved to be far more foresighted than the skeptics.
It is striking that nonskeptics like Hansen et al. are proud of their early-80s on-record scientific predictions, and reference them often, whereas skeptical community seldom references its own 1980s skeptical analyses … skeptical analyses that nowadays mostly look narrow-minded and short-sighted, or even just plain wrong, especially in light of the hockey-sticks that open-source studies like the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) now have affirmed.
Skepticism that doesn’t reference its own primary literature … WUWT, indeed?
So with regard to Mr. Rutan’s analysis, although he is undoubted a wonderful aerospace engineer, when it comes to climate-change the PowerPoint presentation that Rutan posted is objectively “a few rivets short of a cowling.”
Fortunately, the science is self-correcting. As the “hockey-stick blades” that are so strikingly absent in the 1980s skeptical literature, continue to gain in length and strength in modern climate records, worldwide appreciation is growing of the outstanding strength of Hansen-style climate science, and the relative weakness of Rutan/Lindzen-style skeptical science.
I heard Burt speak at a corporate event several years ago – most memorable business trip ever! Go Burt!
“From memory, human emissions of CO2 are about twice the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. The other 50% is absorbed by land+ocean.”
It’s not about twice the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 – it varies with the temperature. In cold years, the rise is only ~20% of the annual human emissions and in warm years it’s up to ~80%. Temperature is obviously driving the annual change.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.pdf
But, you didn’t understand my question. One part of the obseved rise in atmospheric CO2 is from warming climatic factors (ocean’s outgasing…) and not from the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. How much of the rise is due to the warming climatic factors?
Reblogged this on contrary2belief and commented:
Burt Rutan presents reality to confront belief
Not only has Burt eloquently explained the fallacy of the AGW arguments, he has in a larger sense shown the differences between engineers, and scientists who deal with modeling. Engineers must understand and deal in reality, for there can be serious consequences for ignoring realities of flaws or problems in theories, designs, and ideas, something Burt realizes for he was often the guy putting his own butt on the line flying his designs. The computer modelers, well let’s just say, many spend too much time on their computers and the internet.
As a fellow engineer, a hearty BRAVO
William M. Connolley said: “From memory, human emissions of CO2 are about twice the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. The other 50% is absorbed by land+ocean.” It’s true that the human emissions of CO2 are about twice the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. It’s not quite true that the other roughly 50% are absorbed. The absorption is based on the excess amount of CO2 over the new short-term equilibrium. Nature (soil, biosphere, ocean) absorbs extra CO2 regardless of the source, and the extra CO2 is that which has accumulated since the industrial revolution.
It’s important to keep that in mind since as we switch to carbon-free energy by continuing scientific and technological progress, we will see a rapid drop in CO2 towards the equilibrium (if we stopped producing CO2, we would drop half way back to preindustrial levels in less than 40 years). Progress depends both on scientific and technological advancement and on economic growth. The false concern over CAGW is a very real threat to economic growth and policies are constantly being advanced that take or keep large percentages of mankind below the tipping point which allows leisure and thus more energy efficiency. Below that point there is rapid population growth, environmental degradation, very inefficient use of energy, and great suffering.
I met a normal sort of bloke in the pub last week. He told me how he just cannot trust the ‘facts’ given by Wikipedia these days. The name William Connolley cropped up in the conversation.
The truth will always win through no matter how the likes of you try to prevent it.
I’m proud to be a fellow Cal Poly SLO alumnus along with Bert. Their motto (at least back then): “Learn by Doing”.
Thanks Burt
Guess we can put Fox News in the Alarmist camp. Allison Camarata “renowned investigative reporter” just nailed two of the signators in the article with the NOAA :”Weather is Climate” record highs map on Fox and Friends Sunday. Willis or Burt needed to be there!
Weak response, and only a 5 minute segment!
DirkH says:
January 29, 2012 at 3:07 am
Absolute and utter demolition! Thanks, Burt!
(But, please, can you try to explain it to your buddy Richard Branson? His “Carbon War Room” antics and public appearances with Rajendra K. Pachauri go on everyone’s nerves.)
==========================
ah but that pair are in it for? MONEY! its amazing bransons planes are now ok to go over the Arctic while no one elses are?
seems to me his so called green friends in high places may have a LOT to do with that?
and oddly enough? not ONE outcry over nasty planes over pristine areas or scaring the bears has eventuated?
so he saves fuel and flying time and profits greatly but thats ok cos hes seen to be green, while increasing pollution by increased flights..nice work hey.
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.
Anthony, you realize, of course, that Connolley’s presence here is not to engage for fruitful discussion, but to drive traffic to his link. The downside of having the most visited climate website is being abused by the freeloaders. I think its time for you to consider shutting off the handle links…
> your claim of exponential rise in CO2 combining with logarithmic effect of CO2 to produce a linear rise in temoerature requires proof. Can you provide?
It requires maths. log(a.exp(b.t)) = log(a) + b.t
I didn’t say that the temperature rise was linear, though, I said “the radiative effect is nearly linear”. Temperature is expected to rise in line with forcing, though the relationship is not simple, when looked at in detail. In particular, interannual and interdecadal fluctuations are expected.
> Can you explain why the planet is not warming as the GCM models predict?
No, because the planet is warning as the models predict.
Edbhoy asks:
“Can you explain why the planet is not warming as the GCM models predict?”
—–
If this is an honest question then you can easily find the answer. First, the models are horrible at predicting natural variability, as that is not their function. Second, numerous attribution studies show clearly the effect of the solar, ENSO, and aerosols over the past decade, and even though these have served to flatten the rise in temperatures, they have not “cooled the planet” as Mr. Rutan wants to have us believe. When the next El Nino aligns with or near Solar Max 24, expect another instrument record breaking year of high temps as would be expected when natural variations align with the underlying warming.
William Connelly says “blah blah blah”.
Then why aren’t global temps increasing?
Did somebody say “fraud”?
Is it a coincidence that when somebody did, William M. Connolley joins the discussion?
Just wonderin’.
From “Dictionary.com”:
fraud [frawd]
noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
I’d say Burt Rutan has used the word correctly.
Connolley says:
“… the planet is warning as the models predict.”
Wrong:
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
Well done sir !!!!!