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.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 5:25 am
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.
Thank you for once again demonstrating that which Burt Rutan and many others have described.
Your statement is only accurate if you accept GISS temps as shown here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12
However, the other 3 data sets do not agree that 2010 was warmer than 1998. Most likely this is because they have not been manipulated to make it appear so. (Can’t wait for you to even attempt to prove that the GISS data hasn’t been manipulated/adjusted.) Show us the statistically significant warming in the other 3 sets since 1998. You can not. This clearly makes Burt Rutan’s point while putting you squarely in the group he is describing.
The travesty isn’t that the warming has “flat-lined” somewhat, the travesty is that the CAGW proponents won’t admit that they are wrong.
William M. Connolley says: January 29, 2012 at 3:13 am
I assume you are referring only to the human contribution to ambient CO2.
Nope, I’m referring to the overall CO2 level in the atmosphere.
> how much of the rise is caused by “fossil” fuels?
From memory, human emissions of CO2 are about twice the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. The other 50% is absorbed by land+ocean.
______________________________________________________
Are you the same person who corrupted wiki climate science articles for years? I shall ignore that possible history for the sake of this technical discussion:
You say:
“From memory, human emissions of CO2 are about twice the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. The other 50% is absorbed by land+ocean.”
That is about right. It is part of the “material balance argument” that has been argued repeatedly between Ferdinand Engelbeen (for) and Richard Courtney (against).
I agree with Richard – I think the material balance argument is deeply flawed. Here, in part, is why:
Total atmospheric CO2 is rising (from memory) at about 2 ppm per year, and natural seasonal flux causes annual variation in atmospheric CO2 in the far North of about 16 ppm, or about eight times the annual increase, attenuating to almost zero at the South Pole. It is clear that natural seasonal CO2 flux is many times greater than the human component.
Examine the 15fps AIRS data animation of global CO2 at
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
It is difficult to see the impact of humanity in this impressive display of nature’s power.
In the animation, does anyone see the impact of industrialization? USA? Europe? India? China? Anything related to humanity?
Does one conclude from the animation that the Canadians and Russians have heavy industry emitting megatonnes of deadly CO2 in the far northern Arctic? Are the Inuit using power tools to carve their soapstone?
In fact, it is a natural system that chases equilibrium, and is driven by photosynthesis and other seasonal factors, dominated by the large landmass in the Northern Hemisphere, and consisting of huge seasonal fluxes of CO2 into and out of the landmasses and oceans. .
We also infer, from ice core data, that atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by ~~600-800 years. Is it possible that the small increases we see in CO2 today are after-effects of the Medieval Warm Period?
We also know from the modern data record that average dCO2/dt varies contemporaneously with average global temperature, and CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months*, so CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
So your theory assumes that the future is causing the past. Here, I detect a serious flaw in your logic.
The warmist counter-argument, that the 9-month lag is a “feedback mechanism”, is unsupported by any evidence that I am aware of.
It seems that when you global warming alarmists get into trouble, you like to throw in the f-work – FEEDBACK – to waive off dissent.
“Runaway warming will be driven by positive FEEDBACKS!”
Religious nonsense – there is ample evidence that climate feedbacks are negative – if these feedbacks were positive, life on Earth would be very different, if it existed at all.
“The 9 month delay is CO2 after temperature is caused by FEEDBACKS!”
More religious nonsense.
Then there is the predictive record of the IPCC and the warming alarmists – not one of the scary scenarios predicted by the global warming alarmists has materialized. Earth has not warmed this century.
At some point, you global warming alarmists will have to fold your tents and go home.
There is no global warming crisis.
* http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
I’ve planted trees since a kid. I think CO2 “enhancement” is already clearly present. I planted a mail-order, bare-root Tuliptree in partial shade (at most 6 hrs sun/day) in 2004. It’s now 40′ tall! A mail-order hybrid-pine (pitch x loblolly) planted in the poorest of soil (mostly crushed limestone) in 2006 is now 25′ tall. No fertilizer.
Everything about increased CO2 is good, not bad.
AlanG says:
January 29, 2012 at 3:29 am
“When Americans talk about oil and gas they often talk about the industry – even Mann and Hansen do all the time. The EU on the other hand doesn’t have one, and is the biggest importer of energy in the world. Large countries like Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland have little or no oil & gas.”
So THAT’S the reason the Germans had to do coal liquefaction during WWII! Because they didn’t have any oil and gas! WOW! And why was it that Japan invaded the Dutch East Indies? They didn’t have any oil either? I’ll be danged…
William Connelly,
After January temperatures come out, the models will fall out of the 95 % confidence factor:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/la-nina-drives-hadcrut-nhsh-13-month-mean-outside-1sigma-model-spread/
So no the models are not predicting reality. And if you go back to modeling where there is time ie: >30yrs you can see models have failed miserably:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/13/is-jim-hansens-global-temperature-skillful/
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 5:37 am
“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.”
R. Gates, you have just said the same thing as Burt Rutan.
Ask yourself : WHAT IS natural variability if not a failure of the models to take every part of the climate system into account that influences temperatures – most prominently, the oceans and the oceans-surface interface.
The atmosphere is the continuation of the oceans with other means. The tail doesn’t wag the dog.
Now, please, draw the conclusion – the models are bunk, let’s fire all the modelers; let’s save that money; it’ll save billions, they’re doing harm, not good. They’re damaging science, not building it up. Let’s throw away everything they’ve done for the past 30 years. Let’s throw away wikipedia, well, at least all the climate drivel.
It’s all a house of cards. Do not tolerate these morons and the continuing damage they do.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 5:37 am
…
First, the models are horrible at predicting natural variability, as that is not their function.
I’m not sure you, and most climate modelers, appear to understand the significance of that statement. We don’t understand planetary climate thermodynamics. We suspect many things. We’re not even sure the planet is warming- the degree variation presently bandied about is mostly the noise of an unknown number of perturbers. We think the instrument record is starting to tell us something, but we are 100s of years, if not thousands, on any confirmation beyond natural variability. Arriving at a conclusion through models thatseems to agree with an outcome expected does not, in and of itself, indicate that the path to the result is correct. Unless the model can predict natural variability, its not modeling the system, period. Until your models can deal with natural variability, the end result can only be contrived, or coincidental – nothing more. Correlation does not absolutely validate causation. The vast majority of AGW proponents conflate UHI with global warming. That there are local atmospheric effects to UHI is without question, but then, for the moment, that’s weather, not climate…
It is truly sad that William M. Connolley is in charge of any sort of science editing at Wikipedia. He says “It requires maths. log(a.exp(b.t)) = log(a) + b.t” Does he realize that is a crude approximation, not proof that was asked for? He says “the planet is warning as the models predict.” Does he realize that models don’t predict?
Very nice of Mr Connolley to stop by and contribute. Perhaps some day he will start reading.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 5:25 am
Hey Gates, I think everyone here has heard your message. Dozens of times. Maybe hundreds. I’m tempted to write a program to read all the comments to WUWT and count variants of your 9 out of 10 mantra.
Plateau!
William Connelly:
> Can you explain why the planet is not warming as the GCM models predict?
No, because the planet is warning as the models predict.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
The models do NOT predict another 10-20 years of cooling, at least not the ones that are being used to justify action to governments. Maybe there are hidden models that are much better that no one will show us. The warming community basically just says, “But eventually all of that cooling will dissappear with even faster warming and get back to what we predicted.” That’s not a model, that’s not even a forecast, that’s speculation at best.
Thank You Burt for spending the time and effort to discuss this fraud and why it is a fraud.
Terry and Hyon
William Connelly, thank you for your tireless effort to invalidate what could have been a useful tool, rather than the insipid, irrelevant and to be perpetually ignored piece of crap you turned Wikipedia into.
Don’t you love aeronautical and aerospace engineers. If they were off by .5 degress, we would have missed the moon.
William;
There is no question that the measured (almost exponential) CO2 increase is coming from some source other than human activity. Please note that the world has been in a deep recession for several years now. This ultimately translates into less productivity, less movement of goods, fewer services, less travel and, hence, LESS fossil fuel consumption on a world wide basis. Open your eyes. How could such an increase in CO2 be coming from anything humans are doing?
Missing from the entire AGW argument are at least a couple of null hypotheses that desperately need studying, i.e. that the observed CO2 increase is due to some factor or factors other than human activity, and that temperature increases (and decreases) are due to some factor or factors other than human activity.
Go back to the ice cores. Why does temperature increase first by hundreds of years to then be FOLLOWED by CO2 if CO2 is the cause? Why has it done this cyclically for millenia?
William Connolley wrote:
“No, because the planet is warning as the models predict.”
10 words of hilarity. Thanks for making my day Billy.
I think we should ignore the guy who made Wikipedia useless – not even the education field will allow its use anymore even though Wikipedia had the potential to be the greatest resource the planet has ever seen.
Why would we respond to a guy who did that and allow discussion on Burt Rutan’s response to be highjacked.
TomB says:
January 28, 2012 at 10:47 pm
“So that pretty much sums up my problem with AGW alarmism. They’re clearly anti-human.”
That’s OK – I’m anti-CAGW-climate-“science”-funding! And after November 2012, we’ll be rapidly ramping down the government-funding for useless and in most cases redundant “climate products”.
“No, because the planet is warning as the models predict.
Time you hoist you flag on the mast, William M Connolly. Are you a believer?
Mr William Connelly:
“No, because the planet is warning as the models predict.”
Nonsense!
If this were true, Mr Hansen , Mr Gore, Mr Mann, et al would have empirical [ repeatable ] observational evidence to support the hypothesis.
There would be no need to “adjust” the data.
A moral scientist welcomes facts that do not show that their model or thesis is not predicting the future. These allow them to modify the model or thesis to more accurately represent reality. The immoral “scientist” manipulates the facts so that they are what their model would predict. AGW falls in the latter class. As such, the folks like Hansen, Mann, et al. are not scientists but simple frauds. They should be defunded and sued for the return of the funds given to them to date given that they have done this acts with malice aforethought.
RGates – that was quite a weak argument. What data set are you referring to? Maybe Burt looked at one or all of the other global temp data sets. I think that HADCRUT, UAH and RSS all had 2010 lower than 1998…. And i think even the data set that you might (?) be referring to had the difference between 2010 and 1998 so small that it was within the margin of error and hence technically should be treated as a tie with 1998…..
The reason why carbon dioxide has no effect is contained in Prof Claes Johnson’s “Computational Blackbody Radiation” linked from my website.*
All it would take to disprove Prof. Johnson’s hypothesis is a simple experiment. You just have to show that backradiation can warm something like a metal plate that is already warmer than the cold atmosphere. It appears that backradiation cannot melt frost which is in shade all day long, but who knows, maybe it can warm the oceans (LOL.)
But seriously, I am seeking ten companies to sponsor a reward of $50,000 for the first person or organisation who can do so.
For details watch for my book in about May or June this year and advertisements in the press and other media.
If any company wishes to offer $5,000 please contact me. The 10 companies doing so will get plenty of free publicity I believe.
I don’t believe the reward will ever have to be paid out.
Doug Cotton
* http://climate-change-theory.com
As a genuine skeptic (treat all opinions with caution, search for proof, check the data, etc.), it is a pleasure to see Wm Connelly here. I also greatly appreciate the presence of Stokes, Gates, etc. here. (I think I left out someone here.) They are to be commended and treated with courtesy as they are attempting to maintain an open dialogue.
(Note that Connelly did not have a link so how can he be accused of trying t drive traffic to his site). I am, of course, aware of his manipulations at Wikipedia.
Even A Physicist (after his irrational foray into energy economics) has demonstrated his knowledge and integrity when he sticks to stuff he knows.
I stress that I am continuing to evaluate the evidence and, as an engineer, I very much appreciate BR’s input and WC’s comments thereon.
Thank you, Anthony for providing such a great forum.
One problem I never see addressed by the alarmists is how the concentrations of CO2 and H2O are handled. I’ve only seen them handled as averages but that does not seem right. The H2O concentration high in the atmosphere is very small. Most of it exists in the first 3km or so. What that means is the CO2 in the lower levels of the atmosphere has almost no energy to work with. H2O does all the hard work.
However, at higher levels of the atmosphere CO2 becomes the dominant radiating gas. Interestingly, it is at this level that radiating gases may just start producing more cooling than warming. The radiation sent downward just gets absorbed by and generally redirected back towards space. The radiation upwards has a higher and higher probability of getting a free path out of the atmosphere as the density decreases.
I’m beginning to think this is why the overall GHE has reached its maximum level. The H2O already has maxed out the GHE at the lower levels of the atmosphere and adding more CO2 there does almost nothing. And, whatever small increase does occur is balanced by the cooling effect of CO2 at higher altitudes.
Thanks Burt,
Today I posted a link to “Burt Rutan on Climate Change” in my Web pages.
I’m glad to see engineers are not drinking the Kool-Aid!