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.
No, the planet has not warmed during this century. period. And manipulating wikipedia does not make it true.
By the way, the mere fact that there are more than 2 models, 23 are described on last IPCC report if memory serves, and each one has a different value for the “climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling” proves that at least 22 models have to be wrong, since there can only be 1 real value, the other ones have to be wrong.
Does anyone really think Burt Rutan knows what he is talking about? The PDF presentation on his website is appalling. Almost every slide contains a facepalm.
On slide 10 he claims “The temperature trend is so slight that, were the global average temperaturechange which has taken place during the 20th and 21st centuries were to occur in an ordinary room, most of the people in the room would be unaware of it.”
Comparing a change in global average with the temperature in a room? Seriously.
On slide 12 he erroneously claims just 3.4% of CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by human activity.
On slide 17 through 22 he argues the ice core data cannot be trusted, but then on slide 27 he relies on the ice core data being remarkably accurate.
Slide 23 is a ridiculous strawman.
> why aren’t global temps increasing?
They are.
> Time you hoist you flag on the mast
I did that a while back [snip]
> 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…
Indeed. If you want to examine this in detail, then you need a climate model, which splits the atmosphere into typically 20 vertical levels (finer closer to the ground) and 300 km horizontal boxes. Within those boxes, H2O varies; CO2 doesn’t, of course, as it is well mixed to a close enough approximation.
If you don’t care for the detail then you can just consider a single atmospheric column and make water depend on temperature as you’d expect.
> Why does temperature increase first by hundreds of years to then be FOLLOWED by CO2 if CO2 is the cause?
Because the situation is rather more complex than you think it is. I’ve had people point me at 400,000 year ice core records and tell me “look: you can see the lag!”. But of course you can’t; a few hundred years is invisible on that scale. scienceblogs for the details, but be prepared to read closely.
[Note: self-serving advertising snipped. Readers can find your blog without much trouble. -mod]
Just a word of caution folks about William M. Connolley.
Experience has told me that arguing with him is an exercise in futility, as this zebra isn’t capable of changing his stripes, or even considering that a different camo might be better suited for him. What he does is to provoke responses, then quote mines those responses to use in an upcoming diatribe to claim to the few dozen or so people who read his blog how stupid we are here at WUWT. Followed by accolades from his peanut gallery. Think Tamino light. He did this last time when Willis tried to explain the significant errors of Equation 8 in the recent Nikolov and Zeller calim on gravity induced atmospheric heating.
Best to simply ignore him here, IMHO.
“Jay Curtis says:
January 29, 2012 at 6:42 am
William;
There is no question that the measured (almost exponential) CO2 increase is coming from some source other than human activity.”
Haha seriously? Is this guy serious?
I tried to read his post as a joke but I don’t see any humor in it. WTF!
R. Gates says:
Others have already shown your arguments are deeply entrenched in religious fervor. There’s only one real argument that alarmists can argue. That is, natural cooling effects have overridden the warming. Claiming recent years are among the warmest years actually goes against your case. Emissions have increased which means, all else being equal, the temperatures should be ever increasing as well.
That gets us down to a little critical thinking. If natural cooling could have impacted recent temperatures then natural warming could have impacted the 1980-1998 years. Unless you claim uber-knowledge of what drives climate you’re pretty much left with a coin flip.
Or, one might consider the GHE works as advertised but has reached its maximum effect.
Bob B says:
January 29, 2012 at 6:16 am
“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/
”
Wonderful comment by Lucia over there:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/la-nina-drives-hadcrut-nhsh-13-month-mean-outside-1sigma-model-spread/#comment-86459
“Perhaps some mannian end point filtering could save it.
I think if we fit a line, and then assume the upcoming 6 months is a reflection of the past six months, we can show a rise at the end.”
William M. Connolley, have you already written the wikipedia entry about this great climate science technique?
INteresting article in the Mail Online.
Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
Didn’t think I would ever see this.
Ben
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 8:06 am
[> 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…]
Indeed. If you want to examine this in detail, then you need a climate model, which splits the atmosphere into typically 20 vertical levels (finer closer to the ground) and 300 km horizontal boxes. Within those boxes, H2O varies; CO2 doesn’t, of course, as it is well mixed to a close enough approximation.
Sorry, but having worked in computer science for my entire career, I am far more of an expert on what they can do than your typical climate honcho. When you layer your models you lose the entire 3-dimensional movement in the atmosphere. That alone makes them pretty much useless. Not only that, but I’ve also heard the models are hydrostatic which is not the case in our atmosphere. I can only guess at the hundreds (or thousands) of other swags necessary to attempt any real time simulation of the massively complex and chaotic system know as the atmosphere.
I actually has a good laugh when someone mentioned above that only one out of 23 models could be correct. The real answer of course is zero.
Approximations after approximations eventually lose the real dynamics. This is exactly what Burt is trying to tell you. The lack of understanding of computer limitations I see demonstrated by your statement is appalling (but not surprising).
Mr. William M. Connolley is a person who projects the 1/2 of climate science that agrees with his thoughts, and wants the 1/2 that disagrees with his thoughts to be silenced.
Enough said.
nomnom,
You are truly clueless. Burt Rutan is accurate when he says human CO2 emissions are only around 3% of the total. The numbers come straight from the UN/IPCC. The rest of your silly criticisms are equally ridiculous.
As for the deceptive William Connolley, the CO2 lag behind temperature can be clearly seen on a chart of the past 400,000 years. On all time scales, from months to hundreds of millennia, CO2 always follows temperature. Therefore, CO2 is an effect of changing temperature, not a cause. The fact that CO2 lags temperature has been documented in the peer reviewed literature.
Connolley can get away with his lies on Wikipedia. But not here on the internet’s Best Science site.
@Cal65 says:
January 28, 2012 at 10:59 pm:
Hold on there with your condemnation. While Mann and a couple other prominent “warmints”™ hold degrees in geology, many of the most strenuous objectors, in academia and industry, and here on this board, are geologists. At some point a geologist gets a course or several concerning the development and 4.5 billion year history of the Earth. That usually is enough to cause one to look askance at claims of AGW catastrophe, and to dig into the question.
Jay Curtis – the world has not been in a recession, certain comparatively lightly-populated parts of it like the US and Europe have, while other more densely-populated areas like China have (until very recently, at least) still been managing substantial economic growth – and building lots of coal-fired power plants to support it.
On the other hand, that doesn’t make Connolley’s “all is proceeding as I have foreseen” claim regarding temperature and models any more accurate.
I found the first comment interesting at S&R: get rid of mankind.
The rest of the comments were surprisingly timid, with little or no data. Not the usual repetition of ‘consensus’, models, ‘masked warmth’, glaciers, Arctic ice extent, or references to NOAA, MET, etc. Clearly the Warmists’ foundation is going wobbly.
jlc says:
January 29, 2012 at 7:41 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I fully endorse the sentiment expressed.
I am an ardent sceptic and therefore welcome the views of all.
Whilst I frequently find myself unconvinced by the views expressed by Mr Gates, I consider Mr Gates to be one of the more knowledgeable commentators, and, accordingly, I always look out for his comments, and always make a point of reading them. I particularly like the fact that Mr Gates often supports his comments with links to referenced articles. Time permitting, I will always read these. Of course, those articles are frequently of variable relevance, variable quality, based upon biased sample sets, conclusions not fully supported by the data or otherwise over-hyped, fail to set out uncertainties and/or error margins etc, but nonetheless they form piece of what is a very complex jigsaw puzzle, one which is made the more difficult since we do not know how many pieces the puzzle contains nor what the picture is.
This site would be much poorer if Mr Gates and his like did not contribute. They have much to bring to the debate and I for one thank Mr Gates for the time and effort he displays in coming to this site and posting his views. It helps learning about possible underlying issues, causes and effects and I (and I suspect that this is a view shared by many) would look at this site far less frequently if it was one sided only.
Mr Connelly is a welcome addition. I do hope that we will see more of him in the future with his comments on articles being posted on this site. I beg to differ with those who argue that he is blinkered and that it is a futile waste of time arguing with him. Whilst that may be so (and I make no comment on whether that is or is not the case), it appears to me that that stance misses the real issue. In my opinion, the real issue is not to persuade him to change his views but rather to test one’s own views and to add to one’s own knowledge and understanding of issues relating to the understanding of climate and the status of climate science.
PS. I do not know whether this is solely my perception which perhaps is misconceived, but these past 6 months or so, I have gained the impression that Mr Gates is becoming slightly more sceptical in his views. I gain the impression that some of his comments are now more cautious in their certainty, and that whilst it is still clear on what side he thinks the dice will fall, he is beginning to express views to the effect that only time will tell as to whether the dice are loaded mainly by CO2 or whether they are significantly (and I would say mainly) loaded by natural variations (including ocean cycles and even solar). Time will indeed tell.
It will be interesting to look at this debate in 10 to 15 years time and to review people’s comments when we have the benefit of a further 10 to 15 years of data. It is quite likely that some may look very foolish.
James of the West says:
January 29, 2012 at 7:34 am
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…..
————
Either way, we’ve not seen global cooling this past decade as Mr. Rutan contends. Fortunately, we have a verifiable prediction of future underlying warming that should show itself easily when the natural variability aligns once more with greenhouse gas forcing. This prediction comes directly from attribution studies. If we get a decent intensity El Niño around the peak of Solar Cycle 24, 1998 and 2010 temperatures should both be broken ( if, of course we don’t get a Pinatubo level eruption around the same time). But all of this kind of prediction is outside the bounds of what climate models are all about. This natural variability is just noise riding atop a much longer- term forcing from the perspective of the GCMs, which is as it should be.
It’s obvious to the CAGW lunatics that they are losing the PR war:
Just today,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
People like Mr Connolley are getting desperate as well, and are acting out of desperation on blogs like WUWT
I don’t think any greenhouse is purchasing “bottled” CO2 for greenhouse atmosphere addition. That would be expensive. They are merely burning propane or kerosene to produce the CO2 for plant growth enhancement. The set-up is similar to the propane mosquito traps which burn propane to create CO2 as bait for the little devils. CO2 is one of the easiest (and useful) substances for humans to create. It is why we create so much of it. Hope that clears up the question for you. GK
“Human Caused Climate Disruption”
I prefer CAGHGGWICD: Catastrophic Anthropogenic-GreenHouse-Gas Global Warming Induced Climate Disruption.
Urederra says:
January 29, 2012 at 7:49 am
“…By the way, the mere fact that there are more than 2 models, 23 are described on last IPCC report if memory serves, and each one has a different value for the “climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling” proves that at least 22 models have to be wrong, since there can only be 1 real value, the other ones have to be wrong….”
////////////////////////////////////////////
THis fact reminds me of the Dire Straights song Industrial Disease and the line “…Two men say they are Jesus, one of them must be wrong…”,
I have made this point many times. It is an incontrovertible fact that at least 22 models MUST be wrong. Does that give any faith that one might be right? In my opinion the fact that so many are known to be wrong suggests that the chance of one of those models being right is very weak, Indeed, as of today, not one single model mirrors observation and this further confirms the weak confidence level one could place on their projections and that any of them could be correct.
PS. I have not checked whether 23 is the correct number or whether it is slightly less.
Pronounced cagwick. Yes, I work for the goverment.
Here’s a bit of a mind experiment to show how climate models can be “wrong” in the sense of not being 100% accurate, but still useful, and it even tells you why. Place a drop of water at the top of a window and write a computer model that tells me the exact path that drop of water will follow. Now the models will know the force of gravity, and the molecular attraction between water and glass, and even impurities in the glass, but no model can tell you exactly the path that water drop will follow, but every one of them, or at least the consensus of them will tell you that the drop of water (if it was big enough and the glass pane not too tall) will end up at the bottom of the pane). Think how much vastly more complex the climate is, yet you would expect models to predict chaotic natural variability? That is not their function and it is impossible anyway. But of course, when we get a year that eclipses 2010 ( or 1998) in temperature, it will be “recovery from the Little Ice Age” for many skeptics, as a way most likely, of reducing their cognitive dissonance.
Some interesting quotes today in an article titled…
Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
* * *
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’
* * *
‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.
‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said.
* * *
‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry.
* * *
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1krtHnFX9
Anthony Watts says:
January 29, 2012 at 8:24 am
“Just a word of caution folks about William M. Connolley…”
Don’t worry Anthony. Like most people here (and in the general public), I have 1000 times more respect for Burt Rutan than William Connolley. Burt’s contributions to the science, engineering, and practice of aviation dwarf whatever minor contributions Mr. Connolley has made to anything…
One lesson that anyone can learn here on WUWT is the utter futility of science-and-skepticism that cherry-picks the noisiest data, the weakest science, and the weakest skeptical analyses.
Conversely, a positive lesson that WUWT teaches is the immense benefits of science-and-skepticism that matches the best science with the strongest skepticism.
Of all the signers of the WSJ-16 letter, it is Richard Lindzen who has authored one of the earliest, best-regarded, and most-cited skeptical analyses: “Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming” (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 1989).
Similarly, James Hansen was lead author of the earliest, best-regarded, and most-cited nonskeptical articles: “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” (Science, 1981).
These two articles are outstandingly representative (IMHO) of strong science and strong skepticism; they both have been cited hundreds of times; and therefore they both are highly recommended to skeptic and nonskeptic alike (a Google search finds both articles available on-line).
It is striking how little has changed (for skeptic and nonskeptic alike) since these two articles appeared in the 1980s; Hansen and Lindzen equally deserve great credit for the outstanding foresight and proven durability of their ideas. And for this reason, it is hugely dismaying that Burt Rutan’s PowerPoint presentations never refer to this seminal early work, by either Hansen or Lindzen, and indeed show no knowledge or appreciation of this work at all.
Which side is getting the better of the debate so far, Hansen-style scientific ideas or Lindzen-style skepticism of those ideas? Hmmmm … skeptics and nonskeptics alike can spin and dance and cherry-pick (and both sides most certainly do!) but neither side can change what they published back in the 1980s. As various climate “hockey sticks” gain in strength and length — per the open source Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) analysis, for example — the 1981 (nonskeptic) climate-change predictions by James Hansen and colleagues are looking stronger-and-stronger, relative to the 1989 (skeptical) climate-change criticisms of Richard Lindzen and his WSJ-16 colleagues like Burt Rutan.
Elevator Summary: The track record of Hansen-style climate predictions is (so far) more impressive than the track record of Rutan / WSJ-16 / Lindzen-style skepticism, yet both are valuable, and each augments the value of the other. Thus skeptics and nonskeptics alike would benefit, if greater acknowledgment and respect were given, for the outstanding early works of climate-change science and skepticism.
I already put in several comments on the WSJ article Burt Rutan signed that may possibly have gotten lost because there are already 1946 of them. My point was exactly what Rutan says – their predictions are based on defective modeling and they refuse to be corrected on that. Worst of all is their use of the greenhouse effect to predict warming which Ferenck Miskolczi’s work has proved to be non-existent. I myself proved in a peer-reviewed paper that greenhouse effect in the Arctic is impossible and even offered my paper to Anthony Watts. But Anthony rudely rejected it because I said bad things about Keenlysides’ work. You would think that science would count for a skeptic website but no – Anthony had to use a pretext only his namesake, the Oxford don, would use to refuse posting a paper. Peer review, he said, was wrong not to strike out my comments about Keenlyside, and besides that I was ending my sentences with exclamation points! You can get it now at: http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/arno-arrak.pdf