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.
It is like trying to communicate to a drowning person that there is a life preserver right behind them and they are refusing to listen. Panic has rendered them deaf, dumb, and blind.
Alarmists are their own worst enemy.
A physicist says:
January 29, 2012 at 11:54 am
“Elevator Summary: James Hansen and his colleagues have predictively “hit more bulls-eyes” than skeptics like Rutan / Lindzen / the WSJ-16.”
Your standard applies to marksmanship but not science. In science, one incorrect prediction that proves to be substantiated brings down whole theories.
If hitting bulls-eyes, as you put it, is to count in science then it has to be an unbroken string of bulls-eyes. After such a string, you might have a reasonably well confirmed physical hypothesis. At this point, you have entered the scientific arena. People practicing without such well confirmed hypotheses are practicing something other than science. But the first miss calls your hypothesis into question.
Hansen and crew have not managed to produce a well-confirmed physical hypothesis beyond what Arrhenius produced in the 19th century.
You really should read up on physical theory and scientific method.
David Ball says:
January 29, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Ha ha ha ha ……Thumbs up!
Anyone who thinks proxies are better than Observational Evidence…Models are evidence / validation for unproven hypothesis – post-normal science equals Normal Science
doesn’t deserve a life preserver
A challenge to William M. Connolley:
No “consensus” climate science working at this time will address the claim that there are no well confirmed physical hypotheses that can explain even one physical connection between increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and the behavior of clouds and related phenomena. They will not address the claim because they know that no such physical hypotheses exist. And that is the scandal of climate science today. Even Arrhenius knew that without the “forcings” and “feedbacks” there is no way to know what effects increasing concentrations of CO2 might have on Earth’s temperature. Thus, “consensus” climate scientists are mistaken to claim that there is scientific evidence that supports the CAGW or AGW thesis.
When I say that “consensus” climate scientists either do not understand the requirements of empirical science or seek to avoid those requirements, it is their failure to address the nonexistence of these necessary physical hypotheses that is uppermost in my mind. This is the scandal of climate science and every critic should be doing all that he can to hold “consensus” scientists’ feet to the fire. They are beaten on the science. All that is necessary is that we press the case.
What “consensus” climate scientists are willing to discuss are unvalidated and unvalidatable computer models and the laughable proxy studies. Those two topics are nothing but grand Red Herrings.
Finally, if you need proof that “consensus” climate scientists have no well confirmed physical hypotheses that can explain and predict the effects of CO2 on clouds, just ask them for the hypotheses. None have produced them and none can produce them. The necessary physical hypotheses do not exist.
Produce the well confirmed physical hypotheses, Mr. Connolley. Explicate them in your own words. Do not assign homework. This is a debate.
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 11:52 am:
In reading some of your comments I find them interesting but not very factual. I am sure you mean well, and post to the best of your ability.
1. You seem to be concerned about the continueing trend of warming that started approx 200 years ago. Why are you concerned and what can be done to stop this continueing trend? Why would we want to stop this trend?
2. The Holocene Optimum is called that for some reason. Could it be that the warmth, the thriving Sahara allowed mankind to emerge, learn, adapt?
3. The temps of the Holocene Optimum were prob higher than the current temps for a much longer period of time. This publication confirms this as the Arctic was virtually ice free during the summer.
http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/
During this period of warmth CH4 outgassing did not seem to affect climate to any great extent.
Do you expect different results from less stimuli this go around?
4. Are the scientists wrong who have ascertained that there is an approx 800 +- 200 years lag in co2 and temp correlation?
5. When looking at paleo records,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Co2-temperature-plot.png
one can see that temperature falls even as co2 continues to rise. I am sure there are other unknown climatic forcings also involved in this, however; the above chart does show that co2 continues to be a lagging effect, and not a leading effect on climate.
6. Current warming trend of the past 200 years. Current AGW folks keep wanting to tell us that the early 20th century warming was caused by increased sun activity. Sorry, that dog’s tail doesn’t wag.
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
I have been straightforward in my response to you and your percieved information. Being you are a smart feller, I would appreciate documented information to refute what I have posted to you.
Thank you in advance for your detailed response.
It seems the warmists missed my question so I will ask it again.
I think it is great that so-called “warmists” are here. It allows for direct question/answers. definitely a plus is any debate about complex issues.
So in keeping I ask Mr (Dr., so dont know which) Connolley and R. Gates the following question.
It is well recognized that the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 6-9 times higher in the distant past. Therefore please explain how a small by comparison rise over the past few decades can cause run-away global warming when levels 6-9 times higher did not?
nomnom says:
January 29, 2012 at 11:32 am
There are 30,000 centuries in 3 million years. What are the chances that the only century in those set of 30,000 to see CO2 jump to 390ppm happened to be the only century in which humans emitted more than enough CO2 to explain the rise?
_____________
You are obviously begging the question…
Correlation is not causation.
How did CO2 rise to 5x + current levels historically, before humanity existed? How did it naturally fall each time before? Why would you believe this time is uniquely different then every single event in 4 Billion+ years of activity before this century?
Both yourself and R. Gates keep returning with answers to the latest 3 million years, a blink of an eye in the history of the planet. However, neither of you will comment on the elephant in the conversation. The planet has had significantly higher CO2 levels before, and in the big picture, it will again.
nomnom says,
“So here’s my hypothesis:
“You went through a bunch of Keeling Curve graphs but ignored them because you were looking for a line not a curve (confirmation bias). You eventually stumbled on one that looked like a straight line, it’s just you didn’t realize it was actually depicting acceleration.
“Am I right?”
No.
The Climate4You graph was the very first one I went to. I have it in my CO2 folder along with many others. As you can see, when a normal y-axis is used, the chart is not nearly so scary.
CO2 is rising in large part due to a rising sea surface temperature [SST]. Human emissions add around 3% annually, greening the planet.
As we see, there is only spurious correlation between rising temperature and rising CO2. It may, in fact, be mostly coincidental. Over the past decade, CO2 and global temperatures have diverged, falsifying every last GCM.
The rise in CO2 is entirely beneficial – a central fact that the alarmist cult avoids. The biosphere is starved of CO2. More is better, and there is no identifiable downside. Even if all available fossil fuels were burned, CO2 levels would not double. And if they did, so what? CO2 would still be a tiny trace gas. The upside would be a greener planet.
William M. Connolley:
To avoid any potential confusion, be sure to read the link:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Co2-temperature-plot.png
from right to left
Thank you.
A physicist says:”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.”
Yamal, Upside Down TIjlander, strip-bark tree cores, short-centered PCA, “CENSORED” ftp directories, Landsea, DeFritas, Daly, IPCC ‘transparency’, etc. etc. – sound familiar?
Cherry-picking data, fraudulent statistics, libel, slander, and fascistic campaigns to get fired from their jobs those who understand the requirements of the Scientific Method are POLICY for your side of the CAGW fence, physicist (and your censorious pal Connelly). Wrapping your anti-science, anti-human Lysenkoist principles and policies in the mantle of Science makes it clear that you haven’t any interest in honest discourse of any kind.
That you are losing your war on science and human freedom must really eat at you these days, no?
R. Gates says:
“Somewhere between 10 and 20 years appears to now be the maximum period in which natural variability can mask the forcing from CO2.”
————
Santer said 17 years (a peculiarly precise figure). So given the flatline since 1998, not much longer to go before the alleged signal is presumed to be awol?
William M. Connolley:
I am sure that you understand the implication of how long it would have to be warm to melt the Arctic for 1,000’s of years so that the north shore of Greenland would be ice free.
And I am sure that you understand how the mass loss of Greenlands glaciers are a current concern. Of course, this is really nothing new is it?
“51] The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature
record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the
warmest decades. Two distinct cold periods, following the
1809 (‘‘unidentified’’ volcanic eruption and the eruption of
Tambora in 1815 make the 1810s the coldest decade on
record.”
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf
With all the recent talk about Greenland’s glacial melt, one would think it was not a repeat offense wouldn’t one? Or….is it?
I can only suggest you read the paper I posted above.
Thank you for allowing us to share knowledge with you.
Perry says:
January 29, 2012 at 11:47 am
“Who wrote this?”
_____________________
Jesuit musings on truth, attribution, heresy and consequence…
please, Sir. No tricks.
cui bono says:
January 29, 2012 at 10:30 am
I think climate is the most complex thing scientists have ever tried to study, barring the brain.
This is a very good analogy. If we go back to the 60s and 70s you will see all kinds of computer experts predicting AI would be equivalent to the human brain capabilities before the turn of the century. Didn’t work out too well.
The reason for the failure was too much confidence in what they thought they knew and little understanding of the potential for unknowns. My own opinion is that climate scientists have fallen into the same trap. And, of course, they want to as well. Who would want to kill the goose that has laid so many golden eggs.
Ever wonder why we need 23 climate models? Who paid for them? What would R. Gates being doing today if money hadn’t been allocated for these kind of activities?
RobW says:
January 29, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Rob, you ain’t gonna get an answer. I’ve asked for experimental data of the effect of 5,000 ppm of CO2 added to air in a closed container and the predicted rise in temperature to no avail. And I’ll add that I didn’t expect any response when I made the post. We should continue to press them for data that can be experimentally verified.
Wonder what happened to Mr. Connolley?
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 11:52 am
No the GCMs permit 3-d movement, of course.
The actual level of 3-dimensional processing has to be necessarily small or you’d run out of processing time quickly. Simply a matter of scale. Trying to imply the models do any kind of realistic 3-d simulating is seriously lacking in credibility. One can only wonder why you would try and claim otherwise.
I ve just came in here, read Burt Rutan’s dissertation which is one of the best I ever rread. I havnt read any of the comments, so apologies if I’m repeating:
What really shocked me was that Burt’s critic is an engineer. I am a mechanical engineer about to retire. When many years ago, I started reading about man-made global warming I was already skeptical, having known full well that the few (aprox 300ppmv at that time) molecules of atmospheric CO2 could in no way make the atmosphere hotter, unless there was some sort of positive feedback of a some orders of magnitude while time has proven that this feedback does not exist and could be even negative.. My bottom line: I never expected an engineer to be taken in by a thermodynamic scam.
Tallbloke has got a good post on why the atmosphere was much warmer when dinosaurs ruled theearth. and why CO cools the planet. Very basic physics and thermodynaics.
“R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:11 am
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. … 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. …”
While climate models appear to be deterministic (produce the same results if run twice with the same inputs) and can’t predict true chaos, it is possible to mimic chaos with deterministic equations. The creator of Mathematica has written a book on this subject and the Mandelbrot set is an example. Like all simulations, accuracy is dependent on the precision of the computer. One can even introduce chaos into models by adding slight randomness to the inputs.
The problem I have with climate models is: they are not entirely based on physics but include many tabular experimental inputs (lookup tables, etc.) that are adjusted to get the results right. Where we don’t understand the physics we simply substitute best guesses. In addition, there are many things that can cause such models to go chaotic and give useless results such as too big a step size or too large of a measurement cell. I saw a reference in the comments above for about 20 atmosphere layers. How do we know this is enough?
I fully understand Burt Rutan’s concern about using models. We use very similar models to determine the best wing and airplane shape before we build and fly one. But we aren’t stupid enough to put passengers on the first one we build and take off. That is reserved for a crazy person called a flight test pilot and possibly an engineer to go along and watch the computer collecting the data.
I have no faith that the climate models, even though they all suggest warming, are providing any kind of useful prediction. It’s a bit hard to do a test as we would need to build another earth and play around with it. Perhaps some of us think we are god, but not me. Only time will tell if the models are correct and so far it appears that the data collection has been “homogenized’ somewhat to come to a preconceived conclusion which doesn’t help my understanding.
Theo, you are absolutely correct. Having scored two impressive “bullseyes” with 1981 predictions of a global warming “hockey stick” and open Northwest Passage sea-lanes, Hansen and his colleagues are now “doubling-down” their scientific reputations, with a prediction of accelerating sea-level rise.
Will rising sea-levels become a third bulls-eye prediction for Hansen and his colleagues? Only time will tell, but for the present, the oceanographers of the US Navy (who obviously know a lot about sea-and-ice levels) seem to think that Hansen and his colleagues very plausibly are correct.
As a fan of both solid science and solid skepticism, it seems to me that (1) Hansen and his colleagues deserve credit for publishing forthright predictions, and (2) in the long run, the cause of skepticism would be advanced if Rutan / Lindzen / the WSJ-16 would venture to publish similarly concrete predictions. Because those brands of skepticism that make no predictions are weak.
Richard M says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:17 pm
“The actual level of 3-dimensional processing has to be necessarily small or you’d run out of processing time quickly. Simply a matter of scale. Trying to imply the models do any kind of realistic 3-d simulating is seriously lacking in credibility. One can only wonder why you would try and claim otherwise.
I don’t know what Mr. Connolley does, but it is very clear he has not studied climate and the underlying science. His claim @ur momisuglyJanuary 20, 2012 @ur momisugly 11:52 shows this very clearly.
It is nice that he stopped by this site so that he could learn some of the very basic items.
“When dinosaurs roamed we had 3 to 5 times current co2 and planet was nearly all green, pole-to-poleNear”
====
irrelevant – the continents were in different positions. Why is this always brought up?
====
“(We now know that the Ozone changes were notcaused by human CFCs)”
====
what!? -where’s the proof?
=====
“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.”
==========
A ludicrous statement
It is not just the change it is the effect of all the extra energy in the system
====
“Carbon Dioxide content is very small, invisible on a bar chart”
===========
O3 is an even smaller constituent of the atmosphere yet it stops getting on for 100% of high energy UV. Just because it is small does not make it insignificant. Why does no one understand this?
=======
“Water vapour chart”
======
Ridiculous – less heat = less water vapour = less water vapour. IE positive feed back (should be obvious to an engineer) You need another “temperature increaser” to make water vapour increase the temperature. Not Water vapour is a GHG but at temps fond in the atmosphere it is liquid and only present as gas through vapour presseure. Note GHG
====
“Looking back 600 million years”
This is of course followed by the statement:
“But -accurate CO2direct measurements are only available for the last 50 years.”
surely something wrong!
——-
same old guesswork chart created to show worm/cold periods combined with a MODEL guessing CO2 concentrations of 600M years.
========
He select CO2 charts that show what he wants and ignores other more accepted charts.
=
“The danger is too-low atmospheric CO2”
===================
What relevance is low CO2 when we are talking High CO2?
=======
“27Atmospheric warming with human carbon emissions shows „good‟ correlation only after 1970.”
========
An engineer not understanding noisy signals is seriously worrying!
=======
“This chart shows a 10,000-year period during the last ice age recovery. The temperature changes, thenCO2 responds 500 to 800 years later.”
========
So what 800 years ago caused the current increase. Co2 from the mwp should have been increasing from 1700 onwards not 1970. Also he believes in CO2 plots of concentrations with as many humps as a herd of camels. What caused these?
============
“A Close look at Modern CO2Measurements
Accurate enough for prediction?”
=============
An obvious curve and an engineer predicts using a straight line! why?
———————
As an engineer, you design aircraft using all the modern CAD/Simulation tools available. This shpuld provide you with an aircraft capable of carrying passengers the moment you build the first one.
BUT
you use a test pilot and no passengers WHY
ALSO
Your test pilot wears a parachute. WHY?
Perhaps there is the mearest possibility that something has been ovelooked :
“Pilots on the first of two aircraft delivered so far to ANA were forced on Sunday to deploy the landing gear using a manual backup system,”
“Airbus blamed a combination of manufacturing and design flaws for wing cracks on its A380 superjumbo but said it had found a simple ”
Perhaps with something as slow to react as the earth we may be seeing the beginnings of a problem.Perhaps it would be wise to take preventative measures? As an engineer – I would!
Richard M says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:17 pm
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 11:52 am
No the GCMs permit 3-d movement, of course.
The actual level of 3-dimensional processing has to be necessarily small or you’d run out of processing time quickly. Simply a matter of scale. Trying to imply the models do any kind of realistic 3-d simulating is seriously lacking in credibility. One can only wonder why you would try and claim otherwise.
_____
The current global climate models of course take 3D movement into account. It would be impossible to have any sort of a sophisticated climate model without it. Hence why they need supercomputers to run.
Richard M. asked:
“What would R. Gates being doing today if money hadn’t been allocated for these kind of activities?”
____
I as derive no part of my income from the existence of climate models, nor their use, nor their development, nor their study, nor any field remotely related to them, I would be doing exactly what I am doing.
> A challenge … No “consensus” climate science… there are no well confirmed physical hypotheses that can explain even one physical connection between increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and the behavior of clouds and related phenomena
I’m not entirely sure what your challenge is. The basic theory is that increasing greenhouse gases such as CO2 affect the radiative properties of the atmosphere, leading to a radiative forcing that tends to warm. This doesn’t directly affect clouds, though, only indirectly. But you are correct that the direct effect from CO2 is smaller than that total effect including feedbacks, from water vapour and ice-albedo and suchlike.
> continueing trend of warming that started approx 200 years ago. Why are you concerned and what can be done to stop this continueing trend? Why would we want to stop this trend?
That is the “recovery from the LIA” idea. I don’t believe that. The trend is caused, principally, by increasing CO2 consentrations; it can be stopped by slowing and halting the CO2 increase. As to Why: you can read IPCC for that: but my own version would be: sea level rise, and unexpected ecological effects.
> The Holocene Optimum is called that for some reason
But it is just a name. And we’re already warmer than it was then, see pix at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum . I know you claim “The temps of the Holocene Optimum were prob higher than the current temps for a much longer period of time” but evidence for that isn’t clear. Raised Arctic beaches are only one line of evidence (and are, obviously, not global).
> During this period of warmth CH4 outgassing
But we know that CH4 levels were far lower than now, then. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg for then, and it is, what, 1,900 ppbv now?
> ascertained that there is an approx 800 +- 200 years lag in co2 and temp correlation?
I already posted the link that discussed that (summary: it is more complex than you think), but your mod here didn’t want you to read it (try searching for “Wolff” on my blog). I’ll try again: “http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/yet_more_tco2_lags.php” – lets hope that one isn’t too scary.
> When looking at paleo records,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Co2-temperature-plot.png
one can see that temperature falls even as co2 continues to rise
If you’re referring to the way the red and blue lines are out of sync at ~320 kyr, that is just because whoever drew that didn’t align the EPICA and Vostok timescales.
RobW> the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 6-9 times higher in the distant past. Therefore please explain how a small by comparison rise over the past few decades can cause run-away global warming when levels 6-9 times higher did not?
Done that already: see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/28/burt-rutan-on-schooling-the-rogue/#comment-878805. Might be mod-delay.