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.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1kt07umCC
——————–
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.’
—————-
Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.
‘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.
He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.
‘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. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
Macro Contrarian (@JackHBarnes) says:
January 29, 2012 at 12:41 pm
“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.”
____
Suggest you do a bit of reading on the carbon cycle, rock weathering, the rise of animals (on a planet that was once only full of plants), the movement of continents, etc.
Some would like us to believe that given the current output of the sun (higher than in the distant past) and the hot steamy jungles that existed when CO2 was much higher, and the fact that mammals were quite a marginal group at best with very narrow ecological niches (humans perhaps much like tree shrews), and that there was no grains like wheat in existence, that somehow we (meaning humans) would be better off to return to such times. Well, mammals pretty much filled a niche made available by the end of such steamy jungles, as dinosaurs were all but wiped out, as CO2 levels fell in general. We’ve done well with CO2 staying in a range from about 180-280 ppm during the past few million years. Going outside this range is simply taking a chance that the niche we’ve grown accustomed to is not going to change in some unpleasant ways.
Indeed, “life” might do better with CO2 levels higher, but that remains to be seen, especially given the rapidity of the recent rise. But as to whether humans would do better with CO2 levels at 500, or 700, 0r 1,000 ppm, (specifically do better by having our food supply stay intact) is a huge question mark. The Holocene has been good to us and to move outside of this range becomes a gamble no matter which way the climate moves.
I am not sure about anyone else’s cities, but my city cannot seem to model traffic flow effectively.
Burt Rutan – Good Job on Schooling the Rogues.
I wonder if resident troll R.Gates would explain why Warmist sites don’t allow dissenting comments from skeptics, yet all skeptical sites allow CAGW warmist to spout freely. Could it be there is room for every body at Skeptical sites? and no tolerance for comment’s or discussion at warmist sites if one is a none believer in the AGW / CO2 modeling theory. A good example of that is William M. Connolley’s nefarious data and article/Wiki smudging activity’s and others that have created mistrust to such a degree that climate science is a rats nest.
What is frightening about the fraudsters that promote the CAGW / CO2 doom and gloom model theory would they have us go back in time to 280ppm of CO2 would they prefer a cold world say 0.8°C cooler?
If we have dangerous warming and the global temperature has increased by 0.8°C since the Little Ice Age, does this mean that the ideal temperature for life on Earth is that of the Little Ice Age? During the Little Ice Age, people and all life forms died from starvation and cold, the economies of the world suffered, it was not a good time to be on Earth. Besides the cold, there were crop failures, famine, warfare and disease. Yes that’s really something to look forward to again!!
One calculation of Rutan’s is mathematically meaningless — the change of {the percentage change of the May to January temperature difference relative to the previous December}. The numbers, and result, are unit-dependent! The pct change numbers are different in Celsius and Fahrenheit, and for cold Decembers (closer to 0 C) the percentage change diverges in Celsius (but not, of course, Fahrenheit)!
This is such a trivial error that I have to wonder about his other conclusions….
Niels says:
January 29, 2012 at 12:06 pm
“Do you really believe there were humans on Earth 3 million years ago?”
____
Some form of early human ancestor certainly was around then yes. They certainly were not Homo Sapiens, but they would continue to evolve. Probably some form of Australopithecus seems most likely.
“You do realize that this is not data, but a model?”
Have you ever known a CAGW believer who could tell the difference?
Wow, you just know the war is nearly over when the generals are having to do the hand to hand fighting.
‘a physicist’ actually believes Hansen scored bullseyes. Heh. And he believes in hockey stick charts [not understanding that the hockey stick shape is a complete artefact of a zero baseline chart, something that has been repeatedly explained to him]. Hansen fudges the numbers to make himself look good. But it’s pure charlatanism.
Also, the number of recording stations has been drastcally reduced, mostly in rural areas. That reduction also causes a rising temperature artefact. You can see the result here.
Since CO2 follows temperature, all the handwaving over “carbon” is being debunked, proving Hansen wrong. So Hansen meddles with the temperature record. Even the Mauna Loa CO2 record is “adjusted“.
Hansen is still at it, drawing bullseyes around his misses. There is no honesty in the guy. Don’t trust anything Hansen says. He is a self-serving climate charlatan, and anyone beliving what he says is his credulous tool. There is nothing unusual happening. Climate alarmists are simply being religious, instead of being scientific.
Dave says (January 29, 2012 at 1:57 pm)
“I wonder if resident troll R.Gates would explain why Warmist sites don’t allow dissenting comments from skeptics, yet all skeptical sites allow CAGW warmist to spout freely.”
Simple. Warming sites are so popular they have to filter down the vast number of visitors wanting to comment. Meanwhile, blogs such as WUWT have so few visitors that contributions from anybody, anybody at all, are most welcome.
Slight sarc. 🙂
Connolley: “Because the situation is rather more complex than you think it is.”
That’s comedy gold there, folks.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 5:25 am
Hey Gates, I came back, hope you don’t mind.
I was wondering what your data source was, I figured you wouldn’t want to use UAH, and I certainly don’t want to use GISS.
Apparently the UEA has released data through the end of 2011, so here’s some data for us. This all comes from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem3gl.txt as linked to by http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ Look for CRUTEM3 item GL for global.
Here are the 20 warmest years. ‘*’ marks the last 10 years, ** marks the last 5:
So, only 8 of the last 10 years now are in the top 10. That’s news. What isn’t news is that 2010 was 0.107° cooler than 1998. What’s the data you’re using?
Of course, we need to respect El Niño and La Niño, but note that two recent years, 2008 and 2011, are not in the top 10. Only 2 of the last 5 are in the top 5 and 2 don’t make the top 10.
Plateau.
>> nomnom says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:52 am
But Rutan calls that chart into doubt. He cites the Beck CO2 study that disagrees with ice core data. Therefore he shouldn’t accept ice core data is accurate enough to a lag between CO2 and temperature. <<
You and Angliss both fail to understand the difference in usage (or maybe you do understand and are flat out spinning nonsense in an attempt to confuse the easily mislead). The CO2 measurements from ice core data could very well understate the past CO2 levels, if (say) CO2 slowly migrates out of the ice. But that has no effect on the dates of turnover of increasing/decreasing CO2 levels. Even if there is a monotonic increase in error in CO2 measurement vs. time, it is small compared to the rate of change of atmospheric CO2, so the peaks and valleys in CO2 level would still show up at the correct times.
Logically, the most likely error in CO2 measurements is a gradual migration of CO2 from ice with higher CO2 levels to ice with lower CO2 levels. That would level out the measurements somewhat, but not change the dates used to measure the lag between CO2 and temperature.
William M. Connolley says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Raised Arctic beaches are only one line of evidence (and are, obviously, not global).
Yes, only one line of evidence. The amount of warmth required to keep the “Arctic” beaches ice free for 1,000’s of years is very substantial. I don’t recall any studies that show there were curtains around the Arctic during this time period.
Also, the resolution of proxy data from the Holocene Optimum indicates that presently we could be much cooler than that time as well as near the same temperature. As we go back in time, the error bars grow larger. The physical proxy records argue for a time of more warmth than present as the Sahara was green, the Arctic was ice free, just to name two areas. It is very concieveable that during the Holocene warm period there were temp spikes, such as what we are in now, that were VERY much warmer than present. I am sure you agree with this assesment as it is factual.
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.
Why are the supposed rise in co2 that started at the end of the LIA not evident in any proxy record? And when you state this, this defies logic. The LIA was a cooler period, which would result in more asorption by the oceans of co2. Your statement makes no scientific sense at all.
Concerning sea level rise, you mean we are going to get back to the levels of the Roman Warm Period? The Sargosa Sea records indicate warmth during that period, the salt mining in Italy certainly indicate a higher sea level than present. The rate of sea level rise at present is certainnly not out of the norms of the Holocene in the whole. Being we are presently in a period called the “Interglacial” do you honestly think anything man can do will stop the onward march of glacial melt as a whole? The only way I can see to stop glacial decline is to enter another Ice Age, and I hope that does not happen any time soon.
I shall await your kind response to my other facts as your post only addressed a few.
Thank you in advance.
“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. ”
Careful there. We can’t say increasing temperatures cause higher CO2 levels (“correlation is not causation”). What we can say is that increasing CO2 CANNOT be the cause of increasing temperatures, because the cause cannot follow the effect.
Ted said:
“During the Little Ice Age, people and all life forms died from starvation and cold, the economies of the world suffered, it was not a good time to be on Earth.”
____
This is just a wee-bit-o exaggeration as to the severity and extent of the Little Ice Age. Yes, some weather patterns and effects were global, but certainly Europe suffered more than the rest of the world, primarily because of changes to the THC and warmth from the Gulf Stream. But even Europe had warm periods during the LIA, as it was not a monolithic period of cold. To suggest it was “not a good time to be on Earth” is certainly a hyperbole in the extreme. Even periods like the Younger Dryas period (1,000 times worse that the Little Ice Age) was still not severe enough to say it was “not a good time to be on Earth”. It was not a good time to be in the far northern hemisphere, but life did quite fine further south. In short, there seems to be a bit of exaggeration in some people’s minds about how bad the Little Ice Age was, probably because it is mislabeled an “ice age” at all, and probably because our history is dominated by European history, of which, the cooler period of the mislabel Little Ice Age was a part.
R.Gates: “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.”
I would not expect the world to force itself into poverty and starvation based on that model, while you DO expect us to do just that based on a model you admit is even less reliable!
nomnom: “It’s accelerating. Just look at the data. Why do you think they call it the Keeling **Curve**?”
Mathematically, a line is a curve.
Harrison N says:
January 29, 2012 at 9:41 am
I believe that the egg had to come before the chicken, and therefore Smokey is, in fact, correct.
Sandy
R.Gates: ““The relationship between noise and signal is a complex one, and made all the more difficult when you are at or near crossover points when what was previously noise is becoming the dominant signal and visa-versa.”
You have never studied anything where “noise” and “signal” are rigorously defined, have you?
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 1:30 pm
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.
Taking “3-d movement into account” and doing any true simulation of meaningful 3-d interactions is different by many orders of magnitude. Why are you and Connolley trying to imply otherwise?
Since you have nothing to do with models, why would you even claim to have an knowledge on this topic? The cell size of models is huge in real terms. They simply can’t get into real atmospheric interactions. They can only average out the data they are trying to simulate and move that into the next time interval. While this does allow some 3-d processing, it is far from anything realistic.
Hey Gates, I came back, hope you don’t mind.
Here’s woodfortree’s HadCrut data showing trend lines over the last 20, 15, 10, and 5 years.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2007/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/trend
In general, I’m not fond of trend lines like these since they’re so sensitive to the start and end points. They’re marginally better than Roy Spencer’s polynomial fit which he presents for amusement purposes only. The recent La Niñ certainly drag the slope down a ways, it’ll be interesting to see what happens in the next few years.
At 1:46 Mr. Connely cites Wiki as a source for his Holcene comment. This has to be one of the funiest things ever done. Mr. Connely you missed the part of the graph that shows our interglacial is lower in temperature than several of the past interglacials. Oh ya no people to cause it.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 2:22 pm
The LIA not only affected Europe, but was stong enough for glaciers to advance rapidly in Glacier National Park. This was a recovery from the Roman Warm Period on earth.