By S. Fred Singer
Gallia omnia est divisa in partes tres. This phrase from Julius Gaius Caesar about the division of Gaul nicely illustrates the universe of climate scientists — also divided into three parts. On the one side are the “warmistas,” with fixed views about apocalyptic man-made global warming; at the other extreme are the “deniers.” Somewhere in the middle are climate skeptics.
In principle, every true scientist must be a skeptic. That’s how we’re trained; we question experiments, and we question theories. We try to repeat or independently derive what we read in publications — just to make sure that no mistakes have been made.
In my view, warmistas and deniers are very similar in some respects — at least their extremists are.
They have fixed ideas about climate, its change, and its cause. They both ignore “inconvenient truths” and select data and facts that support their preconceived views. Many of them are also quite intolerant and unwilling to discuss or debate these views — and quite willing to think the worst of their opponents.
Of course, these three categories do not have sharp boundaries; there are gradations. For example, many skeptics go along with the general conclusion of the warmistas but simply claim that the human contribution is not as large as indicated by climate models. But at the same time, they join with deniers in opposing drastic efforts to mitigate greenhouse (GH) gas emissions.
I am going to resist the temptation to name names. But everyone working in the field knows who is a warmista, skeptic, or denier. The warmistas, generally speaking, populate the U.N.’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and subscribe to its conclusion that most of the temperature increase of the last century is due to carbon-dioxide emissions produced by the use of fossil fuels. At any rate, this is the conclusion of the most recent IPCC report, the fourth in a series, published in 2007. Since I am an Expert Reviewer of IPCC, I’ve had an opportunity to review part of the 5th Assessment Report, due in 2013. Without revealing deep secrets, I can say that the AR5 uses essentially the same argument and evidence as AR4 — so let me discuss this “evidence” in some detail.
Read the full essay here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html#ixzz1nn0SciyO
Steven Mosher says:
here is the sad truth. Until the “skeptics” as Singer describes thems, take on the “deniers” as Singer describes them, then Warmista will continue to successfully lump “skeptics” with “deniers”
No, the sad truth is that even if the “skeptics” take on the “deniers”, the Warmistas will continue to successfully lump “skeptics” with “deniers”.
The sadder truth is that Mosher implictly supports that conflation by making the assertion he has, without offering any judgement of the Warmista’s guilt by association tactic.
According to singer their are certain positions that are clearly contradicted by the science, cheif among them is the disbelief that GHGs can cause warming
According to the Warmistas, their are certain postions that are clearly contradicted by the science, chief among them is disbelief in any Warmista conclusion. Those that disbelieve are dismissed summarily as “deniers”. This is not scientific behavior, and not a tactic that sceptics should adopt. Using the tactic endorses the tactic, and the same people who gleefully argue guilt by association will have no problem using Tu quoque to continue the practice.
Here is a simple phrase you can use to “self identify” as a skeptic:
“GHGs cause warming, the question is how much”
No. That statement is not rigorous, as it is unintelligible when “how much” is very low. Rather:
GHGs can cause warming, the questions are – is this happening and if so by how much.
Unless “skeptics” make strong statements about the mistakes of people who deny any GHG effect whatsoever, you’ll forever be lumped in with the kooks.
If the truth happens to be that the effect of anthro CO2 is swamped by some combination of natural effects and/or negative feedbacks, those having the accurate view will be held to be among the “kooks”.
As for the rest of what Singer says, I beg to differ. But he has this point right. Its important to not be lumped in with those who are anti science
That matter must be addressed with the lumpers. The basis of warmist lumping is not agreement amongst the lumpees, but disagreement with the warmists.
Gary Palmgren says:
February 29, 2012 at 11:41 am
ChE and Jim
I really am trying to run a good experiment. I>>>>>>It might be worth taking into account that the atmosphere, without a lid on it, is able to expand and cool [ideal gas laws] with the introduction of more energy. Maybe your model can be modified to allow for this.
Are some people here really suggesting (not joking) that CO2 doesn’t cause warming?
– I think its a tenable position that there are massive negative feedbacks (but I’ve yet to see conclusive evidence)
– I think its a tenable position that not all the CO2 is manmade
– I think its reasonable to say that any warming is so small it cannot be seen
– I think its reasonable to say any warming will have negligible or even postive benefits
But I really can’t believe that sensible people could say that manmade CO2 doesn’t cause heating. If that’s true of anyone here, then to be frank, you are doing those who want to get rid of this sham religion a lot of damage by making us look like we base our views on a sham religion.
The present writeup, and many of the comments seem to be putting people in groups and supporting the rightness or wrongness by the number of people or their qualification in the groups. I am sorry but the only point of the issue is not that some skeptics are or are not deniers, or even correct on what they say. The AGW and CAGW supporters have to propose falsifiable claims to support their hypothesis, and EVERY ONE of these falsifiable claims has to have not been falsified. Einstein exactly made this point. If even one of the critical claims, showing why human activity burning fossil fuels and producing so much CO2 causes dangerous temperature increases, is falsified (even by one person), either the hypothesis has to be modified to not need that claim, or the hypothesis is falsified and invalid. It matters not at all what many uninformed people say, as they are not making the hypothesis. They do not have to prove anything, or agree with each other. The burden of supporting a hypothesis and eventually elevating it to a theory has to be do by the claimers. Any other position than this is not science.
Yes, a very nice article by Fred Singer. As I have said here many times before, I believe the sceptic cause is severely jeopardised by those claiming to be sceptics who espouse anti-science. Their hearts may be in the right place but, by their ignorance, they do harm. To quote Fred.
“Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics — i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence”.
Indeed! – but how many times do you see this sort of anti-science argument being made? It no doubt appeals to the scientifically illiterate and their cheerleaders, but it is totally unsustainable in front of a scientific audience.
I am a sceptic. I would like other sceptics to go into battle armed with some knowledge other than pseudo-science. A prerequisite for that is that they understand how the greenhouse effect operates. We have actual measurements of downwelling radiation from the atmosphere. By analysing that ‘back-radiation’ we see that it bears the unmistakable finger print of CO2 emission, i.e peaking at around a wavelength of 15 microns.
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/longwave-downward-radiation-surface-evans.png
There is a whole network of stations around the world measuring this ‘back radiation’ – the BSRN network. It is not something that can be plausibly denied. These are not computer models, these are real measurements – and therefore precious.
Do people who wish to dispute the greenhouse effect understand the significance of the linked graph? The evidence is undeniable.
From Neither a “Warmer or Denier” :
Why does it always come down to CO2? That is a question I always wonder about as I read WUWT. Who died and made CO2 king? There are so many variables that affect climate as to make development of a suitable equation pretty much undefinable. We simplify things so we can “calculate” a theoretical impact and possibly miss the important and possibly unknown variables.
Humans produce heat. We affect the micro-climates where we develop – Urban Heat Island Effect; deforestation around Kilimanjaro; any power producing or power using facility produces heat; living in a place like I do where it was 20 below C last night requires that I produce heat to survive and since my main heat source is wood from my wood lot, I produce some miniscule amount of CO2. Why deny we have an impact? When I drive to the city, I watch the thermometer on my car go up 3 degrees C and have observed that for 40 years. Not a new phenomenom. Every mechanical or electrical device we use produces heat. Electric cars produce heat. Nuclear submarines produce heat. Wind farms and solar panels produce heat. Look at videos from space and the night lights from our cities and you can get an idea of how much heat we produce. Anyone who has flown over the prairies and hit heat rising off a summer fallow field next to a crop knows the impact of land use.
I would hope that everyone can agree that humans have an impact. Just being alive, eating and defecating produces heat.
But how much do we produce relative to natural forces? And how much cooling have we caused? We push tons of water vapour into the atmosphere that most likely results in cooling. Anyone who has had the pleasure of flying through a thunderstorm at 30,000 feet or seen the effect of a tornado or hurricane knows how powerful nature is compared to man.
Every living thing produces heat – decaying detritus on the forest floors produces heat. Volcanoes and geothermal vents produce heat. The sun provides energy and heat for a large portion of life on this planet. Even the life forms that never see the light of day produce heat – be it deep in the ocean or in caves or aquifers deep below the earth’s surface. We keep finding new life forms where we don’t expect them and they all produce heat as a by-product of living.
And while we know a lot about the orbit of the earth and changes in the magnetic fields and other things in the cosmos, we really have only one life time of current technology in a time line of millions of years and we can only guess at the possible effects.
I graduated in the “Water and Pollution” discipline of Civil Engineering a long time ago. I have been retired for many years. I find the focus on CO2 to be sad. There are so many more important things that we could work on to make life better than fret about a trace gas.
Some of my friends would call me a “denier” but I am not. I know humans have an impact. But CO2?!! Really. What a waste of time and money when there are so many more pressing issues to deal with in the world.
The Environmentalist movement has been totally derailed with this CO2 nonsense IMHO.
I think I’ll go ride a horse over the ridge and make some deposits in the CO2 bank and fertilize some trees.
Wayne, from Oily Alberta, Canada 😉
The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (.. satellites ..) doesn’t show a warming.
Was that a typo or is it the argument that
slope = 0.010411 per year and
slope = 0.0145149 per year
are not significant?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1970/plot/uah/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:1970/plot/rss/from:1970/to:2000/trend
P.S. Bob Tisdale’s numbers in an above post were slightly different however it is not clear if “2000” meant January 1 or December 31.
OK, I mostly disagree with Fred on the need to initiate a civil war among the skeptics, see
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/02/fred-singer-and-skeptics-vs-deniers.html
The problem is, so many people want to hijack this quite important issue as part of a broader Right Wing agenda. The bad science and policy around AGW matters to me, but I don’t have an anti-Socialist viewpoint, I don’t hate Obama, I’m not a libertarian, I’m don’t see a world full of conspiracies, etc.; it’s both offensive and counterproductive that skepticism about AGW is so often needlessly tied with other fringe, partisan ideas.
Dear Ferdinand,
I remember some discussions with your here some years ago, AFAIK, you stopped at a similar point as you made in this post. Starting in reverse order:
– Segalstad and Essenhigh talk about the residence time, which is short, but that has nothing to do with an excess decay time, which is a lot longer. [..]
disagree with you on the meaning of these time constants:
R. Essenhigh [Atmospheric Residence Time of Man-Made CO2, 2009]
“[..]With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”
– That humans are responsible for the CO2 increase is based on a lot of evidence, real evidence, measured in the oceans and atmosphere…
Well, then I presume it would be a good time to show this evidence instead of only talking about it!
– The isotopic evidence shows that the oceans can’t be the source of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere: their isotopic composition is too high. Any huge release from the oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio (in fact the oceans are a measured net absorber of CO2). Land vegetation could be the source, if lots of land were burned down without replacement, but the oxygen balance shows that land vegetation is a net absorber of CO2, not a source (the earth is greening).
Not true! The shift in the isotope ratio only shows, that we burn fossil fuel and indeed this CO2 is brought into the atmosphere and the ocean.
– The CO2 levels of seawater in steady state with the above air shows a change of 16 ppmv for each °C change. Even with a huge cooling by 1°C of the ocean surface, that wouldn’t give more than 16 ppmv of the 100+ ppmv we are above the previous steady state.
This sensitivity is derived from ice cores not directly measured.
However, I probably should clarify, my main concern:
Anytime someone claims that the isotope ration would prove anything but we are burning fossil fuel, I have the feeling that we are leaving the fields of science!
This is probably where we should start, if you want a serious discussion.
What do you say to the following statement:
As long as we burn fossil fuel, the isotope ration will drop, regardless if the absolute CO2-level in the atmosphere is raising or not (for example if there would be a massive cooling of the oceans in the next 20years while we still burning a lot of fossil fuel).This is like the yellow river is tainting the ocean measurably yellow, which has little to do raise of the sea level.
And to then reeverse this argument:: Thus the isotope ratio cannot tell you anything about the CO2-level.
Yes, but … that is not the real issue. The people commonly known as “deniers” are not denying climate science, they are denying that the case for CAGW is not proper science. It is not totally honest and transparent. It is not the “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”.
Yes, there are three divisions, as in triage. Those that will believe no matter what, those that will not believe no matter what, and those whose opinions can be changed. For the science, only the last group counts. For the politics, the more pawns the better.
Anybody know if this is a change in the views of Singer?
F.Singer: in case you cannot quote Latin, just don’t do it.
Funny that this essay starts with an error in the second word. Doing his resaerch hard or hardly researching, wasn’t it like this (I am not a native speaker).
Made my day.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
February 29, 2012 at 11:23 am
“”- The isotopic evidence shows that the oceans can’t be the source of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere: their isotopic composition is too high. Any huge release from the oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio (in fact the oceans are a measured net absorber of CO2). Land vegetation could be the source, if lots of land were burned down without replacement, but the oxygen balance shows that land vegetation is a net absorber of CO2, not a source (the earth is greening).”
The isotopic evidence is bunk. We’ve been over this too many times and I haven’t kept the links, so I’m just going to make the assertion.
“- The CO2 levels of seawater in steady state with the above air shows a change of 16 ppmv for each °C change. Even with a huge cooling by 1°C of the ocean surface, that wouldn’t give more than 16 ppmv of the 100+ ppmv we are above the previous steady state.”
That is a sensitivity for short term fluctuations. CO2 uptake is a low pass filter process. Short term fluctuations are attenuated. The gain for longer term fluctuations will naturally be substantially larger.
“- Segalstad and Essenhigh talk about the residence time, which is short, but that has nothing to do with an excess decay time, which is a lot longer. The first can be compared to how long some goods stay in a factory (the throughput in capital), the latter is the loss or gain of a factory for the shareholders’ money. Quite distinct time constants…”
What is that excess decay time? Nobody knows. It is all speculation based on an assumed model for what is going on.
Sorry, but ‘deniers” views don’t matter much. It is the Warmists’ ‘evidence’ and policies that are potentially economically damaging. Policies are being formulated based on Warmists’ computer models etc. Focus on the real danger; people who deny that co2 is a greenhouse gas don’t matter in the big scheme of things as policies are not being based on their arguments.
The point is that just as the “warmist agenda” has been seriously damaged by the idiocy and actions of some of its greatest proponents recently because policy makers do tend to use a perfectly reasonable (if imprecise) process of association to judge claims they cannot otherwise judge for themselves, so is the point of view advanced by skeptics damaged by the idiocy and actions of some of the greatest proponents of the “there is no GHE” school.
When anyone advances an argument that can be refuted in around ten seconds by looking at a single (set of) measurements that can be presented in such a way that even policy makers can often understand, it causes those same policy makers to take even more reasonable arguments less seriously.
The science supports:
a) Yes, there is a GHE. It helps to warm the Earth relative to the greybody temperature it would have with no atmosphere or an atmosphere with no GHGs;
b) the effect of CO_2 in particular is saturated — not “a trace gas that can be ignored” but saturated — in the atmosphere. Saturation in context means that the atmosphere is already optically thick, and indeed the optical thickness of CO_2 is much less than the height of the troposphere. Consequently, increasing CO_2 has a very weak effect on the overall GHE, one that is by itself definitely not responsible for much global warming. That’s just the physics of it. CO_2 increases over the last 100 years alone, regardless of how you attribute their cause, are not sufficient to explain more than perhaps 0.3-0.7K of the post-Dalton temperature increase. How much precisely is debatable, because the overall system is highly nonlinear and there are confounding processes and coupled processes that cannot easily be linearized or ignored.
c) The “Catastrophic” claims of the warmists come strictly from two things. One, they ignore any possibility that the sun’s variability modulates climate more than strictly through variable insolation, in spite of direct evidence to the contrary. Two, they allege large positive feedback from CO_2 induced warming due to increased H_2O vapor in the warmer atmosphere. It’s that simple. From one they justify using numbers at the highest possible range for the GHE itself — even over the top of that range, 0.8 t 1K, post-Dalton. From two they multiply the projected increase by a minimum of 2 to a maximum of, well, there isn’t really a maximum. 5. 10. Who knows? The warming oceans trigger massive methane outgassing and we turn into Venus and the oceans themselves boil. But usually around 5.
d) The data categorically excludes number two already. A sane upper bound — upper, mind you — on positive feedback from e.g. increased water vapor is around 2 (and remember, the rules require that as they increase this feedback they actually decrease the direct effect of CO_2 because there are only a certain number of post-Dalton degrees (like 1.5 or thereabouts) to split up among all causes). If you numerically admit the influence of the sun empirically into the models, it strictly decreases the net effect of CO_2 and again further limits the possible feedback. There is no real limit on the lower bound. It could be anything from “no feedback at all” to “negative feedback overall” because of the complexity of the water cycle. It could even be different things at different points in the decadal oscillation cycles.
So when a “denier” argues that “a trace gas” cannot have a large effect, they are simply ignoring the physics. When they argue that its effect cannot be observed, they are ignoring the top-of-atmosphere IR spectroscopy that directly measures it and observes it in action. When they try to claim that static isolated atmospheres are warmer at the bottom than at the top absent all forcing, they are asserting things that directly contradict physics. All of these things weaken the skeptical case by association in the minds of people that cannot follow the details of the arguments for themselves. This is sad, because the well-made skeptical case is overwhelming, actually, that there is no likely catastrophe and that the sun is directly responsible for a larger fraction of the observed post-Dalton warming than CO_2, with or without any feedback at all.
rgb
I am very tired of those who deny that the greenhouse effect exists based on a misunderstanding of the 2nd law and, usually, a failure to view the system as dynamic with continual influx of energy from the Sun. The GHGs do not heat the surface, per se, they merely impede the outflow so that extra energy, relative to what would be the case without the GHGs, accumulates before equilibrium is established.
There are two particular GHE disbelievers who like to post here on WUWT who always seem to swoop in when I am having a serious discussion with someone with opposing views and embarrass me. I wish they would stop.
Robert Brown says:
February 29, 2012 at 12:31 pm
So when a “denier” argues that “a trace gas” cannot have a large effect, they are simply ignoring the physics. >>>>>What do you mean by “large”, I need to get a sense of proportion. and how, precisely, do you quantify it in terms of climate temperature. If it’s tiny, then what on earth is the infighting about?
Typo’s corrected from above.
Gary says (February 29, 2012 at 11:33 am): “This is going to be a long adventure. Watch out for stobor.”
Heinlein fan? 🙂
I guess Dr. Fred is positioining himself as a skeptic IPCC reviewer for AR5. He seems to be trying to buy himself extra credibility even as he is skeptical of the IPCC science. They don’t give a carp about his credibility.
I think he’s a little too focused on what might bring the IPCC view into reality than what is reality. It views the science much too strongly through modeling and closed mindedness about relevant factors, competing explanations, and the “likely” presence of unknowns. He also buys into their climate denier argument, but he doesn’t like them doing the classification and tries to elevate himself by using his own classification.
I still find it hard to believe, (denier in Fred’s parlance), that it can’t be much colder with higher CO2 and warmer with lower CO2 when reviewing the planet’s history as currently measured.
At the end of the day, though, arriving at any conclusion based only on a judgement that it is the most likely or only the slightly most reasonable is not proof of anything. I require proof and the null hypothesis (it takes many more than one by the way to get to catastrophe) is considered true. Call me a denier based on that. But this null hypothesis defender has a legitimate say in what should be done if anything if, in the unlikely event, the time comes.
Greg, from Spokane says:
February 29, 2012 at 11:09 am
Regarding lack of understanding of the science: In other sciences, such as Chemistry, how to they refer to people who don’t believe the standard models? As deniers? Uneducated? Ignorant? Stupid?
You mean like the many who post on here that homonuclear diatomics like O2 and N2 absorb in the IR, in contravention of many years of detailed spectroscopic measurements and well established (and tested) theories of molecular structure and dynamics? Or those who don’t understand phase diagrams (i.e. of CO2 and H2O in particular)? Those who insist that Kirchoff’s Law equates absorption and emission rather than the correct absorptivity and emissivity.
These are all fundamental errors in physical chemistry which are prevalent here.
There are others, related to the Gas Laws, diffusion, Henry’s Law, Clausius-Clapeyron, etc., how would a physical chemistry Prof. refer to those who espoused these views? Well if they took his undergraduate course in Phys. Chem, as an F-student!
I deny that human-caused increases in CO2 in the atmosphere can cause any measurable increase in global temperature. The resulting increase will be, at best, “in the noise.”
I’m a proud dandy denier for the simple reason that a CAGW slug called me a denier, a couple of years ago, for asking for the proof of what he was stating, and I’ll continue to deny them for the mere fact that the CAGW crowd felt they needed to muddy the water with propaganda rhetoric and subterfuge and outright lies and threats to indoctrinate people to do the “right” thing.
And it’s very foolish to buy the oposition’s tradmarked word and use it like it has a value. That’s high level indoctrination complete.
So I see mr singer and others are equating some people with different interpretations on science as people who deny that the holocaust occurred. Please tell me how this compasison is in any way similar or apt.
I for one do not fall under this category as I seem to be one of those sceptics who simply thinks that the human signiture via CO2 is too small to measure seeing as we have yet to do so, but I am still failing to see how politically and rather low-browed insults further any cause.
So as a sceptic leave me out of this one. What is the point of this article? If you want to make a point about sceptics who do a dis-service to the rest of the rest of us leave the insults out of it. If you can not make your point without comparing people to pond-scum then I would probably assume you have no point to make.
“Gallia omnia est divisa in partes tres.” This phrase from Julius Gaius Caesar about the division of Gaul nicely illustrates the universe of climate scientists …
It was Gaius Julius Caesar, and the relevant Roman concept was known to the Caesars (and the Senates) as divide et impera. It is an effective tactic, and one we should not be postioning ourselves to fall prey to.
I question just how much warming there was over the 1976-2000 period. I look at the surface station record and see it as being way too crrupted by possible effects of UHI, loss of remore stations, and data manipulation to put ANY faith in it at all.
I query how back radiation from a very minor trace compound can have any effect on a system which is dominated by convective and conductive effects (air movement). CO2 has zero effect on these two methods of heat transfer. and even if the back radiation does cause a teensy amount of heating near the surface, the only effect will be a tiny increase in convective activity.
The Earth’s atmosphere is NOT a blanket, it is a mechanism to remove excess heat from the surface, so that it can be radiated into space. It is a temperature regulator.