by Joe Bastardi
Being I am branded as a “denier”, I am having trouble dismissing the relevance of the tree ring studies that challenge the hockey stick, in light of the magnitude of the weight against co2 having any relevance to the climate.
I am hoping Dr. Mann can clear some things up for me, a PSU meteo grad that as I understand is no longer welcome in our department because of my outspoken stance on the climate change issue. A response here can also enlighten the other Neanderthals, some of them apparently devious enough to fool entire departments so they have PHDs, as to the latest “situation” with you and Andy Revkin. Andy, I am hoping this is not too “divisive or toxic”.
You tweeted that this graph, which has a version that shows no hockey stick was “largely irrelevant”
Here is the tweet:
And yet we see that the Chinese find no hockey stick in their studies:
In light of the Chinese studies, how can you say the other finding is largely irrelevant?
In addition you are asking us to believe that a gas that is 1/400th of the greenhouse gasses in a mixture ( air) that has 1/1000th of the heat capacity of the ocean,
WHICH IS BY FAR THE GREATEST CONTRIBUTOR TO THE NUMBER ONE GREENHOUSE GAS, WATER VAPOR, is somehow so relevant its pushing around the climate system. Even more remarkable is that this gas ( co2 if you have not guessed) has a specific gravity of 1.5 that of air, heats and COOLS faster than air, has different radiation properties and according to NASA satellite data, does not mix well.
Add to that the fact that in that mixture, air, it occupies .004 and according to DOE, mans total contribution is 3 to 5 %,
meaning using the high end 5% we have contributed .0002 to a mixture that has 1/1000th of the heat capacity of a prime source of the number one greenhouse gas , water vapor, that is 400 times the amount of co2.
Since I am an actual graduate of PSU meteo, and would like to again show my face there, I would hope you can explain to me and the rest of the “denial machine” how assigning such a high value to what would appear by the PHYSICAL evidence to be a non factor is somehow consistent with 2 studies showing NO HOCKEY STICK being largely irrelevant.
Again here is my problem: we have 2 studies showing no hockey sticks, they are irrelevant, yet the sheer weight of evidence AGAINST co2 being able to push the climate around seems to be of a much greater magnitude than the 2 studies.
And just for good measure, perhaps you can help us deniers with the apparent misconception with the ocean and sun correlation and the disconnect to co2 seen here:
TOP LEFT CO2 VS TEMP top right global temp since pdo flip bottom left ocean vs temp correlation pdo plus amo bottom right solar correlation
ocean strength of correlation is .83 solar is .57 co2 is .44
I look forward to the response convincing me that by looking at all sides of the issues, and reading just about everything you have done, that I am wrong, so I recant my Neanderthal views, and once again be able to sing “ may no act of ours bring shame” in our alma mater, since after all I am a graduate of PSU.
I am also a letter winner, so along with sweating out classes, I sweat and bled on our wrestling mats, so you might understand why my relationship with my University and its most famous member of our esteemed meteorology department is important to me.
Joe Bastardi
State Collge, PA
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gail Combs or Joe Bastardi – question for you: So a variation between 365 ppm and 385 ppm is not “well mixed”? I am not a chemist, so I would appreciate an explanation about why that is not considered well mixed. Thank you.
@Joe Kirklin:
Just loved it. Especially like the correlation coefficients and the relative heat capacities. “Those guys” don’t like to talk about heat capacity. Enthalpy and heat of fusion or vaporization make them flush with apoplexy. They also can’t abide convection. Everything must be temperatures and radiation. No other physics allowed.
So it’s nice to see someone with a more rounded pallet.
I have an idea:
How about you and Mann go for a one on one match to determine the winner? First pin wins 😉
RockyRoad says: “(PS> Please don’t post wikipedia links; nobody here takes them for more than two-bit actors.)”
Just for the ugly fun of it:
Take a good look at the following “Compiled by WUWT” page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/potential-climatic-variables/
Please count how many times the WUWT team uses Wikipedia as a reference. I cannot help it that you don’t like what is happening in the real world.
Please never ever respond to me again!
Smokey says: “If you look at the long term temperature trend line from the LIA to now, you will see that temperatures have not accelerated, but remain within their long term parameters — while CO2 has increased by ≈40%
What does that tell you?”
Nothing particular. Can you tell me how many years CO2 lags temperature during glaciations and deglaciations? Do you also know why that happens? So why should temperature on Earth increase instantly when CO2 starts to rise in a “cold” world. Ehhh again how many years did it take to warm up the oceans during deglaciation before CO2 starts to rise?
Now what does that tell you?
Robbie is clueless: “Nothing in particular.” Facts tell Robbie nothing in particular.
The failure of the long term trend line to accelerate, as was universally predicted by the alarmist contingent, falsifies their CO2=CAGW conjecture. It tells folks who understand the issue that CO2 does not have the claimed effect.
Robbie asks: “Can you tell me how many years CO2 lags temperature during glaciations and deglaciations?”
Yes. The lag is 800 years, ±200 years. Peer reviewed papers on this subject are easy to find. Do your homework.
And:
“Do you also know why that happens?”
Yes. I’ll let Prof Richard Lindzen explain:
The current rise in CO2 is largely due to the warming during the MWP, 800 ±200 years ago. Since you are so far from being up to speed on this subject, I suggest that you make use of the WUWT archives, keyword: CO2. Do a few weeks’ reading, and you may be qualified to ask the right questions.
@ur momisugly Smokey:
I hope you do realize that the temperature changes I am talking about are not on the order of tenths of a degree. Lindzen is correct if that is a quote from Lindzen at all. Btw Tsonis et al 2007 is not talking about deglaciations or the 800 year lag. But this paper is using a GCM-model. I wonder what your opinion is on models. Or do you embrace them only when they support your view? I am very critical on all research done with models. So too about Tsonis et al 2007.
The MWP was not 5-6 degrees warmer globally than current temperatures (you can research a very large peer-reviewed archive on CO2 Science http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php ), but merely 0.75 of a degree Celsius warmer (locally) than current temperatures suggesting in most of the studies: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php . But Glacial-Interglacial stages are 5-6 degrees in amplitude globally (Jouzel et al 2007, Caillon et al 2003, Zachos et al 2001, Petit et al 1999 just to name a few).
What you are suggesting that the current rise in CO2 was largely due to the MWP is complete nonsense. (And if you think you are right about that would you be so kind to present me the evidence for it in the scientific literature?)
Every climate scientist (including Lindzen – look for my link earlier) agrees with me: The current rise in CO2 is caused by 20th century emissions (e.g. man/anthropogenic). (If not than please show me proof in the scientific literature?) The Keeling Curve http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ (Keeling 1960), is more than enough proof of our effect on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
So far you only do a lot of talking without presenting links or literature to strengthen your case. Let me be clear about this: I dismiss blogs or forums as proof for your points. Blogs with forums are not science.
So to suggest that I need to do “a few weeks’ reading on WUWT” (I am a daily visitor here) and maybe then I will be “qualified to ask the right questions” is not only an ad hominem attack, but also a very arrogant attitude towards people you don’t even know.
I can proof with scientific facts what I am claiming. Now it is your turn to proof that the current rise in CO2 is caused by the MWP. Show me please!
@ur momisugly Smokey:
And if the lag is 800 ±200 years before CO2 starts to rise. Why should the oceans be warm instantly when CO2 starts to build up in the atmosphere? It’s a huge body of water. It takes at least 800 ±200 years before we will experience the full impact of our induced CO2 increase.
Robbie:
It is good that you seek to learn. However, it is best to do that by asking instead of citing papers that you clearly have not read. So, I am pleased that (at May 10, 2012 at 9:13 am) you ask;
“And if the lag is 800 ±200 years before CO2 starts to rise. Why should the oceans be warm instantly when CO2 starts to build up in the atmosphere?”
I answer:
They don’t. The ocean surface layer warms so the retention of CO2 in the air increases (i.e. movement towards equilbrium) while CO2 in that layer increases but proportionately not as much as the atmospheric rise. The thermohaline circulation then carries CO2 through the deep ocean (that does not warm) and returns it to the surface centuries later.
I suggest that you look-up thermohaline circulation and read the WUWT thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/06/the-bern-model-puzzle/
I think the contributions of Alan MacRae in that thread will be especially helpful to your understanding of the matter.
I hope that helps.
Richard
@ur momisugly richardscourtney
What! You are leading me to a blog from Mr. Willis Eschenbach while I am giving sources from scientific experts in their field.
Would you please listen to what Mr. Eschenbach himself says in the first 20 seconds:
Your claim: “through the deep ocean (that does not warm)” You should read Cutler et al 2002: Rapid sea-level fall and deep-ocean temperature change since the last interglacial period. Especially paragraph 5.2.
And I do not read papers!
Enough said!
@ur momisugly Smokey
You are not running away from me, are you?
Please show me your source(s) that the current rise in CO2 was caused by the MWP!
I have another question: If the MWP is causing a 110 ppm rise in CO2 currently and it is still increasing on a yearly basis. Why is the difference between a glacial-interglacial also 110 ppm?
MWP 0.75-1 degrees C of warming while glacial-interglacial warming is 5-6 degrees C of warming causing practically the same amount of CO2 increase. Please explain!
I am only discussing with Smokey here from now on.
Robbie:
At May 11, 2012 at 5:23 am you reply to my post (at May 10, 2012 at 1:16 pm) which gave you an answer to a question you posed and pointed you to further information on the subject.
Your reply states that you did not want an answer but cites a paper that is plain wrong. If you were to read the link I provided then you could learn something about the subject instead of being blissful in your ignorance.
Importantly, since you say that you like being ignorant, perhaps you would be so kind as to stop disrupting this blog with your ignorant twaddle.
Richard
Robbie,
You are an ass if you think I’m running away. I just happened to check back and saw that Richard Courtney has already set you straight. Now it’s my turn.
Here are just a few sources referencing the 800 year ±200 year delay between rises in temperature and subsequent rises in CO2:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
Why should I have to do your homework for you? I’ve provided more sources out of dozens, many of them peer reviewed, which confirm evidence of the 800 ±200 year lag time between temperature rises and rises in atmospheric CO2. If you cannot see that the MWP [900 – 1300 A.D.] is the cause of much of the current increase in CO2, then your mind is closed, and I’m done trying to eduacte you. The authors of the citations I provided here have forgotten more than you will ever know about the subject, yet you presume to have a superior intellect. As if.
As a climate alrmist true believer, your response to established, verifiable facts is typical. From now on, do your own homework.
@ur momisugly richardscourtney
I am sorry. I cannot help it that you don’t like the answer I gave to you.
The fact that you resort to ad hominem attacks (You wrote “If you were to read the link I provided then you could learn something about the subject instead of being blissful in your ignorance.” & “Importantly, since you say that you like being ignorant, perhaps you would be so kind as to stop disrupting this blog with your ignorant twaddle.”) is proof that you are not able to discuss in a rational and grown up manner. And also proof of someone who is not capable of coming up with better arguments.
The deep ocean temperature doesn’t change during glacial-interglacial periods according to you. Where are your sources? We talked about the 800 year lag and the 110 ppm CO2 rise. At least I was to Smokey. I suggest to read that carefully before you comment on it.
If my citation of the Cutler et al paper is plain wrong I suggest you write a rebuttal of that paper and publish it in a peer-reviewed paper. You would do science a great service. Furthermore I do cite peer-reviewed work which clearly shows that deep-ocean temperature does change during glacial-interglacial periods.
You came up with a blog and what Mr. Eschenbach is writing isn’t peer-reviewed. It is his opinion what he is writing and nothing more. That’s why it is called a blog (op-ed piece). I tried to convince Mr. Eschenbach several times to publish his findings in magazines (some of it seems quite good), but he is too reluctant to do so. That’s his personal choice, but then he should also face the responsibility for not being taken seriously by the climatic community. That’s the consequence.
I cannot help it that you don’t like what I write and what you are trying to do here is nothing more than to stifle the debate in your last remark.
Please do not respond to me again if I cause you so much irritation and pain.
@ur momisugly Smokey
You don’t have to do homework for me. I have done more than enough climate research to understand just a little bit of it.
The only thing you had to do was to cite one paper or a statement from a scientific work which clearly says that the current CO2 increase was caused by the MWP.
In all your six clicks you only came up with one scientific work: Caillon et al 2003 and that paper never speaks about the MWP.
Like I thought you only read blogs without checking the actual sources. And you have the stomach to call me closedminded. Not even Richard Lindzen (a foremost climate expert) agrees with you on this.
Here’s the link once again:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/GlobalClimateChange49
The MWP was globally not warm enough to cause any meaningfull effect on CO2 800 years later. For that you need a lot more temperature rise than just a 0.5-0.75 degrees Celsius of warming.
Just listen to Geologist Bob Carter (between 20-25 minutes in the interview) Part 2 of 2 in the page:
http://www.truthnews.com.au/web/radio/story/professor_bob_carter_on_climate_change
Yes I know this is not peer-reviewed either, but Bob Carter is also an expert and produces peer-reviewed work. See for yourself http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm
– Click 1: The David Archibald is not a peer-reviewed paper and uses work already outdated. See the extensive archive on CO2 Science about the MWP. It clearly shows that temperatures weren’t 2 degrees warmer than current warm period.
Archibald used a Modified Moberg graph from IPCC TAR 1990 and that’s misleading, because in IPCC 1990 it was a Lamb graph from 1965 and shows only the temperatures from central England. Check it for yourself. So that in itself makes this source not credible.
– Click 2: Caillon et al 2003 I already cited, but doesn’t state at all that the current rise in CO2 is caused by the MWP. Just point me to the citation in the paper, please!
– Click 3: What! A column. Sorry not worth the read.
– Click 4: Not peer-reviewed work either.
– Click 5: Is not peer-reviewed work.
– Click 6: Debunk House: And you regard this as serious science? But let me use a citation from that page: “We find that the ~230-year lag time is consistent. CO2 levels peaked ~230 years after the Medieval Warm Period peaked and the Little Ice Age cooling began and CO2 bottomed out ~230 years after the trough of the Little Ice Age.”
Something completely different than what you are trying to tell me.
Now I ask you one more time: Show me one citation from a scientific work that the current rise in CO2 is caused by the MWP. That’s all. You don’t have to do a lot of homework for me. I get a lot of homework from you because I have to do a lot of research where your provided bloggers are getting their information from.
Nowhere in all your six clicks I was able to find a statement that the current rise in CO2 was caused by the MWP. Neither are you answering my question in my previous comment which you have read (“running away”)
Instead you, just like richardscourtney, also resort to ad hominem attacks of me being a climate alarmist true believer and having superior intellect. And your last claim “As a climate alrmist true believer, your response to established, verifiable facts is typical. From now on, do your own homework.”
If you know it better than the established and verifiable facts then I urge you to publish your findings in scientific work. We need your knowledge and you would do science a great service.
These remarks are nothing more than proof that you are out of arguments.
Robbie:
Your post addressed to me at May 11, 2012 at 11:49 am begins:
“I am sorry. I cannot help it that you don’t like the answer I gave to you.”
SAY WHAT!
I gave YOU an answer to a question YOU asked together with a link that would enable you to learn more about the subject (on which I have published in the peer-reviewed literature), and you rejected that because you prefer to be ignorant of the matter.
And I did NOT use an ad hom.
Clear off, troll. You are wasting space on the thread.
Richard
Robbie says:
“Yes I know this is not peer-reviewed either…” while posting his appeal to authority… and at the same time complaining that some of the links I posted are either not peer reviewed, or “uses work already outdated.”
Thanx for your personal opinions. They are worth exactly that.
The facts are that the MWP was warmer than today; and that that the planet cooled significantly following the MWP, until the depths of the LIA; and the planet, including the 71% that is ocean, has warmed at ≈0.35ºC per century since then. When oceans warm they outgas CO2, just like when a Coke warms it outgases CO2.
Obviously you have a problem with natural global warming, and with the fact that oceans outgas as they warm. But those are your problems, because they deconstruct your CO2=CAGW conjecture.
Rising CO2 is primarily a function of warming oceans. The planet began to warm following the LIA along the same long term trend line it is currently on [and that long term trend is still intact]. There has been no accelerated warming outside of its long-term parameters. Thus, it follows that the conjecture that human emissions are responsible for most of the current global warming is falsified.
If human emissions made any measurable difference, the parameters of the long term warming trend from the LIA would have broken out to the upside. Global warming would be accelerating. It is not. The same long-term trend is intact, and there is no way to measure any small rise in temperature due to human CO2 emissions. Such a rise may exist, but if so, it is too minuscule to measure; almost certainly a small fraction of the less than 1ºC over the past century and a half. Most all of that rise is entirely natural.
You can deal with those facts, or you can hand-wave. What you cannot do is provide an empirical measurement showing that X amount of CO2 results in Y degrees of warming. Because there is no such verifiable, testable measurement.
Finally, people are accepting the fact that CO2 is not only harmless, but that more is better. The planet is measurably greening as a result of the added CO2. And of course, more warmth is better.
@ur momisugly richardscourtney
Two words for you: Grow up!
And see the link from Alan MacRae for yourself:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
Now why does CO2 goes up and up as each year passes? Natural variation huh! I think not.
Richard Lindzen is pretty clear on it:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/GlobalClimateChange49
His quote: “that CO2 is increasing due to man’s activities is also widely accepted”
Smokey disagrees with me on this so he has to proof that.
And I am the one who is “ignorant”.
Your provided material and answer doesn’t answer my question which I asked Smokey and on which you gave a comment: His claim is that the current rise in CO2 was caused by the Medieval Warm Period and I asked him for proof in the scientific literature. I still do btw, because he hasn’t anwered the question yet.
Read before you comment to people!
And please can you provide me the name of the paper on which you have published in the peer-reviewed literature. Now I am beginning to become curious in what scientific magazine that was published.
Robbie:
I see you are continuing to troll at May 11, 2012 at 3:04 pm where you ask about some of my papers. Had you taken the trouble to read the thread for which I gave you the link then you would have a reference to one such pertinent publication.
Now, clearly reading is a difficulty for you so I suggest you ask your paymasters at ‘Troll Central’ to study the link for you then to provide the next meaningless ‘soundbite’ for you to post here. However, I shall not bother to respond to more of your teenage angst.
Richard
Friends:
Robbie writes (supposedly to me);
“Now why does CO2 goes up and up as each year passes? Natural variation huh! I think not.”
The question is a scientific one so the only answer to the question is provided by the empirical data (what he doesn’t “think” is of no importance).
The true answer to the question is apparent to anybody who reads the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/06/the-bern-model-puzzle/
Richard
@ur momisugly Smokey
I gave you many peer-reviewed sources in my previous comments. You gave me just one. Just one. And it was one I already gave you earlier.
And now you are starting to blame me: “and at the same time complaining that some of the links I posted are either not peer reviewed, or “uses work already outdated.”
Laughable: Can you provide an empirical measurement showing that X amount of CO2 results in No degrees of warming?
Judging from your last comment in which you gave your CO2 story without any sources cited to backup your claims you are starting to become something of a preacher. I have to believe your story, because that’s a better story than what is written in the scientific literature. Right! That’s religion and not science. And religion is not my department.
Sorry! But I think we are done here. I won’t (I refuse to) listen to preachers who are not able to backup their claims with scientific sources.
Goodbye!
Robbie says:
“Goodbye!”
Best you stay out of the kitchen anyway. It’s easier than following the logic. ‘Bye.
@ur momisugly richardscourtney
I have discussed with many people on the web, but you are certainly the most childish individual I have ever met so far.
You are not even capable of answering questions or acknowledging facts. Instead you are namecalling and shouting like a madman.
Smokey: “Rising CO2 is primarily a function of warming oceans. The planet began to warm following the LIA…”
Smokey, at May 10, 2012 at 7:20 am you make this claim: “The current rise in CO2 is largely due to the warming during the MWP…”
So is the current rise in atmospheric CO2 “largely due” to the MWP, or is it a result of warming following the LIA?
Yo, Robbie,
You just wrote that you were gonna take your blankie and go home! You should do that, you will only get the truth here, and that hurts. Here, maybe this will help.☺
Buck up, bucko, things could be worse. The planet could be doing what you predicted. Instead, we’re living in a Goldilocks climate.
Jerky says:
May 8, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Joe is still going with the C02 isn’t well mixed nonsense? It’s pretty odd that such a blatant and easy demonstrable falsehood is a tenor of his bizarre pseudo-scientific beliefs. Better avoid low-lying areas Joe, or else you might be suffocated by those pools of CO2!
_____________________________
Do not say that to the relatives of those who were suffocated by those pools of CO2!
No I am not kidding it happened.
That was not the first time.