Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
Elaine Dewar spent several days with Maurice Strong at the UN and concluded in her book The Cloak of Green that, “Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.” Strong conjectured about a small group of world leaders who decided the rich countries were “the principle risk to the world.” These countries refused to reduce their environmental impact. The leaders decided the only hope for the planet was for collapse of the industrialized nations and it was their responsibility to bring that about. Strong knew what to do. Create a false problem with false science and use bureaucrats to bypass politicians to close industry down and make developed countries pay.
Compare the industrialized nation to an internal combustion engine running on fossil fuel. You can stop the engine in two ways; cut off the fuel supply or plug the exhaust. Cutting off fuel supply is a political minefield. People quickly notice as all prices, especially food, increase. It’s easier to show the exhaust is causing irreparable environmental damage. This is why CO2 became the exclusive focus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Process and method were orchestrated to single out CO2 and show it was causing runaway global warming.
In the 1980s I warned Environment Canada employee Henry Hengeveld that convincing a politician of an idea is a problem. Henry’s career involved promoting CO2 as a problem. I explained the bigger problem comes if you convince them and the claim is proved wrong. You either admit your error or hide the truth. Environment Canada and member nations of the IPCC chose to hide or obfuscate the truth.
1. IPCC Definition of Climate Change Was First Major Deception
People were deceived when the IPCC was created. Most believe it’s a government commission of inquiry studying all climate change. The actual definition from the United Nations Environment Program (article 1) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) limits them to only human causes.
“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.”
In another deception, they changed the definition used in the first three Reports (1990, 1995, 2001) in the 2007 Report. It’s a footnote in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).
“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”
It was not used because Reports are cumulative and to include natural variability required starting over completely.
It is impossible to determine the human contribution to climate change if you don’t know or understand natural (non-human) climate change. Professor Murray Salby showed how the human CO2 portion is of no consequence, that variation in natural sources of CO2 explains almost all annual changes. He showed that a 5% variation in these sources is more than the total annual human production.
2. IPCC Infer And Prove Rather than Disprove a Hypothesis
To make the process appear scientific a hypothesis was inferred based on the assumptions that,
• CO2 was a greenhouse gas (GHG) that slowed the escape of heat from the Earth.
• the heat was back-radiated to raise the global temperature.
• if CO2 increased global temperature would rise.
• CO2 would increase because of expanding industrial activity.
• the global temperature rise was inevitable.
To further assure the predetermined outcome the IPCC set out to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis as scientific methodology requires. As Karl Popper said,
It is the rule which says that the other rules of scientific procedure must be designed in such a way that they do not protect any statement in science against falsification.
The consistent and overwhelming pattern of the IPCC reveal misrepresentations of CO2. When an issue was raised by scientists performing their role as skeptics, instead of considering and testing its validity and efficacy the IPCC worked to divert, even creating some false explanations. False answers succeeded because most people didn’t know they were false.
3. CO2 Facts Unknown to Most But Problematic to IPCC.
Some basic facts about CO2 are unknown to most people and illustrate the discrepancies and differences between IPCC claims and what science knows.
• Natural levels of Carbon dioxide (CO2) are less than 0.04% of the total atmosphere and 0.4% of the total GHG. It is not the most important greenhouse gas.
• Water vapour is 95 percent of the GHG by volume. It is the most important greenhouse gas by far.
• Methane (CH4) is the other natural GHG demonized by the IPCC. It is only 0.000175 percent of atmospheric gases and 0.036 percent of GHG.
• Figure 1 from ABC news shows the false information. It’s achieved by considering a dry atmosphere.
Figure 1
• The percentages troubled the IPCC so they amplified the importance of CO2 by estimating the “contribution” per unit (Figure 2). The range of estimates effectively makes the measures meaningless, unless you have a political agenda. Wikipedia acknowledges “It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect.”
Figure 2 (Source Wikipedia)
4. Human CO2 production critical to IPCC objective so they control production of the information.
Here is their explanation.
What is the role of the IPCC in Greenhouse Gas inventories and reporting to the UNFCCC?
A: The IPCC has generated a number of methodology reports on national greenhouse gas inventories with a view to providing internationally acceptable inventory methodologies. The IPCC accepts the responsibility to provide scientific and technical advice on specific questions related to those inventory methods and practices that are contained in these reports, or at the request of the UNFCCC in accordance with established IPCC procedures. The IPCC has set up the Task Force on Inventories (TFI) to run the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Programme (NGGIP) to produce this methodological advice. Parties to the UNFCCC have agreed to use the IPCC Guidelines in reporting to the convention.
How does the IPCC produce its inventory Guidelines? Utilising IPCC procedures, nominated experts from around the world draft the reports that are then extensively reviewed twice before approval by the IPCC. This process ensures that the widest possible range of views are incorporated into the documents.
They control the entire process from methodology, designation of technical advice, establishment of task forces, guidelines for reporting, nomination of experts to produce the reports, to final report approval. The figure they produce is a gross calculation, but it is estimated humans remove 50% of that amount.
Regardless, if you don’t know natural sources and variabilities of CO2 you cannot know the human portion. It was claimed the portion in the atmosphere from combustion of fossil fuels was known from the ratio of carbon isotopes C13/C12. Roy Spencer showed this was not the case. In addition, they ignore natural burning of fossil fuels including forest fires, long-burning coal seams and peat; as Hans Erren noted, fossil coal is buried wood. Spencer concluded,
If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??
The answer is, it was done to prove the hypothesis and further the deception.
5. Pressure For Urgent Political Action
Early IPCC Reports claimed the length of time CO2 remains in the atmosphere as very long. This implied it would continue as a problem even with immediate cessation of CO2 production. However as Segalstad wrote,
Essenhigh (2009) points out that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in their first report (Houghton et al., 1990) gives an atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) of 50-200 years [as a “rough estimate”]. This estimate is confusingly given as an adjustment time for a scenario with a given anthropogenic CO2 input, and ignores natural (sea and vegetation) CO2 flux rates. Such estimates are analytically invalid; and they are in conflict with the more correct explanation given elsewhere in the same IPCC report: “This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean”.
6. Procedures to Hide Problems with IPCC Science And Heighten Alarmism.
IPCC procedures and mechanisms were established to deceive. IPCC has three Working Groups (WG). WGI produces the Physical Science Basis Report, which proves CO2 is the cause. WGII produces the Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Report that is based on the result of WGI. WGIII produces the Mitigation of Climate Change Report. WGI and WGII accept WGI’s claim that warming is inevitable. They state,
Five criteria that should be met by climate scenarios if they are to be useful for impact researchers and policy makers are suggested: Criterion 1: Consistency with global projections. They should be consistent with a broad range of global warming projections based on increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. This range is variously cited as 1.4°C to 5.8°C by 2100, or 1.5°C to 4.5°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (otherwise known as the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”).
They knew few would read or understand the Science Report with its admission of serious limitations. They deliberately delayed its release until after the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). As David Wojick explained,
Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the “policymakers”—including the press and the public—who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it.
…
What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.
An example of this SPM deception occurred with the 1995 Report. The 1990 Report and the drafted 1995 Science Report said there was no evidence of a human effect. Benjamin Santer, as lead author of Chapter 8, changed the 1995 SPM for Chapter 8 drafted by his fellow authors that said,
“While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”
to read,
“The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
The phrase “discernible human influence” became the headline as planned.
With AR5 (2013) they compounded the deception by releasing the SPM then releasing a correction. They got the headline they wanted. It is the same game as the difference between the exposure of problems in the WGI Science Report and the SPM. Media did not report the corrections, but the IPCC could now claim they detailed the inadequacy of their work. It’s not their fault that people don’t understand.
7. Climate Sensitivity
Initially it was assumed that constantly increasing atmospheric CO2 created constantly increasing temperature. Then it was determined that the first few parts per million achieved the greenhouse capacity of CO2. Eschenbach graphed the reality
 |
(Figure 3).
Figure 3
It is like black paint on a window. To block sunlight coming through a window the first coat of black paint achieves most of the reduction. Subsequent coats reduce fractionally less light.
There was immediate disagreement about the amount of climate sensitivity from double and triple atmospheric CO2. Milloy produced a graph comparing three different sensitivity estimates (Figure 4).
 |
Figure 4.
The IPCC created a positive feedback to keep temperatures rising. It claims CO2 causes temperature increase that increases evaporation and water vapour amplifies the temperature trend. Lindzen and Choi, discredited this in their 2011 paper which concluded “The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.”
Climate sensitivity has declined since and gradually approaches zero. A recent paper by Spencer claims “…climate system is only about half as sensitive to increasing CO2 as previously believed.”
8. The Ice Cores Were Critical, But Seriously Flawed.
The major assumption of the inferred IPCC hypothesis says a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. After publication in 1999 of Petit et al., the Antarctic ice core records appeared as evidence in the 2001 Report (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Antarctic core core record
Four years later research showed the reverse – temperature increase preceded CO2 increase contradicting the hypothesis. It was sidelined with the diversionary claim that the lag was between 80 and 800 years and insignificant. It was so troubling that Al Gore created a deceptive imagery in his movie. Only a few experts noticed.
Actually, temperature changes before CO2 change in every record for any period or duration. Figure 6 shows a shorter record (1958-2009) of the relationship. If CO2 change follows temperature change in every record, why are all computer models programmed with the opposite relationship?
Figure 6; Lag time for short record, 1958 to 2009.
IPCC Needed Low Pre-Industrial CO2 Levels
A pre-industrial CO2 level lower than today was critical to the IPCC hypothesis. It was like the need to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period because it showed the world was not warmer today than ever before.
Ice cores are not the only source of pre-industrial CO2 levels. There are thousands of 19th Century direct measures of atmospheric CO2 that began in 1812. Scientists took precise measurements with calibrated instruments as Ernst Beck thoroughly documented.
In a paper submitted to the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski stated,
“The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.”[1]
Of equal importance Jaworowski states,
The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].
There are other problems with the ice core record. It takes years for air to be trapped in the ice, so what is actually trapped and measured? Meltwater moving through the ice especially when the ice is close to the surface can contaminate the bubble. Bacteria form in the ice, releasing gases even in 500,000-year-old ice at considerable depth. (“Detection, Recovery, Isolation and Characterization of Bacteria in Glacial Ice and Lake Vostok Accretion Ice.” Brent C. Christner, 2002 Dissertation. Ohio State University). Pressure of overlying ice, causes a change below 50m and brittle ice becomes plastic and begins to flow. The layers formed with each year of snowfall gradually disappear with increasing compression. It requires a considerable depth of ice over a long period to obtain a single reading at depth. Jaworowski identified the problems with contamination and losses during drilling and core recovery process.
Jaworowski’s claim that the modellers ignored the 19th century readings is incorrect. They knew about it because T.R.Wigley introduced information about the 19th century readings to the climate science community in 1983. (Wigley, T.M.L., 1983 “The pre-industrial carbon dioxide level.” Climatic Change 5, 315-320). However, he cherry-picked from a wide range, eliminating only high readings and ‘creating’ the pre-industrial level as approximately 270 ppm. I suggest this is what influenced the modellers because Wigley was working with them as Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia. He preceded Phil Jones as Director and was the key person directing the machinations revealed by the leaked emails from the CRU.
Wigley was not the first to misuse the 19th century data, but he did reintroduce it to the climate community. Guy Stewart Callendar, a British Steam engineer, pushed the thesis that increasing CO2 was causing warming. He did what Wigley did by selecting only those readings that supported the hypothesis.
There are 90,000 samples from the 19th century and the graph shows those carefully selected by G. S. Callendar to achieve his estimate. It is clear he chose only low readings.
Figure 7. (After Jawaorowski Trend Lines added)
You can see changes that occur in the slope and trend by the selected data compared to the entire record.
Ernst-Georg Beck confirmed Jaworowski’s research. An article in Energy and Environment examined the readings in great detail and validated their findings. In his conclusion Beck states
Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis? Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel.
The pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level claimed.
Beck found,
“Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.”
The challenge for the IPCC was to create a smooth transition from the ice core CO2 levels to the Mauna Loa levels. Beck shows how this was done but also shows how the 19th century readings had to be cherry-picked to fit with ice core and Mauna Loa data (Figure 8).
Figure 8
Variability is extremely important because the ice core record shows an exceptionally smooth curve achieved by applying a 70-year smoothing average. Selecting and smoothing is also applied to the Mauna Loa data and all current atmospheric readings, which naturally vary up to 600 ppm in the course of a day. Smoothing done on the scale of the ice core record eliminates a great deal of information. Consider the variability of temperature data for the last 70 years. Statistician William Brigg’s says you never, ever, smooth a time-series. Elimination of high readings prior to the smoothing make the losses greater. Beck explains how Charles Keeling established the Mauna Loa readings by using the lowest readings of the afternoon and ignored natural sources. Beck presumes Keeling decided to avoid these low level natural sources by establishing the station at 4000 m up the volcano. As Beck notes
“Mauna Loa does not represent the typical atmospheric CO2on different global locations but is typical only for this volcano at a maritime location in about 4000 m altitude at that latitude. (Beck, 2008, “50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2on Mauna Loa” Energy and Environment, Vol. 19, No.7.)
Keeling’s son operates Mauna Loa and as Beck notes, “owns the global monopoly of calibration of all CO2measurements.” He is a co-author of the IPCC reports, that accept Mauna Loa and all other readings as representative of global levels.
As a climatologist I know it is necessary to obtain as many independent verifications of data as possible. Stomata are small openings on leaves, which vary in size directly with the amount of atmospheric CO2. They underscore effects of smoothing and the artificially low readings of the ice cores. A comparison of a stomata record with the ice core record for a 2000-year period (9000 – 7000 BP) illustrates the issue (Figure 9).
Figure 9.
Stomata data show higher readings and variability than the excessively smoothed ice core record. They align quantitatively with the 19th century measurements as Jaworowski and Beck assert. The average level for the ice core record shown is approximately 265 ppm while it is approximately 300 ppm for the stomata record.
The pre-industrial CO2 level was marginally lower than current levels and likely within the error factor. Neither they, nor the present IPCC claims of 400 ppm are high relative to the geologic record. The entire output of computer climate models begins with the assumption that pre-industrial levels were measurably lower. Elimination of this assumption further undermines the claim that the warming in the industrial era period was due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Combine this with their assumption that CO2 causes temperature increase, when all records show the opposite, it is not surprising IPCC predictions of temperature increase are consistently wrong.
The IPCC deception was premeditated under Maurice Strong’s guidance to prove CO2 was causing global warming as pretext for shutting down industrialized nations. They partially achieved their goal as alternate energies and green job economies attest. All this occurred as contradictory evidence mounts because Nature refused to play. CO2 increases as temperatures decline, which according to IPCC science cannot happen. Politicians must deal with facts and abandon all policies based on claims that CO2 is a problem, especially those already causing damage.
Source: The Global Warming Policy Foundation: CCNet 14/10/13
1. [1] “Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2” Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski March 19, 2004
Related articles
- IPCC ‘s Bogus Evidence for Global Warming (americanthinker.com)
- 2013 On Track to be Seventh Warmest Year Since 1850 (climatecentral.org)
- Another Reason Why IPCC Predictions (Projections) Fail. AR5 Continues to Let The End Justify the Unscrupulous Means (wattsupwiththat.com)
- UN climate panel corrects carbon numbers in influential report (trust.org)
- The IPCC’s muddled definitions of climate change (ipccreport.wordpress.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dumb Scientist says:
November 20, 2013 at 12:47 am
Again, if we can agree that the 1.5 K / 2xCO2 lower limit scientists have been using for over 30 years is reasonable, that’s great news.
The 1.5 K / 2xCO2 is the new best guess found, their lower limit is 0.9 K. Seems that there is not much positive feedback left to help CO2 to do what was predicted in previous IPCC reports…
My best guess is around 1 K / 2xCO2, as good as anyone elses…
Citation?
The only model I know of that did an attempt to simulate the end of the Eemian is the ECHAM-G model (climate sensitivity at the low side ~2 K/2xCO2) for the situation at 125 kyear BP and 115 kyear BP. That is just before the drop in CO2:
http://www.mad.zmaw.de/fileadmin/extern/Publications/simulation.pdf
The next step would be a model that tries to simulate the situation at 107 kyear BP, but as far as I know, no climate model did perform that…Too risky for high-sensitivity models?
Dumb Scientist says:
November 19, 2013 at 12:14 pm
“NOAA calculates the CO2 growth rate from 1959-1960 at 0.94 ppm/year, not 1.74.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ ”
————————
Dumb Scientist, quit proving to the world that your “screen name” was chosen for a damn good reason.
Now let’s see iffen you can do “simple” math subtraction using actual NOAA data, to wit:
Copied from: NOAA’s complete 1958-2013 monthly average Mona Loa CO2 ppm data
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
1959 1 1959.042 315.62 315.62 315.70 -1
1959 2 1959.125 316.38 316.38 315.88 -1
1959 3 1959.208 316.71 316.71 315.62 -1
1959 4 1959.292 317.72 317.72 315.56 -1
1959 5 1959.375 318.29 318.29 315.50 -1
1959 6 1959.458 318.15 318.15 315.92 -1
1959 7 1959.542 316.54 316.54 315.66 -1
1959 8 1959.625 314.80 314.80 315.81 -1
1959 9 1959.708 313.84 313.84 316.55 -1
1959 10 1959.792 313.26 313.26 316.19 -1
1959 11 1959.875 314.80 314.80 316.78 -1
1959 12 1959.958 315.58 315.58 316.52 -1
1960 1 1960.042 316.43 316.43 316.51 -1
1960 2 1960.125 316.97 316.97 316.47 -1
1960 3 1960.208 317.58 317.58 316.49 -1
1960 4 1960.292 319.02 319.02 316.86 -1
1960 5 1960.375 320.03 320.03 317.24 -1
1960 6 1960.458 319.59 319.59 317.36 -1
1960 7 1960.542 318.18 318.18 317.30 -1
1960 8 1960.625 315.91 315.91 316.92 -1
1960 9 1960.708 314.16 314.16 316.87 -1
1960 10 1960.792 313.83 313.83 316.76 -1
1960 11 1960.875 315.00 315.00 316.98 -1
1960 12 1960.958 316.19 316.19 317.13 -1
=================================================
To help you out, …. 320.03 – 318.29 = 1.74 ppm
Samuel C Cogar says:
November 20, 2013 at 3:28 am
Copied from: NOAA’s complete 1958-2013 monthly average Mona Loa CO2 ppm data … To help you out, …. 320.03 – 318.29 = 1.74 ppm
==========================
NOAA calculates trends using more than just two data points. Please look at the table I linked earlier:
year ppm/yr
1959 0.94
1960 0.54
1961 0.95
1962 0.64
1963 0.71
1964 0.28
1965 1.02
1966 1.24
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 20, 2013 at 3:08 am
The 1.5 K / 2xCO2 is the new best guess found, their lower limit is 0.9 K. Seems that there is not much positive feedback left to help CO2 to do what was predicted in previous IPCC reports…
My best guess is around 1 K / 2xCO2, as good as anyone elses…
============================
Again, feedbacks are already present in paleoclimate data, so the PALAEOSENS paper and Royer et al. 2007 (linked earlier, uses 420 million years of paleodata) both show that the real world climate sensitivity is very unlikely to be as low as 1 K / 2xCO2.
By coincidence, Figure 3a in both the PALAEOSENS paper and Knutti and Hegerl 2008 summarize dozens of sensitivity studies:
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
Please note that some individual studies show high sensitivities and some show lower sensitivities. It’s important to avoid “single study syndrome” by considering all the evidence available, and review papers like these are an easy way to do that.
============================
The only model I know of that did an attempt to simulate the end of the Eemian is the ECHAM-G model (climate sensitivity at the low side ~2 K/2xCO2)
============================
You originally called that a “very low” climate sensitivity, but isn’t it actually above the lower limit that scientists have been using since 1979?
“You originally called that a ‘very low’ climate sensitivity, but isn’t it actually above the lower limit that scientists have been using since 1979?”
Chalk up one more nitpick by the dumb one.
So what if it’s above or below the lower limit? The alarmist crowd in general routinely uses the scariest, highest sensitivity number they can get away with.
BTW, where does Dumb Scientist work? Retired? Or using his work time to emit alarmist propaganda?
In any case it isn’t working. Despite all the reliance on models, Planet Earth is still the only real Authority, and Planet Earth is clearly telling us that CO2=cAGW is nonsense.
So who should we believe? Planet Earth? Or a dumb scientist, who doesn’t understand either the Scientific Method or the Null Hypothesis?
dbstealey says:
November 20, 2013 at 10:40 am
So what if it’s above or below the lower limit?
==============================
Since Ferdinand Engelbeen seemed to say that study is reasonable and provides a “very small” sensitivity of 2K / 2xCO2, I think it’s worth pointing out that scientists have been using a lower limit of 1.5K / 2xCO2 since 1979.
So I guess dumb believes that the IPCC is not composed of scientists…
…but you know, he may be right. As the article says, “Create a false problem with false science and use bureaucrats to bypass politicians to close industry down and make developed countries pay.”
A big part of the IPCC consists of NGOs and QUANGOs, not scientists.
dbstealey says:
November 20, 2013 at 11:02 am
So I guess dumb believes that the IPCC is not composed of scientists…
=======================
Obviously I’ve failed to communicate once again. Have a nice day.
Dumb Scientist says:
November 19, 2013 at 3:51 pm
“But estimating feedbacks by comparing ancient temperatures to ancient CO2 levels and orbital forcings already has all those feedbacks built into the ancient temperature record.”
————————
And therein is the reason that all output data generated by climate modeling programs are utterly FUBAR. They have the “wagon driving the horse” by assuming that CO2 is driving the temperature and thus they include it in the input data. That is bass-ackward to what it should be.
And, concerning the calculations of “temperature feedbacks” and/or “climate sensitivity”, me thinks that anyone who attempts to do said ….. is stuck in a deep rut and fiercely spinning their wheels and accomplishing nothing except for generating tons of paperwork.
And my above brash statement was prompted in response to the following:
Ferdinand Engelbeen asks: “… what do we know about one (1) of the most important feedbacks: clouds? Hardly anything.”
Dumb Scientist offers an excuse for not knowing much of anything about clouds: “Estimating feedbacks using climate models requires very detailed, high-resolution models.”
And to that, Sam C is obligated to ask: “What do we actually know about any of the “FORCERS” and ”BACKFEEDERS” of thermal energy that directly affect earth’s climate?” …… IMHO, we know a lot about them in a “closed” environment (laboratory) ….. but hardly anything about their active role when in an “open” environment (earth’s atmosphere).
The earth’s atmosphere ITSELF is an extremely dynamic “very detailed, high-resolution model” and if you can not measure the effects therein of the individual components ….. then it is impossible to create a computer modeling program that would simulate said measurements for you. Even if you could create said model then it would only be capable of a generating a single “snap-shot” of what was …… and/or a zillion “snap-shots” of what might be. Computer modeling software can not foresee the effects of individual entities in a dynamically ever-changing environment.
And Dumb Scientist also stated: “However cloud cover changed during glacial-interglacial transitions, the orbital forcing, CO2 amplification, cloud feedback, water vapor feedback, sea-ice albedo feedback, ice sheet feedback, carbon cycle/permafrost feedback, etc… all added together to produce the ancient temperature record.”
And he was almost correct about that, …. and I might add, … they were ALL changing and they will also all be added together to produce future temperature records. And given the fact he noted the difference between clouds and water vapor (humidity) then he neglected to mention another highly important entity, fog. The thermal energy “forcing” and/or ”backfeeding” properties of fog is most probably equal to or even greaten than clouds, especially in the Temperate Zones. Fog acts as a “bi-directional” buffer of thermal energy exactly the same way as clouds do.
Mountain fog, valley fog, lowland fog, river fog, lake fog, ocean fog, seashore fog, after rain event fog, during rain event fog, London fog, etc., …. they all add up by the end of each year.
And IMHO, I think it is hilariously funny for anyone to assert that atmospheric CO2 is the “backfeeding” FORCER of thermal energy ….. to the atmospheric H2O vapor which is the “forcing” BACKFEEDER of that same thermal energy ….. to the earth’s surface causing increases in temperature.
I seriously doubt that 400 molecules of CO2 are capable of FORCING very much thermal energy onto 16,000 to 40,000 molecules of H2O vapor.
A simple experiment will either prove or disprove all CAGW claims about CO2 …. so why doesn’t someone conduct said scientific research?
“NOAA calculates trends using more than just two data points. Please look at the table I linked earlier.”
————————
Dumb Scientist, why don’t you take the next 72 hours off, find a secluded spot, and try to figure out what the difference is between …. 1) an actual yearly increase, …… 2) a yearly average increase ….. and 3) a yearly trend.
Dumb Scientist says:
November 20, 2013 at 10:27 am
Again, feedbacks are already present in paleoclimate data, so the PALAEOSENS paper and Royer et al. 2007 (linked earlier, uses 420 million years of paleodata) both show that the real world climate sensitivity is very unlikely to be as low as 1 K / 2xCO2.
The real world climate sensitivity to what?
One of the problems with models I have is that they implement a similar sensitivity for different forcings (except for Hansen’s “efficacy” differences of +/- 10%). That means that 1 W/m2 of insolation has about the same influence as 1 W/m2 more IR downwelling by CO2. But that is highly questionable. Solar influence is highest partly in the lower stratosphere by UV and partly deep in the ocean surface layer, heating the whole upper layer, while UV/ozon warms the lower stratosphere pushing the jet stream currents polewards, changing wind- and rainpatterns and cloud cover.
IR downwelling from CO2 has its largest influence on the top fraction of a mm of the ocean surface, warming that part (or decreasing cooling) and probably increasing evaporation. No proven influence on cloud cover, rain- or windpatterns.
And that is supposed to have the same effect?
Even some (HadCM3) model runs showed that solar was probably underestimated, compared to other forcings:
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf
all within the constraints of the model (like a fixed influence of human aerosols, also highly questionable)…
You originally called that a “very low” climate sensitivity, but isn’t it actually above the lower limit that scientists have been using since 1979?
I said: “climate sensitivity at the low side ~2 K/2xCO2”, not “very low”, but even the Echam-G model fails to reproduce the current standstill, thus its 2 K/2xCO2 is too high. Which is readily admitted by Hans Von Storch, who I think is one of the most honest scientists in climate science.
The point is that several models can reproduce the glacial-interglacial transition with any degree of sensitivity for 2xCO2, simply because there is a huge overlap between T and CO2 changes, allowing any amount of feedback, but that no climate model (the ECHAM-G model only partly) dared to reproduce the Eemian interglacial-glacial transition where there is no overlap between T changes and CO2 changes, which would make clear what the skill of the models is in predicting the real sensitivity for CO2 alone…
Dumb Scientist says:
November 20, 2013 at 11:40 am
“If all that CO2 vanished, temperatures would fall, water vapor would rain back into the oceans, causing temperatures to fall further.”
————————
OH good grief, …..Dumb Scientist, …. when the Sunshine quits striking the earth’s surface due to daytime cloud or fog cover or night time darkness …… the temperatures are going to fall regardless of whether or not there is 398+- ppm of CO2 in the air.
That is unless a Warm Front (of warm H2O vapor) blows in to keep the temperatures higher.
And that is A FACT, …….. and iffen you don’t believe me then take you body out to the desert south of Phoenix, AZ, ….. and spend 3 or 4 days and nights out there with nothing but your short shorts on to keep your body warm. If you won’t listen then you will have to feel, ….. feel the cold because that 398+- ppm of CO2 that’s in the air there is not going to keep your arse warm after the Sun sets. All the heat of daytime will be radiated back into space at night time.
“DUH”, …..Dumb Scientist, …. have you ever heard of a Warm Front of CO2 blowing into a locale? ……….. Hell no, …. because no such thing exists.
If you love CO2 so much why don’t you “insulate” your home with it …….. to keep your body warm in the winter time and cool in the summer time?
My comment has been awaiting moderation for over an hour, probably because of the links catching a spam filter.
[Reply: No, you were given a 24-hour timeout by Anthony @1:38 pm, 11/20/2013. — mod.]
Dumb Scientist says:
November 20, 2013 at 12:22 pm
“Again, the NOAA table I linked calculates the trend in 1959 as 0.94 ppm/year. ”
—————-
Dumb Scientist, do you want me to start telling you exactly what you should be including in your postings ….. so that your commentary will agree with whatever another poster is telling you?
If not, ……. then cease with your tripe of telling me what I should have written, …. just to appease your bruised ego and embarrassment.
Dumb Scientist, here following is a scientific experiment that I conjured up several years ago. Why don’t you execute the experiment and prove to the world the “truth” about CO2 being a “greenhouse” gas with horrendous warming potential for the earth’s surface.
——————-
Build two (2) identical size frameworks, ……. say 10′ x 10′ x 10′ square (cube), …. out of 1/2″ plastic pipe, …. outside in an area where each will receive the same amount of Sunshine, airflow, etc., ……. place a temperature sensor in a central location inside of them, ……… then cover them “air tight” (top, sides & bottom) with 4 mil clear plastic sheeting …… and when the night time temperatures in both stabilizes and reads the same, …….. then at say 1 AM inject enough CO2 in one (1) of them to increase the current 398+- ppm of CO2 to say 800 ppm (a doubling of the CO2).
Then at 3 AM start recording the temperatures in each structure …… and again every hour on the hour (or every half hour, or ten minutes) ……. for the next 24 hours (or 48 hours if you wish).
And if CO2 is the global warming “greenhouse” gas that all the climate scientists and/or proponents of CAGW claims it is, …… then when the Sun rises in the morning and starts shining on the structures, the temperature in the structure containing 800 ppm CO2 ……. should start increasing sooner and faster and reach a greater temperature than in the other structure ……… and when the Sun starts setting the temperature inside the structure with 800 ppm CO2 should remain higher than it is in the other structure up until and past the 3 AM starting point.
And if it doesn’t, ….. then the CO2 causing AGW claims are totally FUBAR.
Samuel C Cogar says:
November 21, 2013 at 3:12 am
“… a scientific experiment that I conjured up several years ago. Why don’t you execute the experiment and prove to the world the “truth” about CO2 being a “greenhouse” gas…”
============================
You then used a non-scientific adjective which I’ve never used to describe the greenhouse effect. But more importantly, you seem to think that I have nothing better to do than build greenhouses to confirm 150+ year old science.
Please keep in mind that confirming Einstein’s relativity is an exercise for students, and it’s much younger at about 100 years old. After graduation, scientists spend most of their time trying to push back the frontiers of knowledge, not confirming that water is wet or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
If you’re actually curious about the greenhouse effect, you might enjoy the NAS video series I linked above.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 20, 2013 at 1:31 pm
show that the real world climate sensitivity is very unlikely to be as low as 1 K / 2xCO2.
The real world climate sensitivity to what? One of the problems with models I have is that they implement a similar sensitivity for different forcings (except for Hansen’s “efficacy” differences of +/- 10%).
====================
A few weeks ago I tried to explain that the climate efficacy of each forcing differs by more than +/- 10%:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/06/public-relations-spin-doctors-deliberately-deceived-public-about-global-warming-and-climate-change/#comment-1469639
====================
I said: “climate sensitivity at the low side ~2 K/2xCO2?, not “very low”,
====================
Then I’m still waiting for a citation to back up your claim that “Therefore the end of the Eemian is very interesting, as that shows the impact of CO2 alone, whithout overlap of temperature and CH4. Which shows that sensitivity for CO2 is very low.”
The rest of your claims are uncited, like your claim of a “current standstill”. Please calculate the trends and uncertainties for the period you claim a “standstill” is happening, and do the same for an equal timespan before the beginning of your “standstill”. I’ve tried very hard to find a changepoint and dataset where the uncertainty bars don’t overlap, but I’ve failed. Can you succeed? If not, then it seems like there hasn’t been a statistically significant change in the surface warming rate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
(First posted on November 20, 2013 at 2:02 pm.)
====================================
Dumb Scientist says:
November 20, 2013 at 4:01 pm
My comment has been awaiting moderation for over an hour, probably because of the links catching a spam filter.
[Reply: No, you were given a 24-hour timeout by Anthony @1:38 pm, 11/20/2013. — mod.]
====================================
Thank you very much for that clarification. Since these links aren’t the problem and more than 24 hours have past since Anthony gave me a 24-hour timeout, can I please post this response?
Samuel C Cogar says:
November 20, 2013 at 2:37 pm
OH good grief, …..Dumb Scientist, …. when the Sunshine quits striking the earth’s surface due to daytime cloud or fog cover or night time darkness …… the temperatures are going to fall regardless of whether or not there is 398+- ppm of CO2 in the air. That is unless a Warm Front (of warm H2O vapor) blows in to keep the temperatures higher.
=========================
On November 18, 2013 at 9:38 pm I explained that water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/why-and-how-the-ipcc-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/#comment-1478929
Again, if all that CO2 vanished, temperatures would fall, water vapor would rain back into the oceans, causing temperatures to fall further. Again, chapter 3 in this video series from the National Academy of Sciences is relevant (emphasis mine):
“… as the Sun’s energy hits Earth, some of it is reflected back to space, but most of it is absorbed by land and oceans. This absorbed energy is then radiated upward from the surface of Earth in the form of heat. In the absence of greenhouse gases, this heat would simply escape to space and the planet’s average surface temperature would be well below freezing. But greenhouse gases absorb and redirect some of this energy downward, keeping heat near the surface of Earth. As concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere, Earth’s natural greenhouse effect is amplified, like having a thicker blanket, and surface temperatures slowly rise. …”
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/videos-multimedia/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-videos/
(First posted on November 20, 2013 at 2:46 pm. Note that this is the quote I was referring to at 4:00 pm today. Originally it was “above” that comment, but now it’s below. Sorry for the confusion.)
Jim Cripwell wrote in a thread on sensitivity: “…there is no CO2 signal in any temperature/time graph using data from the 20th and 21st centuries. Since there is no signal that is discernable above the noise of natural variations, it follows that the total climate sensitivity of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is indistinguishable from zero. By “total climate sensitivity”, I mean the rise of global temperatures as a function of the change in concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at current levels.”
Climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 is so low that it is indistinguishable from noise. And since it is so low, there is no need to change national policy regarding CO2. Only those with a vested interest would try to argue otherwise…
…isn’t that so, dumb scientist?
dbstealey says:
November 21, 2013 at 6:39 pm
“Jim Cripwell wrote in a thread on sensitivity… Climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 is so low that it is indistinguishable from noise. And since it is so low, there is no need to change national policy regarding CO2. Only those with a vested interest would try to argue otherwise… isn’t that so, dumb scientist?”
============================
On this page, I’ve linked dozens of climate sensitivity studies using data from the 20th and 21st centuries, and data from the last 420 million years. I’ve also agreed with the National Academy of Sciences that we urgently need to address climate change.
Just because I disagree with a WUWT comment doesn’t imply a vested interest. Here are a few other examples where I also think that implication would be undeserved…
Samuel C Cogar says:
November 20, 2013 at 3:28 am
Dumb Scientist, quit proving to the world that your “screen name” was chosen for a damn good reason. Now let’s see iffen you can do “simple” math subtraction using actual NOAA data, to wit: Copied from: NOAA’s complete 1958-2013 monthly average Mona Loa CO2 ppm data
=============================
Samuel C Cogar says:
November 21, 2013 at 3:12 am
“Again, the NOAA table I linked calculates the trend in 1959 as 0.94 ppm/year.”
—————-
Dumb Scientist, do you want me to start telling you exactly what you should be including in your postings ….. so that your commentary will agree with whatever another poster is telling you? If not, ……. then cease with your tripe of telling me what I should have written, …. just to appease your bruised ego and embarrassment.
============================
I’m just disagreeing with your claim, which seems to contradict the NOAA CO2 trend table I linked. I didn’t mean to tell you what you should have written, I was just trying to answer your original question:
============================
Samuel C Cogar says:
November 19, 2013 at 11:19 am
… a 1.74 ppm increase in CO2 in 1959 is equal to 8.7 billion tons of CO2, … or 29% of the 30 billion tons of human emissions. Only one problem, humans were not emitting 30 billion metric tons of CO2 each year during the 1950’s and 1960’s due to their burning of fossil fuels.
=============================
You seemed to imply an inconsistency between human CO2 emissions and the observed atmospheric CO2 increase at Mauna Loa. But the first graph in the second link I gave on November 17, 2013 at 8:07 pm was Fig. 1 from Knorr 2009:
http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf
Fig. 1 estimates human emissions back to 1850, along with ice core records and Mauna Loa records of atmospheric CO2. Roughly 46% of our CO2 emissions stay in the air, so that line is plotted dashed to represent our contribution to the atmosphere. In ~1960, ~46% of our emissions were still under 2 GtC/year. That’s also about the same as the increase in atmospheric CO2: under 2 GtC/year. The two curves have similar long-term behavior, showing consistency between human emissions and atmospheric CO2.
Dumb Scientist says:
November 21, 2013 at 5:24 pm
“On November 18, 2013 at 9:38 pm I explained that water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing:”
—————-
Don’t be silly, you just claimed that it is “a feedback, not a forcing” but you did not provide a scientific explanation for you claim that H2O vapor only functions as a “feedback” mechanism of thermal energy.
GETTA CLUE, …. Dumb S, …. CO2 can not FORCE thermal energy onto anything. It absorbs and emits energy the same as H2O vapor. It absorbs IR energy radiated from the surface …. and FEEDSBACK part of it to the surface …. the same as H2O vapor does. CO2 ALSO absorbs energy via COLLISIONS with other gas molecules and it FEEDSBACK part of that energy to the surface …. the same as H2O vapor does. In collisions, the gas molecule that contains the most energy is the “feedback” molecule.
And CO2 is a piss poor “feedback” molecule because there is not sufficient quantity of it in the atmosphere to make any difference. And that is EXACTLY why your arse will get cold if you spend a night in the desert.
““… as the Sun’s energy hits Earth, some of it is reflected back to space, but most of it is absorbed by land and oceans. This absorbed energy is then radiated upward from the surface of Earth in the form of heat. In the absence of greenhouse gases, this heat would simply escape to space and the planet’s average surface temperature would be well below freezing.”
First of all, the functioning of a greenhouse is NOT dependent upon the type or quantity of gases CONFINED within its structure. Therefore there is no such thing as a “greenhouse” gas. And the earth’s atmosphere DOES NOT function like a “greenhouse” because it is not confined.
Anyway, Dumb S, …. the other problem I have with your above quoted comment is, …. just why did you specifically state “In the absence of greenhouse gases”, ….. DUH??
Dumb S, …. why did you not explicitly state “In the absence of CO2 gas this heat would simply escape to space and the planet’s average surface temperature would be well below freezing” ………. given the fact that is what you first claimed when you stated ….. “Again, if all that CO2 vanished, temperatures would fall, water vapor would …..”
Your SELECTIVE inclusion of H2O vapor ONLY when it best suits your belief agenda is, IMHO, … disingenuous “junk science”. Like you did for the 2nd time in the following, to wit:
“As concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere, Earth’s natural greenhouse effect is amplified, like having a thicker blanket, and surface temperatures slowly rise. …””
Why didn’t you simply state ….. “As concentrations of CO2 gas increase in the atmosphere, . …””???? …. Was that because you knew that even if you doubled the CO2 it would add little to no “thickness” to your blanket?
RockyRoad says:
November 13, 2013 at 7:17 pm
“So what’s in it for Maurice Strong? Does he figure the world will elect him to be King of the World, after he plunges the world into chaos and destroys the world’s economy?
He’s as clueless as he is evil. I wish he’d quickly “age out”.”
Why do you believe that Strong would leave anyone to “elect” him? I very much doubt that the UN, when it achieves its Article 21 status as “World Government,” will allow anything quite as naff as elections!
J. Philip Peterson says:
November 13, 2013 at 7:30 pm
“Is Maurice Strong still alive? Haven’t seen him on the MSM or even MSNBC.”
Last heard of residing in Beijing (or whatever they call it these days) after the Iraq “Oil for Food” scandal.
Dumb Scientist says:
“I’ve linked dozens of climate sensitivity studies using data from the 20th and 21st centuries, and data from the last 420 million years… Just because I disagree with a WUWT comment doesn’t imply a vested interest.”
First off: is it true, as alluded before, that you are employed by a government agency? If so, then you do have a vested interest. You want that next pay raise, and/or that next promotion, don’t you?
Next, by posting those big scary numbers you probably hope to be convincing. You are not. I have data going back 4.6 billion years, which surely trumps your “420 million years”. And I note that your comment is merely an assertion, with no other worthwhile value.
Finally, if climate sensitivity was high, we would clearly see the result in rising global temperatures. But we don’t; we see flat to declining temperatures despite the steady rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2.
Thus, the whole ‘sensitivity’ claim is deconstructed. It is a non-issue. There is no measurable climate sensitivity to rising CO2. None. There are only assertions like yours. That is not enough for the internet’s “Best Science” site. Not nearly enough. Either provide testable measurements, or go fish.
Admit it: the planet’s putative ‘sensitivity’ to rising CO2 [and the supposed anthropogenic part of it], is only a WAG. A conjecture. An opinion. A Belief.
The NAS only wishes its position/pseudo-science was “incontrovertable”, because the controversy is drawing blood which it cannot afford to lose. It will shortly be a shrivelled husk.