Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
How should responsible Global Warming Skeptics respond to opinions from intelligent members of the general public who have been perplexed by the Warmists and Alarmists?
We should reply in a strictly fact-based way, using official sources — being careful not to speculate or over-complicate the matter. Here is my shot at it.
At a recent meeting of a local discussion group a well-spoken retired teacher presented a list of important issues that, in his opinion, have received less coverage by the media than they deserve. “Climate Change” was on his list.
He said it was unfortunate that the main proponent of human-caused “Global Warning” was a prominent Democrat (former VP Al Gore), because that led to the issue becoming politicized, with his fellow Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other. He speculated that had a leading Republican promoted the same issue, the reaction would probably be the reverse.
He then raised several points, citing the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other expert sources. He said that Global Warming is really happening, with a rise of over 0.7⁰C, and we humans are the main cause due to our massive use of fossil fuels that generate atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas that warms the Earth.
During the discussion period I agreed that global warming is real, that atmospheric CO2 undoubtedly causes some warming, and that some of the increased CO2 is certainly due to human actions. However, I pointed out that, although atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise, and at an accelerating rate, global temperatures have not statistically increased for at least 15 years. Therefore, while CO2 levels have definitely caused some of the warming, and rising CO2 is mostly caused by human activities, CO2 cannot be the main cause.
The presenter assured me that he respected my opinions, but, while he was not a scientist, he was relying on scientists and scientific organizations that had studied the issue. He then read a few quotes, including one that said human actions were likely to lead to a “tipping point” where the ice caps melt and there is runaway warming on a catastrophic scale.
I have prepared the following strictly fact-based response, using sources the presenter himself mentioned and being careful not to speculate or over-complicate the matter.
1- It is undoubtedly true that average surface temperatures have increased significantly since 1880. Human activities are responsible for some portion of that warming. [The image below is the latest GISS Global Temperature Index anomaly. The black squares indicate the mean temperature anomaly for each 12-month calendar year. The thick red line indicates the mean temperature anomaly smoothed over 60 months (five years). This graphic shows a net increase of about 0.8⁰C (about 1.5⁰F) since 1880. While I think “data adjustments” have increased the apparent warming by a few tenths of a degree, I accept that warming since 1880 is at least 0.5⁰C (about 1⁰F)]
2- Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen steadily, and the rate of increase has doubled since reliable CO2 data from Mauna Loa became available around 1959. [The image below is the latest NOAA ESRL Atmospheric CO2 showing an increase of about 1 ppm/year in the 1960’s and about 2 ppm/year in the 2000’s. The current rise is approaching 3 ppm/year as the current level is approaches 400 ppm. The pre-industrial level is estimated to have been about 280 ppm.]
3- When compared to actual polar satellite temperature observations, the IPCC climate models have predicted way too much warming, particularly after 1998. [The image below is the latest RSS Global temperature anomaly since about 1979 when good global temperature data from polar orbiting satellites became available. Note how, from 1999 to the present, the actual observations of temperature (thick black line) consistently fall below the yellow band (IPCC climate model prediction range with supposed 5% to 95% probability).]
|
Original Caption (Verbatim) “Fig. 1. Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Again, after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.“] (my bold)
|
Please note that, according to the actual RSS polar satellite temperature observations (thick black line), there has been absolutely no net warming after 1998. Indeed, 2013 is about 0.6⁰C (more than 1⁰F) cooler than the middle of the predicted range, and even 0.3⁰C (more than 0.5⁰F) cooler than the lower edge of the predicted range. Also note that the thick black line falls well below the yellow band, which indicates that the statistical 5% to 95% confidence level claimed for the IPCC climate models is not valid. Over the most recent 15-year period, actual satellite temperature observations have consistently been cooler than the central prediction of the IPCC climate models, by from 0.2⁰C to 0.8⁰C (about 0.4⁰F to 1.5⁰F).
4- According to the NASA GISS Global Temperature Index, when smoothed over a calendar year, there has been no net warming for 15 years. Even when smoothed over a longer period of five years, there has been no net warming for seven years. [The image below is a close-up of the upper right corner of the first image in this posting.]
|
[The black squares represent the temperature anomaly for each given calendar year (12 month average). Note that 1998 is warmer than 2013, indicating no net warming for 15 years. The thick red line represents the 5-year running mean (smoothed over 5 years which is 60 months). Note that 2003 is at the same temperature as 2010, indicating no net warming for at least seven years using the most conservative smoothing period.]
|
CONCLUSIONS
All of the above facts and data come directly from official, government-sponsored climate research organizations. I have provide web links so anyone can check them his- or herself. If any reader thinks I have distorted or misrepresented any of the above material I will appreciate it if he or she posts a comment to this blog detailing any objections.
The following conclusions involve some speculation on my part.
a- Politicization of the issue. I agree that “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” have been way over-politicized. Had the main proponent been a Republican, positions might have been reversed. However, I cannot imagine any Republican of similar national prominence to a former VP falling for the idea that we humans are responsible for the majority of the warming we have experienced, or that the warming process is likely to lead to global catastrophe. And, even if he or she, in a weak moment years ago, went along with the initial dire predictions, any reasonable and responsible politician (of either party) would understand that the absolute disconnect between actual temperature observations and predictions of IPCC climate models invalidates the idea of human-caused catastrophic climate change, and reverse their positions.
b- Activists in the catastrophic climate change industry purposely misrepresent the views of responsible Skeptics by making a number of false claims:
- FALSE CLAIM – Skeptics do not believe the basic science of the Atmospheric “greenhouse” effect.
- RESPONSE – We do accept that water vapor, CO2, and other ‘greenhouse” gases are responsible for the Earth being around 33⁰C (60⁰F) warmer than it would be if there were no “greenhouse”gases in the Atmosphere. However, based on the failure of the IPCC climate models to comport with actual temperature observations for at least 15 years, we question the IPCC position that doubling of CO2 will warm the Earth surface by 1.5⁰C to 4.5⁰C (3⁰F to 8⁰F). For example, I believe the true value (called “climate sensitivity”) is only a half or a third of what the IPCC claims. Therefore, if Atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise, which is most likely given the rapid development of China, India and other countries, that will not result in any catastrophic “tipping point”. As a Global Community, we have quite a bit to worry about, and Global Warming (aka Climate Change) is nowhere near the top ranks.
- FALSE CLAIM – Skeptics do not believe the Earth surface has warmed significantly since 1880.
- RESPONSE – We do accept that average global surface temperatures have increased by at least 0.5⁰C (1⁰F) since pre-industrial times. Many of us think that the thermometer record is somewhat unreliable. It is a matter of official record that, in recent decades, old temperature data prior to the 1970’s have been adjusted down by as much as 0.3⁰C (0.5⁰F) and data after the 1970’s adjusted up, which has increased claimed net warming by a few tenths of a degree. NASA GISS and other official record-keepers say these “data adjustments” are valid, but many of us think they are self-serving. However, we could be wrong, and the net warming since 1880 might be as much as 0.8⁰C (1.5⁰F).
- FALSE CLAIM – Skeptics do not believe that human activities have any part in causing the warming.
- RESPONSE – We do accept that unprecedented burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, and some changes in land use, are responsible for a significant fraction of the actual warming. However, based on comparison of actual temperature observations with IPCC climate models, I am convinced that the majority of warming is due to natural causes and processes not under human control or influence.
PS: When I sent a draft of this posting to my retired teacher friend, he courteously thanked me for my thoughtful and considerate message, and admitted he did not completely understand climate change. However, he said he still trusts what he believes are the overwhelming number of scientists who have examined the evidence and reached a conclusion.
Nice article. Re your retired teacher friend: he doesn’t understand the science behind climate change, it’s too much for him, he’s math-challenged, he doesn’t have the time or inclination to dig deeper, but he is going to trust the experts. Your friend is a fool. Even a child knows by now that experts have agendas. Your friend seems to think scientists are above the fray. Ask him to read The Double Helix, or any book about Carlo Rubbia. And while he may be nice, and marginally informed on the climate issue, his refusal to take a more serious look after he has been presented with evidence that ought to prompt such a look marks him as a dogmatist, and a fairly simple-minded one at that. I’m way past tired of people who when you present them with ineluctable evidence that all isn’t well with the climate change business, they say, oh, that’s nice, but I’m still going to believe what I believe. Logic is lost on them.
A very good article.
From my experience, if you continue to send factual articles similar to those posted on WUWT daily, most reasonable individuals over an extended period open their mind and have in many cases completely changed their mind. Recent temperature data and lack of Hurricanes and tornadoes have made it increasing difficult to blindly believe in CO2 as the main cause of warming. I find that incredible how large the communication circle has grown as new skeptics forward my e mails to others. For example numerous WUWT articles now get posted weekly on an ASME environmental news letter.
I repeat I try to distribute data plots, and factual information while avoiding opinion articles to avoid controversy, since it is more difficult to argue against government produced graphs such as the UAH monthly satellite data, which shows the long period of no temperature rise
A nice article, however, in a sense you are just fuelling the fires of stupidity by showing the short time series temperature graph without giving any kind of context.
There are two ways to show the context:
1. To show that much of the CO2 rise POST-DATED most of the warming. Or to put that another way, the 1910-1940 warming occurred before substantial rises in CO2 and that it is the same size and duration as the 1970-2000 warming that supposedly CAN ONLY BE caused by CO2.
2. The second is to show a longer time series such as the central England temperature record. This shows that temperature has been constantly changing and that any change in the 20th century does not appear in any sense to be abnormal in this record.
Up close even a pimple looks like a mountain. It’s only when you allow people to see it from a distance, that its true nature can be ascertained.
You can also show proxy records that go back first 100’s of thousands of years, and then millions of years. Also include CO2 levels for those time periods. Show that the only thing unusual about temperatures over the last 100 years is how cool it has been compared to the rest of this planets history.
Experts have agendas, and non-experts don’t? And non-experts know more about a subject than experts, who are blinded by ideology and/or involved in a worldwide conspiracy, right? I see how this works.
Nice strawman, did you have help building it?
The claim is that “experts” must always be trusted. Pointing out that experts can have agendas too refutes that. It says nothing about agendas of non-experts or relative knowledge between the two groups.
Now if you care to debate honestly, please do so.
Ben, nice contortions. Non-experts like algor clearly are not blinded by ideology. Perhaps by $$$ signs? Eyes wide shut?
Dear Ben,
Please provide your explanation of all the temperature excursions across the Holocene, what caused temps to go up, and then down? Hell, even first half 20th century vs. second half 20th century temperature plots are hard to tell apart. What is it that you and your experts know that we are all missing? That grant money for research is only available to those espousing the correct message?
Sometimes experts can’t see the forest because all the trees have grant money on them.
And “saving the earth” is such a noble cause.
“Doesn’t understand”, “math-challenged”, “fool”, “dogmatist”, “simple-minded”, “Logic is lost on them”.
Well played sir.
The core issue highlighted by your well intended attempt to educate is that for a large segment of the “uneducated” population CAGW/CACC has been turned into a mindset -a matter of outlook on life, propagated by the MSM’s uncritical reporting of the dogmas of the climate establishment- in some cases a conviction with near religious overtones.
History unfortunately teaches us that it is impossible to reason with faith, not even when one cites facts actually provided by the very sources of the belief system -your retired teacher being a perfect example.
“However, he said he still trusts what he believes are the overwhelming number of scientists who have examined the evidence and reached a conclusion.”
Typical. Most Teachers have a hard time with critical thinking. Their standard way of thinking is based on the authority of the curriculum and text books. It is the rare teacher that encourages the development of rational, critical and creative thought processes.
I am a (now) former teacher. I concur 100 percent.
If teachers trust the textbooks, someone needs to write a textbook about the teachers of China during the 1950’s and 1960’s. They were used as useful idiots. First they were used to disseminate government propaganda during The Great Leap Forward, and then they were horribly used as scapegoats during The Cultural Revolution. It has taken China decades to recover.
As I passed through school the good teachers I had were few and far between, but I thank God for the good ones.
I have found errors in text books and even when I bring documentation that proves it, the teacher would still cling to what’s in the text book because the text book was reviewed by a committee before being published and those other works are just the opinion of one person.
In 5th grade my teacher told my class that the moon didn’t rotate on its axis; because you always saw the same side of the moon. I brought in four technical sources and did a independent observer class demonstration to finally prove the science. Yeah teachers can believe in fantasy.
I wonder if saying “government-funded” scientists would make a difference. Are there any non-government climate scientists predicting environmental doom?
“Are there any non-government climate scientists predicting environmental doom?”
Sure. But if you eliminate government, university, and environmental organizations, that 97% drops to about 25%
Interesting.
What he “believes”, and what the “overwhelming number of scientists” have concluded, are not the same thing.
What Ira states as the “skeptical” position is, in fact, what the “overwhelming number of scientists” accept.
What Ira’s teacher friend believes is, in fact, what only a small number of scientists and a large number of activists believe.
Therein lies a big problem: what many are led to believe is not the truth.
“Activists in the catastrophic climate change industry purposely misrepresent the views of responsible Skeptics by making a number of false claims:”
while true, also leads us to:
Activists in the catastrophic climate change industry purposely misrepresent the data, observations, and proper science by making a number of false claims and misleading statements while using virtually all of the logical fallacies.
Text books are the tools a teacher is supplied with, those and, if they are lucky, some chalk. They are instructed in the curriculum they are to teach because that is generally set at a state level and their “job” is to insure that the students meet state standards. They are not required to understand what they teach and in fact while some do, many do not. They are often about as well informed about the subject as their students. Creativity is “encouraged” only in English and Art. Students getting “creative” in chemistry are a hazard and very few understand the process of “creativity” in mathematics. My daughter, now in her late twenties, is going through a process of discovering just how much high school cheated her of a real education.
The simplest argument against catastrophe is that if natural variation is capable of suppressing global warming for 15 years, then natural climate variation must be at least as strong as human climate forcing.
Therefore models calibrated when natural forcings were reinforcing anthropogenic warming predict at least twice as much warming as we are likely to see.
The problem is, that the natural climate variation is oscillating in time, while the human climate forcing is increasing with time. My hope is that the GHG effect is saturating in future.
Emissions are increasing, the forcing from those emissions is not, in fact they are decreasing.
CO2 is pretty close to saturation already.
Thanks Eric for your short but pithy comment!
I agree. I picture the situation as several horses in a tug of war. One, representing the Human contribution to Global Warming, is pulling to the right, increasing Global temperatures. Some of the others, representing various Natural causes for Global Warming AND Cooling, are pulling to the left, decreasing temperatures, and some are pulling to the right, increasing temperatures.
Obviously, when both the Human-caused warming horse and most of the Natural processes horses are pulling to the right, both will team up, and temperatures will increase rapidly. For a “pause” to occur, some of the Natural processes horses are pulling to the left strongly enough to counteract both the Human-caused warming horse and the Natural processes horses that happen to be pulling to the right.
The 15 years plus of no net warming PROVES that some subset of Natural processes are stronger than Human-caused warming. THEREFORE, it is impossible for the majority of warming to be due to Human activities.
Ira
Au contraire. The simplest argument against catastrophe is that it has not happened already. Natural levels of atmospheric CO2 have at times in the past been many times the present. The mean estimate for the Middle Cambrian is about 26 times the present with a minimum of at least five time the present and a top range that Geocarb III doesn’t chart (over 8,000 ppm). Similarly, the Jurassic estimate mean is five time the present (400 ppm), with minimum of about two times and a maximum of ten times present levels. So, based upon geological evidence, the “C” in CAGW is extraneous. Since catastrophe did not ensue then, it cannot ensue now.
This is what you tell them Ira:
The cause of the pause was the cause before the pause.
The higher solar activity during SC17-23 (overcoming lower SC20) caused the global warming phase that ended at least a decade ago. The Earth’s temperatures have on average leveled off as the ocean heat content accumulation from all those years of the Modern Maximum in solar activity, from 1936-2003 from my calculations, using both Svalgaard’s new GSN and the SIDC numbers (they give the exact same result!), has been mitigated by the cooling effect of lower solar activity periods during all the solar minimums since 1936, and the SC23 declining phase through SC24.
The Sun warms and cools the Earth by emitting more or less photon flux. Earth cools off with insufficient incoming photon flux. A good proxy for the solar spectrum (total photon flux) is F10.7cm radio flux, a small slice of TSI on the sun’s frequency spectrum. The solar flux and sunspot number track very closely.
When the Sun is “hot”, we’re hot, when it’s not, we’re not. Over the course of a single rotation, or over the course of a whole cycle or series of cycles. The warming/cooling effect works in short time frames and long time frames.
For example, when we were in the “solar all-quiet” earlier this summer, the sunspot number dropped to zero for a day for the first time since the last solar minimum, with a corresponding drop in solar flux down to 89 sfu. That week was the coldest week all summer. The farside at that time had a lot of spots. In early July, SSN was 256, solar flux was 201, and it was hot. I have US temperature map data to back this up.
Solar cycle #24 had a daily average solar flux of 100 sfu/day as of July 10 (when I last did the calculation), and will be slightly higher now after a more active summer of mostly over 120 sfu/day,
Comparing cycles, in order of cycle, in sfu/day (F10.7cm measurements started in 1947):
#19@139
#20@113
#21@135
#22@123
#23@122
#24@100.
For cycles before #19, we rely on SSNs.
This analysis, extended to both the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum (among any others), explains the temperature drops experienced here on Earth result from deep, sustained solar slowdowns, especially during the Maunder, when the SSN was nonexistent quite a while, decades.
During the Dalton Minimum, SSN was zero for the whole year of 1810, when the depth of cold measured in at an almost 2C drop over the previous 9 years. The average SSN didn’t rise high enough to raise temperatures back again to where they previously were for almost two decades after 1810.
As long as solar flux is above 120, it’ll stay warm and very slightly build more heat into the system. When SC24 winds down, and daily SSNs are down and solar flux drops below 120 every day for the duration of the minimum and into the next cycle #25 (expected to be a low cycle), we will experience a noticable temperature drop (on average), as has happened during every solar minimum, whether it be between cycles as in 2008-10, as in 1810, or during a sequence of low cycles, as during the Maunder.
To make a long story short, a “hotter” Sun from 1936-2003, when solar activity as measured by sunspot number was 31% higher for 68 years than the annual average SSN for the previous 183 years, caused global warming.
A less “hot” Sun since then caused the “pause” – a misnomer – and in due time, an even “cooler” Sun, however small a variation in total magnitude, will cause global cooling.
Further analysis indicates the Sun causes extreme weather effects – but that’s for another day…
The Sun causes warming, cooling, and extreme weather effects. The Sun did it – it always has, it always will. It will do it again and again until the end of time.
CO2 increased from solar warmed ocean outgassing and fossil fuel use, but it does not, cannot, and will not be the driver of weather or climate on Earth. The Sun is.
Can you provide a link to the temperature data which shows “2C drop over the previous 9 years”? Thanks.
Nice summary; are you published elsewhere?
Nick Harding,
Try using the WUWT Search facility for Ira Glickstein and you will find other essays.
Richard
Nick, THANKS for the kind words. For links please Google or Bing “Ira Glickstein”.
My personal Blog is at http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/ and my free online novel, “The Hawking Plan” is at http://2052hp.blogspot.com/
Lots of other stuff is out there. (All costing absolutely nothing, and well worth it ! :^)
Ira
How could something so far away have any effect on earth! It makes no sense! I blame trace gases.
Bob,
I can’t discern from your discussion of the Sun’s influence if you are including the solar cycle variation in magnetic field and the resulting change in cosmic rays and/or the greater output of UVC (which I have read can increase by ~20%) during the solar cycle. These factors generate or inhibit aerosol production in the atmosphere.
The TSI variation is I believe in the neighborhood of +/-0.1%, and does not reflect the total warming potential of peaks in solar activity.
Also I am not sure if your sfu measurements pertain to the top of the atmosphere or at the Earth’s surface (if that matters).
Thanks!
Tom
Has there been good research done on the increase in atmospheric water vapor contributed by man during the last century? Consider the increase in water vapor from large-scale agricultural sprinkling; the man-made increase in acre feet of surface water; and bringing to surface aquifers that have been sequestered for millennia.
Would a back of a napkin calculation show any warming from this to be comparable to the conjectured contribution from anthropogenic CO2 or not?
A recent WUWT article on this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/28/new-study-claims-to-confirms-water-vapor-as-global-warming-amplifier-but-other-data-says-no/
The new study has been heavily plugged by warmistas, but the above article gives real, radiosonde, data that debunks it.
Answer NO. The figures for period before 1992 has either been compromized by interpolation or by a complete change of temperatures and CO2-values from responsible scholars working in field Water and Air. The geologic analyses from almost all of the world was compared and analyzed in Norrköping, on the Swedish eastcoast. this was due to the fact that it by then had one of the best laboratories for biologic and chemical analyse of provtagning
sampling under strict scientific forms were made around the world usually on behalf of the individual countries goverment. Reason from 1956/58 to sample and analyze were four:
* Because of previous earthquake disasters researchers around the world were interested to see how CO2, which all volcanoes emit in varied amount throughout his lifetime and afterwards, and SO2 changed the closer an outbreak man came. Even today, almost all monitoring stations that measure CO2 primarily designed to measure CO2 changes from the Earth’s interior and at the surface of known risk areas.
* Forecast. It was assumed then, do not forget that it was in connection with the paradigm shift to the realization that the earth consists of a number of tectonic plates, that the weather in a micro area and up to 2000 meters were affected by emissions from the Earth’s interior as well as pollution from industries. Does that say a lot about this. From 1970 until 1988, there are a lot of studies that are currently either been forgotten or whose readings “adjusted” ….. see below.
* Inversion of a number of the world’s major cities. The whole situation calls for basically half a treatise expressly to explain the cause, effect locally, regionally and across continents. Leaving the question of the moment.
* From the 1960s, specialized technical equipment to be used to explore potential oil fields of specialized geologists. Main researchers and geologists specializing in this place at that time of Viak Linköping and technology developed was based in part on survey instruments that my own father and to have produced to check for gas leaks that occurred due to ruptured gas and sewer lines in the ground . First presentation of the technology that they unfortunately could not afford to seek patents for made in Gothenburg Trade and Sjöfartstidning 1952 More modern technology and analysis methods was a scientist from the late 1950s, worked at Saab AB, aircraft, in Linköping.
In early 1990’s the hugh sampling figures as well as results of biologic and chemical analyses were about to be dissipated. So I had two summer holidays working on geotechnical department at Viak in Linköping and because my father had had with me as his assistant at his own sampling in eastern Sweden Nyköping down to Kalmar and into to the lake, I was asked if I could contact the researchers at Department of Water at Linköping University. The answer I got from it was that they did not have the correct values. It was better to interpolate or otherwise calculate by computer what it “should” have been ……
As we go forward in time. When last giddy CO2 “scientists” started its activities, I was active in some science groups related to the history and archeology. I was then contacted by one of the “reputed” the researchers often referred by agencies and interest groups. He thought the fact that I shared his desire to show an association. Genius, otherwise I can not call him, was kind enough to send me their “readings” he used as input into the model … all the fixes contained in the raw material I received. Had them in my old computer is now in a laptop that is never used on the web …..
So unlike many who speak out here, I have grown up with the problem, sampling, read basically everything that in terms of scientific reports, studies, dissertations, etc. in five languages.
(Always had too little to read so I used to have it as bedside reading)
I doubt it. Persistence is too short.
If water is sprayed in the air or ground made wetter, the water evaporation would cool the ground due to removal of latent heat, and this cooling would decrease evaporation. This negative feedback is a self limiting event, with average net evaporation only driven by level of absorbed solar energy at the surface. If the ground is dry, adding water would have a local surface cooling effect, and a local increase in water vapor, but the vast majority of the Earth surface is covered by water or has reasonably wet ground, so this does not change the average atmospheric water vapor.
I’ve seen figures that up to a third of the ocean rise was due to the draining of aquifers.
On the other hand, we did have a Republican administration that fell for the idea that a certain Middle East country was harboring WMD, and this might lead to a global catastrophe.
Politicians will first identify their objective, and then form a strategy that will lead to that objective. In the case of the Democrats and other leftists, this seems to be radical wealth distribution, statutory limits on fossil fuel consumption and other pipe dreams. Right-wing elements have their pipe dreams as well, so we should all be wary of these types. Won’t get fooled again, we hope. Remember 9/11.
Prominent Democrats who also said Iraq had WMD include John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and more.
BTW: Several prominent Republicans who embraced global warming include John McCain, Mitt Romney who was for it before he was against it, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Arnold Schwazenegger, Jon Huntsman, Oylmpia Snow and Susan Collins.
And not only politicians: One who was qualified to opine was Richard Butler “… appointed Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the UN weapons inspection organisation in Iraq, “. He was very definite in his judgement that Saddam had WMD.
There are some who believe that Saddam wanted everyone to think he had WMDs, under the theory that no one would dare to attack him if he did.
There are others who believe, with some contemporaneous empirical evidence, that the WMD that Sadaam was known to have (and had used against Iran in the Iran/Iraq war and also deployed against Iraqi Kurds in the Halabja Massacre of 1988) were simply transported across the border to the Ba’athist Assad government in Syria to avoid detection during his obstruction of UN inspection resolutions prior to the 2003 invasion.
OK that’s enough about WMD’s and Iraq. This is WAAAAAYYYYY off topic. Further comments will be snipped
Again, mind boggling.
Thus proving that ANYONE can fall for ANY load of crap, as long as the organized left are spewing it out. You proved the opposite of what you were intending to show there, CRS, and more soylent green! shows you why.
Fact is, everyone thought Saddam had WMDs, including Saddam. Everyone. Claiming otherwise after the fact is disingenuous. It was even a policy of the Clinton administration to deal with them.
I will never forget 9/11, and I will never forget that it was a DIRECT RESULT of Clinton’s actions… which is one of many reasons that I despise them (Clintons).
A number of people did not think so. The French did not. William Pfaff did not. I did not. Clinton?
Everyone, except for the weapon inspection teams.
A lot of weapons inspectors did not think so, and some had their lives destroyed for speaking out.
‘Fact is, everyone thought Saddam had WMDs, including Saddam. Everyone. Claiming otherwise after the fact is disingenuous.’
What you mean is everyone in the USA as the establishment and media there told ’em it was so. That belief was incredibly widely scorned in Europe long BEFORE the war. My father, in his eighties, who had never been politically active before in his life, marched against the war before it began. Because it was so widely rejected before the fact it effectively ended the political careers of two senior European politicians who supported the USA: Tony Blair & Jose Maria Aznar.
Nope – it was singularly the Americans who widely accepted the WMD story. I recall an opinion poll in Spain before the war that had around 94% of the population against it. Opposition levels were similarly high in other European countries.
2 minutes to 9/11 in Chicago, you thought I’d forget ?
Actually it was the Clinton regirme who started that particular story. After all, Huissein did use WMDs to commit genocide against the Kurds and the “Marsh Arabs” (Shiite Muslims living in the Tigris and Euphraties river delta.) Anyway they have since found parts of his WMDs with all the fighting going on.
Yep. The WMDs is another complex issue that is generally oversimplified.
On the other hand, we did have a Republican administration that fell for the idea that a certain Middle East country was harboring WMD, and this might lead to a global catastrophe
Please remember that Saddam Hussein used nerve gas on Halabja, killing over 3,000 people. Since he had it before—and used it—why not again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
http://www.ibtimes.com/25-years-after-worst-chemical-weapon-massacre-history-saddam-husseins-attack-halabja-iraq-city
Of course, maybe you don’t count sarin and mustard gas as WMDs?
Iraq and used WMDs against it’s own people. That is a fact. We also found equipment that had been disassembled and was ready to be reassembled for the creating of toxic gases. The equipment needed for a nuclear program were also found mothballed and hidden away.
It’s a complete myth that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
there are also many who never had suited up in WMD training who think WMD only means nukes.
I second this comment!!
CAGW and Iraq are two major issues, among others, that have exposed those in power on all sides to be deceptive beyond what we previously imagined. We should all be critically re examining everything we’ve believed, and everything they are currently trying to lead us to believe.
1. The earth is in the grip of a brutal ice age…has been for several million years.
2. AGW is a conspiracy theory.
3. The proposed cure for AGW will condemn millions of children to misery and death.
Sad, is it not? You took the time to present a well-reasoned argument, yet your friend still fell back on an appeal to authority. That in a nutshell describes the problem all of us face. No matter what we provide as evidence, it is disregarded. Few people want to think for themselves.
Indeed, this is my experience also. The peer pressure is just too much and they are afraid to take a stand against the overwhelming “consensus”. The other response I hear, “You may be right, but if there is even a one in a million chance you are wrong, don’t we owe it to our children to do something to prevent a catastrophe?”
I suppose that’s why the boys and girls over at SkS constantly push that 97 per cent nonsense. Whenever a warmista fails in an argument, he/she immediately falls back on that.
An answer to the precautionary principle is not all that comlicated:
Vis, so what insurance premium for rising sea levels and more weather extremes are you willing to pay real cash for?
QED.
I like to ask them how much they would be willing to pay for an insurance policy that would cover an meteorite hitting their house?
Exactly.
Ira,
This is exactly the kind of article and information the public (and the politicians) need. I have recently expanded a course requirement for the World Bank’s Coursera course “Turn Down the Heat…” into a critique of that course and explanation of climate sensitivity, inexplicably not even mentioned in the World Bank course.
I find journalists and talking heads almost never mention climate sensitivity and maybe don’t even know the concept. Without referencing climate sensitivity, almost all such journalism and commentary is superficial or worse. And the endless arguments and ugly attacks are mostly the result of this ignorance. I hope your “Guide for the Perplexed..” is widely read. While still a work in progress, I’ve tried to explain climate sensitivity and its importance to a lay audience here-
http://climatesensitivity.blogspot.com/
Doug: Thanks for the kind words. I looked at your linked website and it seems well done. I hope others who took that World Bank course, and other courses that fall for the Warmist story, follow it to get a more balanced picture.
Ira
PS: The sentence where you write “Guide for the Perplexed..” seems to indicate you caught on to where I got the title for my posting. It is a 12th-century book by Maimonides. :^)
Thanks, Dr. Glickstein. Very good article; short, very clear, and straight to the point.
“gases are responsible for the Earth being around 33⁰C (60⁰F) warmer than it would be if there were no “greenhouse”gases in the Atmosphere.”
Actually, the earth is warmer due to having an atmosphere, the GHE is only partially responsible for this.
I always try to avoid that argument. It’s to much for much physics for most people. 🙂
Bingo – convection and atmospheric mass are the main holders and movers of heat.
Coupled to the the Earth having oceans which act as huge heat sinks, and which allow transportation of that heat polewards; they distripute energy absiorbed in the equitorial and tropical areas, poelwards.
Just a thought, say that the Earth only had land mass throughout 45S to 45N and no ocean in that region such that the ocean was only at high latitudes, how much larger area would the polar ice mass be?
John,
If there are greenhouse gases, this implies they are in an atmosphere. It is the combination of atmospheric lapse rate and absorbing gases that determine the level of warming, so you are correct in that both are needed. However, You can have an atmosphere with no absorbing gases, and there would be no warming, so it is the presence of the greenhouse gases that cause the warming.
I like to point out that Mars’ atmosphere has about 10 times more CO2 in it than the earth’s does, yet it’s poles get cold enough to freeze CO2.
Leonard, THANKS for pointing out:
Ira
Your retired teacher is relying on nothing more than his belief.There is an important difference between relying on a mere belief that because some are labeled experts, they must be correct, and a thorough and competent analysis of relevant facts, data and level of uncertainty.
Indeed,would the teacher not have relied on Nobel Prize winner Antonio Egas Moniz, who was described at the time, 1949, as having given psychology it’s greatest advancement in history, the prefrontal lobotomy. There are numerous such examples. Why does your teacher reject the morej obvious option: “I don’t know”?
Refer your teacher friend to the American Meteorological Society’s survey of its members that showed that only a very slim majority (52%) believe that most of the warming has been human caused. I don’t have the link at the moment, but it was posted here on WUWT a year or so ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/
and ask him to show you any survey where the vast majority of scientist think AGW will cause world wide disaster.
This article points out the power of the appeal to authority argument. Yet, we know there are lots of examples of authority that is critical of AGW. The OSIM, therightclimatestuff web site, Burt Rutan, Nobel winning physicists, etc. Maybe a reference page with references to all these authorities would a useful addition.
Here’s the link I just mentioned:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ams%20global%20warming%20survey&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CDgQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.climatechangecommunication.org%2Fimages%2Ffiles%2FAMS_CICCC_Survey_Preliminary_Findings-Final.pdf&ei=uQ4RVOSmLI6pyAS1woCQDw&usg=AFQjCNGJrdCmDBS7LUt5pZAlduHCvmtHPg&sig2=GEj1COIBeaBpapcAgdTxNg&bvm=bv.74894050,d.aWw
The amount of scientific consensus on global warming and the value of that consensus are both overhyped.
It is mostly politics, Ira, and only tangentially related to science. No amount of argument will change the mind of someone who thinks fossil fuel use should be reduced because ‘it is the right thing to do’.
So true. Climate alarmists are in the grips of a mass hysteria. Nothing short of a drop in mean temperatures of .5 C (which is going to happen over the next few years) is going to make a difference and even then the die-hards will still be in denial.
Mass hysteria indeed – except that don’t polls show that a majority of the American public is not so alarmed about this alleged impending catastrophe?
On the side of us skeptics is “The sky is falling!” story.
Point 1 needs to make a much stronger the case about the adjustments. Showing the chart with just the adjusted data just burns in the falsehood. It would be better to plot or sketch in a dashed line offset by the amount of the adjustments to illustrate your point in the same scale as the chart. Even shade grey the gap between these line as “adjustement uncertainty — it matters.”
A minor point. Plot the Y axis with leading zero.
Not as good: ,8 .6 .4 .2 0 -.2 -.4 -.6 (easy to overlook the decimal point)
Better: 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 (these look smaller)
“Significantly since 1880” – Our 2 story non-zoned house has a constant 3 F temperature variation top to bottom. So is that 3X significant?
Temperatures have been adjusted? Look close at the temperature graph and try to remember a little
history. So the great 1970’s ‘Coming Ice Age’ scare (a compilation shown here – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/ ) was all based on temperatures in 1974-78 which had never seen lower than 1968?
Those who remember the past are still forced to repeat it by the masses who cannot remember it.
A very interesting point. It is real hard to see any “Coming Ice Age” worry of the late 1970’s in the temperatures as adjusted and plotted. The Ministry of Truth must have made the cold winters of the Carter years an unevent.
“Significantly since 1880” – Our 2 story non-zoned house has a constant 3 F temperature variation between the upper level and lower level 10′ difference. So is that 3X significant?
Temperatures have been adjusted? Look close at the temperature graph and try to remember a little
history. So the great 1970’s ‘Comming Ice Age’ scare (a compilation shown here – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/ ) was all based on tempertures in 1974-78 which had never seen lower than 1968?
Those who remember the past are still forced to repeat it by the masses who cannot remember it.
Excellent even-handed write-up Ira. Skeptics don’t need to be shrill or argumentative. As you’ve shown, truth wins by focusing relentlessly on facts from the alarmist’s own data sets.
The only change necessary for your post to reflect my own views exactly would be adding the word “probably” to your final sentence. Uncertainty cuts both ways and the issue of attribution is still so data-less I’m not ready to go all the way to a definitive assertion quite yet. However, the weight of existing evidence, as well as Occam’s Razor, strongly favor the null hypothesis.
Another “False Claim” that irks me is that some alarmists continue to characterize skeptics as anti-science, anti-evolution religious zealots. While there are certainly a few of those, it’s simply another group ad hominem attack that is grossly inaccurate. Being pro science doesn’t mean trusting what some scientists say, it means following the data – wherever it leads.
I try to be an optimist on matters such as this. You were respectful, laid out a concise yet detailed case and kept your emotions in check. The only thing I may have added was a brief explanation of where the “97 % consensus” originated and that many, many credentialed scientist are not in sync with the AGW theory. You planted some seeds of truth in his mind. They may germinate down the road or not, but you handled it the right way in my opinion. My take away, if we control our emotions and stay fact oriented we will gain much more ground.
@noaaprogrammer I’m sure that whatever change man has wrought to the quantity of water vapor is completely overwhelmed by the primary source: Evaporation from the oceans. I doubt we can make much difference at all.
@James Baldwin McCown: Your answer really wasn’t to the question I had in mind. (I could say the same thing about the amount of CO2 the oceans release compared to the amount man contributes to the atmosphere.) What I’m after is comparing the relative affect of anthropogenic H20 to anthropogenic CO2. (In my opinion the effect of both on Global warming is negligible.)
On net, man’s contribution to atmospheric water vapor will always precipitate out and the world would return to it’s pre-man equilibrium. However, man keeps pumping more water into the atmosphere. This results in localized increases in water vapor. Averaged over the whole planet, the increase isn’t large, but the increase is where the people are, and that’s also where most of the climate sensors are.
I remember reading about a study someone did regarding temperatures in California’s Central Valley which is a big agricultural region that relies heavily on irrigation. They found that over the last 100 years there had been a slight cooling during the day and a slightly larger warming overnight.
The CO2 vs time plot is not a smooth exponential. During the past ~15 years, the increase in CO2 has been very linear. The rate is only accelerating if you go back to around 1989 and earlier. Interesting that the linear portion of the CO2 curve corresponds closely to The Halt.
Just reply to the perplexed: “Global Warming is apocryphal.” (from the Oxford: of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.)
In spite of having followed the CAGW/warmist story for 5 years, I remain confused about what is claimed about CO2 warming the planet:
Is it necessary for the atmosphere to warm first, and then do the oceans warm as a consequence of atmospheric warming?
That is how it looks to me, however the warmists seem to have the atmosphere not warming and the oceans warming. Doesn’t some law of themodynamics say the air has to warm first? Since the oceans are cooler than the atmosphere, doesn’t heat flow into the water mean heat flow out of the atmosphere, and an increase in oceanic thermal energy require an increase, at least initially, in thermal gradient? FIRST, not at the same time or afterwards, but first?
The original theory is that an increase in CO2 as a GHG will cause more Long Wave Back Radiation which will warm the atmosphere so it is weak science to think that the back radiation will warm the ocean without first warming the atmosphere. Judith Curry has some a good discussion on this and she is not convinced about ocean warming.
Thanks, Doug, you are asking the correct questions! The prevailing climate theories often contradict basic physics as you point out….when global warming stalled for the past 15 years, the climate science community scrambled for an explanation that they could justify. One of these was the rather unbelievable concept that the “heat was hiding in the abyss” (i.e. deep ocean). How the heat got there, no one could explain.
Please keep visiting & reading WUWT, especially posts by experts such as Dr. Roger Pielke! You will learn much by being a regular reader! Cheers, Charles the DrPH http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/pielkes-response-to-agu-statement-on-climate-change/
Yes, you are correct. The first thing that has to happen is the air has to warm as a result of increasing CO2. None of the other CO2 induced AGW effects that we are supposed to be afraid of can happen without this first effect happening. CO2 does not cause the other AGW effects directly. That is why the pause is undermining the cause. The whole CAGW scare rests on the atmosphere warming over the longer term. Given the mass of the ocean and the heat transfer mechanisms and the very small temperature difference that CO2 has supposedly caused in the atmosphere it is going to take a very long time to warm the oceans by a significant amount.
The warm air would only warm the surface tension layer of the water which would increase evaporation, thus leading to a cooler ocean. Only an increase in short wave energy can heat the ocean beneath the surface tension barrier.
Owen, anything that decreased the amount of heat leaving the oceans, even if short wave radiation stayed the same, would result in the oceans warming as well.
MarkW,
True, but it depends on whether the evaporation or radiation is the larger method of heat release from the ocean. If it is evaporation, then the ocean cools as heat is evaporatively released from the boundary layer. If it is radiation, then the theory might hold some water. The problem is that water is not a black body, but a selective absorber/emitter – it has a very distinct frequency response that causes IR only to penetrate millimeters into the surface (and only emit from the first millimeter as well). Only the higher frequencies penetrate to any depth. Thus, at the temperature of the ocean, only the top millimeter can radiate to space in the infrared (blackbody spectrum for its temperature). As the surface layer heats due to absorbing this IR energy, its evaporation potential increases, increasing the likelihood that those molecules will be whisked away into the atmosphere taking all their energy with them. The only way for this energy to go beneath the surface layer is for the waves (with the help of wind) to mix it down. This also increases evaporation as the churning adds mechanical energy to the water. The oceans are a very complex energy environment that tends to be extremely over-simplified in most of these discussions.
Mark W,
So Sublimation of water is 2,830,000 J/kg. http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/524/
And since most of this energy is taken from the nearby sea water – it will cool
Specific Heat Sea Water = 4,009 J/kg oC 2,830,000/4,009 = 705 or 705 kg by 1- C
Since there is 1,0000 Kg per m^3 or 100 Kg per cm-m^2, 1″ (2.54 cm) of water sublimated will cool the next (705/100)/2.54 = 2.77″ of water 1 oC. Also average evaporation from the oceans found to be at 140 CM per year.
As a textbook on thermodynamics stated, at normal temperatures, effects of radiant heat transfer can be ignored.
The sun warms both the oceans and the atmosphere. However the oceans lose that heat to the atmosphere, which then loses the heat to space. If the atmosphere is warmer, because of CO2, it will be harder for the oceans to lose their heat to the atmosphere, so they warm up as well.
To vastly simplify it, thermodynamics says that a gas will change temperature much faster than a liquid. And the atmosphere and the oceans will attempt to reach equilibrium over time. So, a temperature increase caused by longwave radiation reflected from CO2 in the atmosphere would necessarily cause the air to heat faster than the ocean.
However, the ocean is capable of storing much more heat than the air. Some of that heat is attributable to the transfer of heat from warm air to a relatively colder ocean, when those conditions exist. But the vast majority of the stored heat comes from the direct transfer of energy from sunlight.
All this has the observable effect of the oceans moderating atmospheric temperature. You can see this if you take a look at any map of average temperatures and follow a line of latitude. Inland temperatures are hotter in the summer and colder in the winter than the coastal temps.
I like this response especially, as it brings us back to our common experience: the “oceans moderating the atmospheric temperature”. Which says the atmosphere changes FIRST, and then the oceans moderate it.
I recognize BTW that the process is immediate and interactive, however no change can be “moderated” unless it first exists. Due to the thermal capacity and conductivity differences between the atmosphere and seawater, a moderately large thermal disconnect – one large enough to be observable – must develop between the air and the water before thermal transference will occur at a reasonable rate. There will be a time delay in both directions. If, however, the heat transference is between the oceans and the atmosphere, this time delay will still exist. So we need to carefully look at local oceanic and regional and global sea temperatures vs atmospheric temperatures and see which warms first.
In the case of land, it is obvious that the air warms rapidly, but this is strict solar. We see work on El Niño/La Nina movements of warm or cool water, but what we haven’t seen is atmospheric temperatures over the oceans. That air is going somewhere. It may be measureable – if we can nail down that the warmer air is directly attributable to El Niño waters, then that atmospheric energy can be removed from the heat content vis-a-vis CO2 warming.
At any rate, the timing of temp changes ABOVE the oceans vs the seawater will tell us whether the atmosphere is warming the oceans or vice versa.
I am a retired teacher. I am capable of critical thinking. I have been skeptical of global warming from the beginning. I read this website at least 100 days per year. I started on the old John L.Daly site, Still Waiting for Greenhouse. And if you want to share something with your retired teacher friend, have him take the Al Gore Unabomber Quiz which you can find via a google search on the words Al Gore Unabomber.
I also started out by reading the old John Daly site. Good place to start. I was looking for some actual. atmospheric warming figures rather than hand waving mumbo jumbo. That site led to other links- ultimately to “Climate Audit: and to Antony Watts’ blog.: