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.
A big problem is that CAGW includes both a metaphorical carrot and a stick. A Heaven and a Hell.
If a skeptic points out the climatic dangers are exaggerated, their minds switch to their imagined future world of windmills & solar panels .
On the converse side if a skeptic tells them that sustainable Earth is a fantasy (that the manufacture of solar panels requires nasty greenhouse chemicals, that windmills ball-bearings will wear out way more than they think) then their minds drift to their imagined horror of the hurricanes & tornadoes that will kill them.
I have done this. I have tried explaining they are way too afraid, but they want the sustainable Earth too much – and I have tried explaining the sustainable Earth is a fantasy and they start talking about how ocean rise will destroy civilization.
My current belief is that we have to mention both, over and over again, that the sustainable Earth is a fantasy and the dangers are over-rated.
Seems like on average people in the government have the hardest time with not believing that global warming is not a real issue. I wonder if they are really just scared of running out of government and this issue is a promise of ever more government. Kind of like some people are addict to food and money….take it away from them and they go nuts. They have to have it and need more of it to be happy.
It’s the old when all you have is a hammer thinking.
Govt is about control. Those who gravitate towards work in govt tend to be those who believe that the world would be so much better off if only they were in charge. There are many in govt who really don’t care that much if CAGW is true, however “solving” the problem involves transferring lots of money and power to govt, and hence to them. Money and power that they wish to use to further their goals of perfecting mankind.
I had an email exchange recently with a confirmed Warmist. He claims to be a scientist, yet apparently cannot see that the graph of surface temperature levels off after 1998 or so. But his main argument, clearly based on talking points from organizations like Greenpeace, is that ‘d*ni*rs’ are all funded by fossil-fuel companies (and of course, the Koch brothers).
I pointed out that this is purely ad hominem, essentially claiming skeptical scientists are dishonest, corrupted by corporate patrons. It’s a not-so-nice way of dodging any debate on the facts. He did not respond. He said he prefers to believe that mankind is having a deleterious effect on the Earth and the climate, and that he plans to do everything he can to live in a more ‘sustainable’ way, for the benefit of generations to come.
There is no arguing with this attitude: It is an ideology, a faith, not science. And that’s what we’re up against.
/Mr Lynn
Exactly.
There’s a lot of statistical ignorance as well. I can’t tell you the number of warmers that I have argued with who dismiss the pause as being nothing more than an artifact of that big El Nino in 1998. They actually draw a line from the peak of the El Nino to today, and declare that of course it “looks” like it is cooling, but if there hadn’t been that El Nino, then it would be obvious that we are still warming.
Everyone under the age of 55 or so has been taught all through their school years that man is trashing the planet and that burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment. Small wonder then that so many are predisposed to believe in CAGW.
I wonder if he is like a relative of mine who thinks she is doing her part to save the planet by sorting her trash. When the alarmist actually do the things they want others to do, that is not using fossils fuel and living in a cave, then I may change my mind. Then again maybe not.
Good work Ira.
This is what is needed as our gullible comrades return to sanity.
The herd was stampeded, almost into mindless mitigation policies, these people will straggle back at their own speed.
However, as much as I admire your patience , I am leaning more toward the boot to the rear philosophy of cult deprogramming.
Somewhere someone is feasting on the wealth of a lot of chicken little types.
Also, the “tipping point” is key. There can be no “tipping point” in climate, else geological climate would be chaos after chaos. The Earth’s lovely stable climate shows that the stability is like that of a marble at the bottom of a bowl, where to perturb the marble just results in the marble returning to its stability point at the bottom. The alarmists would have us believe that it’s like an upturned bowl with a marble positioned precariously at the apex, where to perturb the marble brings calamity. If that was true, Earth’s climate would have tipped out into something calamitous yonks ago. Put it this way: whatever calamitous state is the final stable resting place of Earth’s climate, must be this state (ice ages and all), because it is the one which has endured.
Also, recommend they read “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton, showing the environmentalists in all their rancorous money-grubbing ethics-free glory. OK, it’s pulp fiction, but if you’re going to read one, read this one. Here’s a great passage:
Drake picked up a sheet. “This is recycled? It looks damn good.”
“Actually, it’s fresh paper.” The designer looked nervous. “But no one will know.”
“You didn’t tell me that,” Drake said. “It’s essential that recycled materials look good.”
“And they do, sir. Don’t worry.”
Couldn’t agree more. Michael Crichton’s best selling novel is an ideal place for a climate beginner to start.
Also, Ira, get your friend to put 97% Consensus in WUWT’s search box.
That’ll open his eyes to the debate. 🙂
Another negative feedback from melting arctic sea ice would be an increase in snow fall on the land masses surrounding the arctic.
Another point is that melting arctic ice is not the strong positive feedback that many on the warmist side like to claim.
Yes, ice does have a lower albedo than open water, but it’s dark six months out of the year, so albedo doesn’t matter then. For the rest of the year, the sun is so close to the horizon that the difference in albedo is much smaller.
Secondly ice is an insulator. The loss of sea ice means that it is much easier for the water to lose it’s heat to the atmosphere, and since it’s so cold up there, there is very little water in the air, so that heat has little trouble escaping to space. Loss of ice could actually end up being a net negative feedback.
Just what I have been looking for!
Like your article but find it is hard to get most people to read even that amount of data. My shortest most effective article is as follows:
Climate Change is based on three dependent Theories.
Theory One – Green House Gas Theory – the first doubling of Carbon Dioxide content in the atmosphere is predicted to cause up to 1 degree C of warming in the atmosphere due to increased back radiation. Issues which may limit temperature rise are the logarithmic decline in increase of back radiation as CO2 concentration increases and saturation of the back radiation spectrum by Water Vapor.
Theory Two – Amplification/Positive Feedback Theory – the predicted temperature rise due to back radiation increase is theorized to increase humidity in atmosphere which is predicted to cause 1 to 4 Degrees C of additional warming. The main issue is that the predicted humidity and temperatures increases have not been observed in the atmosphere by decades of balloon and satellite so the Climate Sensitivity to increases in CO2 appears to be over estimated. See “missing hot spot”- the largest temperature rise was predicted for the Troposphere in latitudes around the equator. Climate models do not do a good job of handling clouds and vertical energy transfers.
Theory Three – Catastrophic Climate Change Theory – The additional warming is predicted to cause Catastrophic Changes to the Climate. Main issues are both the Global Temperatures and the rate of temperature increase are running way below Computer Model Forecasts. There is no scientific link between Mild Warming and Catastrophic Climate Events.
The three theories are dependent on each other like three legs of a stool so the Climate Crisis falls down if you take any one away.
The Positive Feedback Theory is predicted to cause the majority of the warming but the empirical real world data is pointing to Climate Sensitivities that are lower than forecast. Show real temp vs models graph.
The simple message is that their precious experts are not wrong but that they may have overestimated the sensitivity and therefore the amount of warming and therefore the seriousness of the crisis. This message is less threatening, easier to understand and will plant a seed of doubt in their minds. I have seen this work even on committed liberals- it causes them to get agitated and mad as the doubts creep in.
Good luck with your friend.
He speculated that had a leading Republican promoted the same issue, the reaction would probably be the reverse.
And he’s dead wrong. Democrats line up on this not just because a Democrat told them to. It’s because they are primed to want the kind of changes that the “solution” to global warming would entail.
That’s a good explanation of why a leading Republican wouldn’t promote ACGW to begin with, but I have little doubt that a good portion of Republicans would have got behind the idea if it was “their issue.” Much of the electorate is uninformed about the issues they support – not because they are unintelligent, but – because delving into political issues isn’t worth their time, when they have jobs and families and any number of other things of more pressing importance to their daily lives. Politicians of all ideologies use this to their advantage, because getting reelected is their major concern.
A few points I would like to say. First of all, I strongly disagree that had a Republican been pushing AGW and these same solutions, the vast majority of us skeptics would NOT have agreed with him. We did NOT disagree because of that. In fact, early on, even many republicans were on board with AGW.
Second, the graph in section one should go from -2C to +2C. 2C is the supposed magic number, the way it is drawn makes it look way scarier than it is. Having the +2C line on the graph shows how far below the temperature increase in which it even starts becoming a concern is helpful.
Third, in the model comparison section 3, have the Y axis go from -1C to +1C. Much more clearly gets across the point that the models are not matching reality.
I think you all probably got my intent… of course I meant to say “.. I strongly disagree that, had a Republican been pushing AGW and these same solutions, the vast majority of us skeptics would have agreed with him.”
The Democrats project like crazy — it’s probably true that, had a Republican been the initial spokesman for AGW, that the Democrats would have opposed it. Therefore, by their reasoning, yada yada yada.
CO2 induced global warming is the biggest fraud since the church created purgatory at the end of the Middle Ages. A ‘Reformation’ in science is going to be needed to turn things around. The fundamental issue is that there is no such thing as an equilibrium average climate that can be perturbed with forcings and feedbacks. Nor is there such a thing as a climate sensitivity to CO2. The Earth’s climate is determined by the balance between wind driven evaporative cooling and the solar heating of the oceans.
In order to understand the global warming fraud it is necessary to go back and start with Manabe and Wetherald’s paper in 1967 (M&W). They created what is best described as a mathematical platform that could be used for testing computer climate algorithms, particularly for atmospheric radiative transfer calculations. However, the assumptions that they used automatically created the mathematical artifact of global warming. This also fed speculation dating back to the nineteenth century that CO2 could cause global warming.
M&W began with an equilibrium average infra-red atmosphere that is by definition controlled by the long wave IR (LWIR) flux. They assumed a 24 hour average solar flux and an exact solar-LWIR flux balance at the top of the atmosphere. They then used a ‘blackbody surface’ with zero heat capacity for the Earth’s surface and assumed a fixed relative humidity distribution. This is the perfect mathematical recipe for global warming. Any increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration must by definition increase the surface temperature and be amplified by the water vapor feedback. This of course has no relationship whatsoever to planet Earth.
The next step in the fraud was to add an ocean layer to the M&W model. This was just a few layers of water with a thermal diffusion coefficient and a heat capacity. The fact that the penetration depth of the CO2 LWIR flux into the ocean is only 20 micron was ignored. Any minute heating effect from CO2 is obliterated in the real ocean by the surface wind speed variation. The entire global warming flux from CO2 is removed by an increase in wind speed of a few centimeters per second. The climate models are still incapable of simulating the ocean oscillations. This is a fundamental requirement for any realistic climate model.
Now, follow the money. NASA put a man on the moon in 1969. By the mid 1970’s NASA was hurting for money and started to look at global warming for funding. The result can be seen in Hansen’s 1981 Science paper. About this time, the long term ocean oscillations switched from net cooling to net warming and stayed that way for the next 30 odd years. By the mid 1980’s, the ocean warming had started to show up in the climate record and the Hadley Center was able to start shouting about global warming.
A third level of fraud was also added to the climate models. It was now claimed that the observed increase in LWIR flux from CO2 had produced an observed increase in the weather station record, which is in fact impossible. An empirical ‘climate sensitivity constant’ was created so that 1 Watt per square meter of increase in LWIR flux from any ‘greenhouse gas’ produced an increase of 2/3 C in ‘surface temperature’ as measured by the weather station record.
The increase in LWIR flux for the greenhouse gases was calculated using the HITRAN database. This came from the Air Force Geophysics Lab, so it could not be ‘corrected’. Instead, as the ocean warming slowed and the weather station record showed less warming, aerosols were added to the mix and adjusted to make the models cool down a bit.
The fox is also guarding the henhouse, and the climate modelers also have control of the selection of the weather station data and the ‘homogenization’ process used to create the global climate record. Probably half of the observed global warming comes from weather station data ‘fiddling’.
The Earth started cooling about 15 years ago. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation changed first. The sun stopped producing as many sunspots with cycle 24. The El Nino Southern Oscillation slowed down. The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation is now starting its cooling phase. We are headed to at least a Dalton type minimum. The climate models of course are hard wired using empirical ‘radiative forcing constants’ to produce global warming from CO2 and other ‘greenhouse gases’ independent of the Laws of Physics.
Last year, with the start of the release cycle for the Fifth Assessment Report by the IPCC, the Earth itself called the climate modeler’s bluff. There has been a sufficient lack of measured climate warming over 15 to 20 years for the modeling fraud to be revealed to those that choose to look.
Explicitly or implicitly, the work of Manabe and Wetherald can still be found in the climate models. The mathematical global warming artifact is still there, lurking deep down inside. The models still have to be ‘constrained’ to give the correct theological global warming answer. However the writing is on the wall and the climate Ponzi scheme is starting to collapse.
References
Manabe, S. and Wetherald, R. T., J. Atmos. Sci., 24 241-249 (1967), ‘Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity’
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6701.pdf
Hansen, J.; D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind & G. Russell, Science 213 957-966 (1981), Climate impact of increasing atmospheric CO2
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html
Clark, R. Energy and Environment 24(3, 4) 319-340 (2013) ‘A dynamic coupled thermal reservoir approach to atmospheric energy transfer Part I: Concepts’ (Paywalled)
Clark, R. Energy and Environment 24(3, 4) 341-359 (2013) ‘A dynamic coupled thermal reservoir approach to atmospheric energy transfer Part II: Applications’(Paywalled)
http://www.venturaphotonics.com/ClimateFraud.html
Yup. It looks good on paper. If you assume we live in a purely radiative world contained within a closed glass box. In the real world, however, it doesn’t work at all. Even the postulated 1 degree of global warming for a doubling in CO2 is nothing but a mathematical artifact.
The upside down diabetes promoting Food Pyramid is a wonderful example for skeptics to point out now that Atkins has been vindicated and paleolithic diets are quite popular. It was also a single bullet theory (of heart disease instead of climate change) based on political support of the Michael Mann of his day, Ancel Keys. Pointing this out makes your type of serious argument about fraud and overwhelming consensus supporting it not sound so far out and conspiratorial to laypeople. Most open minded liberals, the only demographic left that are yet to be converted to skepticism, including liberal scientists, just can’t believe such a big fraud is possible. Well, there it is, modern precedent for it, one that overwhelmed the entire medical profession for decades, that just like climate alarm, which had little solid evidence behind it, and lots of lying with statistics, which the American Heart Association and various U.S. Surgeon Generals etc. all widely promoted.
The problem is you still hear the diet cr@p from the heart disease charities and even from official AMA publications. The fact of the fraud has not been widely distributed to the rank and file and the falsehood is still part of the medical curriculum. There are a number of professionals who are taking a “fake but true” attitude after the revelations.
Need to remember all of Abraham Lincoln’s famous quote, “you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
That it is true “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time,”
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin110340.html#dEpAU3tuZuClz0vg.99
Good post, but since most of the propaganda these days avoids the lack of temperature rise and emphasizes extreme weather events, I would include more than just temperature in the arguments. For example:
Sea levels are slowly rising on average, but they have been rising since records have been kept, and the rise is not accelerating as it must for AGW.
Ocean temperatures have not risen as expected by AGW.
Extreme events like hurricanes have not increased and in fact appear to be decreasing. Hurricanes especially were supposed to be stronger and more frequent, but when was the last time a category 3 hurricane hit the US coast?
Tornadoes have not increased.
Floods and droughts have not increased
Wildfires have not increased.
AGW theory requires a hotspot in the tropopause for the warming to be caused by CO2 feedback (the atmosphere about 10KM high, mainly above the equator). This is called the “distinct human fingerprint” by the EPA. This hotspot does not exist.
The polar bear population is doing just fine. Canada and Russia will not put them on the endangered list because they aren’t endangered, in spite of US pressure.
Food crops are not failing. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN is reporting increases in yields of all major food crops in this century, and the numbers of undernourished people is declining. Perhaps because CO2 is a nourishment, not a pollutant.
The arctic ice levels are today very close to normal. The Antarctic ice has been above normal for a record period of time. There is no downward trend in global sea ice.
Land snow and ice coverage levels have not decreased either.
Did I leave anything out? I think various charts and graphs demonstrating all of these facts, from reputable scientific sources, are available here I am sure.
You could add that even the IPCC says there will be what they quaintly refer to as “net benefit” from both warming and CO2 for the next several decades even using their own exaggerated CMIP 3 & 5 projections.
If it works out the way I think, we’ll be past his phase of human development while still suffering from net benefit.
There is an overall downward trend in global sea ice, though, since 1979.
Clay: GREAT LIST !!! Here it is in a box so more may read it.
Ira
While I agree the quantitative aspects of global temp anomalies are at heart of the matter, some very specific qualitative predictions were made through the years. Enough time has passed to conclusively show those were wrong too. Some failed predictions:
– Arctic Sea in a late summer-fall NW passage was to be icefree or mostly disappeared by 2013
– snow in most of the UK
– devastating superstorms relentlessly pounding us by now (now they are out to 2050).
– climate refugees fleeing by the millions
others failed qualitative predictions I’m sure.
correction: snow free winters in the UK.
The only thing that gives my Alarmist friends pause is the worry that they could be the last ones to recognize this was all a scam. Its a fad for them, a way to “prove” how sciency and smart they are. They are terrified at being exposed as fools, esp the ones who were arrogant re the certainty of the science. I can identify them by seeing the blood drain from their face as I explain how the 97% Consensus was fabricated.
I don’t need Dr. Ira Glickstein, or anybody else for that matter, to tell me, what to say, and to whom.
All the facts he listed have been repeated thousands of times in public and in private, and had no effect on those who lie for money, or on those who lie because they want to feel better about their pathetic selves.
Never in human history the truth, the facts, or any logical arguments convinced the servants of the prevailing prejudice, be it religion or a scientese myth. The gold and the sword always win.
Very true. You can’t reason with a wall.
Alexander Feht:
On the other hand, as many wise men and women have said: “It is better to light one little candle than to curse the darkness.”
Ira
What are our future teachers being taught ?
Shows the consensus meme will be the hardest to break.
Question along those lines using the same methodology as Lewandowsky. What percentage of nuclear physicists think nuclear energy is the best form of power generation and we should switch to nuclear power?
Ira, you say:
“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.“
How is this bolded part in any way ‘fact-based’? It is only conjecture-based opinion.
Kristian
Please note that the purpose of the presentation is to convince others while being strictly truthful.
If you want to help people to listen to what you say then you need to start from where they are and not where you want them to be.
You ask and say of the presentation
Sorry, but it is certainly true and not “only conjecture-based opinion” because humans add to the warming in several ways; e.g. urban heat islands, land use changes, etc..
These observed additions to warming are so small that they cannot be identified as part of ‘measured’ global warming, but they are not “only conjecture-based opinion”: they are observed reality..
If you want people to understand that the human contribution to global warming is trivial and irrelevant then start from their understanding that “Human activities are responsible for some portion of that warming” because it is a truth which they know.
Richard
Richard: THANKS! Your reply to Kristian is right on. Always excellent to read your postings.
Ira
Are you pulling my leg here, Richard?
Ira clearly states “It is undoubtedly true that average surface temperatures have increased significantly since 1880. Human activities are responsible for some portion of that warming.“
So you think Ira meant by ‘some portion of that warming’ UHI and land use which according to you are ‘observed additions to warming’ but ‘so small that they cannot be identified as part of ‘measured’ global warming.’
So what warming are they ‘observed additions’ to Richard? Certainly not Ira’s ‘average surface temperatures [that] have increased significantly since 1880.’ Or are you saying that his ‘portion of that warming’ is 0.0001 degrees or something of that order – not measurable, but still there?
I have a feeling that’s not what he meant when he wrote what he wrote. Because that would be a bit bizarre, and completely pointless without qualifying it, don’t you think?
Are you sure that Ira, by what he said, didn’t rather mean something along the lines of “We ‘KNOW’ that adding CO2 to the atmosphere somehow ‘MUST’ make Earth’s global surface warmer. So even if we can’t see it anywhere in the actual data, we ‘KNOW’ that we ‘MUST’ have contributed some to the significant global warming since 1880”?
If you start out giving them that one, you’ve already lost right there (in their mind, they see you agree with them and that’s it, case closed).
Kristian
My reply to you was true and accurate.
It was endorsed by Ira Glickstein who says it was “right on”.
In these circumstances I see no reason to consider your assertions of what you think he may have intended.
Richard
Richard, your reply to me was nothing but silly pedantry, apologetic quibbling. If Ira really meant UHI and land use changes contributing an unmeasurable (!) amount to the significant global warming observed since 1880, then why express himself the way he did? Further down, under the ‘Conclusions’ heading, he very clearly expands on what he was getting at higher up:
“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.”
Or are these two statements completely unrelated? Ira is NOT claiming as FACT(-based) that we ‘are responsible for a significant fraction of the actual warming’? Through our CO2 emissions?
The original post was dealing with how to respond to a fellow non specialist who feels the “scientific concensus” is to be trusted. IMHO the response can’t be based on the science but on what lies behind the “consensus” itself.
I would give them the whole climategate email file. It exposes not so much the science but the behaviour and attitudes to the science of the core, key players inside the “consensus”. It reveals the basis for the “consensus”, why it is so vigorously fought for and why it is so fragile.
Any non specialist who goes with the “consensus” flow would find the climategate email file good reason to stop and reflect and maybe dig deeper.
And possibly then find their way to WUWT.
Point him to Donna’s books–the first 10% of the Kindle editions can be read for free. That ought to plant a seed of doubt.
Another seed-planter: a list of failed predictions. (As a commenter above laid out.)
A third: What “we” do in the West won’t matter, because by 2040 China and India will be emitting twice what the whole globe is emitting now.
A fourth seed-planter: Renewable energy has been vastly over-hyped. It’s not all that clean, it’s expensive, there’s no room for enough of it to power our societies, it has hidden costs, the pioneer countries are hurting, etc.
I think those four key points, following Ira’s initial set, can knock many crusaders off their high horses.
Another avenue of attack on his trust in scientists would be to point him to Susan Crockford’s site, which documents how one example-group of scientists has put its thumb on the scale in the alarmist pan.
http://polarbearscience.com/
“However, he said he still trusts what he believes are the overwhelming number of scientists who have examined the evidence and reached a conclusion.”
I’ll ignore the question of whether an “overwhelming number of scientists” actually have examined the evidence and reached the conclusion that most global warming is man-made, because I want to look at another issue here.
Why should he, or anyone else, “trust” them to the extent of taking their claims seriously? My, and most people’s, response to a lot of scientific claims is “Meh. Maybe they’re right, maybe not.” We do not “trust” or not “trust” the scientists involved.
Why should the Global Warming claims be met with a different response?
I can only think of one reason. We are told (a) that if the claims are true, that is, if Global Warming is happening, it will result in a catastrophe, and (b) we can take action to avoid the catastrophe.
But (a) and (b) are further claims from the same bunch of scientists. Unless we take (a) and (b) seriously, we have no reason to get sufficiently worked up about the general Global Warming to “trust” the scientists. This means that we must already “trust” the scientists who claim (a) and (b) before we can “trust” them on the general Global Warming claim.
So why should we “trust” the scientists who claim (a) and (b)?
Another very important point, and one that is difficult to refute is this:
If these predicted tipping points existed, they would be reached, and therefore tipped, whatever the caused of the warming. This has not happened in the two most recent warm periods (Roman & medieval), and you must therefore conclude that they do not exist.
If the tipping points do not exist, there is little if any reason for alarm.
“The image below is the latest GISS Global Temperature Index anomaly. ”
Note the clever misdirection on that graph. The error bars.
Why is the second error bar placed in 1947 ? Why 1882 ?
It is correct that some indication of uncertainty be on the graph and that it changes as records become more accurate. By why fluorescent green? It is not normal for the error bars to be the most prominent feature on a graph. What this does is highlights the temperature at three dates.
These dates are not accidentally chosen this is the old trough-to-peak trick. It would be more honest to pick the the 1940 peak but then it would be clear that the warming has been going on since at least 1900.
I would suggest finding another graph that does not have this kind of visual misdirection on it.
Cherry picking the temps of two isolated dates does not indicate anything. You should use a linear regression that includes all data over the period in question.
Greg
You say
Sorry, but you are wrong.
Are you really trying to claim that there was net warming between two times when the earlier time was measured to be the warmest of the two?
Clearly, the “two isolated dates” do indicate something; they indicate there was no net warming over the period with those end points (to within the measurement error). Indeed, that is true not only for – as in this case – global average temperature anomaly (GASTA). It is also true for my temperature as measured by the nurse, and if I want to compare my state now and last week then I compare the actual measurements taken now and then.
But that is not the only way to assess the net warming. You suggest using a linear least-squares fit that includes all data over the period. Why linear? And, anyway, you would still obtain an indication of “no net warming for 15 years” but, very importantly, the way you gained that indication is a procedure (i.e. linear regression) that would be meaningless to most people. (And if the nurse tried to fob me off with a linear regression instead of my actual temperature then I would complain to the Specialist.)
The presented information is true, correct and comprehensible to any intelligent audience.
It is the right information to provide, and if its provision were to induce your type of point from the audience then that would provide an opportunity to explain different forms of data presentation and interpretation.
Richard
Question : Are there any figures available or studies which quantify the Heat Energy released to atmosphere by mankind? Are there any assessments of the effect of that on global temperatures? I’ve done a google search but drew a blank .
UHI is a well known fact and the significant difference in temperature between urban locations and surrounding countryside is well documented , albeit that to my mind climate scientists underplay the amount of the difference. UHI represents, in part at least, the production and release of heat into the atmosphere by man and which increases temperatures at the local level.
The amount of that heat release has increased significantly since the industrial revolution and continues to increase at a high rate as more countries industrialise and improve living standards for their citizens ( viz China, India etc ).
I wonder what is the direct effect on global temperature of heat release to atmosphere as opposed to the indirect effect of greenhouse gas ? I wonder what portion of the very small increase in global temperature can be attributed to man via this direct heat energy release to atmosphere; is it trivial or significant?
Any information, comment or pointers to any research would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
I would also say the using RSS is a cherry pick that could be attacked. It is certainly a “convenient” choice.
I suspect that UAH estimations are more accurate but at least show both so that you avoid any counter argument that you have chosen the data set that favours your position.
If that makes it less clear, err on the side of caution and just use UAH.