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.
Ira, you might talk about the timing of science. The discovery that temperature leads CO2 is fairly recent (1999?) by scientific standards. A lot of science and scientists are still catching up to this discovery.
A similar situation happened with ulcers. Acceptance by the medical profession was years behind the actual discovery of an infectious agent. Even 20 years after, some 80% of doctors surveyed still believed stress was the main cause.
“Science progresses one funeral at a time.” — Max Planck
Kuo, Lindberg & Thomson, Nature, 1990
I like the idea of calmly chipping away at a smaller number of the CAGW alarmist’s main points. That will probably raise a few questions in the minds of most reasonable people. That’s a start.
Assumption that “CAGW alarmists” are reasonable people is a fact not in evidence.
IN ORDER to get you friend to rethink his trust in “scientific authorities,” I think it is necessary to shake it.
My gambit is to expand on the CO2 issue by contrasting the unmeasured and sweeping assertions of the IPCC and Dr. Susan Solomon in PNAS on CO2 residence times (50 to 200 years to 1,000 years, respectively) – compared to Tom Segalstad’s 35 careful studies using long taught methods of radioactive decay like Carbon 14, which find recurrent measures of 5 to 12 years residence time for CO2.
Then push this: Do you trust the unmeasured sweeping claims of the “authorities?” Or repeated experimental results whose methods you’ve studied in High School and College? (Are you data driven? Or “theory” and authority driven?)
I think a logical fork like this one is necessary in order for someone to shake-off their naive dogmatism and think things through for themselves, instead.
Small point of order –
In item number 3, I think it’s counterproductive to refer to satellite observations as being from polar-orbiting satellites. While most everyone here might understand orbital mechanics, the average (even the educated average) person most likely does not. Calling it a polar-orbiting satellite is likely to give some the impression that it’s intended to primarily observe the poles, and I’d bet good money that there are even some who would envision a ‘satellite’ hovering over either the north or south pole.
You know, I was about to say that your point is a little obscure. But then, I realized that when I read the OP, I first thought it was describing satellites particularly observing the poles, too. (Not “hovering over” them, though). Since I knew what was meant, the thought was somewhat fleeting.
Maybe better would be:
“satellite observations from satellites that give coverage to (insert percentage of earth coverage here) of the planet.”
LeeHarvey: Thanks for your comment. I got the “polar orbiting satellite” nomenclature from the RSS site, http://www.remss.com/research/climate, viz:
Since the graphic, right at the top in big black bold says “Global 80S to 80N” I think it is pretty clear that the satellites are orbiting along longitude (up/down) lines, going over the poles each sweep.
I doubt the target audience (intelligent non-scientists) knows or cares how the satellites orbit. I must admit, however, I am surprised any WUWT regular could imagine a satellite hovering over one of the poles :^).
Ira
I would certainly hope that WUWT readers would be excluded from the population who might imagine a remote weather observatory (I can’t even bring myself to refer to it as a satellite if it’s not orbiting) holding a position that’s reasonably close to stationary relative to any point on the earth other than one on the equator. Among the general population, though? I know for a fact that they’re out there.
Ira,
The hovering maybe not but there is an orbit that nearly hovers over the poles. It was originally used by Soviet communications satellites to provide TV/radio coverage to the northern parts of Russia. It has an apogee of about 24000 nm above the poles and a perigee of about 300nm at the other pole (numbers from distant memory – real heights may be way off this.) It spends about 8-10 hours looking down at the north pole and about 2-4 hours swinging back around to do it again. I have never heard of anyone doing so for the southern hemisphere as I guess no one wanted to spend that kind of money to provide TV signals to the heart of Antarctica. IF we wanted to observe the poles in a continuous manner it would take three in this orbit offset by 8 hours or each hemisphere. It would be as though someone hovered a satellite over the poles…
Owen, thanks for the info. It seems quite clever to exploit the fact that the closer a satellite orbit is to the center of the Earth, the faster the satellite travels, and vice-versa when the orbit is further away. Good way to maximize the fraction of time a satellite can service one polar region. But, not quite hovering!
Ira
@ur momisugly Owen –
I’m familiar with the orbit you described, but considering that the current RSS measurements only go to 80 degrees, I’m guessing that their range and field of view preclude getting accurate measurements from a very high apogee.
We may be over-complicating this whole thing. It isn’t rocket science, after all!
Oh, wait…
Another issue has been a weak understanding of statistics. “Normal” statistics underestimates the frequency of “rare” or “extreme” events in dynamic systems like Climate, the Stock Market, and many other physical systems.
Most of the time this is not an issue, but this difference causes us to statistically underestimate the frequency of extreme events such as the 2007 Financial Crisis, Hurricane Katrina, or the Challenger and Columbia Disasters.
Dynamic systems are not like a toss of the coin or a roll of the dice. Dynamic systems respond and adapt. Change is the normal order of business in dynamic systems. Our intuition leads us astray, because it sees change as being abnormal.
As a result we tend to underestimate the risk involved in investing in the Stock Market, we tend to underestimate the possibility of Storms, Floods and Droughts, and we tend to underestimate the likelihood that Space Shuttle Missions will end in disaster.
I don’t think you can state this as a fact. Temperatures have, undoubtedly, risen since 1880. But is the increase “significant”. This question can only be answered by knowing the internal variability of the system over a long period of time. How do we know that +0.7 C temp variance is unusual if we don’t know what the variability has been over several thousand years? This is the essence of the hockey stick debate.
If you look at the error bands applicable to the temperature measurements, we do not know whether it is warmer today than it was in the 1880s.
All one can say about temperatures is that there appears to be quite a bit of multidecadal variation, and looking at the period 1850 to date, the 1880s and 1930s and today appear ‘warm’ but we do not know whether it is today warmer than it was in the 1880s or 1930s, save that as far as the US is concerned, it was probably warmer in US in the 1930s than it is today.
Richard Verney: Yes, it was most likely warmer IN THE USA in 1934 than the most recent peak in 1998. Yes, given the error bands, it is possible the average Global temperatures in the 1880’s were a bit higher than today, BUT it is most LIKELY, IMHO, that it is around 0.5 degrees C (1 degree F) warmer today.
Ira
Ira, thanks for the article you made some good points. As for your friend listening to the scientists he’s probably listening to the scientists that get the most press coverage. If a scientist says, “if we hadn’t calculated global warming you would never have known it”, he doesn’t get much press coverage. But if a scientist says, “we’re passing a tipping point the planet is going to burn up” he gets a lot of press coverage.
You know, this might be a good time to mention the “Our Climate” App:
http://ourclimate.info/
available for iOS.
Not sure why they don’t have Android and Win8 versions.
Ask the human beings living 20 thousand years ago, before OC2 was an issue, did they have extreme weather? What was it like living in London or New York, 20 thousand years ago?
Well, traffic was lighter.
Sorry, had to say it. 🙂
Traffic may have been lighter, but I bet it was a lot harder to get around.
The West Side Highway wasn’t just under water… it was under thousands of feet of ice.
I continue to be amazed at how the principle argument supporting catastrophic AGW is the appeal to authority. It is so because XYZ “World Organization” says so, or “97% of all scientists say so”. They ask us to ‘suspend your disbelief’ (i.e. don’t be a “Denier”) and just accept what the ‘majority’ says. That is not a very scientific way of thinking …. however, it is a religious way of thinking.
‘just accept what the ‘majority’ says. That is not a very scientific way of thinking …. however, it is a religious way of thinking.’
What religion, that you know of, relies on majoritarianism? All that I know of rely firstly on scriptural and/or tradition authority. Majoritarianism is the preserve of politics not religion or science.
How do we know that +0.7 C temp variance is unusual if we don’t know what the variability has been over several thousand years?
==========
and is this meaningful if climate is a fractal distribution? how can you calculate variance from the mean when the mean and variance change with the scale?
” 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.”
Blind faith in the Big Eco doctrine. I ran into the same thing in this thread:http://www.wired.com/2014/09/fantastically-wrong-n-rays/#comment-1572617920
Some places are open to discussion and others just like to fling poo at the heretics.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-sun-explains-95-of-climate-change.html
More data showing solar/climate strong correlations.
I certainly think that human Co2 has NO effect whatsoever on earth’s atmospheric temperatures.This mantra keeps on repeating itself here. C02 has been at 1000’sppm during ICE AGES remember? No one has been able to prove a C02 effect except in a laboratory flask
We have to keep on repeating. The AGW people keep right on spouting the half truths that are their hallmark. No battle is ever easy against a dedicated and well financed opponents.. In an apparent contradiction to the so called tipping point, why hasn’t the planet had a tipping point? AGW seems to have missed this point. They just ignore arguments. The science is settled so they are not even engaging in their usual ‘ let me show you where you are wrong ‘ . Too bad it’s not settled and the pause is reason, I think they are trying to have this AGW idea go mainstream without too many questioning it. In time though, more scientists will come to question AGW. It doesn’t fit with reality.
Lots of commentary here so I’ll be brief.
1. I accept the “0.7 C since 1880” premise for discussion, but maintain that it’s debatable because of problems with measurement methods.
2. I never miss an opportunity to reject the unspoken presumption that a warmer earth is “bad”. Nobody has anything besides speculation to back that up.
3. I never miss an opportunity to point out that the “greenhouse effect” in fact makes earth habitable. Subtract water vapor from the atmosphere and see how you like that temperature.
4.I reject the idea that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is “bad”. Look at some of the research on what carbon enrichment does for some (but not all) plant life.
5. I often use the “What temperature is your house?” and “How do you know?” example to point out the difficulty of measuring the planet’s temperature.
Just one more thing. There are a lot of people who are ignorant and not persuadable about this subject. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree, even if you know better.
jpatrick: GREAT summary! THANKS.
ALL: Well worth reading again.
Ira
Ira – I agree – jpatrick wrote an excellent summary and most of these comments are worth re-reading. Your OP, too – more than twice! (As usual.)
When I think about the “97%” I think back to college. Since I’m getting old, my college days in climate and meteorology (I have a degree in both) pre-date the global warming issue.
How do my college science friends and professors stand on the issue? Honestly, I don’t know how most stand. But of the ones I do know, the quick answer is about 50-50.
I can make a substantial list of my retired profs who think the whole thing is a crock. However, some are true believers.
My friends who moved to other fields or are in the private sector are overwhelmingly skeptical.
My friends who stayed in academia or went on to government are mostly “warmists”.
My friends who are forecasters are the most skeptical of all.
My friends that work for grants and do theory, are mostly warmists.
So, we are split as scientists. That’s all I try to tell people who ask. It’s not settled and I’d be very skeptical of those who tell you it is since it’s obvious that’s not true.
I had one friend who I really respected who told me in 1986 that acid rain would destroy all the eastern forests by the year 2000. He is a smart guy and genuinely meant what he said. I don’t know what he’s doing now. I had another friend who was certain that profilers would replace weather balloons. I had a professor who swore that virga was impossible because mathematically, rain could not evaporate before it reached the ground. Every year, Joe Bastardi told me were we going to have a snowy winter 🙂 Forecasting is tricky…LOL
And furthermore…
Whenever we see a graph of recent temperature trends, the y-scale typically has a total range of about 2 K. I’d like to see something a little more representative of the changes in question. Plotting an absolute scale (y- range of 300 K) might be fun, but it’s still not relatable to the average person. I’d propose a range indicative of what’s normally seen in populated regions of the earth – say, 220 to 320 K. It would still be a nearly flat line, but it would give a lot more perspective of the changes in temperature relative to measures that people understand.
It’s amusing how confident people can be when they have no real idea about climate change, but find themselves competent to decide who to trust 🙂
I would push a bit further on *why* he trusts the scientists he does – can he tell the difference between a scientist who knows what they’re doing, and one who doesn’t? Is it simply a matter of “one scientist, one vote”, and he goes with the majority?
When it comes to a demarcation between a scientist proffering something genuine, versus something fabricated, I might suggest he ask them for a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement:
1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean your hypothesis is false;
2) a logical argument that the lack of those falsifications means that your hypothesis must be favored over all others (including the null).
The null hypothesis, is of course, natural climate change explains all observed climate change.
Thus far, nowhere in the history of mankind, has any AGW proponent been able to come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW.
“…….It is undoubtedly true that average surface temperatures have increased significantly since 1880. Human activities are responsible for some portion of that warming……..”
Really?
There is ZERO proof of this.
If what you say is true, how can you explain the many warm periods that occurred prior to human existence on earth?
If what you say is true how can you explain the demise of the many ice ages?
If what you say is true how do you explain the HIGHER CO2 levels DURING one of the ice ages?
If what you say is true, how do you explain that CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature rises?
CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere. It constitutes LESS THAN .04% (.0004 ) of atmospheric gases. Less than 4 parts in 10,000.
And we are to believe that this trace amount of atmospheric gas has any influence whatsoever on the climate because……..well, because global temperature predictions from computer models that have been DEMONSTRATED TO BE WRONG !! – predict higher temperatures.
What absolute rubbish.
What is needed is a Richard Feynman; a scientist who relentlessly sought the truth based on real facts and real science.
JohnTyler: I’m sad to say that with extreme Skeptics like you who are unfamiliar with the basic physics of how Earth’s Atmosphere and particularly water vapor and carbon dioxide make this planet livable, we responsible Skeptics don’t need any opponents. Absent the Atmosphere our Earth would be about as cold as the average surface temperature of the Moon.
Yes, the IPCC models are not valid and their predictions (projections) are way too warm, as demonstrated by my third graphic. Yes, the hockey Team has most likely introduced data bias into the terrestrial temperature record. The Warmists are mistaken, and the Alarmists are wrong about CATASTROPHIC warming, but, thank Goodness for CO2 and water vapor and the (albeit ill-named) “greenhouse” effect.
Ira
Ira;
I am NOT saying that CO2, in SUFFICIENT CONCENTRATIONS, cannot contribute to warming. I am saying that at a concentration of 0.04% in the atmosphere, it is simply too small to have any affect on climate, notwithstanding the theoretical underpinnings of this thesis.
Further, you did not address any of my points, esp. the FACT that CO2 levels have been shown to RESPOND to temperature changes (with a lag of hundreds of years) and not vice-versa. If CO2 levels lag temperature, then how can CO2 CAUSE temperature changes?
Secondly, there have been ice ages in which CO2 levels were higher than CO2 levels today. How is this possible if higher CO2 levels correspond to or cause warmer climate?
Lastly, many historic warm periods in the earth’s history ended in ice ages. Well how is this possible if the warm periods contained high levels of CO2? Would not these high levels of CO2 PREVENT a cooler climate and more importantly, prevent an ice age?.
Of course, all ice ages ended in global warming; so where did the CO2 come from that caused the ice ages to end, especially since much of the planet was covered in ice?
Look, it is abundantly clear that climate scientists simply do not know all the factors (and their interactions) that control or affect climate, for if they did, they could explain the historical climate.
THEY CANNOT !!!!
If you cannot EXPLAIN the historic climate you cannot presume to predict the future climate AND it most certainly demonstrates that climate scientists simply do NOT YET HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE to explain what causes changes in climate.
Yet, this being the case, you and others claim , with 100 % CERTAINTY ( !!! ) that the TRACE levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have indeed contributed to some warming.
No one has the knowledge , yet, to make this claim with any degree of certainty. It’s OK to hypothesize that this is in fact the case, but an hypothesis is just that; an educated guess. It is not proof, it is just an assertion.
You cannot have it both ways; if the knowledge of any physical/chemical mechanism is incomplete – which in this case it is – then you cannot claim with a 100% certainty that factor “X” is CERTAINLY a cause of “Y.”
There must be other factors or mechanisms, not yet understood nor yet discovered, that obviate any affect on climate due to the heat-trapping affects of TRACE QUANTITY levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. When these other factors are ascertained, we can expect a full explanation of the historical climate.
Until then, climate “science” will continue to be a politico / ideological war waged by anti-capitalist Lysenkian pseudo-religious zealots. You will note that despite the AGW proponent’s near perfect record of being wrong over the last 10 to 15 years, they continue to press their case with ever greater zeal. They are impervious to the data and the observed facts.
This alone should raise all sorts of red flags as to the true motivations and intentions of the AGW proponents, AS WELL AS THEIR FUNDAMENTAL THESIS !!
Perhaps we should just follow the money.
JohnTyler
You assert
YES! Really.
I addressed this point above and this link jumps to it. Please read it and get back to me if you dispute my explanation.
Richard
I’ll agree with some AGW since the end of WWII. How much is not known and is not knowable.
But counting the 1908-1941 warming as AGW is simply not plausible. Emissions at that point were tiny compared to today. The amount of that warming that was “A” is negligible.
But it’s standard practice to show the sharp 1908-1941 warming in the alarmist arguments.
The 1908-1941 warming was remarkably similar to the 1977-2005 warming in duration and intensity. One was clearly natural. The other? That’s what we debate here.
Not only did we not produce much CO2 pre-WWII, we had a lack of interest in measuring the temperature, on a continuous basis, of every jungle, desert, and middle of nowhere, ocean. The transportation infrastructure, that we take for granted, was very limited, and very expensive, in the early half of the 20th century. We can’t even find an airliner full of people, with today’s technology, in the Indian Ocean. How accurate is the temp record, from 1894, of the same Indian Ocean? Can you really just guess, from Africa, to Australia, and on to South America, and make the data meaningful?
I think the idea of a “global temp”, is a construct of the “space age”, where we really started to see the planet for what it was. In the 30’s, there where only 6 temps. Coat, jacket, sweater, long sleeves, short sleeves, and shorts. Very few cared, or were willing to support financially, what the temp was 3000 miles away, when they were not sure, if there was going to be, dinner tonight, or not.
The confidence, in the accuracy of a global temp, pre-1960, as got to be lower, than post-1960. That doesn’t is make it wrong, it just means it could be much different than commonly accepted, as the “data”.
The point that I am making, in my earlier post, is that the possibility exists, of an even warmer period, from 1908-1941, than the genius minds at GISS, and HADCRUT, are portraying. There are issues with the sampling of large regions of the globe. There is the plenty of uncertainty in how much warmer the 1977-2005 period was, as compared to the 1908-1941. They have an incentive to push the data, as far as they can, in the direction that shows, “unusual warming” in the later period. The easy way to do that is to reduce the prior warming. When you have large sections of the globe, with sparse coverage, confirmation bias, can rule the decision making process. The adjustments that were made, were made in that direction. So we may be talking about, only a few tenths, available for the “A”, in AGW.
Russ R: Right! IMHO, the “A” in AGW is responsible for about 0.2 degrees C of warming, and may be as high as 0.3 or as low as 0.1. (In degrees F, that is a range of 0.2 to 0.5.)
Thus, we humans are responsible for only about 25% of the Globsl Warming since 1880 claimed by the official hockey Team, which is about 30-40% of the actual Globsl Warming when data bias is taken into account.
Ira
Here’s a thing that may blow the minds of your non-sceptic friends. Show them one of those temperature graphs – say the one from 1880 to 2010 – but with the temperature axis ranging over 50-60 degrees Celsius, the approximate value of the planetary greenhouse effect.
On that scale, global temperature is practically a flat line. Obvious, right? Not to the average layman, raised on climate alarmism. I guarantee, at least subconciously they have been thinking of the temperature anomaly (which is all they normally get to see) as the whole of the temperature, and think the Earth has got twice as hot since 1960!
Of course the downside is they will think you’re lying…
thanks – you musta wrote this for me – it has my nickname in the title
– – – – – – – – –
Ira Glickstein,
I appreciate your attempt to overview a polarized complex situation. It is a difficult thing to do reasonably.
I’ve an overall concern.
You acknowledged it was speculation when you said “Activists in the catastrophic climate change industry purposely misrepresent the views of responsible Skeptics by making a number of false claims”. It is a speculation that could be seen to negatively influence the validity what you call “all of the above facts and data come directly from official, government-sponsored climate research organizations”. It is my understanding that the set of all “activists in the catastrophic climate change industry” (as you called them) has a significant number of individuals in common with the set of all scientists who authored, contributed papers to and reviewed ‘The Physical Science Basis’ sections of AR3, AR4 and AR5. Designate the former set as ‘Set A’ and the latter set as ‘Set B’. There appears to be a growing and reasonable public perception that influential roles in ‘Set B’ were significantly populated by individuals of ‘Set A’.
Ira, so I have the following speculative working premise for further discussion of your article. It can be viewed as reasonable for science observers and watchdogs to have significant integrity concerns with the scientific efforts of those in ‘Set B’ who were also significant influential members of ‘Set A’.
Depending how follow-up comments go then I may have additional comments on the main article.
John
In regards to “trusting”, our host and others (Curry?) trusted the conclusions they were presented with initially. Then they began to look a bit closer at things in the fields they were familiar with. They began to smell something.
TheWayBackMachine (http://archive.org/web/web.php) can be a great tool for showing how CO2 is such a powerful climate temperature changer that it can even reach back into the past and change records made years and even multiple decades ago.
Just find the web address for the current list of records and copy it into the main “search” box.
(They do seem to making such searches a bit harder by changing the address of the current records but even that says something.)
That might break the spell for some.
Surely if a guy believes in AGW because “scientists” have a consensus about. Point out that there isn’t a consensus amongst scientists. Not even amongst climate related scientists- maybe not even “climate scientists”. Would you take the word of Catholic Church that the Pope is God’s representative on Earth- (only some Catholics would not you) so why would take the word of alarmists that there is a consensus on AGW.