Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
UPDATE (Dec. 24, 2014): Looks like someone at NCAR wasn’t as open minded as I thought. The links at Kevin Trenberth’s media page to my blog have been removed. Good thing I archived it.
# # # #
We’ve discussed the work and opinions of NCAR’s Dr. Kevin Trenberth in many blog posts over the years. As recent examples, Trenberth’s opinions on the unusual warming in the extratropical North Pacific and on the possibility the PDO may have switched phases were discussed in Axel Timmermann and Kevin Trenberth Highlight the Importance of Natural Variability in Global Warming… (WattsUpWithThat cross post.) We discussed how in 2007 Dr. Trenberth revealed the weak underbellies of climate models in the post Seven Years Ago, An IPCC Lead Author Exposed Critical Weaknesses of the IPCC Foretelling Tools. (WUWT cross post.) And with respect to the possible impacts of the 2014/15 El Niño on global surface temperatures, we have the post The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 9 – Kevin Trenberth is Looking Forward to Another “Big Jump”. (WUWT cross post.)
I recall this subject coming up on one of the WUWT threads this year, but I wanted to write a post solely about this subject, to bring it to everybody’s attention.
TRENBERTH LINKS MY BLOG POSTS AT ONE OF HIS NCAR WEBPAGES
I fully understand that this is not an endorsement by Dr. Trenberth but I also understand that this does not mean he’s disputing the content. Under the heading of “Watts Up With That postings | January 31, 2014” on his Media webpage, Dr. Trenberth provides the titles and links to 11 of my blog posts, starting in January 2013 and ending in January 2014.
Watts Up With That postings | January 31, 2014
- Open Letter to Kevin Trenberth – NCAR
- Trenberth Still Searching for Missing Heat
- More on Trenberth’s Missing Heat
- A Different Perspective on Trenberth’s Missing Heat: The Warming of the Global Oceans (0 to 2000 Meters) in Deg C
- Even More about Trenberth’s Missing Heat – An Eye Opening Comment by Roger Pielke Sr.
- Open Letter to the Royal Meteorological Society Regarding Dr. Trenberth’s Article “Has Global Warming Stalled?”
- A Couple of Comments about the Oppenheimer and Trenberth Op-Ed in the Washington Post
- Meehl et al (2013) Are Also Looking for Trenberth’s Missing Heat
- Trenberth and Fasullo Try to Keep the Fantasy Alive
- More on Trenberth and Fasullo (2013) “An Apparent Hiatus in Global Warming?”
- Comments on the Nature Article “Climate Change: The Case of the Missing Heat”
The first post is linked to a cross post at WattsUpWithThat. The others are linked directly to my website Climate Observations.
Again, I do not take that as an endorsement of my work. But I do find it extremely remarkable that a lead author of the IPCC’s 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Assessment Reports would link blog posts written by someone who’s a student of his work on ENSO, but at the same time skeptical of his beliefs on global warming and climate change. Remarkable.
Many thanks to Kevin Trenberth for being so open-minded. It is unfortunate that there aren’t more climate scientists like him who are willing to present data-based findings that oppose their research.
Maybe someday, maybe when he retires, Dr. Trenberth and I can discuss ENSO and its long-term impacts on global surface temperatures and ocean heat.
(Just in case others at NCAR aren’t as open-minded, I’ve archived that webpage here.)
Who decided the IPCC report needed a “Summary for Policy Makers”?
Pachauri and his cohorts, because that is the reason for being of the whole IPCC scam.
@Brandon Gates. With condolences to Recook1978, Catherine, and David A.
Thank you, Brandon, for answering the question I posed tp ReCook– i.e., could he show us data to justify his claim that the models perform badly perhaps a comparison between predicted and actual, which he hasn’t. But you have.
I have a hunch your data will cause an uproar.
warrenlb,
Thanks. The main point I was making is that the models vs. actuals charts which are so popular in this crowd typically set all the data series to zero at the first year on the chart, usually a year that CMIP5 was running high and actual temps were running a bit low (1978-83 is popular). Which is a no-no. The appropriate comparison for CMIP5 is to take the 20 year means over 1986-2005 for each series being compared and use that as the zero baseline.
Not so much an uproar as a mad scramble to avoid confronting the dishonest cherry-pick by trying to change the subject to the “false assumptions” of causality.
Bob Tisdale, calling Mosher a troll is beneath you. It is not that far off what he is doing, as I suspect he comments negatively in response to the groupthink here. He does the same at alarmist websites, only they are more likely to ban him.
warrenlb says:
See Brandon Gate’s [sic] post of the comparison I asked Cook for. My condolences.
Once again I feel the need to explain to the uneducated the difference between a chart showing cause and effect, and a simple overlay chart. Brandon Gates’ chart is a simple overlay of CO2 and T. Anyone can play that game, but it means nothing. All it does is confuse people like warrenlb.
This chart shows cause and effect. It is real world data. Although CO2 may have a negligible effect on T at current CO2 concentrations, it is too small to show up in the data. A 25% rise in CO2 would not be enough to show a measureable increase in T. That is why there are no comparable charts showing that changes in CO2 cause subsequent changes in T.
Most of the change in CO2 is caused by changes in T. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but it will require the same kind of data that I posted here. Otherwise, facts win the argument; everything else is an attempt to support a false conclusion.
Your chart is using temperature anomalies (HADCRUT3) , which is not correct. You need to use straight data that doesn’t mask the seasonal differences in temperature for a valid comparison to CO2 data.
David Socrates,
I have used numerous charts by many different sources. All of them show the same thing, so your criticism is void. But of course, if you would like to move the goal posts to a place of your choosing, then I will play your game and still beat you at it.
I agree with Socrates
warrenlb says:
I agree with Socrates
To quote Mandy R-D: “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he!”☺
dbstealey,
What you mean a simple overlay like the chart you posted, similar to the one David A (to whom I was responding) posted? http://postimg.org/image/9r50kleih/
I can’t speak for warrenlb, but I’m pretty sure I can tell when someone is trying to have it both ways. In your rush to do so, I see you neglected to address the issue of the shoddy baselining hack job in that CMIP5 to actuals plot.
You can’t be serious: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaST3RiNEczdEVGdmc
In 400,000 years of ice age cycles, which saw temperature swings on the order of 12 degrees Celsius, the planet only once flirted with 300 ppmv CO2, much less 400. And we’re a degree down or so from the Eocene maximum.
Or are you claiming as well that what they taught us in high school chemistry about the products of burning hydrocarbons is just another liberal hoodwink?
Well, I just did. Let me guess two of your probable responses:
1) It’s not the same kind of data.
2) CO2 lags temperature in the paleo record too.
Brandon Gates,
Most assuredly the Eocene, at circa 50 mya was at least 12°C warmer than now. London was tropical, Anchorage subtropical, and there were metasequoia at 80°N latitude (Ellsmere Island). This is verified by the fossil record. If you come here and spew alarmism, you will look ridiculous.
Also, Brandon
The late warming trend, circa 1980-2000, has been shown to be due to greater insolation via reduced cloud albedo. There also appears to have been a reduction in aerosols in the Stratosphere during this trend, thus also increasing insolation. No need to wring your hands over CO2.
Brandon G,
Some of your comments are confusing to me. I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make, and your ‘can’t be serious’ chart is far too small for my ancient eyes. Regarding my overlay comment, maybe I didn’t make myself clear: whenever a chart shows CO2 and T without showing which came first, it is a simple overlay — one on top of the other. They show what happened, but they do not show which is the cause and which is the effect.
I posted charts that clearly show cause and effect. I can post more, going back hundreds of millennia. They all show the same thing: ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. I can find no cause and effect charts showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. If you can, please post.
This goes to the heart of the entire debate. The alarmist claim is that rising CO2 will cause runaway global warming. Observational evidence shows that is not the case. The reason is that at current concentrations CO2 has a negligible effect on T. Thus, the alarmist argument fails.
The current rise in CO2 cannot be attributed to temperature. The ice core record shows this clearly. Nowhere in the past 800,000 years has CO2 been at 400 ppm.
The current concentration of CO2 is as high as it is due to human combustion of fossil fuels.
David Socrates says:
The current rise in CO2 cannot be attributed to temperature.
That statement is flat wrong. Of course it can.
I’ve never disputed that the recent rise in CO2 is partly due to fossil fuel use. But so what? It is completely harmless, and it is beneficial to the biosphere. Part of the rise in CO2 is a natural response to rising global temperature [T]. Anyone who disputes that fact is refusing to accept reality.
As I explained above with impeccable logic and verifiable empirical [real world] evidence:
∆T causes ∆CO2.
That fact is indisputable, as observed on all time scales, from years, to hundreds of millennia. T leads CO2 on all of them. The alarmist crowd hates that fact because it totally destroys their ‘carbon’ scare.
As David Socrates says, the ice core record shows this clearly. What he doesn’t say is that the biosphere is starved of CO2, therefore more is better. That is why the planet is measurably GREENING as a direct result of more CO2.
So, David Socrates, explain for us why you think more of that beneficial trace gas is a problem… if you can.
“That statement is flat wrong
…
No, you need to provide evidence that it is wrong.
If you think the current rise in CO2 is due to temperature, can you please provide us all with the rise in temperature that has caused it?
..
The temperature of our planet has varied +/- several degrees over the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years, but it never reached 400 ppm.
..
Show me the time in the past when the temperature caused a 400 ppm concentration of CO2.. The ice core record does NOT show us any temp when CO2 was 400 ppm.
…
The issue is not the qualitative term “beneficial”
The issue is that your supposition that T causes CO2 does not apply to the current situation.
David Socrates says:
…you need to provide evidence that it is wrong.
I posted numerous links proving what I said is absolutely correct. You just don’t like science. Every assertion you make here is baseless. You provide no empirical, testable scientific evidence to support your assertions.
Next you say:
…can you please provide us all with the rise in temperature that has caused it?
“Provide us all”?? “All” the other readers are not questioning the facts I posted. Don’t be a chump, you are only speaking for yourself, you’re not the mouthpiece for ‘all’.
So for you, I have provided solid empirical evidence on time scales from years to hundreds of thousands of years, all showing the same thing: changes in CO2 are caused by changes in global T. If you want plenty more evidence I can provide it. But based on your unwillingness to accept the evidence of hundreds of scientists, what good would it do? When faced with incontrovertial evidence, your response is typical of the alarmist crowd’s.
Next, once again you post your lame non sequitur:
The temperature of our planet has varied +/- several degrees over the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years, but it never reached 400 ppm.
First: so what? And second: why are you cherry-picking 800K – 1M years? I will tell you exactly why: because cherry-picking feeds your confirmation bias. Look at the chart I posted showing that the biosphere is starved of CO2. That shows how high CO2 has been in the past. It also shows that our current CO2 level is right at the bottom of the chart, historically. If you didn’t blatantly cherry-pick you would understand that.
Next, you say:
Show me the time in the past when the temperature caused a 400 ppm concentration of CO2.
I gave you several charts, which show that on all time scales, ∆T causes ∆CO2. By trying to muddy the waters with an arbitrary non sequitur like “400 ppm” you demonstrate that my point is irrefutable: T causes CO2. NOT vice versa.
If you still believe that CO2 changes cause subsequent changes in T, then I challenge you to produce even one chart showing that cause and effect. I don’t think you are capable of finding such a chart, and if you can’t, you lose the argument. All you have are your baseless assertions. That isn’t nearly good enough here at the internet’s Best Science site.
Next you say:
The ice core record does NOT show us any temp when CO2 was 400 ppm.
So what? You are merely moving the goal posts. I never cited 400ppm, or anything else. Rather, I showed conclusively that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. You have yet to refute that — I don’t think you can — so you deflect the debate. A specific CO2 concentration is meaningless. What is meaningful is the question of cause and effect: which is the cause, and which is the effect? Is CO2 the cause? Or is it global T? I have shown conclusively that T is the cause. Your misdirecting response is nothing but bluster; a baseless assertion, intended to deflect the debate to a meaningless issue.
Finally you end with a totaly lame assertion:
The issue is not the qualitative term “beneficial” The issue is that your supposition that T causes CO2 does not apply to the current situation.
Wrong-O, bud. I proved ‘beneficial’ in the last link in my prior comment. I note again that all of your comments consist of nothing more than you expressing your Belief. But you provide no testable, empirical scientific evidence, only your always-wrong assertions: it is not my “supposition” that ∆T causes ∆CO2. It is a proven scientific fact, based on Beer’s Law among others. I posted two (2) separate charts showing conclusively that “T causes CO2”, which applies directly to this situation. You just don’t like it, because that empirical evidence debunks your MMGW nonsense.
You really need to get away from your alarmist anti-science blogs, and read the WUWT archives for a few months. Keyword: CO2. Because right now, you lack any understanding of how the real world works.
You have not provide evidence in the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years that caused the current rise in CO2
…
You have not shown the rise in T that has cause the current rise in CO2.
…
Not to mention the fact that isotope analysis makes your assertions funny
,
,
,
You post “So what”?”
…
Well, that’s the point….you can’t…….at no time in the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years has CO2 been at the 400 ppm level…..
…
When has the temperature in the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years been high enough to cause 400 ppm of CO2 ?
…
Reality has made your assertion false.
” If you want plenty more evidence I can provide it.”
…
Please provide the evidence in the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years that has caused the current 400 ppm of CO2
If you continue to ignore the fact that the 400 ppm of CO2 today was cause by human combustion of fossil fuels, you are not very bright.
David Socrates says:
You have not provide evidence in the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years that caused the current rise in CO2
Deflecting again, I see. Post where I ever said that something 800,000 to 1,000,000 years ago caused the current rise in CO2. You can’t; you are simply misdirecting because you cannot refute what I showed conclusively: that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. That fact alone debunks your alarmist nonsense, so no wonder you feel the need to misrepresent what I posted.
Next, you say:
You have not shown the rise in T that has cause the current rise in CO2.
First off, my position for years has been the same: part of the current rise in CO2 is due to fossil fuels. Why do you feel the desperate need to try and paint me into a corner? You are simply not bright enough to be able to do that, especially since you try to do it by misrepresenting, deflecting, and misdirection. But of course, if you stop those dishonest tactics you won’t have much to say, will you?
As Willis says constantly: cut and paste my words. I do it when responding to you, but all you do is invent a fake position that I don’t hold, then argue with that strawman. No wonder you’re losing the debate. And if you want to argue isotope analysis, go argue with Ferdinand Engelbeen, who I agree with. But enough of your deflecting nonsense. Post my words verbatim, and respond to them. There’s a reason you never do: if you did you know your argument would crash and burn.
Next:
…at no time in the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years has CO2 been at the 400 ppm level…
You are truly a broken record. Once more: ‘400 ppm’ is an arbitrary number, which as exactly nothing to do with what I am trying to teach you. The central issue is cause and effect. But if you stick to the subject you will promptly lose your argument, and that is why you constantly invent strawman arguments that I never made.
Next:
When has the temperature in the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years been high enough to cause 400 ppm of CO2 ?
And:
Please provide the evidence in the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years that has caused the current 400 ppm of CO2
*Sheesh* What are you, a Chatty Cathy doll? Did someone pull your string, and all you do now is emit those lame comments?
And:
Reality has made your assertion false.
A meaningless comment, indicating desperation and based on psychological projection [imputing your own faults onto others].
In fact, reality has debunked the entire alarmist position, which is based on conjecture; assertions. Opinions. I would personaolly be ashamed to make such a lame comment. it indicates that you have nothing to support your Belief.
Finally:
If you continue to ignore the fact that the 400 ppm of CO2 today was cause by human combustion of fossil fuels, you are not very bright.
What am I doing arguing with a dope? I must be retired, with nothing better to do. Why are you posting things that I never said. That is dishonest. Instead, cut and past my words, like I do yours. Anything else brings your ethics down to those of Peter Gleick. Do you want to be honest? Then quote my words, verbatim.
“Post where I ever said that something 800,000 to 1,000,000 years ago caused the current rise in CO2”
…
You have posted that T causes CO2
…
I have asked you to show me where T has cause 400 ppm of CO2
…
You cannot
…
Because the current CO2 levels are caused by human fossil fuel burning, and NOT by temperature. You sasid “CO2 is caused by T”….well……..show me the T that has caused 400 ppm. of CO2.
…
PS…I enjoy seeing you spin
“‘400 ppm’ is an arbitrary number,”
…
LMAO
…
No, it’s not “arbitrary”….the fact is, that we’ve not been at 400 ppm over the past four advances of the ice sheets.
…
Get real buddy……your pathetic “CO2 follows T” doesn’t apply to human combustion of fossil fuels.
Look dbstealy
Just post the spike in temperature that has “caused” the current 400 ppm in CO2
…
It shouldn’t be that much of a problem for you.
…
When did it happen?
@”David Socrates”,
Really, you have no education in the hard sciences, do you? Admit it. Because your arguments, such as they are, are all over the map. You don’t think that 400 ppm is an arbitrary number?? Then how about 399 ppm? Or 403 ppm? Or 398 ppm? Or 411 ppm? Pick any arbitrary number you want.
Shall I go on? At what point would your cherry-picked number not be arbitrary?
Answer: it is already an arbitrary number, cherry-picked to support your confirmation bias.
That is not all you cherry-pick. You cherry-picked your start time when you began measuring CO2. I provided a time scale of hundreds of millions of years — more is always better, for perspective. CO2 has been more than twenty times (20X) higher than current levels in the past, with no ill effects and without causing runaway global warming. Of course, that fact completely destroys your Belief System (BS), so you cherry-pick a much, much shorter time frame in your despeartate attempt to show what ain’t there.
But your confirmation bias is easy to debunk: global warming has stopped. It didn’t just stop recently, it stopped many years ago.
That fact alone debunks your CO2=CAGW conjecture. That conjecture is dead, my friend. It’s all over but the shouting. Planet Earth has made her ruling: your side lost the debate. And life being a fractal, you have decisively lost the debate here, due to your flagrant cherry-picking, deflection, and misrepresenting what others wrote. You’re not really Peter Gleick, are you? We know you’re H Grouse, et al.
More desperation:
Get real buddy……your pathetic “CO2 follows T” doesn’t apply to human combustion of fossil fuels.
This is just too easy. As usual, you provide NO evidence for your wild-eyed assertions. None whatever — while I have provided mountains of empirical evidence, which prove that on all time scales, ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. Those time scales also include the present, as I have shown conclusively, thus destroying your argument. As usual, all you post are your Belief-based assertions; but no verifiable facts.
It is amusing watching you squirm around, constantly implying that I disagree that fossil fuels have contributed to CO2 levels. That, of course, is a different discussion and a canard. You can’t win the original argument, so you deflect and misrepresent. You are a great examploe of why the alarmist clique refuses to engage in any fair, moderated debate in a neutral venue: every time they did, they were slaughtered. You are getting slaughtered here because you refuse to stay on topic. Moving the goal posts is a typical tactic of the alarmist cult. Without it, you wouldn’t have much to say.
Finally, I note that you are incapable of meeting my challenge: you still can’t find a chart showing empirical evidence that changes in temperature are caused by changes in CO2 — while I have posted numerous charts showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2. Once again, based on your failure, you have lost the argument.
“Shall I go on?”
…
Yes, please go on.
I’m waiting for you to show us when did the T spike to cause the current 400 ppm of CO2
..
You had better show us a higher temp than in the ice core data, because nowhere in the ice core data is the CO2 concentration 400 ppm.
Show me when in the past 1,000,000 years that CO2 has been 400 ppm…….you know, hard evidence. Just one graph …..you should have one no?
” global warming has stopped.”
…
I suggest you get in touch with the people that are keeping the records, because 2014 is shaping up to be the warmest on record. ….
…
If it has “stopped” why is this year so warm?
“while I have provided mountains of empirical evidence”
…
But you have not shown the spike in T that has cause the current levels of CO2
Come on Stealey boy…..one graph is all we need. One graph that shows the spike in temperature that cause today’s 400 ppm of CO2
…
You must have a graph of this in your collection.
…
The graph should be 800,000 years long.
…
And show the CO2 levels over the 800,000 years.
…
And show the temperatures over that time span
…
To “prove” your ridiculous assertion of causation.
We’re waiting
The fact is Mr Stealey….that the current levels of CO2 in our atmosphers at 400 ppm is due to human combustion of fossil fuels and not due to temperature.
…
Try to disprove that.
David Socrates says:
I’m waiting for you to show us when did the T spike…
Will you do me a favor? Please quit lying. No one has any respect for liars. Just ask folks here about Peter Gleick. How are you any different?
Since you cannot win the argument by being truthful, you constantly fabricate words that I never said, and attribute them to me. Several times now you have quoted me as saying that there is a temperature “spike”. I never said nor implied that.
Stop it. Those are your words. By implying it is something I said, you are being dishonest. Do not falsely imply that I ever said there was a “spike” in temperatures.
That could all be avoided if you simply did what I have repeatedly asked: Quote my words, verbatim. But you won’t do that, because then you couldn’t misrepresent my stated position.
What I said was this: Changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature on all time scales, from years out to hundreds of millennia. That is true, and that verifiable fact debunks your MMGW nonsense. I challenged you to produce contrary evidence, but you failed to do so.
Furthermore, just like the word “spiked” is yours alone, the “400 ppm” number is also yours alone. By falsely attributing them to me, you are trying to corner me into defending your failed conjecture. I told you before, you are just not smart enough to do that. That’s why you’re losing this debate so badly. You could never win it by being honest, so you try a different tactic.
As always: quote my words, verbatim. Then we will be on the same page, and I will have nothing to Grouse about. Otherwise, you are using the strawman fallacy. In any formal debate, you would lose based just on using that fallacy alone. So stop it. If you can’t win honestly, that says everything about you, and nothing abount scientific skeptics — the only honest kind of scientists.
Stealey
All I ask for you is to show us the spike in T that caused the current 400 ppm of CO2
…
Is it that hard?
“Changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature on all time scales”
…
…
…
Good.
…
Show me the change in temperature that caused the 400 ppm of CO2
dbstealey,
Try zooming in using the viewer. Or download it and open it on your local machine, it’s quite a high-resolution image.
The utility of Fourier transforms coupled with band-pass filters is that you can more readily pick out lead-lag relationships — at a particular frequency. That last bit is key. There is no doubt that atmospheric CO2 concentration is responsive to temperature just like humidity is — temperature increases partial pressure thereby decreasing CO2’s aqueous solubility. CO2 comes out until the partial pressures in both fluids reach equilibrum at the higher temperature. Similar effect on land, much of that also to do with bacteria and other small critters in the soil at the bottom of the food chain.
If you’d chosen a higher frequency for your band pass filter, you would have picked up on the seasonal variability of CO2, but this time the relationship would be the inverse of N. Hemisphere temperatures. The reason being that during the warmer NH months, terrestrial photosynthetic plants fix more carbon from the atmosphere than they do in the N. Hemisphere winter. There again, CO2 will lag temps because it takes a bit for the plants to get going, and they hang on just a bit longer as it begins to cool in autumn.
I’ve done my homework on the Vostok ice cores. Recall I predicted you would invoke lag-lead here. This isn’t my first rodeo. It’s obvious since Milankovic’s work has been confirmed by uncountable later papers that CO2 did not initiate the inflection points of the glaciation cycles over the past million years. It shows up as a response variable, lagging temperature on the order of 1,000 years.
This is all old hat. Nobody doing the actual research has missed it, or ignores it. Trotting it out like it’s the be-all-end-all nail in the coffin for CO2’s radiative role in surface temperature might stump the neophyte (C)AGW/CC investigator, but not this kid. Because see, I understand that response variables in complex dynamical systems are not limited to only being responsive. There are zillions of co-causality examples in other sciences. People of education who ignore this when they should darn well know better are being disingenuous to an extreme.
Yes by George, the glaciation cycles were initiated by insolation changes at high northern latitudes determined by predictable and fairly regular changes to Earth’s orbital and rotational parameters, specifcally obliquity and precession of rotation, and eccentricity of the orbit. Temperature goes up, then CO2 rises. Plain as day.
But have you ever noticed that the rises are steeper than the falls? Hmm? The orbital parameters rise and fall with nearly symmetric slopes on either side, but temperature likes to go up faster than it goes down. I wonder why that could be.
You’re not going to find one that covers multiple up/down cycles on a decadal or annual basis. You won’t find one in the past million years because we weren’t around for the vast majority of the time. But something else you won’t find in the Vostock cores: 400 ppmv atmospheric CO2. The higest is 300 ppmv, and that was during the Eocene interglacial where average temps (according to the Vostock cores) were 1-2 C higher than at any time during the Holocene. So on from 100K year perspective, CO2 is definitely not the main response variable to temperature. THAT was my point.
That is one alarmist claim. I don’t subsribe to it. Please kindly do not put the words of panicky people, most of whom are ignorant of the actual science in my mouth. Spare me the famous quotes by activist researchers and politicians as well. I disagree with alarmist rhetoric and the politics of fear, period, full stop, end of story.
It’s easy to falsify a strawman you’ve created for just that purpose. Try arguing against the actual statements in primary literature. You could start by getting back to my original argument, which is that the models vs. observations plot I was attacking is improperly baselined so as to exaggerate the discrepancy. My plot shows the actual discrepancy when one properly baselines the observational series to the 1986-2005 baseline used in AR5 for doing that exact comparison.
Funny how you don’t want talk about my actual original argument, innit.
mpainter,
Embarrassingly, I confused the Eocene Epoch 50 ma with the Eemian Stage 130 ka. The Eemian was 1-2 degrees hotter, CO2 peaked out ~300 ppmv. That’s the relevant point for my discussion with dbstealy because 400 ppmv today cannot be explained as a response to temperature.
London didn’t exist as we know it 50 ma, as may be inferred from this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleogene#mediaviewer/File:Blakey_50moll.jpg Really damn hot, little to no polar ice sheets and lots of places which are currently dry land that were then under ocean water. CO2 estimates from 500-2,000 ppmv. Hot. Damn hot. Though it would have been livable for us had we evolved that early in the game because, well, that’s how evolution works. Oh, and look, no need to dig a canal through Panama!
However our species and, most importantly, our technological civilization, came to be in the Holocene, a 12 ky stretch of the most stable climate the planet has seen for at least a million years. That relative stability can only have been a benefit to our success. And you know what they say about success: don’t mess with it.
I don’t do alarmism. When doing risk assessment, it pays to keep one’s head about them.
Also keep in mind that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I could give two turds whether you say my arguments are ridiculous as opinions are a dime a dozen. Cogent arguments are rare, but far more fun and interesting, if not more effective.
You’ve got the stratospheric aerosol relationship backward: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ The light gray line in the figure (a) of the second chart is the one you want. It’s been supposed that the Clean Air Act is partially responsible for some of the runup in the ’80s and ’90s by reducing the amount of sulfate aerosols from coal-fired power and industrial plants. Bit of an irony that.
Reduced cloud albedo is a consensus argument for positive, not negative, cloud feedback. You’re dangerously close to making the warmist argument for us.
Brandon Gates says:
Recall I predicted you would invoke lag-lead here.
I let that insufferable comment pass the first time you posted it, because I thought you just had a bad day. Now you bring it up again, as if you can actually, like, predict things. You can’t. If you’re so good at predicting, then predict when global warming will resume; month/year. Me, I predict that you will emit more nonsense. How’s that for predicting? Prove me wrong.
For the rest of your comment, suffice it to say that I disagree. I posted several charts showing conclusively that ∆T causes ∆CO2. I can post many more showing the same thing. In return, all I asked for was even one chart showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. But you can’t produce it, as you admitted using doubletalk. I rest my case. Say whatever you want, but if you can’t find a chart based on testable, empirical, real world data showing conclusively that CO2 is the cause of temperature changes, all the rest of your comment is irrelevant — and the AGW conjecture takes another solid hit.
AGW must be measurable if it affects temperature like you believe it does, because every physical process is measurable, from CO2 levels, to Polar bear numbers, to subatomic particle energies, to temperature, and to everything else in the real world. The only reason AGW is not measurable is if it is too small to measure because it is swamped by background noise… or, AGW simply doesn’t exist.
As I have said repeatedly for many years here, I think AGW exists. But it is obvious that if it cannot be measured, it is simply too tiny at current CO2 concentrations. If you think you can measure AGW, then post a testable, empirical measurement, quantifying the fraction of total global warming that is caused by human activity. What specific percentage of total global warming is it? The fact is, if there were such a verifiable measurement, it would be trumpeted 24/7/365 by the alarmist clique. But it isn’t, because there are no measurements of AGW. None. Thus, AGW is nothing more than a conjecture. An opinion. But everyone has an opinion, and skeptics’ opinions are just as good as yours. Probably better, because skeptics have nothing to prove. You do. Because it’s your conjecture.
===============================
Next, since we’re now using only last names, Socrates-Grouse, when you start commenting on the charts I posted and get off your “spike” deflection, I’ll answer. I posted solid real world evidence proving that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature, on all time scales. But you are not capable of producing any verifiable evidence showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T.
Regarding your “spike” misdirection, that is your conjecture, not mine. You want me to prove it for you. As if. I told you that you aren’t smart enough to paint me into a corner, but you keep trying. That is both dishonest and juvenile. Grow up, and discuss the links I posted — that will be a first.
Let me remind you, or teach you, whichever it may be, that skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is on you for promoting the man-made global warming conjecture, to provide either proof, or at least solid scientific evidence, showing that your conjecture has any merit. So far, you have failed.
The alarmist crowd has never been able to provide any testable, empirical evidence showing that the rise in CO2 is the cause of global warming. In fact, Planet Earth is busy right now falsifying that nonsense: as CO2 continues inexorably upward, global warming has stopped, and not just for a few months. Global warming has been stopped for many, many years. Where is your god now?
In any other scientific discipline, if one side was promoting a conjecture that was so thoroughly debunked by the real world, they would tuck tail and go back to the drawing board. But in climastrology, they double down. No wonder they are losing all respect from honest scientists. They have no credibility left. Planet Earth is making that crystal clear, and every time the alarmist cult sticks its head up over the parapet, they get targeted by people who ask them why their conjecture has failed. Their response is always the same: deflection and misdirection. Moving the goal posts. Changing the subject. Name-calling. Appeals to corrupt authorities. Anything — except admitting that their conjecture was wrong.
The problem is this: people like you have invested your egos in the global warming scare for a long time. You have taught others that global warming is a very serious threat, and you have used confirmation bias and cherry-picking to convince yourselves that you are right. But now that eighteen years have passed, showing that your conjecture is flat wrong, you dig in your heels and act like a bunch of Jehovah’s Witness who have been told their scripture is fake. The carbon scare is now your religion, and no real world facts can ever convince you otherwise.
Finally, every alarming prediction made by your side over the years has been flat wrong. None of your many scary predictions have come true, not a single one! You have cried “WOLF!!” the whole time, and now the public is jaded. A couple of years ago there were still lots of comments in the media, worrying about global warming, and “carbon”.
But no more. Now the large majority of public comments outright ridicule your global warming scare. And once the public has turned on you, you will never get them back on your side. It will just get a little bit worse all the time, like a Chinese water torture. You will lose a few sidekicks every day, until finally you will throw in the towel yourself, slinking off and pretending that you were never part of the hoax. That day will be here sooner than you think.
It is happening right now. I see it every day, and it even surprises me how quickly people are turning on the Chicklen Little crowd. If you don’t see it, you’re blind.
Well I did steal some of your thunder I suppose, but insufferable?
Ah, the old ask the impossible to answer question ploy. I think surface temperatures will nudge upward next El Nino — who knows when — but AMO is likely going to go negative in the next decade. Anyway, here’s my latst guess: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSbU9sdjVvYzlMb28
And I responded with agreement with those plots. Now tell me again why a response variable can never be causal.
It is measurable and has been. By the way, you’re running the “It’s not the correct data” script here, just as I anticipated you would.
Your Fourier analyses won’t pick it up because the band pass filters you’ve chosen are picking out patterns in annual/decadal cycles, not 100+ year secular trends. If you keep looking in the wrong direction, you won’t see the right thing. Basic common sense dictates you’re not going to find anything comparable to the past 250 years in any data because CO2 levels have never been observed to have risen 30% so quickly. I don’t know how much more non-doublespeak I can get than this: normal seasonal variations in CO2 is not the signal you’re looking for.
A 1.5 W/m^2 increase over 130 years is a subtle change, but not too small to detect. The decadal wiggles amount to +/- 0.30 W/m^2 either direction and those show up just fine. The increased forcing from CO2 since 1880 is 5 times that, and completely detectable by instrumentation.
“Regarding your “spike” misdirection, that is your conjecture,”
Funny how you have confused real world data from the ice cores with “conjecture”
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
H Grouse,
I note that despite your stupid “spike” misdirection, that the rise in CO2 has not caused your endlessly predicted global warming — much less the endlessly predicted runaway global warming scare.
One more time: EVERY alarming prediction you have ever made has been flat wrong. When someone is always 100% wrong in all their predictions, they are nothing more than a modern day Chicken Little. The rest of us know what you don’t: The sky isn’t falling. It was only a tiny acorn. But you still believe the sky is falling. Why? You have zero evidence to support your Belief. You are arguing out of stubbornness, nothing more. That is foolish.
Since you have been totally wrong in every prediction made, you lose the debate. You posted a graph that you think looks scary — but CO2 isn’t causing any problems. Not a single one. It is a completely harmless trace gas. So who in their right mind would award any credibility to your failed opinion? You have been one hundred percent wrong. Time to MovOn.
From your response, I see that you are unable to point to a change in temperature that caused CO2 to rise to 400 ppm. Too bad, your assertion that CO2 follows T is incorrect.
You can deflect all you want, but fact the fact that you are wrong, and the ice core data proves you wrong.
PS…..What is a “Grouse?”
@Crispin in Waterloo.
Re: Your thoughtful reply to my post on the energy budget:
1) I think you may have misread my statement about incoming thermal radiation. I said that the only inflow of thermal radiation to the Earth’s system is sunlight. I did not comment on how much of that is reflected back out. Some clearly is.
2) I accept your point that its not only IR frequency thermal radiation leaving Earths system –as you point out, some is reflected sunlight as well.
I agreed with MikeB’s energy budget chart, and did not intend to dispute anything in it. I appreciate your clarifications/corrections. Thanks.
milodonharlani,
Those are accurate representations of observation. I see nothing about “why”. Thank you for saying “I don’t know”, albeit in a round-about fashion.
Is temperature higher or lower than the late 19th century? Atmospheric CO2 concentration? Where’s the falsification?
This is the point where it would be good to produce a citation or two. Also note that “well, there was a 50% chance of being correct” isn’t how this works. Hypothesis based on first principles of physics is what established the correlation prior to it happening. That correlation was subsequently observed. If you know of any other way to demonstrate causality, now would be your chance to have a go at winning a Nobel … even if only a shared one.
Brandon Gates says:
It is measurable and has been.
AGW is measurable? Then please post your valid, testable measurement, showing the specific fraction of global warming attributable to human activity, out of total global warming. Is it 17.8%? Is it 92.5%?
Is it 50.000%?
Be sure that it shows the % of human-caused global warming — AGW — in a way that can be confirmed by anyone. In other words, testable.
I really look forward to finally seeing exactly what the specific fraction of AGW turns out to be, out of total global warming. Now we will know exactly how much is natural, and how much is man-made, from an empirical observation. That measurement will settle many years of heated controversy, and it will finally show everyonw whether human emissions are a major contributor, or just incidental.
I truly believe if you can post a verifiable, specific measurement of AGW acceptable to the scientific community, that you will be on the short list for the next Nobel Prize, since you will be the first to post such a measurement. When will your paper be published?
I can hardly wait.
The exchanges between Brandon Gates, David Socrates, DBStealey, and others on this forum allow us to judge for ourselves who uses relevant data and valid physics and deals with the issues at hand, and reasons through to conclusions.
For me, the clear winners are Socrates and Gates. And Science.
@warrenlb, who says:
For me… &etc.
Your opinion doesn’t count. I post reams of data, and plenty of verifiable evidence.
You post nothing but your opinion. Same with Grouse, whose only ‘contribution’ here is his incessant deflection and misdirection in trying to get me to attack his “spike” strawman. The “spike” is his strawman. But he still tries desperately to get me to take his bait. As if. He is just misdirecting from my point that changes in CO2 are caused by temperature changes. But as usual, he refuses to discuss that fact.
Read the whole thread, and you will see that when you refer to “others on this forum”, you and Socrates are way out by yourselves in left field. Skeptics here are the only ones who consistently use “relevant data”. Show me where you ever use relevant data. Emitting your opinion doesn’t count. You are trying to sell a bogus narrative based on opinion and conjecture; a narrative that has been repeatedly falsified by the only Authority that matters: Planet Earth.
And you still avoid responding to the links I post, or to any of the empirical facts pointed out that debunk your anti-science. That’s why you lost the debate.
His opinion counts just as much as yours does.
Sorry, David, but on my planet at least, an opinion which is supported by citations, logic, math, sources, reference to authorities, and the like counts for much more than the opinion of someone who posts only their opinion.
w.
Your opinion is noted.
David S.,
Willis’ opinion counts for far more than most. He is a published, peer reviewed author in the field of climatology.
And you… ?
AGW theory reduces clouds? Via CO2 increase?
Horse droppings, Brandon. Shows how little you understand AGW theory.
And if you want to argue isotope analysis, go argue with Ferdinand Engelbeen, who I agree with.
In fairness to Ferdinand Engelbeen, I feel obligated to point out that he does NOT feel that only “part of the current rise in CO2 is due to fossil fuels“. He feels that every ppm from the 280 ppm in 1750 to 400 ppm now is due to human combustion.
If you feel only part is due to humans, that is of course your prerogative.
As for the effect this has, it is obviously way less than catastrophic as we both agree.
You might pass along Engelbeen’s conclusion to DBStealey who argues CO2 rise has always been caused by T, not just prior to the industrial age, but since 1750 as well. He hasn’t been able to find a spike in T that would have caused modern day CO2 rise, but has not yet recanted. You might be able to help him fess up,
Werner, Ferdinand Engelbeen and I have an ongoing discussion over this issue. My view is that at least some of the past century’s rise in CO2 can be attributed to the MWP, as there is extensive evidence showing that rises in CO2 follow warming episodes by 800 ±200 years. That is well documented, and we are now in that time frame following the MWP.
I won’t speak for Ferdinand, but he and I are very close in our views. I am in agreement with about 99% of what he writes, and I have posted that here. Ferdinand has taught me a lot over the years. I should note that no two educated people always agree 100%.
One thing that Ferdinand has stated repeatedly is that the rise in CO2 is harmless, and it is not a problem. If the alarmist crowd accepted that, they wouldn’t have any real argument left. Their whole reason for being is to demonize “carbon”. Without the devil, we wouldn’t need priests. Would we?
In my opinion, the 800 years only applies when there is continuous warmth for that long and that it takes 800 years for the deep ocean CO2 to make it to the surface. But with the LIA in between the MWP and us, it makes no sense to invoke that 800 year period.
Furthermore, how hot would the MWP have had to be to raise the CO2 by 120 ppm? I believe the MWP was hotter than today, but not nearly hot enough to explain today’s 400 ppm. That is assuming that the MWP was even responsible.
Note David Hoffer’s comment on the other thread:
davidmhoffer
December 5, 2014 at 7:05 pm
says:
That said, recent rise in CO2 is clearly anthropogenic, which has nothing to do with the observation that on geologic time scales, CO2 follows T.
However we all agree that the extra CO2, whatever its source, is harmless.
I agree with 99% of what you say, but on this 1% I do not agree. And neither does David Hoffer nor Ferdinand Engelbeen. However I do know that others agree with you.
Werner, please read what I wrote:
“…at least some of the CO2 is due to that factor.
There is too much evidence to simply dismiss the 800 year lag out of hand, and it does not require continuous, unbroken warmth. Who ever said that? Also: it’s not my 800 year lag, as you stated. If it was important, I would dig out some of the literature.
Next, please make it clear who you’re quoting. I think that was Dave Hoffer, not me that you cut ‘n’ pasted.
Finally, it would be a problem if we agreed 100%. I am more than happy with 99%. Because with the True Believer alarmist crowd, it’s more like 0.00%. ☺
There is too much evidence to simply dismiss the 800 year lag out of hand, and it does not require continuous, unbroken warmth. Who ever said that?
Presumably Milankovitch cycles showed the 800 year lag. These are long term things of tens of thousands of years and not something that even registers any changes over a few hundred years. As for requiring continuous, unbroken warmth, anything else just does not make any sense to me. If it takes 800 years to reach equilibrium, and you have a LIA after 300 years, then everything gets reversed and oceans absorb more CO2. And if oceans give off more CO2 in the year 2000, it is because they warmed over the previous 50 years and not because of something that happened a thousand years ago and was reversed 500 years ago. In other words, if we were still in a LIA now, there is no way the warmth from a thousand years ago would increase the CO2.
The complete quote by David Hoffer is here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/05/friday-funny-over-a-centurys-worth-of-failed-eco-climate-quotes-and-disinformation/#comment-1807299
davidmhoffer
December 5, 2014 at 7:05 pm
David Socrates December 5, 2014 at 6:48 pm
Mr davidmhoffer
…
It may be “good to know” but I suggest you ask Mr Dbstealey why CO2 has not followed T in the past 15/16/17/18 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well Mr David Socrates, in the geological record, CO2 has in fact followed T, with a lag time varying from decades to centuries. So that lag time exceeds the last 15/16/17/18 years, hence we can’t draw any conclusions based on fluctuations on much shorter time scales, such as the one you refer to above. That said, recent rise in CO2 is clearly anthropogenic, which has nothing to do with the observation that on geologic time scales, CO2 follows T.