Guest essay by Andy May
This is an open letter to Lauren Carroll regarding her Politifact.com article on December 17, 2014.
I have sent a very similar letter to her asking for her comments, but no reply yet. I’m always annoyed at the media “bait and switch” tactic of picking the most outlandish statements of the “other side” and shooting them down thoughtlessly as if the statement represented the whole of the argument. This is just one case, but it is on a web site that portrays itself as a media and political watchdog that reaches for understanding over ideological rhetoric. It is also a web site that should not take sides, but usually does. I thought it might be useful to discuss the points from a scientific perspective. I doubt I will change Ms. Carroll’s somewhat biased perspective on climate change, but others may find this discussion useful.
Dear Ms. Carroll
I’d like to discuss the points you make in your article and point out some problems from a scientist’s perspective. I’m a petrophysicist (a type of Earth Scientist) with 40 years of experience and I’ve followed the issue of Global Warming or Climate Change with much interest for about 15 years. The issue is much more complex than the media generally portray it. I do not want to get into the debate over the claim that “Climate Change is a hoax.” This is a discussion of the meat of the subject, not straw men. I believe your web site generally tries to get beyond silly claims or statements and seeks to illuminate and inform. This email is an attempt to help in this regard.
Actually, I’m more annoyed at the claim, referred to in Ms. Carroll’s article, that Marco Rubio’s statement that human activity is not “causing these dramatic changes to our climate” is false. Rubio’s full statement (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/13/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-humans-are-not-causing-climate-ch/ ) is carefully worded and very reasonable. In my opinion, Rubio is correct. The Kliegman article does not address what Rubio actually said, but changes his statement to “Rubio said human activity isn’t causing changes to the environment…” A statement that is false, but not what he said. This is another straw man logical fallacy, just like Carroll’s.
You have stated that there is a consensus of scientific organizations that agree on three issues. The three are: 1) Manmade greenhouse gases warm (or affect) the atmosphere, 2) the IPCC reports are a good summary of climate science and 3) the increase in greenhouse gases is likely more than half of the cause of warming over the last 50 years. The notorious and widely discredited Cook, et. al. 2013 paper is also cited in the accompanying article by Kliegman on Rubio’s statement. Even the authors of the papers “classified” by Cook, et. al. say they were wrong (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/ and http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/26/the-97-consensus/ )
As a skeptic of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, I agree with all three statements. My agreement on the third point should be qualified a bit. “Over the last 50 years” is an important condition. The Earth appears to be adapting to the additional CO2, future additional CO2 may not contribute half of any warming. This is because each additional bit of CO2 adds less and less of an effect since CO2 only traps a small range of infra-red frequencies and perhaps there are some natural adaptations that we do not understand very well yet (http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/139rmg~1.pdf ). Any qualified Earth scientist would agree with the first two statements, they are obvious. Most of us agree with the last one as stated. The IPCC reports are a good summary of the state of climate science, but the executive summaries often misstate the actual report and there are errors, of course (http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/09/ipccs-new-protocol-for-addressing-possible-errors/ )
Our problem is not with the points above. Our issue is with the assumption that increasing CO2 and warming is a problem that we urgently need to deal with. We also object to the federal money (over $100B according to http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/ ) being spent on researching or mitigating climate change.
Case in point. It is widely known that there has been no warming since 1998 ( google “No Warming since 1998” or go to Matt Ridley’s excellent article in the WSJ, Sept 4, 2014). So, for 16 of the 50 years in question there has been no warming. Doesn’t this suggest that natural forces are stopping the warming caused by manmade CO2? After all CO2 has continued to rise over the last 16 years at a steady pace, correct? If natural forces can stop the CO2 caused warming doesn’t that imply they are as strong a forcing as the CO2?
Increasing CO2 to 1100 ppm (our atmosphere now has 400 ppm) causes plants to grow more than 50% faster and use less water per pound of growth ( http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm ). This is huge for our food supply, especially in most of the third world where food is hard to come by (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/466531a.html ). Higher temperatures help plant growth also. The Earth has been very cool for the last three million years; generally the Earth has been much warmer in the past and with more CO2 than today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology ).
As for other scientists who are skeptical of an impending climate catastrophe caused by manmade greenhouse gases, I refer you to the following partial list. “Consensus” is meaningless in science, it is a political term. This is an interesting area of research, but it has been screwed up and obscured by the politicians and the media.
These eminently qualified climate skeptics doubt an impending climate catastrophe and believe we should do nothing drastic now.
Professor Richard Lindzen
Professor S. Fred Singer
Professor Judith Curry
Professor Bjorn Lomborg
Professor Roger Pielke
Professor Roger Pielke Jr.
Matt Ridley
Professor Richard Tol (The Cook, et. al. survey included 10 of his 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.)
And many, many more ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming and http://www.petitionproject.org/ ). Obviously, as we saw with Galileo, it only takes one good scientist to shoot down conventional wisdom.
I hope this clarifies the skeptic case somewhat. You are not the only media person to miss the point of the argument.
The “hoax,” if you want to use that term, is the speculative jump from simply “global warming” to an “impending climate catastrophe.” It is true that the globe is warming; it has been doing that for the last 18,000 years. It is not established that warming is a bad thing or will lead to catastrophe, that conclusion is pure speculation. Generally, the warmer periods in the past have been good for mankind and the cooler periods problematic (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/17/climate-and-human-civilization-over-the-last-18000-years/ ).
The alarmists argue that global warming is real and they can back that up. True enough, I have no argument with that. Then they deftly switch, without any supporting data to “global warming is bad.” They are very skilled at this.
Andy May
You should not have included Roger Pielke and Roger Pielke Jr. as neither are skeptics nor is Dr. Tol. I still do not know why people include Judith Curry as she is not a skeptic either.
There are highly qualified skeptics you did not include such as Dr. Patrick Michaels, Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer.
“the media “bait and switch” tactic of picking the most outlandish statements of the “other side” and shooting them down thoughtlessly as if the statement represented the whole of the argument.”
How is this tactic “bait and switch”? It is a version of “straw man fallacy”.
Nick Stokes wrote “You can see how the ‘since 1998’ depends on the blip in 1998.”
Christopher Hanley [January 2, 2015 at 1:54 pm] retorts: “Funny, if my memory serves me, back around the 2001 the CAGW hysterics were only too happy to exploit the so-called ‘blip’ as an integral part of the temperature record and indication of impending doom.”
More than that, Chris – it ‘blip’ was cited as positive evidence of CAGW for many years thereafter.
I think Nick Stoke’s is a denier of the facts of scientific reality and debate – and ought to be ignored (and hopefull, definded by his New Government Masters, accordingly).
As an advanced degree holder from the University of London in a cognate environmental science discipline – the old cabal of Warmista’s must be rooted out and displaced by contrarians funded to dispute State Science hooey, just as the late great Michael Crichton advocated.
Only then can science actually return to sanity and once again being to progress.
In short, Nikj is an agent of the problem – and not part of the solution.
Nick Stokes wrote “You can see how the ‘since 1998’ depends on the blip in 1998.”
Christopher Hanley [January 2, 2015 at 1:54 pm] retorts: “Funny, if my memory serves me, back around the 2001 the CAGW hysterics were only too happy to exploit the so-called ‘blip’ as an integral part of the temperature record and indication of impending doom.”
More than that, Chris – the ‘blip’ was cited as positive evidence of CAGW for many years thereafter.
I think Nick Stoke’s is a denier of the facts of scientific reality and debate – and ought to be ignored (and hopefull, definded by his New Government Masters, accordingly).
As an advanced degree holder from the University of London in a cognate environmental science discipline – the old cabal of Warmista’s must be rooted out and displaced by contrarians funded to dispute State Science hooey, just as the late great Michael Crichton advocated.
Only then can science actually return to sanity and once again being to progress.
In short, Nick is an agent of the problem – and not part of the solution.
Hi, Andy!
We worked together on a big CO2 project in Houston and Indonesia back in 1981. I remember a day at the office in Jakarta when we almost put a big dent in the problem of global hunger. I guess I lost track of your whearabouts since then. I agree 100% with your succinct presentation of a complex topic beset with intentional disinformation. Take care of yourself. Hope to buy you a beer sometime.
Regards,
John Clayton
John Clayton, sure I remember. You can find me on linkedin. I hope all is well.
“Any qualified Earth scientist would agree with the first two statements, they are obvious.” — Andy May
With all due respect, they are not obvious. The first is a theoretical possibility, not demonstrated to have actually occurred. If I urinate in the ocean I’m raising the sea level — obvious, perhaps, but not true. Quantity counts. And how can it possibly be “obvious” that a doorstop-sized report is reliable? We all know enough about the process to have reasonable doubts; same is true of the published papers on which the reports are based. Dr. Curry has written, IIRC, that she, too, assumed the assessment report reflected the state of the art — until she read the chapter on her own area, which apparently had some dubious content; that lead her to wonder about the other chapters.
It has long bothered me that some skeptics, including authentic heroes — such as our host, Steve McIntyre, and Andrew Montford — concede so much. Why?
And why should we care? There exists the distinct possibility that this website is more widely viewed and more heavily visited than PolitiFacts. Without a doubt it is read by a much larger population of actual climate scientists, and much more regularly.
Thanks, I agree. The readership of this blog are very well informed. I think Politifact gets more traffic, but most of their traffic are non-scientific political junkies.
Brandon,
First a comment on your posts. Why do you hold the views you do when you can check it mathematically for yourself. Let me lead you in.
Calc 1. Confirm warming climate sensiyivity in the 3.x degree per doubling range.
Temp rise since 1850 is about 0.8C (0.7 – 0.8 we’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and use the high end)
CO2 rise since 1850 is 400 – 280 = 120 ppm
Years since 1850 is 165
We know temp is a natural log function of CO2
T = C × LN(A/B) where c is a scale factor constant and A is CO2 (2015) and B is CO2 (1850)
We can substitute to get
0.8 = C x ln(400/280) to find C
C= 0.8/ln(400/280) = 2.24
Knowing C we can calculate climate sensitivity based on observations( change for a doubling of CO2 )
? = 2.24 × ln 2
=1.55 degrees per doubling.
BUT
This assumes that ALL the temperature rise from 1850 was due to CO2, even though we know the bit from 1850 to 1950 wasn’t, and the IPCC said that about 50% of 1950 to now is human caused. We could estimate maybe a quarter of that 0.8 degree warming was CO2 related, but lets just use the IPCC number of 50%, which is still overestimating things because we know human CO2 wasn’t acting before 1950. 1.55 x .5 = 0.78
So climate reaction to human CO2 is at best 0.78 degrees C per doubling, doesn’t seem catastrophic to me ( well until maybe 10000 ppm)
Calc 2.
Lets look at energy conservation.
Scientists say all cause atmospheric temperature rise due to the atmosphere is 33 degrees from blackbody theoretical (look that up if you like), some is due to gravity, solar wind, electrical forces, friction, other GHGs like ozone etc. Some is due to CO2… For arguments sake lets assume it is ALL due to CO2 and its water feedback, lets assume the CO2 is the only control knob, how much warming then would 100 % CO2 cause.
Atmosphere is about 85% opaque at 400 PPM CO2 in CO2 stopband.
Only 15 % of incident energy transits the atmosphere.
33 deg /85 % = 0.38 deg per percent energy stopped by atmospheric CO only 15 percent left to go so maximum energy stopped by CO2 and all its feedbacks would cause 15 x 0.38 = 5.8 degrees more warming for a dense 100 % CO2 atmosphere. Contrast this reality to the IPCC estimate 13 doublings x 3.3 degrees per doubling = 42.9 degrees to 13 x 6 = 78 degrees high estimate, with no liquid water left on earth ( since temp at the equator in summer would exceed 100C). This has never happened since the earth cooled even when the atmosphere was nearly 100 % CO2.
5.8 degrees for 100% CO2 / 13 doublings to get to 100 % gives 0.46 degrees per doubling but scientists suggest only a 1/3 of the 33 deg atmospheric insulation effect is due to GHGs giving a real climate sensitivity estimate of 0.15 degrees per doubling and a maximum warming of just 1.9 degrees even if the atmosphere were all CO2. I am decidedly UNworried about a warming that could reach just 1.9 degrees even if all the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere were replaced by CO2
You should really do the math, it is very enlightening.
Bobl, Very good analysis, thank you.
Facts?
Math?
The Alarmists want no part of that.
Geez, what will we have next?
Will someone apply the Logical Fallacies to the Alarmist’s statements and show that they mostly fail?
Oh, wait…
never mind.
Bobl,
Why do you presume I don’t check the math?
Yup. I usually get something in that neighborhood. This one shows 2.75-2.8 depending on whether the regression is against monthly or a trailing 12mo MA: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSTFNEekNLWkxkMFk
I think that one doesn’t take the log of the doubling. IIRC when I did, the answer I got was 2.41.
Spot on. Here’s how I go at it: ΔF = α * ln(C/C0), α = 5.35 W/m^2
Substituting values: ΔF = 5.35 * ln(400/280) = 1.9 W/m^2
Equilibrium climate sensitivity is expressed as: ΔT = λ * ΔF, λ = 0.8 K/W*m-1 (0.8 is not a typo, it’s a coincidence)
Substituting values: ΔT = 0.8 * 1.9 = 1.52 K, which exceeds observed ΔT by nearly a factor of 2. So lambda is wrong, or we’re missing something. Most likely both.
It’s worse than that. Not only have we left out solar increase, other GHGs, aerosol effects and feedbacks we haven’t even begun to account for the rate of heat uptake. It’s not instantaneous because the planet is massive, and water in particular takes far longer to respond than the rest of the system. Really all we have at the moment is an estimate of transient climate sensitivity, not equilibrium sensitivity, and not even a very good one at that.
At this point we should be agnostic to what humans did or didn’t do. Whatever CO2 was there prior to us was doing what it was doing, and setting an arbitrary cutoff at 1950 means we’ve now thrown away 100-200 years of data depending on how far back we have data. I typically use either HADCRUT4GL (1850-now) or GISTemp LOTI GL (1880-now), and GISS ModelE forcing assumptions from here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ There’s a nice time series plot on that page:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/RadF.gif
Links to the tablular data behind that plot (annual resolution) are present, plus a slew of primary literature talking about the modeling and assumptions that Hansen, Lacis, Ruedy and Sato used to come up with their estimates. As the data only go back to 1880, we lose 30 years of the HADCRUT4 record, but even so we keep 70 years of data we’d otherwise ignore by choosing 1950 as the beginning of our analysis.
Well that number is about half of the lowest published estimate for starters, and having done a lot of regressions and correlations on the data I linked to above (plus much much more from elsewhere) I can tell you that it doesn’t support such a small number. Irrespective of that, I know of no way to quantitatively map any sensitivity number to catastrophe potential just by noting its qualitative smallness or largeness. Those estimates are a completely different ball of wax, there’s a lot more to it, and they’re far far more uncertain than anything we’re presently disucssing.
In short, I find your abundance of confidence disturbing. I simply do not share it.
Calc 2 will need to wait for a future post, I need a break and this is more than plenty to chew on. I do appreciate it when someone comes to me with specifics and calculations, thank you. Cheers for now.
There you go again Gates, frightening yourself with such drivel as ” heat uptake”. Some people like to wring their hands. I guess that you are one.
mpainter,
I’m so sorry, in the future I’ll amend my terminology to, “rate of energy retention and/or loss” just so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities.
You miss the point of these calculations.
What I have done is simply formulate an expression that would test the reasonableness of the estimate based on known data points, for example delta T and delta CO2 between 1850 and now, or by using the 33 degree all cause increase over blackbody and energy saturation in the CO2 band. In both cases I use a pessimistic bound and pessimistic formulation. This ensures that I overestimate rather than underestimate the bound. This approach clearly debunks the idea of Flannery et al here in OZ that we could see 6 degrees C warming THIS CENTURY…. Bull, that would require that the next 120 PPM has 4 times the effect of the last 120 PPM and defies the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature. Yes, in theory temperature rise could be maybe 1.5 for a doubling, but these high estimates are not supported by the data. Feedback over the last 150 years has clearly been negative, <0.78 per doubling due CO2, the other 0.78 from other factors thus CO2s effect is shown to have been less than its direct effect, and there is absolutely no reason to assume that will change.
Note that in calc 2 , temperature doesn't actually increase linearly with energy absorbed (by CO2 or anything else) its much worse than linear, but a linearly therefore should give an overestimate of the bound. So my 5.8 degree estimate for 100% CO2 bound is on the high side, but it still allows me to check the reasonableness of the IPCC estimates on human caused global warming. And gives me confidence in the planets defensive position. Note also in calc 2, there is some nonsense about the wings of the stop band thickening, about, but my position is that this will only be significant where CO2 adds to planetary atmospheric density (the contraint that earths atmosphere remains at 1 ATM has to be removed) Since CO2 replaces O2, the CO2 is not adding to the atmospheric density at all, burning fossil fuels replaces one O2 molecule by a CO2 molecule.
There are a few other boundary tests I do, for example, if one applies the known negative feedbacks to Temp rise, then calculates the positive feedback to overcome the negative fedbacks and deliver the IPCC figure of 3.3 x direct effect, one arrives at a calculation that shows the positive feedbacks in the climate have to have a loop gain of 0.95! Totally unreasonable, given how stable earths climate is.
Finally, one must also show that sensitivity, is not a function of temperature, given the main feedback (water) temperature rise is also logarithmically related to water concentration, it can be shown rather easilly that sensitivity diminishes with temperature, that is the atmosphere saturates. The atmosphere is Not an amplifier, add too much heat and over water the dew point will decrease untill it meets the prevailing temperature at height and rain will result. This situation is akin to a saturated amplifier, the energy available in this instance is insufficient to sustain the temperature rise. In electronics, the output of the amplifier rises untill it reaches the limits of the power supply. In a saturated state the gain (sensitivity ) is zero.
Bobl,
I noted and appreciated that the first time I read it. That appreciation is why my comments to you lack my normal snark … this is the kind of discussion I would much rather be having as the norm, not the exception, here.
I’m not familiar with Flannery et al. or their predictions. I agree, 6 degrees this century sounds like bull. At this point in the discussion I’m at the global level and consider regional discussions premature until we’ve worked through a few other things first.
I pointed out in my last post that you’ve made no accounting for thermal inertia, especially that of the oceans. Even before you get to that, if you have not already, you need to go to the GISS model forcings page because it accounts for a number of offsetting forcings in the negative direction which are also quite significant. I’m loath to continue on to Calc 2 until you address these points I have already raised. Because see, I do get the point of Calc 1, I just happen to know that you’ve not covered a number of factors known in literature for quite some time to be relevant to the estimate you’re attempting. Again, it’s great that you’re doing so. It’s not great that you’re ignoring advice to check up on things which you’ve missed.
Thermal inertia was acting over the last 150 years, as it is now and will in the future. By using the data rather than a model I have accomodated that factor (as well as all the feedbacks).
In fact if we allow for thermal inertia the present hiatus in temperature becomes a clear cooling bias in spite of CO2 that is being moderated to a hiatus by thermal inertia, that is, the thermal inertia, would increase, the “other” component (because of the recent warning before 2000), and serve to reduce the CO2 component. One must also speculate on the sign of the inertia the thermal capacity of the planet will act in a direction according to thermodynamics, energy can only enter or leave the atmosphere if the temperature of the heat store is above or below the atmospheric temperature. Since at best thermal capacity of the oceans are limited to thousandths of a degree that’s the limit on that heat stores effect on the climate. Thermal storage can serve to moderate change it cannot enhance it except by random confluence of the delay and forcing. Put another way thermal inertia will cool when its warming and will only warm while it’s cooling. It might oscillate for a while, but long term itll do that. Which is great when you want to keep your house (or planet) at a constant temperature.
While I could attempt to remove the thermal inertia to arrive at a closer estimate to pure CO2 effect, it’s pointless if what’s important is temperature rise with the thermal inertia present. What’s more the true effect of thermal mass is not used properly by the cAGW proponents. The constant protestations of x of the last y years are the hotest evah. Of course they are, if the thermal store has a given temperature then the following year is going to vary from that base, the climate doesn’t magically reset to some mythical average of 1950 to 1990 every year on december 31. It’s a random walk, there is no right temperature of the planet. I despair that the climate is dishonestly represented as deviation from some mythical meaningless average, when what matters is deltas from cycle to cycle, dishonest as far as I’m concerned.
Take also that because CO2 is being added to the atmosphere in an increasing manner (by china and india) and the biosphere has a delayed negative response to added CO2, CO2 must also be significantly above the equilibrium level. That results in an overshoot of temperature, and therefore the planets transient temperature must be above the long term equilibrium level. Frankly you could stop any CO2 warming by simply maintaining Nett CO2 emission and after a few short years ( based on the fact that the biosphere absorbs 50% of increased CO2 per annum) and CO2 induced warming would fall and stop, (with CO2 equilibriating 3 or 4 PPM below curent levels) Greening of Australia (Where I live) has already reduced our nett CO2 to less than zero (that is, our local biota is now absorbing all our emissions and then some compared with 1990), and I’m waiting for my cheque from China and India for helping out with their emissions.
Of course all this assumes the AGW hypothesis is right, there are significant reasons to suggest that enhancing radiative gas partial pressures should have a cooling effect on an open system like the atmosphere ( more molecules radiating to space should in theory reduce the temperature of the energy store over time, assuming that radiation is the limiting factor). Using energy conservation if Total energy is constant, and I increase space radiation (as confirmed by satellite) then the retained energy must be lower.
Bobl,
True, but the rate of change in forcings (plural) has not been constant. If you’ve accounted for that already I’ve missed it.
There are scads of peer-reviewed literature based on data, not just “Teh Models”. Good grief.
Go back to the data, calculate the change in forcing from 1998 to present. Then do a 30 year running mean on the temperature time series and calculate the difference between that curve and the annual means. Take the standard deviation of those differences. See how that number compares to the change in forcing due to CO2 alone since 1998. I’d use 0.8 for climate sensitivity in that forcing to temperature conversion, but pick whatever you think is reasonable.
Holy cow, unless I’m missing something key in your argument, wrong. Firstly, temperature can and will leave the planet so long as it’s above the CBR temperature of 2.76 K. Secondly, even in cases where surface temperature is less than the atmosphere directly above it, which is not the average “normal” case globally, any matter which can emit LWR can and does so all the time at normal terrestrial temperatures. If those photons don’t get captured by a GHG or a cloud, they are gone from our concerns here. True, net heat will still go from warm to cool, but AGW is ultimately is an exercise in net flux at TOA, something that is not strictly limited by the surface layer boundary but what’s going on throughout the entire thickness of the atmosphere. On that note, oceans absorb sunlight directly and at depth, meaning they can still warm below the surface even when the atmosphere at the surface is cooler than the water at the surface.
That’s definitely wrong. The thermal capacity of the oceans are limited by their ability to remain liquid (or solid as the case may be) at whatever sea-level pressure happens to be at any given time, which at present means any thing less than 102°C at the surface. I don’t think we’re in any danger of that extreme a scenario, but it is the upper limit of the oceans remaining oceans.
In short, they have a tremendous capacity to absorb energy, far more than we really want to test empirically because there is a relationship between ocean and atmospheric temps and it’s a multiplier not a divisor.
I agree with that, and the temperature record is consistent with just that sort of mechanism. Both over the instrumental record and from paleo studies. Bintanja (2008) I think figured out that from peak to trough of the last four glacial cycles, “deep ocean” temperature varied about 1/6th that of that with surface temps at the poles. Shakun (2012) tells us that global temps vary on the order of half that of polar temps, so a rough guesstimate is that every degree of ocean temperature change (at some depth) corresponds to a 3 degree change in global atmospheric temperatures. There is a lag in there, on the order of a thousand years IIRC. How that works wrt present observations of OHC rise might be interesting to discuss.
I’m going to need a citation or two at this point because you’ve gotten so much wrong above I’d like to know what it is you’ve read so that I might figure out if and how you’ve garbled it.
I don’t see that anything I have said is wrong…
1. Thermodynamics says that nett heat transfer will be from the hotter to colder, that is – if the atmosphere is hotter than the water then the atmosphere will lose heat to the ocean and vice versa. I did not even mention direct radiation to space which is one of the big losses, if the ocean is 0.001 degrees warmer on average then at best that warmer ocean will impart 0.001 degrees to the atmosphere. Don’t conflate what I said with something else, I am merely saying that once the heat is dissipated in the ocean to become a 0.001 deg temp rise (per doubling) it can’t magically jump out and become 6 degrees in 2100, once that energy is sunk, it effectively gone. You need to think a bit more about what you are doing and the mechanisms at play. If AGW goes into the ocean then is all over for the C bit of CAGW, what remains is an interesting anecdote of science, for which my national taxpayers should not be forking over $5100 per tonne of CO2 our carbon tax cost us!
2. The ocean might very well warm directly from sunlight but we are not discussing sunlight, we are discussing a mere 3 watts or so of backscatter from CO2, we’ll presume the sun does what the sun has always done. ( part of the 0.4 deg since 1850 that was not CO2). In particular here we are considering how that energy stored in the thermal mass of the ocean might reemerge 100-100 years later. In the studies you cite the ocean rate of increase may have been 1/6 th of the atmosphere, but clearly it was not the ocean heating the atmosphere that did that, the mechanism matters. If the ocean rose 1/6th of the atmosphere then clearly the atmosphere heated the ocean, (in theory that 1/6 th might be returned as the atmosphere cooled, but in fact that transient heat will actually mostly end up dissipated into the bulk of the ocean and so maybe 100th to 1000th of the temperature rise might be returned.) Thermal mass is absolutely not going to add much to future temperature regardless. If the minor forcing of CO2 adds a fraction its not going to change the response of the earth that much, especially given that climate sensitivity can be shown to be non constant and decrease in value with temperature. Future earth response to CO2 will remain approximately the same as the past response to CO2 thus it is reasonable to use the past data to project the future, certainly the models are doing a lot worse than that. I think it is justifiable to say that estimates of 2 or more degrees per doubling are very unlikely, and assuming the ipcc 50 % estimate is round about right then 0.5 to 1 degree per doubling of CO2 plus or minus natural variability is what we could expect
3. You misinterpret what I meant when I said thermal capacity is limited to some thousandths of a degree, I did not mean that the oceans can only store that much. You are absolutely correct in what you say, but if you take that 3W per square meter CO2 backscatter and absorb it all in the volume of the oceans and ice caps then the average temperature rise of the oceans and icecaps for a doubling of CO2 is a few thousandths of a degree. Put another way, AGW can affect ocean temperature by a miniscule amount, remembering that water and ice conduct heat, and will melt or evaporate absorbing huge amounts of energy in the process
4. I agree that AGW is an exercise in Nett flux at TOA, and one would suggest that with more CO2 molecules to radiate, it would be expected that the radiative flux to space would increase with CO2 partial pressure, and the satellites show that’s exactly what happens while the models show decreased flux to space. Evidence the models are missing something I would say. If the flux to space increases with CO2 partial pressure, then all things being equal the earth system must cool.
5. You should work though the second calc, its more enlightening in getting a handle on how much of an overestimate IPCC warming estimates are. In effect the IPCC are claiming that future temp rise (from blackbody base) will be 10 to 20 times what all cause temperature rise has been so far.
Did I miss anything?
Sorry for any misspelling, I am using my tablet with the virtual keyboard that’s virtually unusable
Bobl,
I definitely misread some things in your previous post. I still have issues with other stuff.
I mostly agree but with a caveat to come soon …
Again I agree, but there’s a wrinkle here which needs to be discussed …
I think no conflation on my part, I simply disagree. Energy is only gone from the system when it leaves TOA. Just because we average out temperature for the top two kilometer layer of ocean doesn’t mean that retained energy is distributed evenly throughout. First thing to look at is vertical distribution. Here are some observational data from NODC/NCDC (1955-present):
2000m 100m SST------- ------- -------
0.0134 0.0712 0.0947 K/decade
1.0000 5.3163 7.0719 Trend relative to 2000m
Ohhh, you hardly need to ask me to think more about it. It just happens.
You meant $51.00 per tonne I hope …. I do see your note about the virtual keyboard on your pad.
Mmhmm, sure. Just wanted to make sure it was clear that seawater largely does not warm via sensible heat transfers with the atmosphere.
I think that’s supposed to be 10-100 years. 40 years is a good number to think about.
Indeed. The Sun is the only true heat source which matters. Most things in this conversation come down to things which affect net rates of energy transfer.
The atmosphere, so long as GHGs and clouds are present, are always limiting loss. I’m guessing the 1/6th is mainly a feature of seawater’s 4x greater heat capacity than that of air.
I think what you’re tripped up on here is taking the vertical averaged ocean temperature trends from 2000m and wondering how a 0.0134 K/decade trend can possibly be a factor when the IPCC is talking about a full degree or two by 2100 coming out of the oceans to bite us. 0.0134 K/decade * 8.5 decades = 0.1139 K. I’m hearing you say that’s peanuts.
Well yes, it is. Soooo … 0.0134 K/decade is the wrong rate because that covers 1900m of ocean well away from the surface where things matter most to us. Same calc for all three layers:
2000m 100m SST------- ------- -------
0.1139 0.6053 0.8052 K temperature change 2015-2100
1.0000 5.3163 7.0719 Change relative to 2000m
At this point I’m not even thinking about causes, just going through what the data are telling me and extending out linear trendines as a smell test.
Weeeelllll, all my calcs above used NODC/NCDC data from KNMI at these links:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itemp100_globala.txt
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itemp2000_globala.txt
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/incdc_gl_oceana.txt
They’re not terribly good at predicting ENSO, AMO, PDO, etc., that’s for sure. On that note, from the data I just posted one can build their own internal variability index by subtracting the monthly 100m figures from the SST monthly values. Here’s what I got:
-0.2575 min0.2210 max
0.4785 range
0.1519 standard deviation
That range of 0.4785 K is the whopping huge number I originally set out to calculate when I started looking at this data. Divide by 0.8 and we get 0.5981 W/m^2. Multiply by 0.71 and the answer is 0.4247 W/m^2 averaged over the entire surface. That’s a lot of flux. Internal variabilities are no foolin’.
My apologies. Your comment on that read a little Sky Dragonish to me, so my prejudices were working against me.
Flux is a function of temperature and emissivity. So yes, satellites are seeing increased outgoing LW because on balance the planet is warming.
Except the models don’t show decreased flux to space, if they did, they would be cooling at the surface. They’re not as good as we’d like at some things, but they’re not THAT wrong. The models do happen to be cooling in the stratosphere because yes, CO2 being radiatively active in the IR range, increased concentrations of it in the high atmosphere would be expected to have a cooling effect.
Satellites have picked up that latter effect as well, confirming predictions made by models prior to those observations.
Another neat thing the sats have confirmed is that the optical thickness of the atmosphere has increased in the CO2 and water vapor absorption spectral lines.
I’m pecking away at Calc 2 but there’s still an awful lot we’ve not resolved on Calc 1.
I think you cleared up my misunderstandings of your previous post and also handled all my questions and rebuttals so far as I can see … but I obviously have a few more yet.
“Andy May
“The three are: 1) Manmade greenhouse gases warm (or affect) the atmosphere, 2) the IPCC reports are a good summary of climate science and 3) the increase in greenhouse gases is likely more than half of the cause of warming over the last 50 years.” “Any qualified Earth scientist would agree with the first two statements, they are obvious.”
But since manmade greenhouse gases form a very small proportion of the total what evidence is there (outside the laboratory experiments) that it actually does affect global (as opposed to local) climate? Is it a given in order to become a qualified earth scientist? Or is there any real proof?
Solomon Green: See this summary of the 2007 IPCC report (page 4) for a brief explanation of the evidence. They do not prove that man-made greenhouse gases caused more than half of the warming since 1950, but they do make a pretty good case. However as Prof. Judith Curry has astutely noted, “All other things being equal – yes — more carbon dioxide means warmer, but all other things are never equal..” Adding CO2 to the atmosphere changes more than temperature, for example plants grow faster and with less water. Natural forces over 50 years are an eye blink in geological time, in the next 50 years natural forces may swamp man-made forces. Most feedbacks in nature are negative, adding CO2 will kick in negating feedbacks with time. I believe the IPCC analysis since 1950, but I also believe it is irrelevant. The link: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Andy,
Many thanks for taking the trouble to reply. And thanks, also, for the link. I did not find anything on page 4 which convinced me. It appears that because “During the past fifty years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling”, that “The observed patterns of warming and their changes can only be simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcings”.
While indicative, this is not proof. There are two assumptions at least. The first is that “the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling” during the period but there is no proof that they did. How, for instance, did these forcings and resulting temperatures compare with the previous fifty years? And the fifty years before those? We do not really know because we have been told that earlier temperature records cannot be relied upon without adjustment, much of which adjustment, when examined, turns out to be subjective rather than objective.
The second assumption is that, accepting the first assumption to be fact, only models which incorporate AGW can fit the observed patterns of warming. This presupposes that there can be no other natural forcings or absorbtions, or AGW other than CAGW, which might account for the warming pattern. (I might have missed the papers showing the models which had tried and failed to incorporate alternatives to CAGW).
There is also the problem that it is always possible to produce a model which back tests against a data set with a fair degree of accuracy but falls apart when forecasting.
In the early 2000s many banks were using financial models which back-tested with a very high degree of accurately for at least five years and some for much longer. Those, and I know of a number, who pointed out the potential for error in these models were ridiculed but in 2007/8 came the inevitable crash, which none of the banks’ models had forecast.
I am still an agnostic but I would never presume to pit my beliefs against yours. Thanks again for sharing your letter which stimulated my interest.
Andy,
While your letter is admirable, it is wrong to say that 50% of warming from 1850 to 2015 was human caused, see the analysis above. At worst we could conclude a sensitivity of 0.78 (more likely half of that when accounting for 1850 to 1950 ), at best 0.15 based on energy conservation which is somewhere between 10% and 50% of OBSERVED warming. In my book this is far less than 50% of IPCC modelled warming. It’s somewhere between 1/20th and a quarter of the IPCC central estimate.
There is no evidence that human caused global warming is anything like the IPCC estimates, as you can see energy conservation would not permit it to be more.
The problem with most of this carp is that most of the pronouncememts violate energy conservation, for example 300 cubic km of melting west antarctic ice which calculation shows needs about 15W per square metre of energy to achieive when human caused backradiation is about 0.6W and all CO2 warming is supposedly about 3W per square metre. The math shows conclusively that this so-called effect of global warming isn’t causal. That amount of melting could NOT be caused by all the back radiation from CO2, let alone the measly 0.6W of it that mankind contributes.
I suggest you need to rethink your agreement with the 3 statements and look a bit deeper at their validity.
Let me add perspective, the radiative imbalance that is supposed to cause all this tragedy is just 0.6W per square meter, that’s the energy of a christmas light, per square meter of surface, heating a column of air free to radiate, conduct and convect between the ground and the tropopause maybe 15000 cubic metres of air. A single christmas light! It is utterly insignificant, lost in the noise of the forces that tear at this planet. For example, what exactly is the magnitude of the frictional heating that the tidal gravitational forces, and motion forces of the moon, sun, and the earths rotation on the atmosphere? Where is that in the climate models?
Think deeper, do some boundary checks on plausibility and you will see that it’s more than just that warming is not harmful, the IPCC is also wrong on magnitude by an order of magnitude, warming from mankind is far less than they estimate, the boundary checks show that sensitivities of around 3 are utterly implausible.
Bobl and Solomon Green: You both make very good points and you may very well be correct. I will not defend the IPCC conclusions about warming since 1950, I don’t think they have proven their point. I’ve wrestled with this question for years, how much is nature? How much is man? The truth is, until we can actually model natural effects on temperature we will not know. And the truth is we can’t, we can only speculate.
Get up to speed in the science, Andy May, because we _DO_ know that the warming is natural.
We know that clouds have decreased significantly since the mid-eighties, thus increasing insolation, well accounting for the warming trend circa 1977-97, and warmer SST, also.
There are a number of studies on this and one was posted here a few months ago, by John McLean.
Andy,
If you look at the evidence (see my calc 1) using the 50% CO2 and 50% natural (other than CO2) if CO2 sensitivity is 0.78 then the Nett feedback to CO2 warming must be negative. Given there are substantial cooling losses (eg lapse cooling, direct radiation to space etc) this seems likely, since to overcome the negative feedbacks and give a Nett warming per the IPCC of 3 requires a magnification of about 15 implying a loop gain of 0.95 which is implausible.
I’d say the direct evidence at this point supports the hypothesis that feedback is negative.
We were able to analyze the temperature estimates of CMIP5 models and compare them with HADCRUT4 (1850 to 2014), as well as UAH (1979 to 2014).
The models estimate global mean temperatures (GMT) backwards from 2005 to 1861 and forwards from 2006 to 2101.
The details are here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/22/cmip5-model-temperature-results-in-excel/
Bottom Line:
In the real world, temperatures go up and down. This is also true of HADCRUT4.
In the world of climate models, temperatures only go up. Some variation in rates of warming, but always warming, nonetheless.
The best of the 42 models according to the tests I applied was Series 31. Here it is compared to HADCRUT4, showing decadal rates in degrees C periods defined by generally accepted changepoints.
Periods HADCRUT4 SERIES 31 31 MINUS HADCRUT4
1850-1878 0.035 0.036 0.001
1878-1915 -0.052 -0.011 0.041
1915-1944 0.143 0.099 -0.044
1944-1976 -0.040 0.056 0.096
1976-1998 0.194 0.098 -0.096
1998-2013 0.053 0.125 0.072
1850-2014 0.049 0.052 0.003
In contrast with Series 31, the other 41 models typically match the historical warming rate of 0.05C by accelerating warming from 1976 onward and projecting it into the future. For example, while UAH shows warming of 0.14/decade from 1979-2014, CMIP5 models estimates avaerage 0.215/decade, ranging from 0.088 to 0.324/decade.
For the next future climate period, 2006-2035, CMIP5 models project an average warming of 0.2C/decade, ranging from 0.97 to 0.375/decade.
The longer the plateau continues, the more overheated are these projections by the models.
A good letter. Sounds like where people disagree is on what we don’t know about the future. The two sides see dire consequences if the other is wrong. You are claiming evidence everything is going to be just fine. I hope you’re right. I hope even if you’re wrong, technology can always fix any unforeseen consequences for everyone including people who can’t afford technological fixes. You’re already saying spending money on global warming would be a financial disaster. Might it be anything like buying a home security system and hiring armed guards? It might seem silly in Canada–a financial disaster. Some houses do because they see a possible future threat. They think it’s worth spending all the money not because they know something will happen, but because they don’t know for sure either way. The possibility of something happening to their house would be worse than paying for the extra security. It seems some people are more afraid of other people hurting them while other people are more afraid of the consequences of messing with nature without fully understanding it. That’s probably why zombie movies have been so popular. I’ll take the side that the possibility that human contributions of greenhouse gases could possibly be a greater threat to civilization than terrorIsm. Has there been enough time on a geologic scale since 1998 to say what the radiative forcing has been in the last 15 years? Who on your list are climatologists? Does it matter? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which Galileo, Einstein, Capernicus, Neils Bohr, Bruno, et al had. Are these professors at the same level in history?
@ur momisugly Brandon Gates Jan 2 7:03 pm;
“We on the consensus side of the science”?
Excellent you make your position clear, could you please spell out what exactly this consensus is and list that science you use to support your position.
You spend an awful lot of time arguing very minor details here, perhaps it would further the conversation if you defined your terms.
So, if you are sincere, please spell the science out for the rest of us, I am quite confident that Anthony Watts would be delighted to post a coherent summation of this consensus and the evidence that confirms it in your mind.
Because I for one have seen no scientific consensus, I have yet to see a clear presentation of this science, supposedly supporting a political consensus, I hear so much about.
I am sceptical of the product of the UN IPCC for just this reason, do not tell me; “The science says”.
Show me that science.
john robertson,
If the IPCC’s explanation hasn’t made the consensus position clear enough to you, me, one guy with only a lay understanding of it, will likely not make a dent. I’m afraid you’ll just have to take my minor details as they come. You might also wish to consider that what you are asking of me implies that Anthony, or anyone, who posts here must always summarize the entire contrarian position every time they invoke the term “climate skeptic” as a self-identifier. Surely you realize the impossibility of that requirement especially given that a defining characteristic of skepticism is variety, often to the point of inconsistency. I doubt you’d disagree that even the consensus camp is not so different in that last respect.
Thanks Brandon, so your understanding of the science supposedly supporting an undefined consensus position, amounts to,” I defer to the IPCC?”
Thank you for your response but an argument from authority is not science. I was much more interested in what science you use to support your apparent certainty.
This has been the communication breakdown from the beginning of this meme, “Cause we say”, is not evidence of scientific evidence.
Trust is earned not imposed, hence the old saying”Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence”.
I too am a layman in the field of Climatology but I am no stranger to bureaucracy, politicians and activists.
The IPCC is strong in these components, sadly weak in science based evidence and use of the scientific method.
john robertson,
Nope, requests for me to regurgitate the consensus position get referred to the IPCC because they’re the most authoritative body defining the consensus. I pay them to do it, I may as well let them speak on my behalf for such general enquiries.
Clearly not.
Which is fine. Follow along, I go through it practically every day, most posts have some snippet, others much greater detail. In the end though, most of what I do talk about ultimately comes up against something which was published in a peer-reviewed journal and/or used in an IPCC AR. If referring to those things is a fallacious appeal to authority I’m in a pretty tough bind, wouldn’t you say?
Yup.
Ditto.
That would be an extraordinary claim. Rather broad and sweeping I might add. You’ve got some work cut out for you to support it, just as I have to support my own views and beliefs about reality. You won’t even begin to do justice to it in one, 10, 100, 1,000 blog comments.
@Bill Gollier – the IPCC does not represents a “Consensus” view. As it will not consider any view outside of its paid mandate. For you to suggest otherwise only accentuates your ignorance. You can believe anything you want. But your ignorance does not make it a fact.
philjourdan,
I imagine, as part of their paid mandate, NASA would tell me to get stuffed if I demanded they spend my money looking into whether or not the Moon is made of green cheese. If anyone in their PR department had a sense of humor, the response would include something along the lines of, “silly man, everyone knows the Moon is made of bleu cheese, I mean really, just look at it.”
If any old crap were accepted in major scientific conferences, no good science would ever get done. You may wish to take your own advice on wilful ignorance.
Whoosh go the goal posts again. We were talking about the IPCC and what it was or was not. I may have left grammar school a lot of years ago, but I can still tell the difference between an N and an i. and the rest of the letters are also different.
SO I guess you really have no clue what you are talking about. Or the attention span of a gold fish.
philjourdan,
Perhaps you missed the lesson on argument by analogy. But just so there’s no misunderstanding, keeping crap science out of the IPCC is part of its paid mandate. There is nothing inherently untoward keeping the crank factor to a minimum in legitimate scientific research.
I can tell the difference between a false argument by analogy and a straw man. Perhaps you have not gotten to that lesson in your class yet.
Besides, arguing by analogy is only necessary if you are not discussing facts, which I am and apparently you are not.
B. Gates says:
keeping crap science out of the IPCC is part of its paid mandate.
The first thing I thought of was the WWF contributing ≈40% of what the IPCC used as literature.
They stopped doing it when they were caught, of course. Now they’re more careful.
philjourdan,
What’s the false analogy and why? Same question for the straw man.
You’re alleging that the IPCC is keeping good science out in favor of motivated research according to their “paid mandate”. Thus far I’ve not seen any substantiation of this claim. To establish that you’re discussing facts, you need documentation of the facts. The burden of proof for fraud is rather high. It won’t be enough to point to research rejected by the IPCC, you need to demonstrate that a) the rejected science was valid, b) the IPCC understood that it was valid science and c) intentionally rejected it for not conforming to some preconceived narrative with demonstrated intent to deceive.
Anything less is hand waving.
Yes BG, you are doing a lot of hand waving. Dodging the facts, and trying your damnedest to obfuscate the simple point I made. I alleged nothing. I did state a fact. But of course you, being totally unfamiliar with facts, cannot recognize that. You keep constructing your pathetic strawmen in hopes of being able to win a single argument! Alas, it is a fruitless quest for you.
From the IPCC Charter (if you can read the big words):
For your limited cognitive ability, I only highlighted a few words. However, you can get someone else to read the entire passage for you.
Now, are you through playing with your dolls? Or are you going to move the goal posts again with another straw man?
dbstealey,
How was this 40% figure calculated?
Which is obviously a foreign concept for you, of course.
By the mythical science of simple math. The references were counted. {SHOCK} I know, a foreign concept to you.
philjourdan,
Finally a citation to something. Now, how, where, when and by whom was that policy violated? Specific. Citations. That’s how facts get separated out from opinions in a debate. Do you get it yet, or shall I just go back to not taking you seriously?
Whoops! There go the BG goal posts again!
Now where does your hysteria have ANYTHING to do with what I said? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/an-open-letter-to-politifact-com/#comment-1827929
Oops! Your sneaking is clumsy.
Want to try AGAIN? Or are you integrity impaired?
philjourdan,
Surprisingly I can count to 20, but that’s because I have all my fingers and toes, and know where to find them when they need counting.
Since the latest IPCC AR was numero cinco, one hand is all I need for the initial exercise, but which of those ARs does this nebulous 40% refer to? Was it across the entire suite of reports or just one or several of them? Since someone went to the trouble to count up these references, I don’t know, maybe there’s a comprehensive list somewhere? You know, things like details to support a claim so that I can’t easily dismiss this as yet another vaporous pillar of climate contrarian mythology?
Or is the problem here that you know what the number is because it’s, well, freakshly nice and round and easy to remember, and you haven’t the first clue where it actually comes from?
Again, quit lying BG. Everyone knows you cannot count – or search (see the search feature on this page?).
You must be thinking how easily you get others to do your dirty work. I suggest you learn to search. Then maybe you can learn to count. The figure is not a secret and was accurately documented by Donna LaFramboise and reported on here.
See if you can actually search for something simple at first. What fun you will have learning a new skill!
philjourdan,
In my reply immediately following:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/an-open-letter-to-politifact-com/#comment-1827990
If any old crap were accepted in major scientific conferences, no good science would ever get done.
I think you confuse “hysteria” with “hysterical” as in: it’s freaking hilarious that you’ve not yet provided any evidence to substantiate your claim:
[The IPCC] will not consider any view outside of its paid mandate.
Try what again? I’m just waiting around for you to hit me with incontrovertible evidence the IPCC is playing favorites. The rest of this is idle banter for my own amusement.
You do understand what burden of proof means in a debate, don’t you? You do understand that you’ve made allegations of improper behavior against the IPCC which warrant some sort of substantive documentation, yes?
Where is it already?
@Bill Gollier – Once again for the Sloooooow reader:
Since I did not make your comment, I am not responsible for your comment. I am only responsible for my own. Now, about that integrity that is missing on your part…..
philjourdan,
Ahh, ye olde “everyone knows” gambit. About my “inability” to count, of all things.
Hey, did you know that the word “gullible” isn’t in the dictionary?
I like your wry sense of humor.
You know what, I learned how to do that JUST TODAY:
Comment awaiting moderation because of the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 — FIVE (5!!!) references I gave Willis in response to his request. The FIRST response to his request. Go see for yourself when it posts: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/a-neutral-view-of-oceanic-ph/#comment-1830306
“Learn how to search … do your dirty work … ” You’re killing me here.
People who have cards to play … they play them. Those who have more money than sense … bluff. Everybody else … folds. I tip my cap to you, it must be nice being rich.
Whoops! There go those goal posts for BG again. The subject was SEARCHING, not the number of links that get you into moderation. Apparently you STILL have not learned how. Quel Surprise.
Are you ADHD? Just curious as you do have a problem with staying on subject (we already know about your other ADMITTED handicaps – shame you cannot delete your previous confessions).
Dear Andy May, you are far, far more likely to get a reply if your “open letter” is short, succinct, and sticks to the point. You committed the double sins of (a) wandering off topic and as a consequence (b) not arguing your key point. In future set yourself a limit of 250 words. Anything you can’t say in five short paragraphs isn’t worth saying.
Mike
I totally disagree. The letter is quite succinct and to the point. I think it is gracious and generous.
The problem with most media outlets is that as Lindzen alluded to in an online discussion that educated persons feel obliged to support, or at least be seen to support science. It is the emperor’s new clothes. People’s vanity can make them do all sorts of things. It really is a useless and destructive emotion.
Global Warming — IPCC is a political body, prepares reports on global warming and its’ impacts on nature to serve political interests by distributing billions of US$ to serve its goal wherein top educational universities – NGOs – government agencies share.
Global temperature rise has three major components, namely, natural cyclic variation component, local and regional ecological changes component & anthropogenic greenhouse gas changes component known as global warming. Natural cyclic variation component present a 60-year cycle varying between -0.3 to +0.3 oC. Global warming component is about 50% of global temperature rise since 1950. Ecological changes play vital role at local and regional level but goes in to averaging of global temperature. They include heat-island-effect and cold-island-effect. The heat-island-effect is over emphasized in the global temperature averaging as in urban areas the met stations are densely located; and rural areas the met stations are sparsely located. Thus, the global average temperature is over estimated. This is the case with surface measurements. However, this is eliminated with satellite data. From this, it is clear that global warming component contribution to global temperature rise is less than 0.1 oC since 1950 to date. This may at the most reach 0.2 oC by the end of the century. Thus, its impact at global scale is insignificant. However, at local and regional scales, heat-island-effect and cold-island effect plays vital role.
The other major component that effect life-forms at local and regional level is the pollution and not the anthropogenic greenhouse gases. If we look at electricity production under different sources in India, USA & Germany, they all are on par in respect of pollution:
% share of source-wise electricity/energy production
Source India/USA/Germany@ur momisugly
RES ——— 11%/03.8%/22.4%
Nuclear —— 2%/21.5%/15.9%
Hydro ——- 21%/06.0%/03.4%
Diesel/gas — 11%/19.8%/14.7%
Coal ——— 55%/48.9%/43.6%*
* coal + lignite in the case of Germany; @ur momisugly it is for 2014 for Germany and India & USA it is for 2011
Extremes in weather over different parts of the globe are part of the natural rhythms in meteorological parameters. They are quite different over different parts of the globe. For agriculture and water resources they play important role and thus needs characterization of such rhythmic variations and thus homogenization of regions based on such studies critical. IPCC should look in this direction to help the developing nations. At Paris meet this must be emphasized and not the issue of carbon dioxide.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Thanks Dr. Reddy. I also worry about the increase in real pollution, in Germany, due to their obsession with CO2. I also worry about the fate of people in India, China and Africa who currently have no power and may never have power if fossil fuel use is curtailed or made more expensive, or both. The IPCC is horribly one sided in their research, the most expensive advocacy research project I’ve ever seen.
Mr Brandon Gates, care to tell me where the hot spot is? This was stated to be THE undeniable proof of global warming. Seeing you agree with global warming, and want to put taxes on me, how about telling me where it is.
xyzlatin,
Talk about throwing random issues against the wall to see what sticks. The party line about the “hot spot” is that it’s much ado about nothing. And that’s about all I know about it: nothing. The reason I agree with AGW theory is on the strength of the multiple predictions it has been successfully making since 1896. You can read a whole list of them here: http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html
Now clearly, climatologists are wrong, flat out dead wrong, all the time. That happens in science. If it didn’t it would mean that humans are always right about everything all the time, and we wouldn’t need a rigorous framework to propose hypotheses and test them to rigorous statistical and peer-reviewed scrutiny to weed out what we want to be true from what is true. I can’t help but sound a bit condescending here, but from the “gotcha” nature of your rhetorical question I’m not getting the feeling you grok this feature of how empirical research actually works. One alternative is that you do get it, but ask the rhetorical question anyway.
A third alternative is that I’m just cranky right now and my prejudices are biting me again. The nature of your response, if any, may be illuminating.
Brandon Gates January 4, 2015 at 10:56 am
xyzlatin,
Talk about throwing random issues against the wall to see what sticks. The party line about the “hot spot” is that it’s much ado about nothing. And that’s about all I know about it: nothing.
Then you should put some time and effort into it. The tropospheric hot spot was central to the CAGW position in the early years if the debate. When it didn’t appear, alarmist scientists treated it the same way they now treat the “pause”. By claiming that they never claimed what they previously shouted from the roof tops.
davidmhoffer,
Working against me are alleged disinformation campaigns on both sides. It takes time to sort through the chaff and find the wheat. Sometimes I punt — I cannot possibly know everything about everything no matter how much I’d like to.
Starting in what year, and in which references?
Gates:
“How empirical research actually works”
I see very little that is empirical in the faltering hypothesis of AGW, unless you are referring to the temperature record of the past 18 years.
Bogus list, Gates.
Most of those questions could be asked and answered the same way today. Those are about as vague “predictions” as anyone could imagine.
Popper had something to say about the rigor of testability. He would surely LOL at such minor trends being called “predictions”. And well known events like “Polar Amplification” cannot be called a “prediction”. It was already a known fact. It is like predicting that summer follows spring.
But the biggest event of the past century is still going on: the complete 18+ year stasis in global T.
That truly major event was completely missed by climate models. And those linked examples of ‘successful predictions’ are just self-serving pablum.
Here’s a prediction or two you can make:
Tell us the next major move — up or down — and give us the approximate time of year, including the year it will happen. How fast will the global warming or cooling happen? Degrees per year or decade, with error bands. Answer questions like those, and I will be the first to admit that your models can accurately predict.
But as of now, they can’t predict anything useful.
dbstealey,
That is about as vague a rebuttal as anyone could imagine. You’re shooting par tonight again I see.
The circularity here is making at least one of us dizzy.
And just like that, right back to the sloganeering.
I don’t presume to be able to beat the IPCC estimates. I have my guesses, and 20 more years of pause would not surprise me.
I’m still waiting for your team to predict anything better than the IPCC does. Usefulness is a matter of opinion, forecast skill is not. Since you and your pals are the superior skeptics and more honest, brightest scientists, y’all should be able to to whip up a world-class AOGCM with one eye closed while hopping on one foot. Pony it up already, we’re waiting.
mpainter,
I’ve noticed that you and I see things somewhat differently.
Brandon Gates;
Starting in what year, and in which references?
Good lord, you want to know when it started? It was considered de facto science when I started paying attention to this debate 20 years ago, I don’t know when it started. There were some papers published as late as 2008 by Santer and Mears. There was a decent write up on the whole thing here with enough references that a bright guy like you ought to be able to figure it out for himself:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/
You can read a whole list of them here: http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html
That’s a great list. But I think you misunderstand the nature of the debate. Does CO2 increase temps? Sure it does. Will it warm nights more than days? Yes of course. Will it warm winters more than summers? Yes of course. Will it be more apparent at high latitudes (ie arctic) well yes of course. These are consequences of the physics involved. So I agree that CO2 will do all of these things, at least from the perspective of first order forcing, so for the most part I agree with your list.
None of which makes the outcome catastrophic. In fact, if you consider that the theory leads to most of the warming occurring in the coldest times (night/winter/arctic) then you also have to accept that most of the warming happens where it does the least damage.
Ultimately the debate is not IF these things happen as a consequence of driect warming, but what the magnitude and sign of the direct and feedback effects are, and what is the net feedback of all of them taken together and is that catastrophic.
The evidence increasingly says not. If the climate were that sensitive, we’d be arguing about much different things than if we can even tease the warming signal from the data in the first place.
OH, and Brandon, most of those predictions had nothing to do with the models. they are predictions based on the physics. The models simply incorporate that physics into the models so saying that the models the phyics is based on validates the models is rather circular. The purpose of the models was to quantify second and third order effects, and it is these that they have failed at.
davidmhoffer,
Well yes, “early years of the debate” isn’t very specific. Timing of claims matters to me. You don’t think that who said what when isn’t important?
!!!!
Ok, I’m getting up to speed. So, “tropospheric hot spot” is, to me, not a terribly good descriptive label for the issue, which is yet another modelled and observed trends not agreeing issue, in this case tropical tropospheric trends during the satellite era. I’m not new to this debate by any means, but I don’t know all the shorthand, and …
… I wasn’t active in the debate at all between 2005 and 2008 because I was busting my hump at work and didn’t have time for it. I didn’t reenter the fray until 2009 when Climategate broke, and then I was mostly occupied with reevaluating everything I thought I knew while reading a lot of illegally obtained and leaked private correspondences.
Go a little easy on me here, save your worst derision for when I really am acting like a ass … it’ll have more effect that way.
Thanks for the requested references, good Lord, did it really put you out all that much to nudge me in the proper direction?
davidmhoffer,
We’ll see.
Well right there we disagree on the nature of the debate. Most climate contrarians I’ve engaged wouldn’t meet me in agreement on those concepts if their life depended on it. Perhaps unfairly, I assume most people on WUWT are going to challenge each and every single one of them. This will sound uncharitable, but I’m never sure which flavor of mythology I’m going to be dealing with.
How in the heck do you know? Recall, one thing we both agree on is that the uncertainties in GAT projections alone are big enough to pilot a bus through, and those estimates are based on physics. Rope biology and economics into it and multiply the error bars by … oh, pluck a number out of thin air … 5. At least, yes?
No, I don’t have to accept that in the slightest. I don’t suffer a fixation on max temps for one thing, and I look at this problem as a departure from “norms”, which includes stuff like mins, means, ranges, frequency and duration. Plus, it goes well beyond just temperature because things like precipitation patterns are important for, oh, growing food. Farmland is where it is because of soil conditions and water supply. A lot of infrastructure supports that. Changes to that water supply might very well involve costly changes to infrastructure. Yes MIGHT. That’s the point, I, you, we don’t know for sure. But we do know what works now and economics being what they are, we have optimized for those known things.
It’s a super simple concept.
The only way we’ll ever find out for sure if they’ll be catasrophic is for the goldurned catastrophe to happen. Argh! What is so difficult about wrapping one’s mind around this one … simple … thing? The goal is to NOT find out, but to avoid it at all reasonable cost.
We wouldn’t need the godforsaken GCMs to be so reliable if we could figure out a way to reduce emissions and maintain present standards of living becuase for Pete’s sake, we already know what the planet is like when CO2 is in the 280-400 ppmv range.
18 years of hiatus is ~1/2 of a twice-before occurring pattern. 1890-1920, 1940-1980. If Le Pause is not the evidence you’re talking about now would be your chance to tell me what you’re seeing.
What does “that sensitive” mean? Compared to what? You’re making qualitiative statements in a quantitative argument and it’s driving me batty. My turn to tell you that you’re smarter than this. Come on already, think.
True, that is a circular argument, one which I did not make, nor would I.
Brandon,
I did find a “hottest year ever”. Naomi Oreskes: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opinion/sunday/playing-dumb-on-climate-change.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0
Posted originally by Dr. Curry on her blog, Climate, etc.
Danny Thomas,
Yeah I read the NYT article when I was googling Stealey’s claim. Everything else my short search turned up is “2014 might be the hottest ever”, with datestamps going back to October, maybe a little further. I’m not a huge fan of those kind of articles because they undermine the more important concept of weather not being climate.
Seewhatimean?
Fixated!
Seewhutimean, no self-awareness.
Gates says:
Ok, I’m getting up to speed.
If/when you get there, you will see that there is nothing to the global warming scare.
And:
That is about as vague a rebuttal as anyone could imagine. You’re shooting par tonight again I see.
That’s what they say when they have nothing substantive for a response. That lame response means no more than, “I got nothin’!”
And:
I’m still waiting for your team to predict anything better than the IPCC does.
Easy-peasy. We do it all the time: the climate is a function of natural variability. There is no need to invoke a magic gas, or to promote a scare. And the IPCC cannot even beat it’s own so-called ‘predictions’.
Finally, Prof. Ross McKittrick showed that the models predicting the widely touted “hot spot” in the troposphere were just another failed prediction.
The ‘hot spot’ was a *very* big deal at the time. But since it completely fizzled, the alarmist gang doesn’t mention it, and skeptics are having too much fun playing Whack-A-Mole to remind people. There are too many other moles to whack.
With the Pope on board, Global Warming Alarm is confirmed as a religious belief.
That didn’t take long.
How can you argue with the logic? By putting on your alarmist thinking cap?
dbstealey,
Easy. I learned how to touch-type in 10th grade. On an Apple //e. Great machine that.
Gregor Mendel
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
Georges Lemaître
Nicolaus Copernicus
Galileo Galilei
For no reason other than it amuses me: William of Ockham. I selected the others for good reason.
By the way, have you ever been to a Catholic hospital? Many are world-class you know …
dbstealey,
I can only work with what I’m given.
Where are your models which predict natrual variability before it magically happens? Do you not understand the meaning of the word prediction? It means saying in advance what will happen, NOT explaining what happened after the fact. Before vs. after. There’s a difference.
Cough up your superior models from your smarter, more honest, more skeptical contrarian scientists already.
Same question to you I had for davidmhoffer: where and when was the “hot spot” predicted? Peer-reviewed literature cites please, and they must pre-date any rebuttal by McKittrick or other contrarian authority.
Gates asks:
…where and when was the “hot spot” predicted?
You know, there’s a search box here. That will get you started, and then you can do wider and wider searches — and maybe learn about the tropo hotspot! And why the fact that it is another failed prediction matters.
Here, this will help get you started:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/a-simple-analogy-on-climate-modeling-looking-for-the-red-spot
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/11/spotting-the-agw-fingerprint
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/21/stalking-the-rogue-hotspot
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/04/what-stratospheric-hotspot
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot
When you’re finished reading those you will know a lot more than you do now.
Also: Prof McKittrick is an internationally recognized, published authority. To try and denigrate him by labeling him a “contrarian” shows that, as usual… you got nothin’.
You will never learn from people you hate or denigrate. It’s human nature. That explains many of your comments and questions.
BTW, you have never answered my repeatedly asked question: what is a climate “contrarian”?
dbstealey,
You know, since this is your argument of a blown prediction I figure someone would know when the prediction was first made. Earliest reference seems to be Santer (2003). Does anyone here have a line on an eariler paper?
According to you, proper “skeptics” don’t appeal to authority.
But I have. You know, there’s a search box here ….
Gates says:
According to you, proper “skeptics” don’t appeal to authority.
I do when you denigrate the person because you don’t see it his way.
I note that Prof. McKittrick was researching the predicted hot spot before you were even aware of such a thing. That was my point.
Finally, if you told me your definition of a climate “contrarian”, I must have forgot. Sorry about that, chief.
Please post a link to your definition. KThx
dbstealey,
Bawwww, really? When I want to besmirch, malign, ridicule, mock or scorn someone, I’ll use a equally fancy college word to do it, like kook, wingnut, crank, dingbat, fruitcake, etc. “Contrarian” is a perfectly neutral, non-loaded — nay, even potentially complimentary — term which means:
noun: a person who opposes or rejects popular opinion, especially in stock exchange dealing.
adjective: opposing or rejecting popular opinion; going against current practice.
In other words, a non-herd follower. An independent thinker. The word did become part of my vocabulary in the context of stock market trading. A successful contrarian investor is one to be admired.
Ok fine. I’ve already told everyone in the world I’m not familiar with the “hot spot” story, I’m trying to learn more about it yet you’re still trying to make the point I’m ignorant of it. Strange strategy.
Someone who doesn’t adopt the consensus position. In this usage with reference to McKittrick, he does not hold the IPCC seal-of-approval (patent pending) view on (C)AGW/CC, hence the shorthand “climate contrarian”. Hardly a disputable fact, and no rancor meant by calling him that. Yeesh.
There are TWO Santer (2003) papers. One in Science: http://www.math.nyu.edu/~gerber/pages/documents/santer_etal-science-2003.pdf and another one in JGR: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JD002258/full
Where’s the fire?
Sorry, Brandon, but the tropospheric hot spot never really appeared as predicted. Your linked papers were never subsequently corroborated. They were probably not corroborated because the ‘data’ was fabricated. We saw that admitted to in the Climategate email dump.
In fact, it was deconstructed by real world observations.
Haven’t you ever read the Climategate emails?? The authors of your linked papers explicitly gamed the system. They were dishonest, and everything they did was entirely self-serving. If you haven’t read at least the widely publicized selected emails, and Harry the programmer’s comments, then that would explain why you would post papers authored by those same reprobates.
dbstealey,
Sorry DB, but my question was “where’s the fire?” It was a question.
Well since you don’t understand how to be specific when asked a question I’ll help. Here’s what the JGR paper says in the Abstract: Our work illustrates that changes in tropopause height may be a useful “fingerprint” of human effects on climate and are deserving of further attention.
The Science paper Abstract makes stronger statements, so I’ll quote it in full: Observations indicate that the height of the tropopause—the boundary between the stratosphere and troposphere—has increased by several hundred meters since 1979. Comparable increases are evident in climate model experiments. The latter show that human-induced changes in ozone and well-mixed greenhouse gases account for ~80% of the simulated rise in tropopause height over 1979–1999. Their primary contributions are through cooling of the stratosphere (caused by ozone) and warming of the troposphere (caused by well-mixed greenhouse gases). A model-predicted fingerprint of tropopause height changes is statistically detectable in two different observational (“reanalysis”) data sets. This positive detection result allows us to attribute overall tropopause height changes to a combination of anthropogenic and natural external forcings, with the anthropogenic component predominating.
So right off the bat Santer is finding a “statistically detectable” signal in observations, albeit both being the product of reanaysis which I know is a dirty word in these parts. So far though, from my perspective the “skeptical” argument that The Hotspot was The Smoking Gun Fingerprint of AGW is looking over-hyped.
As I asked last post, “where’s the fire?” I even went and dug up the references for you. So let’s see it prettyplease.
Oh, before I forget, there is a difference between “not corroborated” and “refuted”.
Aha, when one claim begins to look week, invoke Climategate. Works every time, sort of the ultimate “Look! Squirrel!” in the climate contrarian quiver.
One of these days you will hopefully tire of me asking you for specifics and citations and just provide them up front. I get it that Tropospheric Hot Tamale is Canon in your circles, but I don’t subscribe to the newsletter.
The illegally obtained private communications of climate researchers at E. Anglia University publicly leaked in 2009? Yes, quite a few of them, with much interest and fascination.
Again, since your Concordance of Climate Criminology isn’t on my book of the month club list, it would really help if you provided a link to the relevant ones so I can read and decide for myself …
That’s a fairly non-trivial claim. Have fun documenting that one in detail for me — there are a crap-ton of emails.
Wow, now “reprobate” IS a three-dollar word with an unambiguously negative connotation. Figgers “denigration” would be one of your favorite words, dunnit. Might also explain the thin-skinned reaction you have to “contrarian”.
What really kills me here is that I’m trying to trace down the source of the putative myth that the troposopheric hotspot was a lynchpin of AGW theory which abjectly failed to deliver, but somehow citing one of the references Roy Spencer provided in this WUWT post …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/11/spotting-the-agw-fingerprint/
… which you yourself gave me to review somehow makes me guilty by association.
It’s almost as if my taking a hard look at what the literature actually says is beginning to bother you for some reason.
dbstealey, PS, I neglected to comment on this graphic from your latest post:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/mckitrick-models-observations-rss-msu-uah-radiosondes-flat.jpg
About as clear a visual of the discrepancy as I’ve seen, thanks for providing it.
“picking the most outlandish statements of the “other side””
Rubio’s job is to frame policy for the U.S. If his statements are outlandish, they are also the statements that are forming the U.S. policy. It is precisely outlandish statements from policy framers that need to be taken to task.
“The Earth has been very cool for the last three million years; generally the Earth has been much warmer in the past and with more CO2 than today ”
How many of those 3 million years were humans farming? Was the temperature much warmer in the past while humans were farming?
“no warming since 1998”
You cherry pick your data and you have the gall to call yourself a scientist? Not only do you cherry pick one of the biggest spikes over the last 20 years, you also cherry pick a sub-optimal temperature data set that ignores high latitude areas of the earth.